What in the world is this shit? I'm feeling so lazy to read the posts Deprived's made.

Ah well.. Soviet union was the only example of communism I had ever been taught about.

I see that you're using USA as an "evil" example of capitalism/democracy (whatever :S). I hope you hadnt forgotten that its not the only country that promotes capitalism and liberal democracy.

Otherwise, a point of view never introduced to me before. Cool

Is just an example, there were and are many tyrrincal capatalistic countries - a more well known example is the UAE (you know... Dubai (this is a really good, long read if you want some more info ; http://www.alternet.org/story/136877/ warning this will suck up at least 30 mins of your life ))

btw I'd refrain from using democracy = capatalism xd is two diffrent things

EDIT: btw in response to your post, you do know that the USSR wasn't the only country which said it supported (if it actually supported it is another story...) communism?

Yes but I wasnt sure which one to use in the sentence; since USA supports both of them as far as I know.


Yes I do, but not in detail as yourself it seems :d

Well Neo-liberlism and capitalism are naturally supported by the USA - but "democracy"... well that's a diffrent story. That depends on how you define democracy. If you look it up on Wikipedia or in a dictionary - you'll see democracy as greek for "rule of the people" or "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority". This is the traditional defination - yet it doesn't apply to today's democracies. Let me give you an example:

In that sort of democracy, everything can be overwritten by the people - if the majority of the people vote to take your child away, then they have every right to take your child away. In the tradtional sort of democracy, if the people voted in majority to burn down your house with everyone inside it, yes, they would also be allowed to do that. Democracy is actually then one of the most tyrnnical goverments possible. However, none of the countries in the world are "democracies" in a traditional sense. So it must have a newer, diffrent defination - but we'll get back to that later.

I prefer to call the so called "democracies" of the world simply republics, meaning "thing of the people" or "law" in greek. This type of goverment is very similair to a democracy - it also allows people to do majority decisions. However, the diffrence between a democracy and a republic is that there is law in a republic, law is there to step in when democracy fails - e.g. when democracy wants to burn your house down, the republic steps in and stops people from doing it. In truth, one should consider all "democratic" nations "republics", but that is a very small note here - who cares what you call them, right?

I think a more accurate deffination of "democracy" would be whatever goverment the USA has at this momment. Anyone that follows in the USA's example is then a "democracy" - even if they turn to tyranny it will still be called a "democracy" - so in esscence, the USA can only be a democracy if everyone thinks like that. This comes mostly from the loads of propoganda (esp. during the cold war) that the USA has driven out.

Besides - it's hardly that "democratic" - for example, the improsiment of the japenese in the USA during WWII which everybody conviently forgets, is one of the most "undemocratic" decisions ("against the USA's principles") I've seen.

I would have needed to do some very nasty shit for a majority of a country wanting to burn my house down. But I guess thats pretty much tyrannical if that, nearly impossible scene, occurs.

It happens more often than you think - although the house burning example is a rather obscure and stupid one. A more common failure of democracy is allowing torture.

Heya everybody! As you can see I'm playing the role of the forum necromancer, as I use the art of black magic to do the evil ritual of the sinister bump.

Acting as if I had asperger syndrome aside, I'm bumping my old rant thread for several reasons. One is to cause lulz. The second is to make a rant to cause lulz. The third is lulz.

lulz

So I'm going to talk about US history again. What a fucking surprise, Deprived, ranting about history? Jesus christ the world has turned up side down. This can't be happening!

Maybe I really do have aspergers...

Anyways, I'm going to talk about Reagan, because he's the one US president that makes anybody who calls himself a "left wing faeggot" that causes the said persona to rage, and by rage I don't mean the nice "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-" type, I mean the really violent punch-you-in-the-face type of rage. Look at the US! They consider Reagan to be the best president in the entirety of recent US history, for him to super charismatic and be basically the Jesus of politics. Look at his approval ratings, even wikipedia says he's awesome ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan "He ranks highly among former U.S. presidents in terms of approval rating." - notice the lack of citation. Hey, they all love Reagan!

Now before you people decide it's time to nitpick - in attempt to troll me, I presume - I want you to study the following article very carefully; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole . Okay, we got that out of the way.

The leading cause of heartburns among the left wing

But why all of the love for Reagan? Well most people cite "Reaganomics", a form of economics that's as stupid in theory and practice as its name. Others say the fact that he weakened the soviet union with his super-production of nukes in order to threaten the soviet union while causing violent revolutions in west Europe, arming the Mujahideen ("freedom fighters" against the soviet union and training them, which as a direct consequence resulted in the Taliban and Al-Queda. I cite the Soviet War in Afghanistan. Others cite the fact that he stopped socialist revolution in Nicaragua by, again, supporting the contras, who committed various "war crimes" over the course of the failed revolution.

That's right, this bastard is Reagan's fault

Now it's not that just that the left wing is butthurt that Reagan basically countered all socialist movements in the short time he was president, but his methods were over the top and his hypocrisy evident. For example, I cite Reagan's "War on Drugs", a policy which he supported deeply. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_...5.E2.80.931989) It would be terribly aweful if Reagan actually trafficked drugs. Oh wait... he did!(http://rationalrevolution.net/war/ci...der_reagan.htm) Dammit what the hell Reagan, War on Drugs, but using drugs to achieve your goals? Why the hell aren't people pissed about this? No seriously, why not?

Okay, just a small stupidity on Reagan's part. No problem, no one is perfect. Other than me, I'm god. Let's get on to Reagaonimics then. Most people cite their success in how the average wage increased - granted, but taking inflation into account the figures are a lot less impressive - reducing the unemployment rate - by lowering minimum wages and thus putting an extra 8 million people under the poverty line - making the country richer - by making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

An extra note, Reagan supported the "Trickle-down economics", which says that the making the rich richer will make the poor richer too - because somehow the money will go down. This was the concept of aid in Africa for quite a while - most economic theorists specializing in that field regard the trick-down effect as utter bullshit as shown by it having next to no effect on the overall wealth in African countries.

Okay, I already talked a bit about the Contras and the Muhjiadeen - I don't think it needs more elaboration. To recap though; Reagan supplied and trained groups which raped children, burned houses, committed all kinds of war crimes in order to the spread of "communism", which lead to the modern problem of the Taliban and Al-Queda. Jesus christ people - open your eyes.



EDIT: k it finished

You need to talk to my friend Nick, youl get on well...Communism, Failed...

Show me where it failed

edit: hell even show me where it even existed - you'll probably just cite examples of socialism