Quote:Original post by Talroth Yeah, but you missed the point about voting by bloody revolution. A Tyrant isn't a BAD thing at the core of it. If there is no one wanting to challenge a tyrant, and they have nothing to fear other than the general population, then it should be natural that they want to keep the people happy and productive. If they fail, and keep failing for too long, then they lose their crown, removing it by starting just below the chin so to speak.
The problem with voting by bloody revolution is that bloody revolution is bloody.
Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Same thing with the German Nationalist Socialist Party; the party was dying and Hitler seized the opportunity to change the ideals of the party to fascism, so they were no longer socialist. So the next time someone godwins a discussion by saying that the nazi's were socialists, you can tell they didn't do their research :)
That is, if we buy the implicit premise that socialism and fascism are mutually exclusive. I guess the reason you didnt make that premise explicit, is because ofcource you realized, no one will buy that.
I certainly dont. Any socialism, actual or theoretical, is necessarily authoritorian, and non-voluntary. If youd want to call that fascism is up to you, i couldnt care less, but lets not pretend the two have nothing in common.
k.
Socialism is designed to help everyone live a better life dude. Not sure why you can't see the difference between using the government to make everyones life better and using the government to repress and brutally kill millions of people.
Slight difference there. If you look hard I'm sure a bright guy like you can see it.
Words and deeds. Slight difference there. If you look hard I'm sure a bright guy like you can see it.
Quote:Original post by Eelco OMG, shock and horror. A newspaper article critical of obama. Damn that conservative media!
Oh wait. Isnt this kindof like 'the exception that proves the rule'?
You missed the point, wherein the writer of the article basically stretched the truth to a point where it's safe to call her a liar.
She has a radically different interpretation of the facts than you do. No less retarded than yours either, so the two of you have a lot in common. Thats all there is to it. Any factual issues she touches upon that you wish to dispute?
Nice. Don't have an argument so call me a retard. Look, read the damn article. She's full of whargarbl shit. Obama's point was that the people of the former soviet bloc realised the soviet way of life just was not going to work out, and they were able to bloodlessly overthrow all of those governments and create more democratic ones.
Thats a rather big stretch. Did any of those revolutions occur before the soviets had essentially capitulated?
Every single one of those countries from 1989 to 1991 peacefully and bloodlessly overthrew the soviet-style governments in their countries. Cheney is pissed off because Obama didn't fellate Reagan and say that he personally caused those revolutions. She's pissed off because Obama had the audacity to say that the eastern europeans were the ones who overthrew their oppressors, and not Saint Reagan.
Oh wait: no. All that happened after Reagan. Did that prove reagan did it? No. Does that make it reasonable to criticise obama for omitting him from the picture?
Some might say thats an a-priori given in a free society, but appearently not.
I understand your biased perspective on history. I understand her biased perspective on history. Like i said, the two of you have a lot in common.
Quote: It's one of the biggest pieces of lying bullshit I've ever seen, and the fact that you're defending it shows that you either didn't read it, or have such a massively skewed view of history that you shouldn't even be debating it.
Again, can you pinpoint the lie? Oh wait, i gave you that opportunity, and you came up with yoru regular partisian yelling.
Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Same thing with the German Nationalist Socialist Party; the party was dying and Hitler seized the opportunity to change the ideals of the party to fascism, so they were no longer socialist. So the next time someone godwins a discussion by saying that the nazi's were socialists, you can tell they didn't do their research :)
That is, if we buy the implicit premise that socialism and fascism are mutually exclusive. I guess the reason you didnt make that premise explicit, is because ofcource you realized, no one will buy that.
I certainly dont. Any socialism, actual or theoretical, is necessarily authoritorian, and non-voluntary. If youd want to call that fascism is up to you, i couldnt care less, but lets not pretend the two have nothing in common.
Quote:Paraphrased post by Eelco OMG the government makes me pay taxes BAWWWWWWWW
Actually, im a net tax recipient. WHOO!
According to mith, that makes me a hypocrite (im not: i never claimed i would act any differently, nor would i expect others to). Personally, i think it lends credance to my anti-government sentiments, but whatever.
Quote: Seriously. In the real world, the countries that have any claim to being "socialist" today can't plausibly be labelled as anything like "fascist". Canada? Norway? Uh-huh. Sure.
If you definition of "fascist" includes a leader with a funny moustache and leather boots, then no.
I dont think that was really the essence of fascism though. The individual as a means to the ends of the collective is something far more fundamental to fascism, for instance.
Romanian Revolution of 1989Romania was the only Eastern Bloc country to overthrow its government violently or to execute its leaders. ... The total number of deaths in the Romanian Revolution was 1,104 ...
This thread was about the WSJ, but of course you guys are too busy pushing your various pet theories on the state of the country/world/philosophy. Not that I expected much different, given the list of participants.
Similarly, I was going to close this, but fuck it.
SlimDX | Ventspace Blog | Twitter | Diverse teams make better games. I am currently hiring capable C++ engine developers in Baltimore, MD.
Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Socialism is designed to help everyone live a better life dude. Not sure why you can't see the difference between using the government to make everyones life better and using the government to repress and brutally kill millions of people.
I'm afraid you are incorrect. Socialism is designed to empower people who are relatively intelligent but whose skills are not deemed sufficiently valuable by society to reward them with the wealth and influence they feel entitled to. They cannot succeed among the people, so they work hard to create a government mandate to plan society in accordance with their Utopian ideals (which, curiously, entail centralized planning by none other than themselves.)
I wasn't going to bother reading Cheney's op-ed (Imo she's not worth listening to), but the exchange between Mith and Eelco changed my mind. Now that I have read it, I'd say that she is the mirror image of an unreconstituted Russian communist. The hallmark of the Cheney mindset, with both Liz and Dick, is fear, unconquerable mind numbing fear. In this op-ed she's scared to death that the folly of the extreme missionary zeal of faux patriots like her father might be exposed and the excuses that we can do no wrong might disappear. Notice how she twists Obama's words.
Obama: "Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game."
Cheney: "The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics.""
Obama wasn't speaking about the basis of the Cold War but about it's effects on US-Russian relations. The twist she puts on that allows her to stir up past fears of totalitarianism while trumpeting past illusions: "America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War." It seems to me that people in Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Chile, the Philippines, East Timor and other US backed dictatorships might not agree with her. Moreover, by staking out a position of moral righteousness during the Cold War, she draws attention away from the crimes of her father, his efforts to "take the gloves off" of American foreign policy (as if they were ever on) and his descent into the "dark side" of kidnappings, torture and death squads. She's pushing the same old line: When they do it it's evil, when we do it, it's good. This is typical of WSJ editorials.
Note: Oluseyi closed the thread while I was composing this response. In a PM he said the thread could remain open, so long as the discussion doesn't stray from the OP.
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Quote:Original post by LessBread I wasn't going to bother reading Cheney's op-ed (Imo she's not worth listening to), but the exchange between Mith and Eelco changed my mind. Now that I have read it, I'd say that she is the mirror image of an unreconstituted Russian communist. The hallmark of the Cheney mindset, with both Liz and Dick, is fear, unconquerable mind numbing fear. In this op-ed she's scared to death that the folly of the extreme missionary zeal of faux patriots like her father might be exposed and the excuses that we can do no wrong might disappear. Notice how she twists Obama's words.
Obama: "Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game."
Cheney: "The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics.""
Obama wasn't speaking about the basis of the Cold War but about it's effects on US-Russian relations. The twist she puts on that allows her to stir up past fears of totalitarianism while trumpeting past illusions: "America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War." It seems to me that people in Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Chile, the Philippines, East Timor and other US backed dictatorships might not agree with her. Moreover, by staking out a position of moral righteousness during the Cold War, she draws attention away from the crimes of her father, his efforts to "take the gloves off" of American foreign policy (as if they were ever on) and his descent into the "dark side" of kidnappings, torture and death squads. She's pushing the same old line: When they do it it's evil, when we do it, it's good. This is typical of WSJ editorials.
Note: Oluseyi closed the thread while I was composing this response. In a PM he said the thread could remain open, so long as the discussion doesn't stray from the OP.
I skimmed the article and it seems that Liz Cheney starts out by objecting to the notion that Eastern Europeans had any vital role in the demise of communism. This appears contrary to how many people viewed the end of the Cold War. From last week's Economist:
Quote: The end of the cold war in 1989 brought a sense of relief and satisfaction to America. As Jack Matlock, America’s ambassador in Moscow, described it in his memoirs, “The way we looked at it at the time, and the way Gorbachev looked at it, was that we all won the cold war. We ended it.” When the Soviet Union crumbled two years later, America was caught unprepared and scrambling for a policy. Its biggest concern was removing nuclear rockets from former Soviet republics. Yegor Gaidar, Russia’s former prime minister in charge of economic reform, says this was one of the most successful operations Russia and America have mounted together.
That said, Russia is a real problem. It's a country with tremendous wasted human potential, virtually no chance of recovery, and a perpetual attitude problem. It remains relevant mostly because of its nuclear stockpile, its ability to damage European interests and those of its immediate neighbors (in contrast to being a helpful force), and because of its vast natural reserves. It doesn't warrant nearly as much attention as it would like except for historical reasons.
Someday there might be a huge land grab for Russia's vast territories once she stumbles and is unable to get up.
