IntenseDebate - Turtler

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Why Protests in Egypt,... · 0 replies · +2 points

Not only does the idiot recognize simple reality, he doesn't even recognize simple grammar.

14 years ago @ Big Journalism - MSNBC's Lawrence O'Don... · 0 replies · +1 points

Hate and violence? Yes, quite so. However, you always forget that neither are necessarily bad or evil, it depends on WHO you hate, WHY, and what you DO with it.

Were it not for the hatred of the Nazi Reich for its numerous crimes, Central Europe would never have been freed from Hitler's yoke. Were it not for the hate for the crimes of regimes that stole, murdered, and embezzeled against their own people while claiming it was for their betterment, the Iron Curtain would still remain. Were it not for the application of violence, Liberty would be extinct.

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil. And just as violence and hate are sins when directed against the innocent, they become virtues when used for liberation.

And just as the tone of one's speech does not invalidate the content of their comments, so to does your obfustication and poor Tu Quoque attempts fail to do anything but dig your hole deeper.

14 years ago @ Big Journalism - MSNBC's Lawrence O'Don... · 0 replies · +1 points

You come here slinging ad-hominems and absolute catastrophes in logic that would have any ITL teacher kick you out the door, and you have the nerve to try and lecture ME about not using nice language?

And I love how you answered NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE OF MY POINTS that utterly shreaded your pathetic obscurantism. You think you are taken seriously after such naked stupidity and intellectual cowardice?

And finally, you revert to attempting to use idiotic slogans as a replacement for logical thought. Say what you will about my language, but at least I KNOW what I am talking about and am not afraid to lay it out in great detail.

And you think you and your fellows ever wanted peace, knave? The last time that happened was when Lenin took power in 1917 promising "Peace, Land, and Bread" and promptly delivered none of them.

Selfishness? To some degree, yes. But at least we are honest about it and usually rope it in with honorable bounds. Can you say the same for you and your ilk?

14 years ago @ Big Journalism - MSNBC's Lawrence O'Don... · 0 replies · +1 points

It is. And will the OP PLEASE shut the hell up? The moral high ground is not granted, it is EARNED. And we have earned it and must maintain it by not slinking down to the level of the old violent mobs of old.

14 years ago @ Big Journalism - MSNBC's Lawrence O'Don... · 1 reply · +1 points

Modern day Socialism embraced despotism when it abandoned its supposed democratic kin to the mercy of Lenin's butchers in 1917. Kerensky was your great chance to prove that a Socialist nation without democratic and/or Bourgeoise traditions to restrain it could in fact govern democratically and justly.

Guess what? It FAILED, in no small part because you and your ideological ancestors threw Kerensky and the moderates under the axe of Lenin and his German backers.

To this day, nobody has bothered to recant the sabotage, the undermining, and the general destruciton you and your ideological ancestors have wrecked in your efforts to bring down the foundations of Western Civilization by either the bayonet or the ballot.

And until you do, there is no point in seeing you lot as anything other than a fifth column, as you have made sure to villify those that have tried to speak out against the statist totalitarianism of your mainstream political thinking (Orwell was HATED not only by the Stalinist sock puppets, but also by the Trotskyites and the Anarco-Socialists), for example). So stop acting as though you and your ilk have down nothing wrong. Some of us actually have studied history enough to know better.

14 years ago @ Big Journalism - MSNBC's Lawrence O'Don... · 0 replies · +1 points

I notice how you give NOT A SINGLE FUCING EXAMPLE to support your claims.

And I already saw that poor excuse for a site. It isn't worth the time it would take to rebutt it.

14 years ago @ Big Journalism - MSNBC's Lawrence O'Don... · 0 replies · +1 points

And if you think I take pleasure in that, in tearing you down and writing in such a manner, you are incorrect. It makes me FUCKING WEEP!

14 years ago @ Big Journalism - MSNBC's Lawrence O'Don... · 0 replies · +1 points

So, in the end, all you have in this post is your praising of inept and declining systems used by fairly prosperous nations with strong Democratic and Middle Class (in short: non Socialistic and non totalitarian) roots as "working fine" in spite of the steady decline it has seen, all while mountains of corpses and a scarred history of torture and depravation that is the most intense in modern history if not ever loom in the foreground amassed by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao, Ho, the Kims, and countles others which you furiously try to deny were in any way connected with the Socialism in whose name most of those atrocities were committed while blaming Capitalism for villifying poor Socialism.

That one post could be such a succinct example of the history of your entire ideology is remarkable. Armed with nothing more than good intentions (I hope, at least) and a strong will to continue on in spite of all evidence, you steadfastl stand tall in the face of overwhelming proofs on both flanks, from the dysfunctional welfare states you praise to the outright nightmares you refuse to even consider. Truly, we have learned previous little from the events of the past century.

14 years ago @ Big Journalism - MSNBC's Lawrence O'Don... · 0 replies · +1 points

And finally, you state it is hard to discuss Socialism without first defining it, and then you proceed to NOT DEFINE IT while blaming corporate profiteers, as though THEY are somehow more powerful than they were in the Guilded Age, as though THEY were the greatest threat to liberty even THEN!

It then falls unto me to do what you refused to do. And so my personal definition of Socialism is a system in which power is taken from the people and the autonomous organs of government and given to the state under the presumption that said centralization will yield better results and more efficiency than Capitalism. Care to debate about THAT? No? Why am I not so surprised?

14 years ago @ Big Journalism - MSNBC's Lawrence O'Don... · 0 replies · +1 points

And I love the conflation of government run and operated public subsidies with Socialism, which while not entirely without merit (after all, Socialism was supposed to set up these thing so they would more or less organically run the state) but ultimately ignores the fact that more often than not these organizations were philanthropic and not infrequently capitalistic in nature rather than government run, much less all out Socialism. Were the British Colonial Police Socialistic?

And obviously you have fundamentally mischaracterized the basic tenants of Socialism, at least in practice. Pretty much every single Socialist philosopher since BEFORE Marx and Engels pointed out that the state should not be run by the people at least directly, but should instead by run autonomously for their benefit. This is no trivial mistake.

And why is it that in spite of there being supposedly many types of Socialism- Cuban, Venezuelan, Soviet, Chinese, German, etc, in your words- ALL of the ones you have mentioned have followed similar patterns of decline into dependence upon the state and tyranny, exploitation, and despotism (though undoubtably through different means)?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Turtler

People I'm following

Turtler