look again Bubbalo, I am not the one who is "yelling" anything. You guys, however, are posting you support a coup to over throw our govt.Bubbalo wrote:
lowing, how about you stop running around yelling about who wants what and when.
Poll
Would you support a Military Coup to remove a Corrupted Government?
| Yes | 62% | 62% - 89 | ||||
| No, democracy has tools to remove corrupted politicians | 37% | 37% - 54 | ||||
| Total: 143 | ||||||
lowing, funny that the SAME neo-cons who claim they are patriotic and are American are completely destroying our reputation, our freedoms, and our way of life. America under the control of radical Christian extremists is not what our founding fathers had in mind. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to pursue happiness, even if that means we must go to war with Islamic radicals.
lowing tactic, as usual : Put piles of sh*t in other people's mouths.
lowing tactic, as usual : Put piles of sh*t in other people's mouths.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-09-21 03:41:25)
Once again our dear friend lowing proves that he has no idea what socialism is. Rather he accepts what the CIA and the US government tells him what it is.lowing wrote:
Complete govt. control over our lives, socialism, no national identity or individualism.
That'd be communism, but who's counting?TeamZephyr wrote:
Once again our dear friend lowing proves that he has no idea what socialism is. Rather he accepts what the CIA and the US government tells him what it is.lowing wrote:
Complete govt. control over our lives, socialism, no national identity or individualism.
null vote. The poll was way too vague.
Lowing = If you dont agree with Bushs Iraq policy you are succumbing to the terrorists. He is a simple minded buffoon masquerading as politically astute.
Heres another one from Lowings brain, seeing as how he knows how we all think without knowing any of us: If you are not a conservative who agrees with everything the president says you are a communist who wants the government to control every aspect of your life under a Stalinist leader who loves Islamic terrorists.
Black or white with no shades of grey, that is lowings vision of the world. Of course he will now proceed to tell me how I am a filthy big government loving communist who wants to succumb to terrorism.
Lowing = If you dont agree with Bushs Iraq policy you are succumbing to the terrorists. He is a simple minded buffoon masquerading as politically astute.
Heres another one from Lowings brain, seeing as how he knows how we all think without knowing any of us: If you are not a conservative who agrees with everything the president says you are a communist who wants the government to control every aspect of your life under a Stalinist leader who loves Islamic terrorists.
Black or white with no shades of grey, that is lowings vision of the world. Of course he will now proceed to tell me how I am a filthy big government loving communist who wants to succumb to terrorism.
UHHHHHH the USSR.........Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. but who is countingNot wrote:
That'd be communism, but who's counting?TeamZephyr wrote:
Once again our dear friend lowing proves that he has no idea what socialism is. Rather he accepts what the CIA and the US government tells him what it is.lowing wrote:
Complete govt. control over our lives, socialism, no national identity or individualism.
They walk hand in hand.
Ya lost me, you are not willing to go to war with Islamic radicals....Spearhead wrote:
lowing, funny that the SAME neo-cons who claim they are patriotic and are American are completely destroying our reputation, our freedoms, and our way of life. America under the control of radical Christian extremists is not what our founding fathers had in mind. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to pursue happiness, even if that means we must go to war with Islamic radicals.
lowing tactic, as usual : Put piles of sh*t in other people's mouths.
I never said I agree with Bush on everything, I am merely a supporter of defending against those that want to attack the western way of life.JimmyBotswana wrote:
null vote. The poll was way too vague.
Lowing = If you dont agree with Bushs Iraq policy you are succumbing to the terrorists. He is a simple minded buffoon masquerading as politically astute.
Heres another one from Lowings brain, seeing as how he knows how we all think without knowing any of us: If you are not a conservative who agrees with everything the president says you are a communist who wants the government to control every aspect of your life under a Stalinist leader who loves Islamic terrorists.
Black or white with no shades of grey, that is lowings vision of the world. Of course he will now proceed to tell me how I am a filthy big government loving communist who wants to succumb to terrorism.
And yes by being a liberal, you DO support big govt., who wants to share all the wealth with those that did not earn it , who does NOT want to fight terrorism.
Last edited by lowing (2006-09-21 04:04:26)
Not really worth a response.TeamZephyr wrote:
Once again our dear friend lowing proves that he has no idea what socialism is. Rather he accepts what the CIA and the US government tells him what it is.lowing wrote:
Complete govt. control over our lives, socialism, no national identity or individualism.
Thank you for proving my point that you love to tell people who you dont know what they think.lowing wrote:
And yes by being a liberal, you DO support big govt., who wants to share all the wealth with those that did not earn it , who does NOT want to fight terrorism.
No and no. I am actually a libertarian who believes in socialism, so I do not believe in big government I just dont believe in big business either. Look up the early Israeli kibbutzim or the Spanish civil war for modern examples.
And I do want to fight terrorism which is why I oppose the war in Iraq all we are doing is creating the next generation of terrorists. I have said from the beginning there is no real war on terrorism. If there was we would have sought regime change in Saudi Arabia on September 12th, which is the number one sponsor of radical islamic terrorism in the world. I am still all for getting rid of the Saudis, and putting way more money into proactive counter terrorism activities like increased intelligence gathering and better border security. However I draw a line at unwarranted wiretaps of millions of Americans. In your black and white world because I do not support the president on these issues I am a cowardly liberal who wants to succumb to terrorism whereas in reality you are a cowardly lapdog who supports any violation of your constitutional freedoms as long as President Bush tells you they are necessary to fight the terrorists.
And, do tell, from which enlightened resource did you uncover this information? Somewhere outside your imagination would be surprising - I have never seen a definition of liberalism anything like yours:lowing wrote:
I never said I agree with Bush on everything, I am merely a supporter of defending against those that want to attack the western way of life.JimmyBotswana wrote:
null vote. The poll was way too vague.
Lowing = If you dont agree with Bushs Iraq policy you are succumbing to the terrorists. He is a simple minded buffoon masquerading as politically astute.
Heres another one from Lowings brain, seeing as how he knows how we all think without knowing any of us: If you are not a conservative who agrees with everything the president says you are a communist who wants the government to control every aspect of your life under a Stalinist leader who loves Islamic terrorists.
Black or white with no shades of grey, that is lowings vision of the world. Of course he will now proceed to tell me how I am a filthy big government loving communist who wants to succumb to terrorism.
And yes by being a liberal, you DO support big govt., who wants to share all the wealth with those that did not earn it , who does NOT want to fight terrorism.
Maybe I should highlight one important bit there:Wikipedia wrote:
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.
Broadly speaking, contemporary liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.
So...It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.
...
...
...
You seem to have provided a 'definition' of liberalism which is a POLAR OPPOSITE of what academics around the world think...
And speaking of definitions:
Because a state that doesn't exist can have amazing power over our lives What YOU are talking about is called Stalinism. Very different (but on the surface they look the same).Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property.
In any case I think the US doesn't like communism due of the same reason they didn't paticularly like Albert Einstein. Re-read the bit on 'stateless'. And don't get me started on socialism.
You, sir, need to be re-acquainted with facts before you continue.
Last edited by Spark (2006-09-21 04:22:35)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Just a quick little note here because this always bothers me as a history major.lowing wrote:
UHHHHHH the USSR.........Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. but who is countingNot wrote:
That'd be communism, but who's counting?TeamZephyr wrote:
Once again our dear friend lowing proves that he has no idea what socialism is. Rather he accepts what the CIA and the US government tells him what it is.
They walk hand in hand.
The Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. Does that mean they were socialists?
Anyone can call themselves socialists. Doesnt mean they actually are.
The USSR practiced what is typically labeled Marxist-Leninism, similar to straight Marxism, but with a more authoritarian edge. It has little to do with the Communism of Marx and Engels, though nowadays everyone thinks communism = USSR.
Communism has actually never really existed. That is, the proletariat has never had control over the means of production and exchange, the state has never withered away and classes have not been abolished. There have been a few attempts that came close, but never fully materialized authentic communism.
Sorry, just something that always bothers me. The USSR was not really socialist. Thats just what they called themselves. Socialism has to first take place in a real democratic society, which of course the USSR was not.
Let me brief all of you on what is happening.sergeriver wrote:
Last Tuesday a coup took place in Thailand in order to remove Prime Minister, but for further information read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5362698.stm .
What would you do in case of a coup in your own country?
THIS IS NOT COUP
At least that's what the soldiers themselves are saying. What kind of coup involves kids being shown how to operate a tank? I myself have surfed a total of 2 M41's and what I think is a Stingray (can't find enough info on this tank to know). I've sat upon the turret with the barrel suggestively in between my legs. And what do the soldiers do? Laugh, take pictures, and wave to the other people taking pictures of them. A soldier let me fuck around with his M-16, provided he took out the magazine first (i think there was still a chambered round though). I've seen kids play war pretending to operate the tanks.
If you still call that a coup...
The military leaders just wanted to force Thaksin (former PM) out before he replaced them all. Near the end of this year all the high generals were due for resignation/new promotions of other people. Just like tons of other positions, Thaksin would promote his supporters to supreme power positions in the military. That's on the borderline of a military dictatorship taking place. Who knows what would happen after that? A coup would be impossible.
Next: The government here was terrible. Thaksin made more than US$2 BILLION through Singapore and a loophole as being Prime Minister. He controls the largest mobile phone network in Thailand. This guy is so rich he decided to invest 100 Million US dollars for 30% of the Liverpool soccer team.
Thaksin wasn't even the Prime Minister, he 'resigned' only to retake a position as the 'Caretaker'. Ridiculous bullshit.
And of course, Thaksin rigged the last two elections. Half of Thailand's population lives outside of the major cities, in rural areas and are protected by certain constitutional laws, and couldn't give a flying fuck as to who is the Prime Minister. So what Thaksin does, is uses his masses of money to buy their votes. He paid on average 200 baht (no more than 5 US Dollars) which, to the farmers, is a fortune, to get their vote. Since they couldn't care if he wins or not, they take the bribes. So he wins. Plain and simple.Kmarion wrote:
That is why we have elections. Usually coups are more corrupt than than the people they replace. Like my man ^^ said.
Spark wrote:[b]As a last resort.
usmarine, coups generally aren't like strikes. They're based on dissatisfaction with the government's core policies, values and actions - not how much super you get given.I beg to differ. The Supreme Commander of the Thai Military as a whole (think Eisenhower, WWII) was under a salary of near a US$1.2 Million Dollars, because he supported the Prime Minister. He was against the coup, even though he had complete power over the army. A lot of high-up people were getting paid more than they should, more than their US counterpart, simply because they agreed with the PM.
So, back to the question on hand... Yes.
Although I'd like to let you all know, it is not a coup.
Yeah... I seriously doubt that this is a 'coup'. More like a kick-vote-hack.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
How about you give some names, right after you tell me where I've supported the idea of a coup. Go ahead, I'll wait.lowing wrote:
look again Bubbalo, I am not the one who is "yelling" anything. You guys, however, are posting you support a coup to over throw our govt.
JimmyBotswana: Don't bother. I've tried this before. Lowing has a problem called Cold War Hangover. It's like he was raised by McCarthy himself or something. Seriously, just give up. He's too dumb to understand.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-09-21 05:16:49)
I beg to differ. The Supreme Commander of the Thai Military as a whole (think Eisenhower, WWII) was under a salary of near a US$1.2 Million Dollars, because he supported the Prime Minister. He was against the coup, even though he had complete power over the army. A lot of high-up people were getting paid more than they should, more than their US counterpart, simply because they agreed with the PM.Coolbeano wrote:
Let me brief all of you on what is happening.sergeriver wrote:
Last Tuesday a coup took place in Thailand in order to remove Prime Minister, but for further information read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5362698.stm .
What would you do in case of a coup in your own country?
THIS IS NOT COUP
At least that's what the soldiers themselves are saying. What kind of coup involves kids being shown how to operate a tank? I myself have surfed a total of 2 M41's and what I think is a Stingray (can't find enough info on this tank to know). I've sat upon the turret with the barrel suggestively in between my legs. And what do the soldiers do? Laugh, take pictures, and wave to the other people taking pictures of them. A soldier let me fuck around with his M-16, provided he took out the magazine first (i think there was still a chambered round though). I've seen kids play war pretending to operate the tanks.
If you still call that a coup...
The military leaders just wanted to force Thaksin (former PM) out before he replaced them all. Near the end of this year all the high generals were due for resignation/new promotions of other people. Just like tons of other positions, Thaksin would promote his supporters to supreme power positions in the military. That's on the borderline of a military dictatorship taking place. Who knows what would happen after that? A coup would be impossible.
Next: The government here was terrible. Thaksin made more than US$2 BILLION through Singapore and a loophole as being Prime Minister. He controls the largest mobile phone network in Thailand. This guy is so rich he decided to invest 100 Million US dollars for 30% of the Liverpool soccer team.
Thaksin wasn't even the Prime Minister, he 'resigned' only to retake a position as the 'Caretaker'. Ridiculous bullshit.And of course, Thaksin rigged the last two elections. Half of Thailand's population lives outside of the major cities, in rural areas and are protected by certain constitutional laws, and couldn't give a flying fuck as to who is the Prime Minister. So what Thaksin does, is uses his masses of money to buy their votes. He paid on average 200 baht (no more than 5 US Dollars) which, to the farmers, is a fortune, to get their vote. Since they couldn't care if he wins or not, they take the bribes. So he wins. Plain and simple.Kmarion wrote:
That is why we have elections. Usually coups are more corrupt than than the people they replace. Like my man ^^ said.
Spark wrote:[b]As a last resort.
usmarine, coups generally aren't like strikes. They're based on dissatisfaction with the government's core policies, values and actions - not how much super you get given.
So, back to the question on hand... Yes.
Although I'd like to let you all know, it is not a coup.If it's not a coup, how would you describe the military rising up and taking power from the elected (even if they bought votes, they were still voted in) officials? And now they've banned all meetings and other activities by political parties. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 366908.stm
That sounds awfully like a coup to me. So they are trying to get the population on side? Still a coup.
Lowing, you are so wrong. Socialism does not kill national identity or individualism. That's communism. You must read some books about politics and economy. Government should not have complete control over our lives, but it should take care of all basic needs of all the citizens who can't afford them by themselves, that's called social security. If you don't want that to happen then you are the anarchist.lowing wrote:
Funny, the same liberals who DON'T want to defend themselves against Islamic radicalism and who DON'T want to stop the invasion of our country from the southern borders, now want to rise up and create anarchy and violence against our own people and govt. A govt. that calls for new elections every 2 years so the people can speak add to it, the power of impeachment. There is no need for a coup in this country.
Did you ever stop and think what our country would be like IF you got everything you are begging for?
Complete govt. control over our lives, socialism, no national identity or individualism. I guess we could change the name of our country to the Soviet Union, since it isn't being used anymore.
You could start by using the word liberal not as an insult, coz it really isn't. And stop defending your lovely government, the only thing GWB is doing is getting richer. He does not give a shit for you or other American citizen that is not called Bush, Cheney or friends. Wake up dude.
Assume all you want mate, I do not give a flying fuck for your opinionusmarine2005 wrote:
Alright listen. From that statement I assume you have no idea what you are talking about. Speaking for someone who served under Bubba and Bush, if the military were to revolt, it would have been against Clinton. Why you ask? Clinton cut pay Bush increased pay.TheFlipTop wrote:
Start With The Bush Regime Dammit!!!
As a liberal I support my government taking taxes from my incomes to cover all the basic needs of those who aren't lucky like us writing in our fucking pc and drinking our hot coffee. I hope you never have to get your social security check, what'd you say? Don't pee against the wind, you'll get wet.lowing wrote:
I never said I agree with Bush on everything, I am merely a supporter of defending against those that want to attack the western way of life.JimmyBotswana wrote:
null vote. The poll was way too vague.
Lowing = If you dont agree with Bushs Iraq policy you are succumbing to the terrorists. He is a simple minded buffoon masquerading as politically astute.
Heres another one from Lowings brain, seeing as how he knows how we all think without knowing any of us: If you are not a conservative who agrees with everything the president says you are a communist who wants the government to control every aspect of your life under a Stalinist leader who loves Islamic terrorists.
Black or white with no shades of grey, that is lowings vision of the world. Of course he will now proceed to tell me how I am a filthy big government loving communist who wants to succumb to terrorism.
And yes by being a liberal, you DO support big govt., who wants to share all the wealth with those that did not earn it , who does NOT want to fight terrorism.
Actually, the part that makes it a coup is that fact that the government was supplanted not fought (the difference between a coup and a civil war). But yes, you're right. Regardless of whether they intend to hand it back to civilian control, it is a coup.aardfrith wrote:
If it's not a coup, how would you describe the military rising up and taking power from the elected (even if they bought votes, they were still voted in) officials? And now they've banned all meetings and other activities by political parties. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 366908.stm
That sounds awfully like a coup to me. So they are trying to get the population on side? Still a coup.
Wrong. The direct rule over people through a military police and the suppression of free speech and many other freedoms is infact fascism.Not wrote:
That'd be communism, but who's counting?
Wrong again. China is called the People's Republic China, does that mean it's ruled by the people? No it does not. You can't judge something from it's name. Just because they were called Socialist in 1920 doesn't mean they were socialist during the Stalin years and into the Cold War.lowing wrote:
UHHHHHH the USSR.........Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. but who is counting
They walk hand in hand.
Please do a bit of research from something other than a right wing source and actually try and gain an open mind on things rather than labelling people who don't agree with you as a "liberal" as if it's some kind of insult.
Person - I don't think the US government did enough for Hurricane Relieft
Lowing - Well you must be a LIBERAL.
Person - I'm an Atheist
Lowing - LIBERAL.
Person - I believe the Israeli army is a terrorist force
Lowing - You're a LIBERAL!
Seriously mate, you're sounding more like a broken record every day.
now you know that's just going to start some argument about how warm and fuzzy socialism is and how it goes hadn in hand with democracy. how it has nothing to do with communism, and in no way would rely on a police state for survivallowing wrote:
Complete govt. control over our lives, socialism, no national identity or individualism. I guess we could change the name of our country to the Soviet Union, since it isn't being used anymore.
edit: again I post before reading the second page, but looky what happened!!!
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-09-21 07:36:40)
Well you are the very first "liberatarian socialist" I have ever met". Gunna have to ponder that one for a bit. It sounds kinda like being a "Christian Muslim". But hey, most liberals live in a made up fantasy world anyway. I guess you can be anything you want.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Thank you for proving my point that you love to tell people who you dont know what they think.lowing wrote:
And yes by being a liberal, you DO support big govt., who wants to share all the wealth with those that did not earn it , who does NOT want to fight terrorism.
No and no. I am actually a libertarian who believes in socialism, so I do not believe in big government I just dont believe in big business either. Look up the early Israeli kibbutzim or the Spanish civil war for modern examples.
And I do want to fight terrorism which is why I oppose the war in Iraq all we are doing is creating the next generation of terrorists. I have said from the beginning there is no real war on terrorism. If there was we would have sought regime change in Saudi Arabia on September 12th, which is the number one sponsor of radical islamic terrorism in the world. I am still all for getting rid of the Saudis, and putting way more money into proactive counter terrorism activities like increased intelligence gathering and better border security. However I draw a line at unwarranted wiretaps of millions of Americans. In your black and white world because I do not support the president on these issues I am a cowardly liberal who wants to succumb to terrorism whereas in reality you are a cowardly lapdog who supports any violation of your constitutional freedoms as long as President Bush tells you they are necessary to fight the terrorists.
JEWS FOR JESUS!lowing wrote:
Well you are the very first "liberatarian socialist" I have ever met". Gunna have to ponder that one for a bit. It sounds kinda like being a "Christian Muslim". But hey, most liberals live in a made up fantasy world anyway. I guess you can be anything you want.
I am curious how you can support national insurance, welfare, afirmative action, caps on pay for CEO's, AGAINST the Fair Tax, support a reduced military, support our country to answer to a hostile UN, NOT support closing our borders, Support amnisty for the millions of illegals that are already here, and say you are for a small govt.Spark wrote:
And, do tell, from which enlightened resource did you uncover this information? Somewhere outside your imagination would be surprising - I have never seen a definition of liberalism anything like yours:lowing wrote:
I never said I agree with Bush on everything, I am merely a supporter of defending against those that want to attack the western way of life.JimmyBotswana wrote:
null vote. The poll was way too vague.
Lowing = If you dont agree with Bushs Iraq policy you are succumbing to the terrorists. He is a simple minded buffoon masquerading as politically astute.
Heres another one from Lowings brain, seeing as how he knows how we all think without knowing any of us: If you are not a conservative who agrees with everything the president says you are a communist who wants the government to control every aspect of your life under a Stalinist leader who loves Islamic terrorists.
Black or white with no shades of grey, that is lowings vision of the world. Of course he will now proceed to tell me how I am a filthy big government loving communist who wants to succumb to terrorism.
And yes by being a liberal, you DO support big govt., who wants to share all the wealth with those that did not earn it , who does NOT want to fight terrorism.Maybe I should highlight one important bit there:Wikipedia wrote:
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.
Broadly speaking, contemporary liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.So...It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.
...
...
...
You seem to have provided a 'definition' of liberalism which is a POLAR OPPOSITE of what academics around the world think...
And speaking of definitions:Because a state that doesn't exist can have amazing power over our lives What YOU are talking about is called Stalinism. Very different (but on the surface they look the same).Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property.
In any case I think the US doesn't like communism due of the same reason they didn't paticularly like Albert Einstein. Re-read the bit on 'stateless'. And don't get me started on socialism.
You, sir, need to be re-acquainted with facts before you continue.
I agree with you, however the democrats that were the era of JFK are lonnnng gone. They have been replaced by the the likes of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean...... etc. Like it or not, the defininition of "liberal" is not what is in the dictionary now.