no way political pundits are hypocrites. no way.
Tu Stultus Es
i don't deal in rights and wrongs when there are human lives in the equation. i don't think anyone's ever been in a position to do so at all, certainly not those who only read one book on the matters which turned the history of the whole world around (not speaking about you, just general public around these forums). but you can't argue the results soviets had. and neither you nor me can possibly imagine the situation they delivered their nation from. was it worth it? ask somebody else. some things are beyond good and evil. was this one? i dunno. romans had slaves - was it justifiable? and when you did ship slaves from africa - was it worth it? british made opium wars - what about that? can you answer? i can't.FEOS wrote:
And that justified the millions of dead in your own country? Really?no. they knew the nature of the world they tried to go their own way in - that's why they had to prepare for the worst. what form it would take - no, that they didn't know.FEOS wrote:
So now the Bolsheviks are soothsayers, as well?
People tried to justify the treatment of the Indians in the US as "the price of progress" as well. We recognize (and have for quite some time) that there is no justification for that. Why is it you still cling to some rationalization of the deaths of millions of your fellow countrymen at the whim of a dictator? It's OK to say that it was wrong.
"purges" happened after every revolution in history. soviets had it worse than most because their nation had just gone through two revolutions, two wars. third war was imminent and that definitely played its part in how soviets decided to resolve the situation. what they did was what they did and, as i said, nobody can really argue the results.FEOS wrote:
So the purges had nothing to do with WW2, then?
yeah, living in a country where the media is essentially controlled by private interest makes you so much more open minded. pffft.FEOS wrote:
I suppose when you live in a country where the media is essentially state-controlled, you would have that viewpoint. When you have multiple sources with conflicting viewpoints and can draw your own conclusions from them, you are a little more open-minded.do you not realize that nothing is ever about determining the actual truth in the world were money and power are the only goals to be achieved? truth has a tendency of not going along with ones agenda - actually, it almost never goes along. show me somebody, who only talks about either positive or negative side of anything - and i'll show you a person, who's trying to manipulate you. now review what you and the rest of "freedom and democracy" crowd have been posting on stalin and soviets. get back to me if you wish to discuss further.
right. who paid for those investigations?FEOS wrote:
Says outside sources that investigated the killings when the Kremlin wouldn't.Shahter wrote:
says who?FEOS wrote:
And most of those are linked to the Kremlin in some way.
not government. private interest.FEOS wrote:
Reality doesn't corroborate your position. If our media was in cahoots with our governmentas i said - those, who run the show in the west were and still are vastly superior to both soviets are those who came after the in russia. you manage your information manipulation a lot better - what's the point in killing somebody when you can either intimidate, buy out or discredit the shit out of him.FEOS wrote:
Weird that journalists in the West can do the same type of investigations and not get killed...or when they do, the crimes don't go "unresolved" forever. Probably propaganda, though.
yes, i do. factual statements don't, as i poited numerous times, do much without context. and researching something in context requires certain skills and knowledge. solzhenitsyn was a joke in that regard.FEOS wrote:
You do realize that someone who writes fiction for a living can also make factual statements and write non-fiction, as well?yeah yeah. facts. from solzhenitsyn's books.FEOS wrote:
Yeah: reporting facts. So whacky.
as i said, we are all subject to propaganda. what you do not realize is that your version of it have been used in its entirety on us here when gorbachev and eltsyn were destroying soviet union. people i'm speaking about, myself included, had all kinds of propaganda crap, including that of soviets, of the west which was - and still is - being fed to you, and then putin&co's tried on us. we are in the best position to be comparing stuff - not those who ran away, and certainly not you.FEOS wrote:
You have people living there, influenced by state-run, Kremlin-controlled media--just like you. The west has Russians who have seen Soviet days, post-Soviet days, current conditions, and Western life. You have seen all of that, with the exception of the last. And yet you, and those like you, are the only ones competent to have an opinion on the matter. Even though you lack a key piece of the perspective.Shahter wrote:
if you are willing to start discussing this matter not in terms of condoning or condemning but towards understanding of what happened in soviet union - be my guest. you'll have to forget about solzhenitsyn and "joe russians" though, because i have people right here whos many opinions - based on life experience, not second hand info you get - go completely contrary to that bullshit.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2012 - Obama gets to run on experience, GOP is trying to sell Hope & Change by auditioning every lunatic in the asylum and every clown in the circus.
We are so far through the looking glass that the Cheshire Cat is telling us to slow down, and the Mad Hatter is asking, "Seriously? WTF is wrong with you all?!"
We are so far through the looking glass that the Cheshire Cat is telling us to slow down, and the Mad Hatter is asking, "Seriously? WTF is wrong with you all?!"
The argument in this case (by many people other than myself, btw) is that many of Stalin's purge actions had nothing to do with bringing the SU into the 20th century. If the US (and other countries) hadn't resorted to slavery, there would've been a different labor base upon which to build their respective economies--like the industrial North (which had its own evils). Yes, good and bad in all things. Millions of your own countrymen purposely killed? Seems overwhelmingly bad.Shahter wrote:
i don't deal in rights and wrongs when there are human lives in the equation. i don't think anyone's ever been in a position to do so at all, certainly not those who only read one book on the matters which turned the history of the whole world around (not speaking about you, just general public around these forums). but you can't argue the results soviets had. and neither you nor me can possibly imagine the situation they delivered their nation from. was it worth it? ask somebody else. some things are beyond good and evil. was this one? i dunno. romans had slaves - was it justifiable? and when you did ship slaves from africa - was it worth it? british made opium wars - what about that? can you answer? i can't.
That many fewer people available to fight for the motherland ten years later... Would the Nazis have made it to Stalingrad if the Ukraine's population hadn't been significantly reduced by Stalin 10 years prior?"purges" happened after every revolution in history. soviets had it worse than most because their nation had just gone through two revolutions, two wars. third war was imminent and that definitely played its part in how soviets decided to resolve the situation. what they did was what they did and, as i said, nobody can really argue the results.FEOS wrote:
So the purges had nothing to do with WW2, then?
It's certainly more varied...which allows for at least a modicum of critical thought on the matter, rather than a single viewpoint. But your sig tells us your thoughts on open-mindedness, right? It's a bad thing.yeah, living in a country where the media is essentially controlled by private interest makes you so much more open minded. pffft.FEOS wrote:
I suppose when you live in a country where the media is essentially state-controlled, you would have that viewpoint. When you have multiple sources with conflicting viewpoints and can draw your own conclusions from them, you are a little more open-minded.
I don't know. I would assume some would have been paid for by Interpol (or similar organizations), some would have been done internally by other journalistic organizations, trying to figure out what happened. So how it's funded changes what it finds? I guess that means that Russia doesn't fund anything...right. who paid for those investigations?
So why do you think private interests are somehow evil? Perhaps the private interests are "interested" in ensuring the truth is out there for people to make their own decisions? They certainly have a better track record of it than government-controlled media outlets do...not government. private interest.
Perhaps he gained those "skills and knowledge" in the gulag? Seriously. You act as if he heard about the prisons on a street corner and wrote a comic book about them.yes, i do. factual statements don't, as i poited numerous times, do much without context. and researching something in context requires certain skills and knowledge. solzhenitsyn was a joke in that regard.FEOS wrote:
You do realize that someone who writes fiction for a living can also make factual statements and write non-fiction, as well?
yeah yeah. facts. from solzhenitsyn's books.
I suppose--based on your "logic"--that I should pay as much attention to your arguments against the West as you do to my arguments against the Soviet Union or Russia. Even though you've provided zero sources to back up any of your arguments. And even if you did, I should just ignore them and discount them as propaganda.as i said, we are all subject to propaganda. what you do not realize is that your version of it have been used in its entirety on us here when gorbachev and eltsyn were destroying soviet union. people i'm speaking about, myself included, had all kinds of propaganda crap, including that of soviets, of the west which was - and still is - being fed to you, and then putin&co's tried on us. we are in the best position to be comparing stuff - not those who ran away, and certainly not you.FEOS wrote:
You have people living there, influenced by state-run, Kremlin-controlled media--just like you. The west has Russians who have seen Soviet days, post-Soviet days, current conditions, and Western life. You have seen all of that, with the exception of the last. And yet you, and those like you, are the only ones competent to have an opinion on the matter. Even though you lack a key piece of the perspective.Shahter wrote:
if you are willing to start discussing this matter not in terms of condoning or condemning but towards understanding of what happened in soviet union - be my guest. you'll have to forget about solzhenitsyn and "joe russians" though, because i have people right here whos many opinions - based on life experience, not second hand info you get - go completely contrary to that bullshit.
It makes "debate"' so much easier when you can do that. Very liberating.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So, basically, trust no one, because nobody gives a damn about the truth. Wow, man, I am beginning to pity you...that's probably the most cynical and depressed world view I have heard in a LONG time.Shahter wrote:
do you not realize that nothing is ever about determining the actual truth in the world were money and power are the only goals to be achieved? truth has a tendency of not going along with ones agenda - actually, it almost never goes along. show me somebody, who only talks about either positive or negative side of anything - and i'll show you a person, who's trying to manipulate you. now review what you and the rest of "freedom and democracy" crowd have been posting on stalin and soviets. get back to me if you wish to discuss further.
I'll help out a little.
The mass killing/removal/treaty breaking with regard to the Native Americans was wrong.
The mass killing/intentional starvation of millions of Soviet peasants was wrong.
Having unforeseen positive economic outcomes does not excuse genocide and mass murder.
Stalin's purges of the early to mid-1930s were not some brilliant way to prepare for the 1939 invasion. They were a mix of Soviet political power-plays and his own paranoia (paranoia being a fairly big part).
How did this thread go from Ron Paul to Stalin? Am I missing something here?
Shahter alternative historical ideas with respect to what everyone else believes to be hard facts based on solid evidence can derail any thread.Jaekus wrote:
How did this thread go from Ron Paul to Stalin? Am I missing something here?
It's not a total derail...the OP gets intertwined occasionally.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Shahter alternative historical ideas with respect to what everyone else believes to be hard facts based on solid evidence can derail any thread.Jaekus wrote:
How did this thread go from Ron Paul to Stalin? Am I missing something here?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
There was more of a conspiracy against Johnson, honestly.
Granted, it was more like the GOP just giving him the finger.
Granted, it was more like the GOP just giving him the finger.
Yeah, but at that point it's just forcing it. The natural flow of the conversation always will lead to how wonderful Stalin was so long as Shahter is posting. And any attempts to move it back to the original discussion will prove ultimately futile.FEOS wrote:
It's not a total derail...the OP gets intertwined occasionally.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Shahter alternative historical ideas with respect to what everyone else believes to be hard facts based on solid evidence can derail any thread.Jaekus wrote:
How did this thread go from Ron Paul to Stalin? Am I missing something here?
yeah, heard that before. that "argument" doesn't take into account a simple fact that just about everybody, including "savior capitalists" with their "free market", had a go in russia before bolsheviks and failed miserably. only stalin with "actions that had nothing to do with bringing SU into the 20th century" was successful, and not simply successful - the results that soviets had were nothing short of spectacular. "unforseen economical consequences" my arse.FEOS wrote:
The argument in this case (by many people other than myself, btw) is that many of Stalin's purge actions had nothing to do with bringing the SU into the 20th century.Shahter wrote:
i don't deal in rights and wrongs when there are human lives in the equation. i don't think anyone's ever been in a position to do so at all, certainly not those who only read one book on the matters which turned the history of the whole world around (not speaking about you, just general public around these forums). but you can't argue the results soviets had. and neither you nor me can possibly imagine the situation they delivered their nation from. was it worth it? ask somebody else. some things are beyond good and evil. was this one? i dunno. romans had slaves - was it justifiable? and when you did ship slaves from africa - was it worth it? british made opium wars - what about that? can you answer? i can't.
yeah. it seems so when taken out of context. extreme situations call for extreme measures to resolve them. the situation in 1917th wasn't simply extreme - it was a fucking catastrophe. the methods of the soviets were horrible - there, i said it - but who are you again to judge them? they succeeded where everybody else failed, and history doesn't deal in "what if"s.FEOS wrote:
If the US (and other countries) hadn't resorted to slavery, there would've been a different labor base upon which to build their respective economies--like the industrial North (which had its own evils). Yes, good and bad in all things. Millions of your own countrymen purposely killed? Seems overwhelmingly bad.
i said it numerous times - stalin didn't purposefully reduce any population and thinking so is absurd. the fucking population was one of the most valuable resources for soviet union, because, unlike many "civilized and progressive", soviets didn't have colonies or slaves. your version of "holodomor" is total fiction. if you look at the history of russia for, like, a hundred years immediately prior to 1917 you'll see that "holodomors" happened every time there was a bad harvest during those times. each and every fucking time. they reason it turned out so particularly bad under bolsheviks was, as i mentioned numerous times, was that the nation was in total turmoil as a whole. it's also worth noting that it was the last of those famines in history of russia. never again anything like that happened under bolsheviks. but that, of course, falls under "unforseen economical consequences" category, right?FEOS wrote:
That many fewer people available to fight for the motherland ten years later... Would the Nazis have made it to Stalingrad if the Ukraine's population hadn't been significantly reduced by Stalin 10 years prior?"purges" happened after every revolution in history. soviets had it worse than most because their nation had just gone through two revolutions, two wars. third war was imminent and that definitely played its part in how soviets decided to resolve the situation. what they did was what they did and, as i said, nobody can really argue the results.FEOS wrote:
So the purges had nothing to do with WW2, then?
of course it's more varied - in the ways that it provides for better understanding of what some of the more dominant "private interests" there currently are. always good to know, especially for the purposes of "democracy and freedom". pffft.FEOS wrote:
It's certainly more varied...which allows for at least a modicum of critical thought on the matter, rather than a single viewpoint. But your sig tells us your thoughts on open-mindedness, right? It's a bad thing.yeah, living in a country where the media is essentially controlled by private interest makes you so much more open minded. pffft.FEOS wrote:
I suppose when you live in a country where the media is essentially state-controlled, you would have that viewpoint. When you have multiple sources with conflicting viewpoints and can draw your own conclusions from them, you are a little more open-minded.
why would anybody pay to have what actually happened reported?FEOS wrote:
I don't know. I would assume some would have been paid for by Interpol (or similar organizations), some would have been done internally by other journalistic organizations, trying to figure out what happened.right. who paid for those investigations?
directly. the one who pays for the dinner usually gets to take the girl dancing.FEOS wrote:
So how it's funded changes what it finds?
it does. just like everybody else. in time they might even get better at this.FEOS wrote:
I guess that means that Russia doesn't fund anything...
not evil. private.FEOS wrote:
So why do you think private interests are somehow evil?not government. private interest.
where's money in that?FEOS wrote:
Perhaps the private interests are "interested" in ensuring the truth is out there for people to make their own decisions?
lolFEOS wrote:
They certainly have a better track record of it than government-controlled media outlets do...
i have personally spoken to many people, who were in gulags. the last thing your learn in places like that is what they are for and who the people around you truly are.FEOS wrote:
Perhaps he gained those "skills and knowledge" in the gulag?yes, i do. factual statements don't, as i poited numerous times, do much without context. and researching something in context requires certain skills and knowledge. solzhenitsyn was a joke in that regard.FEOS wrote:
You do realize that someone who writes fiction for a living can also make factual statements and write non-fiction, as well?
you know, i've actually been raised in a family of soviet intelligentsia, only, unlike solzhnitsyn, i got to actually experience the world around me when ussr dissolved. i've a very good idea of what kinda person mr. solzhenitsyn was: "totally out of touch with reality" would describe him best.FEOS wrote:
Seriously. You act as if he heard about the prisons on a street corner and wrote a comic book about them.
i never said anything "against the west" - only that your so called "freedom" has nothing to do with actual freedom, and "democracy" has devolved into an information manipulation tool. i never said that stuff was good or bad - just that it's not what you are trying to convince yourselves it is. you here are issuing labels and judging people and nations you have only been given second hand info about, not me.FEOS wrote:
I suppose--based on your "logic"--that I should pay as much attention to your arguments against the West as you do to my arguments against the Soviet Union or Russia.as i said, we are all subject to propaganda. what you do not realize is that your version of it have been used in its entirety on us here when gorbachev and eltsyn were destroying soviet union. people i'm speaking about, myself included, had all kinds of propaganda crap, including that of soviets, of the west which was - and still is - being fed to you, and then putin&co's tried on us. we are in the best position to be comparing stuff - not those who ran away, and certainly not you.FEOS wrote:
You have people living there, influenced by state-run, Kremlin-controlled media--just like you. The west has Russians who have seen Soviet days, post-Soviet days, current conditions, and Western life. You have seen all of that, with the exception of the last. And yet you, and those like you, are the only ones competent to have an opinion on the matter. Even though you lack a key piece of the perspective.
i'm using the same sources you are. i'm just making different conclusions because i see it from different perspective - perspective you never had for reasons i already mentioned.FEOS wrote:
Even though you've provided zero sources to back up any of your arguments. And even if you did, I should just ignore them and discount them as propaganda.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
It's a total derail.FEOS wrote:
It's not a total derail...the OP gets intertwined occasionally.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Shahter alternative historical ideas with respect to what everyone else believes to be hard facts based on solid evidence can derail any thread.Jaekus wrote:
How did this thread go from Ron Paul to Stalin? Am I missing something here?
Macbeth wrote:
I hate Ron Paul. I hate his positions. I hate how he gets dick rode.
It pleases me that he has not a chance of becoming President.
Macbeth wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
I hate Ron Paul. I hate his positions. I hate how he gets dick rode.
It pleases me that he has not a chance of becoming President.
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
I hate Ron Paul. I hate his positions. I hate how he gets dick rode.
It pleases me that he has not a chance of becoming President.
His following is often pretty nutty, but he's still better than Obama and most of the other guys.
His economic views are extreme. He is as socially conservative as Santorum. His foreign policy views are regressive. There is nothing to like there.
How is that an asinine question? Shouldn't he want to clarify his positions? For people who don't know his platform (which seems to be a lot of people), doesn't it make sense to explain it through mass media?Jay wrote:
Why would he give interviews to people that will just use it to try to discredit him? Or twist his positions? Or ask him asinine questions like 'you believe heroin should be legalized!?!?'unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Maybe he should've been taking more interviews and not brushing off so many pundits. If a Republican candidate can't survive the media, there's no chance.Jay wrote:
In most of the news articles I've read over the past month, if he's mentioned at all it's in passing along with a comment about him being unelectable.
Regarding the comment about a republican drawing the ire of fox- its because he is a threat to the system that FOX helps guard.
Because it's nothing more than a sound bite. If he replied 'well, yes, I do believe that heroin should be legalized' that would be the end of his campaign, he knows it, and the people that want it to happen know it, so they ask him. Repeatedly. His beliefs fall way outside of a lot of peoples comfort zone. "People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they aren't infringing on others life or liberty? But drugs are bad."KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
How is that an asinine question? Shouldn't he want to clarify his positions? For people who don't know his platform (which seems to be a lot of people), doesn't it make sense to explain it through mass media?Jay wrote:
Why would he give interviews to people that will just use it to try to discredit him? Or twist his positions? Or ask him asinine questions like 'you believe heroin should be legalized!?!?'unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Maybe he should've been taking more interviews and not brushing off so many pundits. If a Republican candidate can't survive the media, there's no chance.
Regarding the comment about a republican drawing the ire of fox- its because he is a threat to the system that FOX helps guard.
I'm not saying that people are stupid, I'm just saying that there's no real benefit for him to answer that sort of question. It would just give ammunition to the media to marginalize him even more than they've been doing.
Edit - and yes, he's a total threat to everything FOX stands for. It would be hilarious if he actually won the Republican nomination and MSNBC and FOX and Huffington all stood arm in arm singing Cumbayah to Obama
Last edited by Jay (2012-01-10 19:00:38)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
How would answering the question in the way you described be the end of his campaign? If he doesn't give the sound bite and instead answers the question by framing it as a 'I believe in the freedom of choice, but drugs are bad mmmkay', he's getting his name out there and not giving a negative sound bite. Instead he doesn't do media rounds and the result is people point and snicker at the weird old guy in the corner.
His social views are less conservative than Santorum. He is pro-life, but anti-death penalty.Macbeth wrote:
His economic views are extreme. He is as socially conservative as Santorum. His foreign policy views are regressive. There is nothing to like there.
His foreign policy is naive, but at this point, I'd rather risk a little naivete with non-interventionism than continue the absurd amount of interventionism we currently have.
Because it's an extreme position, even among people that call themselves liberals. We've never known anything but drug prohibition in our lifetimes. We've been scared by our government since we were small children into thinking that if you do drugs you will die. A lot of people actually believe that crap, probably the majority, and for him to take an untenable position like full legalization? Nuh uh. I've presented the position before and people react to me like I'm a leper. Legalize drugs and we'll suddenly have millions of people dying in the gutters from smack overdoses, or worse to most peoples sensibilities: rampant theft by junkies. If marijuana legalization is such a controversial issue, allowing the conversation to be taken to the hyperbolic extreme with talk of heroin is like coming out and saying you enjoy raping babies, especially if you are running in the conservative party.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
How would answering the question in the way you described be the end of his campaign? If he doesn't give the sound bite and instead answers the question by framing it as a 'I believe in the freedom of choice, but drugs are bad mmmkay', he's getting his name out there and not giving a negative sound bite. Instead he doesn't do media rounds and the result is people point and snicker at the weird old guy in the corner.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
"President Paul, President Paul! Somebody sneezed in Madagascar!"
"Shut.
Down...
EVERYTHING."
"Shut.
Down...
EVERYTHING."
As Fucking If.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"President Paul, President Paul! Somebody sneezed in Madagascar!"
"Shut.
Down...
EVERYTHING."
He has stated that immunizations shouldn't be compulsory for children. Against preventable diseases such as whopping cough.
Guy is a nut.
Obviously you don't believe in the freedom to die from a preventable disease because your parents are retarded. Fuck off troll.AussieReaper wrote:
As Fucking If.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"President Paul, President Paul! Somebody sneezed in Madagascar!"
"Shut.
Down...
EVERYTHING."
He has stated that immunizations shouldn't be compulsory for children. Against preventable diseases such as whopping cough.
Guy is a nut.