[J m HofMarN]

The US government, much like that of Rome, was built on slavery, either the official slavery of blacks or the covert enslavement of the working class in the industrial north. The main US parties, therefore, are running a government that is powerful because of slavery. And keep in mind that the enslavement of South American and Asian and African populations is also a major source of income for the twin parties of oppression.

As for your later comment, you were stating a completely nonsensical opinion that was something along the lines of "The government hasn't been overthrown yet, therefore you're lazy" I made a quite factual reply stating that you take no extraordinary action to blow up Mosques or firebomb Iraqi villages, so between the two of us you're clearly the one with the least right to talk of inactivity.

And I still hold that the people who hung out in the US waiting for the army to overthrow Saddam and then went back as the US installed rulers are cowards.

Castro actually did finance other revolutions, he gave a great deal of aid to the Vietnamese freedom fighters and others, and he's allied himself with progressive governments such as that of Hugo Chavez. That is to say nothing of his aid to Che Guevara in the fight against imperialism in Bolivia and Congo.

You pay taxes to America and live here cause you know we own

You're right. If Canada "owned" more I'd move there, but alas Canada is not L33T enough.

things wont change

Exactly what are you basing this theory upon?

Anyhow, your argument that people who disagree with a government should leave is fascist bullshit. You claim to be in favor of spreading ""Democracy"" across the globe, but you demand that anyone not in favor of the spread of your "Democracy" should leave. So basically, as long as everyone agrees with you they should have a say in the government, but socialists, communists, etc are clearly anti democracy and should therefore be forced to flee the country. Do you not see anything odd about that?

[Renegade]

The US government, much like that of Rome, was built on slavery, either the official slavery of blacks or the covert enslavement of the working class in the industrial north. The main US parties, therefore, are running a government that is powerful because of slavery. And keep in mind that the enslavement of South American and Asian and African populations is also a major source of income for the twin parties of oppression.

Uhh ok.. Let's make it simple so you understand this. Slavery exited by the conventional (and normal definition) as the ownership of a person. Lincoln and the Republican was anti slavery of blacks and as a result excited the civil war. It was was built on anti slavery or atleast anti slavery expansion across the western United States. Only by the definiton of a marxist was he a "slave owner" because he supported industrialism and capatalism... more so though is the fact that you still haven't admitted ur lie that he owned slaves.

I made a quite factual reply stating that you take no extraordinary action to blow up Mosques or firebomb Iraqi villages, so between the two of us you're clearly the one with the least right to talk of inactivity.

I've never said i was active. Again the key difference, I've never criticized OTHERS for inactivity whereas you HAVE. THerefor its my right to question YOUR activity since you've questioned others. I'm not comparing you to me, I'm comparing you to the people you criticize and just more or less hypocricy.

And I still hold that the people who hung out in the US waiting for the army to overthrow Saddam and then went back as the US installed rulers are cowards.

That's mostly cause you're a retard. Btw, funny you say this, because its exactly what your doing. Living comfortably in the US till something sparks a "revolution" (which obviously won't be that violent neway) so you can then have the life you want. To call someone who leaves Iraq and then goes back after the US does his dirty work cowards is basically calling yourself one. IF you are willing to make that connection I will admit that yes, they are "cowards" in a sense...

Castro actually did finance other revolutions, he gave a great deal of aid to the Vietnamese freedom fighters and others, and he's allied himself with progressive governments such as that of Hugo Chavez.

REALLY?!?! OOOOOo allying yourself with a country! w00t points for him.

You're right. If Canada "owned" more I'd move there, but alas Canada is not L33T enough.

I'm still waiting a legitimate reason to why you live here when you hate America. I still haven't heard it. The bullshit abuot waiting for change doesn't work. You could go to many countries that already ARE what you want or atleast closer and live there. Face it, you love it here, you are a leecher of American Imperialism. You pay taxes into the system, you are a murderer. An imperialist by proxy. A heathen. A pathetic pone to what is the overall capatalistic system. Congrats..

Anyhow, your argument that people who disagree with a government should leave is fascist bullshit. You claim to be in favor of spreading ""Democracy"" across the globe, but you demand that anyone not in favor of the spread of your "Democracy" should leave. So basically, as long as everyone agrees with you they should have a say in the government, but socialists, communists, etc are clearly anti democracy and should therefore be forced to flee the country. Do you not see anything odd about that?

No.. the difference is you have a vehement hatred for America and everything in its past. Basically you are like the equivalent of someone living in Germany in 1939 and hating everything going on but doing fuck all about and not leaving to some other European country because Germany owned. You don't hate bush, you've hated 43 US presidents. You don't hate Republicans, you hate all parties we've had. You don't hate Bush's economic policies, you hate capatalism. There is no reason to believe America will have a revolution (atleast violently) because they in the end of the day will ALWAYS have the power to vote someone they want in office. And btw, if Dean got elected he wouldn't do any of the bullshit he said he'd do, atleast not the extreme stuff like lift sanctions on Cuba. You can live in a fantasy world if you like though.

[Slade]

Point 1: Stop calling one another names or I'll slap you both, HARD. At the very least, use an intellectual insult so I can chuckle before I mod you.

Point 2: I wouldn't call JM's standard of living very comfortable at all. And he's not sitting around waiting, he's politically active. That doesn't always mean stockpiling guns and rallying people to overthrow the government. Remember the civil rights movement? Women's suffrage?

Point 3: America is not a "love it or leave it" country. Or rather, it wasn't built that way. If you don't like something, you can try to fix it. Every citizen has every right to make a fuss and try to get things changed.

Point 4: There's no point in debating if you just dismiss one another's evidence. "Show me some proof and I'll believe you!" *other guy shows him some proof* "Oooh, big deal! I still don't believe you!" It's more than a bit absurd.

Point 5: I don't want to get into arguing about revolutions, but there's not much choice in voting for canidates, and then there's no guarantee that the canidate will even keep any campaign promise at all. The two party system is a joke. But the masses have been properly sedated/kept in a managable frenzy for years, and I don't think they'll want to wake up any time soon...

Point 6: You're both equally silly in polar opposite directions, but do play nice.

[Renegade]

Point 4: There's no point in debating if you just dismiss one another's evidence. "Show me some proof and I'll believe you!" *other guy shows him some proof* "Oooh, big deal! I still don't believe you!" It's more than a bit absurd.

I've never done that..

Point 6: You're both equally silly in polar opposite directions, but do play nice.

I'm not a polar opposite at all.. i'm not even a Bush supporter. This is more like an argument between a moderate liberal who happens to like America as opposed to a Socialist person who hates 300 years of America.

[civilian_number_two]

I thought it was an argument between a guy who is embarrassed that he lives in a country that is ruled by violent greedy white men, so he mouths off about it on an internet forum, and a guy embarrassed by the exact same things, whose tactic instead is to say that everything is great and insist that all dissenters leave.

R: any responsible socialist country such as what you claim JM should move to will not grant you citizenship or even residency unless you have a fair amount of money in the bank to begin with, or at the very least a job and a resident sponsor. As far as I understand it, JM does not have those things. So asking him to leave America if he hates it, rather than protesting the things he hates, is essentially asking him to forgo the difficult in favour of the impossible. Like Slade said, play nice.

JM: he's right about Lincoln and slaves. America was not founded on slavery, nor was it built on the same. Slavery was restricted in area to the South, a smaller, poorer and less industrialized area than the North, and restricted in scope to farming textiles, and home service. It's also, if I recall, over, so America is a place that can and has shown some progress, even if at heart it is a murderous and greedy nation, obsessed with wealth and power (so is Canada). Iraq? Come on; it's been run by one brutal dictator after another for as far back as anyone can recall. The US should not have gone there, and yes the Iraqis are victims of US agression, but let's not start handing out halos.

[J m HofMarN]

and normal definition

So then you deny that a worker in one of the sweatshops that existed in the nortern industrial area or a coal miner was worse off than a slave? They were paid barely enough to live, and they worked in the most horrendous conditions possible. If anything the typical Northern factory worker was worse off than slaves because they lacked any sort of retirement system or support system in case of injury. Slaves were treated like animals, but the worker in capitalist society prior to world war 1 was treated worse than an animal. A Southern planter, having ownership of a slave, would find something for that slave to do to earn their keep if they became too injured to perform their regular job. A factory owner however had no such motivation, and if someone was injured in a factory they were simply fired. The Northern US is as guilty of slavery as the South.

The Republican party may have been built to oppose the Southern variety of slavery, but the industrial slavery was what built the republican party. So whether North or South it holds true that the US was built on slavery and so were the two ruling parties. Lincoln wasnt really a part of the industrial system, coming from a little induystrialized state and having been a lawyer, but I would bet that his campaign money came largely from Northern slave drivers. And I did indeed admit that to "ur lie" about Lincoln owning slaves, stating that I had confused him with the founding fathers.

THerefor its my right to question YOUR activity since you've questioned others.

You havnt been questioning it, you've simply been making fun of protesters out of sheer ignorance.

Btw, funny you say this, because its exactly what your doing. Living comfortably in the US till something sparks a "revolution"

You're comparing me to the Iraqi dissidents who hung around the US and were paid by the government to lie and cause calamity for their own country? I think that can easily be discounted.

1: The Iraqis who came to the US left their allies and fellow enemies of Saddam to get screwed while they came to a country where their safety was guaranteed. On the other hand a leftist protester who opposes US government policy would run a far lower risk of arrest, wire tapping, being secretly imprisoned, etc, if they fled to Canada.

2: The Iraqis who came to the US were on the US government and the CIA's pay roll. This isnt a conspiracy theory, it's fact. They were paid to tell the US government how awful Saddam was. Thats generally called being a spy. Unlike them I actually have a useful day job.

3: The US is where I was born, I stay here because it's my home country and when the government gets to be a dictatorship I'll happily die here attempting its overthrow. I'm not going to run off to China and get an office job where I tell the president of China about those baby sandwhiches that president for life Bush eats for breakfast.

As for your comments about His Excellency, you ignored the part about his aid to the Viet Cong, and the medical aid he sends to many poor nations. An imperialist apologist who cant even be bothered to go out and join the ten looney old veterans to counter protest at an anti war march has no business accusing anyone of lack of devotion, much less His Excellency.

You could go to many countries that already ARE what you want or atleast closer and live there.

"Woah dad! My friend's parents just bought a new car! Their economic system kicks our house's economic system's ass so I'm moving there. Also I don't agree with your curfew policies."

Simply because you disagree with your country's policies dosnt mean you have to leave. If that were the case than why havn't you moved to nineteen forties Germany yet, since their emigration system seems exactly like what you're describing. However you'll please note that it was that very reasoning that prevented the Nazis from developing their atomic bomb, since most of the learned people there "hated" Germany.

A pathetic pone to what is the overall capatalistic system.

Damn I've gotten into a debate with the fascist Don King.

the difference is you have a vehement hatred for America and everything in its past.

You're right, it would be far more patriotic to forget the names of silly old places like Wounded Knee and Pine Ridge and the trail of tears. It's the thing for decent God fearing Americans to do, and if you mention slavery you're CLEARLY a dirty commie. I must start living after your example and staying completely out of the political process and the exchange of ideas. That's what democracy is really about.

You don't hate Republicans, you hate all parties we've had.

In the last 150 years we only have had the republicans and the democrats. That's bloody disturbing if you give any thought to things.

because they in the end of the day will ALWAYS have the power to vote someone they want in office.

You just admitted that theres no way that things can be changed, such as the Embargo which even you admit is inhuman, and yet you claim that this is some exhibition of the power of the people? Democracy is dead, all that exists is the illusion of democracy. Soon there's going to come a party to challenge the dual-dictatorship. They, like many before them, will be suppressed and terrorized to ensure that the people are only allowed to choose between the accepted candidates. That will tear down the curtain, and once the illusion of choice is gone, a real choice can be made.

[J m HofMarN]

Slade: I disagree with what you said, therefore I have no choice but to leave the forums, because I hate you.

a moderate liberal who happens to like America

If your stance is now considered moderate than I shudder at the fact that the nation is in the hands of people who are more rabidly anti-islam and anti-poor than you.

Civ-

It's true the US wasn't based entirely on the Southern version of slavery, but the Northern industrial economy was based on a form of slavery as well. This wasn't solely an American evil. It was the same horrific conditions in Europe that prompted Dickens to write many of his best works, and Marx to write the communist manifesto. Communist ideals are largely responsible for scaring first Europe and then the US into reforming their worker practices. The problem I see is that while the governments of Europe have all been overthrown and changed since those times (with a very few exceptions) the US government has not, and therefore its the same kind of people in charge only they've been forced to give a little ground and find new cages and scapegoats, as Zach De La Rocha put it.

I agree about the former Iraqi regime not being saints or anything, but they were at least Iraqis. It's almost always better to be ruled by a jackass from your own country than by a jackass working for another country. Really any way you look at it Iraq is worse today than under Saddam, and appears to be set for decades of civil war and terrorism.

[Renegade]

If your stance is now considered moderate than I shudder at the fact that the nation is in the hands of people who are more rabidly anti-islam and anti-poor than you.

I'm anti islam not because of some American thing or some terrorism thing, I was before 9/11 and have been because of actually being a product of what Islam does/did to the Mid East. It has nothing to do with being American, it has to do with me being persian more so.

And i've never said anything anti poor besides saying i like capatalism so just because you link those two is your own fault not mine.

[Jordan]

Persian women are sexy.

It's almost always better to be ruled by a jackass from your own country than by a jackass working for another country

I agree with that. I think Iraq is kind of fucked. Middle eastern countires are bizzare, even the ones with elections still vote in religious leaders. I think egypt is one. I think they enjoy being supressed.

Muslims are weird people. They are not even kind of related to the west in culture. I don't think i've ever talked to a non-religious arab. It blows my mind that they actually come here and try make a go of it. I get the feeling they hate every one. They are very secluded and rarely talk. I know, I work at a video store.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 26 November 2005 - 06:41 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Renegade- Islam is the same religion as Christianity and Judaism, but if you want to blame it for the problems in the Mid East that's up to you.

Equating capitalism and abuse of the poor is a pretty sound argument, and you've never made one statement in support of the world's poor or of systems of government that respect them, such as His Excellency's.

Jordan- I don't think Iraq is fucked, the common people seem to be rejecting sectarian violence and mainly going after the terrorists and imperialists when they go for anyone to blame. I think as soon as the US backed regime there is swept away and an Iraqi made constitution is put in place that Iraq will look a lot better.

I think they enjoy being supressed.

Or you could read up on history and see that for several thousand years the entire Western world was run by kings and despots except for a while in Rome and Greece, so you shouldnt go about pointing fingers at Muslims. Moreover, after South America gained independence it went to dictatorships for a while but has recently been democratizing to the chagrin of the US. The Mid East has had independence for less time, and is just in a phase. If you look at it with historical precident, an understanding of sociology, and a respect for other cultures you see it a lot differently than you do when you just say "They're a different color and they live under dictatorships, therefore they're clearly inferior"

They are not even kind of related to the west in culture.

There are tons of pictures of Muslims wearing American produced clothing, drinking coke, etc. The only pictures you look at are the ones coming across the news which naturally show the radical crazy Muslims, who are a minority.

It blows my mind that they actually come here and try make a go of it.

I don't have a response to this, but it's wrong for so many reasons.

I get the feeling they hate every one.

If you're looking at them suspiciously, as you sound like you are, than of course they're going to look like they hate you.

And there are, by the way, Arab Christians and Arab Jews, and many of them are secular and not terribly religious. Iraq and Syria are both ruled by secular regimes, as is Turkey I think though don't quote me on that.

[Slade]

And there are, by the way, Arab Christians and Arab Jews, and many of them are secular and not terribly religious. Iraq and Syria are both ruled by secular regimes, as is Turkey I think though don't quote me on that.

Wikipedia:

The Republic of Turkey is a democratic secular constitutional republic, whose political system was established in 1923. Turkey is a member state of the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, OECD, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the Council of Europe and in the process of accession to the European Union.

These new-fangled quotes are horrible.

This post has been edited by Slade: 27 November 2005 - 12:08 AM

[Spoon Poetic]

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are not the same religion at all, and I would suggest you do a bit more research before you make such assertions. Different laws, different beliefs, even different afterlifes!

That's like saying that Paganism, Wicca, and Druidism are the same religion.

[Renegade]

Renegade- Islam is the same religion as Christianity and Judaism, but if you want to blame it for the problems in the Mid East that's up to you.

No there not, similar but not same. Eitherway irrelevent though, because Islam ruined the Mid East not those other two, because Islam was their governing belief system. Islam was basically good for its first couple centuries by giving an idealogy to stop the crusades but after that it basically just sent the Mid East into a backwards spiral. In fact, it prolly wasn't useful for the crusades either since the mid east still would of objecting to bein invaded, islam or non islam.

And I don't even know what you mean by "you haven't made a statement for poor ppl". That's like the most retarded statement iv ever heard. Has neone actually made a statement AGAINST poor ppl... who's actually AGAINST them. There's people who believe that different idealogies will create better equality/development but nobody actually has the intent to be AGAINST poor people besides maybe a few random psycho's/radicals. I'm for universal healthcare, i'm for high taxes on the rich, i'm for socioeconomic affimitive action (not race based), i'm for less military spending in behalf of healthcare/education, etc etc. The only thing i'm NOT for is blatent government control of ALL property/economics. Oh whoops you think that equates to being in favor of imperialism/fascism/slavery.. my bad.

[J m HofMarN]

Damn you Spoon Poetic! You know what I meant. THe point is they all basically gain their ideas from Jewish scripture and the old testament.

Islam was basically good for its first couple centuries by giving an idealogy to stop the crusades but after that it basically just sent the Mid East into a backwards spiral.

You can't blame a religion for socio political problems. That would be like saying that the brutality wars and lack of human rights in medieval times was solely because of Christianity. I havnt even gone that far. Yeah, you can blame Christianity for witch burnings and the lack of scientific progress perhaps, but not for political problems.

who's actually AGAINST them[?]

Of course noone comes out against the poor, but by cutting programs that aid the lower class, by letting corporations ship jobs overseas, by allowing health care consortiums greater power, and even once by imprisoning homeless people to make LA look better for a presidential convention, the Republican party, and especially George Bush, are famously anti-poor, in their policies but not in their words. And anyone who supports American imperialism is anti-poor as well seeing as its the poor in both the US and the target nation that suffer the most.

I'm for universal healthcare, i'm for high taxes on the rich, i'm for socioeconomic affimitive action (not race based), i'm for less military spending in behalf of healthcare/education, etc etc. The only thing i'm NOT for is blatent government control of ALL property/economics.

Well then, we seem to be in agreement on a lot more issues than it at first appeared. I'm not for complete government control of property and the economy, and certainly in favor or small businesses being private. However I'm certianly in favor of letting the government control big businesses, instead of vice versa.

[Spoon Poetic]

No, damn YOU, JM, for now I have to add you to my ever-growing sig! *sigh*