PDA

View Full Version : For the hippies on here



Airmail109
05-25-2007, 07:01 PM
A communist wearing a T-shirt of Che is like a neo-nazi wearing a T-shirt of Goebbels.

Be a man if you like communism wear a Stalin, Kim, Fidel or Mao T-shirt, not some second rank mega-loser.

DKoor
05-25-2007, 07:05 PM
RoFL

The thing is.... those wearing Che aren't communists for the most part.... they are simply some sort of rebels to themselves. Probably lefties that is.

But communists? I say... low chance for that.

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
RoFL

The thing is.... those wearing Che aren't communists for the most part.... they are simply some sort of rebels to themselves. Probably lefties that is.

But communists? I say... low chance for that.

Thats why its so funny, they don't even get that Che Guevara would have probably shot them on the spot. Or that he was part of a political ideology that was equally as evil as the nazis.

Ive always wondered what would happen if I put a Hitler or Stalin t-shirt on that looked liked the
Che one. Moral outage? Headline news on BBC?

A Goebels one would be great for irony

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 07:30 PM
I will gladly hogtie anyone wearing a che shirt and take a dump on their chest.

AKA_TAGERT
05-25-2007, 07:30 PM
LOL

Huxley_S
05-25-2007, 07:53 PM
I thought I'd post something but then I thought... meh.

Enjoy flying your 109s and La7s...

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 07:53 PM
I saw a che tshirt the other day with a small caption below:

Who the **** is this guy?
Why is he on so many tshirts?

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 07:54 PM
I saw a che tshirt the other day with a small caption below:

Who the **** is this guy and why is he on so many tshirts?

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
A communist wearing a T-shirt of Che is like a neo-nazi wearing a T-shirt of Goebbels.

Be a man if you like communism wear a Stalin, Kim, Fidel or Mao T-shirt, not some second rank mega-loser.

I notice that you bring up the usual list of people who were all about power, not communism. You cannot correctly use the word communism to describe the regimes of any of the above. It's like using "drowning" as a description for water.

Che tshirts irritate me too, but if someone wis wearing a Marx or Lenin image, good for them.

horseback
05-25-2007, 08:03 PM
Aww, c'mon guys! That Che photo was pretty good art. The reason Che has any place in the Communist mythology is that he was photogenic. All those other guys had big honking warts on their noses, bald heads, and wore cheesy looking suits. They all looked like some schlub who worked at the Post Office.

Che was young, he wore a beret and fatigues, had a full head of hair, and died before he was recorded saying anything profoundly stupid. That allows people to project all kinds of virtues on his supposedly blank slate.

You know, things like "Wow, man. Che would have instituted true communism if he had only lived."

Me, I'm stuck with my old Ronald Reagan sweatshirt and having to say things like "If Nixon had only died before the Watergate Scandal, we would be in so much better shape today, man..."

cheers

horseback

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Or that he was part of a political ideology that was equally as evil as the nazis.

Oh, please. Think about this one. You're mistaking results for intentions.



A Goebels one would be great for irony

There's a hitler tshirt out there with his outstretched hand holding a bunch of flowers, and the caption "What about all the good things Hitler did?"

triad773
05-25-2007, 08:06 PM
GROUCHO Marx is more my speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Or that he was part of a political ideology that was equally as evil as the nazis.

Oh, please. Think about this one. You're mistaking results for intentions.



A Goebels one would be great for irony

There's a hitler tshirt out there with his outstretched hand holding a bunch of flowers, and the caption "What about all the good things Hitler did?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Nazis had good intentions

Many communists/Stalinists believed in violently removing opposition. So did the nazis.

Both were intentional!

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Aww, c'mon guys! That Che photo was pretty good art. The reason Che has any place in the Communist mythology is that he was photogenic. All those other guys had big honking warts on their noses, bald heads, and wore cheesy looking suits. They all looked like some schlub who worked at the Post Office.

Che was young, he wore a beret and fatigues, had a full head of hair, and died before he was recorded saying anything profoundly stupid. That allows people to project all kinds of virtues on his supposedly blank slate.

You know, things like "Wow, man. Che would have instituted true communism if he had only lived."

Me, I'm stuck with my old Ronald Reagan sweatshirt and having to say things like "If Nixon had only died before the Watergate Scandal, we would be in so much better shape today, man..."

cheers

horseback

He said lots of profoundly stupid and hateful things, they tend to be ignored however

DKoor
05-25-2007, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by triad773:
GROUCHO Marx is more my speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif +1

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 08:18 PM
Ideology, not acts or individuals.

Communism is supposed to be about dividing the pie more fairly.

Nazism was about giving Germans as much pie as possible and killing every Jew even near the pie.

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Ideology, not acts or individuals.

Communism is supposed to be about dividing the pie more fairly.

Nazism was about giving Germans as much pie as possible and killing every Jew even near the pie.

Okay lets not even call it communism. Instead Marxism and Stalinsm. Che was a Stalinist, Stalin was not about dividing up the pie equally.

The majority of communist regimes after the second world war were Stalinist.

"Stalinism is the political and economic system named after Joseph Stalin, who implemented it in the Soviet Union. It includes an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent."

"The Hitler Myth is a concept which embodies two key points in Nazi ideology; firstly it presents Hitler as a demigod figure, who both embodies and shapes the German people and thus giving him a mandate to rule. Secondly it presents Hitler as a mighty defender of the German people against its foes, who merely wanted to redress the imbalance evoked at the Treaty of Versailles. These two elements were demonstrated in propaganda of the time and have helped to 'plaster over' early cracks in the Nazi Regime's faade, though by no means de-fusing all tensions in Germany at that time."

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
A communist wearing a T-shirt of Che is like a neo-nazi wearing a T-shirt of Goebbels.

Be a man if you like communism wear a Stalin, Kim, Fidel or Mao T-shirt, not some second rank mega-loser.

I notice that you bring up the usual list of people who were all about power, not communism. You cannot correctly use the word communism to describe the regimes of any of the above. It's like using "drowning" as a description for water.

Che tshirts irritate me too, but if someone wis wearing a Marx or Lenin image, good for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor Commie.

EiZ0N
05-25-2007, 08:23 PM
Let's not go here.

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 08:25 PM
Where?

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 08:26 PM
Jesus you lot cant take a joke

Divine-Wind
05-25-2007, 08:28 PM
You know, here! However, if we go over there, it'll be much safer and more fun and educational!

DKoor
05-25-2007, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Jesus you lot cant take a joke That's precisely why Groucho r0x0red!
He made all smile http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Jesus you lot cant take a joke

So you don't really hate commies?

Commie...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Bij_Bolszewika.jpg

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Ideology, not acts or individuals.

Communism is supposed to be about dividing the pie more fairly.

Nazism was about giving Germans as much pie as possible and killing every Jew even near the pie.

Okay lets not even call it communism. Instead Marxism and Stalinsm. Che was a Stalinist, Stalin was not about dividing up the pie equally.

The majority of communist regimes after the second world war were Stalinist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. It's all about the personality cult for humans. Where's my Oleg tshirt?

There's plenty of material upon how the conditions for communist government inevitably bring about the corruption of the ideology and the descent into Stalinism.

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Jesus you lot cant take a joke

So you don't really hate commies?

Commie...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Bij_Bolszewika.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree with them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Poor Commie.

You say "commie" like it's a bad thing.

Here, have another poster:

http://miscman.com/posters_graphics/images/large/KapitbevBig.jpeg

EiZ0N
05-25-2007, 08:50 PM
No, he's saying that you're a commie, therefore you're poor (because Communism hasn't worked very well in the past and has led to people being poor) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Poor Commie.

You say "commie" like it's a bad thing.

Here, have another poster:

http://miscman.com/posters_graphics/images/large/KapitbevBig.jpeg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the mighty Capitalist fist crushes the throat of the communist oppressor!

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by EiZ0N:
No, he's saying that you're a commie, therefore you're poor (because Communism hasn't worked very well in the past and has led to people being poor) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bingo!

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:

Yes, the mighty Capitalist fist crushes the throat of the communist oppressor!

Uh-huh, you're not good with imagery?

Look closer. Eyes not so good? (your sig gives a clue)

The (stars and stripes: poss. US?) fist is strangling the healthy and moral worker.

Discuss.

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:

Yes, the mighty Capitalist fist crushes the throat of the communist oppressor!

Uh-huh, you're not good with imagery?

Look closer. Eyes not so good? (your sig gives a clue)

The (stars and stripes: poss. US?) fist is strangling the healthy and moral worker.

Discuss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely wrong.

DKoor
05-25-2007, 09:17 PM
From hippies to Che, from Che to USSR Vs US cold war, from cold war to propaganda, from propaganda to personal insults.
All in a few steps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I could make a chart that explains all this.... chain of events.

For a start it could look like this;

1st chart
X axis values - more than one poster disagrees on something and expresses opinion on UBi forum, sets initial values
Y axis values - flammability of topic content

2nd chart
X axis values - posters with polarized opinions
Y axis values - magnitude of disagreement

HerrGraf
05-25-2007, 09:17 PM
Human nature being what it is, anytime somebody gets into a position of complete power it corrupts them completely! You can call this evil dictatorship anything you want- communism, nazi, even democracies. The point is that human nature will take control and it will use every means in its' power to gain more control and oppress everyone else.

Speaking of the Bolshevik Revolution, my late mother had some very interesting stories to tell about Russia during the early 1920s. Not someplace any of us soft folks would want to be, no matter which side you supported!


P.S. IBTL

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
From hippies to Che, from Che to USSR Vs US cold war, from cold war to propaganda, from propaganda to personal insults.
All in a few steps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I could make a chart that explains all this.... chain of events.

For a start it could look like this;

1st chart
X axis values - more than one poster disagrees on something and expresses opinion on UBi forum, sets initial values
Y axis values - flammability of topic content

2nd chart
X axis values - posters with polarized opinions
Y axis values - magnitude of disagreement

No insults here, just pure truthiness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:

Yes, the mighty Capitalist fist crushes the throat of the communist oppressor!

Uh-huh, you're not good with imagery?

Look closer. Eyes not so good? (your sig gives a clue)

The (stars and stripes: poss. US?) fist is strangling the healthy and moral worker.

Discuss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! Next comes:

http://miscman.com/posters_graphics/images/large/VanjevrieBig.jpeg

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:

Yes, the mighty Capitalist fist crushes the throat of the communist oppressor!

Uh-huh, you're not good with imagery?

Look closer. Eyes not so good? (your sig gives a clue)

The (stars and stripes: poss. US?) fist is strangling the healthy and moral worker.

Discuss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! Next comes:

http://miscman.com/posters_graphics/images/large/VanjevrieBig.jpeg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not written in the Kaiser's German, is it?

DKoor
05-25-2007, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
No insults here, just pure truthiness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif


Originally posted by tagTaken2:
http://miscman.com/posters_graphics/images/large/VanjevrieBig.jpeg Those do look like a SC..... 250's perhaps? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

tagTaken2
05-25-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by HerrGraf:
Human nature being what it is, anytime somebody gets into a position of complete power it corrupts them completely!
P.S. IBTL

True 99% of the time. There have been truly good and wise rulers... the trick is identifying people. Let's face it, most people are self-interested morons an


Forget that, it's going to take too long.
Have a good day, everyone.

AKA_TAGERT
05-25-2007, 09:39 PM
http://www.uvm.edu/~jmorris/hippie.jpeg http://www.oldhippie.de/images/old_hippie_bilder_very_old_2.jpg

I just thank god they are getting older.. in that each year thier numbers are less

Blood_Splat
05-25-2007, 09:49 PM
To the gulags for all of you. I'm sure Hitler and Stalin are being terrorized by the the spirits of the dead in the after life. Himmler OMG you know he's getting a real dark tan right now. I really believe some people enter this world without a conscious. I'm glad I like to stay in the sunshine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
05-26-2007, 12:21 AM
I've seen evidence (never been there but) of many Socialist States but never a Communist State.
At least not by Marx's original description. IIRC the transition cannot be made until there
are no other forms of government to threaten the peaceful, locally ruled (and budgeted?) lives
of the workers there in near-totally unregulated harmony. And if you can swallow that, tell
that unregulated anything does not end up in a crash of some kind.
The thing is that between meeting needs (or not) of increased population and technology change
that will change the utopian society into something that may not be stable within the whole.
It's really something of a system problem. The system was designed on limited, naieve principles.


The cover of the infamous Nick Danger album proclaims "All Hail Marx and Lennon" with pictures
of Groucho Marx and John Lennon below.

"How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?"

WTE_Moleboy
05-26-2007, 12:28 AM
Half the people wearing Che Guevara shirts don't actually know who the hell he was and the other half do but don't appreciate the irony that they are wearing a shirt of a hardcore communist-printed by a large capitalist corporation using cheap foreign labor.

leitmotiv
05-26-2007, 01:34 AM
Said it all, Moleboy.

It's just (literally) waving a red flag in front of certain susceptible bulls. Comparable effect can be achieved by wearing a Ronald Reagan T-shirt in San Francisco, or a swastika armband in a synagogue, an NKVD uniform in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia etc etc etc.

The Vale of Tears into which every country enters when dragged by some thug pretending to redress social wrongs by redistributing wealth is happening as we write in Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Some believe 2 million have died of starvation in Zimbabwe since the "social experiment" started. Unfortunately, many poor slobs have to pay the price every time a Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Chavez, etc, get a bee in their bonnet.

Woofingston
05-26-2007, 02:11 AM
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7740/utensiltef3.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-26-2007, 02:22 AM
Che was a Stalinist

I thought he was a Troskyist?

Hmmm... this is beginning to remind me of 'Life of Brian'...

Aaron_GT
05-26-2007, 02:32 AM
M_Gunz:

Technically the end point of Marxism is no government at all - i.e. everyone behaves so nicely and rationally that everything just works. So on that basis there has been no Marxist state. But then the Marxist utopian state is a complete pie-in-the-sky notion.

Most communist nations are or have been subject to authoritarianism or totalitarianism instead of Marx's implausible utopia. It is what happens when you have a revolution and the wrong crowd gets into power - e.g. English Civil War, French Revolution, USSR, etc. This is one of the reasons why the USA was so remarkable as it managed to have a revolution and not descend into tyranny as so many did before and since.

Esel1964
05-26-2007, 02:57 AM
The way I see it,wearing the Che shirt is (in First Amendment terms) "Talking the talk...",
so they need to "Walk the walk..." and get their a**es down to Cuba.

And don't even think about saying "The US embargo prevents it".Everybody knows Cubans make it here everyday,all you've got to do is try.

He**,pull a Lee Harvey Oswald(pre-Kennedy),and they'll welcome you like a hero.

Bewolf
05-26-2007, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Ideology, not acts or individuals.

Communism is supposed to be about dividing the pie more fairly.

Nazism was about giving Germans as much pie as possible and killing every Jew even near the pie.

Communism is defined by its history and actions, not the idelogy and words behind it, just like fashism.

Funnily enough I had exactly this topic quite a few times myself, asking ppl if they actually know what they are wearing there. Those guys had it out of fashion, with no whatsoever idea who Ch really was.

Feathered_IV
05-26-2007, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
...The Nazis had good intentions.


Um, WTF? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

leitmotiv
05-26-2007, 03:50 AM
If you happened to be a Nazi on the make...

MrMojok
05-26-2007, 04:22 AM
Roy, is that.... is that an Oleg Maddox t-shirt up there?!?!?!

msalama
05-26-2007, 04:26 AM
Be a man if you like communism wear a Stalin, Kim, Fidel or Mao T-shirt, not some second rank mega-loser.

+1

Have to agree regardless of being a bit of a hippie myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
05-26-2007, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by roybaer:
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7740/utensiltef3.jpg

LMAO

WIN!

Communism.. bleh

msalama
05-26-2007, 04:45 AM
Hey, I'd love to have an Oleg T-shirt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Any printers around here willing to take the gig?

MEGILE
05-26-2007, 04:48 AM
lmao

every commie would come to you in the street and be like

woah dude, whos that

LOL.

CafePress will make it, you design it yourself.

I'd buy one hehe

msalama
05-26-2007, 04:59 AM
I'd buy one hehe

+78234897234 and a bit.

And in a f3cking flash too!

raaaid
05-26-2007, 04:59 AM
i like people who wears a che shirt
here in spain that goes against the stream when if you go to a bar you hear hell i would exterminate all black guys, you go to school and hear racist comments and see nazi propaganda in their books

in fact id say nazis are ruling the world where every 4 seconds a black guy dies from starvation, why not a single white dies from famine, sounds nazi to me

from my view che stands more for fighting system opression, people likes that not wearing a stalin who stands for opression

Feathered_IV
05-26-2007, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
Hey, I'd love to have an Oleg T-shirt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Any printers around here willing to take the gig?

I've always wanted a Two Weeks - Be Sure! T-shirt.

Blutarski2004
05-26-2007, 06:38 AM
Das Kapital = economic statement.

"What must be done" (Lenin) = political statement.

Che T-shirt = fashion statement.

DKoor
05-26-2007, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Moleboy:
Half the people wearing Che Guevara shirts don't actually know who the hell he was and the other half do but don't appreciate the irony that they are wearing a shirt of a hardcore communist-printed by a large capitalist corporation using cheap foreign labor. LoL.... so true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-26-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i like people who wears a che shirt
here in spain that goes against the stream when if you go to a bar you hear hell i would exterminate all black guys, you go to school and hear racist comments and see nazi propaganda in their books

in fact id say nazis are ruling the world where every 4 seconds a black guy dies from starvation, why not a single white dies from famine, sounds nazi to me

from my view che stands more for fighting system opression, people likes that not wearing a stalin who stands for opression Yup, it is a big black helo behind you.. LOOK

drose01
05-26-2007, 10:01 AM
http://www.eskimokaka.be/images/che.jpg

Huxley_S
05-26-2007, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Moleboy:
Half the people wearing Che Guevara shirts don't actually know who the hell he was and the other half do but don't appreciate the irony that they are wearing a shirt of a hardcore communist-printed by a large capitalist corporation using cheap foreign labor.

I'd say 99% don't know that Irving Kristol, father of neoconservatism and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004 (the highest civilian honour that can be bestowed by the president), was in fact a prominent Trotskyist and proud member of Fourth International, the international communist organisation in the 1940s.

The difference between him and Che is that he saw the writing on the wall when anti-communist hysteria reached its peak in the 50s and 60s and switched sides to favour corporatism as a means of controlling the unwashed masses.

It's alright as long as you don't call it communism.... shhhhh! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

- Irving Kristol, 1997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

Blutarski2004
05-26-2007, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

- Irving Kristol, 1997




..... This is an extremely long-winded paraphrase of the old Arab proverb that "man believes what he wishes to be true."

Mr Kristol apparently continues to embrace the distinctly Marxist/Leninist notion that there is no such thing as objective truth and that the "truth" is whatever will further the advance to the ultimate communist ideal.

Hoatee
05-26-2007, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Ideology, not acts or individuals.

Communism is supposed to be about dividing the pie more fairly.

Nazism was about giving Germans as much pie as possible and killing every Jew even near the pie.

And just how was that pie to be divided more fairly? How many aristocrats died after the Bolshevik Revolution? The entire royal family was murdered. How many khulaks died under Stalin in the name of collectivism in farming?

There doesn't appear to be too much difference between a racial enemy and a class enemy.

Aaron_GT
05-26-2007, 03:44 PM
Hoatee - the point is that Marxism was supposed to deliver a more equal division of the pie but it didn't happen under Lenin or Stalin as those who take power often end up being more interested in the concentration of power than their original stated aim. Again, it shows how remarkable the events from 1776 in America were.

It's also worth noting that in revolutions that go bad there are often multiple phases. This occured in England (3 civil wars in short order leading to a dictatorship under Cromwells senior and junior), French (multiple phases) and Russia (1905, twice in 1917, and internal coups in 1918, 1919, and a civil war to follow).

Copperhead310th
05-26-2007, 05:45 PM
Ivan Draggo PaWnS JoO Comrade!
http://www.80stees.com/images/extraLarge/ROC017_LG2.jpg

Serously this is a pi$$ poor effort for an attmpt at a seriously political conversation. and this thread needs one of these:
http://www.masterlock.com/images/category/res/sch/glolock.jpg

and i'm VERY OFFENDED BY THIS IMAGE
http://miscman.com/posters_graphics/images/large/KapitbevBig.jpeg
i'm asking the mods to shut it down. period.

XyZspineZyX
05-26-2007, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Or that he was part of a political ideology that was equally as evil as the nazis.

Oh, please. Think about this one. You're mistaking results for intentions.



A Goebels one would be great for irony

There's a hitler tshirt out there with his outstretched hand holding a bunch of flowers, and the caption "What about all the good things Hitler did?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Nazis had good intentions

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Um, uh, well you see....ah....there isn't a, uh, teeter-totter for 'good' and 'bad', like you do 5 bad things today, so if you do six good things tomorrow, you're "good". Morally speaking, most western societies feel that a man who shoots and kills a little old lady in cold blood, but who also once saved three old ladies from a fire, is still a, um... murderer. The bad things don't 'go away', you see. You may or may not feel that karmic scales may be balanced, but still, Hitler's scales could have "saved 6 million defensless orphans and thier puppies" on the good side, and he would still be a, oh, what-do-you-call-em...a Monster

Airmail109
05-26-2007, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Or that he was part of a political ideology that was equally as evil as the nazis.

Oh, please. Think about this one. You're mistaking results for intentions.



A Goebels one would be great for irony

There's a hitler tshirt out there with his outstretched hand holding a bunch of flowers, and the caption "What about all the good things Hitler did?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Nazis had good intentions

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Um, uh, well you see....ah....there isn't a, uh, teeter-totter for 'good' and 'bad', like you do 5 bad things today, so if you do six good things tomorrow, you're "good". Morally speaking, most western societies feel that a man who shoots and kills a little old lady in cold blood, but who also once saved three old ladies from a fire, is still a, um... murderer. The bad things don't 'go away', you see. You may or may not feel that karmic scales may be balanced, but still, Hitler's scales could have "saved 6 million defensless orphans and thier puppies" on the good side, and he would still be a, oh, what-do-you-call-em...a Monster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

uhhhh exactly how much better were stalinist intentions than those of the nazis? They are both very close

MrMojok
05-26-2007, 06:08 PM
Seriously, about those t-shirts. I think half the forum would buy one.

With either

"Two weeks be sure"

or

"You is wrong be sure"

below the picture.

DKoor
05-26-2007, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
Seriously, about those t-shirts. I think half the forum would buy one.

With either

"Two weeks be sure"

or

"You is wrong be sure"

below the picture. +1

Hoatee
05-27-2007, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Hoatee - the point is that Marxism was supposed to deliver a more equal division of the pie but it didn't happen under Lenin or Stalin as those who take power often end up being more interested in the concentration of power than their original stated aim. Again, it shows how remarkable the events from 1776 in America were.

It's also worth noting that in revolutions that go bad there are often multiple phases. This occured in England (3 civil wars in short order leading to a dictatorship under Cromwells senior and junior), French (multiple phases) and Russia (1905, twice in 1917, and internal coups in 1918, 1919, and a civil war to follow).

You've only mentioned Lenin and Stalin. I'm pretty sure that Mao, Ho Chi Min, Tito and others also weren't quite what Marx had in mind either.

By the same token, the Nazis had only one leader and were for a far shorter period of time in power. It could perhaps be argued that nazism may have been 'better' if it had a leader other than Hitler.

bazzaah2
05-27-2007, 05:32 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-OT3F8aTRs

Primal Scream has the answer.

MEGILE
05-27-2007, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Seriously, about those t-shirts. I think half the forum would buy one.

With either

"Two weeks be sure"

or

"You is wrong be sure"

below the picture. +1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

MEGILE
05-27-2007, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by roybaer:
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7740/utensiltef3.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Roybaer, do you have a larger version of that monochromatic oleg pic?

M_Gunz
05-27-2007, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
Seriously, about those t-shirts. I think half the forum would buy one.

With either

"Two weeks be sure"

or

"You is wrong be sure"

below the picture.

Even though Oleg never said be sure about 2 weeks... just the opposite, WTF just make it so?
I've seen "You is wrong" and I've seen "be sure" but never together like that either.

If those would be the big sellers then that says the most about the fools that'd buy them.

M_Gunz
05-27-2007, 06:01 AM
But if you go carryin pictures of Chairman Mao,
You ain't gonna make with anyone any how.

MEGILE
05-27-2007, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Even though Oleg never said be sure about 2 weeks... just the opposite, WTF just make it so?
I've seen "You is wrong" and I've seen "be sure" but never together like that either.

If those would be the big sellers then that says the most about the fools that'd buy them.

P.N

WTE_Moleboy
05-27-2007, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Hoatee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Hoatee - the point is that Marxism was supposed to deliver a more equal division of the pie but it didn't happen under Lenin or Stalin as those who take power often end up being more interested in the concentration of power than their original stated aim. Again, it shows how remarkable the events from 1776 in America were.

It's also worth noting that in revolutions that go bad there are often multiple phases. This occured in England (3 civil wars in short order leading to a dictatorship under Cromwells senior and junior), French (multiple phases) and Russia (1905, twice in 1917, and internal coups in 1918, 1919, and a civil war to follow).

You've only mentioned Lenin and Stalin. I'm pretty sure that Mao, Ho Chi Min, Tito and others also weren't quite what Marx had in mind either.

By the same token, the Nazis had only one leader and were for a far shorter period of time in power. It could perhaps be argued that nazism may have been 'better' if it had a leader other than Hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an unlikely idea simply because Hitler WAS the Nazi movement- all of the parties ideas came from Hitler. Given the hatred and rivalry between subordinates and the fact that each subordinate (ie Goering, Himmler etc) was building up their own power through inefficient and conflicting bureaucratic empires the idea that any one other than Hitler could have held the party together is unlikely.

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:

uhhhh exactly how much better were stalinist intentions than those of the nazis? They are both very close

I don't care about whose intentions were better or worse

You posted that nazis had "good intentions". I presume you meant at the beginning of their power, but of course, you do not bother to address my point but rather swerve it into trying to make me concede levels of good and bad

You made the point that nazis had good intentions. Yes, they did. For themselves. The Mongol Horde had good intentions. The First Crusade had good intentions. Pol Pot had good intentions. All of them had great intentions. For the benefit of themselves and at the distinct detriment of anyone else

You said, and I quote, "The Nazis had good intentions", and that is what I addressed. Not the comparison and relative merits of stalism vis a vis nazism. Your point is an awful one. You will of course cite public works, and the end of a depression

You seem to forget what the nazi ideology was about, what it's ultimate goal was.

You said that "The Nazis had good intentions"

I deny that. I wonder if you'd care to address the point now, instead of asking me to validate levels of right and wrong

Aaron_GT
05-27-2007, 07:35 AM
You've only mentioned Lenin and Stalin. I'm pretty sure that Mao, Ho Chi Min, Tito and others also weren't quite what Marx had in mind either.

Also Hoxa, Castro, etc., but it's not my job to give an extensive list! Lenin and Stalin were just convenient examples. Whether Marx' ideas of a utopia are workable is another matter. In some ways you can read Marx's work as a comment on the 19th century just as Swift is a comment on the world a century before.

BrotherVoodoo
05-27-2007, 07:37 AM
Why can't we just all get together and feel the positive vibrations of the universe? Peace Brothers.

Blutarski2004
05-27-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Moleboy:
Hitler WAS the Nazi movement- all of the parties ideas came from Hitler.


..... But they were not necessarily originated by him.

Hitler drew most of his political philosophy from earlier German political thinkers and movements. There is an excellent triptych of books on the political rise and career of Hitler that discusses this in some very enlightening detail. Unfortunately I cannot now recall the author.

WTE_Moleboy
05-27-2007, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Moleboy:
Hitler WAS the Nazi movement- all of the parties ideas came from Hitler.


..... But they were not necessarily originated by him.

Hitler drew most of his political philosophy from earlier German political thinkers and movements. There is an excellent triptych of books on the political rise and career of Hitler that discusses this in some very enlightening detail. Unfortunately I cannot now recall the author. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Blutarski, Hitler's world view was shaped by his own very strong nationalism and his interpretation of history. Most of his ideas were distorted versions of other's ideas. However the Nazi party was a fairly broad organization, with some members (Himmler, Hess) interested in the occult, tarot cards etc while there was also a more socialist wing of the Nazi party including Ernst Rohm, the Strasser brothers who were interested in mild socialism (part of the reason Rohm was killed in the night if the long knives). Hitler was probably the only one within the nazi party with the strength an universal following to hold the very diverse organization together.

Deadmeat313
05-27-2007, 09:30 AM
From Dirty Microbe: http://dirtymicrobe.com/products/roflmao/339/340

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d119/deadmeat313/roflmao_guys_feature_feature-large.png


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


T.

SUPERAEREO
05-27-2007, 10:09 AM
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Airmail109
05-27-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

why do you have one then?

Aaron_GT
05-27-2007, 10:15 AM
The Che T-shirt has become one of those icons of fashion in this post-modern world of whatever it is, irony, or something?

bazzaah2
05-27-2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The Che T-shirt has become one of those icons of fashion in this post-modern world of whatever it is, irony, or something?

just brainless fashion, like the Hitler bars in S Korea.

MrMojok
05-27-2007, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Seriously, about those t-shirts. I think half the forum would buy one.

With either

"Two weeks be sure"

or

"You is wrong be sure"

below the picture.

Even though Oleg never said be sure about 2 weeks... just the opposite, WTF just make it so?
I've seen "You is wrong" and I've seen "be sure" but never together like that either.

If those would be the big sellers then that says the most about the fools that'd buy them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We'll be sure to run the final designs past you for approval, chartmonkey.

MEGILE
05-27-2007, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:


We'll be sure to run the final designs past you for approval, chartmonkey.


ooooooo

yeheeee

FUELLLL

MrMojok
05-27-2007, 10:28 AM
http://members.cox.net/f1dude/cm2front.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
05-27-2007, 10:34 AM
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/poornancyt.jpg

Widowmaker214
05-27-2007, 10:37 AM
Im all for renaming Irritable Bowel Syndrome.. to Che

R_Target
05-27-2007, 10:45 AM
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/4241/cmfrontpluschartej1.jpg

Xiolablu3
05-27-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

why do you have one then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


People own them usually becuae they disagree with the hard Convervative Right wing in the West, such as Thatcher/Reagan/Bush and believe fat cat business bosses should get less money and more should go to the real workers.

Its just to wind up real right wingers, like Leitmotiv said 'Red flag to the bull'.

I would certainly wear one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but I am not a communist.

I just dont agree with hard right wingers. I am all for sharing the pie more equally if the system in question works.

The problem with Communism in the 20th century is that it was always brought in with a dictator, when things go bad you are stuck with him until he dies. Maybe if Communism was VOTED in and controlled more like a modern Democracy, then it would work? Not sure tbh.

AKA_TAGERT
05-27-2007, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/4241/cmfrontpluschartej1.jpg

Let me fix that for yah..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/RTARGETGRAPH.jpg

Coffe calling Kettle black? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5041070725?r=5041070725#5041070725)

R_Target
05-27-2007, 11:01 AM
All in good fun Tag. If someone calls me chartmonkey, I can live with it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Airmail109
05-27-2007, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

why do you have one then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


People own them usually becuae they disagree with the hard Convervative Right wing in the West, such as Thatcher/Reagan/Bush and believe fat cat business bosses should get less money and more should go to the real workers.

Its just to wind up real right wingers, like Leitmotiv said 'Red flag to the bull'.

I would certainly wear one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but I am not a communist.

I just dont agree with hard right wingers. I am all for sharing the pie more equally if the system in question works.

The problem with Communism in the 20th century is that it was always brought in with a dictator, when things go bad you are stuck with him until he dies. Maybe if Communism was VOTED in and controlled more like a modern Democracy, then it would work? Not sure tbh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then your railing against your own political viewpoint, most of those t-shirts are made in sweatshops.

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

why do you have one then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


People own them usually becuae they disagree with the hard Convervative Right wing in the West, such as Thatcher/Reagan/Bush and believe fat cat business bosses should get less money and more should go to the real workers.

Its just to wind up real right wingers, like Leitmotiv said 'Red flag to the bull'.

I would certainly wear one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but I am not a communist.

I just dont agree with hard right wingers. I am all for sharing the pie more equally if the system in question works.

The problem with Communism in the 20th century is that it was always brought in with a dictator, when things go bad you are stuck with him until he dies. Maybe if Communism was VOTED in and controlled more like a modern Democracy, then it would work? Not sure tbh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you may be confusing Socialism and Communism

In the USA, Socialist programs and ideas have been used with great effect. Example: the New Deal

The USA abandoned the New Deal later on

But that is not an example of Communism. I think the difference between Communism and Socialism is lost on many

You can also look to the UK for examples

Dance
05-27-2007, 11:49 AM
Agreed..

Also, imho, the Che motiv hasn't half the impact as the 'Kitchiner - Fark You' or 'Hitler World Tour' shirts. An Argentinean idealist mercenary against some real killers, no contest.

Would wearing any of them make me a commie, fascist or just mental.., is in the eye of the beholder.

Signed,
Wolfie Smith.

R_Target
05-27-2007, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Let me fix that for yah..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/RTARGETGRAPH.jpg

LMAO. One more tweak and it'll be correct.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1355/cmfrontplusrchartjl8.jpg

Dance
05-27-2007, 12:07 PM
Gordon Brown is a chart monkey, can u make an overlay? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-27-2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Let me fix that for yah..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/RTARGETGRAPH.jpg

LMAO. One more tweak and it'll be correct.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1355/cmfrontplusrchartjl8.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL

SUPERAEREO
05-27-2007, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

why do you have one then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Albero Korda's photo is an icon of the 60's.

Call it post-modern irony.

Plus it annoys people I don't like, which is an added bonus... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
05-27-2007, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

why do you have one then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


People own them usually becuae they disagree with the hard Convervative Right wing in the West, such as Thatcher/Reagan/Bush and believe fat cat business bosses should get less money and more should go to the real workers.

Its just to wind up real right wingers, like Leitmotiv said 'Red flag to the bull'.

I would certainly wear one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but I am not a communist.

I just dont agree with hard right wingers. I am all for sharing the pie more equally if the system in question works.

The problem with Communism in the 20th century is that it was always brought in with a dictator, when things go bad you are stuck with him until he dies. Maybe if Communism was VOTED in and controlled more like a modern Democracy, then it would work? Not sure tbh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you may be confusing Socialism and Communism

In the USA, Socialist programs and ideas have been used with great effect. Example: the New Deal

The USA abandoned the New Deal later on

But that is not an example of Communism. I think the difference between Communism and Socialism is lost on many

You can also look to the UK for examples </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Could you explain the difference pls BBB?

I always saw the UK's National Health Service (Free health care for all paid for from Taxes) as a sort of Communist idea,

Are you saying that it is actually a socialist idea?

I dont actually know the difference.

I realise Socialism and COmmunism is not the same, but I am not quite sure exactly why. I think Irish explained it to me once in terms of a box with four options, but I forget now...

SUPERAEREO
05-27-2007, 12:58 PM
Mmm... a GP friend of mine could say a few things about how the Labour party is destroying the NHS here in the UK, and she is no rabid Tory...

But this would be just totally OT.

Xiolablu3
05-27-2007, 01:14 PM
You are not really off topic, the Labour party is about as close to Communism as we are likely to get in the UK.

To be fair tho, every Government has large scale opposition wghen its been in power for a long time.

Remember the Conservatives after their 14 year stretch? Noone had a good word to say about them.

I htink what is destroying the NHS more than anything is the sheer cost of certain drugs which people are entitled too.

Say a lady of 80 has cancer and her drugs cost 20,000 a week to get, the NHS cannot simply say its too expensive to keep her alive. They just have to pay.

Soon they are going to have to choose between saving that old 80 year old lady or 20 premature babies at 2000 a time. There is only one real choice, but the euthenasia argument when that starts happening is going to be deafening.

Now I have gone really OT, sorry! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Huxley_S
05-27-2007, 01:39 PM
I dont actually know the difference.

I realise Socialism and COmmunism is not the same, but I am not quite sure exactly why. I think Irish explained it to me once in terms of a box with four options, but I forget now...

Socialism is very broad in scope, from a total abolition of the market on the one hand to relatively minor interventionist policies such as a minimum wage or a national healthcare policy on the other.

Communism as described by Marx is a theoretical utopia that has probably been best idealised in Star Trek: The Next Generation, where all races and genders are equal and the pursuit of knowledge has superseded the pursuit of wealth. Marx theorised that to get to this utopia there would need to be a transitional phase which he called the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" and this is the political system that most people associate with communism, that of the USSR, China and Cuba - referring specifically to common ownership of production, natural resources etc.

Xiolablu3
05-27-2007, 01:53 PM
Thanks for the explaination, Huxley.

So Communism, in its very definition, states that it should have a dictator?

Huxley_S
05-27-2007, 01:54 PM
Say a lady of 80 has cancer and her drugs cost 20,000 a week to get, the NHS cannot simply say its too expensive to keep her alive. They just have to pay.

That's not how it works. The NHS and all the other national health systems in Europe collectively have enormous buying power. The drugs companies can't simply charge whatever they want because the health services won't buy them if the price isn't right. That's why national health systems are much better value for money than the private health systems they have in the US. Individual insurance companies and private hospitals don't have the bargaining power that a national health system has.

Hoatee
05-27-2007, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Moleboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoatee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Hoatee - the point is that Marxism was supposed to deliver a more equal division of the pie but it didn't happen under Lenin or Stalin as those who take power often end up being more interested in the concentration of power than their original stated aim. Again, it shows how remarkable the events from 1776 in America were.

It's also worth noting that in revolutions that go bad there are often multiple phases. This occured in England (3 civil wars in short order leading to a dictatorship under Cromwells senior and junior), French (multiple phases) and Russia (1905, twice in 1917, and internal coups in 1918, 1919, and a civil war to follow).

You've only mentioned Lenin and Stalin. I'm pretty sure that Mao, Ho Chi Min, Tito and others also weren't quite what Marx had in mind either.

By the same token, the Nazis had only one leader and were for a far shorter period of time in power. It could perhaps be argued that nazism may have been 'better' if it had a leader other than Hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an unlikely idea simply because Hitler WAS the Nazi movement- all of the parties ideas came from Hitler. Given the hatred and rivalry between subordinates and the fact that each subordinate (ie Goering, Himmler etc) was building up their own power through inefficient and conflicting bureaucratic empires the idea that any one other than Hitler could have held the party together is unlikely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forget that Nazism was just one of several fascist movements. Mussolini was the first. The falangists with Franco in Spain are another example.

There really is no difference between fascism and communism. The one is just extremely right, the other extremely left. And both are equally brutal in their treatment of humanity.

Huxley_S
05-27-2007, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Thanks for the explaination, Huxley.

So Communism, in its very definition, states that it should have a dictator?

The transitional phase must have a dictator by Marx's definition yes. The final utopian vision of communism, be that hundreds or thousands of years in the future is not described in detail and could well be a democracy.

Huxley_S
05-27-2007, 02:39 PM
There really is no difference between fascism and communism. The one is just extremely right, the other extremely left. And both are equally brutal in their treatment of humanity.

The problem with people who have these kinds of ideologies is that they seek to impose them upon other people. That's fine as long as you share the same ideology but not so good if you oppose them or if you find yourself perceived as a threat.

Let us not forget that a lot of people did very well indeed under the Nazis. Hitler rebuilt his country in a few short years from absolute ruin to the most powerful country in Europe. As long as you fitted into the Nazi ideal you were quids-in.

If you didn't, God help you.

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

why do you have one then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


People own them usually becuae they disagree with the hard Convervative Right wing in the West, such as Thatcher/Reagan/Bush and believe fat cat business bosses should get less money and more should go to the real workers.

Its just to wind up real right wingers, like Leitmotiv said 'Red flag to the bull'.

I would certainly wear one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but I am not a communist.

I just dont agree with hard right wingers. I am all for sharing the pie more equally if the system in question works.

The problem with Communism in the 20th century is that it was always brought in with a dictator, when things go bad you are stuck with him until he dies. Maybe if Communism was VOTED in and controlled more like a modern Democracy, then it would work? Not sure tbh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you may be confusing Socialism and Communism

In the USA, Socialist programs and ideas have been used with great effect. Example: the New Deal

The USA abandoned the New Deal later on

But that is not an example of Communism. I think the difference between Communism and Socialism is lost on many

You can also look to the UK for examples </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Could you explain the difference pls BBB?

I always saw the UK's National Health Service (Free health care for all paid for from Taxes) as a sort of Communist idea,

Are you saying that it is actually a socialist idea?

I dont actually know the difference.

I realise Socialism and COmmunism is not the same, but I am not quite sure exactly why. I think Irish explained it to me once in terms of a box with four options, but I forget now... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would describe that idea of taxes used for that end as Socialist, yes.

Socialism is an social and economic system in which the society doles out wealth, but is controlled by the society. This can be voted on, or decided by elected representatives

Communism can be described as a "next step" socialism in which the means of production are controlled by a classless community of workers. usually includes a dictator but the idea is actually to have no State at all

These ideas are related and blurred on few levels. Communism in it's classic sense we think of (Marxism) has never really happened, it was (and is) still in an interim state in which the State throws off it's capitalist-need basis, and this is the part that requires dictatorship. The Dictatorship is supposed to be in the name of "the People". A great ideal, I guess. But while Communism is said to not work, in fact it has never worked at all, in the sense that it never got out of it's transition stage of the (I love confusatory terms like this) Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Religion also makes Classes, so religion is not very high on the most often thought of, classic Communist list of 'must-haves'

Socialism is a broad type of thing, while Communism is a little more specialised. Workers can own the means of production in Socialism, while the State tends to do this in Communism (at it's present stage, the ultimate goal is to have NO State, but as noted, this has never happened). Communism tends to need to 'prop itself up'

The fact is that people like to call things their own, communal property is great in John Lennon songs and in little red books, but in the real world, folks like to own a thing or three

There is a guy, a good guy actually, at work, who has a feew Socialist leaning. I think that's fine, any good democracy or republic needs alternate views. But I saw a great analogy of why the true Communist State can't work one day when he dropped his large, ice-cold Coca-Cola while trying to carry too many things:

"Oh no!" I shrieked. "The State's Soda is on the floor!"

Blutarski2004
05-27-2007, 05:20 PM
Communism is an elaborate mantle of ecomonic theory thrown over the shoulders of Utopianism.

Utopia is unachievable.

AKA_TAGERT
05-27-2007, 05:22 PM
bingo

Aaron_GT
05-27-2007, 05:27 PM
I always saw the UK's National Health Service (Free health care for all paid for from Taxes) as a sort of Communist idea,

It was a combination of socialism and utilitarianism. The socialist arguments are well known, but less known is that businesses complained that the population had such poor health it impacted factory efficiency and were very much in favour of the NHS as it offered a low cost way to improve health and efficiency. Some large auto firms in the USA are apparently in favour of a more socialist medical system in the USA due to spiralling medical insurance costs that they have to cover (due to committments already made).

The question of whether socialised medicine works well I leave as an exercise for the reader...

Aaron_GT
05-27-2007, 05:34 PM
Good summary Blutarski.

Xiolablu3
05-27-2007, 05:36 PM
Thx for the explanation BBB.

I think the main reason the UK's NHS came into being was because the poors terrible health eventuially starts to affect the wealthy, as in dirty, unhealthy areas start to spread disease etc.

I am not sure it was purely to help the poor, although I could be wrong.

Its great that a really poor homeless person can get excellent health care, however. I am all in favour of that. The bad part is when people from otehr countries flock to the UK because they can get operations free and state handouts.

What happens in the USA if there is a homeless person with say, a Gall stone? They surely dont leave him on the street in terrible pain?

Huxley_S
05-27-2007, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Communism is an elaborate mantle of ecomonic theory thrown over the shoulders of Utopianism.

Utopia is unachievable.

One man's utopia is another man's dystopia.

Huxley_S
05-27-2007, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I am all in favour of that. The bad part is when people from otehr countries flock to the UK because they can get operations free and state handouts.

What happens in the USA if there is a homeless person with say, a Gall stone? They surely dont leave him on the street in terrible pain?

Any good system can withstand a certain amount of abuse.

As for your last point... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Veltro_28
05-27-2007, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

why do you have one then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

humnmn 1.his money
2.why he should explain why he bought it to you?

regards...

All I can see (seing it from a nationalistic point of view, yeah am nationalistic) that there is a lot of bias bs in this tread. shame. and a shirt means nothing, is just a pose, commie or not

Blutarski2004
05-27-2007, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Communism is an elaborate mantle of ecomonic theory thrown over the shoulders of Utopianism.

Utopia is unachievable.

One man's utopia is another man's dystopia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It cannot be by the strict definition of the word "utopia" - i.e., a perfect enviroment.

Airmail109
05-27-2007, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Veltro_28:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
I have a Che t-shirt and I am no communist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

why do you have one then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

humnmn 1.his money
2.why he should explain why he bought it to you?

regards...

All I can see (seing it from a nationalistic point of view, yeah am nationalistic) that there is a lot of bias bs in this tread. shame. and a shirt means nothing, is just a pose, commie or not </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole idea of owning it and not being a communist is ******ed (rebel against the authoritarian system maann....yeah like totally...ill buy this che t-shirt even though he was a totalitarian nutjob himself.....yeah like totally dude!) + I felt like attacking him for the rolling eye smiley http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Yes the t-shirt does mean something, he was a murderer and a psychopath sir. Again if your going to put a genocidal maniac on your t-shirt, why not go the whole hog and put Stalin on it instead.

Im going to get a t-shirt with a nice big "F*** Che" on it I think.

Hows there lots of BS in this thread?

Korolov1986
05-27-2007, 07:34 PM
Per popular request.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/oleg_wrong.jpg

KrasniyYastreb
05-27-2007, 07:49 PM
Why hasn't this thread been locked yet? It is useless political spouting.

blakduk
05-27-2007, 08:03 PM
It's interesting to see a political thread running for so long without people getting too personal with each other and getting it shut down- well done everyone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Now, for my two cents worth:
Che was an incompetent idealist who wanted to slaughter the wealthy to enrich the masses. The end he was aiming for was noble, his means were risible and if he had succeeded he would have been doomed to failure. The communists in Russia had the same ideals, the result was catastrophe.

The irony of dictatorships is that no matter if they start out as being right or left wing (facist or communist) the end up almost identical. The key is limiting the power of those who exercise it- the secret of success for western democracies has been the limitations on executive power. A great example is the USA at the moment, a president who has the power to declare war having to battle the congress and senate to give him the means to wage it.
Dictatorships cannot tolerate dissent, they must brutally repress it or lose their power (check out Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Hussein in Iraq).
If some deluded hippy wants to wear a T-shirt of a failed zealot let him, they're showing dissent but they probably doesnt realise that only a democracy would let them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

BTW- years ago when i was younger and more foolish i deliberately wore a provocative 'Hitler's European Tour' shirt. It worked very well, it got a lot of people very angry. It made life interesting but back in those days i had the energy to really enjoy The Clash, Sex Pistols, Eddie and the Four Skins, Stiff Little Fingers.... Oh the memories, and the visits to the dentist http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I am all in favour of that. The bad part is when people from otehr countries flock to the UK because they can get operations free and state handouts.

What happens in the USA if there is a homeless person with say, a Gall stone? They surely dont leave him on the street in terrible pain?

Any good system can withstand a certain amount of abuse.

As for your last point... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hux-

I can only assume that the sad smiley means:

"I wish I could tell you but I really have no idea what happens in the USA in that instance"

SlowBurn68
05-27-2007, 09:19 PM
I get jeered at a lot when I wear my G.W. Bush tee-shirt.

HerrGraf
05-27-2007, 10:24 PM
Gentlemen, and any ladies that are present, Socialism is an economic system and has nothing what so ever to do with a polical system! Capitalism is an economic system that has nothing to do with a political system!
Communism is a totalitarian political system that just happens to use a socialistic economic system to control the population. Not quite what Marx intended as a final result.
Fascism is a totalitarian political system that uses a capitalistic economic system.
Both like to use secret police and vast prison systems to remove all who are deemed to be undesirable or "opposition".

As to the American homeless person who has a gall stone attack, they will be taken to hospital for treatment at the expense of the taxpayers. However the treatment will not be very quick or necessarily the "best money can buy". Our illegal immigrants have learned to use our hospitals instead of doctors because of no insurance and not enough money to pay cash. While a private hospital won't take an indigent person, the public (county) hospitals have to.

Xiolablu3
05-27-2007, 11:17 PM
Thanks for the explanation Herrgraf.

Thats good that they get treated, anyway.

Most are usually on the street through mental problems or substance addicts. - they need to be treated.

BTW have you guys seen the SOuth Park - Homeless episode?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h40mSKMdTIc

'Roll up ! Roll up!, COme and see as Eric Cartman attempts to jump the homeless!'

Jaws2002
05-27-2007, 11:48 PM
Every time I see people that still praise communism I want to puke.

I mean ... weren't enough dead bodies this century because of an idea of two clowns?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
How many experiments of communism of all flavors did we have during this century?
Did any one of them succeed?

The whole concept is based on one wrong idea: that we are all exactly the same and think the same like perfect clones.

So many millions of people died and starved testing all kind of flavors of this idiotic idea and there are still people that think Marx and Engels knew WTF they are talking about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Sorry guys. I just had to take it off my chest.

I grew up in a stupid communist regime and I experienced it all. From food shortages, beatings by Securitatea, long lines for a liter of milk. Complete control and censorship of the media, economy way beyond bankruptcy, forced labor and the whole nightmare.
I had to leave family friends and loved ones to find my freedom. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Xiolablu3
05-27-2007, 11:57 PM
Lmao, just watching South Park - Night of the Living HOmeless again after this thread got me thinking about it..

Randy : I've got an idea, we could turn all the homeless into tyres, so we will still have homeless, but we could USe them on our cars..

Social Worker : OK thats ENOUGH! The homeless are people just like you and me!!!!

Randy : You mean they've adapted?! Copied our DNA????

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

drose01
05-28-2007, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

What happens in the USA if there is a homeless person with say, a Gall stone? They surely dont leave him on the street in terrible pain?

They certainly do not. In the US, he would get admitted to the hospital and have surgery with no expenses spared. It is required by federal law that noone with an emergency condition can be turned away by any hospital, regardless of his ability to pay or citizenship.

Veltro_28
05-28-2007, 01:05 AM
Hows there lots of BS in this thread?


cuz, as some posers out there, some hardcore detractors also didn´t even know who in heavens name that guy was, but still blast him with their full "fistfull of truth" righ wing rethorics. Gosh ignorance is a dare devil, those guys make me sick.

To understand that guy and his actions first you should experience living in latin america, where the common life in rural areas (were farmers and etnic minotirites live) was soo -and in some places still is- unfair and filled with poverty and famine. That guy traveled thru south america and experienced first hand the medievalish way of life in the interior of every country he visited, where the own states give almost total power to land owners to rule their lands -and inhabitants- with fistfull of steel, and they did. Famine and racism were everyday matters, and those poor human beins doesn`t had a hope neither to have access to public health system, to have education access, less to have acces to the judicial system. Idealistic as he was, Ernesto Guevara developed a strong hate about those men retaining that part of the world in such past eras, as well to the governments who protect them. Then, well, then was Cuba and he could find a worth fight, he did, Fidel used him -as clever as he has always been-, and discarded "Che" when he was no longer needed. Then Che wen`t to latin america again, and started a new fight...in the worst place of all, Bolvia, without proper knowleadge neither of the language, quechua(spanish is spoken only in the cities, and quechua its considered a must if any support of the locals is hoping to be earn), or the land. His expedition suffered many dessertions and losses, while he ended being captured and shot by CIA operatives in some god forbidden town in Bolivia. What bothers me from all Fidel-Che detractors (not speaking about communism, cuz Latin America is a different matter) is that capitalistic regimes supported by the US had killed -from "natural" and "unnatural" causes"- many more people that the actual numbers executed in Cuba, but never those figures are shown, only because those guys somehow manage to get in to "the good guys" lists, but smart guys out there doesn`t even know it, even less try to find out who they are, they just blast the usual suspects. That is pitty, that is BS. Regards

We all had something to be grateful for, and cannot be avoided, successes in Cuba started the "land reform" that eventually spread all over Latin America, some how returning the land to the original owners...the farmers who work them(altough in some places the Feudal lords returned with their Banks and ended ripping the poor guys lands again, due to lack of state support,but thats another history). Long history short, the changes he countributed to make in Cuba had an echo in all the region, helping millions of people living below poverty line. That cannot be denied.

When I see someone wearing a Che tshirt, I just laugh inside, cuz I know that the guy or girl is **probably** a poor nancy who doesn`t had even travel to the country side to see how`s life outh there, and even worst, he/she is also probably a racist too (common with white descendant ppl in Latin America). I don`t have one, don`t need one, its too grunge, nineties are over dude.

BTW, I was in cuba, traveled a lot, never saw a single dude dying in the streets of starvation, and many average joes out there were very, very educated, well, more than some of the guys in this thread am afraid. Wish I could see only those benefits in my country...but of course, then we all had to pay a price, specially those fat guys out there eating from the poor`s guts.
And finally,in case you don`t remember, am not a "commie", just someone that saw the world as it is. But hey, you had the truth, so probably you think I am anyway, good for you.

Regards

Aaron_GT
05-28-2007, 02:08 AM
a president who has the power to declare war

In the USA only Congress has the power to declare war.

In the UK war is declared via royal perogative with no intervention needed from Parliament. (This is likely to get changed in the next few years).

With regard to fascism and the use of capitalism, it was largely true of Italy but the intention in Germany was for more state control, but Hitler decided that pissing off the industrialists would be a mistake. It is true, though, that extreme left and right are often hard to distinguish. It's more like a circle than a line, it seems.


So many millions of people died and starved testing all kind of flavors of this idiotic idea

Both extremes have poor records in this regard.

I think the issue is more that if you give the power-crazed sociopath a way to control a country you are going to get bad results. Stalin, for example, was not that popular with the Bolsheviks at the start of the 20th century as they thought he was off the rails. But he was sadly cunning enough to get his way to the top post from where he managed to wreak death and destruction on his own people. But I think it was power and nationalism that he wanted rather than any particular political ideal, plus a fair dose of racism. In many ways he was very similar to Hitler.

Since then there have been plenty of other such dictators, some with no clear political ideology (e.g. Amin in Uganda). We just need to be vigilant, promote democracy and good government, and do the best to stop them.

tagTaken2
05-28-2007, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by blakduk:
It's interesting to see a political thread running for so long without people getting too personal with each other and getting it shut down- well done everyone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif


I agree. Also a number of reasonable posts from people that I wouldn't have expected.

I think that the most provocative posters demonstrate a lack of understanding and willingness to listen that kind of kills their point.

And I want the oleg tshirt. "You is wrong" is sure to provoke some questions/promotion of the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and "Be sure" on the back would just cap it.

SUPERAEREO
05-28-2007, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by Veltro_28:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hows there lots of BS in this thread?


cuz, as some posers out there, some hardcore detractors also didn´t even know who in heavens name that guy was, but still blast him with their full "fistfull of truth" righ wing rethorics. Gosh ignorante is a dare devil, those guys make me sick.

To understand that guy ans his actions first you should experience living in latin america, where the common life in rural areas (were farmers and etnic minotirites live) was soo -and in some places still is- unfair and filled with poverty and famine. That guy traveled thru south america and experienced first hand the medievalish way of life in the interior of every country he visited, where the own states give almost total power to land owners to rule their lands -and inhabitants- with fistfull of steel, and they did. Famine and racism were everyday matters, and those poor human beins doesn`t had a hope neither to have access to public health system, to have justice access, less to have acces to the judicial system. Idealistic as he was, Ernesto Guevara developed a strong hate about those men retaining that part of the world in such past eras, as well to the governments who protect them. Then, well, then was Cuba and he could find a worth fight, he did, Fidel used him -as clever as he has always been-, and discarded "Che" when he was no longer needed. Then Che wen`t to latin america again, and started a new fight...in the worst place of all, Bolvia, without proper knowleadge neither of the language, quechua(spanish is spoken only in the cities, and its considered a must if any support of the locals is hoping to be earn), or the land. His expedition suffered many dessertions and losses ended being captured and shot by CIA operatives in some god forbidden town in Bolivia. What bothers me from all Fidel-Che detractos (not speaking about communism, cuz Latin America is a different matter) is that capitalistic regimes supported by the US had killed -from "natural" and "unnatural" causes"- many more people that the actual numbers executed in Cuba, but never those figures are shown, only because those guys somehow manage to get in to "the good guys", but average joes out there doesn`t even know it, even less try to find out who they are, they just blast the usual suspects. That is pitty, that is BS. Regards

We all had something to be grateful for, and cannot be avoided, successes in Cuba started the "land reform" that eventually spread all over Latin America, some how returning the land to the original owners...the farmers who work them(altough in some places the Feudal lords returned with their Banks and ended ripping the poor guys lands again, due to lack of state support,but thats another history). Long history short, the changes he countributed to make in Cuba had an echo in all the region, helping millions of people living below poverty line. That cannot be denied.

When I see someone wearing a Che tshirt, I just laugh inside, cuz I know that the guy or girl is probably a poor nancy who doesn`t had even travel to the country side, and even worst, he/she is racist too (common with white descendant ppl in Latin America). I don`t have one, don`t need one, its too grunge, nineties are over dude.

BTW, I was in cuba, traveled a lot, never saw a single dude dying in the streets of starvation, and many average joes out there were very, very educated, well, more than some of the guys in this thread am afradi. Wish I could see only those benefits in my country...but of course, then we all had to pay a price, specially those fat guys out there eating from the poor`s guts.
And finally,in case you don`t remember, am not a "commie", just someone that saw the world as it is. But hey, you had the truth, so probably you think I am anyway, good for you.

Regards </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif apart from not being a poor nancy, of course.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara surely was no genocidal maniac. Severely deluded idealist yes, genocidal maniac, no.

The Cuban revolution, as misguided as it may have been (and it certainly was, ideologically speaking), had very serious motivations and enjoyed widespread popular support, so much so that Castro's regime has until now survived the US' embargo.

The Maryland Institute College of Art called Alberto Korda's portrait "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century."

Anyway, it is a t-shirt: if I was wearing a Marylin Monroe t-shirt it would not mean that I would want to grow breasts or blond hair,

They would look awful with my goatee for a start... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blutarski2004
05-28-2007, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Veltro_28:
When I see someone wearing a Che tshirt, I just laugh inside, cuz I know that the guy or girl is **probably** a poor nancy who doesn`t had even travel to the country side to see how`s life outh there, and even worst, he/she is also probably a racist too (common with white descendant ppl in Latin America). I don`t have one, don`t need one, its too grunge, nineties are over dude.


..... I can testify with the utmost certainty that the "Che" symbol/T-shirt phenomenon was a propaganda device of the 60's. Grunge later revived it, for some inexplicable reason.

Blutarski2004
05-28-2007, 07:17 AM
Don't mean to be waggish here, but here is my impression of land reform under Communism. Communism seizes all land and re-distributes it entirely to the state, thereby replacing a minority of "powerful landlords" with a single omnipotent landlord.

Some other things puzzle me about Communism. For example, the well-known aphorism: "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs" ..... :

Who exactly decides what my needs are?

Do I have a choice about what abilities I will provide. If I'm artistic and have a passion to pursue art, may I freely do so? What if the state decides that they want to exploit my ability as a ditch-digger, or a potato farmer?

Does individual free will enter into this equation in any way?

SUPERAEREO
05-28-2007, 08:18 AM
I think that in 2007 very few people in the world can still think that communism could work: history has amply proved that it was was a good dream which turned into a nightmare...

Huxley_S
05-28-2007, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Do I have a choice about what abilities I will provide. If I'm artistic and have a passion to pursue art, may I freely do so? What if the state decides that they want to exploit my ability as a ditch-digger, or a potato farmer?

Does individual free will enter into this equation in any way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cxWYR0HAwE

[clop clop]
ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you Man.
DENNIS: Well, you could say Dennis.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called Dennis.
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the old woman,' but from the behind you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,[angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?

SUPERAEREO
05-28-2007, 08:36 AM
Gotta love Monty Python - gonna get myself some coconut shells...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Huxley_S
05-28-2007, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

What happens in the USA if there is a homeless person with say, a Gall stone? They surely dont leave him on the street in terrible pain?

They certainly do not. In the US, he would get admitted to the hospital and have surgery with no expenses spared. It is required by federal law that noone with an emergency condition can be turned away by any hospital, regardless of his ability to pay or citizenship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it was a gunshot wound or road accident you'd be right but chronic conditions such as gall stones or cancer or cataracts or any of a vast number of painful and debilitating conditions would not be covered. Unless the guy could get a charity to pay for his treatment he'd be snookered.

XyZspineZyX
05-28-2007, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by drose01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

What happens in the USA if there is a homeless person with say, a Gall stone? They surely dont leave him on the street in terrible pain?

They certainly do not. In the US, he would get admitted to the hospital and have surgery with no expenses spared. It is required by federal law that noone with an emergency condition can be turned away by any hospital, regardless of his ability to pay or citizenship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it was a gunshot wound or road accident you'd be right but chronic conditions such as gall stones or cancer or cataracts or any of a vast number of painful and debilitating conditions would not be covered. Unless the guy could get a charity to pay for his treatment he'd be snookered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hux, just stop. You don't know very much about the USA. You don't know what you're talking about. Just stop. You act as if you have all the answers and know what goes on here. You obviously don't, so stop giving people disinformation. You don't like the USA, fine. But stop posting about how X Y and Z works in the USA. You don't know, so knock it off

Blutarski2004
05-28-2007, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Hux, just stop. You don't know very much about the USA. You don't know what you're talking about. Just stop. You act as if you have all the answers and know what goes on here. You obviously don't, so stop giving people disinformation. You don't like the USA, fine. But stop posting about how X Y and Z works in the USA. You don't know, so knock it off


..... True.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2007, 09:30 AM
Can you give us a breif idea of how it works BBB?

Is everyone, in every state entitled to operations if they need them, like the UK?

Aaron_GT
05-28-2007, 09:36 AM
Some other things puzzle me about Communism. For example, the well-known aphorism: "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs" ..... :

Who exactly decides what my needs are?

The invisible hand of the market?

LStarosta
05-28-2007, 09:36 AM
Ehhh... It's not that great.

When the first thing that goes through your mind in a potentially emergency situation is the debate of whether or not it's worth calling 911 or not because you can't afford the $700 ambulance ride 9 miles into town, never mind the operation once you get there, you know that the healthcare system kind of sucks. This isn't in the case of homeless people either. My mother thought she was having pre-stroke symptoms, so I drove her to the hospital. They didn't find anything but she's still paying off a $3000 bill.

Aaron_GT
05-28-2007, 09:44 AM
Is everyone, in every state entitled to operations if they need them, like the UK?

With Medicare and Medicaid (one for those without insurance, one for the old), in theory, yes, but if you can pay (i.e. don't qualify for the above systems) you are expected to pay. In fact the USA spends about the same (as an average per capita) on these two systems as the UK does on the NHS. But then the most expensive times are the first couple and last couple of years of your life, and the last bit normally comes after 65 to 70. They treat fewer people so it may be seen as less good value for money, though, in that more is spent per patient treated, but then it also depends on outcome. Private health care is on top.

The French system is sort of between the two and reputedly has the best cost to outcome ratio in the Western world, but at a higher per capita cost than the UK. It seems that the UK is trying to emulate some of the patient choice of the French system but I am not sure it is being done in the right way.

The French don't do everything right but they seem to know how to make electricity, run trains, and a health service. Maybe if Mr. Sarkozy gets bored of being president of France he could become PM of the UK :-)

Huxley_S
05-28-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:

Hux, just stop. You don't know very much about the USA. You don't know what you're talking about. Just stop. You act as if you have all the answers and know what goes on here. You obviously don't, so stop giving people disinformation. You don't like the USA, fine. But stop posting about how X Y and Z works in the USA. You don't know, so knock it off

Yo! That's a bit harsh m8. You may not like what I'm saying but I'm not deliberately spreading disinformation, nor does it mean that I don't like the USA. I'm aware that the US offers such a broad diversity of opinion that there are always good things and bad things to be said about it.

Fact is that healthcare reform is one of the major issues being talked about by 2008 presidential candidates, and if there weren't some serious failings of the system this would not be the case.

XyZspineZyX
05-28-2007, 10:14 AM
Harsh? You hypocrite. You're here saying things are wrong concerning something, when you don;t know what you're about. You are the one who insisted on this absurd line of "education" for the benefit of other people, Hux, and you are in the wrong. Period.

Your statements about how things work in the USA concerning the homeless man getting medical care are 100% false, and are based on your assumptions and guesswork, colored by your distaste. You simply do not have any idea of what you're talking about, but you insist on talking about it. You are now interchanging "opinion" and "fact"? How dare you

You talk about how this *IS* how things are, but when I talk about them, it is just my "differing Opinion"?? Have a care, Hux! I live here, I have for 35 years, I may know something about the palce by now. You seem to think you're an authority on the USA, and it's always evident you're not

Your "fact" is in fact YOUR opinion, and your opinion only, but you are presenting it as if you know what you're about. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You don't!</span> You are saying lots of things often, and they are just not true. And now you're spinning it into the USA has "differeing opinions"? Horsesh!t, you are talking about a man not getting healthcare in my country. Your statements are supposed to be "fact", while mine are supposed to be "opinion"?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

James Brown called this thing you're doing "Talking Loud, and Saying Nothing"

I would appreciate it if you stuck to talking about things you have an inkling about. Healthcare reform is a topic for debate, but you obviously don't begin to understand what the debate is even about. You absolutely have no idea how my country works at all. You take some facts, and skew them, and if there's a gap in the statement, you assume some things to patch it up. I can't even BEGIN to explain how 100% wrong you are in your examples. Do not presume to tell me how or even if that homeless man gets healethcare at a hospital Hux. You simply don;t know; you are repeating something you heard, no doubt, and to you, that makes you an expert

Stop quacking Hux. You are rapidly becoming a BS artist and it's a little shameful to read. I used to have a certain respect for you and the things you do outside of the forums. Now I'm embarrassed by you. Stop it

Huxley_S
05-28-2007, 10:42 AM
Eeek.... well I have obviously said the wrong thing, too many times. I think you read my last post wrong. What I meant re: opinion, was there are things I like about the US and there are things I don't but that doesn't mean I don't like the US on the whole, because I do. Anyway, best to drop this argument re: homeless healthcare, I only know what I have read - not being a) a homeless person or b) an American. Sorry to have offended you.

Here's the link to the National Health Care for the Homeless Council for those that are interested.
http://www.nhchc.org/HCHbrochure.html

Don't listen to me. Make up your own mind.

leitmotiv
05-28-2007, 10:53 AM
Hux, the reason why millions of people are coming across the border into this country is all the free medical the states dish out to the poor. You go into a hospital in the state of California now and it is, literally, filled with illegal aliens being treated for everything under the sun. The people who get screwed are the middle class because their taxes and insurance premiums are going through the roof to pay for all of these "free" services. The people who are going without medical and dental work due to expense are middle class, the poor get it free, and the rich can pay for it.

In other words, by the back door, American medical is now exactly like that in the UK. When I lived in London, none of my friends went to NHS hacks if they could avoid it, but went to private doctors. I had some fun times with NHS emergency services, and they were none too pleasant. Emergency services in the U.S. are now as bad as they were in London in '95, I am proud to report. Thus, we are all the same. Jolly good.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2007, 10:57 AM
The problem with the European systems are that they are very open to abuse. People flock to the UK (and other Euro countries) to get free healthcare.

Also saying you have to keep everyone alive no matter what leads to massive expenses, especially with Old people.

Just when do you decide costs to keep them alive are too expensive and stop? Apparantly at the moment no cost is too much.

One unrelated fact I found astounding in the modern world is that apparantly (I saw it on a TV prog) the average life expectancy of an Aboriginee male in Austrailia is 36 years old (!). Maybe I got that wrong because I cant quite believe it myself! What is definitly correct is that the Aboriginees have terrible healthcare compared to the whites and other Imigrants, and its a big issue right now in Oz. They are apparantly scared to take their children to the Hospitals because so many have been taken away from their parents and put into care from having such poor health. Maybe an Ozzie can comment and tell us the real situation.


The opinion I have formed from my limited knowledge is that a Communist type system could work, as long as it is in a democracy, as long as it is voted in for say 4 years (like the democracies) and then evaluated and voted out if need be. I feel that the main reason they fail is because they are usually dictatorships and stay in office long after the system should be changed to somehting else. I feel a communist government could be the right thing for some countries for a limited amount of time, at some times. I dont see a reason why communism should always come with a 'glorious leader' and dictator. WHy cant a communist party be just like a conservative party or Labour party? Maybe my thoughts are flawed I dont know, maybe someone can tell me?

raaaid
05-28-2007, 11:13 AM
yesterday i voted the comunists

AKA_TAGERT
05-28-2007, 11:22 AM
So

Blutarski2004
05-28-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some other things puzzle me about Communism. For example, the well-known aphorism: "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs" ..... :

Who exactly decides what my needs are?

The invisible hand of the market? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... In a communist state? I don't think that market forces, at least in the sense we understand them in the west, are recognized as valid in a communist economic regime. A communist economy is (theoretically) centrally managed according to scientific principles.

In that case, my needs would be scientifically assessed by an apparatus that Frank Zappa would have termed the "Central Scrutinizer".

Blutarski2004
05-28-2007, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
Fact is that healthcare reform is one of the major issues being talked about by 2008 presidential candidates, and if there weren't some serious failings of the system this would not be the case.


..... To believe such a thing is to read far too much integrity into the American political process. Health care is just another "hot button" issue with which to inflame the voting public.

US health care works like this:

The miniscule number of wealthy individuals, who would hardly impact the system anyways, don't need it.

The very large middle class, who DO need it, gain access through public/private health insurance programs. They access health insurance in one of two ways:

(a) Those who work for private firms or government obtain coverage through their employer, through larger employers, who typically provide coverage ranging from modest to excellent, depending upon their size and nature. The BEST plan coverages are enjoyed by members of unions and public employees.

(b) The self-employed must obtain coverage through individual health insurance policies. Cost for a couple in their fifties is about US$ 14,000 per year; costs are less for younger subscribers. But, essentially speaking, if you are self-employed or work for a small firm which does not or cannot afford to offer health coverage, then it is your problem.

(c) Health costs for everyone else (this includes welfare recipients, homeless, foreign aliens, prison inmates, refugees, etc, etc.) are fully provided for by government subsidy. Mexican women in their ninth month of pregnancy cross the border, go into labor, rush to a US hospital, who must deliver the child AND absorb all birth and natal care expenses (US citizenship for the child, who has emerged from the womb on US soil, is an extra added incentive); hospitals are legally bound to admit them and treat them; they cannot be turned away, even if an ill US citizen needs the bed. Prison inmates are eligible for care up to and including organ transplants, even sex-change operations (no lie), fully covered by the state.


I suppose there are problems with US health care. Just not necessarily in the way people think.


End of rant.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2007, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:


(a) Those who work for private firms or government obtain coverage through their employer, through larger employers, who typically provide coverage ranging from modest to excellent, depending upon their size and nature. The BEST plan coverages are enjoyed by members of unions and public employees.

(b) The self-employed must obtain coverage through individual health insurance policies. Cost for a couple in their fifties is about US$ 14,000 per year; costs are less for younger subscribers. But, essentially speaking, if you are self-employed or work for a small firm which does not or cannot afford to offer health coverage, then it is your problem.


Those 2 policies sound an excellent way to keep the factories and manual labour industries full with workers.

It must get very expensive to take the plunge and go Self Employed in the USA.

XyZspineZyX
05-28-2007, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
Eeek.... well I have obviously said the wrong thing, too many times. I think you read my last post wrong. What I meant re: opinion, was there are things I like about the US and there are things I don't but that doesn't mean I don't like the US on the whole, because I do. Anyway, best to drop this argument re: homeless healthcare, I only know what I have read - not being a) a homeless person or b) an American. Sorry to have offended you.

Here's the link to the National Health Care for the Homeless Council for those that are interested.
http://www.nhchc.org/HCHbrochure.html

Don't listen to me. Make up your own mind.

I don't need to listen to you, or to form my own opinions on the matter, Hux

This is not an abstract, it is Law

They can't be refused care. There is no debate

Viking-S
05-28-2007, 12:13 PM
The hatred showed in this thread towards Che Guevara is as usual based on propaganda and ignorance. The man had few wants for him self and is worldwide known and recognised as one of the true outstanding heroes of the last century. Even the "free" encyclopaedia Wikipedia (US sponsored) find very little of criticise to report in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara.

The fall of the Soviet Union is known to most and is widely debated while the fruit of Guevara and his companions work are less known. South America is rapidly becoming a new "Union" of democratic states free from the burden of military fascism and the influence of "foreign nations". All thanks to true freedom fighters and heroes like Guevara that set an example to the rest of us! He freed Cuba from fascism and he kept it free despite the US organised and financed Bay of Pigs http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/giron.htm.


Viva Che! Viva Cuba! Moerte a las Fasistas!


Viking

Huxley_S
05-28-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:

This is not an abstract, it is Law

They can't be refused care. There is no debate

Alright... so can someone please explain to me why (I have read) that some 50% of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses in the US?

If everyone, even a homeless person with absolutely no money or even a home, is required by law to be treated for his ailments without paying how can this be so?

e.g. "A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem."
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Aaron_GT
05-28-2007, 12:50 PM
The invisible hand of the market? ..... In a communist state? I don't think that market forces

It was an attempt at humour that obviously failed...

Aaron_GT
05-28-2007, 12:54 PM
If everyone, even a homeless person with absolutely no money or even a home, is required by law to be treated for his ailments without paying how can this be so?

If you have money you are expected to pay. If you have no money it's hard to get you to pay. So it is possible to start off with money and for the medical bills to bankrupt you, in theory, if you don't have insurance.

BfHeFwMe
05-28-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Viking-S:
The hatred showed in this thread towards Che Guevara is as usual based on propaganda and ignorance. The man had few wants for him self and is worldwide known and recognised as one of the true outstanding heroes of the last century. Even the "free" encyclopaedia Wikipedia (US sponsored) find very little of criticise to report in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara.

The fall of the Soviet Union is known to most and is widely debated while the fruit of Guevara and his companions work are less known. South America is rapidly becoming a new "Union" of democratic states free from the burden of military fascism and the influence of "foreign nations". All thanks to true freedom fighters and heroes like Guevara that set an example to the rest of us! He freed Cuba from fascism and he kept it free despite the US organised and financed Bay of Pigs http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/giron.htm.


Viva Che! Viva Cuba! Moerte a las Fasistas!


Viking

And all this time I was under the impression those same South Americans shot his dumb @tt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Huxley_S
05-28-2007, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

If you have money you are expected to pay. If you have no money it's hard to get you to pay. So it is possible to start off with money and for the medical bills to bankrupt you, in theory, if you don't have insurance.

So I understand why I was 100% wrong about the homeless thing and I'm glad to have been put straight about that. I was confused about the Federal 'Emergency Room' law, not realising that that's where uninsured people go, even if it's not an emergency.

So the reality is... I am guessing here... that if you've got health insurance or if you're homeless, a prisoner, or a foreigner you're ok. But the working poor and lower middle class US citizens who either don't have insurance or don't have enough insurance, could potentially lose everything and go bankrupt if they accept expensive treatment that they can't afford.

Is that right?

leitmotiv
05-28-2007, 01:40 PM
add middle class to the list and you are close

Viking-S
05-28-2007, 02:02 PM
And all this time I was under the impression those same South Americans shot his dumb @tt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif[/QUOTE]

But now you know better! Glad to be of any assistance.

Viking

DuxCorvan
05-28-2007, 02:08 PM
Moerte a las Fasistas!

Maybe you can't kill the fascists, but you've killed Spanish language for sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

C'mon, Che Guevara was a handsome guy, far cooler than Stalin or Castro together (BTW, young Castro looked just Liam Neeson). Chicks used to like those T-Shirts, they make you look sorta rebel and idealist.

And I am, looking for the ideal chick for my pr... etensions.

He has nothing to do with communism now, he's just a cliche and a fashionable icon.

Airmail109
05-28-2007, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Viking-S:
The hatred showed in this thread towards Che Guevara is as usual based on propaganda and ignorance. The man had few wants for him self and is worldwide known and recognised as one of the true outstanding heroes of the last century. Even the "free" encyclopaedia Wikipedia (US sponsored) find very little of criticise to report in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara.

The fall of the Soviet Union is known to most and is widely debated while the fruit of Guevara and his companions work are less known. South America is rapidly becoming a new "Union" of democratic states free from the burden of military fascism and the influence of "foreign nations". All thanks to true freedom fighters and heroes like Guevara that set an example to the rest of us! He freed Cuba from fascism and he kept it free despite the US organised and financed Bay of Pigs http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/giron.htm.


Viva Che! Viva Cuba! Moerte a las Fasistas!


Viking

You believe everything on wiki? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall! (El Paredn)" --Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

Guevara's "admirers" have constructed, manipulated and displayed his image for mainly political ends. The idealization of the Argentine revolutionary, who was a key figure in the Cuban Castro Revolution, portraying him as a romantic hero, intellectual and freedom fighter, contributes to the distortion of Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

This man, who ordered the execution of countless human beings while in charge of the notorious La Cabaa prison in Havana, who terrorized Cuban society and who denied freedom to thousands of citizens whom he considered "deviants" or "anti-revolutionaries" can never be accepted as a hero, martyr or -- the shock of it -- a saint. The blood of thousands of Cubans is on the hands of "Che" Guevara. The revulsion of Cubans to this event is as valid and honest as would be that of the Jewish community if confronted with the idealization of Adolf Hitler.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara dreamed of creating the "New Man" at any cost. During the Cuban missile crisis, he was in favor of a nuclear war because he believed that a better world could be built from the ashes, regardless of the cost in millions of lives. By adhering to his anti-American feelings and pro-Soviet stance, he achieved a role in history that stands for one failure after another, both in Cuba, as well as in all the other countries where he went to promote and disseminate Castro's Revolution.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara had all the characteristics of a ruthless dictator and opponent of freedom. He believed that the end justifies the means, and he fanatically adhered to this gospel. This "idealized icon" is the one who, as a modern day Grand Inquisitor, eliminated many of his foes with a single pistol shot to the back of their heads. And he is also the same one who authored these enhancing words printed in the identity booklets of young Cuban soldiers sent to fight in Angola: "Blind hate against the enemy creates a forceful impulse that cracks the boundaries of natural human limitations, transforming the soldier in an effective, selective and cold killing machine. A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary."

Guevara's elevation as symbol of goodness, due to the self-indulgence and frivolity of pampered Western pseudo revolutionaries, speaks clearly of their lack of critical objective analysis, forgetting that, as Anthony Daniels states, "The difference between Che' Guevara and Pol Pot was that Guevara never studied in Paris."


"CUBAN REVOLUTION IS NEITHER DEMOCRATIC NOR COMMUNIST, SAYS GRANDSON OF CHE

Mexico City, Oct. 17 (EFE) - The revolution in Cuba "was not democratic" and
neither is it communist now, "but rather a vulgar State capitalism also
called
'Fidelismo,'" affirmed the grandson of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Canek Sanchez
Guevara.

In a letter and a "self-interview" that is being published today in the
Mexican weekly "Proceso," Canek harshly criticized the "messianism" of Fidel
Castro
and the change of direction he made for the revolution, transforming himself
from "the young revolutionary to the elderly tyrant" who "falsified" an ideal.

"The revolution gave birth to a bourgeoisie, a repressive apparatus intended
to protect itself from the people and a bureaucracy that distanced itself
from
the people. But above all it was anti-democratic due to the religious
messianism of its leader," he indicated.

In his writings, Canek strips bare, one by one, the reasons why the Cuban
revolution distanced itself from its original purpose, such as "the
criminalization of being different" by means of the "persecution of
homosexuals, hippies,
freethinkers, anarchist and poets" and the installation of a "socialist
bourgeoisie... pretending to be proletarian."

"The revolution died years ago in Cuba: it had to be murdered by those who
invoked it to keep it from turning against them, it had to be
institutionalized
and smothered by its own bureaucracy, by corruption, by nepotism and by the
verticality of that famous organization: the 'revolutionary' Cuban state," he
said.

In addition, he didn't hesitate to brand the Castro regime as a dictatorship
and accused Castro of betraying the initial ideals of the revolution.

"In effect, Fidel liberated Cuba from Batista's gangster dictatorship, but
with his obstinate permanence in power he only achieved a reversal, turning
himself into a dictator," he asserted.

"All of my criticism of Fidel Castro begins with his distancing himself from
libertarian ideals, from the treason committed against the people of Cuba and
the fearful surveillance established to keep the State predominant over its
'people,'" he added.

The eldest grandchild of Che Guevara stated that the repression that exists
in the island, with its "perpetual surveillance over individuals" and "the
prohibition of associations that might exist at the margin of the State" is
nothing but "a vulgar State capitalism" that, according to him, will die with
Fidel.

"Let's be honest, a young rebel like Fidel Castro used to be would be
immediately executed in today's Cuba, not condemned to exile," he stated.

[Canek] Sanchez Guevara ended by saying that Marxism in Cuba is "only a
scholarly classification" and that it is from a Marxist perspective that "one
can
see the noisy collapse of a falsified ideal."

The eldest grandchild of Che Guevara was born in Cuba; he is 30 years old and
is now a Mexican citizen. He presently lives in Oaxaca and is a writer and
graphic designer. His mother, Hilda Guevara, was the first child of the
guerrilla leader."

Burro! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

He was no better than a fascist himself

Huxley_S
05-28-2007, 03:05 PM
I've been to Cuba, and I have sat in a cafe and talked openly with Cubans about Fidel Castro. The general consensus was that they love Castro but wish he would hurry up and die so that the country can move on. They are sick of the US trade embargo and the millions of dollars in lost tourism money. All these things were talked about openly without fear of being turned in by some informer.

I went to a nightclub and chatted up a veterinarian about her life in Cuba. She said pretty much the same thing, but that she loved her job and was relatively well paid for it.

I got chatting to another girl who was beautiful and educated but was sad to find out she was a prostitute. She desperately wanted to escape to the US for a better life.

Never once did anyone give the impression they were being oppressed or were afraid to speak their mind. They were just dirt poor.

My overall impression of Cuba was that despite the up-tempo music it has a certain melancholy under the surface. It's a country that is trapped in time by Castro's legacy and suffers greatly because of the embargo. I guess it would have been a very different experience if the USSR were still around.

Pics:
http://www.onemorewild.org/cuba/DSCF0021.JPG

http://www.onemorewild.org/cuba/DSCF0023.JPG

http://www.onemorewild.org/cuba/DSCF0030.JPG

muchaclopiec
05-28-2007, 03:58 PM
name me an important western leader who has not committed unspeakable acts ( and yeah im talking about Blair, Bush et al)

Che Guevara was a glider pilot..nuff said.

Hoatee
05-28-2007, 04:21 PM
Both Goring and Hess were pilots.

harryklein66
05-28-2007, 04:26 PM
Bush father and son too no ?

Blutarski2004
05-28-2007, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It must get very expensive to take the plunge and go Self Employed in the USA.


..... In that respect, yes. I can testify to that from personal experience.

Blutarski2004
05-28-2007, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by muchaclopiec:
name me an important western leader who has not committed unspeakable acts ( and yeah im talking about Blair, Bush et al).


..... Do you particularly favor that point of the compass? How about North, South, and East?


..... Is Castro a western leader?

carguy_
05-28-2007, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Some other things puzzle me about Communism. For example, the well-known aphorism: "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs" ..... :

Who exactly decides what my needs are?

Do I have a choice about what abilities I will provide. If I'm artistic and have a passion to pursue art, may I freely do so? What if the state decides that they want to exploit my ability as a ditch-digger, or a potato farmer?

Does individual free will enter into this equation in any way?


It is very complicated.People have mixed things so much that they rearely even know what they`re talking about.Basicly all the guys like Castro,Stalin,Mao,Lenin made their own version of communism but they certainly made it quite diffrent from the version of communism of Thomas Moore.

Engel and Marx added the war of classes.Lenin build on that and widedned the definition of "proletariate" to all the workers,not just the farmers - also the manufacture workers,mine workers,factory workers and all the people that generally worked very hard under the wealthy class.The "community" had to be widened to make the dream come true.There had to be vast numers of humans believing that they present something of a one group being exploited by those evil rich men.

Mao and Stalin,etc. basicly took Lenin`s communism.
Lenin talks about a chain of society relations(the system) being broken because of the weakest link.Although Lenin never said what power breaks this chain.
To control the masses,Lenin made it so that the party took the role of leading the working class.
The party is everything.It is the party who decides what is good for the people.The party decides what are your needs,abilities,contributions,etc.It is said that even if the masses do not agree with the party,the party,as the leading force,always knows better and is entitled to enforce its regulations among the masses.

Lenin knew well that even a numeric body has to have a boss...and we know into what does that translate.
Eventually idea of classic,the very core communism was forgotten,exploited by leaders who made it a one know-all man,the father of the nation.


Especially the XX century showed that Lenin`s communism created far bigger possiblities of letting the man to be corrupted by power without any real counter measures.



Amazingly enough,those people who think the real or even the XX century communism might have ever worked,are those that live in capitalism/democracy.


As for my personal experiences,the communism and later socialism has made so big of a damage not only to the state but also to the nation, my society that I am alarmed by any theoretical ramblings that communism was ever good.

LStarosta
05-28-2007, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Hoatee:
Both Goring and Hess were pilots.

Hitler got high too, but not in an aircraft.

Blutarski2004
05-28-2007, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The invisible hand of the market? ..... In a communist state? I don't think that market forces

It was an attempt at humour that obviously failed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Aaron, there's nothing at all wrong with your sense of humor. It was my obtuseness to blame for missing the joke.

Sorry 'bout that.

TC_Stele
05-28-2007, 09:12 PM
I didn't know there were so many Communist/Marxist sympathizers left these days.

AKA_TAGERT
05-28-2007, 09:19 PM
A bit suprised myself

LStarosta
05-28-2007, 10:06 PM
Kill 'em all!

Hoatee
05-29-2007, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoatee:
Both Goring and Hess were pilots.

Hitler got high too, but not in an aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Goring got high, too, only not necessarily in an aircraft.

tagTaken2
05-29-2007, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by TC_Stele:
I didn't know there were so many Communist/Marxist sympathizers left these days.

Yep, if you look hard enough, most people are pretty decent.

Anybody subscribe to the theory that the politics/society and even religions of a country are shaped by the country itself?

Harsher environment = hospitable/equitable society.

Fertile and giving environment = self-reliant and intolerant of poverty.

bazzaah2
05-29-2007, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TC_Stele:
I didn't know there were so many Communist/Marxist sympathizers left these days.

Yep, if you look hard enough, most people are pretty decent.

Anybody subscribe to the theory that the politics/society and even religions of a country are shaped by the country itself?

Harsher environment = hospitable/equitable society.

Fertile and giving environment = self-reliant and intolerant of poverty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

interesting idea. Care to expand?

tagTaken2
05-29-2007, 05:59 AM
Disclaimer: I can't recall if this was originally from an article, or just some pissed-up late-night conversation.

But there was a strong and good argument made that the worse your prospects, the more likely you were to empathize with others. The desert and icebound cultures are legendarily hospitable - down to the wife, with Eskimos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif.

In Australia, with a harsh and unforgiving climate, droughts, floods, drop bears and the like, there has always been (and perhaps this has begun to change in the past decade, don't get me started...)an attitude of "if we don't stick together mate, we're all going to go down".

In the US, by contrast an incredibly fertile land, it seems that if you had a piece of land you were pretty much sorted- if you couldn't make it work, it was laziness or bad luck. Neither of which anyone else could help you with.

WTE_Moleboy
05-29-2007, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Disclaimer: I can't recall if this was originally from an article, or just some pissed-up late-night conversation.

But there was a strong and good argument made that the worse your prospects, the more likely you were to empathize with others. The desert and icebound cultures are legendarily hospitable - down to the wife, with Eskimos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif.

In Australia, with a harsh and unforgiving climate, droughts, floods, drop bears and the like, there has always been (and perhaps this has begun to change in the past decade, don't get me started...)an attitude of "if we don't stick together mate, we're all going to go down".

In the US, by contrast an incredibly fertile land, it seems that if you had a piece of land you were pretty much sorted- if you couldn't make it work, it was laziness or bad luck. Neither of which anyone else could help you with.

I know that Guns Germs and Steel discusses the relationship between the nature of a society and the environment around that society but I am unsure if it discusses modern societies.

eLWood_NY
05-29-2007, 08:35 AM
"None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes." GOETHE

drose01
05-29-2007, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

If you have money you are expected to pay. If you have no money it's hard to get you to pay. So it is possible to start off with money and for the medical bills to bankrupt you, in theory, if you don't have insurance.

So I understand why I was 100% wrong about the homeless thing and I'm glad to have been put straight about that. I was confused about the Federal 'Emergency Room' law, not realising that that's where uninsured people go, even if it's not an emergency.

So the reality is... I am guessing here... that if you've got health insurance or if you're homeless, a prisoner, or a foreigner you're ok. But the working poor and lower middle class US citizens who either don't have insurance or don't have enough insurance, could potentially lose everything and go bankrupt if they accept expensive treatment that they can't afford.

Is that right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Glad you got set straight here in my absence, Hux. This is about right.

And the problem as well as a strength of the system is that there is a "spare no expense" culture of medicine. There is very little rationing of care or resources- everything that can be done is usually done.

To a large extent this is driven by our legal system, which will severely punish any caregiver who does not take every conceivable measure to provide the best possible outcomes. It is also driven by very high expectations of what miracles medical science can and should routinely provide. As technology advances, this becomes an extremely expensive proposition.

nickdanger3
05-30-2007, 01:23 AM
I guess it's silly after 10 pages but, would hippies wear a Che shirt? I doubt it.

Unless by hippies you mean anybody left of center, which is kinda lumping things a bit.

I never understand why, when I left my hair get long people call me a hippie...there is a bit more to one's politics than length of hair. But that would require thinking and discrimination.

Aaron_GT
05-30-2007, 01:49 AM
It is also driven by very high expectations of what miracles medical science can and should routinely provide. As technology advances, this becomes an extremely expensive proposition.

As ever an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, though.

Blutarski2004
05-30-2007, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by nickdanger3:
I guess it's silly after 10 pages but, would hippies wear a Che shirt? I doubt it.

Unless by hippies you mean anybody left of center, which is kinda lumping things a bit.

I never understand why, when I left my hair get long people call me a hippie...there is a bit more to one's politics than length of hair. But that would require thinking and discrimination.


..... As a card-carrying alumnus of the 60's Generation, permit me to illuminate the evolution of affairs. The "Hippie" movement emerged in the early 60's as an amalgam of the older 50's "Bohemian" (Beatnik) scene + the "folk" music movement + psychedelic drugs. The last real year of the hippy scene was 1967 ("Summer of Love"), although many place its demise a year earlier, before it became truly commercialized.

"Hippies" were dedicated to a "journey of self-discovery", often involving the use of psychedelic drugs (see Timothy Leary & Baba Ram Dass), Indian mysticism, yoga, etc, etc. They were "anti-establishment" in the sense that they rejected conventional mores and social expectations as impediments to that journey.

The hippy movement was fundamentally non-political. You'll be hard-pressed to find any photos of hippies participating in the civil rights marches of the early 60's.

While people associate hippies with the political upheavals and protest movement of the late 60's, the truth is that they had nothing to do with it. Long hair and other hippy fashions had simply been adopted (co-opted) by radical left-wing campus politics to make itself more palatable to its "Baby Boom" student target audience.

By 1968, the "Love Generation" had expired and been replaced by SDS ("Students for a Democratic Society"). SDS was founded in the early 60's (see "Port Huron Statement" if anyone is curious). SDS was the "youth wing" - sons and daughters of the original members of the American Communist Party, and newly funded by the USSR. It co-opted, hijacked and destroyed the "hippy" movement in pursuit of its aims.

The sudden change from peaceful and introspective social movement to confrontational political protest movement can be marked at 1968. That is the year when organized anti-war protests, "guerilla theater", campus take-overs, street riots, political assasinations, bombings, domestic terrorism, even bra-burning replaced the "Love-ins" and "Be-ins"

Unfortunately, that is why people today equate long hair to political radicalism.

If anyone is interested to learn the real deal about the 60's, I cannot recommend too highly the book "Destructive Generation" by David Horowitz. He was there; he was on the inside; and he tells it like it was.

Sorry for the rant.

MEGILE
05-30-2007, 05:05 AM
Blutarski as a hippy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Must be why you are so chilled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Viking-S
05-30-2007, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nickdanger3:
I guess it's silly after 10 pages but, would hippies wear a Che shirt? I doubt it.

Unless by hippies you mean anybody left of center, which is kinda lumping things a bit.

I never understand why, when I left my hair get long people call me a hippie...there is a bit more to one's politics than length of hair. But that would require thinking and discrimination.


..... As a card-carrying alumnus of the 60's Generation, permit me to illuminate the evolution of affairs. The "Hippie" movement emerged in the early 60's as an amalgam of the older 50's "Bohemian" (Beatnik) scene + the "folk" music movement + psychedelic drugs. The last real year of the hippy scene was 1967 ("Summer of Love"), although many place its demise a year earlier, before it became truly commercialized.

"Hippies" were dedicated to a "journey of self-discovery", often involving the use of psychedelic drugs (see Timothy Leary & Baba Ram Dass), Indian mysticism, yoga, etc, etc. They were "anti-establishment" in the sense that they rejected conventional mores and social expectations as impediments to that journey.

The hippy movement was fundamentally non-political. You'll be hard-pressed to find any photos of hippies participating in the civil rights marches of the early 60's.

While people associate hippies with the political upheavals and protest movement of the late 60's, the truth is that they had nothing to do with it. Long hair and other hippy fashions had simply been adopted (co-opted) by radical left-wing campus politics to make itself more palatable to its "Baby Boom" student target audience.

By 1968, the "Love Generation" had expired and been replaced by SDS ("Students for a Democratic Society"). SDS was founded in the early 60's (see "Port Huron Statement" if anyone is curious). SDS was the "youth wing" - sons and daughters of the original members of the American Communist Party, and newly funded by the USSR. It co-opted, hijacked and destroyed the "hippy" movement in pursuit of its aims.

The sudden change from peaceful and introspective social movement to confrontational political protest movement can be marked at 1968. That is the year when organized anti-war protests, "guerilla theater", campus take-overs, street riots, political assasinations, bombings, domestic terrorism, even bra-burning replaced the "Love-ins" and "Be-ins"

Unfortunately, that is why people today equate long hair to political radicalism.

If anyone is interested to learn the real deal about the 60's, I cannot recommend too highly the book "Destructive Generation" by David Horowitz. He was there; he was on the inside; and he tells it like it was.

Sorry for the rant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I have heard about historical revisionism but this is the first time I have seen a crystal clear case!

The hippie movment hijacked by Russian communists!!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Get real!

Viking

mortoma
05-30-2007, 06:23 AM
Actually, his dissection of what really happened in the sixties is quite accurate. Are you old enough to have lived in the sixties?? I am, so that's why I'll have to agree with Blutarksi on this one. Underlying communist/left-wing forces who were in favor of North Viet Nam winning the war, did in fact hijack the whole youth movement. By the early seventies, if you could not see this fact clearly, there was something wrong with your lame a$$!!!

horseback
05-30-2007, 09:44 AM
I'm 53, and I was around then too, and Mortoma and Blutarski are dead on. In the mid 1990s, researchers of the KGB records confirmed that the Soviets did indeed attempt to encourage, guide and fund the antiwar movement in the USA.

Naturally, this is a bit of bad news for some political personalities who got their 'starts' in those heady days (pun intended), and they and their media friends try very hard to ignore/suppress that information.

The Soviets may have lost the Cold War, but they kicked our @sses in the propaganda battle, and frankly, many of their ground troops from that battle are still active in the field.

cheers

horseback

Huxley_S
05-30-2007, 09:55 AM
The hippy movement was fundamentally non-political.

Tell that to Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Richie Havens, John Lennon etc etc etc

mortoma
05-30-2007, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The hippy movement was fundamentally non-political.

Tell that to Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Richie Havens, John Lennon etc etc etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course it was political to them!! They are among those who started to twist the movement into something else. Sad thing is many of those at the very root of the subversion were not truly anti-war in a way, they were very pro-war and very much in favor of the NVA and Vietcong winning it.
They did want it to stop eventually but only after the North won it. And they accomplished their goals obviously. The mind blown and burnt out hippies were led to be against the war but did you ever notice they only protested against the US involvment and not the North Vietnamese involvment??? They decried "baby killing" US soldiers involvment but never said a word about the thousands of atrocities committed by the north communists. They killed far more South Vietnamese civilians then our soldiers by far.
They would go into villages and kill males if they didn't fight for the Cong. And then rape and kill women to get any reamining other males to join. It worked well. But the anti-war lemmings in the US did not protest any of that. Now did they?? All of this makes it easy to see how mind control brainwashing techniques were used to subvert the youth of the day. But it's true original hippies had no part of that. That all came later because of Joan Baez types and also communist planted people at our universties and colleges.

Huxley_S
05-30-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:

All of this makes it easy to see how mind control brainwashing techniques were used to subvert the youth of the day. But it's true original hippies had no part of that.

This is just absolute rubbish.

People who believed in peace and love, getting drafted into the military to kill people who never did them any harm, in a country they otherwise never would have heard of.

People who were outraged that people were still being discriminated at home because of the colour of their skin.

These people, they weren't making up their own minds, they were all being brainwashed by communist propaganda! Sheah right!

You only have to look at the opinion polls for the Iraq war. Are these being affected by communist propaganda too? Or is it just because it's been a complete balls up?

Bring in the draft and see how popular the war is then! No communist propaganda required.

Blutarski2004
05-30-2007, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The hippy movement was fundamentally non-political.

Tell that to Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Richie Havens, John Lennon etc etc etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... My rant was confined to the cooption and demise of the "Hippy Movement" at the hands of SDS. I think you are confusing social criticism and pacifism with radical politics. Very different animals IMO.

Not everyone in the Folk/Bohemian movement and the East Village environment of the late 50's and early 60's became a hippy. There were plenty of politically active personalities in the Folk/Bohemian movement, usually focused upon the civil rights campaign - for example - Pete Seeger, long time communist, folk musician, and fixture on the East Village scene. Seeger was never a hippy.

Dylan supported the civil rights movement, but otherwise was quite insistent that he was NOT political. In fact, he rebuffed an attempt by Seeger to enlist him into radical political activities.

Lennon certainly evolved into a social critic and pacifist, especially after he fell under the spell of Yoko Ono, but was never an radical political personality.

Of course, they say that anyone who remembers the 60's wasn't really there. Maybe I imagined it all.


Groovy.

Blutarski2004
05-30-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:

All of this makes it easy to see how mind control brainwashing techniques were used to subvert the youth of the day. But it's true original hippies had no part of that.

This is just absolute rubbish.

People who believed in peace and love, getting drafted into the military to kill people who never did them any harm, in a country they otherwise never would have heard of.

People who were outraged that people were still being discriminated at home because of the colour of their skin.

These people, they weren't making up their own minds, they were all being brainwashed by communist propaganda! Sheah right!

You only have to look at the opinion polls for the Iraq war. Are these being affected by communist propaganda too? Or is it just because it's been a complete balls up?

Bring in the draft and see how popular the war is then! No communist propaganda required. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Not that I want to get embroiled in the topic, but if propaganda is as ineffectual as you argue, there would not be so very much of it. And autocrats would not be so intent upon controlling all means of communication within their domains.

I was in college from 1966 through 1970. Before 1968 it was "Marx (Groucho) and Lennon (John); after that it was "Marxism-Leninism" everywhere.

I can only speak from my own experiences and observations, If you were around then, maybe your mileage varied.

Huxley_S
05-30-2007, 11:41 AM
I can only speak from my own experiences and observations, If you were around then, maybe your mileage varied.

I wasn't there. I'm not American.

All I can say, is that if in my teens and early twenties me and my mates were being forced to go to fight in a war that I didn't believe in I'd have been very, very angry about it. I wouldn't need anyone else to tell me how to think.

Transpose that into the height of what was supposed to an era of peace and love and it's a no-brainer. The backlash would have been entirely natural and predictable, and the effect of propaganda negligible in that regard.

Obviously I wasn't there so I am making an educated guess.

NAFP_supah
05-30-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Or that he was part of a political ideology that was equally as evil as the nazis.

Ive always wondered what would happen if I put a Hitler or Stalin t-shirt on that looked liked the
Che one. Moral outage? Headline news on BBC?


You're point is highly subjective. Sure people die of lack of basic necesities in Cuba ... they also die of that in the USA. People say Castro doesn't care about the cubans? Well I heard people say "George Bush doesn't care about black people". Cuba keeps political prisoners and locks people up without proper trail? Well they probably learnt from that wonderfull example the US is setting on Cuba in guantanamo bay. I take it you are british from your use of the BBC as an example, do you think Britain kept their hands clean in their colonies? Ofcourse not, perhaps you should add your monarchs to that list of bad people. The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.

Airmail109
05-30-2007, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Or that he was part of a political ideology that was equally as evil as the nazis.

Ive always wondered what would happen if I put a Hitler or Stalin t-shirt on that looked liked the
Che one. Moral outage? Headline news on BBC?


You're point is highly subjective. Sure people die of lack of basic necesities in Cuba ... they also die of that in the USA. People say Castro doesn't care about the cubans? Well I heard people say "George Bush doesn't care about black people". Cuba keeps political prisoners and locks people up without proper trail? Well they probably learnt from that wonderfull example the US is setting on Cuba in guantanamo bay. I take it you are british from your use of the BBC as an example, do you think Britain kept their hands clean in their colonies? Ofcourse not, perhaps you should add your monarchs to that list of bad people. The world is not as black and white as you seem to think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still don't get it do you, most people where the t-shirts to rebel against what they see as evil/unethical institutions.

Yellonet
05-30-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Das Kapital = economic statement.

"What must be done" (Lenin) = political statement.

Che T-shirt = fashion statement. Best post in this sorry thread. Some people in here really needs to lighten up and realize they're not living in the fifties.

Blutarski2004
05-30-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can only speak from my own experiences and observations, If you were around then, maybe your mileage varied.

I wasn't there. I'm not American.

All I can say, is that if in my teens and early twenties me and my mates were being forced to go to fight in a war that I didn't believe in I'd have been very, very angry about it. I wouldn't need anyone else to tell me how to think.

Transpose that into the height of what was supposed to an era of peace and love and it's a no-brainer. The backlash would have been entirely natural and predictable, and the effect of propaganda negligible in that regard.

Obviously I wasn't there so I am making an educated guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The draft was a pretty benign institution in the days before VN heated up. It was broadly expected and accepted that everyone would go into the service for 2 or 4 years (depending upon branch) after high school or college or graduate school - a rite of passage in a way. In 1963 and 1964 no one really knew much or cared a great deal about VN. It was just another Cold War skirmish with minimal military involvement on the part of the US. Even in 1965 (first commitment of major US combat formations & Battle of Ia Drang) no one was very excited; at that time in the war the professional soldiers were doing the fighting and the draft was still putting along at very low monthly induction levels. Guys started looking over their shoulders in 1966 after LBJ decided to make a large-scale commitment of forces to the war. By 1967, many guys were paying a lot of attention to their draft status. Some got married to gain an exemption; others tried to wait out the war with a student exemption by piling graduate degre upon graduate degree.

Up to this time, the general media had been more or less neutral with respect to VN. Sometime in 1967, the national media changed tack and began to criticize the VN war (see Walter Cronkite). And the coverage just got blacker and blacker. Pretty much simultaneous with this, SDS (which had been a completely unknown organization in existence since about 1962) suddenly popped up from nowhere with a national presence and immediate access to media outlets. They had the money to organize and fund activists on just about every major university campus in the US.
I met my first SDS organizer in Boston in 1968; he had just arrived from the mid-West. SDS started hosting "free concerts" which basically involved a few songs from a non-descript band and a lengthy harangue from some political personality. Suddenly left-oriented front organization sprang up to champion every social and political topic you can imagine - "women's rights", "black power", "free speech", etc. When you go back and look into the backgrounds of the movers and shakers behind all this activity, they almost ALL were "red-diaper" babies.

Go back and look into some of the literature of the late 60's, especially the material that was flying around the campuses. Just some amazing stuff. Just one example here - Who coined the "Days of Rage" campaign, where mobs of demonstrators showed up in Chicago and provoked a bloody battle with police during the 1968 Democratic convention. Believe me, it was a slick and well-organized co-option campaign playing on every level you can imagine, including fear of being drafted and sent to Vietnam.

End of rant, chapter two.

Huxley_S
05-30-2007, 01:56 PM
Go back and look into some of the literature of the late 60's, especially the material that was flying around the campuses. Just some amazing stuff. Just one example here - Who coined the "Days of Rage" campaign, where mobs of demonstrators showed up in Chicago and provoked a bloody battle with police during the 1968 Democratic convention. Believe me, it was a slick and well-organized co-option campaign playing on every level you can imagine, including fear of being drafted and sent to Vietnam.

Cause and effect.

I, like many people living in the West of a non-Asian background, knew nothing about Islam prior to the invasion of Iraq and what I thought I knew was wrong. It is natural to want to find out "what are we fighting for? who is the enemy?" especially if you have little faith in the 'official' reasons.

Your point of view seems to be, that maybe that these Marxist influences in the late 60s were coming from outside, via KGB agents and the like.

But I rather think that people simply started to research what Marxism was all about out of a need to understand the Vietnam war, and many came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the US government was engaged in a war against the 'common man'. The fact that rich people were getting deferments from the draft, while poor people and minorities were sent to fight in the shadow of racial segregation at home would have only added to this perception.

For many, the war must have been a political awakening. That certainly seems the case with people like John Lennon.

Blutarski2004
05-31-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
Your point of view seems to be, that maybe that these Marxist influences in the late 60s were coming from outside, via KGB agents and the like.


.... Hux, it's not just my point of view. Read Horowitz.

I've got nothing against people studying whatever they like. What angered me was the massive violence and unrest that was intentionally provoked by people such as SDS.

Hoatee
05-31-2007, 11:05 AM
Let's go back to thee original communist revolution - the bolshevik one in 1917, of the common man if you wish to see it that way. What was it in effect? It brought to power a political party that made peace with the enemy of Russia and they surrendered the Ukraine amongst other territories in the process.

Matz0r
05-31-2007, 11:19 AM
Sorry amis, couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.pfy.nu/america.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blutarski2004
05-31-2007, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
Sorry amis, couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.pfy.nu/america.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


..... Touche', Matz. Reminds me of an old joke I once heard from a European friend:

Q What do you call someone who can speak three languages?

A Tri-lingual.

- - -

Q What do you call someone who can speak two languages?

A Bi-lingual.

- - -

Q What do you call someone who can speak one language?

A American.

nickdanger3
05-31-2007, 12:38 PM
Relying on Horowitz for a history of the Left in the 1960's is like relying on Rush Limbaugh for a history of the 1990's - you get a point of view (boy will you), but not one that a lot of more respected observers will agree with.

Blutarski2004
05-31-2007, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by nickdanger3:
Relying on Horowitz for a history of the Left in the 1960's is like relying on Rush Limbaugh for a history of the 1990's - you get a point of view (boy will you), but not one that a lot of more respected observers will agree with.


..... Excuse me, but what do you know about David Horowitz and his biographical background?

nickdanger3
05-31-2007, 02:25 PM
Only what I've read. C'mon, you've got to agree that he's more of a opinionater than a journalist/historian.

He's highly partisan, that's all I;m saying.

AKA_TAGERT
05-31-2007, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Q What do you call someone who can speak three languages?

A Tri-lingual.

- - -

Q What do you call someone who can speak two languages?

A Bi-lingual.

- - -

Q What do you call someone who can speak one language?

A American.
LOL!

That reminds me of some of the debates I use to get in with some of the Germans down at the bar when I lived in Germany.. No mater what the subject.. it allways ended the same.. The German would get upset about something..

Than toss the..

GERMAN: "WELL YOU AMERICANS DON'T SCORE VERY HIGH IN GEOGRAPHY"
ME: Motivation
GERMAN: What?
ME: No motivation to learn Geography
GERMAN: What? Why? Explain please!
ME: Explain? Sure, ok, When you live in a country where you can drive for 3 days in your car in one direction and still be in your country on the 3rd day.. You don't have a whole lot of motivation to learn Geography! Where as in Germany, you drive in any direction for 3 hours and you could be in one of several different countries. I HOPE TO GOD YOU KNOW YOUR GEOGRAPHY!
GERMAN: <Face turns red and stomps off with a small whimper in his voice>

Or they will toss in the..

GERMAN: "WELL YOU AMERICANS DON'T SPEAK MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE"
ME: Motivation
GERMAN: What?
ME: No motivation to learn a 2nd language.
GERMAN: What? Why? Explain please!
ME: Explain? Sure, ok, When you live in a country where you can drive for 3 days in your car in one direction and still be in your country speaking your language on the 3rd day.. You don't have a whole lot of motivation to learn another Language. That and between the UK and the US we kicked the snot out of just about every other country in the world, thus they learned to speak English to kiss up to us! Where as in Germany, you drive in any direction for 3 hours and you could be speaking one of several different languages. I HOPE TO GOD YOU KNOW MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE!
GERMAN: <Face turns red and stomps off with a small whimper in his voice>

And if the subject of Hitler would come up.. The Germans would point out all the Indians we killed off.. At which point I would point out a big percentage of our Army at that time was made up of German imagrents. I didn't know if that was true or not.. But it was 'true' enough to cause the German to get red faced and stomp off with a small whimper in his voice.

Ah.. Good times!

LStarosta
05-31-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Q What do you call someone who can speak three languages?

A Tri-lingual.

- - -

Q What do you call someone who can speak two languages?

A Bi-lingual.

- - -

Q What do you call someone who can speak one language?

A American.
LOL!

That reminds me of some of the debates I use to get in with some of the Germans down at the bar when I lived in Germany.. No mater what the subject.. it allways ended the same.. The German would get upset about something..

Than toss the..

GERMAN: "WELL YOU AMERICANS DON'T SCORE VERY HIGH IN GEOGRAPHY"
ME: Motivation
GERMAN: What?
ME: No motivation to learn Geography
GERMAN: What? Why? Explain please!
ME: Explain? Sure, ok, When you live in a country where you can drive for 3 days in your car in one direction and still be in your country on the 3rd day.. You don't have a whole lot of motivation to learn Geography! Where as in Germany, you drive in any direction for 3 hours and you could be in one of several different countries. I HOPE TO GOD YOU KNOW YOUR GEOGRAPHY!
GERMAN: <Face turns red and stomps off with a small whimper in his voice>

Or they will toss in the..

GERMAN: "WELL YOU AMERICANS DON'T SPEAK MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE"
ME: Motivation
GERMAN: What?
ME: No motivation to learn a 2nd language.
GERMAN: What? Why? Explain please!
ME: Explain? Sure, ok, When you live in a country where you can drive for 3 days in your car in one direction and still be in your country speaking your language on the 3rd day.. You don't have a whole lot of motivation to learn another Language. That and between the UK and the US we kicked the snot out of just about every other country in the world, thus they learned to speak English to kiss up to us! Where as in Germany, you drive in any direction for 3 hours and you could be speaking one of several different languages. I HOPE TO GOD YOU KNOW MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE!
GERMAN: <Face turns red and stomps off with a small whimper in his voice>

And if the subject of Hitler would come up.. The Germans would point out all the Indians we killed off.. At which point I would point out a big percentage of our Army at that time was made up of German imagrents. I didn't know if that was true or not.. But it was 'true' enough to cause the German to get red faced and stomp off with a small whimper in his voice.

Ah.. Good times! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL p00nt.

horseback
05-31-2007, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by nickdanger3:
Only what I've read. C'mon, you've got to agree that he's more of a opinionater than a journalist/historian.

He's highly partisan, that's all I;m saying. Nick, Horowitz has one advantage that most of your "respected observers" don't--he was there, right in the middle of it. He has reported what he saw and heard at the times and places where these things happened, whereas the "respected observers" are interpreting what they think happened based on secondary and tertiary sources.

What convinced me of Horowitz' veracity is that he admits his own complicity (and has repented, which I freely admit, appeals to my Puritanistic Yankee soul) and his account is consistant with my own recollection of the times, and the records of both the FBI and what has been revealed from the KGB's archives.

Of course he's partisan; he could not reverse his political and moral course without a change of heart and mind. One must decide whether he just 'sold out the revolution' for fame and profit, or realized that his parents' imagined 'revolution' had long ago been coopted and corrupted by very evil men.

cheers

horseback

Blutarski2004
05-31-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by nickdanger3:
Only what I've read. C'mon, you've got to agree that he's more of a opinionater than a journalist/historian.

He's highly partisan, that's all I;m saying.


..... Didn't mean to make it sound like I was jumping on you.

The reason I suggested Horowitz is that he himself was one of those "red-diaper" babies of dedicated communist parents who was indoctrinated in Marxism-Leninism from earliest youth, then grew up to become a very powerful top-echelon New Left mover, shaker, and activist during the 60's and 70's. He was, among other things, editor of the Evergreen Review - the official and highly influential theoretical journal of the New Left. Horowitz knew everyone important in the movement; he knew everything that was going on - both overt and covert; he knows where all the bodies and skeletons are buried.

There is a reason why he is considered an anathema and a traitor by the American Left, and it's not because he is a conservative political activist nowadays. He is hated by the American Left because he "spilled the beans".

Horowitz's book "Destructive Generation" (written about 20 years ago) is not a political opinion piece as much as it is an unvarnished history of the New Left movement. I consider him the Vasili Mitrokhin of the American New Left. It's makes for dense reading in places, as might be expected from someone who had developed his expository skills writing philosphical Marxist-Leninist political tracts for many years. But it is never the less well worth reading.


Far out .....

Huxley_S
05-31-2007, 07:01 PM
The reason I suggested Horowitz is that he himself was one of those "red-diaper" babies of dedicated communist parents who was indoctrinated in Marxism-Leninism from earliest youth, then grew up to become a very powerful top-echelon New Left mover, shaker, and activist during the 60's and 70's. He was, among other things, editor of the Evergreen Review - the official and highly influential theoretical journal of the New Left. Horowitz knew everyone important in the movement; he knew everything that was going on - both overt and covert; he knows where all the bodies and skeletons are buried.

I have a deep distrust for those on the hard left who saw the 'light' and became neoconservatives.

There are people who have leftist sympathies because they believe in equality and don't like the idea of huge differences in equity between rich and poor, and want to do something about it within the democratic process.

Then there are those who are attracted to communism because of the 'control' it promises to give to the vanguard elite.

That's the common denominator between communists and neoconservatives (and the Islamists for that matter), they both believe in the role of the vanguard elite and that the unwashed masses are simply sheep to be herded this way and that by said vanguard. See Irving Kristol.

Veltro_28
06-02-2007, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
Sorry amis, couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.pfy.nu/america.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif sad but so true...

J.M.LLOYD
06-02-2007, 12:41 AM
Did you know brothers that the image we see of Che Guevara on all those T shirts, is the most reproduced photo of all time........so there

AKA_TAGERT
06-02-2007, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by J.M.LLOYD:
Did you know brothers that the image we see of Che Guevara on all those T shirts, is the most reproduced photo of all time........so there Do wanted posters count?

drose01
06-10-2007, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Viking-S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nickdanger3:
I guess it's silly after 10 pages but, would hippies wear a Che shirt? I doubt it.

Unless by hippies you mean anybody left of center, which is kinda lumping things a bit.

I never understand why, when I left my hair get long people call me a hippie...there is a bit more to one's politics than length of hair. But that would require thinking and discrimination.


..... As a card-carrying alumnus of the 60's Generation, permit me to illuminate the evolution of affairs. The "Hippie" movement emerged in the early 60's as an amalgam of the older 50's "Bohemian" (Beatnik) scene + the "folk" music movement + psychedelic drugs. The last real year of the hippy scene was 1967 ("Summer of Love"), although many place its demise a year earlier, before it became truly commercialized.

"Hippies" were dedicated to a "journey of self-discovery", often involving the use of psychedelic drugs (see Timothy Leary & Baba Ram Dass), Indian mysticism, yoga, etc, etc. They were "anti-establishment" in the sense that they rejected conventional mores and social expectations as impediments to that journey.

The hippy movement was fundamentally non-political. You'll be hard-pressed to find any photos of hippies participating in the civil rights marches of the early 60's.

While people associate hippies with the political upheavals and protest movement of the late 60's, the truth is that they had nothing to do with it. Long hair and other hippy fashions had simply been adopted (co-opted) by radical left-wing campus politics to make itself more palatable to its "Baby Boom" student target audience.

By 1968, the "Love Generation" had expired and been replaced by SDS ("Students for a Democratic Society"). SDS was founded in the early 60's (see "Port Huron Statement" if anyone is curious). SDS was the "youth wing" - sons and daughters of the original members of the American Communist Party, and newly funded by the USSR. It co-opted, hijacked and destroyed the "hippy" movement in pursuit of its aims.

The sudden change from peaceful and introspective social movement to confrontational political protest movement can be marked at 1968. That is the year when organized anti-war protests, "guerilla theater", campus take-overs, street riots, political assasinations, bombings, domestic terrorism, even bra-burning replaced the "Love-ins" and "Be-ins"

Unfortunately, that is why people today equate long hair to political radicalism.

If anyone is interested to learn the real deal about the 60's, I cannot recommend too highly the book "Destructive Generation" by David Horowitz. He was there; he was on the inside; and he tells it like it was.

Sorry for the rant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I have heard about historical revisionism but this is the first time I have seen a crystal clear case!

The hippie movment hijacked by Russian communists!!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Get real!

Viking </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yuri Bezmenov on demoralization (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pE8MCSu_K-A)


Interesting link to an ex KGB agent talking exactly about this issue.

He disagrees with you Viking.

Copperhead310th
06-10-2007, 11:03 PM
i cannot belive that

1. this f*cking garbage hasn't been locked yet.

2..the anti this country anti that country bullsh*t has been allowed to contenue

and that sone j@kass had the balls to go and dig this thing up from the dead.

this image alone should have been enough to get the original poster a time out if not a ban.
http://www.pfy.nu/america.gif
this is nothing but bullsh*t.

JohnnyBlademan
06-11-2007, 06:04 AM
Wow! I hop outa the cockpit to go to grad-school and when I come back all the same good people are still here, sharing and caring....Warms me heart I tell ya.
Veltro, while very pretty and simplistic (all the easier for Yu-ro-pe-uns who would post something as insulting to comprehend) there are a few GROSS errors on your map old-boy.

First, we American know that there are no dragons! Besides, savage, brutal, sadistic dictators are much scarier and you know if we could catch a dragon we'd make a Disney movie about it.
Second, only the French speaking part of Canada is backward....even the rest of Canada says as much.
Third, everyone knows that Yurop is spelled with an "E" - Yurope!
OH, all the maps made in America use different colors, so that's probably wrong too. Man, I've really missed you guys and gals! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

msalama
06-11-2007, 06:18 AM
this is nothing but bullsh*t.

Ain't nothing but a joke AFAICT.

WTE_Moleboy
06-11-2007, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
i cannot belive that

1. this f*cking garbage hasn't been locked yet.

2..the anti this country anti that country bullsh*t has been allowed to contenue

and that sone j@kass had the balls to go and dig this thing up from the dead.

this image alone should have been enough to get the original poster a time out if not a ban.
http://www.pfy.nu/america.gif
this is nothing but bullsh*t.

I am sorry Copperhead but I do not understand your reaction. I understand and realize that that it suggests Americans are narrow minded but it is a joke. Simply put all countries have stereotypes- Australians for example are stereotyped as being crocodile lovers who wear khaki and carry large knives. What I am trying to say is that anyone with half a brain realizes that there is more to a nation than the stereotypes. Unfortunately Americans are unfairly stereotyped in some parts of the world as having little knowledge of the rest of the world. Yes, the image is a tired old joke which could be seen by some as offensive but calling for the person who posted it to be given a ban is unnecessary for what was clearly meant as a joke.

Blutarski2004
06-11-2007, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viking-S:
Well I have heard about historical revisionism but this is the first time I have seen a crystal clear case!

The hippie movment hijacked by Russian communists!!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Get real!

Viking


Yuri Bezmenov on demoralization (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pE8MCSu_K-A)


Interesting link to an ex KGB agent talking exactly about this issue.

He disagrees with you Viking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Thanks for posting that, Drose. I was not aware of Mr Bezmenov's interview. Just backs up what Mitrokhin stated in his second book.

It amazes me that people still deny the fact, even though copious original archival corroboration was released from Soviet archives in 1989 - nearly twenty years ago.

Go figure.

LStarosta
06-11-2007, 10:03 AM
Interesting videos, thanks!

MEGILE
06-11-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by drose01:

Yuri Bezmenov on demoralization (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pE8MCSu_K-A)


Interesting link to an ex KGB agent talking exactly about this issue.

He disagrees with you Viking.

Fantastic videos... an insight into the workings of the russian soviet and KGB system.

luftluuver
06-11-2007, 11:08 AM
WTE_Moleboy,

I remember vary clearly an American car pulling over and asking where the snow was (in the early/mid '60s). This in mid July and the temperature around 75F. They had skies on top of the car and fur coats in the back seat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif We told them to go south and west to Colorado.

Not to many years ago the National Geographic had a international geography bee for pre high school kids. The American had their butts kicked and NG started a campaign to have more global geography taught in schools.

drose01
06-11-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Thanks for posting that, Drose. I was not aware of Mr Bezmenov's interview. Just backs up what Mitrokhin stated in his second book.

It amazes me that people still deny the fact, even though copious original archival corroboration was released from Soviet archives in 1989 - nearly twenty years ago.

Go figure.

Funny, Bezmenov talks exactly about that phenomen in his interview- that people who are thoroughly indoctrinated are resistant to accepting facts that are dissonant with their beliefs. Right until their first beating in the Gulag.

xenophonic
06-11-2007, 06:48 PM
Firstly, the map gave me quite a chuckle. For that reason alone, thanks. I also find it funny when people get all tetchy over good satire.

Secondly, my favorite tee shirts featured Ho Chi Minh (never got accosted over it like I did when wearing more 'regular' hippy t shirts, and a weird one that had a broken red star with the words 'The Party Is Over' - made in china, bought from vendor on steps of Kremlin with US dollar in early nineties. I wore that one to court when taken there by cops after hippy protest about some war or another. The only one who got the joke was the magistrate. Old hippy I suspect.

I think I'd have my head beaten in if I wore a serious teeshirt with nazi superstar on it, and would be abused with one with George Bush.

Hatred lies in the eye of the beholder.