Utopia Talk / Politics / I understand now

Rugian Member	Sat Oct 04 18:50:28 ...why the occasional assassination of political leaders is a necessary part of democracy.
Visably Shaken Member	Sat Oct 04 18:52:14 good point 10/10
Madc0w Member	Sat Oct 04 18:55:08 The reason is more lucid than ever before; unfortunately, it is very difficult to assassinate 400+ people.
Visably Shaken Member	Sat Oct 04 18:58:22 This thread is making me think wrong things. I must tune out for a while.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 19:00:32 madcow, Look to Pinochet
Master Bates Member	Sat Oct 04 19:30:16 why would he look to a fascist dictator?
Real Fred Member	Sat Oct 04 19:39:26 "madcow, Look to Pinochet " Assassination begins at home. After that we can worry about other nations.
Master Bates Member	Sat Oct 04 19:41:42 I suppose poison has already reported this thread to the FBC.
Master Bates Member	Sat Oct 04 19:43:30 *FBI
NeverWoods Member	Sat Oct 04 19:44:33 I was wondering who the hell FBC was, he he.
NeverWoods Member	Sat Oct 04 19:45:32 Foreign Buyers Club - google.
Visably Shaken Member	Sat Oct 04 20:22:28 FBC probably owns FBI by now.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 20:38:03 "why would he look to a fascist dictator? " He successfully assasinated an entire regime "Assassination begins at home. After that we can worry about other nations. " Pinochet is dead...but like I said before, he was claiming it was difficult to assisnate 400 some people, I responded by suggesting a military coup de tat AKA a Putsch such as Pinochet did
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 20:42:14 "I responded by suggesting a military coup de tat AKA a Putsch such as Pinochet did " Why do you even care if you have a right to vote? Or freedom of speech? I mean who needs that shit?
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 20:46:33 Madcow was looking for a way to assasinate 400 some folks(government) I suggested a Putsch, and gave an example. nothing more.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 20:48:37 Where guns may fail, rockets may suceed, and a Putsch could very well be used to save freedom from tyrants, not always the other way around.
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 20:48:55 allright then. I wrongly assumed you were advocating it.
Madc0w Member	Sat Oct 04 20:51:50 "Madcow was looking for a way to assasinate 400 some folks(government)" OK, thanks for the advice, I'll look into it and see what I can do.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 20:59:32 CR, In the US? no, but they seemed to help out Rome several times. And it's a different thread, but I would have supported Pinochets....we've gone down that road seeral times on these boards. Mc, Yeah you do that....
Real Fred Member	Sat Oct 04 21:00:56 The answer lies in Mars Attacks.
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 21:22:41 "And it's a different thread, but I would have supported Pinochets" Why do you even care if you have a right to vote? Or freedom of speech? I mean who needs that shit?
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 21:31:39 Why do you need freedom of choice? or the right to better yourself? With no economic freedom, the freedom of press is limited.
Madc0w Member	Sat Oct 04 21:32:25 "Or freedom of speech? I mean who needs that shit? " I do.
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 21:33:15 "Why do you need freedom of choice? or the right to better yourself? " Huh?
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 04 21:34:41 CrownRoyal is either trolling or actually supports the shit that has been going on for the past 7 years, including everything that has gone down in the last 2 weeks, which would make him a complete moron. Either way, he can be ignored.
Madc0w Member	Sat Oct 04 21:35:17 Pretty sure it's trolling.
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 21:38:03 "CrownRoyal is either trolling or actually supports the shit that has been going on for the past 7 years," So, you think that assassination is the answer? habebe believes that, plus he is for dissolution of all political parties and banning of any dissent.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 04 21:39:44 I never said that habebe, who supports legalizing heroin, is a very intelligent individual. There are idiots that will support any idea out there, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad one.
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 21:42:58 "There are idiots that will support any idea out there, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad one. ' the idea of killing people who are responsible for the "shit that has been going on for the past 7 years," is quite attractive. But not as an assassination. Impeachment, removal from the office, conviction, execution. We are not some Third World animals.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 21:43:40 "So, you think that assassination is the answer? habebe believes that, plus he is for dissolution of all political parties and banning of any dissent. " No, I never said that. I am for "containment", one of the best foreign policies the US had. Allende was a puppet regime for the USSR, Pinochet you forget to mention after an admittedly ruthless reign for a bit (he had pretty much a civil war going on...) turned the nation into a Repbulic and did some selfish things IMHO that he deserved after all he had done for the nation and the world. the US and the UK also supported him.
Rugian Member	Sat Oct 04 21:45:06 "the idea of killing people who are responsible for the "shit that has been going on for the past 7 years," is quite attractive. But not as an assassination. Impeachment, removal from the office, conviction, execution." Normally, yes. What are the chances of ANYONE ever being impeached, removed from officed, convicted, or executed?
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 21:47:18 "No, I never said that" yeah you did. That was exactly what Pinochet did. " Allende was a puppet regime for the USSR" So? He was democratically elected. "an admittedly ruthless reign for a bit " That is why I am saying, why do you need a right to vote or freedom of speech? You should sit quietly and hope that your ruler will some day pull a Pinochet and surrender some of his powers. Never mind that for every 1 example of that, there are 100 of examples of rulers who did not give up any power. " the US and the UK also supported him. " Spreading democracy, of course.
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 21:48:34 "What are the chances of ANYONE ever being impeached, removed from officed, convicted, or executed?" slim to none, admittedly.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 21:50:24 "the idea of killing people who are responsible for the "shit that has been going on for the past 7 years," is quite attractive. But not as an assassination. Impeachment, removal from the office, conviction, execution. We are not some Third World animals. " I agree, I never said I was for assasination, will I play the devils advocate? from time to time Rugian, "I never said that habebe, who supports legalizing heroin, is a very intelligent individual." First off, lets make one thing clear, I personally abhor heroin junkies, I've dabbled into narcotics in the past, but never opiates, I find them disgusting and useless outside of painkillers for medicinal usage. That said, I think the policy in the US of prohibiting them is more detrimental to society then if it were legal and controlled.
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 21:50:56 You know Rugian, come to think of it, maybe you are right. Just change the names. (I just watched "John Adams" again). Maybe it is a time for a revolution. Assassination just sounds bad.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 21:58:22 cr, He did do that, in the midst of a civil war, the continent of S. America was in chaos. Leftist Guerillas held them in fear, killing many more then Pinochet did, it was a necesary evil to contain a great evil of communsim. The Allied powers of WWII killed many people and suspended many peoples freedoms as well. But wouldn't you agree that the ends justified the means? Even Mugabe was democratically elected, that does not mean anything. A democratically elected figure that is a puppet regime of a tolaitarian tyrant is a bit of joke isn't it? Ypou also seem to minimalize the freedom of economic choice, which without it, freedom of speech and voting are extremley limited.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 22:00:34 "You know Rugian, come to think of it, maybe you are right. Just change the names. (I just watched "John Adams" again). Maybe it is a time for a revolution. Assassination just sounds bad. " Well, you could always just attempt to secede from the Union, Texas for example still votes (I think every four years, could be wrong on the time frame) whether it will stay in the Union or secede, although the vote is always something like 97% to stay in.
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 22:07:21 "But wouldn't you agree that the ends justified the means? " No, because then all ends justify all means. "Even Mugabe was democratically elected, that does not mean anything." Mugabe was democratically elected only the first time (or two). After that , elections were a sham. "A democratically elected figure that is a puppet regime of a tolaitarian tyrant is a bit of joke isn't it? " Democratically elected figure is just that - a democratically elected figure. That means that a majority of voters support him. "Ypou also seem to minimalize the freedom of economic choice, which without it, freedom of speech and voting are extremley limited. ' I don't even know what that means. Without voting you have no choice, limited or not.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 22:15:58 "I don't even know what that means. Without voting you have no choice, limited or not. " In order to be effective at swaying peoples opinion(s), you need to be able to finance it, if you ever get a chance look into a book called "Free to choose" by Milton friedman (and his wife) excellent in sight into the issue. If a nation like the USSR is bankrolling your election campaigns in a nation like Chile isn't that a sham election? and to be honest, I really would not trust them to completley rig them "No, because then all ends justify all means. " Well then, do you beleive it was equally wrong for the Allied powers to kill in order to stop the Axis powers?
crownroyal Member	Sat Oct 04 22:33:30 "In order to be effective at swaying peoples opinion(s), you need to be able to finance it, if you ever get a chance look into a book called "Free to choose" by Milton friedman (and his wife) excellent in sight into the issue. " Effective != right. Perhaps we have a sucky system, where people's opinions are swayed best by material factors. But to say that we should be wealthy before we should be free is wrong. "If a nation like the USSR is bankrolling your election campaigns in a nation like Chile isn't that a sham election? " This is baseless. There is no legitimate reason to suggest that Alliende did not win fair and square. CIA suggestions that he recieved some money from Cuba are similar to suggestions about the Iraqi WMDs. Not to mention the fact that his opposition was financed by the US companies. And just the fact that these companies were from US and not from the USSR, doesn't make them democratic. They cared about their profits, that is it. "Well then, do you beleive it was equally wrong for the Allied powers to kill in order to stop the Axis powers? " Kill the troops of the Axis powers in a war? No, not really. I am saying that every cause is just (for the people who fight for it). Do you believe that Lenin was right? Forget about the end, you could easily say that Lenin meant well and his successors fucked up a little. Perhaps, had he lived , the end would have justified the means (paradise for the workers and peasants)? How about Osama? 3k of dead americans is a cheap price to establish peace in the world (whatever that means to him). I am going to watch SNL now, will be back later.
habebe Member	Sat Oct 04 22:51:49 "Effective != right. Perhaps we have a sucky system, where people's opinions are swayed best by material factors. But to say that we should be wealthy before we should be free is wrong. " I apologize if I didn't elaborate enough. In a Capitalistic society, a person only has to persuade a handfull of moderatley wealthy people to be able to finance campaigns for positive change, in a state of communism this is almost impossible. "This is baseless. There is no legitimate reason to suggest that Alliende did not win fair and square. CIA suggestions that he recieved some money from Cuba are similar to suggestions about the Iraqi WMDs." BUt keep in mind that even Mugabe has not been PROVEN to rig elections, even th ough it is almost common knowledge "Not to mention the fact that his opposition was financed by the US companies." His opposition was funded by the CIA and the equivelant of that in the UK under Thatcher, thus atleast IMO lending them more credibility, is this bias? definitley, but that is human nature. As for the ends/means debate I'll concede it is a slippery slope and I'll probably go watch SNL as well, I forgot it was on!
Sam Adams Member	Sat Oct 04 23:08:03 "The reason is more lucid than ever before; unfortunately, it is very difficult to assassinate 400+ people. " guy fawkes??????
Garyd Member	Sat Oct 04 23:20:32 If this were the only alternative it would be difficult enough to swallow but there were other ways of dealing with this other than letting the system - such as it is collapse. The single most irritating thing however was how much pork the masses of asses in our congress ladled on to the top oif the seven hundred billion. And now Arnie says while the feds are doling at money could slip CA. about 7 billion? To which my response is let California stew in it's own damn juices till they quiting trying to tax all the businesses out of existence and the peopl out there elect some one rational to run their state legislature. Hell for that matter hit up the Hollywood left for the money those bastards got plenty of cash and don't spend it on anything worthwhile anyway.
Alarmed Member	Sun Oct 05 04:20:30 habebe: Saying "bias = human nature" is not a valid argument. Allende was democratically elected. The USA often picked the wrong side in Latin America during the cold war, backing reactionaries and the ruling classes of virtually feudal societies, instead of the liberal reformists. Especially in central america. It was this that led to *some* oppositions look to the USSR for aid. Allende was not one of them. He never received soviet aid, as far as I am aware. And what exactly are you referring to when you use the term "economic freedom"? Because the way you're using it sounds like spin. And if you believe economic development trumps freedom, the stalinist model of rapid industrialisation ought to look pretty good to you. Worked for North Korea until the 70s. The 'crisis' facing Latin America did not require coups and brutal US-backed dictatorships as a solution. The solution was reform. Pinochet, along with the military in Argentina (where many with leftist views (i.e. not guerillas) were kidnapped and thrown into the Rio De la Plata) and all the others were a huge mistake. No wonder the region is so distrustful of the USA today even.
Alarmed Member	Sun Oct 05 04:49:36 The right-wing revisionist view of Pinochet is nonsense. In Chile the consensus is that the Pinochet regime was monstrous. Allende wasn't perfect, but he didn't torture his political opponents.
werewolf dictator Member	Sun Oct 05 06:52:06 chimerica is more central america, but habebe might like this abandonware if he dont mind 1988 dosbox http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/138/Hidden+Agenda.html
Garyd Member	Sun Oct 05 08:10:29 Only because Allende never had the opportunity. Pinochet never was a Stalinist and not a few of those who were his victims would have been victimizers themselves were it not for Pinochet. Pinochet never ran a planned economy and left wing revisionism always sucks worse than right wing revisionism. The great tragedy of the Cold War was that we never found a middle ground between the thugs of the supposed right and the worse thugs of the very real and far left.
Alarmed Member	Sun Oct 05 08:17:06 "Only because Allende never had the opportunity." That is a non-argument. Where's the evidence that Allende was introducing totalitarianism? Pinochet's coup was a huge over-reaction to the 'crisis'. Meanwhile Pinochet tortured tens of thousands of people. Saying that the victims would have been the perpetrators is science-fiction. It's also a moral obscenity: what kind of excuse for mass torture is that? "The great tragedy of the Cold War was that we never found a middle ground between the thugs of the supposed right and the worse thugs of the very real and far left." The USA hardly even tried in Latin America. It decided to endorse the status-quo, back the landholders and rightwing catholicism.
Garyd Member	Sun Oct 05 08:27:16 It was easier. It was also stupid. The closest we ever got to getting it right was in El Salvador under Reagan. And there were always plenty of goons on both sides. And the shining success that was supposedly North Korea in the 70's was largely illusory.
Alarmed Member	Sun Oct 05 08:30:44 I don't know anything about El Salvador, so I'm not going to challenge you on that. "the shining success that was supposedly North Korea in the 70's was largely illusory." See also: shining success of USA, 2001-present. Stalinist collectivisation was an effecive way of building heavy industry rapidly. It is also a monstrous method of doing so, but if we're privilging economic development over all else then who gives a shit, right?
Garyd Member	Sun Oct 05 09:35:02 Allende's approach would have been any better and would have almost certainly had worse results over time. Our chief problem in the US is that actual capitalism has been under used and under appreciated for the last forty years. If one includes state county and local governments along with the Feds we are likely spending over half our GDP on government. That would be more than the entire GDP of any other country in the world. Our problem here-in is almost exactly that of the former Soviet Union in that our government has become far too large to be either effective or efficient.
habebe Member	Sun Oct 05 09:48:35 "Saying "bias = human nature" is not a valid argument. Allende was democratically elected. " Again, so was Mugabe, wihout legitamate elections, it means nothing. I beleive Kim Jong Il was democratically elected as well. "And what exactly are you referring to when you use the term "economic freedom"? Because the way you're using it sounds like spin. " The freedom to control your own economic destiny. start your own bussiness, choose what job you want, or quit. It's called Capitalism. "And if you believe economic development trumps freedom, the stalinist model of rapid industrialisation ought to look pretty good to you. Worked for North Korea until the 70s." I never said that, I've argued for economic freedom.
roland Member	Sun Oct 05 10:11:35 "Again, so was Mugabe, wihout legitamate elections, it means nothing. " How can you be democratically elected in a illegitimate election. "I beleive Kim Jong Il was democratically elected as well." I believe you are a moron and that is closer to the true. "....In 1998, his Defense Commission position was declared to be "the highest post of the state", so Kim may be regarded as North Korea's head of state from that date. Since Kim is not the president, he is not constitutionally required to hold elections to confirm his legitimacy and has not done so..." "The freedom to control your own economic destiny. start your own bussiness, choose what job you want, or quit. It's called Capitalism. " Social freedom and economic freedom are interrelated in many aspects. Say you want to be a writer, while you are free to do whatever job you want, but you are not allow to distribute any ideas you have because your social rights are not guaranteed, so you will failed as an author. There are no way you can have true economic freedom without some protection on your social rights. You are dreaming, buddy.
Garyd Member	Sun Oct 05 10:25:50 Social freedom and economic freedom are interrelated in many aspects. Say you want to be a writer, while you are free to do whatever job you want, but you are not allow to distribute any ideas you have because your social rights are not guaranteed, so you will failed as an author. Roland how about some clarification? As it stand it makes no siense at all.
roland Member	Sun Oct 05 10:29:52 Go read up the exchange between habebe and others.
Garyd Member	Sun Oct 05 10:34:57 Sorry I have it still doesn't explain your comment had it I would not have asked for a clarification in the first place.
roland Member	Sun Oct 05 10:46:29 Context: Habebe said: "Why do you need freedom of choice? or the right to better yourself? With no economic freedom, the freedom of press is limited. " My point is if these is no social freedom, such as freedom to speech, press or decide the government, you don't really have economic freedom.
Alarmed Member	Sun Oct 05 11:25:56 Garyd: "Allende's approach would have been any better and would have almost certainly had worse results over time." Again, you can say stuff like this but it is meaningless. What are you basing this assertion on? "Our problem here-in is almost exactly that of the former Soviet Union in that our government has become far too large to be either effective or efficient." I'd say the problem with the world today is that too many see free markets as an end rather than a means. habebe: "Again, so was Mugabe, wihout legitamate elections, it means nothing. I beleive Kim Jong Il was democratically elected as well." What specifically are you saying was wrong with Allende's election? He achieved a plurality of the vote. The vote was as free as any could be in Chile at the time, considering the superpowers' interference. Allende is not a comparable figure to Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il. He's nothing like them, infact (nor are they anything like each other: and Kim wasnt elected). "The freedom to control your own economic destiny. start your own bussiness, choose what job you want, or quit. It's called Capitalism." Why do you believe this trumps other freedoms, like the freedom to say what you want? And surely capacity is a more important restriction than government interference here? The whole idea of economic freedom only really makes sense in the context of a welfare state. Without basic provisions the rhetoric of 'economic freedom' is just an excuse for governments to ignore the underclass.
Alarmed Member	Sun Oct 05 11:29:09 Garyd: You see, we know what Allende did. He nationalized a few companies, initiated publics works, and he fed the poor. He probably fucked up the economy too. Pinochet, on the other hand, tortured tens of thousands of people. To say the Allende would've almost certainly been worse is just bullshit.
Master Bates Member	Sun Oct 05 11:39:57 gayd pwnd with ease lol
roland Member	Sun Oct 05 20:33:00 y
Dakyron Member	Mon Oct 06 13:12:48 "The reason is more lucid than ever before; unfortunately, it is very difficult to assassinate 400+ people." I was thinking 537.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: