Ford-Carter debate excerpt

lumpagogo Says:

Oct 14, 2009 - Ford was a WWII Navy vet, a combat vet. Carter graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946, then served four years. Ronald Wilson Reagan, aka President 666, made army instruction movies during WWII, never even went to basic training.

lumpagogo Says:

Oct 14, 2009 - There's never been any international law banning communism or socialism; it should never have been our policy to tell others how to run their economic affairs. The so-called "Cold War" was largely our doing--we were told to 'believe' the "Iron Curtain" included Poland and Romania. We were told a lot of things. P.S. There are still plenty of socialist and communist countries around. Why we are not loudly complaining and threatening them?

esb84 Says:

Oct 16, 2009 - Obviously you don't know the history of the matter; Ford stuck by his statement for the next 6 days until it became such a disaster that he was forced to retract it.

esb84 Says:

Oct 16, 2009 - There are not plenty of communist countries around, and socialist countries are not even in the same category. You need a history lesson, the Cold War was started after WWII when Stalin held onto everything east of Germany that the USSR had supposedly "liberated", and proclaimed it Soviet conquered land. Then there was the Berlin Airlift, Greece, Poland, and other major events that started the Cold War. Read up on it and get back to me if you have any questions.

lumpagogo Says:

Oct 17, 2009 - Our friends who are dedicated to subjectivity must have forgotten about the direct U.S. involvement in the Russian Civil War (1917-1923). The USSR never had good cause to trust the U.S. and the "Allies" after that naked aggression against it. There aren't any distinctions between Communism and Socialism these days which is why the subjectivists have pegged Imam Hussein Obama equally as a "socialist" and or "communist." But all we need to do is examine "Corporate Welfare" for the best examples.

102LBC Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - Socialism and Communism are not the same thing! Socialists believe in being democratically elected, and communists believe in overthrowing the government using force and violence. Do you think that Germany and Sweden are Communist? In Communist countries a few at the top control everything, and they hold power through violence. Pres. Obama is not an "Imam" or even a Muslim, and never was. The U.S. showed no "naked aggression" against the USSR from 1917-1923, we were just anti-commie at home.

lumpagogo Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - 1. Marxism has never advocated violence, only justifies it if there is reactionary violence started by the disenfranchised Elitists. 2. The U.S. most definitely entered the Russian Civil War on the side of the White Russians--plenty of combat. 3. A "few at the top control everything" no matter the economic model. 3. The U.S. is a combination theocracy/oligarchy/global-archy, led by the Bush, Clinton, Obama, RCC/Episcopal/Moslem Cartel.

102LBC Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - You have no idea what you're talking about, of course Marx advocated violence through revolution, do you think that the "Elitists" you refer to would willingly give up power!? After the revolution, Marx called for a period of "dictatorship of the proletariate", and I'm pretty sure most dictatorships use violence to maintain power. The U.S. did not enter the Russian Civil War at all, where do you get that from!? The third statement is so ridiculous that I won't even dignify it with a response.

lumpagogo Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - Speaking of violence, let's take a look at 9-59,000,000 American Indians murdered, 700,000 deaths in the War Between The States, 59,000 GIs dead in Vietnam, 400,000 wounded. Exactly what are you people trying to prove: that we are pure and everyone else is infected? You think your Reagans and Limbaughs give ein muterf*cker about you? Think again, your worship, and look at the hx of the Rooskie Civil War. And look at Karl Marx's words, not what someone said are his words.

lumpagogo Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - We need to debate the selling of the U.S. mfg economy down the river, the large amputation of our service economy, as well. We are also under seige from immigration, legal illegal, while we fight pointless conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, by proxy in Pakistan. Aggression vs Iran is on the table. Meanwhile, we have a Moslem insurgency "here" (not to mention the guerrilla war being fought by La Raza, Aztlan). Exactly, who is the common man's friend? Who are the real traitors?

102LBC Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - Way to dodge my questions and then drift off into irrelevant dribble. I don't know "what people" you're talking about, personally I think Limbaugh is an idiot and Reagan was a terrible president, but your just displaying your ignorance and showing you can't even form a coherrent argument. Have you ever read Das Kapital!!? The quote I gave you is directly from it. But you're so brainwashed and confused that apparently you can't see the light of day or even debate me with any substance.

lumpagogo Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - BC's ad hominem attack forms the conclusion to this discussion. Joe McCarthy must be proud of the revival of the Red Scare. Our Glenn Becks and James Dobsons never tire of referring to Imam Obama as a "communist" even though the Imam is as much of a capitalist as they are.

102LBC Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - So what are you trying to prove? You talk about being under seige from immigration, but then mention the American Indians killed in WAR ( I dont even justify it but it was unquestionably a war, we couldn't coexist peacefully with most tribes because there were too many of us). I dont know what "hk Rooksie War" means (more rambling nonsense), but the White Army was a coalition, that included many factions including monarchists and peasants. But I get it, America is evil and the USSR was paradise.

102LBC Says:

Oct 18, 2009 - You're a fool, you can't dissprove a thing I said and you sound like a red-diaper baby with a 6th grade education. "Ad hominem attack", give me a f-ckin break, why don't you move to N. Korea and live in your commie paradise. I hope you'll enjoy the 12 hour work days for a bowl of rice, and then you can go home (more like a prison cell-room) and watch 1 TV channel or listen to 1 radio station. No more youtube, and dont count on free speech or the ability to read whatever you want either, idiot.

lumpagogo Says:

Oct 22, 2009 - The rigid Capitalists who see Marx as some kind of murderous ghoul/guillotine freak, can never point to his alleged advocacy of violence. It's only assumed. And they shamelessly deny the U.S. action in the Russian Civil War. How can we reason with these people? Few have argued that the U.S. was all bad and the USSR all good. A sense of balance is needed, a recognition that there was propoganda on both sides. Leninism/Stalinism was never pure Marxism; we lumped them all together--wrongly.

SuperSuperfan Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - Marx's ultimate goal of "each according to his ability each according to his need", in my eyes is a disgusting naturally oppressive structure which holds back human will and creative and forces people to be tied down for the good of all, no matter the ability of others.

lumpagogo Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - Marx unfolded a viable alternative to the "disgustlingly" rapacious avarice which had oppressed so many for the sake of the few. Nothing has changed.

stza16 Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - capitalism rules!! woot woot! :)

lumpagogo Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - Funny thing is Ford was right. Russian control over the countries in question was receding and after Gorby's accession things unraveled quickly. Our propoganda machine had to keep talking Rooskie bullying and all that but take a look at South Korea and Germany: we have lots of troops in both but we are not "dominating" either state.

SuperSuperfan Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - He put an alternative, to a yes naturally exploitative system and he critiqued it very well by my view in Das Kapital. But his solution to the problem was not a very good one to put it simply. I call myself a socialist, but am an ardent anti-Marxist, I'm instead a pro-market libertarian socialist.

lumpagogo Says:

Nov 4, 2009 - Leninism-Stalinism is not Marxism, was not Marxism. Everybody know that nothing works although 99% of Homo Sapien is relatively satisfied with the status quo. We are adding 100,000,000 new Homo Sapien to the Earth every year so how bad can things be?

SuperSuperfan Says:

Nov 4, 2009 - Uh... what's your point? I wasn't arguing whether Leninism or Stalinism was Marxist or not. They certainly had aspects of his theory and it could be argued that Marx did want the stage they played out to occur . But Marx's ultimate classless communist society can be just as exploitative as Capitalism, if not more.

lumpagogo Says:

Nov 4, 2009 - Again, nothing works on paper but it doesn't have to because Homo Sapien rolls with every punch as it plunges toward global annihilitation. Almost all Homo Sapiens have what they need, whether they live under Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Feudalism, Semi-Anarchy (Somolia and others), you name it. Our endless discussions re. same are pointless because it's a slow degeneration toward nihilism. In the meantime, folq are living in the moment.

vladislav3 Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - He was completely wrong about Poland. This debate took place in 76 and in 1981 martial law was declared in Poland. The soviets were still completely dominating Poland at that time. Gorbachev didn't come until 1985.

lumpagogo Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - Funny thing about the USSR: it could have kept the Empire together in that a little firepower would have done the trick. The same thing is true of the Shah's Iran but in both cases the decision went the other way. You can bet there was plenty or regret by both 'deciders'. Things are headed for a 'Darby Crash' in the Lower 48 as this criminal clique known as Repub-Dem continues its thievery and debauchery at our expense.