>>40
"The US had to spend tax-payer money on the opposition and to terrorize the population until this happened."
Like I said, the contras and sandinistas were both assholes.
I fail to see how me declaring that I will agree with you if you construct a rational argument, then making it clear you have not yet made a rational argument is me trying to make you feel superior. I'm just stating the fact that I believe in the truth and that I disagree with you on things which are not true, because they are not true. Why is that so hard to understand? The last 3 posts have been my trying to explain to you that I am neither a neo-con and a marxist and am libertarian because Nicaraguans want and need above all else political freedom and human rights. Why do you think the Sandinistas would continue to serve the people if they do not allow the people to have power? If you are a true socialist you must also be a libertarian and you must certainly not have the intention of enforcing a dictatorship of the proletariat or the belief that communism is the next step.
Name:
Xel2006-09-01 9:43
>>42 "I am neither a neo-con and a marxist and am libertarian because Nicaraguans want and need above all else political freedom and human rights." Well they preferred the Sandinistas. Tough shit. Not saying the Sandinistas were great but they were the only option. The Contras would have sucked clitoris.
"Why do you think the Sandinistas would continue to serve the people if they do not allow the people to have power?" The Sandinistas ruled Nicaragua for roughly 12 years from 1979 to 1990, during which time they established democratic elections and a national constitution. What a bunch of statist, democracy-hating leftards lol.
"If you are a true socialist you must also be a libertarian and you must certainly not have the intention of enforcing a dictatorship of the proletariat or the belief that communism is the next step." I don't speak Randroid. Could someone translate this so I can laugh at the pleasant lameness of it?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-01 14:08
>>43
"Well they preferred the Sandinistas. Tough shit. Not saying the Sandinistas were great but they were the only option."
This is a fallacy. What people want and what people choose are not neccesarily the same thing. Also why did you say "Tough shit."? Is that what you would say to a Nicaraguan declaring that he wants liberty not the lesser of 2 evils?
"The Sandinistas ruled Nicaragua for roughly 12 years from 1979 to 1990, during which time they established democratic elections and a national constitution. What a bunch of statist, democracy-hating leftards lol."
They were voted out of office in 1988, so why did they continue to rule for 2 years after? In a democracy you are suppose to stop ruling when you are voted out.
"I don't speak Randroid. Could someone translate this so I can laugh at the pleasant lameness of it?"
In order to have a government that serves the people you need liberty. If socialism is a system of government that serves the people, a true socialist must also be libertarian.
Name:
Xel2006-09-01 14:43
"Is that what you would say to a Nicaraguan declaring that he wants liberty not the lesser of 2 evils?" There were quite few of those. And even then he should've been a bit grateful that the Sandinistas told America what to do with their exportation of fascism. The Sandinistas accepted their being voted out once the threat of the Contras were no more, and even then the CIA spent taxpayer dollars to make it so.
"The dominant rebel leaders who controlled the FSLN such as Daniel Ortega were strongly authoritarian Marxist. However the new junta initially contained a broad spectrum of ideologies. Upon assuming power, its political platform included the following:
Nationalization of property owned by the Somozas and their collaborators.
Land reform.
Improved rural and urban working conditions.
Free unionisation for all workers, both urban and rural.
Control of living costs, especially basic necessities (food, clothing, and medicine).
Improved public services, housing conditions, education (mandatory, free through high school; schools available to the whole national population; national literacy campaign).
Nationalization and protection of natural resources, including mines.
Abolition of torture, political assassination and the death penalty.
Protection of democratic liberties (freedom of expression, political organization and association, and religion; return of political exiles).
Equality for women. [4]
Free, non-aligned foreign policy and relations.
Formation of a new, democratic, and popular army under the leadership of the FSLN.
Pesticide controls
Rain forest conservation
Wildlife conservationAlternative energy programs
Notably absent from this list are such traditionally fundamental "Marxist" views (actually Leninist, Maoist, or Stalinist) as the forced eradication of religious organizations, a one-party state, and the subsumption of all labor organizations, labor leadership, and political leadership into some form of "soviet" (or an organizational/political analogue, e.g. the Maoist Red Guard). In addition, the early FSLN concerned itself with such non-"Marxist" (in the traditional sense) platforms such as the right to free unionization, the protections of free speech, free and independent political organization, the free practice of religion, and a remarkably prescient environmental concern, all of which signaled that the FSLN -- at least in its initial manifestation -- shared little with traditional Marxism and its fiercest progenitors of the era, the Cubans or the Soviet."
Yep, what a bunch of leftard bastards they were. How dared they be violent and hate the Contras. Also, they were voted out in February of 1990. You really must have inherited that "PLEASE RAPE ME"-gene from your mom.
"In order to have a government that serves the people you need liberty. If socialism is a system of government that serves the people, a true socialist must also be libertarian." Sure thing. The Sandinistas were not very very supergreat but considering what they inherited from Samozo and how America tried to turn Nicaragua into hell they did a fucking good job.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-01 15:00
Yes, yes it is.
It all started with television and the apathy and childish giddiness and wide-spread immaturity associated with it. Go back to watching your gameshows and CNN and not caring about anybody else but yourself.
In short, STOP WATCHING FUCKING TELEVISION -- YOU TOOLS.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-01 16:10
>>45
Kind of hard for the public to make sure their government fulfils their promises if every time they criticise they get the butt of an ak47 through their teeth and have their village wiped off the map. Here, have an internet and look for the Sandinista's human rights abuses.
"Yep, what a bunch of leftard bastards they were. How dared they be violent and hate the Contras. Also, they were voted out in February of 1990."
"Sure thing. The Sandinistas were not very very supergreat but considering what they inherited from Samozo and how America tried to turn Nicaragua into hell they did a fucking good job."
America won, that's why there were free elections in 1990. Either you are stupid or you seperated those 2 facts on purpose. Admit which.
Name:
Xel2006-09-01 16:30
America won, that's why there were free elections in 1990. They had democratic elections before that. I was the one that quickly pointed out human rights abuses *both* by Sandinistas *and* Contras, at which point you accuse me of being a communist. You are a shame to libertarianism. Am I the only one that thinks people like 47 should have their genitals sandpapered and thrown into a tub of vinegar?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-02 2:02
Americans fail for not acknowledging they are an empire. They still think the rest of the world wants to like their feet because they are kind, benevolent, and enlightened.
Rest of the world wants to see America get it's shit kicked in, because of America's past actions and current hubris.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-02 2:12
>>48
I was under the impression you were trying to justify Sandinista rule. In the end both the sandinistas and the contras lost power as a result of US intervention. Today the Sandinistas are just a political party with some arms stashed somewhere which they dont intend to use and the contras have mostly disbanded and what is left have seperated and play little part in politics. Some americans did support the contras despite the fact that they were assholes, but if the US is guilty of anything it is guilty of not being able to stop all crime, which seems to be the top dollar argument for marxists these days. 1 AMERICAN COMMITTED A CRIME SOMETIME, THEREFORE DEMOCRACY IS A FAILURE AND WE NEED COMMUJISM!!
If I am a shame, I am a shame to my own ego and not libertarianism. The definition of libertarianism does not change just because I am not capable of constructing am argument that covers every fallacy a dumbass would believe in. I can however crush them 1 by 1 so keep them coming, it's fun, like a puzzle. Seriously though, are you like a master of fallacy creation or is there some structure to it? Do you study sociology or something?
Name:
Xel2006-09-02 4:00
>>50 There is a difference between causing crime and failing to prevent crime. If I allow - or even encourage- a government that exports anti-democracy all over the world to keep at it I have part of the blame.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-02 4:42
>>51
What about failing to prevent people from causing crime?
Name:
Xel2006-09-02 5:01
>>52 What about - on several occasions- pitting one big criminal against a smaller so that the bigger one can get your wallet greased at the heavy expense of the indigenous population (who happened to stick with the smaller criminal because he actually gave you a reacharound instead of *just* having you up the chuff)?
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-02 6:23
>>53
Or how about give the indigenous population guns and instruct them to defend themselves from criminals (castroists, corrupt government officials (the US government should be made smaller)).
But that's not what happened. Address >>53, since that's closer to history (ie. what actually happened)
Name:
Xel2006-09-02 7:09
>>54 Or how about minding your own business instead of thinking that everyone with a gun suddenly levels up and becomes "nice"? The only guns supplied were for the trigger-happy policemen trained to keep the locals in check while US companies looted the Free world for all it was worth. Unprecented sofistication and scope of torture, economic theft under a "laissez-faire" veneer, countless deaths and unquantifiable impoverishment - this was directly caused by US policy while Americans were worried about gays, guns and all the horrors in the communist world. America, at least as far as the CIA was concerned, hated freedom all the way through the Cold war.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-03 4:02
>>5
I tend to aggree with protectionism. Only reason the US sends jobs over seas is because it's cheaper. If those companies payed those people over seas the same as we would get here, I would consider that be not only fair, but helpful to the people in that country. But paying them shit isn't helping a god damn thing.
Not only that, what the jobs we do give to them also affects their culture, economy, government, etc. What those companies are doing to India is pretty much screwing over what they are as a people and assimilating them into US culture, as well as fucking with their humane rights.
When a company sends a job oversees, they don't help us or the country, they just help themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-03 4:05
We should restrict trade with nations that do not believe in human rights.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-03 4:06
Respective to how much of an economic advantage they gain due to abuse of human rights.
I'm will to bet that 90% of their "OMG WE'RE STUPID AND DUMB AND DOOMED" statistics is all bullshit. I don't trust a whole lot of news anymore. They'll exaggerate any amount of bullshit they come across to sell out.
>>I'm willing to bet that 90% of their "OMG WE'RE STUPID AND DUMB AND DOOMED" statistics is all bullshit. I don't trust a whole lot of news anymore. They'll exaggerate any amount of bullshit they come across to sell out.
>>61
I agree. I'm european, and spent the last ten days in California. San Francisco looked like a fantastic city to live in, but I don't really like the weather and especially the wind there.
Anyway, I spoke to one of our parents' friends' son who was about my sister and I's age, (early twenties), a good chap, if the quality of life had dropped in the US, and he said "not really". He doesn't seem to struggle with unemployment, 'cept maybe for the drug user tests because it's fucking annoying to stop smoking for a month before you can apply for a job. The only thing he remotely complained about was the mexicans, but shit, I'd easily trade ten hard-working mexicans for just one of our welfare-sucking arabs.
Anyway, I see America as the current Rome, with its advantages and setbacks. Overall, it's not that bad of a country. I love it ^^
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-03 18:47
Interesting, but what does this have to do with computers?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-25 22:05
USA is starting to cripple right at the moment...
Name:
sage2007-01-26 1:03
OMG TEH USA IS ABOUT TO FALL EVERYONE LOSE CONFIDENCE AND START CRYING AND WHINING LUKE THE LIBERALS WAAAH WAAAH
COME ON CRY AND WHINE WITH ME COME ON!!
WAAAAAAAAAHH WAAAAAAAAAHH WAAAAAAAAAHH WAAAAAAAAAHH WAAAAAAAAAHH OH NOEZ 500 YEARS AGO SOME INDIANS DIED WAAAH WE ARE ALL EVIL IMPERIALISTS BECAUSE WE RETALIATED FOR 9/11 AND TRIED TO STOP TEH GENOCIDE IN SERBIA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WAAAAAAAAHH OH GOD WHY, OOPS I FORGOT I DONT BELEIVE IN GOD LOL
OH DAWKINS WHYYY OH DAWKINS THE OMNISCIENT BEING TELL ME WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME DAWK... I JUST SHAT AND PISSED MYSELF BECAUSE I GOT SO EXCITED AND THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T HERE TO WIPE MY ASSS WAAAH WANT MORE WELFARE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH