lord of flies

I don't see what that has to do with Hume's Law. I like how you make it clear that I'm hurting "real socialists," who I can only assume are weak-kneed bourgeois reformists?

Yeah, and? I can draw better than that, and every time I do I think "boy I'm a ****ty artist." btw, not "Pop," whoever that is.

Okay, I'm assuming that this is from when you were drawing it? Because "very artistically talented" doesn't really describe it.

Exactly what kind? Interested to know. I mean, anything more than obvious stuff with trade relations, and missile positioning? This is Reaganite nonsense. The USSR collapsed because the institutions it was built on were allowed to become extremely corrupt, unaccountable and over the course of a generation or two develop into a neo-capitalist class. Khrushchev allowed the bureaucracy to develop into the "Nomenklatura" and thus become a new ruling class. One need look no further than democratic votes of the public on the subject to see that the general public was not involved in the process whatsoever. The 1990 elections gave 86% of the vote to the Communist Party and the suppression of votes for the maintenance of a Union state by local elites cannot conceal the general public's feelings on the subject. Reagan's posthumous cronies like to point out the economic troubles of the USSR as the reason for its collapse, completely ignoring that the USSR could easily survive a total cut-off from foreign investment (they had after the repudiated the Tsar's old debts, and that was back when it was a ****ty backwards agrarian country that just had the **** kicked out of them by the Germans). It had sufficient internal natural resources, and maintained a very small export-import sector (4% in 1985).

There's a reason why three constituent republics have had a nonviolent revolution against the reigning power structures and it wasn't because they were left-wing dictatorships.

Because the former constituent republics of the USSR aren't oppressive at all... wait... If Gorbachev had his way, the USSR would have peacefully socially and politically liberalized, rather than fracturing into a large number of right-wing dictatorships. I don't see how you think the historical result was a "good thing." I can vaguely (very vaguely) see it as a "good thing" in comparison to the continued existence of the USSR (though someone as ignorant as you is probably conflating the USSR under Stalin and the USSR under Andropov). But it really ****ed over everybody living there, and Russia still has 15% unemployment and a dictatorial President Prime Minister. Quality of life has gone downhill for pretty much everyone there.

See, this is where all your predecessors went wrong and irreparably destroyed the reputation of real socialists. What, praytell, do you mean by this? Edit: Rostere, claiming that the break-up of the Soviet Union was good or masterminded by Gorbachev is a complete fiction, even from a bourgeois democratic perspective. The break-up of the Soviet Union was organized by anti-democratic bureaucrats and local elites, who purposefully ignored or suppressed polls regarding the political break-up of the Soviet Union's constituent republics (it wasn't exactly very popular outside the Baltic). It was mismanaged by these same anti-democratic bureaucrats so that every nation in the former Soviet Union went through economic troubles which were twice as bad as the Great Depression. Even functional liberal democracy evades many former Soviet constituent republics.

This is really a god awful opinion, btw Killian. Read Hume's Law then stop thinking like this. lol nonviolent resistance/direct action isn't going to change anything? Orange Revolution? Overthrow of Milosevic? Civil rights movement? Welp, guess those were all fictitious struggles because King of Knowledge Killian Kalthorne Knows What Works And What Doesn't.

*sigh* Where did I say that? Go ahead and find it.

You mean like my last one? You know, where I identified Barack Obama as anti-American and went into extended reasons why (I have not previously attacked Barack Obama as a solitary individual, but merely as a representation of the bourgeois institution), in the largest amount of effort I've put into a topic on the forum since my "The October Revolution, a History" topic? What exactly happened in that topic... hmm... let me check my notes... The only person here who has posted "it is justifible to target civilians" is you.

You have a really, really childish view of politics. The idea that the oppressed rising against their oppressors is the moral equivalent to the oppressors suppressing the oppressed is just... I don't see how you can really believe that. Are you trolling me or do you really have the moral development of a 12 year old republican?

You (incorrectly) assume that I'm not doing anything about it. Why don't you cry some more that somebody brought up the brutality of US imperialism?

There is a fundamental difference between when an oppressed people rises in armed resistance against foreign occupation (no matter what ideological character that resistance takes), and when those same foreign occupiers engage in carefully considered acts of malice towards an occupied country, such as attacks on civilian, illegal settlement of occupied territory, and blockades to prevent the importation of food.

76 Senators sign on to Israel letter A similar letter garnered 333 signatures in the House, and its support marks almost unified Republican support for Benjamin Netanyahu's government, along with strong, but more divided, public Democratic discomfort with Obama's policies in the region. Signatories include key Democrats like Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, and Robert Menendez as well as all but four Republicans, with signers including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Scott Brown. Majority Whip **** Durbin, however, did not sign; nor did Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry and ranking member Richard Lugar. The full Senate letter, circulated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Johnny Isakson, is here. It is good to know that the mass ruling class conspiracy against the right of national self-determination for the Palestinian people can reach across party lines. Long live the American Reich. Long live our empire. May her oppression last a thousand years.

Some of the things he said were a nod to Mass Effect 2 were in Daggerfall. Also "retical" is not how you spell "reticle."

I'm pretty sure you're right. I have already admitted that this is my alt, on both accounts, I don't know why I keep up this act. This post was kind of silly but I can't edit it anymore, sooooo...

Yes, yes, I'm still racist either way. But can you not see that some kinds of racism have a more harmful effect than other kinds? Can't you see that there are degrees? For example, there is a huge and vast difference between being, say, against the Jena Six, and lynching people.

Let me try this another way: suppose that I am an employer, and I prevent black people from working under me. That is much more harmful than if I was an employee and refused to work for a black person. Would you agree with that statement?

There is no serious movement to belittle men and treat them as second class citizens. Anyone with half a brain knows that's true. Go ahead and find some major/notable websites, newspapers, whatever, written from a matriarchal perspective. Okay, keep making stuff up. I've made my position clear to anyone who is reading the thread: Racism is wrong. In the United States, white-on-black racism is worse. Please don't troll.

The latter is largely a fiction. Please, feel free to point out where I said that. I said that white-on-black racism was more unjustifiable, implying that black-on-white racism is also unjustifiable.

I guess it's a good thing I don't think that. I agree. Having a difficult time seeing how I sound like those people. I'm not sure what you're saying here. It seems like you're rejecting the feminist movement? White-on-black racism is an institution, black-on-white racism is not. White racism is more powerful, more unjustifiable, and more virulent.

Accepting and recognizing the complexities of race relations: racist. This is just some garbage people like yourself pull to try to simplify and ignore these issues. Please don't keep it up, it's annoying and childish. It's like saying that feminists are the REAL sexists, because they fight mostly against male chauvinism (rather than female chauvinism). No, it's not "okay" for minorities to be racist. Cool job reinterpreting my post. It is just much more understandable (and more sympathetic) for a person who is oppressed by a power structure to be angry at those who benefit from it, than the inverse is (a person who benefits from a power structure being angry at those who are oppressed by it). Let me guess - you're white?

So the people most effected by policies, don't have a more valid say in their application? Disagreedo. NEWSFLASH PEOPLE: White racism in the United States is fundamentally different from black racism. Black people have a legitimate reason to be angry at white people: white people benefit from the United States political, social and economic systems in a way that blacks do not. Whites do not "suffer" under the "black jackboot." Racism in its most virulent forms is always an institution. In the United States, that institution is white dominated and directed at minority groups, especially blacks. Individual opinions pale in comparison to the might of the institution of white racism. To put it in another way: Suppose that I am being mugged, but the man who is mugging me does not have a lethal weapon (knife, gun, etc), nor do I have a reasonable belief that he has one. I remove my pistol and shoot him dead. While wrong (I have applied lethal force in a situation it was not necessary), it is fundamentally different (and less wrong) than if I had been shot by the man mugging me, while I did not have a lethal weapon (or, for that matter, even if I had one). With the force of the US political, legal, social and economic systems behind them, white racists have a fundamentally different character from black racists, who have the force of the US political, legal, social and economic systems against them (even when they are not racist).

Plutocratic ruling class of the United States maintains its power, American working class foots the bill. News at eleven.

It's also important to realize that the war in Afghanistan was, in its initial stages, very mild (at least on the US side). The number of coalition forces fatalities per month was less than fifteen until April 2005, when it began to spike and rapidly increase. After the initial action, the United States effectively took little to no role in the country, preferring to focus on Iraq; by 2002, opium production was back to its original level. Non-whites disproportionately suffer in the United States armed forces, their opinion is thus more important in this matter. try reading my posts. Obviously in the immediate aftermath of the propaganda campaign, there would be high support, before the reality of war set in. 49% disapproval isn't high? Oh, okay, why don't you just tell me what is "high."