Seriously though...

[Humodour]

You completely missed my point. In a democratic state, the leaders are accountable to check-and-balances(look at the possible trial of Clinton) and foremost, they are gone after their mandate period. Even still, the democratic process makes it possible for population to change the level of authority of their leader. That's why you cannot even start to compare Lenin to Reagan in any form.

 

No one is denying the Iran-contra debacle under the Reagan administration (his trickle-down economics was the reason he was elected in a democratic process, whether you agree with it or not, it shouldn't even be in the same spot as genocide) Afterall, several people under his administration were put to court and found guilty, this would've been impossible in an totalitarian state.

Fall guys never exist in a totalitarian state? Anyway, you seem to be implying here that acts of genocide are somehow better if they're performed "democratically." How does that make the least bit of sense? As the old quote goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

 

Trickle-down economics is a disgusting and terrible theory that has hurt the lower class in America. It is a vicious attack on their sovereignty, and on their ability to survive and protect their children, with the sole purpose of lining the rich's pockets. Americans in the bottom 7/10th in 1992 were making less money than they were in 1979. How does that work? Trickle-down economics is how.

 

PS: Clinton? Come the **** on. A completely politicized attack is equivalent actual risk of justice? Name a president who was ever actually arrested for actual ****ing crimes. (Hint: You can't.)

 

The cases of Washington and Jackson are well documented and these acts are not celebrated in any way, even or seen as a good and sound decision by anyone. However, the atrocities of Stalin and Lenin were considered as necessary evil or completely forgiven by supporters (namely marxist-leninists and stalinists), and ofcourse they were never accounted for their decisions by any court or referendum, since it was not even possible due to the system that they installed themselves.

The crimes of US presidents are excused and pushed under the rug. How is historical revisionism better than considering an act a "necessary evil"? Both attempt to excuse terror and violence, just in different ways.

 

Soviet Russia was pretty ****.

 

Just sayin'.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Krezack

[Meshugger]

You completely missed my point. In a democratic state, the leaders are accountable to check-and-balances(look at the possible trial of Clinton) and foremost, they are gone after their mandate period. Even still, the democratic process makes it possible for population to change the level of authority of their leader. That's why you cannot even start to compare Lenin to Reagan in any form.

 

No one is denying the Iran-contra debacle under the Reagan administration (his trickle-down economics was the reason he was elected in a democratic process, whether you agree with it or not, it shouldn't even be in the same spot as genocide) Afterall, several people under his administration were put to court and found guilty, this would've been impossible in an totalitarian state.

Fall guys never exist in a totalitarian state? Anyway, you seem to be implying here that acts of genocide are somehow better if they're performed "democratically." How does that make the least bit of sense? As the old quote goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

 

Trickle-down economics is a disgusting and terrible theory that has hurt the lower class in America. It is a vicious attack on their sovereignty, and on their ability to survive and protect their children, with the sole purpose of lining the rich's pockets. Americans in the bottom 7/10th in 1992 were making less money than they were in 1979. How does that work? Trickle-down economics is how.

 

PS: Clinton? Come the **** on. A completely politicized attack is equivalent actual risk of justice? Name a president who was ever actually arrested for actual ****ing crimes. (Hint: You can't.)

 

The cases of Washington and Jackson are well documented and these acts are not celebrated in any way, even or seen as a good and sound decision by anyone. However, the atrocities of Stalin and Lenin were considered as necessary evil or completely forgiven by supporters (namely marxist-leninists and stalinists), and ofcourse they were never accounted for their decisions by any court or referendum, since it was not even possible due to the system that they installed themselves.

The crimes of US presidents are excused and pushed under the rug. How is historical revisionism better than considering an act a "necessary evil"? Both attempt to excuse terror and violence, just in different ways.

 

1. It has nothing to do with genocide being greater under a democratic state. The point was that democratic states minimizes the suffering of the individual compared to any other political system or process in the long run.

2. Reagan himself admitted that trickle-down didn't work as he hoped it would've done, he later raised taxes in his second term. Bush Sr., his successor, even called it "Voodoo"-economics. Point being, democratic states can elect statesmen that have different approach to problems according to the wishes of the people.

3. Interesting, what is an actual risk of justice? Presidents can only stand in front of a court for committing treason or high treason against its country. Clintons possible trial was that it could be interpretted that he lied under oath, and thus committed treason. However, it simply failed since the taxpayers thought that it was silly and stupid to spend millions of dollars of their money on a oval office blowjob. Again, the ultimate decision came from the people, not the politbeauro.

4. Pushed under a rug? How could i then even know about it in the first run? Maybe you are mixing the glamourised imagery that the media portrays from the historybooks actually found in schools everywhere. Revisionism is more like saying that the were no jews in the gaschambers in Hitlers germany.

 

Quality of life for the citizens, free speech, free press, freedom of thought and free elections makes it possible for each individual to experience, and act on their life according to their relativistic views. In a totalitarian state, the citizens are molded into a big mass where no one is different from one another. Information is broadcasted only through the allowed channels. Freedom of thought is unheard of. Sounds like sameness to me, which doesn't exactly correlate with relativism.

 

Also, one of the reasons on why the Soviet fell was that there was no such thing a cost of logistics. The objective truth was that logistics will always have a price, but in their relativism, they simply denied reality.

[Monte Carlo]

What did Lenin do? He lined the ball up. Stalin simply kicked it in the back of the net.

 

Why did the Germans smuggle him back into Russia via the Finland Station? Altruism, or because they knew he was the political equivalent of Ebola?

[lord of flies]

What did Lenin do? He lined the ball up. Stalin simply kicked it in the back of the net.

 

Why did the Germans smuggle him back into Russia via the Finland Station? Altruism, or because they knew he was the political equivalent of Ebola?

Hmm, perhaps it was because they recognized that Russia was one of the most politically unstable countries in the world, and they were fighting a brutal war with her? So they sent in political dissidents and revolutionaries to allow themselves victory by destroying Russia?

 

Meshugger: the fact that there are democratic processes in place to prevent routine bloodspilling, torture and genocide is irrelevant if they fail to actually prevent it (which they do).