Pravda of all newspapers in the world prints a scathing rebuke of Americas descent into socialism...
Here...read it and weep
Here...read it and weep
USSR rebukes America for turning Marxist
- Thread starter iomegaman
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
iomegaman said:
How cute, a facist gov ruled by the mob telling us how we should behave?? Wouldnt pravda still be considered a "mouthpiece" for their gov??
Now let's ask the people of Russia if they're so much better off with what they have now, unlike what idiots here in the US say about freedom of speech...(correct me if i'm wrong) but they actually DO send out the "brownshirts" to deal with troublemakers in Russia....do they not??
The Ruskies dont deserve that kind of harrassment from their gov..
ENS Audio said:iomegaman said:
How cute, a facist gov ruled by the mob telling us how we should behave?? Wouldnt pravda still be considered a "mouthpiece" for their gov??
Now let's ask the people of Russia if they're so much better off with what they have now, unlike what idiots here in the US say about freedom of speech...(correct me if i'm wrong) but they actually DO send out the "brownshirts" to deal with troublemakers in Russia....do they not??
The Ruskies dont deserve that kind of harrassment from their gov..
I did not read it so much as a rebuke as a warning...which we apparently are much to comfortable to heed...it could never happen here I'm sure.
iomegaman said:ENS Audio said:iomegaman said:
How cute, a facist gov ruled by the mob telling us how we should behave?? Wouldnt pravda still be considered a "mouthpiece" for their gov??
Now let's ask the people of Russia if they're so much better off with what they have now, unlike what idiots here in the US say about freedom of speech...(correct me if i'm wrong) but they actually DO send out the "brownshirts" to deal with troublemakers in Russia....do they not??
The Ruskies dont deserve that kind of harrassment from their gov..
I did not read it so much as a rebuke as a warning...which we apparently are much to comfortable to heed...it could never happen here I'm sure.
Well its like the South Park episode "I'm a little bit Country" http://southpark-zone.blogspot.com/2008/01/s7-im-little-bit-country.html really sums up the fact will never go totally Facist or Communist...things sorta workout in a very dysfunctional way
Marik
Well-known member
Right now there is no such thing as USSR.
ENS Audio said:
Mmmm, somehow it is... how should I put it?... :
: : exaggerated ENS Audio said:
Speaking of telling somebody how to behave, take a guess why all the world up untill quite recently hated Americans? So wouldn't it make sense for Americans to look at themselves, first?
Best, M
Svart
Well-known member
Bingo! Absolutely.
People are afraid of change. Most of the folks who are the loudest protesters of "change" are also usually devoid of any suggestions themselves. While I don't agree with Obama, or McCain/bush/whomever (i'm Libertarian and see all of those guys as generally the same with different names and faces..) I have to applaud Obama for at least trying something new. We've been stuck in the same rut for decades but the people who stand to benefit from the "normal" ways of doing things have resisted it for a long time. Once we had someone who preached true change, Ron Paul got blacklisted (
), and therefor Obama had the stage to himself for his version of "change". The good ole boys started spreading rumors about the proposed healthcare system and now we have these town hall lynch mobs..Anyway, this country was founded on the principle that those we elect into office can try whatever they think is right. Although I don't think Obama has really thought all this through, I think he truly believes this will work.
signalflow
Well-known member
Svart said:
I thought this country was founded on the principle that those we elect into office do what their representatives think is right, not the other way around.
Just because you agreed with the issues durring the election doesn't mean you should just let everything else slide because at one point you were told what you wanted to hear.
-Casey
Marik said:
I agree with your statement but there's nothing that people do which makes sense...
ethnocentrist is a word that comes to mind?? Why do people act as if they have the moral ground when in fact they're no better than to whom they wish to point the finger at? :
Yep. The finger points both ways.
Didn't Papa Fidel and Chihuahavez beat Pravda to the "the US is too socialist" critique?
One of my bleak moments in the USSR was being given Pravda on my way to the WC. NOT for reading. . .
Mike
Didn't Papa Fidel and Chihuahavez beat Pravda to the "the US is too socialist" critique?
One of my bleak moments in the USSR was being given Pravda on my way to the WC. NOT for reading. . .
Mike
Svart
Well-known member
It isn't the other way around. We elect people based not only what they say but what they believe in. We all know that politicians can say whatever they think we want to hear and also that once they are in office that they have to compromise with other lawmakers. Most of the time the politicians claim that they will change things once they are in office but they rarely actually do. Because of this, we elect someone whom we think will do the "right" thing when they get into office and hopefully not be badgered into submission by the "good ole boys" that like things the way they've always been which is just a little bit of change to say that they are doing something but not enough change to actually *change* things..
Because of politics, its either business as usual or you try something new. Business as usual hasn't worked in ages, maybe trying something new WILL work, or maybe it will fail miserably. Only time will tell and that is why I say that they *try*.
I guess I didn't see the memo that the world loves us now.... :Svart said:
Sounds like more wishful thinking from proponents of the "I'm Sorry" world tour. IMO this is just a more subtle form of partisan ad hominum politics, but opinions vary. I think there is honest concern about who is pulling the strings behind the curtain in this massive intervention into our economy, and who will really benefit. 6-7 health care lobbyists for every legislator. 1,000+ page house bill that the legislators can't even read and understand (lawyer's full employment act). Do the math.People are afraid of change. Most of the folks who are the loudest protesters of "change" are also usually devoid of any suggestions themselves. While I don't agree with Obama, or McCain/bush/whomever (i'm Libertarian and see all of those guys as generally the same with different names and faces..) I have to applaud Obama for at least trying something new. We've been stuck in the same rut for decades but the people who stand to benefit from the "normal" ways of doing things have resisted it for a long time. Once we had someone who preached true change, Ron Paul got blacklisted (
If I could expand upon this definition. Our form of government is designed to specifically avoid the "mob rule" of simple democracy. In the original constitution senators were actually appointed by state legislatures and not elected by popular vote.
Our legislators are supposed to investigate the facts and consequences of change and thoughtfully debate important issues, then act in our best interest. We will vote them out in subsequent elections if reviewing their record in office suggests that they haven't served us well. They can even be removed from less than a full term if they really misbehave.
JR
PS: Regarding Ron Paul I don't think he has ever made an electable run at higher office. A weak third party candidate can actually be a spoiler that hurts his own agenda if he pulls votes form a more centrist candidate that could have been elected. I wouldn't mind seeing Paul end up in the senate where he could have a little more gravitas to influence the debate with his libertarian positions. IMO he limits his own chances for higher office by his almost anarchist policies against standing institutions (not that he doesn't make some interesting arguments).
Svart said:
Bingo! Absolutely.
People are afraid of change. Most of the folks who are the loudest protesters of "change" are also usually devoid of any suggestions themselves. While I don't agree with Obama, or McCain/bush/whomever (i'm Libertarian and see all of those guys as generally the same with different names and faces..) I have to applaud Obama for at least trying something new. We've been stuck in the same rut for decades but the people who stand to benefit from the "normal" ways of doing things have resisted it for a long time. Once we had someone who preached true change, Ron Paul got blacklisted (
Anyway, this country was founded on the principle that those we elect into office can try whatever they think is right. Although I don't think Obama has really thought all this through, I think he truly believes this will work.
This all reads quite contrary to the Libertarian point of view. How could increased government meddling in anything be applauded by a Libertarian? How could citizens speaking their minds to the few DC pols who had the guts to appear publicly in their districts (mine had a "bagel breakfast on the total DL, gee why didn't he invite me?) be considered lynch mobs by a Libertarian? The label does not fit the opinions.
Obama does not know what he is doing with healthcare. He has outsourced it to Congress. There is no "Obama Healthcare Bill". They are doing his bidding in the House and Senate. John Conyers does not "have to read a 1000 page bill with 2 lawyers over 2 days" because he knows that a bunch of leftists are writing it.
Does a real Libertarian trust this kind of legislation? I think, I KNOW not.
Mike
Svart
Well-known member
Where did I say that I supported him or his healthcare bill? I think I only said that I applauded him trying something new. I don't support his bill and I don't think it'll do much good but I'm sick of both democrats and republicans getting into office and becoming "republicrats" that are willing to sell their sides out just to get kickbacks and watered down compromise.
While I agree that he doesn't follow the moderate line that would make him much more electable, I think his presidential run was substantial. He started getting a very respectable following towards the middle of the presidential race but his media coverage suddenly dropped off. He has said that the media was knocking down his door to get interviews and suddenly they dried up overnight. He was no longer invited to debates and so forth. I personally think this had something to do with taking McCain to school during one of the debates but there is no real proof of why this happened. I think it was definitely an organized blacklisting, not one due to waning interest.
While I agree that he doesn't follow the moderate line that would make him much more electable, I think his presidential run was substantial. He started getting a very respectable following towards the middle of the presidential race but his media coverage suddenly dropped off. He has said that the media was knocking down his door to get interviews and suddenly they dried up overnight. He was no longer invited to debates and so forth. I personally think this had something to do with taking McCain to school during one of the debates but there is no real proof of why this happened. I think it was definitely an organized blacklisting, not one due to waning interest.
no-fi
Well-known member
ENS Audio said:
no "brown shirts" anywhere since the night of the long knives, when they'd outgrown their usefulness to hitler.... letalone in russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omon
Nishmaster
Well-known member
Svart said:
It certainly had substantial steam with certain niches. I was very interested in hearing what he had to say for a long time. However, I think the real reason that his media support dried up so fast is due in no small part to his early media support. He may have given McCain some schooling, but his stammering, uneasy delivery and near fanatical tack made him appear as the kid who got picked last at everything in school and has come back to overwhelm his opponents with sheer raw intelligence. He was whiny. That was what killed him in the populous, as trite as some of it may be. For me though, his extreme ideas and lack of grounding in what I would see as reality turned me off to him early in the debates. He just didn't seem down to earth. I agree with some of his concepts, but I don't think he would have been the guy to execute them, at all. Too hardline, didn't want to play with others.
Americans elected Obama because of the message of hope...
We all need hope...
There is only so much negative truth people can handle regardless of how true it is...
The reason the others were not elected was not for lack of truth, but for lack of optimism and hope...
We all need hope...
There is only so much negative truth people can handle regardless of how true it is...
The reason the others were not elected was not for lack of truth, but for lack of optimism and hope...
Sammas
Well-known member
iomegaman said:ENS Audio said:iomegaman said:
How cute, a facist gov ruled by the mob telling us how we should behave?? Wouldnt pravda still be considered a "mouthpiece" for their gov??
Now let's ask the people of Russia if they're so much better off with what they have now, unlike what idiots here in the US say about freedom of speech...(correct me if i'm wrong) but they actually DO send out the "brownshirts" to deal with troublemakers in Russia....do they not??
The Ruskies dont deserve that kind of harrassment from their gov..
I did not read it so much as a rebuke as a warning...which we apparently are much to comfortable to heed...it could never happen here I'm sure.
I've been doing some reading/thinking about this over the past few months. I think the ultimate cause of corruption in this world is due to comfort. Being so comfortable with one's surroundings and situation that it leads to a deterioration in the judgment of what is ultimately right and wrong. I think it happens on all levels of society, in all levels of extremes.
Some examples;
1,000,000 Londoners spending a decent amount of their wage to fund their coke habit when a large percentage of the world has no access to basic medical treatment.
People paying top dollar for designer clothes made by people who are paid pennies.
Morally, we all know it isn't right... but comfort has corrupted us to the point of being just plain apathetic.
A similar case exists with the use if freedom of speech. The number of people who I've heard say "No, I have a right to freedom of speech. I can say whatever I like". Has common sense, basic human decency and manners allude these people? It surely misses the very point of free speech in the first place. Freedom of speech isn't noted as being a basic human right so that you can swear your mouth off or speak without thinking. That's just another example of comfort causing corruption; An inability to define what is right and wrong. Freedom of speech is listed on the United Nations charter of human rights as a basic right to speak out against injustice and corruption itself... not to cause it!
It's a paradox. These basic human rights aimed at ending war, hunger, disease, etc are slowing making societies too comfort to the point of plunging them back into war & poverty.
My (perhaps a little leftist) 2¢.
Similar threads
