Regional Summary  Founded - 30 April 2005 Population - 165 Nations World Ranking - 61 Regional Power - High |
Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate Pidgeon Island Members of the Committee TBA World Assembly Delegate Angusp (aka Bodegraven) High General of the GRADF Joe Bobs |
| Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums! Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register. Join our Community Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system. I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way. Getting Started If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features. |
| What is the most apt punishment for being a commie | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 11 2006, 03:08 PM (1,118 Views) | |
| U-ropa | Mar 11 2006, 03:08 PM Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
Well. Communists are quite clearly deviants that must be punished in a fitting and particularly medieval way. For being degenerates that are a sore on humanity it is only reasonable to ask: How should we torture the little commie shits? Poll to come! |
 
|
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 17 2006, 04:18 AM Post #101 |
|
Green
  ![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/63/36/0/p14794/pip_r.png)
|
Okay whatever. I'm done with this. I don't have the time to edit that again. I noticed there were a few mistakes in there... like redundant text. |
 |
|
| Comrade Martin | Jul 21 2006, 09:30 AM Post #102 |
Make-Believe Man
|
mesatecala1,
You realize we've tried that before, right? Its no coincidence that the nations with the most social spending (Sweden, Finland, Norway, France, Canada) have the highest living conditions, you know.
The "amount" of government is irrelevent. The question is what class controls it.
"n 1926, I began a new effort; I visited Communist lands. I went to the Soviet Union in 1926, 1936, 1949, and 1959; I saw the nation develop. I visited East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland. I spent ten weeks in China, traveling all over the land. Then this summer, I rested a month in Romania. ... I was early convinced that Socialism was an excellent way of life." - Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, NAACP founder, CPUSA member "Now is the accepted time, not tomorrow, not some more convenient season. It is today that our best work can be done and not some future day or future year. It is today that we fit ourselves for the greater usefulness of tomorrow. Today is the seed time, now are the hours of work, and tomorrow comes the harvest and the playtime." - Dr. W.E.B. DuBois
"Today I have reached a firm conclusion: Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all." - Dr. W.E.B. DuBois
First off, "empowering women to move in to cities, have less children, and leave the small towns" sounds a lot like force to me. When the only decent paying jobs are in the cities, and pay just enough for you to survive, its hard to avoid cities and have very many children, if any at all. A quick review of the way the United States was in, say, the 30's, will show you that no, things don't correspond the way you think they do. It's well-known to be a myth that living standards correspond between cost and pay the same way ours do but in simply different amounts. The problem with Imperialism is the fact that, while the "most developed" nations have successfully completed the merger of bank capital and industrial capital (forming finance capital), those "less developed" nations are exploited by merit of the fact that they simply lack development. Essentially, Ford turns to China and says, "you let us host a factory on your land for little cost and we'll give your people a job opportunity." The Chinese government says "O.K., we sure need industries and jobs here to develop our nation!" The problem lies, however, in the fact that these foreign industries are extremely well developed and financed (finance capital, which is used for this sort of economic Imperialism) and can supply very well manufactured cars back to the Chinese people in case they want to buy a car (although it will be much harder for the Chinese to, given to their tiny wages). Why is this a problem? Because now, not only have the Chinese lost some of their workforce to the American Ford company, but they've also lost a significant amount of their capability to produce their own cars domestically, since Ford will always be able to undersell the domestic Chinese producers and/or provide a much higher quality car for (at worst) slightly more than the Chinese producer. The export of businesses does not benefit the countries they land in aside from giving those people (poor paying) jobs. However, this level of economic Imperialism (globalization) is part of a Capitalist reflex to workers' anger many decades ago. Many reforms were instituted in the advanced Capitalist nations to make workers much happier (as they were very much leading up to revolutionary potentials in the past.) The expansion of civil liberties (Voting Rights Act, for example) and the forced betterment of workers lives (minimum wage for example) were part of the Capitalists consciously or subconsciously acting in their class interests. You see, Capitalists have two main natural methods of logic that they primarily follow. Firstly, it is to defend their class position, and secondly, it is to make a profit. And sometimes, the two don't work as well together as they might like. Their desire is the solidifcation of stage one only insofar as phase two allows, and to maximize phase two as much as possible insofar as phase one allows. But like any balance, it can be unbalanced by various conditions. For the Bourgeoisie of Russia, unbalance came when they neglected phase one in favor of phase two, tightening control when they should have loosened it. The workers revolution in the U.S.S.R. and increasingly elseware were a show of anger at Capitalism and especially the manipulative forces of Imperialism in the world, and the U.S. Proletariat (with which I am more acquainted), like many Proletarians elseware, began to flex its muscles. The Capitalist class, concerned, instigated many progressive reforms (under both Roosevelts) and expanded on those (Vietnam War era) only as a means of assuaging workers' anger in both eras. However, as touched on earlier, these reforms are starting to be rolled back, as we see with many contemporary civil rights. It is a certainly very applicable equasion to say that the more shackled the people the more obedient the people, and the more obedient the people the easier the facilitation of a free market becomes. A free market is best serviced by a sheeplike population, not questioning anything and without a voice, producing and consuming and containing their individuality, suppressing and repressing it. While in the short term you might say that OECD nations have it right, their long term goals are to turn back the clock to the days of milion dollar mansions next to million person slums here in the U.S. - a phenomenon currently contained to the rest of the world. With wages largely stagnant since the 1970's and profits currently measured at 4 times their rate 20 years ago, and a rapidly increasing income gap, not to mention an all out assault on workers' rights and general civil rights, how can any other conclusion be reached?
And what about your parents?
Interesting. Unfortunately, our malls are all losing money...
Pointless insults aside, how is Socialism against malls and department stores? How else do we sell things, dude? You just make this up, don't you?
No, Capitalism is not Feudalism, nor is it Slavery. In fact, its better than both of those! The problem is, things need to be better. And only Socialism can logically bring that.
1.) Until 1953 economic growth outpaced all Capitalist nations in the U.S.S.R. 2.) It declined thanks to decentralization and disestablishment of Socialist economic principles. 3.) Planned Economics relies on long-term and short-term planning. To suggest it was planned at all is to deny its very fiber. 4.) Millions died not because of Stalin but because of two revolutions, a civil war, and two world wars, with the famines and prison facilities all of that entails.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_Am...nSocialism.html Yes, Chile certainly sucks.
I wasn't saying flag burning was banned, or that the Voting Rights Act was officially dismantled yet, but the fact that there is such a momentum for BOTH of those horrible actions indicates that this nation is going backwards. Your mentioning of gay marriage is also a good point for that.
1.) Castro paid hundreds of thousands of civil servants to attend a speech? 2.) Thousands leave the U.S. too but you don't decry it as a police state. In fact, very few Cubans leave the U.S. each year if you review my statistical data. "According to the US Department of Homeland Security, Cuba has gone to the tenth position of countries that have emigrants come to the U.S. by 2003, along with smaller countries such as Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador. Despite that fact, the US Small Business Administration has for years preferred to finance ventures by Cubans over other immigrant minorities."
"The year 1980 marked a turning point in this respect, when 125,000 Cubans, usually called 'Marielitos' in reference to the fact that they emigrated by way of boats that came from the US to pick them up at the Mariel port in western Cuba. Their nickname is a reminder to American society that they were considered different from their predecessors. ... After the triumph of the Cuban revolution, the position of several US administrations has been inconsistent with the traditional manner with which the rest of Latin American communities in the United States have been treated. While for Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, and especially Mexicans and Haitians, Washington's laws have increasingly meant fewer possibilities to integrate into American society, for Cubans the policy has been quite different. During the 1960s, the United States spent over a billion dollars on the Cuban Refugee Program, which sought to help settle, find jobs, and cover the expenses of any Cuban who arrived in that country complaining about socialism. Such a program far outstripped the opportunities which Polish, Hungarians, and other citizens from Eastern European countries enjoyed during the Cold War period."
About 97% of Cubans DO like President Castro, because they helped re-elect him.
Who says Raul will replace him? He has to be elected for that.
It's all Capitalism! At least own up to your own brethren! You can't pick and choose this stuff. How is Capitalism done wrong? You've never answered that question!
That is not a legitamite reason. Particular policies like those are not relevent when the question is simply whether or not they have a Capitalist market. They do have such a market, yet they remain incredibly poor. Your explanation is that they aren't managing things correctly. Sure, but that does NOT invalidate the FACT that they are Capitalist nations, and not doing well.
Why do you oppose economic democracy?
It did up until the 1960's for the most part...
No he didn't. In fact, many of Khrushchev's reforms were expanded under Brezhnev (with many changes taking place in the 1970's, under Brezhnev himself.) You really need to read that book I referenced you to.
He isn't denouncing profit, but saying that people, not profit, must be the main objective. And calling him a murderer is a stretching of the facts. At least he didn't kill babies like Churchill did under the excuse of "racial purification."
As Stalin put it, if profit was the only objective, state enterprises would have shut down things like heavy industry that don't make much profit (or in fact COST money) even though they were of VITAL importance to maintaining good living standards in the nation. This was one thing that led to the stagnation period of the 70's. A profit of some kind is necessary, but there are time when profit actually hinders the people's living standards by coming at their expense.
And where has that been proven?
Why should workers not be able to elect CEOs? That's democracy in action! And Chavez helped host a meeting of recovered factories. And yes, Cuban elections are very valid. Nice try.
Why do you have to constantly say you're objective? Shouldn't it be true without your constant recital?
I agree that no one should be able to do that, but that is why I oppose Capitalism. Even the IRS, a Capitalist state institution, is part of that! Even though you accept it so easily.
Essentially, it prohibits all political parties, including the Communist Party which isn't allowed to do anything in the elections.
I'm sorry... I'm brainwashed by truth.  Many international monitors verified Cuban elections. I don't "listen to the Cuban regime" but rather read such publications as the BBC.
And how has this been proven?
But if the forces of the free market are based on rationality and reason, shouldn't it be able to do it right anyway? Why are there such specific limitations? Immediate nationalizations without prior restructuring work great! Why is the reverse such a problem?
Okay... Why'd I need those links for something I never contested?
Do you still overlook the fact that he works with death squads and other paramilitaries, simultaneously ignoring the root causes of poverty and simply offering temporary solutions and "quick fixes"? http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/1496/ http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/1152/ http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/349/ http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia185.htm While its undeniable that he's improved the economy, the question is, at what cost, and for how long?
Unemployment's declined, but that's only one aspect. Many other important things need to be considered. Uribe's shutting down of social programs has caused a large medical crisis as many state-subsidized hospitals have simply shut down.
It's logical to assert that a continued deregulation of the market, solidification of military power, and cutting back of social reforms will be detrimental to the people. I'm sure unemployment will drop like a rock when employers don't have to pay them much. Union busting is well-known in Colombia. It's illogical to suppose that Uribe has the people very firmly in mind.
Yours are mostly right-wing sources and biased. I accept most of them. I'd say at least half of mine are non-left sources, if not more. As far as I am concerned, we're on equal footing.
But logically, if the free market itself is a good idea, why can't it be applied to everything? Why must it be restricted?
Like I said previously, privatization, if it is correct, should never fail.
But who cares about that if you can ship them over to places where workers are paid better? That's the logic behind globalization, and given to America's developed infrastructure and population, it would be an idea place to set up shop if it weren't for those pesky taxes and regulations. Thus, getting rid of all that riff raff will ultimately benefit the Capitalist class in its exploitation of the American working class.
You denied the existance of workers' owned factories, yet they DO exist, and very productively so. In fact, your only comments on their successes are that they are temporary. But you have no proof for that! You make a claim, refuse to back it up, and wonder why people reject your purely theoretical arguements. And when I apply the same logic to Colombia, you get all up in arms about how I'm judging Uribe too quickly or something! But see, history can prove my claim; it cannot prove your own. And even when we do delve in to theoretical analysis, what logic is there to suggest that the workers will fail to run it well? Historically, past trials of workers' ownership in Yugoslavia worked pretty well, making it one of the most economically successful Eastern European nations, if not THE most successful, aside from the U.S.S.R.. |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 21 2006, 10:50 AM Post #103 |
|
Green
|
I said what I have to say, and you keep rejecting the facts I posted. I have realized you are not going to change your mind and neither am I. It remains the countries with the least government interference are the ones better off. I could care less about your examples as their systems are not sustainable (Sweden, Finland, etc). If I keep talking it will get redundant. You're totally ignorant too, especially when you accuse me of not backing up my claims. You're a communist and you seem totally incapable of accepting the facts that your beliefs are a damn failure. They always will be a failure. You will never have your way as long as I'm alive. So ta-ta. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jul 22 2006, 02:51 PM Post #104 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
mesatecala1,
But Sweden and Norway and Finland have the highest living conditions in the world...
Less fact-based too, no doubt.
Ok.
And ditto. |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 22 2006, 06:45 PM Post #105 |
|
Green
|
Not excluding Norway, the other two don't. But the problem with Norway is it has to move away from petroleum which it actually is dependent on. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...os/no.html#Econ Gas and oil accounts for 1/3rd of exports. This is not sustainable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...P%29_per_capita The country with the highest GDP PPP is Luxembourg and the United States comes in as number 3. These are Purchasing Power Parity figures, and thus more accurate then other figures. And no, my posts have only been fact based. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 22 2006, 09:41 PM Post #106 |
|
Luxembourg could fit in Alaska, it's not even a real country :rolleyes: Capitalism, spend money you don't have. Capitalism, spend money that isn't yours. Capitalism, for a BETTER America. Better for whom? :rolleyes: Communism is only seen as a threat by capitalist because it means that big corporations have to share the "equal" profit amongst the employees and not the "board." I think communism could work if it was brought into the right envioroment. Basically all that would require is blotting out a major continent or island with blue so our dear Mr. Bush wouldn't know where it was so he could go storming off for the "sake of capitalism." Not too hard really :rolleyes: IRAQ, ERAWK "How do you spell I-rack?"-George Bush Jr. "I-R-A-Q and pronounced 'e-rawk'"-Dick Chaney "The rock? I swear I haven't touched that stuff!"-George Bush Jr. "Touched what sir? Not 'rock', sir, 'rawk'."-Dick Chaney "So you spell it like this?'e-r-a-w-k'"-George Bush Jr. "No...sir..I-R-A-Q"-Dick Chaney "So it is I-rack then?"-George Bush Jr. "No...it's 'e-rawk'"-Dick Chaney "Make up your mind either it's I-rack which is spelt I-R-A-Q or it's 'e-rawk' which is spelt E-R-O-C-K"-George Bush Jr. "It's spelt I-R-A-Q and it's pronounced 'e-rawk'"-Dick Chaney "Well tomatoe, tomatoe"-George Bush Jr. "Whatever you say sir."-Dick Chaney |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 23 2006, 02:41 AM Post #107 |
|
Green
|
The rantings of someone quite delusional in my mind. Capitalism is about making money and spending money that you earn. Communism is not about that. The state takes away your money. Capitalism is better for the country and for the people in the end. Communism is not. Communism will make plenty of people suffer as shown with historical examples. Communism will never work as long as people want their freedom. Communism is not about sharing but stealing from those who make money and earn a living. Communism is a system invented by narrow-minded people who lack foresight. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jul 23 2006, 04:47 AM Post #108 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
1.) Explain why, how, or for what reason "Communism" takes away your money. 2.) What historical example proves Capitalism is better for any given country? 3.) What historical examples prove that "Communism" is not? 4.) How does "Communism" take away freedom? 5.) How does "Communism" steal from people who work for their money? 6.) How does "Communism" lack foresight? |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 23 2006, 05:09 AM Post #109 |
|
Green
|
I provided my examples of this (Soviet Union, North Korea, 1960s China [before economic opening]. You know China is quite unique. China basically proves my entire position and set of beliefs. Once you open your economy and allow for capitalism you guarantee better living conditions. Historical examples where capitalism has been better for the people: United States Spain (recently with economic boom) India (with IT revolution) China (since Deng Xiaoping who opened up China's economy, China is not a communist state) Those are just some examples... |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jul 23 2006, 10:32 PM Post #110 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
mesatecala1, You ignored my questions.
The U.S.S.R. began declining after decentralization and profit motive implementation. The D.P.R.K. had problems due to geographical difficulties coupled with the loss of 32% of its trading partners (in the Warsaw Pact.) China's economy remains 1/3 nationalized, and actually, in spite of living conditions increases, public support of the gpvernment and course of the nation has drastically declined. Tienneman Square being a very good example of workers and students who had gotten together to oppose economic reforms.
Better compared to what? Previous stages of development? Of course, and Socialism will bring further development.
None of these had Socialism, and both of the first two have been good at the expense of the third world, which it exploits.
I explained China above. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 23 2006, 10:43 PM Post #111 |
|
I'm sorry, but is it just me, or has no one else read reports of the "DOG BEAT DOG" world of "capitalism"? To "capitalize", is to make capital off of someone else's effort. With communism, everyone gets there hands dirty, with capitalism, only the lower and middle class do. The very CREATION of the class system was because of early capitalistic efforts. Is a kingdom not capitalist? Does the King not capitalize on his peasants? Do CEOs or "Board of Directors" not earn their wage of their "underlings"? I will not go as far to say that most of what I write isn't a rant, but to say I am wrong about how capitalism works, well that's just quite wrong. You're being blind if you think that capitalism is the "savior" of the economical world, because it isn't. Many people hurt because of capitalism. Communism is just as exploited as Capitalism is now; only, you don't hear of the U.S. being compared to Russia's Stalin. This is because Russia didn't exactly "help the world" like the U.S. tries (at least that's what they want people to believe) to do; invading other countries in the, "name of 'democracy' and the 'capital' world," please. You can't deny that people don't exploit democracy and capitalism as much as people have exploited communism in the past. I was under the impression that Spain was socialist? The bottom line of it all is that democracy fears communism, because it is simply a better system. It makes people equal and dismisses the "capital" system. Anarcho-Communism would be the perfect form of government in my opinion. No leaders, no government, just a community, to make decisions on its own, and help each other; instead of profiting off of each other's work. Hell, plantations was based on capitalism, is that not "capitalizing" on others (in this case slaves and indentured servants?) So the U.S. pre-Civil War era, during Capital session, was "better" for the people? Whatever :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jul 24 2006, 08:10 PM Post #112 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
Jonewest, I largely agreed with your post, so I simply made notes.
Essentially, yes. While slavery had its "slave capital" and Feudalism had its Feudal forms of capital, only in Capitalism has capital become extracted (exploited) by its most efficient means (I.E. through the "free contract" of this slave labor in the form of wages and the "right" to quit working or work for a different master.) Capitalism, as defined by its basic mechanisms, denotes exploitation. No system based on exploitation can truly bring mutual betterment for all.
The matter is a bit more complicated that Communism simply being exploited, but in essense that is sort of what happened. And on that note, the goal of Communists such as myself is to analyze how it got exploited and how we can make a model that can't be exploited. Capitalism doesn't so much as exploit an otherwise good Democracy as mcuh as Capitalists created what we call Democracy specifically to be exploited. Think about the fact that in order to win elections, one must have expensive campaigns and corporate donors to keep their campaigns afloat. While there may be rare exceptions where the workers get some representation (I know of one, for instance, member of the House of Representatives [whom I met myself] from St. Louis whose entire campaign was run by the CPUSA/YCLUSA and who is currently serving in Congress) the great majority is Capitalist-backed. And whenever a pro-worker candidate is elected, international Capitalists do their best to topple them (the Sandanistas in Nicaragua and Allende in Chile are common examples I cite.) And by the way, the U.S.S.R. was the first nation to ever give financial aid to another nation without expecting any return or utilizing it as an investment. That's why the Marshal Plan and such were instigated - to counter the U.S.S.R.'s efforts and keep the "third world" on its side. Cuba is famous today for its massive humanitarian assistance to many nations around the world, even the U.S. (although not supported by the Bush administration.) But I see Cuba as much superior to the U.S.S.R., due to important reforms which have diminished the role of the Party and given much more power to the working people (lo and behold, their economy is growing massively thanks to their worker-managed centrally planned economy, too.)
The Socialist Workers' Party of Spain is the current party at the head of the Spanish government, but its not Socialist in a Marixst sense. Although I do think it better than many of the SWPS's predecessors (Franco, for instance, lol.)
It is not democracy fearing Communism, but Capitalist-controlled democracy fearing a true people's democracy, where all are workers and yet all are owners. And indeed, the plantations of yesteryear were Capitalism but in an outright slavery form. Instead of giving slaves clothes, food, and shelter, Capitalists give them wages, and let them choose their masters. Thus the term I have used, "wage-slavery." All of these commonsense concepts which, of course, my opponents don't seem to comprehend. |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 25 2006, 12:19 AM Post #113 |
|
Green
|
"The Socialist Workers' Party of Spain is the current party at the head of the Spanish government, but its not Socialist in a Marixst sense. Although I do think it better than many of the SWPS's predecessors (Franco, for instance, lol.)" We do agree on something here. But let me fill people in on Spanish politics and Spanish history as that is one of my strongest points. The PSOE, Socialist Workers Party in Spain is NOT SOCIALIST and is certainly not marxist. In fact it was Felipe Gonzalez (one of my favorite prime ministers, after Jose Maria Aznar) who started many capitalist reforms and reduction of labor rigidities. Jose Maria Aznar propelled those reforms that Gonzalez started, and made Spain one of the fastest growing economies in the European Union. I also suggest you do not sympathize with the current Spanish Prime Minister. He is an anti-semite who has demonstrated his hate towards Jews. He actually said he understands why the Nazis did what they did. I am hoping that some of my own family who is in the Conservative Popular Party back in Spain topple his government in the election. He is losing popularity as the scandals increase... whether it be the Palestine headscarf scandal to the one regarding ETA. I'm very adherent to my beliefs and I do believe that capitalism is the true system that serves the people. People cannot be equal wage wise. That is not logical. If I'm a doctor I should make more then the guy in 7-11. I should be more successful because my job is more stressful. "(the Sandanistas in Nicaragua and Allende in Chile are common examples I cite.)" While Allende was elected (he was elected by a nominal majority of Chilean voters [minority of voters - around 34%), Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua was not (he took power by deposing of the Somozas). He never was ousted either. He lost the election against Violeta Chamorro. I don't appreciate history revisionism, please don't do it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende "Allende won the 1970 Chilean presidential election as leader of the Unidad Popular ("Popular Unity") coalition. On September 4, 1970, he obtained a narrow plurality of 36.2 percent to 34.9 percent over Jorge Alessandri, a former president, with 27.8 percent going to a third candidate (Radomiro Tomic) of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), whose electoral platform was quite close to Allende's. According to the Chilean Constitution of the time, if no presidential candidate obtained a majority of the popular vote, the Congress would choose the winner from among the two candidates with the highest number of votes. The tradition was for the Congress to vote for the candidate with the highest popular vote, regardless of margin. Indeed, former president Jorge Alessandri had been elected in 1958 with only 31.6 percent of the popular vote, defeating Allende." No candidate won a majority. Allende was never really popular. Alessandri was very very close to Allende in the election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violeta_Chamorro "Chamorro became the presidential candidate of the United Nicaraguan Opposition (UNO), a coalition of 14 political parties that ran against the Sandinistas in that year's national elections. UNO received 55 percent of the vote, and Chamorro thus defeated Ortega in the presidential election. However, the alliance broke up after the election, and Chamorro was left with virtually no political party during her presidential term." Ortega WAS NEVER OUSTED BY ANY FOREIGN POWER, he simply lost a valid election against Chamorro. (Don't get me wrong, I really hate Chamorro because she made homosexuality a crime, and Nicaragua is one of the last countries in Latin America to treat it as such). |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 25 2006, 12:31 AM Post #114 |
|
Right, because 7-11 guys never get robbed or anything. Almost every job is stressful, heh. It's about, in my humble opinion, destroying this class system we've held on to for so long. I agree with you on the fact that the people are never truly given rep. to their needs and moreso are given the needs of their, indeed, masters. I think if we want to stroll around and stand that this is a "free" country, we should disarm these fortifications of class and "I'm better than you because my family can AFFORD to send me to College or Uni to obtain this so called 'Doctorate.'" Free education would definitely help the state of the country in concerns as to who could excel in which course. |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 25 2006, 12:45 AM Post #115 |
|
Green
|
Well I work for Abercrombie and I find my wage acceptable, and I do not demand a higher wage because I do not have the same job as a doctor. I'm sorry, but I want doctors to be paid more. It is my health at risk. It is the health of the entire nation. Specialized labor like that should get paid far more then blue collar labor. You know what? I'm tired of people like you who are complaining all the time. If I work hard I should be able to get farther then those who don't (and because of the Cal State system I can get my degree). I have the ut-most respect for people who do blue collar work and work hard, but I should be able to get my degree and make a lot more money then the guy in 7-11. Free education is a bad idea (beyond the K-12 system). We need to pay for what we get. I'd much rather pay a higher tuition for a better quality education. Class and income brackets are a necessary thing. To remove them is illogical and ridiculous. "I agree with you on the fact that the people are never truly given rep. to their needs and moreso are given the needs of their, indeed, masters." I NEVER SAID THAT. Don't you dare put words in my mouth! |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 25 2006, 02:35 AM Post #116 |
|
I was refering to Comrade. Abercrombie, eh? Figured that. I can totally understand how you could call a job at a clothing store "blue collar." If you work hard huh? Those clothes get a little heavy, do they? Whatever :rolleyes: I know you love to use adjectives and adverbs, but perhaps you can expand on your belief that the lack of the class system is "illogical" and "ridiculous"? You know, in debate, you have to PROVE such allegations, right? Prove to me, logically, why such a class system is acceptable and good for the sake of the people. So your run-of-the-mill doctor determines national health? Does he travel a lot? Because I'm pretty sure he only treats people in his field. So road workers don't deserve as high of a wage as doctors? If they didn't build a bridge properly, wouldn't that be a health risk? What about janitors, why don't they get paid the same as doctors? If they didn't clean up your filth, just think about the "health" effects that could set in because of the therein lack of sanitation. What about bussers, cooks, and waiters? Why don't they get paid the same amount as doctors? If they didn't do their job right, well you know how harmful things that go in your mouth can be! I believe those are all "blue collar" jobs; where I lack to see the presence of any "health" concern in such a job as "Abercrombie Sells Rep." :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 25 2006, 02:42 AM Post #117 |
|
Green
|
I didn't say my job was blue collar. My job is a retail job... it isn't hard. It is a pretty simple job. There you go again with putting words in my mouth. I think our discussion is over right here because you are seeking to make this personal. Real workers? I'm sorry but doctors do a lot more then day laborers. They maintain our health. They should be paid more. There is no excuse here and you utterly fail in this regard. Doctors all take an oath to maintain the health of patients they take care of. Usually doctors serve a specific hospital that in turn serves a specific area. I'm sorry but waiters, cooks and bus drivers should not get paid the same as doctors. If they don't do a good job then I won't go there. I go to a Chinese restaurant and I'm sure the cook doesn't make as much money as a doctor or even a teacher... but he takes pride in his job. Sometimes it isn't all about money but how happy one is in their own job. I'd much rather make less and be happy, then make more and be miserable. To say they should shows how fallacious your beliefs are. You want to make this personal huh? You're an insulting little brat aren't you? You communists are all the same. You are probably rich and you feel guilty about it. You resort insulting my job so you could feel better about your own corrupt selves. You manage to piss me off with your attitude that trashes me as a person, and you have nothing to back yourself up. I'm sorry you have to resort to ad hominems. I guess you never had an argument to begin with. This place needs to be cleaned up of leftists. I think we should just start banning them left and right. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 25 2006, 04:19 AM Post #118 |
|
lol I'm not rich, I'm a Certified Table Sanitation Technician at Chili's. That's a blue collar job. I do take pride in what I do, but my point wasn't about the money. I'm saying that Doctors don't deserve to make the load they do simply because you think they're more influencial on your health. That is a load of crap, without prevention from places that can make you sick (make you see the doctor), you wouldn't be healthy. Cooks work because they have to, not necessarily because they want to. It isn't the greatest of jobs and the only reason they do it is because it pays their families bills. These are people who weren't brought up in silver spooned families such as yours, and it's a laugh to say you "work for a living" at all. I'm not making fun of you nor making personal attacks, I'm critizing your attitude and the way you carry yourself. If I wanted to make a personal attack against you I would call you a pedophile for having a 17 year old boyfriend. I'm not a communist, I just like the idea, I'm more of an anarchist. My dream style of living would be Anarcho-Communism if that was at all possible in this capitalist "democracy." I never had an arguement to begin with? I asked you to back up this reasoning of yours that the class system is "illogical" and you've ignorned the said question, as you've ignored other legitament questions I and others have given you. How can you even call yourself a conservative anyway? You know conservatives support banning gay marriage , right? Or are you living in a different America? Oh wait, you live in Cali, duh. Nevermind :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 25 2006, 08:13 AM Post #119 |
|
Green
|
I decided I cannot be part of this forum or region because there was a very serious accusation that was tossed my way. I am out of here. That was certainly shortlived. Bye. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 25 2006, 01:27 PM Post #120 |
|
Bah! What did you say before you left? Man...I was hoping to get a bit of humor before my evening nappy time.. <_< :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic » |
5:53 PM Jul 13