Marxism fails, always.
- Thread starter ASCIIGHOST
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm opposed to unfree markets and a fan of free markets (as in voluntary exchange unimpeded by an unwanted third party). Sometimes, as you know, the terminology people use may not be appropriate for the meaning they intend.
I also think intellectual property is an interesting topic since includes the wrong word "property" to convey meaning for something that is frequently not really property.
i want to come live on your island.
he's crying over the statue of satan in detroit rock city, now.
it clearly offends his delicate sensibilities.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you're opposed to capitalism, got it.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
China has 55 ethnic groups recognized by the PRC besides Han Chinese, and India has over 2,000 ethnic groups. All those countries listed have more than "tribal populations." Bangladesh has 166 million people, India has 1.271 billion people and the smallest pop in that list would probably be São Tomé and Príncipe at 192,993.
Then again if we really want to get into Marxist theory, nationalism and heterogeneous societies are just tools used by the ruling class to keep the working class divided, look up Fraternity of peoples.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
One has to ask is it really that bad ??? i mean look at it this way for every 20 hrs in space USA did ,, Russia had 100 hrs on them Russia had the first of everything in space man , women , hell even a dog in space before america They were the first on the moon
when we look at material things like what we call property is it really relevant,
Breaking it all down is western society actually better off or are you actually living in fear ..
you may own that house yet the Government can come and take it away from you , you ever wonder why them farmers with them big field just out side a big city are no more now you see new homes etc
progress period sure they will offer you a price usually good price for your land but if you were to say no , and we herd it millions of times they come and take it from you and give you well below property value and say suck it up ..
communism is good and bad many benefits its like being in a union although your a POS worker your ass is still covered when we look at schooling , housing , and everything else which is better free schooling medical and health or how it is out west To fucking bad you got no health care get the fuck out of here lol schooling costs housing costs ,,
So where does it end ???
is our system better and or who surely not the lower income or the very few middle class people which there squeezing out of existence, we look at at China , russia , and any other comunist nation as poor 3rd world , yet keep a blind eye at the problem at hand in our own back yard unemployment homeless , no jobs , and most importantly education
when we look at material things like what we call property is it really relevant,
Breaking it all down is western society actually better off or are you actually living in fear ..
you may own that house yet the Government can come and take it away from you , you ever wonder why them farmers with them big field just out side a big city are no more now you see new homes etc
progress period sure they will offer you a price usually good price for your land but if you were to say no , and we herd it millions of times they come and take it from you and give you well below property value and say suck it up ..
communism is good and bad many benefits its like being in a union although your a POS worker your ass is still covered when we look at schooling , housing , and everything else which is better free schooling medical and health or how it is out west To fucking bad you got no health care get the fuck out of here lol schooling costs housing costs ,,
So where does it end ???
is our system better and or who surely not the lower income or the very few middle class people which there squeezing out of existence, we look at at China , russia , and any other comunist nation as poor 3rd world , yet keep a blind eye at the problem at hand in our own back yard unemployment homeless , no jobs , and most importantly education
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The U.S. was the first on the Moon
And look up Kelo v. City of New London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
wrong again many tend to believe but lets really look who was the first on the moon USA or Russia
The space race between the United States and the Soviet Union brought an engaging touch of science fiction to the Cold War. To American astonishment and dismay, the Russians at first took a commanding lead. Their programme was directed by Sergei Korolev, a brilliant aeronautical engineer and expert on rockets, who had displeased Stalin and spent time in the Gulag in the 1930s. He was a commanding figure who did not suffer fools gladly and his staff treated him almost as a god. In the 1950s he developed a massive and at the time almost unthinkably powerful rocket, the R-7, which would propel Soviet spacecraft to the Moon.
Sputnik 1, the first satellite ever launched, created a sensation in 1957 when it hurtled out into space and orbited the Earth every 96 minutes before falling back into the Earth’s atmosphere. Sputnik 2 took the first living creature out into space, a sweet-tempered dog called Laika, though she did not last as long as the Russians pretended. More Sputnik missions tested life-support systems and re-entry procedures. In January 1959 the spacecraft Luna 1 (which Korolev called Mechta, ‘the Dream’) was launched at the Moon, but missed by around 3,700 miles and went into orbit between the Sun and Mars.
Then, on September 12th, 1959 Luna 2 was launched. At just past midnight Moscow time on September 14th it crashed some 240,000 miles away on the Moon not far from the Sea of Tranquillity (perhaps a not entirely appropriate location). Korolev and his people were listening as the signals coming back from the spacecraft suddenly stopped. The total silence meant that Luna had hit its target and there was great jubilation in the control room.
Luna 2 (Luna is Russian for Moon) weighed 390 kilograms. It was spherical in shape with antennae sticking out of it and carried instruments for measuring radiation, magnetic fields and meteorites. It also carried metal pendants which it scattered on the surface on impact, with the hammer and sickle of the USSR on one side and the launch date on the other. It confirmed that the moon had only a tiny radiation field and, so far as could be observed, no radiation belts. The spacecraft had no propulsion system of its own and the third and final stage of its propelling rocket crashed on the moon about half an hour after Luna 2 itself.
The scientific results of Luna 2 were similar to those of Luna 1, but the psychological impact of Luna 2 was profound. The closest any American probe had come to the Moon at that point was 37,000 miles. It seemed clear in the United States that the timing had been heavily influenced by the fact that the Soviet premier, Nikita Khruschev, was due to arrive in the US immediately afterwards, to be welcomed by President Eisenhower. Luna 2’s success enabled him to appear beaming with rumbustious pride. He lectured Americans on the virtues of communism and the immorality of scantily clothed chorus girls. The only way of annoying him seemed to be by refusing to let him into Disneyland.
Korolev had a clincher to come. Only three weeks later, Luna 3 was launched on October 4th, the second anniversary of Sputnik 1, to swing round the far side of the Moon and send back the first fuzzy pictures of its dark side, which no one had seen before. It was an astonishing feat of navigation and it was now possible to draw a tentative map of the Moon’s hidden side.
While the Americans were in disarray, with their space efforts publicly failing (Russian setbacks were kept strictly secret), Korolev went on to put the first man into space, Yuri Gagarin, in 1961. In 1963, on Khruschev’s orders, he propelled the first woman into space, Valentina Tereshkova, which enabled the Soviet Union to make propaganda mileage by claiming that under communism women were treated equally to men.
- See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/soviet-union-first-moon#sthash.eNcw7blQ.dpuf
The space race between the United States and the Soviet Union brought an engaging touch of science fiction to the Cold War. To American astonishment and dismay, the Russians at first took a commanding lead. Their programme was directed by Sergei Korolev, a brilliant aeronautical engineer and expert on rockets, who had displeased Stalin and spent time in the Gulag in the 1930s. He was a commanding figure who did not suffer fools gladly and his staff treated him almost as a god. In the 1950s he developed a massive and at the time almost unthinkably powerful rocket, the R-7, which would propel Soviet spacecraft to the Moon.
Sputnik 1, the first satellite ever launched, created a sensation in 1957 when it hurtled out into space and orbited the Earth every 96 minutes before falling back into the Earth’s atmosphere. Sputnik 2 took the first living creature out into space, a sweet-tempered dog called Laika, though she did not last as long as the Russians pretended. More Sputnik missions tested life-support systems and re-entry procedures. In January 1959 the spacecraft Luna 1 (which Korolev called Mechta, ‘the Dream’) was launched at the Moon, but missed by around 3,700 miles and went into orbit between the Sun and Mars.
Then, on September 12th, 1959 Luna 2 was launched. At just past midnight Moscow time on September 14th it crashed some 240,000 miles away on the Moon not far from the Sea of Tranquillity (perhaps a not entirely appropriate location). Korolev and his people were listening as the signals coming back from the spacecraft suddenly stopped. The total silence meant that Luna had hit its target and there was great jubilation in the control room.
Luna 2 (Luna is Russian for Moon) weighed 390 kilograms. It was spherical in shape with antennae sticking out of it and carried instruments for measuring radiation, magnetic fields and meteorites. It also carried metal pendants which it scattered on the surface on impact, with the hammer and sickle of the USSR on one side and the launch date on the other. It confirmed that the moon had only a tiny radiation field and, so far as could be observed, no radiation belts. The spacecraft had no propulsion system of its own and the third and final stage of its propelling rocket crashed on the moon about half an hour after Luna 2 itself.
The scientific results of Luna 2 were similar to those of Luna 1, but the psychological impact of Luna 2 was profound. The closest any American probe had come to the Moon at that point was 37,000 miles. It seemed clear in the United States that the timing had been heavily influenced by the fact that the Soviet premier, Nikita Khruschev, was due to arrive in the US immediately afterwards, to be welcomed by President Eisenhower. Luna 2’s success enabled him to appear beaming with rumbustious pride. He lectured Americans on the virtues of communism and the immorality of scantily clothed chorus girls. The only way of annoying him seemed to be by refusing to let him into Disneyland.
Korolev had a clincher to come. Only three weeks later, Luna 3 was launched on October 4th, the second anniversary of Sputnik 1, to swing round the far side of the Moon and send back the first fuzzy pictures of its dark side, which no one had seen before. It was an astonishing feat of navigation and it was now possible to draw a tentative map of the Moon’s hidden side.
While the Americans were in disarray, with their space efforts publicly failing (Russian setbacks were kept strictly secret), Korolev went on to put the first man into space, Yuri Gagarin, in 1961. In 1963, on Khruschev’s orders, he propelled the first woman into space, Valentina Tereshkova, which enabled the Soviet Union to make propaganda mileage by claiming that under communism women were treated equally to men.
- See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/soviet-union-first-moon#sthash.eNcw7blQ.dpuf
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Well, I meant people, maybe I should have clarified that
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
HEY Vos i wonder if its costing the russian people anything for russia being in Syria yet
The Obama administration is moving toward major changes in its military train-and-equip program for the Syrian opposition after the acknowledged failure of efforts to create a new force of rebel fighters to combat the Islamic State there.
In comments that appeared to shock even many of those involved in Syria policy elsewhere in the government, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the head of the U.S. Central Command, told Congress on Wednesday that only “four or five” trainees from the program, a $500 million plan officially launched in December to prepare as many as 5,400 fighters this year, have ended up “in the fight” inside Syria.
The course correction would mark the first significant alteration in the Obama administration’s year-old strategy of defeating the militants with air power, along with training and supplies for indigenous forces fighting them on the ground. It comes as critics have drawn a direct line between Obama’s long-standing reluctance to more directly intervene in the fight and the growing flood of Syrian refugees fleeing to the West.
Defense officials who described the proposed changes said the yearly goal would be substantially lower, perhaps as few as 500. Rather than front-line forces, fighters would be trained as enablers and liaisons between U.S. forces outside the country — particularly those directing U.S. airstrikes — and groups such as Syrian Kurds and Sunni Arabs that the Pentagon thinks have been effective against the militants.
[U.S.-backed Syria rebels routed by al-Qaeda fighters]
Vetting rules would be eased to allow training for members of groups previously barred from training, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe the changes. Obama’s senior national security officials discussed the Syria situation in a principals meeting at the White House early this week.
Lawmakers responded to Austin’s description of overall progress against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq with near-universal skepticism, and they described the administration’s strategy of defeating the militants with air power, along with training and supplies for indigenous forces on the ground,as a failure. Sens. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) and Angus King (I-Maine) declared themselves converts to the need to establish a U.S.-protected safe zone for refugees and opposition fighters inside Syria, a proposal the administration has repeatedly rejected.
“I hate it when the chairman’s right, but he’s been talking about this for two years, and I — in retrospect, I think he was right,” King said of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has long pushed for direct U.S. intervention in Syria against the forces of President Bashar al-Assad as well as the Islamic State.
“We’ve allowed this atrocity to go on too long, and it’s impacting us; it’s impacting the rest of Europe,” King said of the tens of thousands of Syrian and other Middle East refugees pouring into Europe. “I really thing there should be a rethinking of the non-intervention strategy.”
McCain called the administration’s strategy an “abject failure” and said “the refugees are a result of it.” Under withering questioning from McCain, Austin repeated that he would not recommend establishing such a zone “at this time.”
After a summer of focusing on the Iran nuclear deal and the 2016 presidential race, Congress has again turned its attention to the wars in Syria and Iraq, and lawmakers made clear they do not like what they see. In addition to the sudden flood of refugees — fleeing Syria as well as camps and cities in Turkey and Jordan, where millions have been largely out of sight to the rest of the world — concern has escalated with this month’s Russian military buildup near the Syrian port of Latakia.
[Putin defends Moscow’s delivery of weapons to Syrian army]
Both of those situations have created new headaches for an administration already flailing in the region. While the administration has said that Assad must step down, it has declined to throw its military weight behind forces seeking to oust him. Instead, U.S. air strikes and most assistance have been restricted to the separate but overlapping fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
Russia, Assad’s principal diplomatic and military backer — along with Iran — has said its new Syrian deployments are designed to assist the fight against the Islamic State, not to further aid Assad.
“Obviously, there are serious questions. . . . I’m not taking that at face value,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Wednesday. “We look at the type of airplanes or the type of munitions and so forth, and it obviously raises much more serious questions about what is happening.”
So far, Russia has begun work on expanding airstrips and has transferred tanks and armored personnel carriers to the Syrian coast.
Kerry has carried the ball for the administration in complaining to Russia, speaking three times by phone with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in less than a week.
This week, he said, the Russians suggested that the conversation be expanded to a “military-to-military” dialogue “in order to discuss the issue of precisely what will be done to de-conflict,” and avoid the eventual possibility that Russian aircraft and those belonging to the U.S.-led coalition bombing the Islamic State in Syria encounter one another.
Kerry said he still thought that “meaningful” Russian help could contribute to a political solution in Syria.
Administration officials said that dialogue would likely begin with a phone call between Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, who has so far shunned such contact. As recently as late Tuesday, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said that because Kerry was in touch with Lavrov, “to date there has been no reason for Secretary Carter to initiate another” line of communication.
The administration shut down military-to-military engagements with Russia in March 2014 because of Russia’s “aggressive actions in Ukraine,” Cook said, although “senior leaders continue to have the discretion to communicate with their counterparts as necessary.”
Kerry, officials said, sees the opening of a military dialogue as a way to determine Russian intentions and avoid escalating what could become a dangerous situation.
In his testimony, Austin acknowledged that progress in Syri
The Obama administration is moving toward major changes in its military train-and-equip program for the Syrian opposition after the acknowledged failure of efforts to create a new force of rebel fighters to combat the Islamic State there.
In comments that appeared to shock even many of those involved in Syria policy elsewhere in the government, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the head of the U.S. Central Command, told Congress on Wednesday that only “four or five” trainees from the program, a $500 million plan officially launched in December to prepare as many as 5,400 fighters this year, have ended up “in the fight” inside Syria.
The course correction would mark the first significant alteration in the Obama administration’s year-old strategy of defeating the militants with air power, along with training and supplies for indigenous forces fighting them on the ground. It comes as critics have drawn a direct line between Obama’s long-standing reluctance to more directly intervene in the fight and the growing flood of Syrian refugees fleeing to the West.
Defense officials who described the proposed changes said the yearly goal would be substantially lower, perhaps as few as 500. Rather than front-line forces, fighters would be trained as enablers and liaisons between U.S. forces outside the country — particularly those directing U.S. airstrikes — and groups such as Syrian Kurds and Sunni Arabs that the Pentagon thinks have been effective against the militants.
[U.S.-backed Syria rebels routed by al-Qaeda fighters]
Vetting rules would be eased to allow training for members of groups previously barred from training, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe the changes. Obama’s senior national security officials discussed the Syria situation in a principals meeting at the White House early this week.
Lawmakers responded to Austin’s description of overall progress against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq with near-universal skepticism, and they described the administration’s strategy of defeating the militants with air power, along with training and supplies for indigenous forces on the ground,as a failure. Sens. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) and Angus King (I-Maine) declared themselves converts to the need to establish a U.S.-protected safe zone for refugees and opposition fighters inside Syria, a proposal the administration has repeatedly rejected.
“I hate it when the chairman’s right, but he’s been talking about this for two years, and I — in retrospect, I think he was right,” King said of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has long pushed for direct U.S. intervention in Syria against the forces of President Bashar al-Assad as well as the Islamic State.
“We’ve allowed this atrocity to go on too long, and it’s impacting us; it’s impacting the rest of Europe,” King said of the tens of thousands of Syrian and other Middle East refugees pouring into Europe. “I really thing there should be a rethinking of the non-intervention strategy.”
McCain called the administration’s strategy an “abject failure” and said “the refugees are a result of it.” Under withering questioning from McCain, Austin repeated that he would not recommend establishing such a zone “at this time.”
After a summer of focusing on the Iran nuclear deal and the 2016 presidential race, Congress has again turned its attention to the wars in Syria and Iraq, and lawmakers made clear they do not like what they see. In addition to the sudden flood of refugees — fleeing Syria as well as camps and cities in Turkey and Jordan, where millions have been largely out of sight to the rest of the world — concern has escalated with this month’s Russian military buildup near the Syrian port of Latakia.
[Putin defends Moscow’s delivery of weapons to Syrian army]
Both of those situations have created new headaches for an administration already flailing in the region. While the administration has said that Assad must step down, it has declined to throw its military weight behind forces seeking to oust him. Instead, U.S. air strikes and most assistance have been restricted to the separate but overlapping fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
Russia, Assad’s principal diplomatic and military backer — along with Iran — has said its new Syrian deployments are designed to assist the fight against the Islamic State, not to further aid Assad.
“Obviously, there are serious questions. . . . I’m not taking that at face value,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Wednesday. “We look at the type of airplanes or the type of munitions and so forth, and it obviously raises much more serious questions about what is happening.”
So far, Russia has begun work on expanding airstrips and has transferred tanks and armored personnel carriers to the Syrian coast.
Kerry has carried the ball for the administration in complaining to Russia, speaking three times by phone with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in less than a week.
This week, he said, the Russians suggested that the conversation be expanded to a “military-to-military” dialogue “in order to discuss the issue of precisely what will be done to de-conflict,” and avoid the eventual possibility that Russian aircraft and those belonging to the U.S.-led coalition bombing the Islamic State in Syria encounter one another.
Kerry said he still thought that “meaningful” Russian help could contribute to a political solution in Syria.
Administration officials said that dialogue would likely begin with a phone call between Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, who has so far shunned such contact. As recently as late Tuesday, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said that because Kerry was in touch with Lavrov, “to date there has been no reason for Secretary Carter to initiate another” line of communication.
The administration shut down military-to-military engagements with Russia in March 2014 because of Russia’s “aggressive actions in Ukraine,” Cook said, although “senior leaders continue to have the discretion to communicate with their counterparts as necessary.”
Kerry, officials said, sees the opening of a military dialogue as a way to determine Russian intentions and avoid escalating what could become a dangerous situation.
In his testimony, Austin acknowledged that progress in Syri
No...
Russia canceled their lunar programs after we made it to the moon and won the race. They also just a few years ago, for the first time since, announced plans to send men to the moon in 2030. Which has upset many of the leading scientists because Mars is where they think they should be making an investment.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
are you sure you made it to the moon ??? i mean seriously , you think they made it through the van allen belt in pepsi tin can ??? and if so why have they not been to the so called moon since ?? its proven facts that when exploring something you take gradual steps but now there talking about going to mars ??? lol kinda ironic wouldn't it be much better to have a moon base then a so called space station that is not actually in space ??? think about it
What USA gained with there lies and deception they had to show the world something and it was stated they had to make it there at any cost ,, hmm wonder how paramount pictures and the moon landing have in common ????
But its all starting to unravel before your very eyes ..
What USA gained with there lies and deception they had to show the world something and it was stated they had to make it there at any cost ,, hmm wonder how paramount pictures and the moon landing have in common ????
But its all starting to unravel before your very eyes ..
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
you wonder why he wouldn't swear on the bible saying he was on the moon but went to attack mode lol cmon you believe everything your censored media tells you how about the big patriot lie fed on the world
In a report entitled “The Best Defence,” the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s documentary program, The Fifth Estate traced one set of lies told by the previous Bush administration and the Pentagon during the 1991 conflict. It replayed footage of both President George Bush the elder and Desert Storm commander General H. Norman Schwarzkopf declaring that the US military’s Patriot missiles had achieved a 100 percent success rate in destroying Iraqi Scud missiles headed for Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The claims were a crucial part of Washington’s propaganda effort to create the impression of high-technology precision weaponry that would ensure a rapid victory with few US casualties, while causing limited Iraqi civilian deaths. Billions of dollars were at stake for Raytheon, the company that manufactured the Patriots, and, by extension, the entire military industry upon which the US economy depends heavily.
In briefings that were featured by every American TV network and most media outlets around the globe, Schwarzkopf and other Gulf War commanders displayed video footage and aerial photographs boasting not only that every Scud had been intercepted, but that mobile Scud launchers had been blown to pieces with unerring accuracy by guided missiles.
Accompanied by the media corps, the first President Bush traveled to where the Patriot missiles were manufactured, the Raytheon plant in Lexington, Massachusetts, to publicly congratulate the assembled employees. “It is thanks to the patriots here that the Patriot has achieved such success,” he stated.
It is now clear from The Fifth Estate program that when he made that boast, Bush knew it to be a lie. Just before his appearance at the Raytheon factory, he received an urgent visit from Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens, who warned him that Israel was about to enter the war against Iraq because the Patriot missiles had proven completely ineffective.
Interviewed by The Fifth Estate, Arens said he told Bush that, at best, the Patriots had intercepted 20 percent of the Scuds, a figure that soon turned out to be generous. Bush was desperate to forestall the Israeli threat, which could have inflamed the Middle East. He called in Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Richard Cheney, who insisted that the US military had reliable evidence of its “100 percent” hit rate.
But by the time the 40-day war ended, 39 Iraqi Scuds had struck Israeli territory, killing two people and wounding hundreds, despite constant fire from US-operated Patriot batteries near Tel Aviv. American soldiers also became victims of the Patriot cover-up. In the most serious incident, 28 were killed when a Scud missile hit a barracks in Saudi Arabia.
Conducting their own investigations, the Israelis quickly established that the Patriot missiles had probably failed to knock out a single Scud. Closer examination of Schwarzkopf’s presentations established that the mobile Scud launchers he showed being bombed were, in fact, fuel or water t
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
remember usa is founded on the make belief impressions that usa is highly advanced military and do not mess with us ,,,,
Problem is not only is the government corrupt its corrupt all the way down to even the military complex right to the makers of your so called high tech weapons runs hollow
this should be the american anthem no matter what we breed we are still made of greed
Problem is not only is the government corrupt its corrupt all the way down to even the military complex right to the makers of your so called high tech weapons runs hollow
this should be the american anthem no matter what we breed we are still made of greed
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So do you have any original thoughts of your own or are you just going to keep copy/pasting from conspiracy theory websites?
because to rightie it's a social safety net..healthcare..even for the vets who came back..they don't deserve it, therefore, they (rightie) votes against funding.