It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

With respect, Hillary Clinton is wrong, says Raul Castro

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


Man I love this guy, yeah you with the yellow on ^^ I like people who don't rely on BS to make them happy and people who don't 'look at the world through a crack', that is what Immortal Technique said




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


I am roughly referring to the period between the end of the Vietnam War and about 1983 when the Communist ideology was at its height in Vietnam . The exact details appear towards the end of a book entitled Vietnam: The Australian War by Paul Ham . Specify the book looks at Vietnam in the after mouth of the Communist victory .

Cheers xpert11 .

Edit the above sentence should have read Specify towards the end of the book looks at the after mouth of the Communist victory .

[edit on 2-8-2009 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 

Thanks xpert11, I will have to look through the book again. I believe at the time you are referring to, opium production had largely moved to Afghanistan. Not sure how long the "opium for rice" deal lasted and how much opium the "Golden Triangle" (which includes Vietnam) area produced at that time.

Did the book you listed mention opium at all?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 


Change does not mean good things will happen...

Change can also be for the worse, and a change to another Socialist, or Communist dictatorship is one of the worse sort of Change that can happen.

Apparently by your statement you are one of those people who thinks CHANGE can only be good...

Castro made the same promises of CHANGE for Cuba... Hitler made the same promises of CHANGE for Germany.. Musolinni also made promises of CHANGE for Italy... The same can be said of every dictator who came to power in this way. You know one of the similarities between them all was?... They all promised "Social progress" among other things... All of these dictators, as well as others, were also Socialists of one denomination or another.

The word change does not mean good changes will happen, which is something some people apparently don't understand.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


See your U2U inbox for my off topic reply .
It would also pay if the reader took note of my above correction .

Cheers xpert11 .

[edit on 2-8-2009 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 



Ah Parenti...another Socialist who likes to talk about "class struggle" without knowing much of what he is talking about...

He likes to talk about western racism, but he forgets to mention that African nations have used slaves, and enslaved their own people, and slavery still exists in African nations...

Anytime a Socialist talks about "class struggle", he/she forgets that every attempt at such a thing has transformed nations into Socialist dictatorships, and causes suffering and death among the people...





[edit on 2-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Ownification
 


Change does not mean good things will happen...

Change can also be for the worse, and a change to another Socialist, or Communist dictatorship is one of the worse sort of Change that can happen.

Apparently by your statement you are one of those people who thinks CHANGE can only be good...

Castro made the same promises of CHANGE for Cuba... Hitler made the same promises of CHANGE for Germany.. Musolinni also made promises of CHANGE for Italy... The same can be said of every dictator who came to power in this way. You know one of the similarities between them all was?... They all promised "Social progress" among other things... All of these dictators, as well as others, were also Socialists of one denomination or another.

The word change does not mean good changes will happen, which is something some people apparently don't understand.


No need to argue here. If you read my statement you would have seen that I stated 'change through time', 'time change condition'.

Anyone who has done problem solving or system analysis and design knows that systems need constant update based on changes. Many models have been created etc etc but we don't elect professionals as leaders we elect liars whose jobs it is to lie hence politicians.

When I talk about change I don't at all mean Obama wise, or Hitler Wise. I'm referring to continuous change. If you read what I posted properly you would have known that before.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 


And you fail to notice that even "change through time" doesn't mean good things will happen.

The United States has remained as a representative Republic for a bit over 200 years. there have been, or were, some changes but in essense the main principles of the Constitution did not change until a few years back.

Now with the new Leftist/Socialist party in power the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights within it are being abolished by a bunch of sociopaths who think they are better than anyone else, hence they know what people should be doing, and these same people are working towards forever transforming the representative Republic into another Socialist dictatorship, and eventually to have control alongside a few other Socialist elites over the entire world with their One World Order, and One World Economy.

Groups like the UN, and EU, are also working towards this same end, and they want to control every person on this planet with a set of rules that only they can control.

Again, that form of "change" is not going to be good at all...

There are many cultures, and many people with different ideals, different understandings of morals, and with different beliefs on what sort of laws should exist for such a "change" that the Socialist elite want to even work.
Not to mention that their goal in itself is "control".

So "change" even through time does not mean it will be for good.




[edit on 2-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




And you fail to notice that even "change through time" doesn't mean good things will happen.


Now with the new Leftist/Socialist party in power the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights within it are being abolished by a bunch of sociopaths who think they are better than anyone else, hence they know what people should be doing, and these same people are working towards forever transforming the representative Republic into another Socialist dictatorship, and eventually to have control alongside a few other Socialist elites over the entire world with their One World Order, and One World Economy.


OK let's make this simple.

step 1: C1(Change1)> if a problem arises due to the C1, change again which gives you C2> if a problem arises due to C2 then change again which will give you C3> if a problem arises due to C3 then create C4.... In each step other mini steps are taken. I won't go in to detail, do some research.

I stated in my first post if you read that this thread will be a place for Socialists (any kind) and Capitalists (any kind) to flame each other and that is exactly happening. You seem to think that Socialists are simply bad, not taking into account that they see something in Socialism which attracts them to it, the same way you see something in Capitalism which attracts you to it. If we combine this attraction a better unity will be created between the two groups and possibly the first step of a long continuous change.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


How would a socialist anarchist fit into your rather black and white version of the world?

I suggest you take a moment to check out your political compass in Skyfloating's thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Authoritarian/Libertarian distinction is very important, IMO.

You discount Parenti's comments on the US Constitution because of your disagreement with his supposed views on slavery?


Dictatorships can just as easily thrive in a capitalist environment as in a socialist environment. The corporation is itself one of the most tyrannical power structure out there.


[edit on 2/8/09 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


OK talk to you tomorrow leave a reply if you want, I am gona go smoke a sigie and go off to sleep. I'm not here to flame any one but merely to discuss and gain broader understanding. That is what we should all aim for.


[edit on 063131p://31b8 by Ownification]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 


Let me make this simple..

I, like other members who have posted in similar threads, have LIVED and EXPERIENCED what you, and some others THINK is a great economic and political system, which you THINK will solve all the problems in the world.

So I, and millions of other Americans who have escaped Communism/Socialism, will NEVER accept what you, and some others THINK looks good on PAPER.

That's probably the reason why Socialist Janet Napolitano labeled alongside many other Americans, any American who fears Communism as "possible terrorists" in the latest DHS report.

There are also millions of other Americans who were born here, and want to DEFEND and SUPPORT the representative Republic, alongside it's Constitution and the Bill of Rights in it, and not your Socialist ideals which to you and some others look good on PAPER.

Corporations should have never been allowed to be part of the government, but thanks to a DEMOCRATIC president, Woodrow Wilson, the Socialist Federal Reserve bank was given total control over the U.S. economy. Whoever controls the economy will eventually control a nation. Hence these Socialist elites have continued working on changing both parties, at the end to implement another Socialist dictatorship in this nation, which final steps we are seeing in the CHANGES being implemented by the current Socialist administration.

Hence, like i said before, nomatter how much sugar you try to pour on top of it, change does not means good things will happen.

What we need is to go back to being advocates of the representative REPUBLIC which is what this nation is, and demand for the govenrment to defend, and uphold the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights within it, instead of trying to look for loopholes to abolish rights, such as the Second Amendment right, or to outright "change" and abolish the Constitution of the United States.




[edit on 2-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

How would a socialist anarchist fit into your rather black and white version of the world?
....................


First of all, I don't need to check my "political compass", much less from a program "someone else made".

Second of all, Socialist anarchism?.... Now that's an oxymoron if I have seen one.. Socialism is an economic system, as well as having political ideologies. In anarchism people can do whatever the hell they want, and not everyone wants the same thing.

In that system which you seem to think is so great, there will ALWAYS be violence, because not everyone has the same ideas on what is right, and wrong.

To some people doing anything, even if it hurts other people, is the "right thing to do and such people think it is their right to do so".

When there is a group of people, there has to be a set of rules, otherwise total anarchy ensues. So this "Socialist Anarchism" made up thing will never work.

Even in ancient times, when people lived in tribes, each tribe had a set of rules, and most normally either the elders or the strongest person/people were the ones in power over the tribe. Not to mention that there was always wars between different tribes due to one tribe claiming resources belonged to them and not to another tribe.

I am just amazed at the "made up philosophies" that some people come up with. To some people these philosophies "look good on paper", but when given proper thought even before trying to implement such "philosophies" you can find that they will never work.

Anarchy will never work, because at the end it only leads to chaos. This "Socialist anarchism" will end up in the same way if anyone tries it.

But hey, go ahead buy yourself an island with some people who want to try this and live there for about a year and see what happens.

When a group of people live, and work together, you will ALWAYS need a set of rules, as well as rights, that everyone must abide by.

Anarchism is just the dream of a chaotic mind.





[edit on 2-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Just a couple of questions... Why is it that some Americans seem to be bothered by actually going back to the principles by which this nation was founded?

Is the Constitution of the United States that bad? Are the rights as cited in the Bill of Rights bad?

Why the need by some to want to tranform the representative Republic into another Socialist nation?...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Anarchy will never work, because at the end it only leads to chaos.

But hey, go ahead buy yourself an island with some people who want to try this and live there for about a year and see what happens.

I can see a problem with that.

Unless the Island is in International Waters, some government will want to claim it as part of their territory. Therefore, it will probably be subject to taxes, rates, etc...

That means the 'owners' of the island will not be allowed to practise their anarchy, if they have to find some way to pay for the Island's upkeep, to whichever government wants to hold out their hand for their payment.

I bet there would be a few people who would be glad and willing to live on an island, independent of all outside influence. It's too bad the 'modern' world won't let them.

Hey, Cuba's an island! No anarchy there, just a completely controlling government to contend with!



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


1. They are capitalist.
2. The are not communist.
3. Socialism is not communism.
4. Just because you "claim" yourself socialist doesn't mean you are.
5. By all definitions of socialism, they are not socialist.
6. They are a free market economy.
7. They are capitalist.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

There is no example of how the US is becoming a Socialist dictatorship, in fact even with the new healthcare bill there were many social aspects to it, but the Repubs. felt they had to amend it to be able to capitalize on the situation. Less regulation, and less care for the people. Social Security, and even the public school system can be considered socialist. If the right wing had their way 100% we'd be a theological dictatorship. Thank goodness we're not!



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




Why the need by some to want to tranform the representative Republic into another Socialist nation?...


Socialism is now a belief system used by the elite to control the masses just as religion was in earlier times. It has intentionally been sold to American youth in schools and colleges. It is presented as having the higher moral ground (share and share alike) when compared to grubby capitalism. Starry eyed young adults can not see that in practice it ends up as feudalism with socialism taking the place of religion as a means of controlling the masses. The state/elite own everything and the people are nothing but unmotivated serfs. Do you really think the average person at the bottom of the heap in a communist/socialist dictatorship LIKES socialism? If they did it would not have been necessary to commit mass murders and have shut borders in so many "socialist" countries. Those who escape usually end up as die hard capitalists because they KNOW socialism means a low standard of living and lack of freedom for the serfs.

One of the biggest problems is our present system is presented to people as "Capitalism" when it is not. The USA is now operating under an oligarchy and mercantilism and heading rapidly towards fascism. Humans are not perfect and that is why we need a rule of law. Corporations must be under that rule of law just like the rest of us. The USA has anti-monopoly laws yet we have ignored them to allow bigger and bigger corporations that wield too much power. Corporate donations and lobbying of congressman should be seen as unconstitutional because Corporations are NOT men and have no place in government.

Socialism does not work because humans are predators, that means they have evolved to be lazy to conserve energy. It is hardwired in to humans. Unless there is an incentive you are not going to over come that predator characteristic.


One of the history lessons removed from the US history books, the real story of Thanksgiving, illustrates this.

Originally the Plymouth Bay Colony was setup along the lines of Communism ``...that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing,'' Governor Bradford stated in his accounts

It did not work

``For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte,'' Bradford wrote. Young men resented feeding another man's wife and children from their labor. Finally in desperation for spring planting in 1623. He set aside a plot of land for each family, that ``they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves....This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content.''

William Bradford,, governor of the Plymouth Bay Colony for 30 years between 1621 and 1656. Bradford's history ``Of Plimoth Plantation'' was first published in 1856. source

This small scale experiment (1620 to 1623) in socialism is very interesting for several reasons. First the pilgrims were deeply religious separatists so should have been a highly motivated unified group. Second the conditions were so harsh half the colony was lost the first year. Yet even so there was not sufficient motivation to get the people to work hard enough to flourish until they were given a plot of their own land.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by flice
 




With all due respect to you two, the only thing capitalism teaches us is how easy men can become greedy and needy, and forget about loving their neighbours for what they are... fellow humans.


I'd rather be born unequal with the hope of attaining wealth through personal determination, than to be born equal with no chance of escaping poverty.


Amen to that! I'd rather have the freedom to fail on my own terms.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
off topic post removed by user. Mea culpa


[edit on 3/8/09 by ConspiracyNut23]




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join