Artfldgr says:
As I understand it, it's OK for you to be racist against "Eastern Europeans" but not OK for me to criticize Obama for having a poster of a known America hater on the wall of his campaign office.
Kim, that’s because you just don’t understand socialist class dialectics. You are the “oppressor class”, and as such, you are forbidden to react, defend, or protect yourself. The ONLY action you’re allowed as an oppressor class is to shut up and dally off the mortal coil, as only negatives are allowed the oppressor class.
Now anything that an oppressed class does to hurt an oppressor class is never seen as an attack because it is just. So any and all actions that are negative to the oppressor class and initiated by any of the oppressed classes is deemed to be a fair and just move.
HOWEVER, Kim, these guys forget that as a WOMAN, you’re an oppressed class, though in the hierarchy they see Obama is lower than you so you’re still an oppressor inside oppression inside an oppression system (the dissonance in this fun house is deafening).
You’re not allowed to comment against Obama because it’s not fair; it’s just the oppressor class trying to protect its superior position over the presidential candidate and potential next ruler of the most powerful country in the world.
Don’t you realize that you’re keeping this man back? That without such class oppressors like you, he might even greater, maybe ruler of the universe? Humanist god? Who knows?
On the Harvard note:
While I wont go through your other points, this one will do.
You make the inductive fallacy that if you go to Harvard your something more than smart, you’re also moral, or something good. However Harvard stopped turning out moral people once “progressivism”, and leftism so strong that it produces fascists pretending to be capitalists. Though even before that, they turned out plenty of “losers”
Do you remember Richard Whitney? Mayflower family, old money, and embezzeled and ripped off every place he was associated with. the nyse, the yacht club, his fathers estate, etc. Known for parading into Sing Sing with his swag porcellian watch hanging from his belt.
Remember it was Harvard that produced Jeffery Skilling, remember him? One of those Enron people? Of course if you were doing this you would think that he must be a real winner, right? Earned like 70 million in stock sales from cooked books.
Oh, and as a Russian you should be especially keen on what Harvard produces.
“Russian economy, star economist Andrei Shleifer, his wife Nancy Zimmerman, and fellow Harvard staffer Jonathan Hay set up a scheme to invest heavily in companies and entities on which they were advising when Harvard was given a grant to help nascent post soviet Russian economy.”
Oh another guy I am sure you love for his Harvard material is Paul Bremer. Though maybe you like Carlos Salinas de Gortari president of mexico, you remember, the one that fled to Ireland.
Then what about the morals of Bernard Francis Law, you know CARDINAL Law, who shielded child molesting clergy, he was a HARVARD MAN.
There are lots others you can look up, but the point here is that your inductive logic is fallacious… and so it leads to such absurdities if you go past the one inane point you make and have more in your noggin than just that.
Your method of extrapolating to a conclusion is nonsense. They are non points, that arouse emotion in people that don’t know facts about much. The minute you started your little soap box speech hitting the same point over and over, I knew that this was what you were doing.
Too bad Vova was being sarcastic while making points, there was some chips of good points in there, but it’s not worth picking them out of a bad cookie.
And finally, to answer jungle mom.
I don’t know why.
But hope this suffices.
It’s unconscionable that this is there, but the United States is a free country and they have every right to hang that stuff up if they want to.
If they do want to let it stay up, then they have to be willing to endorse and be connected with the values behind the WHOLE thing, not the kitsch. The fact that they are trying to make it something that its not, is to try to ameliorate the situation. This is admitting that they know its bad, and their behavior is VERY telling of the future.
There behavior shows that not willing to take responsibility for what IS there responsibility, that they are going to blame people to wash themselves clean when the things they do hurt people. They are already showing that they will do what they want, and then after the damage, twist it so that they can keep going.
Ultimately, a president leads and sets the tone for those that follow him/her. While we can deride presidents and that’s quite easy, there is something to be said how things are different with different leaders in place. We blame them for having too much power they don’t have, and we blame them for having not enough power when they are prudent. What we don’t seem to be willing to understand that how they handle things and such is how others mimic them down the line.
The whole issue says a lot about a lot of things. That a large amount on the left do not want the political system to remain capitalist or free, and so are no longer actually part of the positive dialogue, but are part of the dialogue to destroy and subvert. Their only purpose is to play the system to put someone in place that will tear it down with their actions, and if not at once, then with policies that over the long term (health care, and other entitlements) will tear it down.
There are other countries that have the political systems that they want, and that need immigrants with skills. As with every place, these people do not want to leave a place for everyone, they want to destroy the place they live in without ever living under the political system that they are attempting to create and trying it out first.
They believe in communism, but think Churchill is a myth.
[from the SUN - 23% of Brits think Churchill a myth. They think that Sherlock Holmes was real (58 percent), Richard the lionheart a myth (47 percent), Florence nightingale didn’t exist, Dickens himself is a work of fiction, and both mahatma Ghandi and the Duke of Wellington who defeated napoleon, are also myths. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080204/od_afp/britainpeoplehistoryoffbeat ]
Ultimately if this keeps up, there will be no free places on the planet, and when that happens, then there is no force to question or to even care what the rulers of the new feudal states do, other than their victims. Without personal property, and being taken care of, we will be cattle, we will be productive units, and there will be no amenities that are wasteful like breaks, vacations, holidays, and such.
Those are arbitrary cultural traditions that INDIVIDUALS love and are willing to waste resources on. No fashion, no style, everything the dullest utilitarian. No invention, as that disrupts the improving plans.
But worst of all, constant war, because people willing to steal to redistribute wealth are not honest people that you can deal with, they follow the end justifies the means, and so they will constantly go to war if there isn’t a more juicy enemy for them to gang up on, like the US.
Ultimately these people don’t realize that the people that they are backing will not give them what they want, they will give them whatever the people actually leading want. The masses will not be happy with the changes, and so they are ignored. Today’s left idiots don’t get that part. They don’t get that when this turns around, they will not have a choice as to what flag to put up in an office. They don’t get that they will no longer be ‘economically mobile’ and move from their place or lot in life. They don’t know what deprivation will be coming to them because a planned system never works.
China is one of MANY examples that prosperity comes from leaving people alone to do what they want to do. And since people as a mass are decent and good, they will also want to do good a majority of good things, which is exactly why and what is being exploited (they are twisting their desire for goodness by pretending to take the responsibility for it away from them, and they think so its so they can do more). Sociopaths think that this goodness is a weakness, not the source of prosperity. They are parasites that can’t tell, they are mind blind to this, and so everywhere they get in a place of rulership, this is what happens, it’s their nature. Their followers adopt that nature since they follow as a mob by who leads. Ask these people what did these leaders actually say, and they will not remember, since they are not saying much but working the crowd (as Hitler did when promoting the third way too). If it weren’t for some free press and people arguing points, they would say even less content. (it’s a reason they aren’t consistent since their speaking points aren’t points they believe in, just conveniences that work the crowd. they say whatever they think will get that group to sway, and cant remember all the different conveniences and promises. This is possible because a socialist will not actually listen to what the public says, and if they are confronted, they will dialogue to consensus, so the public still has no say).
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
reddit