Rhazakna's forum posts

#1 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

As Obama's approval rating continues to dip, Hillary will incrementally distance herself from him and his policies. Whether it'll be enough remains to be seen. She's a very status-quo politician, and I think the electorate will be looking for someone who can sell themselves as a Washington outsider with a fresh perspective. Obviously none of them will actually fit the bill, but that'll the sales pitch. I don't think the slit between her legs will be enough to get her into office, the novelty of "the first _______ President" is slowly wearing off.

As for the GOP electing a woman, I doubt it. Sarah Palin might run since she's rapidly becoming irrelevant, but she wouldn't win. Bachmann is unelectable, and who else is there?

#2 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

Evolution threads on GS are often a dull affair, but this one is just fantastically entertaining. Just the kind of adrenaline shot this dying forum needed. I don't know whether Zelda187 or ultimate k are trolls or not, but either way they're a wonderful and funny addition to OT. Shine on, you lovable morons!

#3 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

I'm a classical liberal which is center-right in most countries.

you're a pseudo intellectual who sucks at reading graphs.

My proof? You use the term "classic liberal" to sound smart when the only place people use that term is GameSpot

I use the term 'classical liberal' because modern day 'progressive' liberals have perverted the word.

They only believe in liberalism and individual freedom as long as it doesn't interfere with their government mandates.

Anyone who thinks that the term "classical liberal" is only used on Gamespot is not remotely worth arguing with. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of political and philosophical history would know how absurd that is. It really is sad that people can be that stupid with the resources we have at our fingertips in this day and age.

#4 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

@capaho said:

@returnedbro said:
@capaho said:

@Hiddai: There are no communists anymore, if there ever were. In the case of the LDP, they are hardcore Japanese nationalists, not even close to being communists. In the case of the former (and future?) Soviet Union, they were imperialists masquerading as communists. In any case, here's to hoping that you aren't a right-wing nutcase.

This is absurd. There were many and remain many communists. People who assert that the Soviet Union wasn't communist aren't worth taking seriously. Their entire argument is premised on the fact that the Soviet Union never achieved its unachievable utopia. So until Kim Il-Sung creates the Garden of Eden of earth, socialists like yourself will indefinitely state that communism has never existed in the history of man. It's like a circular logic, you subscribe to an ideology that is doomed to failure by any normal examination of success, the ideology then fails, and then you say the ideology was never properly implemented because utopia wasn't secured. You socialists remind me of that South Park episode where Stan and his father get hooked playing this video game where they endlessly chase the magic dragon, yet can never actually catch it. What you don't realize is that communism/socialism is defined by its chase (mass oppression, mass murder, mass starvation, etc), because it never gets where it claims its destination to be.

Communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels has never been implemented anywhere. Lenin may have attempted it and Trotsky certainly pushed for it until Stalin finally had enough of him and had him assassinated. The Soviet Union under Stalin essentially became an imperialistic dictatorship regardless of whatever they called themselves and it looks like Putin aspires to be the next Stalin. China under Mao was essentially just a modification of the imperial system with Mao functioning as the Emperor of China. North Korea is a cult of personality, with North Koreans being taught that Kim Il Sung was a god who took human form to protect them from American Imperialists and that his descendants, Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un are descendants of god (interestingly enough, the Japanese Imperial Family line started with a similar myth centuries ago, so that kind of mythology has staying power). China and Vietnam currently are autocratic states with quasi-capitalistic economies, not even close to what communism was envisioned as. The concept of communism has been used as a tool to obtain power, but it has never been practiced by those who used it to leverage said power.

Actually, Lenin maintained and even increased the capitalist modes of production that existed in Russia at the time. That's what the New Economic Policy was, essentially. It was Stalin who began massive nationalization and government seizing of property and modes of production, which is in accordance to the Stalinist interpretation of Marx's proletariat dictatorship.

Also, Maoism was supposedly a correction of Stalinist policies. In turn, Pol Pot's regime was supposed to be a correction of Maoism. You can argue all the communist dictators perverted Marx's vision, but in their minds they were applying it the way they thought it could be applied at the time. As much as communists try, you can't wholly divorce the authoritarian regimes from Marxist political philosophy.

#5 Edited by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

People say "Communism has never been tried" for two main reasons:

1. Marx's theory of history was wrong, and his predictions of what capitalism and socialism would turn into were way off the mark. As such, communism was first tried in post-feudal societies, not capitalist nations like he thought.

2. The state seizing all property didn't end up creating the "new socialist man" who would work for the community without economic incentives to do so. Another Marxist prediction that didn't pan out.

In sense you can say that the kind of communism Marx and Engels envisioned has never been tried, but that's only because Marx was wrong about so much. This line of argumentation doesn't vindicate Marxism in the way modern day communists seem to think it does.

#6 Edited by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@LJS9502_basic: Haha, I'm just letting him know that he's mistaken. Get over it.

There's nothing to get over....you're just totally lacking in interest.

While he is being a buzzkill, so are you for continuing to interact with him. If you didn't, it just would've been one dull post instead of a multi-post exchange. Way to suck the life out of a thread, you two. Gah, now I'm doing it!

#7 Edited by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

A better way to manage voting would be to give a small quiz on what's being voted on. Nothing partisan, just enough to demonstrate that you have some grasp of what the issues are. It's a well known fact that the vast majority of voters are horribly ignorant, but democrats (little d) claim that in the end it doesn't matter without explaining how.

#8 Edited by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

People always whine the the government is too big, but they never offer solutions or even suggestions on what to cut, other than military.

From what I've seen it's been cut to the bone, and is much smaller than most modern governments. While there is some cleaning up that could be done, I think the bigger issue is just whiney people.

Every post of yours is just moronic status-quo apologism. Have you ever held an opinion that's outside the box, even a little bit?

What exactly has been "cut to the bone"? Every administration since World War 2 has increased spending and left the federal government bigger than they found it, including Reagan. The warfare state, the security state and the corporate state have all increased massively in the last 50 years. I know you're the type of authoritarian bootlicker who doesn't care about that stuff, but arguing the State is too small is just absurd.

I really want to understand this ridiculous narrative that fools like you put forth that the US somehow has a small government. By what metric? How are you coming to this counterfactual conclusion?

Relative comparisons of government size rank America's state as one of the biggest in the West, and that's only talking about economics. If you haven't heard any suggestions as to how to cut back, that's only because you don't pay attention, and you think your personal ignorance reflects your opponents arguments. It doesn't, you're just dumb.

#9 Edited by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@toast_burner said:

@GrayF0X786 said:

@lostrib said:

I had to turn it off when he said humans were faultless

yes your ignorance could not even shed a speck of decency to go through the rest of this short video.

Thinking humans are faultless is ignorance.

I tried again, and it got worse talking about science. Still didn't make it half way through

I watched the whole thing. It's stupid and not anything you haven't heard before. Not watching it doesn't make you ignorant. I did, but I regret it. I could've done something more productive with seven minutes, like staring at a wall.

#10 Edited by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

lol i like how you two followed me here from the other topic.

Isn't Islam supposed to teach people to be humble? No one follows you around, there are topics and posts I want to respond to so I do. Stop being so self important and egocentric.