Mother Russia: What do the liberals think now

[KNB]

What is the Conservative demand for action against Russia over the Crimea incident?

Besides "man up", whatever that means.

kOOk, you don't know what it means, you must be a girl or a girlyman. Hey don't cha have school tomorrow...

So you can't answer the question then?

What is the Conservative plan of action against Russia?

 

[Kosh]

Funny how so many of the far left thinks that socialism is "far right".

 

[KNB]

Socialism isn't far right. Fascism is far right. Communism is far right. Socialism is far left.

Facts are the center. Learn facts.

 

[American_Jihad]

Your ilk is identical to Russian communists. You share the same philosophy.


Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.

Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."

...

Hey pea brain, in 2016 will you vote for Hillary Clinton for President, or the GOP candidate?

You stupid beatnic you didn't get the word, hillary ain't running, I have a thread on it, now go fetch...

 

[Kosh]

Socialism isn't far right. Fascism is far right. Communism is far right. Socialism is far left.

Facts are the center. Learn facts.

This from a far left Obama drone.

Yet there was very little difference between Socialism and Fascism other than labels. And Communism is not far right!

Learn the facts indeed!

 

[auditor0007]

...

Hey pea brain, in 2016 will you vote for Hillary Clinton for President, or the GOP candidate?

You stupid beatnic you didn't get the word, hillary ain't running, I have a thread on it, now go fetch...

You have threads on all kinds of crazy shit. A thread on Hillary not running is exactly that, it's a thread.

 

[American_Jihad]

Crimea 2014: Czechoslovakia 1938 Redux

March 14, 2014 by Joseph Puder

The recent standoff in the Crimea between Russia and the Ukraine is reminiscent of the tactics employed by Germany to bring pre-World War II Europe under the Nazi heel. Hitler amassed troops around the German-Czechoslovak border, the Czechs sought to effectuate their treaties with western allies, Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain rushed to Germany to appeal to Hitler to avoid aggression and, in an effort to prevent a war, sacrificed Czechoslovakia on the altar of appeasement. The weakness of the west was on display and only served to whet Hitler’s appetite for further aggression.

In the current drama, the Ukraine is like the former Czechoslovakia, Crimea is the Sudetenland, Russia’s President Putin reminds us of Nazi Germany’s Hitler, and Chamberlain’s role is being played by Obama. True, circumstances in this conflict are somewhat different, and Putin has not slaughtered millions the way Hitler did, but the ostensible roles played by Putin and Obama are not that different from that of Hitler and Chamberlain.

...

As the Crimea crisis unfolds, it brings back images of the 1938 Czechoslovak crisis. It is becoming more evident that Russia’s Putin has adopted some of Hitler’s tactics, and like Nazi Germany, he is counting on the West’s weakness, and its unwillingness to respond in a forceful way against his aggression. Obama’s statement that a “Crimea referendum violates international law” is unhelpful. A referendum conducted fairly would settle the issue in Crimea, albeit, without the presence of Russian troops.

Crimea 2014: Czechoslovakia 1938 Redux | FrontPage Magazine

 

[rdean]

Russia is living the conservative dream right now!

Really, it sounds like Right Wing Republican Conservative paradise.

 

[rdean]

Your ilk is identical to Russian communists. You share the same philosophy.


Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.

Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."

...

Hey pea brain, in 2016 will you vote for Hillary Clinton for President, or the GOP candidate?

Wow, what a great "Tea Party Poster".

 

[American_Jihad]

American Power Under Obama in 1 Photo

March 17, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

In a word. Pathetic.

As bad as the Carter years were, they didn’t feature the complete and total collapse of American power. And if Hillary manages to crawl into the White House, it will be another 4 to 8 years of this.

Whatever your views on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, watching the United States be disgraced and humiliated by a bunch of leftist academics is the nadir of this administration.

...

American Power Under Obama in 1 Photo | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Connery]

Moved to Europe

 

[dr.d]

Jihad...ur ignorance and lack of political acumen r staggering...Nothing "undermined American power" and outraged the world like the futile and wasteful wars started by the previous prez....This one is at least bringing them to a close...and further sable rattling will gain us nothing.
If u and ur ilk are truly concerned about world perceptions of our power... Perhaps u could consider decreasing ur endless denigrating attacks on our current prez...I'm sure Putin is delighted when he hears the adulation from the right describing him as a "resl man and real leader" while calling Obama "weak and feckless"...this is not only unjust but dangerous...and unlikely to garner global support.
WAKE UP


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[American_Jihad]

Jihad...ur ignorance and lack of political acumen r staggering...Nothing "undermined American power" and outraged the world like the futile and wasteful wars started by the previous prez....This one is at least bringing them to a close...and further sable rattling will gain us nothing.
If u and ur ilk are truly concerned about world perceptions of our power... Perhaps u could consider decreasing ur endless denigrating attacks on our current prez...I'm sure Putin is delighted when he hears the adulation from the right describing him as a "resl man and real leader" while calling Obama "weak and feckless"...this is not only unjust but dangerous...and unlikely to garner global support.
WAKE UP


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Dr.dumb/feckless imbecile, obongo is going to be worse than carter/peanut farmer...

Those two could become a team, carter grows it/obongo smokes it...

 

[American_Jihad]

Putin Throws Down the Gauntlet and Obama Shrinks Away

March 19, 2014 by Joseph Klein

Russian President Vladimir Putin minced no words when he signed on March 18th a treaty with Crimea to signify the absorption of Crimea into Russia. Defending the referendum held Sunday in Crimea in which those voting approved the absorption overwhelmingly, Putin declared in a televised address in front of both houses of the Russian parliament and Crimea’s purported leaders: “In the hearts and minds of people, Crimea has always been and remains an inseparable part of Russia.”

Responding to President Obama’s stale incantations about international law and “consequences” if Russia does not adhere to its norms, Putin turned around and accused the United States of practicing the “law of the strong.” He said that the current central government of Ukraine in Kiev consisted of “fascists, anti-Semites, nationalists and radicals who seized power in a coup d’état backed by western patrons, and do not legitimately represent the people of Ukraine.” All from the Russian dictator who sent his shock troops throughout Crimea to ratify an engineered coup d’état in the break-away peninsula. In a veiled threat, Putin said that Russia will do what it has to do to protect the interests of ethnic Russians of Ukraine “diplomatically, through laws and other means.” (Emphasis added) As if to underline his point, a Ukrainian soldier was reportedly killed on Tuesday when a base came under attack by Russian or pro-Russian forces.



Addressing crowds after his parliament speech in Moscow’s Red Square, Putin exclaimed: “Glory to Russia.” Obama and his partners in Western Europe, after much hand-wringing and talk of severe consequences if the Crimean referendum proceeded towards annexation by Russia, decided to impose the weakest of sanctions against a few individuals who couldn’t care less. Their mockery of Obama, and by implication the United States, was palpable. Putin went so far as to joke that Russia was ready to take on NATO forces in Crimea and Ukraine at any time.

...

If Obama were to follow the latter course, he would need to nail down significant commitments from Putin with demonstrable actions to back them up – something he failed to obtain when he unilaterally decided to cancel the ballistic missile defense systems the United States was to place in NATO members Poland and the Czech Republic.

As of now, President Obama does not have an effective strategy in either direction. He is acting like a shrinking violet while Putin struts his stuff on the world stage.

Putin Throws Down the Gauntlet and Obama Shrinks Away | FrontPage Magazine

 

[SayMyName]

What I see as amusing is that the war-wing (neo-cons) of American and European politics are really grasping for any foothold to keep the will of our people in a mood to continue fighting perpetual war against the brown, yellow, red, Slavs, or others (just fill in the blank)...even by way of using others they say are oppressed, when not too long ago they were hankering to have the same tarred and feathered as well. Wait a second...what am I saying...they still want that. Liberty and freedom for them are only buzz words to bring fear into people and make them fight. They have no true belief in those concepts at all. It is war that brings their lives to life, war that they themselves will usually never end up fighting, but prefer to send others instead as they watch as voyeurs of the light fantastic.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Truth About the Ukraine Crisis is That History Really Doesn't Matter That Much ​

3-3-14
by David Austin Walsh
Austin Walsh is the editor of the History News Network.
Follow him on Twitter [MENTION=11599]David[/MENTION]astinwalsh.

There are only a handful of people in North America who know as much about Eastern Europe as Padraic Kenney. A professor of history at Indiana University, Bloomington, Kenney is the author of numerous books and articles on the history of Eastern Europe, and is regarded as one of the leading historians of modern Poland in the United States. A Fulbright fellow, Kenney’s most recent book is The Burdens of Freedom: Eastern Europe Since 1989.

With the deepening crisis in Ukraine, the movement of Russian and now reportedly Polish troops to near the Ukrainian border, I talked with Professor Kenney about the Polish position in the crisis, as well as the [limited] role of ethnic conflict in the standoff and the wrong lessons for policymakers to have drawn from the Yugoslav Wars and about why -- shockingly -- ancient ethnic hatreds, the bread-and-butter of "History" really aren't a factor in Ukraine right now.

* * * * *

Professor Kenney, you are an historian of Eastern Europe and the former ***Soviet Union, and in particular Poland. Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, had a stern warning today about the situation in Ukraine, and I believe Polish troops are moving toward the Ukrainian border. Could you walk us through Poland’s interest in Ukraine?

Sure. I think Poland has two interests.

Number one, we can’t be too surprised that the Poles would be a little bit concerned about any fighting just to their east, and Ukraine is right next door. There have been comments – as far as I can see unsubstantiated – that Belarus might also in some way mobilize its troops, perhaps to help out Putin, and that would alarm Poland even more. There’s a geopolitical aspect that is perfectly natural even if you didn’t have the experience of World War II.

But then in addition to that – really, entirely separate from that, in my opinion – you also have Poland’s sense that Poles have a kind of responsibility for Ukrainian democracy, because Poles were successful in gaining democracy in ’89. That sentiment increased when Ukrainians demonstrated for and won their independence in 1991. That happened because the Soviet Union fell apart, of course, but Ukrainians were very engaged in that, and a lot of Poles were excited about Ukrainian independence. And again, you have the Orange Revolution in 2004/2005. So there’s been that sort of tradition that Ukrainian independence and democracy and prosperity is something that matters to Poles because of Polish history.

That raises another point. To what extent are historical factors entering into the -- I’m going to ask you to play psychologist here for a moment. To what extent are historical factors entering into the minds of decision-makers in all of this? Because it seems that there are a variety of both contemporary political narratives and deep historical narratives that politicians on all sides of this crisis are drawing upon. And Poland of course has a deep history – we talk about 1989, but there’s a deep history going back well before World War II, during the Russian Revolution – and indeed well before then – of involvement in territories in at least western Ukraine.

Incidentally, is there still a substantial Polish population in that part of Ukraine?

There are still Poles in western Ukraine, but not in very large numbers. You have a larger Polish population now in Lithuania then you do in Ukraine. (There’s also a relatively large one in Belarus, by the way.) To a large extent that was sorted out in the aftermath of World War II through ethnic cleansing: Poles moving out of Ukraine, Ukrainians moving out of Poland.

But look, the larger issue that you raise is what difference do historical memories make? The perception that Ukrainians have of Poles has been gradually improving over the last two decades, and Poland and Ukraine have very laboriously gone through discussion of painful parts of their mutual past. So, for example, Poland’s war with the Soviets in 1919 and 1920, which gave the Poles a hold on what is now Ukrainian soil (including very briefly an occupation of Kiev), but more importantly the Volhynian massacres of 1943…

...


- See more at: History News Network | The Truth About the Ukraine Crisis is That History Really Doesn't Matter That Much



...

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama Says Putin is Weak, Agrees to Let Him Conquer Ukraine

March 20, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

When Kerry declared that invading Eastern Ukraine would be a “hard line”, it was as soft as the red line.

Obama doesn’t have much bluffing power left, but announcing to Putin that whatever he does, we won’t respond is stupid. At least maintaining ambiguity might have been a deterrent.

Now there is no deterrent except more empty talk about sanctions. The same sanctions that don’t work and in this case can’t work. It’s as good as an announcement that Putin can do what he likes.

At this rate, why not just dismantle NATO and let Russia have its old empire back?

...

Obama Says Putin is Weak, Agrees to Let Him Conquer Ukraine | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Esmeralda]

Oh please, if it wasn't for the gay mafia you would be under psychiatric care for your homosexuality right now.

We can see who the crazy one is, sweetheart.

I'm not your sewwtheart. I'm not a lesbian. Keep your tongue in your mouth and zip it up

Kats, you're so funny.

 

[dr.d]

Obama Says Putin is Weak, Agrees to Let Him Conquer Ukraine

March 20, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

When Kerry declared that invading Eastern Ukraine would be a “hard line”, it was as soft as the red line.

Obama doesn’t have much bluffing power left, but announcing to Putin that whatever he does, we won’t respond is stupid. At least maintaining ambiguity might have been a deterrent.

Now there is no deterrent except more empty talk about sanctions. The same sanctions that don’t work and in this case can’t work. It’s as good as an announcement that Putin can do what he likes.

At this rate, why not just dismantle NATO and let Russia have its old empire back?
...

Obama Says Putin is Weak, Agrees to Let Him Conquer Ukraine | FrontPage Magazine

So what do u propose? Nuking Russia?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Russia, Liberal motherland.

Putin is on his anti-gay crusade just to get Obama and Reggie Love riled up