Who here is anti-Communist? (169)

1 Name: Citizen : 2006-04-13 19:34 ID:TVXP0dhy

I certainly am. I also despise democrats and their left wing lies.

120 Name: Citizen : 2008-04-22 07:11 ID:XIP7am5O

Because communism isn't the big deal people make it out to be.

121 Name: Citizen : 2008-04-22 17:50 ID:bT+OBDg8


122 Name: Citizen : 2008-04-22 18:58 ID:cMB62CAJ

>> because communism is my sex

123 Name: Kane : 2008-05-21 20:42 ID:Z2iAErB9

Communism is fundamentally based on a lie. The lie is that one man owes another for no services or goods. Essentially communism is slavery. Thus I'm against it.

124 Name: Citizen : 2008-05-31 16:48 ID:rc3SBm7o

>Mexico City should burn for the lack of curtailing their filthy invasion into our country

What makes the paranoid rant by >>1 so funny is he doesn't know how many south-of-the-border illegals are from parts of the Americas besides Mexico.

125 Name: Citizen : 2008-06-01 18:05 ID:kpovuqwb

>The lie is that one man owes another for no services or goods.

While I'm not a commie myself, I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

126 Name: PK : 2008-06-02 04:00 ID:mS83FvBV


People who feel strongly against any one thing will play with words to create an strongly negative image of that one thing.

127 Name: Citizen : 2008-06-04 10:53 ID:Heaven

i'm ok with communism as long as

  1. the communists don't mind me taking all that property they don't want and
  2. those communist kids stay the fuck off my lawn.

128 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-18 21:17 ID:rV0WW1eP


>People who feel strongly against any one thing will play with words to create an strongly negative image of that one thing.

Of course - they do it to reassure themselves that they're right. We all do that sometimes.


  1. Communism isn't about giving up property, only equally distributing it.
  2. I don't see why non-Communist kids would do any less damage to your lawn, if I were you I'd ban them all. :P

129 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-26 05:19 ID:/HKivqpi

Um.. Under communism you can literally do absolutely nothing for the economy and still get paid the same as everyone else. Don't tell me no one will leap at that opportunity or that "social shunning" is enough of a deterant. The slackers will simply band together and form a community of their own occasionally venturing out of their shanty town to consume other people's produce.

I'm all for some of my tax to pay for orphanages etc... but communism is ridiculous.

130 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-26 19:50 ID:QXe+7h5n

I'm against communism, but not necessarily from an economic standpoint. The thing is, Communism is inherently and violently egalitarian, and thus hods back human development. The fostering of a heroic elite is necessary to encourage intellectual and cultural, and moral growth.

131 Name: Comrade : 2008-07-26 21:05 ID:iIJoWp3x

Hey idiots. What's going on in this thread?

Having a little chat about Communism, huh? Well, here's the thing. Communism would work just fine, if it was adopted as an economic model by the willing. In fact, through Communism, those groups that espoused it would almost certainly thrive and excel due to specialization and shared expenses. Thriving in an economy forces others to adapt and follow your example or become extinct, and thus you lead by example. The reason every communist state has become a totalitarian hellhole is because when you force communism on everyone, you necessarily take away their most basic freedoms. Thus, there is no barrier to prevent the loss of those freedoms.

This is such an obvious truth, when you break down everything to its component parts and logically examine the consequences of these systems. There is so much blowhard rhetoric, that people think Communism is naturally opposed to a free market or capitalism. Not so. Capitalism is simply the system arising through emergence based on the simple and unavoidable law of supply and demand. You must recognize the ethics of greed, and embrace it as a constant, reliable force with which to uplift Humanity.

Communism is not a political ideology. It is an economic model to enhance and improve the quality economies, if only it were to be applied correctly...

132 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2008-07-26 23:33 ID:Heaven

Get back to me when Communism's been successfully demonstrated on a grand scale.

I think moderate social democracies is where it's at. Unlike Communism they're not a pie in the sky.

133 Post deleted.

134 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-27 16:06 ID:/HKivqpi

All true. Communism fails.

That said the mentality behind communism is exactly the same behind many liberal "social engineering" projects. For example why do they think "celebrating diversity" will stop people being racist? It won't, don't be retarded.

If your dog takes a shit on the carpet you thwap it once with a thin stick, show it the poop and shout and scream making it realise what it did was wrong. It won't do it again, problem solved. The liberal looks at the same problem and blames the poop and throws it out and when the dog keeps shitting on the carpet and thinks it's his toilet because of the shit filth stank filling their home the liberal blames evil capitalists and starts crying. See? Liberals just can't distinguish between cause and effect. Of course a liberal does not do this in real life because it's too obvious, but in politics when things are less obviousthe liberal has free run and goes right ahead and does such things.

We could simply ban liberals from politics, but that would simply mask the effects instead of targeting the cause. The cause would be education, to teach people about logic and cause and effect, but much like atheists trying to keep creationism out of classrooms liberals hate the idea of teaching psychology and logic in our schools because it contradicts the teachings of their gospels.

We have quite a problem.

135 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-27 16:11 ID:/HKivqpi

It works because people can vote it out when they realise it fails.

136 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2008-07-27 18:04 ID:Heaven

What is "it"?

137 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-28 03:41 ID:/HKivqpi


>social democracies

138 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-28 03:45 ID:LqXtNlF8

I would argue that Liberals never actually "think" but rather "feel" about how the situation should be. It's hard to actually be Conservative, because you'll ultimately look like a douchebag by trying to argue against Socialized Medicene or Welfare or the Illegal Immigration problem. Suddenly you're a bad person for trying to justify the unfeasibility of a national healthcare system.

Yes, giving everyone excellent healthcare treatment would be wonderful. So would giving everyone $100,000,000. Never mind the fact that the value of a dollar would plummet even further and we all would be screwed in the end. At least would all be 100 million dollars richer. The only way it would work is in a dream.

Honestly, I'd argue if you have a functioning brain, you'd probably be an atheist and a conservative. But that's just me.

139 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2008-07-28 05:34 ID:Heaven

Well, here's your chance, >>138. What's wrong with universal healthcare? And is the only solution to its shortcomings throwing the whole idea out?

140 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-28 21:44 ID:btQmVm6Z


I'm against both Communism and Capitalism. Neither one truely works in the real world.

141 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-29 16:13 ID:C1dC9Ml+


I would definately fall into what people call"liberal" classification (my views on gun control aside). I will also have you know that Universal Healthcare does not harm us in the end. We have the money. We just waste it all on an excessive military budget rather than making EFFICIENT use of a much smaller military budget (which would still dwarf all other military budgets even if reduced by 80%). How is it that we spend half a trillion dollars a year on military (not counting the extra money requested as part of other laws) and yet we still cannot do what israel does with 9 billion? So we dont need 480 billion dollars a year spent on the military. we could live with a military budget of, say, 90 billion. That leaves us 390 billion a year. half that figure would more than suffice for basic health care for every citizen. And yes, i did say citizen. That should be something only Citizens get for free (incidentally, this wet-foot, dry-foot shit we have with cuba is stupid. They should get in the same way everyone else has to). And before you start crying and baawing about how that makes medicine inefficient, i never said we should eliminate private insurance. only that the basics should be covered by our government. This leaves you the option of waiting in line for health caare or going to a private doctor and spending a fortune. You know, same way if you are arested, you can get your own lawyer or get a public defender.

142 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-29 16:25 ID:C1dC9Ml+

>>141 continued

So universal health care is not a pipe dream. It works and it is a smarter use of money than sending our men and women in uniform to the desert to become 6000 years ago and has not had a functioning society since the crusades. Thats their shit to fix. Go figure. Conservatives tend to think its our job to police the world, even though logic dictates that it makes you look like a nosey prick.

As for welfare, its a mixed bag. There really needs to be an income floor. Welfare (ie the dole) is a lousy system but its better than what they do in third world countries (let the people starve). If you want less welfare, make more industrial jobs and actually start producing things. It is the government's job to do things like wellfare to protect the average citizen's right to live (by providing them the bare necessities of food, shelter, clothing, and water). The problem is in the job market. This issue is not a matter of "feeling whats is right" but rather an arguement over what is the government's responsibility.

as per your claim about giving everyone 100,000,000, we coulda have done that for 3900 people each year for the past 6 or 7 years we have been in iraq, instead of fighting this pointless war by diverting said money out of the military. Each year you could have raffled it off to a different 3900 people by social security number. no THERE is a fucking stimulus package. Thats not inflation as it isnt minting more money but rather diverting funds. and you better believe that is 20 homeless dudes just got $100,000,000 tomorrow, they would be spending like a mofo, which in turn, means more jobs and more money in everyone elses pockets.

143 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-29 16:36 ID:C1dC9Ml+

>>142 continued...

So thats what we outta do.

-Shrink the military budget down to 90 billion a year

-out of the remaining 390 billion, take 90 billion aside for social security

-take another 200 billion aside for national health care

  • Raffle away the remaining 100 billion dollars to 400,000 different people each year people ( at a quarter million dollars a head). Make it so you can only win once and then u are removed from the pool. presto. Spending like crazy once a year. The amount is small enough amount that people will still need to have a job (as 250,000 dollars will not sustain them for life) but large enough to promote spending. That would be a liberal idea. Its welfare isnt it? oh wait, thats right. it looks like a tax cut. damn. thats conservative. only its not all going right back to those who already have more money than they will ever need.

144 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-29 17:41 ID:iIJoWp3x


I'm with you on slashing military spending dramatically. We spend more than the rest of the world combined and we don't even have any neighbors capable of harming us. But raffling money away? Not only would that never happen, but it's a bad idea. Just lower taxes across the board with the money saved. You don't need 200 billion annually to pay for health care. Most Americans are already paying private insurance companies for coverage, or getting it diverted from their wages. With single-payer healthcare, we'd actually save money on the increased efficiency. The taxation on increased employment would easily offset any additional initial costs. Not only that, but you could see up to 2% economic growth per year as well as the health care industry expanded. All that shit can be taxed.

We'd need to do something about the doctors throwing pills at everything, though.

145 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-29 19:28 ID:LqXtNlF8


I don't know if you noticed, but people tend not to spend the money they get from tax cuts. They save it. That's why tax cuts don't work. And if you dump 250,000$ on a bunch of people do you really expect them to spend wisely? I'm sure you've heard about what happens to lottery winners. How they end up worse off then they ever had been. They live beyond their means and pay for it when they run out of money.

We've already got a lot of people trying to live beyond their means thanks to our consumer culture. You couldn't give those people money and expect them to use it in a manner that would actually help them in the long run.

In theory a Nationalized Health Insurance Company might not be such a terrible idea. But where would these people go for health care? One would assume that those with money and better health care plans would have the priority for treatment and ultimately get better treatment in the end. Those using the State owned system would have to wait their turn.

Or would the government open hospitals or clinics to deal with these clients? Would Student Doctors be treating these patients?

Why not just have clinics make a workable payment plan for their patients, irregardless of their health care options, and then have the difference count as a charitable tax write off or something to that extent. It could be an option for doctors who would want to go that route and really help people.

Or they could just run a free clinic of sorts on their own volition.

146 Name: dmpk2k!NvI5dkBF.E : 2008-07-29 19:31 ID:Heaven

> Welfare (ie the dole) is a lousy system

It doesn't have to be.

I quite like how Australia's Centrelink works: cheating them is a bit of a chore; it's easier to just get a job already (and more lucrative).

147 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-30 07:03 ID:/HKivqpi

Ok so when it comes to tax cuts everyone is a saver, but when it comes to spending money everyone spends excessively? Not only have you neglected to provide any sources, but your facts change all within the same paragraph.

This reminds me of Morton's fork, another catch 22 used as an excuse to levy heavy taxes.

"The expression originates from a policy of tax collection devised by John Morton, Lord Chancellor of England in 1487, under the rule of Henry VII. His approach was that if the subject lived in luxury and had clearly spent a lot of money on himself, he obviously had sufficient income to spare for the king. Alternatively, if the subject lived frugally, and showed no sign of being wealthy, he must have substantial savings and could therefore afford to give it to the king. These arguments were the two prongs of the fork and regardless of whether the subject was rich or poor, he did not have a favourable choice."

148 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-30 16:41 ID:C1dC9Ml+


I never said a damn thing about tax cuts. Most people don't save tax cuts. They use them to pay their bills, like i did. We cannot afford anything but what we already have. Those who get a decent sized tax cut are quite well off.They usually already make enough to pay their bills. They do, save their tax cuts.

Raffling the money away would never happen. I agree. It makes too much logical sense to happen. I care very little how the people spend their 250, 000. The point is for them to spend it, not save it. Thats why it would stimulate the economy. They would spend it. People who win the lottery live beyond their means because they quite their jobs. they do this because the ammount is big enough that they think it will last forever. a sum of 250,000 is not big enough for anyone to think they can live off of it. The lottery sydrome happens when you give someone 10Million dollares. 250k is barely enough to buy a nice house or pay off most of your bills and go to las vegas or disney. You, know. The things we want people to do with it.

As for nationalized health care, Yes, the government should open hospitals and clinics. The government should also open up Medical schools that accept anyone who passes the exam. This would actually drum up some doctors. Currently, the number of licensed doctors is artificially low because the boards that offer admittance to medical school purposely limit the number so they can keep their income high and their skills in demand.

the solution to both problems is simple and works hand in hand. Lower this number by letting anyone with the brains to become a doctor through a federal school at a rediculously low cost. The caveat is that after their normal medical training, they must work as a doctor in their specialty (if any) at a federal hosptial or clinic at the federal rate for 3 years and then Teach for another 3. This means that medical school will be next to free but the first year of medical care will be really low too. It also means that the doctors will teach toher doctors. Tis a breeder system and the only expensive doctors will be the batch that start the program.

You can pay the federal doctors the way you pay teachers. 6 years earning 40 grand a year. When they are out, they have 6 years of experience and can choose to stay and works as a doctor, stay and teach medicine, or go out to the private sector. Same way we do with other scientists who go to the military. or with pilots in the air force and navy.

149 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-30 23:13 ID:tuC3BwE6

So very accurate, there's a reason every nation on earth that is successful has some degree of capitalism and social within it's economic structure. Libertarians and Commies are the most childishly naive people on the face of the planet.

150 Name: Citizen : 2008-07-31 05:09 ID:LqXtNlF8


People these days like to buy a lot of things on credit. And I'm sure you've seen plenty of people who own expensive cars but live in shitty homes. People that have to have the iPhone or whatever gadget of the week it out but are swimming in other expenses.

They buy a bunch of shit and then use their "free" money to pay off the debt they owe for it.

151 Name: Citizen : 2008-08-11 14:54 ID:4V2Lt9yA

If you want to force certain people not to make stupid financial decisions you have to apply the same rules to everyone else. If you think that taking money out of people's hands so it's harder for them to spend on alcohol and strippers and having the state pay for all their insurance is a good idea remember that YOU will be treated the same and have to pay heavy tax also. For intelligent people with lots of money it's better just to leave it all to market forces. They're not our equals so why should we be brought down to their level?

152 Name: Link48010 : 2009-03-07 06:06 ID:DyrQRbu3

I'm economically socialist, socially extremely liberal. Let me lay out what that means.
Economically, I think that government regulation is very necessary, even if the regulation is lax. Redistribution of wealth is very necessary for a healthy and strong economy, but not to the point of a perfect even distribution like that in communism. It's as simple as this, if your paycheck is 3000 a week, your taxes should be higher than the guy who makes 500 bucks a week. I don't think, however that the money taken from Mr. 3000 should be directly given to Mr. 500, but instead should be pumped into the economy, education, green energy development, etc. I think the Government should exist to give everyone the same opportunities, and to raise the GDP (another reason I'm not a totally communist), a high GDP=high earnings and therefor there is less need for redistribution of wealth. Most of the government budget would be funded towards colleges, schools, science funding, green energy production and energy efficiency, increasing earnings down the board, job opportunities, etc. I'm a huge political geek I guess, I've looked over 90% of the federal budget, and revised it myself, and I've also looked over Obama's budget, and found it to be far more similar to mine (although far from the same in many areas). I've gotten the budget to a 50 billion dollar surplus per quarter. The tax increases were minimal, and limited. Mainly by readjusting spending to different areas and introducing many new, small taxes was what did the trick.

Socially, I'm extremely pro-freedom. I'm not held down by "tradition" that Republicans/Conservatives are so concerned about almost to the point of ignoring most other matters (like previous Coloradan Representative Marlyn Musgrave, who said that homosexuality was the greatest challenge the country faced in 07 I think, maybe 06). That means that if I had a choice about it, gay marriage would be legal immediately, Stem Cell research would be Government funded, etc. Although I do however take a slightly more conservative view of Immigration, it would be more difficult to enter the country if I had my say about it, illegally or legally.

153 Name: Citizen : 2009-06-16 22:29 ID:E7GlEUhD

Social Security is the first slippery steps to communism! Next thing you know there will be national health care and America will be no better than those cheese eating surrender monkeys in France!

154 Name: Citizen : 2009-06-24 16:24 ID:XHSO1iQQ

> America will be no better than those cheese eating surrender monkeys in France!

Some might don't realize a nation does not surrender for the same reasons a human would for a task. A human would surrender for psychological reasons, which can involve logical evaluation. A nation surrenders when it is not benefical to do otherwise; and every nation would surrender once that is realized, therefore, in these grounds, America and France stand equally.

155 Name: Citizen : 2009-06-25 09:15 ID:Noi2kPaB

It was beneficial for the state to conscript all French men aged 18-45, instruct them to report to local police stations or remaining military installations to organise into para-military units, declare anyone who provides services or material aid to German troops to be a collaborator to be punished by summary execution by any French citizen with the means to do so and declare that the French civilian state can no longer function due to German occupation and full sovereignty over all of France is now in the hands of the French military and unconnected para-military groups which will be in a state of total war against Germany until they agree to an unconditional surrender.

156 Name: Citizen : 2009-06-27 16:06 ID:VnQ5Eqt2


It's not all that hard. Australia hands out $83 billion a year in social welfare and we only have 20 million people.

157 Name: Citizen : 2009-08-18 00:28 ID:tP3gtIWH

I'm a pure capitalist, so that pretty much makes it a definite "I am" from me.

158 Name: Citizen : 2009-09-02 13:46 ID:wfG29VS5

I am also a capitalist, however I fail to see why the 2 are incompatible. They can set up their own communist commune under a capitalism because there is no property tax, once they own property they can do whatever they want on it and set up any business deal with their members.

159 Name: Citizen : 2009-10-04 22:17 ID:6QLX0iPF

There seems to be a lot of people having no idea of what communism is and still allowing themselves to post.


160 Name: Citizen : 2009-11-02 08:38 ID:3uYKu1Es

I wouldn't resist a Utopian Marxist Communism, but in reality I'm more of a fascist.

161 Name: Citizen : 2009-11-04 19:48 ID:Heaven

It goes against every principal of thought that our Founding Fathers brought into this nation. So no, I'm aganist it. It is interesting to read about it and discuss it, but in practice, it's horrible and ulgy.

162 Name: Citizen : 2009-11-15 01:21 ID:vZi94ZUZ

Holy shit, I made this thread three fracking years ago.

I still hate Democrats and Communists. Probably much more now than three years ago.

163 Name: Citizen : 2009-11-17 18:46 ID:Heaven

The Commies have infected the Republican party as well. Well, at least 95% of it anyway.

164 Name: Citizen : 2010-04-09 16:22 ID:MX9sZvHH

It's hilarious to see how McCarthyism still affects Americans. Everyone who doesn't show his right-wing authoritarian biting reflex when hearing words like "health care" or "welfare" is an EVIL COMMUNIST.
Still, being a good EVIL COMMUNIST myself, I'd like to point out that there are also many intellectual Americans like >>159.

165 Name: Citizen : 2010-04-13 23:39 ID:84Iju/sD

>>159 Is not an intellectual. He just has something called common sense.

166 Name: Citizen : 2010-04-16 19:35 ID:Heaven

>> 162

You're just a sore loser because Obama is president!

167 Name: Citizen : 2010-04-23 04:10 ID:Fo7urNJD

That article didn't tell me anything I didn't already know except that communism and all it's offshoots are more idiotic than I previously suspected. I used to think that it was a kind of natural order of things, what happens when the lowest classes seize power, now I realise it is more of a childish fantasy (much like how religion is misused) for propoganda purposes.

168 Name: Citizen : 2010-04-24 05:49 ID:nqlpAgdA

The Black Book of Communism

169 Name: Citizen : 2010-04-24 22:51 ID:2LGXVwJI

Nearly everyone in this thread is assuming that today's communists want to rebuild sowjet communism. They don't. You have some reading to do.

"Towards a New Socialism" deals with planning a modern economy with modern techniques. Keep in mind that it's from 1993 and imagine what a communist economy could do with today's capabilities that the internet, neural networks and powerful computers give us.


Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...