Who is "we?" You and the mouse in your pocket?

Speak for yourself.

Happy Monkey:

To speak for oneself, it is necessary to first think for oneself.

This is why your excellent suggestion will go unheeded.

Now, you're catching on.:thumb:

Not catching on, Bruce, I've been 'cought on' for a while.

Oh, glatt, do you harbor anything like respect for tw? And if so, why, for crying in a bucket?

This is a communist I'm kicking ass on, remember? A communist who has no more notion of history than he does of writing. A communist who can neither spell nor edit his way out of a wet paper bag.

I'd appreciate a little more decent anticommunism and anti-idiocy and a little less "fashionable" leftism, okay? Leftism's going out of fashion these days, and good riddance.

Rich is not totally without intellect or learning -- but what he does with them gives me the same reaction, to a milder degree, that I had on listening to Mario Cuomo's long-defunct radio talk show: How does someone of that obvious intelligence stay so wrong?

I seem to recall encountering a "RichLevy" in AOL Chat back when I haunted those chatrooms. I wasn't impressed then, either.

Summing up, the man's not clinically insane, and he doesn't seem grossly immature like tw, but I'm not seeing deep wisdom there either. Guys who aren't pro-gun (thus antigenocide in the real way) generally aren't blessed with wisdom.

I speak for myself, and for everyone here who is more emotionally mature, less neurotic, and less outright communist than tw.

That means I speak for you too -- this time, at any rate. You don't have to like it, but you get it anyway, and I'll not do you wrong.

V, in not agreeing with the leftists who jabber on this board, I think for myself rather than become some chatterclone. I think for myself whether you can believe that or not -- your belief or unbelief isn't exactly going to tip the scales, is it? I've read almost everything Heinlein ever wrote, and I think you could stand to do the same. I read American Spectator pretty regularly, and sample National Review from time to time. Those people really do think, and I think they think better than even the Left's leadingest lights. I'm pro-gun -- and therefore, as the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership teaches us, more antigenocide, in realer ways, than anyone here who is antigun or even anti-NRA -- and pro-abortion, though recognizing, through experience, that it carries an emotional cost. I've been around the world, and seen autarchy -- and seen the price of autarchy, what it does to the human spirit and to the wealth of nations; neither is well treated.

Let these few examples stand for many. I'm reading a lot of nonfiction these days -- history and current events, history's second draft. Therefore, I just say that the "excellent suggestion" isn't being heeded any more now than it was previously; I've already got that covered.

So, BigV, show me that you've learned, and that you understand. Bear in mind that you cannot push me into defensiveness.

What's wrong with being a communist?

I concede that communism is flawed, most notably in that it in practice fails; but it seems as though you're saying 'communism' instead of 'wrong' or 'doesn't agree with me.' It seems silly to dismiss a person's ideas because they are a communist; or for any other reason, really, except perhaps a historical tendency to have bad ideas. It seems that to dismiss an idea for any reason which doesn't directly pertain to the idea in question is a failure of discourse & debate. The 'communist' lable seems to be another knot on a long string of failed communication that, of late, has tangled itself around this forum.

To quote a coffeeshop friend of mine, meaning is hard. It takes work. I see a lot of people working very hard for cheap thrills: cheap shots & a warm fuzzy feeling for 'being right.' I have come to believe that too many vocal characters hereabouts care more about their opinion than in changing it; and to my mind that is fundamentally the wrong perspective from which to debate. It is the right opinion for a talkshow, a soapbox, a yelling match, or masturbation. But if you are interacting with someone else, someone with whom you do not agree, and are from the beginning convinced that you are more correct than they, then you are wasting your time & theirs & mine for reading it. It sets the tone of lecturing, condesension, & closemindedness, from which meaning & understanding rarely come.

So declaring someone a communist gives you free right to say or do what you like to them? Likewise, anti-anybody is decent? That seems to be your logic...

I'm probably the biggest communist sympathiser here, INCLUDING tw. I think Karl Marx has a downright BIRLLIANT idea, the only problem with which is that nobody has ever actually executed it without changing it enough to make themselves supreme ultimate dictator, free to do whatever the hell they want. THAT is the problem with Communism. Nobody's ever done it.

...I'm not even gonna comment.

A.) What does that have to do with the fact that richlevy is obviously more mature than you, mature enough to not sink to petty attacks like you are? Nothing. As with most things you say (TW IS A COMUNST!!!one!!eleven) (LOLZ U R FAT AND STOOPD), it has no bearing on the argument at hand.

B.) How is being anti-gun a bad thing, pray tell? Your, uh, 'explaination' wasn't very clear, to say the least. If nobody has a gun, nobody gets shot. Pretty simple.

Lets have a show of hands, how many people think richlevy was the 'superior one' in that argument?

From the NY Times of 1 Jun 2006:
Good news, Foreign allies, Russians, and Chinese have conspired to stop the invasion of Iran. Have conspired to save American soldier lives from the evil 'do gooder' George Jr. That they are asking suggests they now understand who the George Jr administration really is. That they are asking says it will be difficult to unilaterally attack Iran only because god told George Jr to do so. Got to remember who really makes the decisions. George Jr still does not read his PDBs which was one of Potter Goss's big complaints. A complaint that helped get him fired. Reality is not always appreciated in this White House.

Whoa, I just realized that Skunks posted while I was typing... Great minds, huh?

Don't support Communism just because UG says he opposes it. In this case the stopped clock is correct. It is the single most murderous philosophy ever developed by man. The Neo-Con body count will never approach it, although it does have great potential for slaughter.

I'm not glatt, but I can answer this. First, I do respect tw more than you. Second, you were talking about richlevy, not tw, and I respect richlevy more than you, too.This is not true.

*snort* You think UG has any sway on me? I support the basic theory of communism, but I agree with both skunks and you, that it is the IMPLEMENTATION that is its downfall, and that, because it is always implemented horribly wrong, ENDS UP being the most murderous philosophy ever developed by man. Its core ideal isn't to kill people, it's to help. But Karl Marx himself said that it could never happen in this world unless every nation decided to implement it together (and, obviously, correctly), because... well, we've seen the outcome.

Just some food for thought: Cuba has a higher literacy rate and lower infant mortality rate than the US, but is dirt poor because of the US, mostly. Not that I'm defending Castro, he's about as evil as Mao or Pol Pot.