The CPUSA Should Be Proud Of Him

[Trilby]

UG's first post made me smile in a grinning sort of way! Hilarious!

[Kitsune]

Oh, everyone jokes now, but you wait! The evidence is about to come pouring in any minute, now, proving once and for all that tw is as red as a Moscow merlot.

Any minute, now...

You just wait.



....really soon, you'll see.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It's not a thread about tw. That screed says nothing about him, and a lot about you.

Uh huh. I see you're no student of Communism. I lived when this stuff was going on, guy, and manned the walls against some of it. I think I know something about it, thank you. I am never knowingly going to steer you wrong.

I like Kitsune's "Moscow Merlot" image.

Now how the hell any of you missed tw's Communist Party line reading of world history quite puzzles me, but if you must have links, I'll provide them.

Waiting on the edge of my chair...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, fall from the chair and bruise your butt, Mari. This strikes me as sufficient proof that tw only believes Communist sources when it comes to history: third page of "A Laundry List of Democratic Screwups." It would be sufficient even if I liked the man. This is not a man who would keep a Republic.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=9974&page=3

And ask yourself why a man would only believe communist sources -- is he a communist, or merely remarkably naive? Are not his errors always to the benefit of the socialist totalitarian Left? And is that itself not the way of the pravda-brained communist?

I do not expect you to answer any of these questions honestly, Mari, for your ego is more important to you than truth; I've taken your measure, and am aware of the dishonesty I am to expect from you -- for instance, earlier in this thread, even with the gauzy guise of "Posted by Urbane Godzilla." Not something I'd stoop to, you may be sure.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And ask yourself why a man would only believe communist sources

Cited as the source: The Pentagon Papers. A communist manifesto? Damn. History gets rewritten too quickly these days.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by marichiko

I will say that I think you're just jealous because tw is the Dweller that the most people here voted they'd like to meet. I notice that YOU didn't get a single mention.

Let's see if I understand the implications here: you're advising me to seek popularity among people whose opinion I have never been given cause to respect, who oppose the neocon view because at bottom they'd rather leave the evil and corruption of totalitarian governance to thrive unmolested when democracy is visibly so much better, so much wealthier, and so much more humane than totalitarianism? These are the kind of people I don't want for friends. That's your idea of a telling argument?? My oh my, does that redefine fatuity. Not much cause for jealousy here. Really, Mari, in the couple of years I've been here, I've seen you have ONE good idea among a slew of bad ones: supporting the soldiers' charity.

However, I won't dignify this thread with any further reply than what I've already given

Since you've made further replies, you may wish to retract or redact this sentence.

Meanwhile, I suppose I might as well bone up a little on South American history. It's a subject rather neglected in American high schools, along with international relations generally. "History & Moral Philosophy," anyone?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

One single publication cited that doesn't toe the Communist Party line, and the dozen or so other things you remarked on all do, tw? Hey, I can see where the weight of the evidence falls, sonny boy. Plus you alleging, falsely, that I invented massacres in Cuba and elsewhere? Not that you've intellectual honesty enough to take correction. One cannot expect intellectual honesty from a communist; honesty was excised from the beginning. Marx at his most honest was a crank and never able to escape his European classist paradigm; his followers lied and murdered their way to the top, wasting lives by the hundred million. No; being honest is an impediment to a successful career in Marxism-Leninism. A Marx would never have emerged in America, unless you want to stretch a point until it rips out and cite the toy manufacturer of that name.

I just can't be as stupid as you'd like me to be, just to go along with you.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I just can't be as stupid as you'd like me to be, just to go along with you.

Nobody wants UG to be stupid. But if smart, UG would have replied to Kitsune:

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I'm sure UG will be glad to post some quotes, in context, from TW that prove his point. Right, UG?

Lurkers are reminded that Rush Limbaugh also uses these propaganda techniques. Provide no supporting facts. It works when a listeners has an extremist agenda. Propagandists hope the reader has microscopic memory and is easily swayed by emotional tirades. UG hopes you will forget what Kitsume requested.

Meanwhile a previous discussion (cited by UG) repeatedly referenced the Pentagon Papers. UG fears such propaganda that does not agree with his rewritten history. Still waiting for a citation of those massacres by Ho Chi Minh.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Since you've made further replies, you may wish to retract or redact this sentence.

Meanwhile, I suppose I might as well bone up a little on South American history. It's a subject rather neglected in American high schools, along with international relations generally. "History & Moral Philosophy," anyone?

What a thoughtful suggestion, UG! As a matter of fact I do retract that one sentence.

I was in the midst of a truly brilliant, scathing response to you earlier, when my puppy, Belle Starr, chewed thru my monitor cord (I thought she was happily chewing on a pig's ear I had just given her). My monitor went blank and I had heard Starr's yelp from the shock (surprised she didn't end up one dead pup), and my devastating words vanished all at the same time.

Now that I have gone down and bought a new cord, I will reconstruct my earlier post as best I can and get back to you shortly (You don't need to wait on the edge of your chair, that's OK). :p

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Well, fall from the chair and bruise your butt, Mari. This strikes me as sufficient proof that tw only believes Communist sources when it comes to history: third page of "A Laundry List of Democratic Screwups." It would be sufficient even if I liked the man. This is not a man who would keep a Republic.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=9974&page=3

That's IT? I haven't fallen out of my chair and I'm STILL waiting for your proof. *taps her pretty little foot impatiently and pouts*

Did you mean THIS post?

Well that pretty much describes Urbane Guerilla's politics. He just endorsed Castro's Cuba, the American puppet government in S Vietnam, Poppa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti, the military junta in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, the various uprisings in Central America in mythical promotions of a democracy that simply massacred many innocent people, Charles Taylor in Central Africa, and ... UG loves dictatorships that pretend to be governments of the people - and then arbitrarily massacre the opposition. Scary is what Urbane Guerilla defines as a democracy. No wonder he must remind us in previous posts that he is intelligent. We might forget.

Accusing you of endorsing Castro's Cuba is COMMUNIST? Being against the military junta in Argentina is COMMUNIST? Get REAL!

You seem to define "Communist" as anyone who does not agree with YOU, UG! By your definition, anyone to the left of a neocon is a commie.

Let's take a little look at Allende and what the US did in Chile, which up until the CIA backed coup which installed Pinochet and his death squads, had been the oldest continuous democracy in Latin America.

In 1818, combined Argentinian and Chilean forces under Jose de San Martin and Bernardo O'Higgins, who crossed the Andes from Argentina, managed to defeat and drive out the Spanish army and restore Chile's independence from Spain. O'Higgins became Chile's first president.

* IMPORTANT NEWS FLASH TO UG - THE CHILEAN PEOPLE DID THIS WITHOUT US INTERVENTION!

With the centralistic constitution of 1833, fashioned largely by Diego Portales on Chile's particular needs, a foundation was laid for the gradual emergence of parliamentary government and a long period of stability.

Until the US came along.

Salvadore Allende was elected by a vote of the Chilean people in a FREE election. It doesn't matter if he was elected by a plurality. If the Chilean people didn't like the fact that their president could be elected by a plurality, it was up to THEM to reform the rules of their constitution - NOT a foreign nation!

Since you are such a rabid fan of democracy, I am sure you are familiar with the writings of Thomas Paine. From The Rights of Man:

To possess ourselves of a clear idea of what government is, or ought
to be, we must trace it to its origin. In doing this we shall easily
discover that governments must have arisen either out of the people
or over the people.

In Chile, a government which had arisen out of the people was replaced with one OVER the people - thank you very much, The United States of America.

Again, from The Rights of Man (emphasis my own):

It is evident, that the greatest forces that can
be brought into the field of revolutions, are reason and common
interest. Where these can have the opportunity of acting, opposition
dies with fear, or crumbles away by conviction. It is a great
standing which they have now universally obtained; and we may
hereafter hope to see revolutions, or changes in governments,
produced with the same quiet operation by which any measure,
determinable by reason and discussion, is accomplished.

When a nation changes its opinion and habits of thinking, it is no
longer to be governed as before; but it would not only be wrong, but
bad policy, to attempt by force what ought to be accomplished by
reason. Rebellion consists in forcibly opposing the general will of a
nation, whether by a party or by a government.

I would now like to draw you attention to two most interesting documents from the United States National Archives.

The first deals with the CIA's involvement in Allende's over throw and the second is about US embarassment over human rights abuses and the reign of terror under Pinochet.

Ahem.

And ask yourself why a man would only believe communist sources -- is he a communist, or merely remarkably naive? Are not his errors always to the benefit of the socialist totalitarian Left? And is that itself not the way of the pravda-brained communist?

Please see above sources. The history of Chile which can be found in any Latin Americans studies or numerous sources on the Internet? Thomas Paine? The United States National Archives? Just what the hell isn't a communist source, except for the workings of Urbane Guerilla's fevered brain?

I do not expect you to answer any of these questions honestly, Mari, for your ego is more important to you than truth; I've taken your measure, and am aware of the dishonesty I am to expect from you -- for instance, earlier in this thread, even with the gauzy guise of "Posted by Urbane Godzilla." Not something I'd stoop to, you may be sure.

No fucking comment, Urbane Godzilla!

Sending you love from Moscow (Idaho),
Mari

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Surely someone who majored in South American history can acknowledge that the replacement of the wacked-out Allende regime was an all-Chilean affair. It's well documented in history. There was no US involvement, as anyone who isn't a devout blame-America-first communist can tell you, and no doubt should.

How they fucked it up after that wasn't an American affair either, but the result of generals not having very much experience of democratic give and take and trying to run a country like an army -- then trying even harder when they found it wasn't working. The kindest thing you can say about that is that it's unfortunate, however understandable.

And you have the cart before the horse: communism is not defined as "disagrees with Urbane Guerrilla." It's simply that communists do disagree with the libertarian ideals I espouse. You're spinning, girl, and it's as obvious as Olga Korbut out on the ice.

[Ibby]

tw may be far-left and somewhat blind at times, but he is not a communist. Mari is right: By your definition, anyone to the left of a neocon is a commie.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It's simply that communists do disagree with the libertarian ideals I espouse. You're spinning, girl, and it's as obvious as Olga Korbut out on the ice.

Talk about spin, I think you need to look up 'libertarian' in the dictionary. Libertarians do not espouse invading other countries. Libertarians are concerned with protecting their own rights, not trying to forcibly convert others.

It is not possible to call yourself a libertarian and promote an activist foreign policy, the two concepts do not mix.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Rich, Rich, you have too narrow a view for you to ever really get what libertarianism really should be: the invasion effort is to keep the totalitarians neutralized so they can't interfere with the libertarianization of the polities in the target countries. That's all it can do anyway. It's just inherently right to cast down antilibertarian regimes.

Libertarians, you see, espouse human liberty. There are real libertarians and there are parlor libertarians. Real libertarians are the ones willing to make that liberty happen, in despite of anything any slavemaker might have to say or do about it. By that measure, George Bush is among the real libertarians. No wonder I like him. Parlor libertarians stay in their parlors, meditating upon the beauties they see cloudily upon the distant horizon, far off in the land of If-Only.

Nuts to that. Libertarianism should not be construed as an excuse to do nothing, because it's all just so hard. The only people actually making it hard are the assholes who want totalitarianism. When these are dead, they don't want anything any more, and their interference with liberty is removed.