Advertisement
by Andaluciae » Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:29 pm
FreeAgency wrote:Shellfish eating used to be restricted to dens of sin such as Red Lobster and Long John Silvers, but now days I cannot even take my children to a public restaurant anymore (even the supposedly "family friendly ones") without risking their having to watch some deranged individual flaunting his sin...
by Andaluciae » Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:44 pm
FreeAgency wrote:Shellfish eating used to be restricted to dens of sin such as Red Lobster and Long John Silvers, but now days I cannot even take my children to a public restaurant anymore (even the supposedly "family friendly ones") without risking their having to watch some deranged individual flaunting his sin...
by Vetalia » Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:52 pm
Andaluciae wrote:I've set "best" as being equal to shortest.
Although Malenkov might also rank up there for never actually being fully and independently in charge.
by Vetalia » Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:53 pm
Andaluciae wrote:I've set "best" as being equal to shortest.
Although Malenkov might also rank up there for never actually being fully and independently in charge.
by North Calaveras » Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:57 pm
by Sel Appa » Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:31 pm
by Sel Appa » Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:32 pm
by Andaluciae » Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:57 pm
Sel Appa wrote:Stalin for turning a shit hole into a first world power in 25 years.
Gorbachev was a pansy and an idiot.
FreeAgency wrote:Shellfish eating used to be restricted to dens of sin such as Red Lobster and Long John Silvers, but now days I cannot even take my children to a public restaurant anymore (even the supposedly "family friendly ones") without risking their having to watch some deranged individual flaunting his sin...
by Grave_n_idle » Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:40 pm
Risottia wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:I do find myself wondering if Gorbachev is performing so strongly in the poll because he was the effective death knell of the Soviet Union... or just because a lot of NSer's probably have him as their only reference point?
I think that Gorby was about to save the Soviet Union... that's why so many people, within and without, worked so hard against him and eventually had him eliminated from the political scene.
by Shofercia » Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:08 pm
The Naked Ape wrote:Shofercia wrote:Olmedreca wrote:Gorbachev is obviously worst because ideal chance of turning collapse of Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc into massive bloodbath was completely missed. Stalin and Lenin are obviously best for all the millions of deaths of their own people that they helped to cause.
Yes, because the Eastern Bloc had such powerful organizations that could have caused those bloodbaths. And Lenin totally invented the Red Terror, the World declaring "Open Season" on Russia had nothing to do with that. And Stalin is clearly evil, he stopped Hitler, should've just let Hitler carry out his swell genocidal plans.
Hey look, I can be sarcastic too!
Hmmmmn... pretty accurate actually!
I doubt Hitler could've done a better job than Stalin did himself.
Olmedreca wrote:Shofercia wrote:And Lenin totally invented the Red Terror, the World declaring "Open Season" on Russia had nothing to do with that.
Nobody forced bolsheviks to make a coup, well except that their Imperial German financers would had probably been displeased if no progress had been made.
Olmedreca wrote:Shofercia wrote:And Stalin is clearly evil, he stopped Hitler, should've just let Hitler carry out his swell genocidal plans.
With all the mistakes and miscalculations that Stalin made, Hitler did almost succeed. And thats not even counting deaths he caused to his own people at peacetime.
by South Norwega » Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:14 pm
Shofercia wrote:
A superb propaganda piece by the West. Call yourself the first World and your opponents the Second World. Then ask others which country they want to follow. Brilliant.
by Greed and Death » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:04 pm
by Shofercia » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:45 pm
South Norwega wrote:Shofercia wrote:
A superb propaganda piece by the West. Call yourself the first World and your opponents the Second World. Then ask others which country they want to follow. Brilliant.
The theory was the following: The Western World was the First World, the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, and the Third World was all the neutral countries. The term originally had nothing to do with development.
However the fact that the Western World had GDPs averaging twice to three times that of the Soviet Union, clearly indicates that the Western World was more developed than the Eastern Bloc.
by South Norwega » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:47 pm
Shofercia wrote:South Norwega wrote:Shofercia wrote:
A superb propaganda piece by the West. Call yourself the first World and your opponents the Second World. Then ask others which country they want to follow. Brilliant.
The theory was the following: The Western World was the First World, the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, and the Third World was all the neutral countries. The term originally had nothing to do with development.
However the fact that the Western World had GDPs averaging twice to three times that of the Soviet Union, clearly indicates that the Western World was more developed than the Eastern Bloc.
Umm, usually when you call something the First World, and something else the Second World, you are implying that the First World is better. Would you rather be first or second at the Olympics? BTW, I didn't say it had anything to do with development measured in GDP.
by Shofercia » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:50 pm
South Norwega wrote:Shofercia wrote:South Norwega wrote:Shofercia wrote:
A superb propaganda piece by the West. Call yourself the first World and your opponents the Second World. Then ask others which country they want to follow. Brilliant.
The theory was the following: The Western World was the First World, the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, and the Third World was all the neutral countries. The term originally had nothing to do with development.
However the fact that the Western World had GDPs averaging twice to three times that of the Soviet Union, clearly indicates that the Western World was more developed than the Eastern Bloc.
Umm, usually when you call something the First World, and something else the Second World, you are implying that the First World is better. Would you rather be first or second at the Olympics? BTW, I didn't say it had anything to do with development measured in GDP.
Well, the point is that according to most measures, the First World was better. Also, the United Nations has always thought that First World has something to do with GDP/GNP.
by Dyakovo » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:51 pm
Burchadinger wrote:Who was the Soviet Union's best leader and why?
by South Norwega » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:53 pm
Shofercia wrote:South Norwega wrote:Shofercia wrote:South Norwega wrote:Shofercia wrote:
A superb propaganda piece by the West. Call yourself the first World and your opponents the Second World. Then ask others which country they want to follow. Brilliant.
The theory was the following: The Western World was the First World, the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, and the Third World was all the neutral countries. The term originally had nothing to do with development.
However the fact that the Western World had GDPs averaging twice to three times that of the Soviet Union, clearly indicates that the Western World was more developed than the Eastern Bloc.
Umm, usually when you call something the First World, and something else the Second World, you are implying that the First World is better. Would you rather be first or second at the Olympics? BTW, I didn't say it had anything to do with development measured in GDP.
Well, the point is that according to most measures, the First World was better. Also, the United Nations has always thought that First World has something to do with GDP/GNP.
My point was that it was a brilliant propaganda piece. You are arguing about GDP. Congratulations, you destroyed my argument that cats are white, by arguing that dogs are black....
by Burchadinger » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:21 am
by Olmedreca » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:33 am
Shofercia wrote:Olmedreca wrote:Shofercia wrote:And Lenin totally invented the Red Terror, the World declaring "Open Season" on Russia had nothing to do with that.
Nobody forced bolsheviks to make a coup, well except that their Imperial German financers would had probably been displeased if no progress had been made.
Umm, read up on history. The Revolution was in full swing before Lenin arrived.
Shofercia wrote:Olmedreca wrote:Shofercia wrote:And Stalin is clearly evil, he stopped Hitler, should've just let Hitler carry out his swell genocidal plans.
With all the mistakes and miscalculations that Stalin made, Hitler did almost succeed. And thats not even counting deaths he caused to his own people at peacetime.
Yes, because Stalin was the one who imposed draconian terms on Germany, (Versailles Treaty,) who let Hitler out of jail early, who personally gassed Hitler, and clearly he was the one who brainwashed Chamberlain to give Hitler Czechoslovakia. Stalin is also guilty of the Black Plaugue, the Native American Genocide, why not, if you have an imagination, let's keep on going....
by Shofercia » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:53 am
South Norwega wrote:Shofercia wrote:South Norwega wrote:Shofercia wrote:South Norwega wrote:Shofercia wrote:
A superb propaganda piece by the West. Call yourself the first World and your opponents the Second World. Then ask others which country they want to follow. Brilliant.
The theory was the following: The Western World was the First World, the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, and the Third World was all the neutral countries. The term originally had nothing to do with development.
However the fact that the Western World had GDPs averaging twice to three times that of the Soviet Union, clearly indicates that the Western World was more developed than the Eastern Bloc.
Umm, usually when you call something the First World, and something else the Second World, you are implying that the First World is better. Would you rather be first or second at the Olympics? BTW, I didn't say it had anything to do with development measured in GDP.
Well, the point is that according to most measures, the First World was better. Also, the United Nations has always thought that First World has something to do with GDP/GNP.
My point was that it was a brilliant propaganda piece. You are arguing about GDP. Congratulations, you destroyed my argument that cats are white, by arguing that dogs are black....
I'm not denying that. I'm arguing your cynicism that it was just propaganda. It has quite a solid basis in fact.
Olmedreca wrote:Shofercia wrote:Olmedreca wrote:Shofercia wrote:And Lenin totally invented the Red Terror, the World declaring "Open Season" on Russia had nothing to do with that.
Nobody forced bolsheviks to make a coup, well except that their Imperial German financers would had probably been displeased if no progress had been made.
Umm, read up on history. The Revolution was in full swing before Lenin arrived.
Revolution was, but civil war, foreign intervention, and proper scale terror wasn't.
Olmedreca wrote:Shofercia wrote:Olmedreca wrote:Shofercia wrote:And Stalin is clearly evil, he stopped Hitler, should've just let Hitler carry out his swell genocidal plans.
With all the mistakes and miscalculations that Stalin made, Hitler did almost succeed. And thats not even counting deaths he caused to his own people at peacetime.
Yes, because Stalin was the one who imposed draconian terms on Germany, (Versailles Treaty,) who let Hitler out of jail early, who personally gassed Hitler, and clearly he was the one who brainwashed Chamberlain to give Hitler Czechoslovakia. Stalin is also guilty of the Black Plaugue, the Native American Genocide, why not, if you have an imagination, let's keep on going....
I guess you consider all Stalin's decisions good beyond any dispute, or you simply don't know anything about Soviet Union before and during WW II. Either way there is nothing to discuss.
by Aligned Planets » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:55 am
What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the United Federation has become the very evil we've been fighting to destroy?
"The 4,427th nation in the world for Most Scientifically Advanced, scoring 266 on the Kurzweil Singularity Index."
Don't question the FT of AP.DRAFT | ANIMAL TRANSPORT ACTJaresh-Inyo | World Assembly Delegate
Laura Roslin | President, United Federation of Aligned Planets
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:56 am
Shofercia wrote:I wouldn't say that. Arguing that your country is First World just because of GDP sounds pretty damn cynical and money-hungry. On the other hand it's perfect if you want to work for AIG.
by Allbeama » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:59 am
The Kropotkinite Union wrote:Um, none? The Soviet Union abandoned real Marxist principles the moment Lenin came on the scene.
by Burchadinger » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:39 am
Aligned Planets wrote:Mrs Thatcher, obviously ;-)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Alt Capitalist Britain, Emotional Support Crocodile, The Holy Therns
Advertisement