Thread: Why is the CURE for cancer surpressed?! Why are we killing people with kemo?!

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

1. greed
   /grid/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [greed] Show IPA
–noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

2.First of all, you wouldn't get communism because communists used money. No money =/= communism.

You didn't read my "aka capitalism" did you?

If they used money, then they were wrongly labelled as communists. Which means that your idea of communism is wrong, and any criticism towards it doesn't stand. Go figure.

The only way to halt greed and stop the corruption it will inevitably cause is to create a world in which the root cause of greed is eliminated. Of course, this would mean that humans would require machines that provide for us everything we need and also maintain themselves. We do not have such technology, so the entire pursuit to end greed is futile.

Nah. You can halt greed by teaching human beings not to be greedy. American schools and parents teach children to be greedy, so that's what I would expect from them. I don't even blame americans for that, you know - I just hate how hard-headed they are.

Maybe you're right, and greed is inevitable. But capitalism only gives tools for greedy people to act. In any case, your point doesn't stand.

And think for a moment about why they wanted to find this route: not for the good of all people or even their own people. It was in pursuit of their own wealth.

I honestly don't see how totalitarian monarchs and dictators are different at all. I can see how a normal monarch and a normal dictator are different, but not totalitarian ones.

It wasn't in pursuit of their own wealth. Study history before you talk about it, really. Don't try to play the know-it-all. Monarchs mostly acted for the sake of their country and people, because they were raised from young age to be rulers. There really isn't much advantage they can get from people trying to corrupt them. As you said yourself, human beings are greedy, company owners are greedy, so they need state to intervene before they go too far.

Totalitarian means the government, not necessarily a single person, has control over every aspect of the country including every aspect of the lives of its citizens.

I didn't mean person as in human being. And it doesn't necessarily include aspects of private life. I'm not trying to say that Hitler didn't spy people's private lives here - Hitler was a totalitarian dictator. I'm talking about a totalitarian monarchy or something equally fair and effective.

Corruption can happen anywhere money is present.

So you still say we should abolish money? You haven't answered that.

Hitler and Stalin: Two totalitarian dictators who caused the deaths of tens of millions people.

President Harry Truman: avid capitalist, was responsible for two atomic bombs thrown over Japan, started the cold war and the american propaganda, nearly stabbed the Soviet Union in the back (luckily the soviets were smarter).

And for your information, nearly 40% of the deaths of WWII were soviets. That's like, 20 000 000 deaths. The number of killed jews was less than 2 million. The Soviet Union was the one the won WWII, fyi. If it weren't for them, we'd likely still be dealing with nazis nowadays.

It's not perfect? It's not perfect?!?! It's terrible! Absolutely terrible! Giving somebody that much power is a ridiculously stupid idea judging from the sheer amount of bad leaders that have been seen throughout history. Even if you get a good leader, you still have his successor to worry about.

Look at what G.W.Bush did before criticising anyone else, for humanity's sake.

I don't know why I am even arguing with you. Since you clearly don't even know what totalitarian is. You come in bashing everyone education(which you don't even know), and you don't even know the basic stuff.

You sound like the people who go to collage for economics, and at the same don't know what causes inflation. Then you act like you know what your talking about.

Its common sense though. If a politician is corrupt because a company gives him money. Then clearly he is going to be corrupt if he actually owns the company itself.

You think the purist of wealth causes corruption so what do you want to do? Remove all compilation so the person ruling can take all the wealth he wishes? That stupid. The clear end is that they take everything, leaving the citizens with nothing. Which is what has happened all throughout history.

Bah, fyi, I'm equally or even better at natural sciences than human sciences, and I'll be taking college for medicine. Inflation is the height of prices, which can be a result of several variables.

Very faulty logic you have. Politicians are only corrupted because private funding is the only way they have to pay their campaign and get elected. Put an end to elections, and you'll be putting an end to political corruption.

As I said, go study, because you clearly know nothing other than your own, narrow-minded culture. Fyi, a monarch has a very open and public life, and if he ever does anything suspicious, people will inquire him. Of course you don't know that, because you never opened your mind much further than your own american culture. It requires much more abstraction than the average person has, you know. Geopolitics are not as simplistic as you think of it.

What makes you think a person ruling will "take all the wealth he wishes"? That is so simplistic, I doubt you actually believe that. You made that argument out of nowhere just for the sake of arguing, or, as one would say, hard-headedness. But responding to your point anyway, a person ruling doesn't have to worry about personal wealth - it's not like they can just buy a killer boat and go on vacation to Maui. They don't leave the citizens with nothing - they regulate business owners, a much-needed thing. All governors in history who explored their people were actually previously someone from the high class, and not someone brought up for the duty of leading a country (these were usually good governors). Of course, I doubt you'd realise that pattern - very few people do.

Finally, your idea of state organisations - of the government "owning" them is just plain stupid. The government owning a company doesn't mean the government aims high to sell more and make profit - the government only provides a service, usually non-profitable. Of course, an american would never convey the idea of a company that doesn't go for profit, lol

Yea, I didn't know that because its not true. There were long lines of kings in Europe. A lot of them, born nobility were cruel, corrupt, and at times incompetent.

Your entire argument is idiotic. I mean entire monarchies are based around people who plundered the wealth of their country in order to live the high life. How can you say, people who don't need to worry about getting elected are always fair and never corrupt. That is totally false.

Sure I will admit there have been good kings and stuff. The problem however is that there is no way to insure that there is always a good one. And once you give up the power to elect the ruler, you have no choice but to follow whoever ends up in the position.

This has nothing to do with my culture. It has to do with basic history.

Born nobility equals born high class, not born ruler, which is just what I said. Nearly every ruler who was born to be a ruler was a good one.

Live the high life? You don't even know what a monarchy is, do you? You can't just say something is "totally false" without backing it up. Without needing to compete for a higher social class, they cannot be corrupted. Corruption doesn't involve only a single person - corruption involves one corrupting the other. And usually so because both gain something from it. There is nearly nothing a monarch can get from a deal - maybe only honor, lol.

There is a way to ensure it's always a good one - give him a good education. Human beings are not the impossible-to-determine beings you think they are - they only do what they were taught. That is some wisdom you realise from young age if you're anywhere above average in terms of intelligence.

And yes, it has to do with your culture, because you lack the understanding to know what I mean. Why is it that all people with gifted intelligence agree with me?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You didn't read my "aka capitalism" did you?

If they used money, then they were wrongly labelled as communists. Which means that your idea of communism is wrong, and any criticism towards it doesn't stand. Go figure.

I revised that part for clarity five minutes before you posted.

I'm fairly certain they used money when importing and exporting. They had to exchange with the world economy somehow.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah. You can halt greed by teaching human beings not to be greedy. American schools and parents teach children to be greedy, so that's what I would expect from them. I don't even blame americans for that, you know - I just hate how hard-headed they are.

Maybe you're right, and greed is inevitable. But capitalism only gives tools for greedy people to act. In any case, your point doesn't stand.

Prove it.

Did I say anything about Capitalism? I support a Capitalist-Socialist society, which we currently have in America and which they currently have in many of the European countries you mentioned earlier.

Note: I just wanted to add for the sake of any spectators viewing this thread that I accidentally deleted the quote Kromoh is replying to. I don't want to go back and edit it in because I want the current edit time to stay.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It wasn't in pursuit of their own wealth. Study history before you talk about it, really. Don't try to play the know-it-all. Monarchs mostly acted for the sake of their country and people, because they were raised from young age to be rulers. There really isn't much advantage they can get from people trying to corrupt them. As you said yourself, human beings are greedy, company owners are greedy, so they need state to intervene before they go too far.

In many cases it was in pursuit of their own power and wealth. The monarchs most definitely did not take into consideration people's freedoms and that's why monarchy has lost steam.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I didn't mean person as in human being. And it doesn't necessarily include aspects of private life. I'm not trying to say that Hitler didn't spy people's private lives here - Hitler was a totalitarian dictator. I'm talking about a totalitarian monarchy or something equally fair and effective.

I don't know what your point is. You didn't mean person as in human being? I'm confused. Totalitarian monarch IS a person.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

So you still say we should abolish money? You haven't answered that.

Hell yeah. Once technology becomes advanced enough, money will become obsolete. But we are oh so far from achieving that.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

President Harry Truman: avid capitalist, was responsible for two atomic bombs thrown over Japan, started the cold war and the american propaganda, nearly stabbed the Soviet Union in the back (luckily the soviets were smarter).

And for your information, nearly 40% of the deaths of WWII were soviets. That's like, 20 000 000 deaths. The number of killed jews was less than 2 million. The Soviet Union was the one the won WWII, fyi. If it weren't for them, we'd likely still be dealing with nazis nowadays.

Which actually made quite a bit of sense if you look at the reasons for his decision. It's quite possible that the nukes actually saved lives.

The Cold War began for many reasons and was not the result of any single event.

Stalin killed 30 million of his own people. Hitler actually killed 6 million Jews and 5 million others who were deemed unfit to live by his regime. And that's not even counting the Russian soldiers you mentioned.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Look at what G.W.Bush did before criticising anyone else, for humanity's sake.

What did Bush do?

Likely because your an arrogant snob, and anyone who disagrees with you, is of 'lesser intelligence' or 'uneducated'. You claim I lack understanding but your only back up for that, is the fact I disagree with you. Its easy to think your right if you assume everyone who disagrees is uneducated, however in the real world it simply isn't true.

Yes, many of the kings were born knowing they would be king. It is very common thing, and yes many of them were still corrupt, incompetent, or just plain cruel.

If you grow up never having to work, ignorant of the working class. How can you rule them fairly? Many times you can't. You say its easy to just educate them and they will be good but that is a silly argument at best. Education does not equal moral fiber. Being educated doesn't mean you are any kinder, or nicer.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. People are not corrupt simply because they are seeking higher class. A person sits around getting their every wish and they often just end up spoiled brats who become horrible rulers. And even if you wanted to believe that, everyone around the ruler sucks up and tries to gain favor and special privileges from the king and by your very own argument they should become corrupt. Even a good king, surrounded by corrupt advisers will become corrupt.

As for every king who was born knowing he would be king, being a good one. That is total bullshit. Its not even remotely true.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Prove it.

I have many living examples that a good education does make a person.

Did I say anything about Capitalism? I support a Capitalist-Socialist society, which we currently have in America and which they currently have in many of the European countries you mentioned earlier.

What you have in America is lightyears away from being a Capitalist-Socialist society, ftr.

In many cases it was in pursuit of their own power and wealth. The monarchs most definitely did not take into consideration people's freedoms and that's why monarchy has lost steam.

I don't deny that many of the past monarchies were moved by individual image and power, but that was at a time war was a constant variable. There are just too many good examples of people who were raised to become governors. Monarchy only lost steam because of the bourgeoisie continuously pressing for less state intervention and facts such as the French Revolution.

I don't know what your point is. You didn't mean person as in human being? I'm confused. Totalitarian monarch IS a person.

Look up "person" at the dictionary. You were the one saying "not necessarily a single person", so stop being antithetic.

Hell yeah. Once technology becomes advanced enough, money will become obsolete. But we are oh so far from achieving that.

Well, maybe true, but it could also be a wrong prediction. My prediction is that, withotu state intervention, there will be more and more monopoly, and with time there will be a restricted minority in charge of nearly all the economy - we'll be back to something not much different from feudalism.

Which actually made quite a bit of sense if you look at the reasons for his decision. It's quite possible that the nukes actually saved lives.

Biased. Refusing to see the truth. You were probably taught like Truman was a hero. He was the most perverted figure of the last century? Even more than Hitler. Why? Because people still believe he was a hero. The cold war was started by him and his competition and propaganda against the Soviet Union.

The Cold War began for many reasons and was not the result of any single event.

Yes, many reasons, all of them started by Harry Truman.

Stalin killed 30 million of his own people. Hitler actually killed 6 million Jews and 5 million others who were deemed unfit to live by his regime. And that's not even counting the Russian soldiers you mentioned.

Not 6 million jews - that is biased data that very few people seem to bother question. Real figures are estimated around 2 million jews. I'm just saying that, if anyone was a hero, it was the Soviet Union. I doubt the Allies would have won if it weren't for the Soviet Union. I seriously do.

What did Bush do?

Don't be so pathetic. Corruption, misinformation, manipulation of popular opinion through fear, unnecessary way over countries, war over oil masked as humanist act, economical crisis due to lack of state intervention. Not to mention all the minor things - aggressive diplomatic approach, environmental crime, dubious election, etc etc. The very symbol of capitalism: corruption, greed, free-market, war based on economical interest. I haven't even started saying the wrong GW Bush did.

Originally Posted by Alric

Likely because your an arrogant snob, and anyone who disagrees with you, is of 'lesser intelligence' or 'uneducated'. You claim I lack understanding but your only back up for that, is the fact I disagree with you. Its easy to think your right if you assume everyone who disagrees is uneducated, however in the real world it simply isn't true.

Yes, many of the kings were born knowing they would be king. It is very common thing, and yes many of them were still corrupt, incompetent, or just plain cruel.

If you grow up never having to work, ignorant of the working class. How can you rule them fairly? Many times you can't. You say its easy to just educate them and they will be good but that is a silly argument at best. Education does not equal moral fiber. Being educated doesn't mean you are any kinder, or nicer.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. People are not corrupt simply because they are seeking higher class. A person sits around getting their every wish and they often just end up spoiled brats who become horrible rulers. And even if you wanted to believe that, everyone around the ruler sucks up and tries to gain favor and special privileges from the king and by your very own argument they should become corrupt. Even a good king, surrounded by corrupt advisers will become corrupt.

As for every king who was born knowing he would be king, being a good one. That is total bullshit. Its not even remotely true.

Oh boy. Stop thinking everyone studied as little as you did. Unlike you, I did spend 6 months studying solely capitalism before making my opinion. My education on the topic is comparable to someone graduated in geography. And you are just a bored american highschooler thinking you have it all figured out. I say you are uneducated not because you simply disagree with me, but because I see exactly where you come from - actually, the same coming-from of nearly every average american, which just makes the word "brainwashing" flash violently in my head.

Second paragraph doesn't stand - style without substance.

You don't grow up ignorant of the working class. Did you read my arguments at all? The person would be educated about the country he/she would govern when they grew up. Probably by the best professionals of that country. Also, there isn't just "more educated" or "less educated". There is "educated the right way". Education is the base of human character - humans aren't born with character, they are taught it - by their parents and by schooling.

Definition of corruption: someone corrupts someone else, both getting some benefit out of it, and the act being illicit. I didn't say the people around the monarch don't become corrupted - stop putting words in my mouth. I said the monarch cannot be corrupted, because he has had a very solid education that taught him that corruption is wrong, and also because there isn't much he can benefit from an illicit deal. "Corrupt" is not a trait. "Corruptible" is a trait. You can teach someone not to be corruptible - this probably sounds so elusive to you, because it's the contrary of what is done at the US. It's called moral and ethics.

Don't say my argument doesn't make sense if you simply fail to understand it.

Finally - if it isn't remotely true, prove it - with real examples, please. Doubt you can.

No I am not in high school and I did go to collage, and I did take some classes in it, though it wasn't my main interest. Though thinking a person has to take collage courses in a specific subject to know something, isn't true. People can be self taught, people can read books, people can keep up with the news. People can learn history about it. And all of it guides them to a well educated opinion on a subject. Saying I am a stupid American because I didn't go to collage on that specific subject isn't a valid argument. Especially since you did, yet you still lack some very basic knowledge on the subject. Which clearly they do not teach.

That really sounds like a challenge to me though. How is this. You list off all the incorruptible rulers throughout history. While I list off all the incompetent, cruel and generally just bad rulers throughout history. We will see who has the bigger list. Does that sound fair?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

- actually, the same coming-from of nearly every average american, which just makes the word "brainwashing" flash violently in my head.

You are definitely somebody who can dish it out but can't take it. Do you remember tattling to a moderator when I made a joke about that Brazilian tribe? Cool it with the prejudiced comments.

Originally Posted by Alric

No I am not in high school and I did go to collage, and I did take some classes in it, though it wasn't my main interest. Though thinking a person has to take collage courses in a specific subject to know something, isn't true. People can be self taught, people can read books, people can keep up with the news. People can learn history about it. And all of it guides them to a well educated opinion on a subject. Saying I am a stupid American because I didn't go to collage on that specific subject isn't a valid argument. Especially since you did, yet you still lack some very basic knowledge on the subject. Which clearly they do not teach.

That really sounds like a challenge to me though. How is this. You list off all the incorruptible rulers throughout history. While I list off all the incompetent, cruel and generally just bad rulers throughout history. We will see who has the bigger list. Does that sound fair?

I'm not saying not going to college makes you a stupid american. What I'm saying is that the stuff you learn at high school is pretty much biased.

Also, you seem to be avoiding my point - weren't you to make a statement which you didn't back up, in first place? Don't make me do my homework, if you didn't do yours.

---

UM, you and I know it was different. Stop saying things so that other people can read. American school are biased, fact. I never called anyone an aborigine through a private message.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I have many living examples that a good education does make a person.

Ok, I'll give you this. Except your theory doesn't account for unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances that may change a person for the worse. It also assumes a perfect world in which everyone is naturally nice to each other. Unless you take away all of the variables which could possibly create a bad person (lack of money, impoverishment, addiction, accidental death, competition for mates, and many many more) you aren't going to magically erase bad people.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What you have in America is lightyears away from being a Capitalist-Socialist society, ftr.

Actually, no it isn't. Capitalistic-Socialistic is a very broad term encompassing any country that has mainly aspects of socialism and capitalism. And with this new President it seems more socialistic aspects of our society are going to be implemented.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I don't deny that many of the past monarchies were moved by individual image and power, but that was at a time war was a constant variable. There are just too many good examples of people who were raised to become governors. Monarchy only lost steam because of the bourgeoisie continuously pressing for less state intervention and facts such as the French Revolution.

And there are just too many catastrophically bad examples of these leaders groomed from birth who run rampant and let the people suffer. Is war not still a constant variable?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Look up "person" at the dictionary. You were the one saying "not necessarily a single person", so stop being antithetic.

I still don't see your point. I can barely tell what we were arguing about, you just don't seem to make much sense here.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Biased. Refusing to see the truth. You were probably taught like Truman was a hero. He was the most perverted figure of the last century? Even more than Hitler. Why? Because people still believe he was a hero. The cold war was started by him and his competition and propaganda against the Soviet Union.

No actually I wasn't. No President has ever been portrayed as a hero, not even the framers of the constitution. We were taught all the facts, including how some of the founding fathers owned slaves. I told you, they are truly only biased in the areas of drugs and sex.

From what I read, his reasoning was this: Invade Japan and suffer major American and Japanese deaths or force Japan into surrender through use of nukes. Major deaths were inevitable. We will never know if the other course of action would have been less destructive overall.

Also, quit talking about propaganda. Propaganda was and is used everywhere. Also, if the subject of propaganda was stirring support against a regime that murders its own civilians, then I can understand why.

Most perverted figure of the last century? Anybody with a clear mind could see that there have been plenty of leaders far worse than Truman if they believe Truman was a bad leader.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, many reasons, all of them started by Harry Truman.

Blockade of civilians immigrating to West Berlin by the Soviets. There, I don't need to state any more. I just bombed your argument to bits.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Not 6 million jews - that is biased data that very few people seem to bother question. Real figures are estimated around 2 million jews. I'm just saying that, if anyone was a hero, it was the Soviet Union. I doubt the Allies would have won if it weren't for the Soviet Union. I seriously do.

I cannot find anywhere where it says Hitler killed 2 million Jews. Everywhere I look, I see 5-6 million. I even googled "Hitler killed 2 million Jews". I have come across sources that say Hitler killed 2 million Jews in Nazi-occupied Russia.

Where is your information coming from?

Also, why do you keep praising the Soviet Union for its part in WWII? Their part in the war is completely irrelevant to this thread. Not only that, but while the Soviet soldiers were off winning the war and being heroes their own people were being worked and starved to death by Stalin.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Don't be so pathetic. Corruption, misinformation, manipulation of popular opinion through fear, unnecessary way over countries, war over oil masked as humanist act, economical crisis due to lack of state intervention. Not to mention all the minor things - aggressive diplomatic approach, environmental crime, dubious election, etc etc. The very symbol of capitalism: corruption, greed, free-market, war based on economical interest. I haven't even started saying the wrong GW Bush did.

Why do you call me pathetic? I was merely luring you out so I could attack you.

Really? Do you really think George Bush's actions are anywhere near as bad as the actions of various totalitarian regimes, the various military regimes we've seen slaughter civilians or past monarchs who allow their people to starve and also persecuted religious groups? Really?

Yes, Bush was a terrible leader. But guess what? Due to our democratic system of government, we get to elect a new one every 4-8 years. And don't bring up the possibility of Bush fixing the election. I do think there may be some truth to it, but it is still an unproven conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

UM, you and I know it was different. Stop saying things so that other people can read. American school are biased, fact. I never called anyone an aborigine through a private message.

Do you know what a generalization is? Look it up.

I sent you a picture of a newly discovered Brazilian tribe that was throwing spears at a helicopter, and I asked you if it was your family. It was obviously a joke, and it was in response to your endless stream of broad brush insults against my country. Needless to say, I didn't really think it was your family. However, you are completely serious when you paint American schools with a broad brush and say they don't educate people but do "brainwash" them. If you don't want your country insulted, don't insult ours.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Ok, I'll give you this. Except your theory doesn't account for unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances that may change a person for the worse. It also assumes a perfect world in which everyone is naturally nice to each other. Unless you take away all of the variables which could possibly create a bad person (lack of money, impoverishment, addiction, accidental death, competition for mates, and many many more) you aren't going to magically erase bad people.

It doesn't assume a perfect world. Not at all. It assumes a real world. A real world in which people are determined by what they are taught. Lack of money and impoverishment are just what I've been covering in my arguments about capitalism. Addiction, trauma etc don't really change a person - it only brings to surface things that were lying within.

Actually, no it isn't. Capitalistic-Socialistic is a very broad term encompassing any country that has mainly aspects of socialism and capitalism. And with this new President it seems more socialistic aspects of our society are going to be implemented.

Just have to agree that with Obama, the US is a little bit more headed towards socialism, but it's still impractically far. If you think America is anywhere near socialism, then you clearly misunderstand socialism - just throwing it out there.

And there are just too many catastrophically bad examples of these leaders groomed from birth who run rampant and let the people suffer. Is war not still a constant variable?

Well, I never said any raising is good. There were many cases of badly raising a future monarch in history, you just can't neglect that.

Also, I mean war as in frontier war - tribes and civilizations just waiting for a chance to break in. You just never knew when a seemingly harmless visitor would try to murder the monarch. War is only a constant nowadays because fucked up governors (read G.W Bush) make it a constant.

I still don't see your point. I can barely tell what we were arguing about, you just don't seem to make much sense here.

I used "person" in the meaning of identity, you bashed me because you understood it as meaning human being, and when I corrected you, you bashed me again. Way to go.

No actually I wasn't. No President has ever been portrayed as a hero, not even the framers of the constitution. We were taught all the facts, including how some of the founding fathers owned slaves. I told you, they are truly only biased in the areas of drugs and sex.

Data can also be biased, remember that. Of course I'm in no position to judge the details of specific parts of your schooling system, but I confidently say I know it is biased in many parts - drugs, sex, capitalism and communism. Some area-restricted bias also exists, as in religion and etc (usually southern states).

From what I read, his reasoning was this: Invade Japan and suffer major American and Japanese deaths or force Japan into surrender through use of nukes. Major deaths were inevitable. We will never know if the other course of action would have been less destructive overall.

The war was already won. The Allies just gathered together, decided on a bunch of ridiculous impositions for the Axis, and when Japan refused to accept them, America throws two nuclear bombs. Of course, the aim of the nuclear bombs wasn't to show power to the Axis, but to the Soviet Union. The person behind all of this? President Truman.

Also, quit talking about propaganda. Propaganda was and is used everywhere. Also, if the subject of propaganda was stirring support against a regime that murders its own civilians, then I can understand why.

I can't deny there were bad things done by the dictatorship in the Soviet Union, but the propaganda isn't restricted to that. You wouldn't believe how much of Cold War is still present in people's mindset. Atheism versus theism, communism versus capitalism, state intervention versus free market. And it's all taught to you tendentiously. And, just so UM doesn't get me wrong: I'm not saying the Brazilian education system is better. Contrary to you, I know how fucked up my country is, and know that my country's schooling system is tendentious. But I also knows it's not as bad as what your have over your place. Quit the patriotism, it leads nowhere. It's high time everyone admitted the shit they've made and started working on making things better.

Most perverted figure of the last century? Anybody with a clear mind could see that there have been plenty of leaders far worse than Truman if they believe Truman was a bad leader.

Well, the difference between all other extremely bad leaders and Truman, was that Truman managed to keep a good appearance up to nowadays. Worse than a crime which has already been solved is a crime that hasn't.

Blockade of civilians immigrating to West Berlin by the Soviets. There, I don't need to state any more. I just bombed your argument to bits.

Biased data. You just don't know anything about the Cold War in order to say that. All the representation that people longed to move to West Berlin is just more propaganda - fyi, many people longed to move from West to East Berlin. Not that it means much, really. My argument is of socialism versus capitalism, not Soviet Union versus US. But America has always been the perfect example of capitalism, and your american dream just insists on popping into a harsh reality.

I cannot find anywhere where it says Hitler killed 2 million Jews. Everywhere I look, I see 5-6 million. I even googled "Hitler killed 2 million Jews". I have come across sources that say Hitler killed 2 million Jews in Nazi-occupied Russia.

People just don't question the 6-billion number in order to make the Axis sound more evil than it was. The very 6-billion number has become a kind of a myth people believe blindly in. Seriously, there is just no means to make the numbers even remotely accurate. In fact, the 6-billion number was reported by a jewish institution, which just screams false numbers. For the sake of an accredited conversation take it like this: many jews died, but certainly not as many as held by people. But there are many reports which estimate around 2 billion people.

Also, why do you keep praising the Soviet Union for its part in WWII? Their part in the war is completely irrelevant to this thread. Not only that, but while the Soviet soldiers were off winning the war and being heroes their own people were being worked and starved to death by Stalin.

I do it only to knock some sense into people. Many think the US was the hero who saved the world from the nazis, when the truth is that the Soviets won the war on their own. Half of France accepted the nazi doctrine, and Britain was barely managing to fight the local attacks on its territory.

Why do you call me pathetic? I was merely luring you out so I could attack you.

Really? Do you really think George Bush's actions are anywhere near as bad as the actions of various totalitarian regimes, the various military regimes we've seen slaughter civilians or past monarchs who allow their people to starve and also persecuted religious groups? Really?

Yes, Bush was a terrible leader. But guess what? Due to our democratic system of government, we get to elect a new one every 4-8 years. And don't bring up the possibility of Bush fixing the election. I do think there may be some truth to it, but it is still an unproven conspiracy.

You asked a pathetic question - that's why I called you pathetic.

Yes, yes I do. Hitler killed because he was just plain crazy. W Bush killed for money, for power, for oil; bore one of the worst economic crises in history; persecuted religious groups (oh yes he did) and all else which I said in the last post - and he isn't seen as an evil figure.

As I say repeatedly, I have two questions in my life:
1) How can someone be so dumb and ignorant and corrupt as GW Bush;
2) How someone so dumb and ignorant and corrupt as GW Bush is elected president of the United States - twice.

Next time, think well before luring the fish with the wrong bait.

You are the one that made the ridiculous claim, that there has been rulers who have been above corruption. You clearly state throughout the thread that people born to be rulers are above corruption. This has no biases in history, or in facts what so ever. It is a personal opinion, that actually goes against common knowledge of everyone. Monarchies were not great advancements in governments, and really do not improve anything. And long lines of rulers produced incompetent and poor leaders.

Not only did you make bold claims on things you could never backup, you insulting everyone in the processes and acting superior to them. I think its time you put up or shut up.

I will even make it easy for you. For every ruler you can name who was above corruption, I will name two who were incompetent, cruel or a generally terrible leader.

Britain was barely managing to fight the local attacks on its territory.

If I could just chip in here and point out that we completely destroyed Hitler's Luftwaffe and after that he basically left us alone.

And also that you have far too much spare time.

Did anyone watch the videos? Just wondering because that was my goal for the thread.

Here is a video of what a dose of THC can do to cancer cells. You can't deny the truth.
http://sethgroup.org/videos.html

Here is a nice long interview of rick(this is just first video of the series, just click part 2 etc in the related video bar for the rest) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1GPnlbGweM

Originally Posted by plg6067

Did anyone watch the videos? Just wondering because that was my goal for the thread.

Here is a video of what a dose of THC can do to cancer cells. You can't deny the truth.
http://sethgroup.org/videos.html

That's so awesome! I never figured that brain cells would move around like that. It is a time lapse, but still.

kromoh, nobody's is going to seriously listen to you if you keep acting like your the only person who will be right and continue being a condescending prick to everyone else that does not agree with you.

Originally Posted by Alric

You are the one that made the ridiculous claim, that there has been rulers who have been above corruption. You clearly state throughout the thread that people born to be rulers are above corruption. This has no biases in history, or in facts what so ever. It is a personal opinion, that actually goes against common knowledge of everyone. Monarchies were not great advancements in governments, and really do not improve anything. And long lines of rulers produced incompetent and poor leaders.

Not only did you make bold claims on things you could never backup, you insulting everyone in the processes and acting superior to them. I think its time you put up or shut up.

I will even make it easy for you. For every ruler you can name who was above corruption, I will name two who were incompetent, cruel or a generally terrible leader.

I didn't say that leaders who were born to be leaders weren't corrupted. I said that leaders that had a good education in order to be a leader weren't corrupted. Politics are the very center of corruption. People forming alliances to get elected. Etc etc.

I also didn't say history is biased, I said that what you learned of history was (most probably) biased. Monarchies were huge advancements in government, but of course you wouldn't know that.

Don't say I didn't back my arguments up. I backed them all up, many a times more than once. Don't appeal to style without substance.

LOL of course there have been several bad leaders in history - more than 90% of them. Don't put words in my mouth. I mentioned leaders that were educated and destined to be leaders, not just leaders in general.

Originally Posted by Xei

If I could just chip in here and point out that we completely destroyed Hitler's Luftwaffe and after that he basically left us alone.

And also that you have far too much spare time.

Give up your damned patriotism. I didn't say Britain didn't do anything. Even Brazil took part in confrontations. But what Britain did was merely a drop of water compared to the ocean of Soviet participation in the war - even while facing a very bad dictatorship in their country. If anyone is to feel proud, it's soviets.

Aaand it's easter holiday here in Brazil, so I pretty much got plenty of time to waste the way I want. I've been studying at least 10 hours daily on weekdays, so don't you opine on something you really don't know much about. I'm just really far from being an average person, you know.

Originally Posted by blackjack

kromoh, nobody's is going to seriously listen to you if you keep acting like your the only person who will be right and continue being a condescending prick to everyone else that does not agree with you.

You don't know how much I've studied to have this opinion. If I'm being a prick, then it's because I have more than enough reason for that. I'm not like some people that disagree for the sake of it. I actually mean what I say.

No, you never backed up your arguments. You made a statement and said you were positive you were right and most educated agree with you. Which isn't true at all, and when asked to back it up you gave no proof.

It is your opinion and its not even a very good one. You made it up based on the theory that education prevents corruptions, which it doesn't. As we can point out many well educated people who are corrupted.

Even if you were right about everything you would still be wrong. Because you admitted everyone around the leader would be corruptible. In which case one of them would eventually overthrow the leader, and you now have a horrible government. So even under the best circumstances, and we assume you are right on everything. It would be end in a complete failure.

So Kromoh, you seem very educated on this subject about capitalism.

I know its a fucked up world we're living in, everyone is out for this money.

The best thing would be to go to college, get a good job, and make all the money you can right? But even then, wouldn't you be contributing in this capitalistic world.

And do you think that the hunting club in "Hostel" and "Hostel 2" could really exist, as gruesome as it is.

Does anyone remember the movie Mission Impossible 2? The guy is trying to infect everyone with that deadly disease, and trying to get a share of the supply of the anti-virus...how conniving is that? It's like money, money, money....I think that will be the end of this world. Theres going to be 2 types of people in the world...rich people, and very poor people.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

If I'm being a prick, then it's because I have more than enough reason for that.

Unbelievable.

So, "educated" people act like pricks too?