PDA

View Full Version : The shit fucker won....



greencows12
11-03-2004, 05:55 PM
I think people voted for the cunt cause they're scared of him. I can't believe the dumbass moitherfucker won.:mad: He should of been empeached long ago. I got a poll for you....a better pole. Check it out. I'm still ana anarchist and I think bush is evil. Yay! Fat Mike! He thinks...i mean knows bush is evil too.:D

Special Delivery BR.
11-03-2004, 06:11 PM
yea i cant believe...... :confused: :mad: :eek:
why u, american,bush voters, r so dumb??????????
how can be USA a world potence with a so idiot population???

im revolting and shocked..
after all............. ppl still believe in bush.. in his lies..
he is a killer, a terrorist.. a liar...
its ridicle...

FUCK BUSH!
ROCK AGAINST BUSH!
THE WORLD IS AGAINST BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lets impeach george bush!!!!!

PLZ, OSAMA, KILL BUSH!!!!

The Cheshire Cat
11-03-2004, 06:21 PM
I'd vote for a monkey. I don't live in the states or anything, so it's not like I'd benefit from the economic devastation a monkey's policies would cause. I've already got that with bush, but I don't think a monkey would go off and start wars. I think they'd be much more concerned with making friends with banana-producing countries.

(I've now hit the point in the electoral process where I realize that I don't care who runs your country and start making sarcastic comments about the US).

Unnatural Disaster
11-03-2004, 06:25 PM
I'd vote for the regular guy

UgLy_eLf
11-03-2004, 08:40 PM
I'd vote for Jello Biafra, Ralph Nader needs to fuck off and die. Jello can, and WOULD do much better, he's a better public orator, he knows his shit, and exactly what he wants to say and do. JELLO IN 2008 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! COMMONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN MOTHER FUCKER JELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO *gasps for air* OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO *passes out*

LifeSuXA.k.A JaY
11-03-2004, 08:59 PM
OK IM SORRY I DONT AGREE WITH U BUT I DO INDEED RESPECT THAT UR AN ANARCHIST IM ONLY THIRTEEN WHEN I GET OLDER I'LL BECOME 1 but right know i cant cause of my parents and im to young but sum things i like about bush sum things i dont he's over there killing those iraqi son of a bitches and i got to support that cause my dads goin there in a few weeks hes a sargent but kerry wuzz a fukin pussy dude he wants to take em out what a fukin pussy he needs to get his tail out between hes legs and go kill sum like he used to back in ...............what ever war he was in it dont matter BUT my GF made a very understandable point about the election she said both presidents are gonna SCREW us but bush might not do it as bad or as fast as a monkey or kerry would and well i agree with her and 1 question anarcheys beleieve in less rules and no government right !! well hell yall must be sittin ducks for an attack DOES THIS SEEM KNOWLEGDABLE TO YOU!!!! RIGHT BACK!

shatskater
11-03-2004, 09:12 PM
i agree, i'd vote Jello Biafra anyday, LONG LIVE THE DEAD KENNEDYS!!!

i'm listening to them now.

greencows12
11-03-2004, 09:13 PM
OK IM SORRY I DONT AGREE WITH U BUT I DO INDEED RESPECT THAT UR AN ANARCHIST IM ONLY THIRTEEN WHEN I GET OLDER I'LL BECOME 1 but right know i cant cause of my parents and im to young but sum things i like about bush sum things i dont he's over there killing those iraqi son of a bitches and i got to support that cause my dads goin there in a few weeks hes a sargent but kerry wuzz a fukin pussy dude he wants to take em out what a fukin pussy he needs to get his tail out between hes legs and go kill sum like he used to back in ...............what ever war he was in it dont matter BUT my GF made a very understandable point about the election she said both presidents are gonna SCREW us but bush might not do it as bad or as fast as a monkey or kerry would and well i agree with her and 1 question anarcheys beleieve in less rules and no government right !! well hell yall must be sittin ducks for an attack DOES THIS SEEM KNOWLEGDABLE TO YOU!!!! RIGHT BACK!First of all, you don't have to agree with what your parents say. You can support your dad, but you don't have to support the war in iraq. I guess you might be too young to understand, but I might be wrong, how do I know? Maybe when you're open to more options in the future, you may understand things better. But hell, i'm only 3 years older than you. Bush is worse in my opinion for getting revenge on what happened to his dad when he was president. The president lied to everyone. But no matter what, you may still have your own opinions and not agree with mine or anybody else's for that matter. And yes. I am an anarchist. And like one dude said, "With great power comes great responsibility." Besides, why would I waste my time writing all this to a kid who is 13 and may not agree with me in the future? Think for yourself, and be an intellectual.

UgLy_eLf
11-03-2004, 09:23 PM
LifeSuXA.k.A JaY



Eh, kids like you make Anarchism sound retarded, please read about it before you declare yourself as a future anarchist, because YOU dont get it, infact a lot of people dont. Anyway sounds like you base your ideas on everything everyone else says, not anarchic of you, here's a link to the history of Anarchism if you're seriously interested

http://www.thegeoman.com/anarchismhistory.html

-Yeah so many big words for a 13 yr old, I suggest you use an online dictionary so you understand what you read

http://www.dictionary.com

Age has nothing to do with anarchism, nor do your fucking parents, I'm sure they'll just laugh at you anyway. :rolleyes:

shatskater
11-03-2004, 09:23 PM
i am an anarchist, i beilieve in no rule, only chaos. i dont care who the president is, either way were screwed, so why bother, i'll tell you why, becuase we can make a difference, every vote counts, and in numbers we can do it, just cuz ur an anarchist doesnt mean u cant try and make ur life better. to change the future go to punkvoter.com

punk_flamingo
11-03-2004, 09:27 PM
Bloody bush...i wish i was american so i could have voted. Although I dont think one vote would have made a difference - u wont know for 10 days though, alot could happen.

greencows12
11-03-2004, 09:34 PM
i am an anarchist, i beilieve in no rule, only chaos. i dont care who the president is, either way were screwed, so why bother, i'll tell you why, becuase we can make a difference, every vote counts, and in numbers we can do it, just cuz ur an anarchist doesnt mean u cant try and make ur life better. to change the future go to punkvoter.com
You are a shithead, don't judge others if you have no idea what you're talking about. You obviosly have'nt seen my blog.

wetwillyjames
11-03-2004, 10:16 PM
you stupid dumbasses why in the hell would you ever want to live in anarchy? that's the most dumbass Idea I've ever heard, come on I rather vote for someone like Kerry before ever go to anarchy, IT'S DAMN RETARDED!!

greencows12
11-03-2004, 10:56 PM
you stupid dumbasses why in the hell would you ever want to live in anarchy? that's the most dumbass Idea I've ever heard, come on I rather vote for someone like Kerry before ever go to anarchy, IT'S DAMN RETARDED!!You're dumb. That's all I can say to you. You're dumb.

wheelchairman
11-04-2004, 12:20 AM
i am an anarchist, i beilieve in no rule, only chaos. i dont care who the president is, either way were screwed, so why bother, i'll tell you why, becuase we can make a difference, every vote counts, and in numbers we can do it, just cuz ur an anarchist doesnt mean u cant try and make ur life better. to change the future go to punkvoter.com
I can gaurantee you, that you are no anarchist.

charlesadude
11-04-2004, 12:35 AM
I can gaurantee you, that you are no anarchist.

hey dunb ass that's exactly what his post said dont state the obvious

charlesadude
11-04-2004, 12:36 AM
you stupid dumbasses why in the hell would you ever want to live in anarchy? that's the most dumbass Idea I've ever heard, come on I rather vote for someone like Kerry before ever go to anarchy, IT'S DAMN RETARDED!!

ya but i dont know voting for kerry would b pretty damn mad. But who cares Bush kicked serious ass is the election and no one can argue there

wheelchairman
11-04-2004, 12:55 AM
hey dunb ass that's exactly what his post said dont state the obvious

Learn to read. He clearly states in his post that he is an anarchist. I corrected him and told him he was not. What on Earth are you referring to?

ihatechrissneed
11-04-2004, 09:53 AM
I got a poll for you....a better pole.
Really, i quite like the aluminium ones

ihatechrissneed
11-04-2004, 10:26 AM
it's people like LifeSuXA.k.A JaY who give 13 year olds a bad name. me, i'm 13 myself and i apologise about this escaped loony. Has he urinated on anything?
anyway, LifeSuXA.k.A JaY, fuck off and may you live a long life and be the butt of many jokes to come

The Cheshire Cat
11-04-2004, 03:23 PM
You know the funny thing about anarchy is it leaves the door open for a militaristic tyrant to take power, because there's no organized opposition to stand in his way.

Sound like someone you already know?

wheelchairman
11-04-2004, 03:29 PM
Funny thing about ignorance, when you open your mouth it shows. Remind you of anyone else?

If the people overthrow a government in a spontaneous uprising, don't you think this would require some organization? Many anarchists have formed military groups, take spain in the 30's against fascism for instance.

You are one of those fools who follows the belief that anarchism means, and only means, lack of government. It is in fact, a much more coherent system.

The Cheshire Cat
11-04-2004, 04:11 PM
Which is exactly what I just said would happen. I'm not exactly sure what your counter argument here is.

Me: With anarchy a militaristic leader will rise up and take over.
You: Many anarchist groups have their own militaries.

Anarchism, at it's core, IS just a lack of government. It's similar to a free-market economy, but without any of the safeguards that even a free-market economy has.

Which is why it's also odd that so many anarchists support the radical left, when anarchy itself is a radically right wing system.

wheelchairman
11-04-2004, 04:24 PM
Incorrect on so many levels.

Although on the first one you are right, when you said a militant leader would rise, I thought you meant a right-wing one. Which is an argument used by people often enough, but sorry that was my mistake.

As far as anarchist economics go, I would say it's much more closer to a planned economy than a free-market any day.

The Cheshire Cat
11-04-2004, 04:32 PM
But who does the planning? The basic idea about a free-market economy is that the government sets some basic trade rules, but other than that is entirely hands off. With anarchism it's even more extreme, because you don't have any central government, and thus you don't even get the basic trade rules. Any sort of trade interaction will entirely depend on the parties involved, and is very open to corruption. After all, with no one telling you what to do, wouldn't it just be easier to muscle something out of someone than make a fair trade for it? Even basic capitalism wouldn't work because who would decide the value of a dollar? Currency itself is totally worthless without some sort of regulatory body that determines the value of that currency (And is supposed to back it up with gold, but they don't really do that any more...).

wheelchairman
11-04-2004, 04:34 PM
And what makes you think Anarchism would involve currency?

Anarchist economics as I understand, involves a system of small communes producing certain things, the surplus of these certain things is given to communes with a deficit in said item, and in this way all needs of a given area would be covered by this form of trade.

Trade would probably be organized in each commune, likely by a council elected through direct voting.

Anarchist
11-04-2004, 04:44 PM
If you want a difference listen this!

"Kill The President" - The Offspring'89

NO leaders, No problems! :p

Izie
11-04-2004, 04:54 PM
Which is why it's also odd that so many anarchists support the radical left, when anarchy itself is a radically right wing system.


It's probably odd for you since your concept of anarchism (in the political sense) is wrong, read some stuff of the oldies like Rocker, Bakunin and Kropotkin.

The Cheshire Cat
11-04-2004, 08:39 PM
Maybe your concept of left and right needs a little re-working.

Left = High government involvment.
Right = Little government involvment.

Now tell me, mister smart man, where would a system that uses no government fall, hmm?

charlesadude
11-04-2004, 08:57 PM
Maybe your concept of left and right needs a little re-working.

Left = High government involvment.
Right = Little government involvment.

Now tell me, mister smart man, where would a system that uses no government fall, hmm?

Hey you guys why do you bother talking to him? He is so obviously wrong that just trying to argue with him is futile. Especially you Wheelcharman. As far as I'm concerned you are smart just misleaded on many issues :p . But regardless I have a guarded respect of your political position. But why are you arguing with this guy? You are like Einstein trying to fight with a 3 year old about why he should eat his vegetables. The conversation is slowly making you stupider. I think we should all ignore him. When he grows up and has a family of his own and gets a job that isn't regulated by a union he will change his veiws...if these even are his veiws! Sounds to me like he's just trying to be a dumb ass.

shatskater
11-04-2004, 09:23 PM
hey man shut up wheelchairman, im more of an anarchist than u r a gay, and ur pretty gay dude. i am an anarchist, i really dont give a shit what u say, but its true, we can change the future for OUR sake, so why not. i usta think anarchy was overrated, but now i know its not, its real. chaos in man can only come from anarchy.


ANARCHY FOR THE USA

Mota Boy
11-04-2004, 10:22 PM
Actually, I believe the shitfuckers lost in this last election, 11-0.

charlesadude
11-04-2004, 11:18 PM
ya so that makes no sense to me please explain

charlesadude
11-04-2004, 11:29 PM
hey man shut up wheelchairman, im more of an anarchist than u r a gay, and ur pretty gay dude. i am an anarchist, i really dont give a shit what u say, but its true

ANARCHY FOR THE USA

Well, well, well. I may have spoke too soon. That was an interesting and well thought out, not to mention clever and timely I might add assertion.
8 year old sister... would you care to deliver our rebuttle?

My little 8 year old sister says, "Suck it blue."

yeah suck it blue that's what I call an old school zinger. In your face blue dude! In YOUR face.

wheelchairman
11-04-2004, 11:33 PM
Maybe your concept of left and right needs a little re-working.

Left = High government involvment.
Right = Little government involvment.

Now tell me, mister smart man, where would a system that uses no government fall, hmm?
That is not typically left. There are many left-wing movements that advocate for an absolutely open government. Try doing some research.

Charlesadude- Why do you bother? I have kicked your ass in every single debate we've had. You absolutely refuse to do any research on anything, every time you've always repeated your statements over and over again as if that would make them true. Although that was a nice jazzy statement to the fake-anarchist, you crazy-old jingoist you.

NoHopeNoFuture
11-04-2004, 11:34 PM
A lot of you so called "Anarchist" are quoting a lot of lines from the movie slc punk. get a fucking life anarchy will never go anywhere. and plus anarchy was about actually doing some serious damage to the system. all you fuckers do is protest. News flash no one really gives a shit when you protest. Also if you want to change the way things are run, get a fucking education and be in the system that way we can stop all this corruption from the inside.

The Cheshire Cat
11-05-2004, 12:24 AM
That is not typically left. There are many left-wing movements that advocate for an absolutely open government. Try doing some research.

Okay. Name them.


Hey you guys why do you bother talking to him? He is so obviously wrong that just trying to argue with him is futile. Especially you Wheelcharman. As far as I'm concerned you are smart just misleaded on many issues . But regardless I have a guarded respect of your political position. But why are you arguing with this guy? You are like Einstein trying to fight with a 3 year old about why he should eat his vegetables. The conversation is slowly making you stupider. I think we should all ignore him. When he grows up and has a family of his own and gets a job that isn't regulated by a union he will change his veiws...if these even are his veiws! Sounds to me like he's just trying to be a dumb ass.

You have something to say to me, you say it to me. Unlike yourself I have decided not to take the popular stance in this thread and am not using a method of proof that consists of turning around to the crowd and going "Hey, back me up here?"

So far I have seen no one state ANY form of proof that anarchism is a viable political system, let alone GOOD proof. Attacking me as a person is not an argument. You want to argue like a four year old, you do that. Just don't go crying off to your buddies when no one takes you seriously.

So far the only person that has even engaged me in what I would consider reasonable debate is wheelchairman, and even he has resorted to using personal attacks.

wheelchairman
11-05-2004, 12:50 AM
1. Okay. Name them.

2.So far I have seen no one state ANY form of proof that anarchism is a viable political system, let alone GOOD proof. Attacking me as a person is not an argument. You want to argue like a four year old, you do that. Just don't go crying off to your buddies when no one takes you seriously.

3. So far the only person that has even engaged me in what I would consider reasonable debate is wheelchairman, and even he has resorted to using personal attacks.
1. Here is a link to world-wide anarchist groups fighting for Working Class independence (that would be, a Communist notion). http://www.neravt.com/left/directory/subjects/anarchy.htm

2. The Paris Commune? That is until the reactionary peasants led by the bourgeois crushed it. However it achieved many fantastic things. I believe in the 1800's there were several communes that were up and running that did good things. Spain during the Civil War as well. Although your question runs along the lines of saying in the 1600's "I've seen no proof of democracy working."

3. Don't take it personally. For the first few days, I argued without personal attacks. Turns out everyone I argued with would not defend any of the points I attacked and couldn't figure out how to discuss anything in any effective manner. Since then I have given up trying to be nice to people on this board. Besides, you have a strong opinion on anarchism when it seems you have read neither Pyotr Kropotkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kropotkin or Mikhail Bakunin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin .

The Cheshire Cat
11-05-2004, 01:12 AM
I've read them, but what gets me is that their ideas aren't really that different from Marx's original views (Yet for some reason both of them decide to try and disprove Marx).

According to Marx, in a true socialist (NOT Communist - Communism is a different system that's loosely based on Marxist philosophy) society wouldn't have a government, similar to what true anarchy would be like. Marx never said how things SHOULD be, he just said how things were going to eventually play out. It turns out he was wrong, but that's besides the point. Essentially, Marx said that industrial societies would follow a series of stages:

Stage 1 - The gap between Bourgoise and Proletariat would widen.
Stage 2 - The Proletariat would overthrow the Bourgoise, and demolish the capitalist system.
Stage 3 - Society would enter into a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", where the Proletariat would rule over the rest of society (Not exactly sure who that would be, which is one of the criticisms levelled at Marx by Bakunin. Also note that this is the stage where every attempted Marxist society stopped advancing).
Stage 4 - The Proletariat government, after sorting out the chaos, would dissolve as it is no longer needed, and would form into a socialist utopia, where each would provide according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Needless to say, Marxist philosophy is pretty widely misunderstood. One of the key points of Marxism is that this is supposed to happen in a society that has already had an Industrial Revolution, which Marx called the "Bourgoise revolution". All of the major countries that have attempted Marxist societies (China, Russia, Cuba) have had the revolution of the Proletariat BEFORE the revolution of the Bourgoise, then attempted to industrialize afterwards.

True Marxism is quite right wing, as in the end the government is not supposed to interfere, which is why it's very similar to true anarchism. However, communism is quite the opposite - it stops at the point before the dictatorship collapses, and is a very left wing system.

Okay, so this brings me to my point. Anarchism as you desribe it isn't really true anarchism (Granted it would work a lot better than true anarchism). It's anarchism based on small communes that interact with eachother almost as if they were separate nations, much like a tribal system. The only thing that makes it different from communism is that there's no central government body, since that would imply rulership, which directly contradicts the idea of anarchism (Which is in line with what Kropotkin suggested).

I'm using anarchism at it's most basic definition, because I think that once you start getting into individual people's systems you end up with several different government types all melding together. Most of the anarchist systems you've presented are very similar to communism, which suggests to me that they would work as well as communism has. Which is to say that they would only work when applied to small countries (e.g. Cuba could actually work if the U.S. didn't interfere with its sanctions, but it worked very poorly in Russia even before the war, and still isn't working very well in China. Hell, the only reason they're doing as well as they are is because gained a HUGE economic boost after Hong Kong was returned by the British).

wheelchairman
11-05-2004, 01:34 AM
Your definitions of socialism and communism in relation to Marx are severely skewed.

According to Marxist theory socialism is the stage immediately after the revolution where the proletariat must use the state as a tool in the class struggle against the remnants of the bourgeois. The state then would also regulate the planned economy, and that itself is a very marxist thought as well. So it is still pretty left-wing.

Communism in Marxist theory, is the final stage of socialism, this is when the need for state will be decreasing in coordination with the declination of the class struggle. This is basically what you referred to as "true socialism." Perhaps you should check your works again.

The biggest and main difference between Marxism and Anarchism is that anarchists believe in the immediate creation of a classless society. While Marxists state that this cannot be down without a period of socialism.

On the 4-stage theory, this was correctly re-defined by Lenin early in the 19th century. Marx was just a theorist and could only make predictions.

Anyways I'm trying to find where I originally wrote my definition of anarchism, but it's escaped me at the moment, however it seems to be exactly the same as how you defined it. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant or I did not write it clearly enough.

Jesus
11-05-2004, 02:44 AM
Maybe your concept of left and right needs a little re-working.

Left = High government involvment.
Right = Little government involvment.

Now tell me, mister smart man, where would a system that uses no government fall, hmm?

Franco, Mussolini and Hitler were for little government right?

The (conservative/radical) right is usuall for little government when it's about economical issues but not when it's about social/cultural issues like gays, abortion, euthanasia, alcohol, drugs etc.

In Belgium it shows quite well in our parlement, it ranges from libertarian left (less government, except for economic and environmental issues) to the radical right (only little government for economical issues)

The Cheshire Cat
11-05-2004, 09:23 AM
Well, technically there are two left/right spectrums. One for economy, one for other government issues (Law, rights, things like that).

On the left of the economic spectrum you have communism, which is entirely social aid programs, and total economic equity. On the right end you have free market ideala, which is true capitalism - anything you aquire legally is yours, the government has no right to re-distribute your property.

The government spectrum works in a similar fashion (Right = low involvement, Left = high involvement), but for different things. Generally a government's "Wing" is determined by it's economic policies, which is why facism is considered right wing, as it's quite hands off economically, but in terms of government policies it is about as extremely left as you can get (Some say facism can't even be measured on the left/right scale, as it's too fundamentally different from other government types).

Anyway, to Wheelchairman, I see what you mean, but my original comment was on the practicality of anarchism, so I'll talk about that now (The Marxist thing was a bit of a tangent). As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe that a system like communism or anarchism can only work when you have a smaller group of people, concentrated rather than spread out. Russia was much too large for communism (True communism - by the time Stalin hit it was just totalitarianism). There would have been too many communes, and they would have been spread to far out. Because communism requires the government to be so hands on, it needs to be able to reach to the very edges of its territory; if the territory is too big, they won't be able to properly redistribute wealth. So everyone within a given commune might be equal financially, but people might still vary from commune to commune due to the government's inability to adequately control funds.

Now, that wouldn't be an issue for anarchism because there's nothing about anarchism that says people have to be economically equal - just that no one should rule over another (You might argue that economic inequality allows the rich to rule over the poor, but that's too long for me to get into right now). The same problem still stands with anarchism, though; the problem of communication. With no central body to at least tell people what's going on, it wouldn't be too difficult for someone to seize power in a large country before most of the people even realized there was a revolution in progress, let alone mount an organized resistance. You might say that a revolution takes a long time, but that's not neccessarily true. The actual communist takeover of Russia happened within one night. There was a lot of fighting after that, but by that point the communists had already taken power, and instead of fighting to take control, they were fighting to keep it.

My point is that organization isn't impossible with anarchism, but without a ruling body it's a lot more difficult.

Anarchist
11-05-2004, 05:02 PM
I don't want chaos!
I want people to take control of own live!
People's authority!NO government!NO leaders!

In a world without leaders
Who'd start all the wars?
The world that you're saving
Will always be yours

The Offspring- Kill The President'89

cutiegurl
11-05-2004, 05:14 PM
I don't want chaos!
I want people to take control of own live!
People's authority!NO government!NO leaders!

In a world without leaders
Who'd start all the wars?
The world that you're saving
Will always be yours

The Offspring- Kill The President'89











:eek: I can't belive that dumb assholle waon the election i would love for him to drop died he is mean he has no right to say alll the shit he say i would give my life to kill that mother fucker he needs to die and someone better kill him before i do i dont care if i get shot before i killed him alleast i would make an effort th kill the ass wipe

wheelchairman
11-06-2004, 12:08 PM
A lot of you are saying that Stalin is to blame for the failure of Communism in the USSR. But I doin't think so. The worst mistake he made was to kill a couple of million peasants, but that's it. The worst mistake in Stalin's time was a revival of nationalisme og Russian chauvnism.