NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-countries-flags/moldova-flag.gif

Moldova students riot after Communist win
Protesters break into parliament building, hurling chairs and tables

CHISINAU - Students protesting against a Communist election victory broke into Moldova's parliament building on Tuesday, hurling chairs, tables and papers out into the street and setting them ablaze, a Reuters photographer said.

Demonstrators poured into the building through smashed windows and proceeded to heap whatever they found on a bonfire outside.

A small group also broke into the president's office, which security forces had defended with tear gas and water cannon as thousands of protesters smashed windows and hurled stones at police.

The street protests came two days after a parliamentary election handed victory to the ruling Communists of President Vladimir Voronin.

Up to 10,000 demonstrators, mostly students, massed for a second straight day.

"The election was controlled by the Communists, they bought everyone off," said Alexei, a student. "We will have no future under the Communists because they just think of themselves."

Protesters carrying Moldovan and European flags and shouting anti-Communist slogans gathered outside the government building and made their way down Chisinau's main boulevard to the president's office.

Some policemen were seen nursing minor injuries.

Voronin, the only Communist president in Europe, has overseen stability and growth in Europe's poorest nation since 2001, but cannot stand for a third consecutive term. Parliament elects the president in the country, Europe's poorest, wedged between ex-Soviet Ukraine and EU member Romania.

Voronin has made it plain he wants to retain the levers of power and analysts say he could try to take on another influential role such as parliamentary speaker.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30085656/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Anti_communism.png

The "outside moniters" that are claiming this is a fair and legit election, that The Economist quoted, is the OSCE. However, British members of the OSCE claim that the Russian members influenced the report of a "fair election".


A report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe on Sunday's vote gave a mostly positive assessment of the poll.

But a British member of the OSCE's observation team questioned that conclusion.

Baroness Emma Nicholson said she found it "difficult to endorse the very warm press statement" from the head of the OSCE.


"The problem was that it was an OSCE report, and in the OSCE are, of course, the Russians, and their view was quite different, quite substantially different, for example from my own," she told BBC News.

She said she and other observers had a "very, very strong feeling" that there had been some manipulation, "but we couldn't find any proof".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7989360.stm
Now frankly, call me whatever you want, but I trust the British a hell of alot more than I trust the Russians [when it comes to democracy]. The Russians can't even function a democracy in their nation, what makes you think they'd be responsible enough for 'democracy' abroad?

Baroness Nicholson stated that: "The Russians from the organization influenced this report. She also declared that at the numbering of the votes that at 1 o'clock the Communist had 35% of the votes and the 15-16 parties from the opposition 40-45% altogether while shortly later, at 8 o'clock the sitaution changed radically and the communists had 50%."
http://www.cotidianul.ro/emma_nicholson_critica_raportul_osce_referitor_la_alegerile_din_republica_moldova-79833.html
There have also been cases of fraud reported by voters, with deceased and nonattendant persons reportedly voting. [7][8][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chi%C5%9Fin%C4%83u_riots#Background

Also, people are pissed because of the Communist President trying to pull a putin-esque move and stay in power in the government, as The Economist shows:

Mr Voronin has stated that, although he would step down in accordance with the constitution’s term limit, he would stay in politics as a “Moldovan Deng Xiaoping”. That seemed to suggest no change from the economic and strategic failures of the past two decades, which have seen Moldova’s 4m population languish in a geopolitical limbo between Russia and the European Union. Most Moldovans favour Europe but the political elite, mainly Soviet-trained and Russian-speaking, has found it hard to break old ties and habits.

The Communist government is keeping Moldova back. Its are pro-Western, pro-Romanian and pro-EU. It's Communist government is pro-Moscow.

Let's see where the past couple years of Communist rule have brought Moldova, shall we?

Moldova is Europe's only communist state and one of its poorest, with an average monthly salary of only $350. Thousands of its people seek work abroad to support their families, sending back $1.6 billion in remittances last year - about the same amount as the state budget.
Yes, clearly the Communists are working wonders. . .


And more on the election fraud. . .
International observers had judged the election to be fair but the Mayor of Chisinau, Dorin Chirtoaca, alleged that turnout had been inflated to cover up ballot fraud and multiple voting. Mr Chirtoaca is also deputy leader of the opposition Liberal Party.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6052601.ece

Moldova detainees abused, says UN official

Hundreds of young people detained after anti-government protests in Moldova have been subjected to "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment and denied access to legal advice, the United Nations says.

Detainees described being beaten with clubs, water bottles, fists and feet, according to a confidential report that includes evidence provided by the UN human rights adviser in the country and seen by the Financial times.
The report says there is abundant evidence prisoners were being held in inhumane conditions with 25 to 28 individuals in 8m-square cells, denied food and given only limited access to water and basic sanitary facilities.

Hundreds of young people in Chisinau were arrested last week after protests against the outcome of elections 10 days ago turned violent when a group of protesters stormed the parliament and presidency buildings, setting the former ablaze.

The protesters claim the Communist party, which won 49 per cent of the vote, stole the election.

The government declined to comment on the report, but referred to an earlier statement by the interior ministry that there would be no investigation into police brutality since no such cases had taken place.

Edwin Berry, the UN human rights adviser, said he had not written the report but confirmed it was based on evidence he gathered during a prison visit made on Saturday. "I did see evidence of acts of cruel and unusual punishment," he said.

The report is based on a visit to a single detention centre.

A delegation consisting of Mr Berry and representatives of the country's National Preventative Mechanism on Torture, an officially sanctioned group of human rights organisations, was denied access to two other jails, in spite of legislation that allows them to conduct unannounced visits to any detention centre.

The report stated that: "[Detainees were] brought before a judge in blocks of six [and] collectively charged . . . a template document. At [B]no time did detainees have access to a legal council."

Moldova's Constitutional Court on Sunday agreed to stage a recount of last week's election tomorrow.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9c8d44a-288b-11de-8dbf-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Doesn't Cyprus have a Communist President, too?

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l240/robo848/not_this_shit_again.jpg?t=1239161167

Remember kids, democracy is only good when you win.

Long live the revolution!!!

Remember kids, democracy is only good when the American-approved candidates win.

Edited for focus.

Obama send some CIA support there now!!

Gosh damn it, I demand Libertarian poll options.

Long live the communists.
I'll bet you these protesters have been bribed.

Gosh damn it, I demand Libertarian poll options.

And all over the political spectrum. But these students need support CIA operatives maybe some training at the school of the americas.

Remember kids, democracy is only good when you win.
A democracy is needed for freedom, surely, but opposition to communism is also vital because Communism and freedom can never go hand in hand. Also, the commies commited voter fraud.

Democracy is only good when you can be assured that:

1. Nobody cheats.

2. Whoever wins is not going to come and take all your stuff.


Neither seem to be in evidence here.

How fair was the election?

What is the government of Moldova like, i.e., how "communist" is it?

I'm not taking a stance either way, I'd just like to know more.

And Wikipedia has confirmed that, yes, Cyprus also has a Communist President (Dimitris Christofias).

It was clearly fraud would have been like If Bush won a 3rd term.

I'll bet you these protesters have been bribed.

Evidence?

Long live the communists.
I'll bet you these protesters have been bribed.
What's more likely? That 10,000 students were bribed. Or that the Communists commited voter fraud when election moniters are claiming that voter fraud was commited?
Obama send some CIA support there now!!

:D

Democracy is only good when you can be assured that:

1. Nobody cheats.

2. Whoever wins is not going to come and take all your stuff.


Neither seem to be in evidence here.
Alot of this^

- Moldovan election monitors on Friday warned of violence and possible fraud in the former Soviet republic's upcoming parliamentary vote (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/262899,moldova-election-monitors-see-possible-vote-fraud-violence--summary.html)

If the Communists indeed rigged the vote they deserve to fry. But if not, then any intervention would be seen in the light of South Vietnam, Chile, and the Occupied Territories.

A democracy is needed for freedom, surely, but opposition to communism is also vital because Communism and freedom can never go hand in hand.

So people should be free, but shouldn't be free to not be free? Or some bullshit like that? Democracy is about will of the people. If people chose a government you don't like...well...better luck next election.

Also, the commies commited voter fraud.

Proof? Angsty teenagers does not reality make.

- Moldovan election monitors on Friday warned of violence and possible fraud in the former Soviet republic's upcoming parliamentary vote (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/262899,moldova-election-monitors-see-possible-vote-fraud-violence--summary.html)

Thanks.

I can understand why a lot of Moldovans would be a little hot under the collar...

My question is, how should the international community respond, if it even should respond in the first place?

A democracy is needed for freedom, surely, but opposition to communism is also vital because Communism and freedom can never go hand in hand. Also, the commies commited voter fraud.

Don't be ridiculous, of course communism and freedom can go hand in hand. Kneejerk statements like that are what irritate me about rabid anti-communists. Communism on a large scale is very prone to corruption and has numerous other critical problems, yes, but apparently this guy has been doing a good job in Ukraine.

Oh hey, this guy looks like a good leader - but wait he's communist GET UP EVERYONE AND GET YOUR REVOLT ON.

So people should be free, but shouldn't be free to not be free?

THat's why countries have Constitutions.

Also, they supposedly committed voter fraud, according to an angry student rioter.

Let's forget about the election monitors, here.

THat's why countries have Constitutions.

Yeah, and constitutions tend to protect things like that crazy idea about the right to vote for who you want to.

If the people legitimately elected the government, then all these cries of "cheaters!" without substantiation just sounds like so much sour grapes.

Thanks.

I can understand why a lot of Moldovans would be a little hot under the collar...

My question is, how should the international community respond, if it even should respond in the first place?

Send guns and funding to the students what else?

Yeah, and constitutions tend to protect things like that crazy idea about the right to vote for who you want to.

And that guy doesn't get to do 'whatever he wants' once elected.

If the people legitimately elected the government, then all these cries of "cheaters!" without substantiation just sounds like so much sour grapes.


Yeah, ignore the reports of voter fraud.

Thanks.

I can understand why a lot of Moldovans would be a little hot under the collar...

My question is, how should the international community respond, if it even should respond in the first place?
The International Community should support the anti-Communist revolution. Also, Moldava should probably be allowed to rejoin with Romania.

So people should be free, but shouldn't be free to not be free? Or some bullshit like that? Democracy is about will of the people. If people chose a government you don't like...well...better luck next election.
The point is that democracy is good, but it is only one part of freedom. Allanea has already stated it:

Democracy is only good when you can be assured that:

1. Nobody cheats.

2. Whoever wins is not going to come and take all your stuff.


Neither seem to be in evidence here.

Proof? Angsty teenagers does not reality make.
Posted above. Though, this is just breaking news and so naturally more will come out as the story progresses.
Evidence?
There is none that the protesters have been bribed, naturally.

Yeah, ignore the reports of voter fraud.

what reports of voter fraud? I saw the report that warned of the possibility. How about one AFTER the fact that actually says it DID happen?

A Recount (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6249220/Moldova-agrees-to-vote-recount) is imminent.

Let's forget about the election monitors, here.

Where does the article mention them?

Edit: whoops, missed the later link. However, I find it a little telling that they used rather soft language to warn that there could possibly be fraud. Especially given how quick people are to yell "rigged!" whenever the party they don't like is elected (or looks like being elected).

what reports of voter fraud? I saw the report that warned of the possibility. How about one AFTER the fact that actually says it DID happen?

All this *IS* happening as we speak, so there is no "after" yet.

Though, this is just breaking news and so naturally more will come out as the story progresses.

So how about you spare us your accusations until you actually have proof of it? Or could you just not wait to fire off your "democracy is good, except when they vote for the other guy!" whinge?

And since your OP title is directed at "anti-communism" and not against overthrowing illegitimate governments, whatever they are, how about we just skip the post-facto rationalizing bullshit, and just be honest. You perfectly support violent uprisings against legitimately elected governments, as long as those governments are controlled by people whose views you personally don't like. Regardless of what the actual majority wants.

A great victory for our comrades in the glorious worker's paradise of Moldova. These bourgeois reactionary students are just agents of the decadent imperialists who wish to impose on the Moldovan people to the slavery of Capitalism. However these pawns of the aristocratic oppressors will never stop the glorious workers revolution as they throw of the shackles of their feudalistic subjugation.

So how about you spare us your accusations until you actually have proof of it? Or could you just not wait to fire off your "democracy is good, except when they vote for the other guy!" whinge?

And since your OP title is directed at "anti-communism" and not against overthrowing illegitimate governments, whatever they are, how about we just skip the post-facto rationalizing bullshit, and just be honest. You perfectly support violent uprisings against legitimately elected governments, as long as those governments are controlled by people whose views you personally don't like. Regardless of what the actual majority wants.

By then it is too late.

Right now it just sounds like hyper-emotional sore-loser syndrome in action. "OMG, the other guys won? Not possible! We have all the goodness on our side, the people love us,that's what our supporters tell us! They must have cheated! Get them!"

By then it is too late.

So we should always accuse governments of voter fraud, just in case?

So we should always accuse governments of voter fraud, just in case?

If McCain had one in 2008 I know I would have.

So how about you spare us your accusations until you actually have proof of it? Or could you just not wait to fire off your "democracy is good, except when they vote for the other guy!" whinge?

And since your OP title is directed at "anti-communism" and not against overthrowing illegitimate governments, whatever they are, how about we just skip the post-facto rationalizing bullshit, and just be honest. You perfectly support violent uprisings against legitimately elected governments, as long as those governments are controlled by people whose views you personally don't like. Regardless of what the actual majority wants.

You flatter me with your lengthy explanations.

Communism is to be opposed in whatever stance it takes as Communism as an ideology is directly in opposition to freedom. When corrupt Communists governments (are there any other kind?) commit voter fraud to stay in power, it only gives people another reason to oppose them. Communism and legitimacy do not go together. It's not about "views I don't like", stop trying to simplify things. I'd never call for a revolution against President Obama, even though I don't like much of his economic agenda. This, that is the struggle between Communism and Freedom, is about a fundamental difference in worldview.

democracy is good, unless the other guy wins

edited for brevity.

edited for brevity.

I beleive that was ruled as an actionable offense by the mods . . .

Don't do it again.

We need to give the students weapons and training. And we need Air strikes against the communist now. Maybe we can get the military to side with the students while we are at it.

If McCain had one in 2008 I know I would have.

Well, yes, because the projected results showed quite clearly that Obama was by far the front-runner. If he had lost, either a miracle would have occured (from McCain's point of view), or the votes would have been tampered with. Chances were, it'd be the latter.

In this case, it seems that any other result than the Communists winning would have been the miraculous occurrence. So why is it suspicious that they won?

I beleive that was ruled as an actionable offense by the mods . . .

Don't do it again.

I calls em as I sees em. If you think I've committed a rules violation, report me.

Well, yes, because the projected results showed quite clearly that Obama was by far the front-runner. If he had lost, either a miracle would have occured (from McCain's point of view), or the votes would have been tampered with. Chances were, it'd be the latter.

In this case, it seems that any other result than the Communists winning would have been the miraculous occurrence. So why is it suspicious that they won?

Communism is and always has been a farce.
so either their was fraud or the voters were too dumb to vote.

And just because your a republican You better support president Obama in this military mission to end communist oppression in Moldavia.

Communism is and always has been a farce.
so either their was fraud or the voters were too dumb to vote.

I, um, okay.

So you don't think there's any reason at all to want communists in power? Not a single one? And you think that anyone who does want them in power is clearly an idiot?

I'm just going to hope you're not serious, alright?

I, um, okay.

So you don't think there's any reason at all to want communists in power? Not a single one? And you that anyone who does want them in power is clearly an idiot?

I'm just going to hope you're not serious, alright?

Your being unpatriotic with your lack of support for Obama's war against communism.

Maybe not an idiot, but clearly brainwashed. Either that or someone who would directly profit from being in control, like Castro and his cronies.

Your being unpatriotic with your lack of support for Obama's war against communism.

Off to Guam with him!

Off to Guam with him!

Is that where we are sending the partisan republicans now very good.

Maybe not an idiot, but clearly brainwashed. Either that or someone who would directly profit from being in control, like Castro and his cronies.

...or maybe someone who would profit from having communists elected. Like for example, poor farmers living in rural areas who aren't able to provide for themselves a good part of life's necessities. (and also basic luxuries really, thinking about it)

...or maybe someone who would profit from having communists elected. Like for example, poor farmers living in rural areas who aren't able to provide for themselves a good part of life's necessities.

You sir are clearly a republican reactionary who would support any ideology overseas just to see Obama fail.

Communism is to be opposed in whatever stance it takes as Communism as an ideology is directly in opposition to freedom.


Your blanket term of "freedom" is utterly meaningless. Freedom to do what? Democracy of any sort does not give me the freedom to beat your head in with a bat, as much as the idea appeals to me.

Even your so called American freedom is not free, so stop with the tripe.


When corrupt Communists governments (are there any other kind?) commit voter fraud to stay in power,


Of which you have absolutely no proof of in this particular case, only accusations and warnings of possibilities, but let's not pretend that you have a shred of honesty here TAI. If it's a form of government you don't like, you'd claim they were responsible for the economic crash or some similar trash without any proof just to give your rant meaning. Murder and bloodshed appeals to you as much as it does to murder junky DK, only you want an ideology to go with it.

You have nothing.

...or maybe someone who would profit from having communists elected. Like for example, poor farmers living in rural areas who aren't able to provide for themselves a good part of life's necessities. (and also basic luxuries really, thinking about it)

Same people that vote for the nanny state here in the US. Always a group of people that wants someone else to take care of them. This is how Communism sprouted in the first place. Then there are the small group that would love to control that group.

Is that where we are sending the partisan republicans now very good.

Indeed it is. Since President Obama promised change, we are closing Guantanamo and switching to Guam.

Always a group of people that wants someone else to take care of them.

I can almost taste the contempt for poor people.

I can almost taste the contempt for poor people.

You are telling me there isn't a group of the population that wants someone else to take care of them? Not all of these people are poor either and not all the poor are these people.

so either their was fraud or the voters were too dumb to vote.

That would mean we would have to abolish...every government in the world....

That would mean we would have to abolish...every government in the world....

Your catching on to my view points.

That would mean we would have to abolish...every government in the world....

*Bellows*

OFF TO GUAM WITH YOU!

Your blanket term of "freedom" is utterly meaningless. Freedom to do what? Democracy of any sort does not give me the freedom to beat your head in with a bat, as much as the idea appeals to me.

Even your so called American freedom is not free, so stop with the tripe.
Communism opposes political, social and economic freedom.


Of which you have absolutely no proof of in this particular case, only accusations and warnings of possibilities, but let's not pretend that you have a shred of honesty here TAI. If it's a form of government you don't like, you'd claim they were responsible for the economic crash or some similar trash without any proof just to give your rant meaning. Murder and bloodshed appeals to you as much as it does to murder junky DK, only you want an ideology to go with it.

You have nothing.
Wow, wipe the saliva from your mouth. You're raving like a lunatic about me being a murder junky. It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. Like I've said, I don't like President Obama's economic policy but I'm not gonna say revolt. It's that communism as an ideology exists only to replace freedom and bring oppression, poverty and suffering. Think not? Let's look at Communism's real, historical legacy.

Opposing Communism is supporting human rights and freedom.

Your blanket term of "freedom" is utterly meaningless. Freedom to do what? Democracy of any sort does not give me the freedom to beat your head in with a bat, as much as the idea appeals to me.

I'm pretty sure this is a flame.

I'm pretty sure this is a flame.

I would say so however we are not the judge or jury just the peanut gallery.

Your catching on to my view points.

I really doubt idiots could properly function without other idiots telling them what to do.

Communism opposes political, social and economic freedom.


You've yet to demonstrate a single example that your idolized American democracy doesn't do with laws. House of Un-American actions, not very "Equal but Separate" laws, ban on trades with various natural compounds.


Wow, wipe the saliva from your mouth. You're raving like a lunatic about me being a murder junky. It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.


Oh stop playing the innocent TAI. You've long advocated and defended past violence and bloodshed as the first action to topple any government that doesn't swear by the ideals of capitalism. That you try to call that crap "self defense" is about as idiotic as the "it's not torture when we do it" defense.

I really doubt idiots could properly function without other idiots telling them what to do.

Only the Molotov cocktail shall be the judge of that.

You've yet to demonstrate a single example that your idolized American democracy doesn't do with laws. House of Un-American actions, not very "Equal but Separate" laws, ban on trades with various natural compounds.
What is this nonsense? Moved on from flaming me to pure meaningless nothing?



Oh stop playing the innocent TAI. You've long advocated and defended past violence and bloodshed as the first action to topple any government that doesn't swear by the ideals of capitalism. That you try to call that crap "self defense" is about as idiotic as the "it's not torture when we do it" defense.
Where have I said that "violence and bloodshed is the first action to topple any government that doesn't swear by the ideals of capitalism." ? ? ?

Should be easy to find me saying that since I've "long advocated it."


And before you go look up threads on Chile. . .

If by "not swearing to the ideals of Capitalism" you mean opposing the formation of a totalitarian marxist state, then that is a bit different.

I'm pretty sure this is a flame.

No, it's taking his blanket term of freedom to it's maximum logical conclusion. Just like his tripe of how murder in the name of economic freedom was self defense allows for me to have him take a swim in the Hudson river with concrete shoes because his business hampers my economic freedom.

A democracy is needed for freedom, surely, but opposition to communism is also vital because Communism and freedom can never go hand in hand. Also, the commies commited voter fraud.

In what way can communism and freedom 'never go hand in hand'?

...I'm suspecting the claim that 'the communists commited voter fraud' is to the same standard.

What is this nonsense? Moved on from flaming me to pure meaningless nothing?

It's the sort of meaningless nonsense that your blanket claims of freedom are when it comes to what you throw at communism. You talk about limiting political freedoms, but democracies do that too, same as with social and economic freedoms.

You want to make an argument of what communism limits, fine, but trash the empty "freedom" label and go for specifics, or you have no argument.


Where have I said that "violence and bloodshed is the first action to topple any government that doesn't swear by the ideals of capitalism." ? ? ?

Should be easy to find me saying that since I've "long advocated it."

And before you go look up threads on Chile. . .

If by "not swearing to the ideals of Capitalism" you mean opposing the formation of a totalitarian marxist state, then that is a bit different.

You defended the violent overthrow of a legitimately elected government and supported it's replacement with a dictatorial regime that had murder and brutality as it's first motto. You even claimed it to be self defense, claimed that so long as it was in the pursuit of some vague economic freedom, mass murder, disappearing dissidents, quashing criticism with bullets was all perfectly fine if unfortunate. So yes, you do advocate murder and bloodshed as the first action.

You do not believe in democracy. You believe in tyranny. The only freedom you believe in is corporate freedom.

Communism opposes political, social and economic freedom.


It's hard to say communism 'opposes' economic 'freedom' when the term itself becomes meaningless under many forms of communism.

You seem to be making a lot of claims that simply aren't true. Doesn't that bother you?

It's hard to say communism 'opposes' economic 'freedom' when the term itself becomes meaningless under many forms of communism.
lol. A bit convienent, huh?


Oh us? We don't oppose human rights. . . that term simply becomes meaningless under our form of rule. . . *whistles slyly*


:rolleyes:

Only the Molotov cocktail shall be the judge of that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Come_unto_me,_ye_opprest.jpg
http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/images/humor/ppol0006m.jpg

lol. A bit convienent, huh?


Oh us? We don't oppose human rights. . . that term simply becomes meaningless under our form of rule. . . *whistles slyly*


:rolleyes:

You do value economic freedom more than human rights, correct?

http://www.vedrashko.com/uploaded_images/communist_mutants-740168.jpg

Oh us? We don't oppose human rights. . . that term simply becomes meaningless under our form of rule. . . *whistles slyly*


The American government demonstrated this perfectly well in the last eight years. I'm still not seeing anything inherent in communism that democracies don't do.

And you don't have any grounds to talk about human rights, since you place that far lower than the pursuit of economic gain.

lol. A bit convienent, huh?


Oh us? We don't oppose human rights. . . that term simply becomes meaningless under our form of rule. . . *whistles slyly*


Is shifting the goalposts the only answer you have?

Obviously - you couldn't address the point head-on.

What we would recognise as 'economic freedom' would be meaningless in a situation where we were all individuals with no one to trade with, also - but that doesn't mean something is manipulating the system to steal your human rights.

Is a little intellectual honesty too much to ask?

The American government demonstrated this perfectly well in the last eight years. I'm still not seeing anything inherent in communism that democracies don't do.

Don't buy into TAI's bullshit that 'communism' and 'democracy' are , in any way, inherently exclusive.

Don't buy into TAI's bullshit that 'communism' and 'democracy' are , in any way, inherently exclusive.

They are. In a truly communist society nobody can vote and children are raised by the government.

http://www.vedrashko.com/uploaded_images/communist_mutants-740168.jpg

Is that for real?

They are. In a truly communist society nobody can vote.

In a 'truly communist' society?

Why?

Because the democracy would be direct - no elections necessary?

In a 'truly communist' society?

Why?

Because the democracy would be direct - no elections necessary?

You are thinking of anarcho-communism, which I suppose is considered "true communism" by some.

Is that for real?

Yeah, and when they come we must oppose them, the United Space Socialist Republic comes down on us, we must oppose them with the 9 Values and the 12 Weasels, OR ELSE!!



and, yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Mutants_from_Space its basically Space Invaders with Communist attached to it, lol

You are thinking of anarcho-communism, which I suppose is considered "true communism" by some.

I asked. Why?

Is there some interpretation of 'communism' that you consider 'true' that lends itself to some other form of government, intrinsically?

need more information before saying its good or bad

As to those who say that Communism isnt "Free" or "Democratic" see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist
Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

Id argue its not a real bright Economic Model, as evidenced by China (before reforms) and Cuba...

But, its definitely not intrinsically "anti-freedom"...

I asked. Why?

Is there some interpretation of 'communism' that you consider 'true' that lends itself to some other form of government, intrinsically?

Correct me if I am wrong, but communism, as Marx, Lenin, and Stalin saw it, involves the government seizing children at a young age, allowing only one political party and candidate by outlawing all others, and taking control of any and all businesses, no matter how small.

Supposedly the people eventually become indoctrinated enough that they no longer require government training, and they start running everything collectively.

Kewl. Retro 50's thread!

Correct me if I am wrong, but communism, as Marx, Lenin, and Stalin saw it...

Well, for starters, neither Marx, Lenin, nor Stalin saw particularly eye-to-eye on much....

Kewl. Retro 50's thread!

http://balr0g.free.fr/hfr/img/communist.jpg

Correct me if I am wrong, but communism, as Marx, Lenin, and Stalin saw it, involves the government seizing children at a young age, allowing only one political party and candidate by outlawing all others, and taking control of any and all businesses, no matter how small.

Supposedly the people eventually become indoctrinated enough that they no longer require government training, and they start running everything collectively.


Okay:

As to those who say that Communism isnt "Free" or "Democratic" see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

Id argue its not a real bright Economic Model, as evidenced by China (before reforms) and Cuba...

But, its definitely not intrinsically "anti-freedom"...

Okay:

Like I said, in the final stages.

Like I said, in the final stages.

Marx didnt consider "Pure Communism" to be the final stage? :confused:

Marx didnt consider "Pure Communism" to be the final stage? :confused:

"A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership.[5]"

But trying to use Marx's writings as a basis for how communism works is like trying to use Atlas Shrugged as a basis for how libertarianism works.

Correct me if I am wrong, but communism, as Marx, Lenin, and Stalin saw it, involves the government seizing children at a young age, allowing only one political party and candidate by outlawing all others, and taking control of any and all businesses, no matter how small.

Supposedly the people eventually become indoctrinated enough that they no longer require government training, and they start running everything collectively.

Marx, Lenin and Stalin do not define communism.

Even more: your idea of 'true' communism... seems to be to try to squeeze three different perspectives of it into one mould, and then claim that was the only true path.

Marx, Lenin and Stalin do not define communism.

Even more: your idea of 'true' communism... seems to be to try to squeeze three different perspectives of it into one mould, and then claim that was the only true path.

There are variety of meanings in the word "communist", but wise Wiki says:

In the schema of historical materialism, communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership.[5] In political science, the term "communism" is sometimes used to refer to communist states, a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof.

So you may be thinking of something quite different from what I have in mind.

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34821&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=60102286c5

http://www.dzeno.cz/?c_id=18021

So, it appears that the communists winning was predicted well in advance (though the margin was uncertain) due to a number of factors (including the fact that none of the other parties tried to appeal to anyone other than ethnic Moldovans) and that generally, election standards were good (with some small issues with improving voter registration and increasing media neutrality).

... so overthrowing a legitimately elected government for disagreeing with your ideology = good?

"A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership.[5]"

Im not quite getting how this ^^^ translates to This:

Correct me if I am wrong, but communism, as Marx, Lenin, and Stalin saw it, involves the government seizing children at a young age, allowing only one political party and candidate by outlawing all others, and taking control of any and all businesses, no matter how small.

Supposedly the people eventually become indoctrinated enough that they no longer require government training, and they start running everything collectively.



But trying to use Marx's writings as a basis for how communism works is like trying to use Atlas Shrugged as a basis for how libertarianism works.

Hey, if youre going to make blanket statements about political philosophy, might as well go from the source ;)....

The problem with "communism" is that there are probably more varieties of it than there are actual communists. Let's see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, council communism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Juche, Titoism, Hoxhaism, anarchist communism, Eurocommunism, Castroism, left communism, national communism, religious communism, Ho Chi Minh Ideology, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and the list goes on and on and on...

There are variety of meanings in the word "communist", but wise Wiki says:

In the schema of historical materialism, communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership.[5] In political science, the term "communism" is sometimes used to refer to communist states, a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof.

So you may be thinking of something quite different from what I have in mind.

You started the discussion of 'true communism', not I.

I said that communism isn't intrinsically contrary to democracy - and you said it was 'in true communism'.

Now you're talking about how I was talking about a 'different' communism... apparently, because you're now claiming you were referring to the 'sometime' definition.

It looks a lot like you're shifting goalposts.

The problem with "communism" is that there are probably more varieties of it than there are actual communists. Let's see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, council communism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Juche, Titoism, Hoxhaism, anarchist communism, Eurocommunism, Castroism, left communism, national communism, religious communism, Ho Chi Minh Ideology, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and the list goes on and on and on...

How is that a problem?

Do you similarly see the differences between capitalist nations as a 'problem'?

How is that a problem?

Do you similarly see the differences between capitalist nations as a 'problem'?

It's a "problem" in that it's almost impossible to define communism anymore, what with so many variants of it. When someone says "I'm a communist," they could mean one of dozens, if not hundreds, of things. It gets confusing.

It's a "problem" in that it's almost impossible to define communism anymore, what with so many variants of it. When someone says "I'm a communist," they could mean one of dozens, if not hundreds, of things. It gets confusing.

So, the question therefore becomes, Where is the need for a Blanket "Anti-Communist" stance at all?

You started the discussion of 'true communism', not I.

I said that communism isn't intrinsically contrary to democracy - and you said it was 'in true communism'.

Now you're talking about how I was talking about a 'different' communism... apparently, because you're now claiming you were referring to the 'sometime' definition.

It looks a lot like you're shifting goalposts.

When I said "true", I meant total, as in no half-way measures, such as socialism. But you are right in saying that I used the term incorrectly, since true/pure communism means the entire society and every business in it would be democratically controlled by a classless people.

It's a "problem" in that it's almost impossible to define communism anymore, what with so many variants of it. When someone says "I'm a communist," they could mean one of dozens, if not hundreds, of things. It gets confusing.

Yeah, it's like when someone says 'I'm a Christian'. They could mean dozens, if not hundreds of things. It gets confusing.

And Capitalism? I mean Sweden is different to France, and France is different to England, and they're all really different to the US... it gets confusing.


Tell you what. If someone tells you they are a communist - ASK them what they mean. It's really not that difficult. (Note: It works for Christians, too!).

Yeah, it's like when someone says 'I'm a Christian'. They could mean dozens, if not hundreds of things. It gets confusing.

And Capitalism? I mean Sweden is different to France, and France is different to England, and they're all really different to the US... it gets confusing.


Tell you what. If someone tells you they are a communist - ASK them what they mean. It's really not that difficult. (Note: It works for Christians, too!).

Psh, you Communist.....

Any direct action against any activity by any Communist party anywhere in the world is a good thing.

Anything that tends to smash Communist power is a good thing.

Anything that leads to the day when Communism has become one with the dodo is a good thing.

Unlike the worthless losers rioting against the G-20 meeting and against NATO, these brave souls actually advance the cause of human freedom.

:hail: Props to the protesters.

Any direct action against any activity by any Communist party anywhere in the world is a good thing.

Anything that tends to smash Communist power is a good thing.

Anything that leads to the day when Communism has become one with the dodo is a good thing.

Unlike the worthless losers rioting against the G-20 meeting and against NATO, these brave souls actually advance the cause of human freedom.

:hail: Props to the protesters.

I find it amusing that you talk about the protestors, and the 'worthless losers rioting'. I figure I'd probably make good money on a bet that the most you'd railed against the system, this decade, was complaining that they gave you the wrong mochachino at Starbucks.

Armchair activism is easy.

I'm interested in your policy towards communism though - why is is intrinsically 'good' to remove freedom from others?

Psh, you Communist.....

Apparently.

Even mentioning communism in one thread, was enough to have the thread originator asking me why I wanted a communist revolution. Apparently, being educated about the world outside of your comfortable niche is a clear marker of a communist revolutionary agenda.

I'm interested in your policy towards communism though - why is is intrinsically 'good' to remove freedom from others?

"Freedom" in today's sense just means the ability to deprive others of their civil rights. I have scant more sympathy for democracies than dictatorships.

"Freedom" in today's sense just means the ability to deprive others of their civil rights. I have scant more sympathy for democracies than dictatorships.

I was actually referring to NM's apparent desire to remove the rights of others to elect their own governments.

Apparently, being educated about the world outside of your comfortable niche is a clear marker of a communist revolutionary agenda.

Well, duh... ;)

I was actually referring to NM's apparent desire to remove the rights of others to elect their own governments.

I know. I am just saying that even if the communist government was fairly elected, and is unfairly destroyed, I would care little unless the government that replaced it turned-out to be the standard replace-communism-with-fascism-package.

Apparently.

Even mentioning communism in one thread, was enough to have the thread originator asking me why I wanted a communist revolution. Apparently, being educated about the world outside of your comfortable niche is a clear marker of a communist revolutionary agenda.

Hey, tell me about it, I love my people/area, but mention Socialism or Atheism in South MS and get ready to defend yourself from the Lynch Mobs, :p

I know. I am just saying that even if the communist government was fairly elected, and is unfairly destroyed, I would care little unless the government that replaced it turned-out to be the standard replace-communism-with-fascism-package.

I'm kind of the other way round, I guess. It matters to me less that a nation elects fascists or communists, than it does that their elections were representative.

Not that I'm running over 'there' to overturn their governments, either way. :)

I still kind of want to hear where Mitty stands on all this, though.

I was actually referring to NM's apparent desire to remove the rights of others to elect their own governments.

It's NM, he loves dictatorships, views anyone who doesn't support his view of government as unamerican and advocates civil war when elections don't go away.

I think we can safely dismiss him as comic relief.

Hey, tell me about it, I love my people/area, but mention Socialism or Atheism in South MS and get ready to defend yourself from the Lynch Mobs, :p

This backwater is no better. And heaven forbid that you have any gay... or even worse, black friends.

Thankfully, some of my friends have told me that this asshole of America (rural Georgia) is the exception to 'what it is to be American'... not the rule.

I keep telling myself that.

It's NM, he loves dictatorships, views anyone who doesn't support his view of government as unamerican and advocates civil war when elections don't go away.

I think we can safely dismiss him as comic relief.

I think comic relief is supposed to be funny.

I find it hard to actually believe anyone is so gung ho about destroying democracy elsewhere (although I shouldn't... did I learn nothing from the last 8 years?), so it just comes across as a kind of two-dimensional parody.

I'm kind of the other way round, I guess. It matters to me less that a nation elects fascists or communists, than it does that their elections were representative.

The fact that many State-governments are theocracies is what made me lose faith in "representation of the vote".

The fact that many State-governments are theocracies is what made me lose faith in "representation of the vote".

Oh, I agree. I find most forms of 'democracy' incredibly flawed and inefficient.

I just think - if you're going to pretend towards democracy, you should at least play the part.

Oh, I agree. I find most forms of 'democracy' incredibly flawed and inefficient.

I just think - if you're going to pretend towards democracy, you should at least play the part.

Is it even possible to be patriotic without being a hypocrite? :confused:

Is it even possible to be patriotic without being a hypocrite? :confused:

If you are fortunate enough that your ideologies, and those of your culture/society/nation coincide rather extraordinarily well, maybe.

Unfortunately for most 'patriots', cultures, scoieties and nations are evolving entities.

Myself, I've never been a big fan of 'patriotism'.

If you are fortunate enough that your ideologies, and those of your culture/society/nation coincide rather extraordinarily well, maybe.

Unfortunately for most 'patriots', cultures, scoieties and nations are evolving entities.

Yes, every nation has done horrible things in the past, but it seems patriots prefer to see their respective nations as flawless.

Myself, I've never been a big fan of 'patriotism'.



Samuel Johnson claimed it was "the last resort of scoundrel".

Ambrose Bierce said:

"PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

"In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first."

Yes, every nation has done horrible things in the past, but it seems patriots prefer to see their respective nations as flawless.


I think it's even shorter term than that. If the happy convenience of 'patriot' and 'culture' is met, the patriot is happy. If the 'culture' changes (and, an election might be a perfectly good example), then the patriot has the potential to become a monster - a person willing to destroy the culture in which he/she exists, to preserve the ideological version of that culture that he/she accepts.


Samuel Johnson claimed it was "the last resort of scoundrel".

Ambrose Bierce said:

"PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

"In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first."

Word.

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. - Oscar Wilde

I think it's even shorter term than that. If the happy convenience of 'patriot' and 'culture' is met, the patriot is happy. If the 'culture' changes (and, an election might be a perfectly good example), then the patriot has the potential to become a monster - a person willing to destroy the culture in which he/she exists, to preserve the ideological version of that culture that he/she accepts.


I have to disagree with you there, not all 'patriots' are like that, the Sean Hannity types, sure...

But, I would present myself as an example of someone who is patriotic, yet acknowledges our mistakes, and is willing to accept change...

Now, if you try to say my culture/people are horrible humans, then, yeah, Im going to argue you down, but, that doesnt mean I ignore our faults or resist change....

Unlike the worthless losers rioting against the G-20 meeting and against NATO, these brave souls actually advance the cause of human freedom.

The police have already booted them out of Parliament (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7988893.stm), so no, not really. Even if you agree with them, they'll probably end up being about as ineffectual as G20 protestors.

I think it's even shorter term than that. If the happy convenience of 'patriot' and 'culture' is met, the patriot is happy. If the 'culture' changes (and, an election might be a perfectly good example), then the patriot has the potential to become a monster - a person willing to destroy the culture in which he/she exists, to preserve the ideological version of that culture that he/she accepts.

As in: "I am a patriot but I believe we need to take all those scum-suckers out back, shoot 'em, and install a real leader who can run things without a pussy congress"?



Word.

"[A]n enlightened but inferior lexicographer"--I love that stuff. :tongue:

"[A]n enlightened but inferior lexicographer"--I love that stuff. :tongue:

While this thread started with silly, the fact that it ended up with an Ambrose Bierce quote makes it worth it.

While this thread started with silly, the fact that it ended up with an Ambrose Bierce quote makes it worth it.

Hell yes! Ambrose Bierce FTW!

I love this short stories and fables as well as his dictionary:

"I do not question the purity of your motive: it would be presumptuous of me to sit in judgment on my father. But business is business, and with this axe I am going to effect a dissolution of our partnership unless you will consent in all future burglaries to wear a bell-punch."

-From An Imperfect Conflagration.

All Leftism must be purged. No Communism, no Democracy! If we destroy Democracy, we can destroy Communism, and a true Fascist state can come into place.

Italian Fascism forever!

A democracy is needed for freedom, surely, but opposition to communism is also vital because Communism and freedom can never go hand in hand. It's a bit silly to say this, given that communism is the maximization of freedom.

lol. A bit convienent, huh?

Oh us? We don't oppose human rights. . . that term simply becomes meaningless under our form of rule. . . *whistles slyly*

:rolleyes:"Economic freedom" the way capitalists describe it is not a human right.

Again, I'm neither right nor left, but I'm fully in support of this.

...

I raise the BULLSHIT FLAG on the claims of electoral frauds.

wiki: 2009 chisinau riots

International reaction
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana called on all parties to the conflict to refrain from violence and provocation. He argued that "violence against government buildings is unacceptable." He added that "international election observers noted in their preliminary findings that the elections met many international standards and commitments, but that further improvements were required."[14]
Romania also backed the European Union assessment and urged a cessation of violence.[15] Several thousand Bucharesters gathered in the University Square to show support for the Moldovan protesters.[16]

Clearly an attempt at a Saakhasvilisation of Moldova. If there were irregularities, they were minor and not outright frauds, Solana seems to claim.


btw, about Moldova:
wiki: moldova

The country is a parliamentary democracy with a president as head of state and a prime minister as head of government. Moldova is a member state of the United Nations, WTO, OSCE, GUAM, CIS, BSEC and other international organizations. Moldova currently aspires to join the European Union,[4] and has implemented the first three-year Action Plan within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).[5]

Following the regional financial crisis in 1998, Moldova has made significant progress towards achieving and retaining macroeconomic and financial stabilization. It has, furthermore, implemented many structural and institutional reforms that are indispensable for the efficient functioning of a market economy. These efforts have helped maintain macroeconomic and financial stability under difficult external circumstances, enabled the resumption of economic growth and contributed to establishing an environment conducive to the economy’s further growth and development in the medium term.


...looks like it's not a revolt against communism because Moldova hasn't a communist economy. It's just disgruntled oppositors who lost the elections and turned violent.

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. - Oscar Wilde

Patriotism is a cancer of humanity. - Albert Einstien.

Hell yes! Ambrose Bierce FTW!

I love this short stories and fables as well as his dictionary:

"I do not question the purity of your motive: it would be presumptuous of me to sit in judgment on my father. But business is business, and with this axe I am going to effect a dissolution of our partnership unless you will consent in all future burglaries to wear a bell-punch."

-From An Imperfect Conflagration.

Same, though I've not read any of his writing aside from Devil's Dictionary quotes in a very long time. May be time to revisit his writing. However, any man who doesn't actually die but rather writes an awesome letter saying he might die and then disappears into the chaos of the Mexican revolution without a trace has most definitely followed an awesome and unique path in his life.

*I realize, of course, Bierce is quite dead, but no one knows for sure! I prefer to believe that he ran into a highlander, cut off his head and stole his immortality, and now wanders the world offering bitingly cynical and pithy observations to the otherwise oblivious.

Here is The Economist's take on it. . .
Protests in Moldova
Moldova burning
Apr 8th 2009
From Economist.com

Violent protests erupt against the government of Moldova

http://media.economist.com/images/na/2009w15/Moldovia_Top.jpg

THE poorest country in Europe is used to being neglected by the rest of the world. But protests against vote rigging in elections held on Sunday April 5th brought Moldova some attention this week. In the past few days youthful demonstrators, who were organised via Twitter and other social-networking sites, stormed parliament and the presidential offices in the capital city, Chisinau. Some threw rocks, broke windows and started fires. As the police belatedly tried to restore order, scores were injured and one person died. Nearly 200 people had been arrested by Wednesday. Amid allegations of foreign mischief-making, Moldova expelled the Romanian ambassador.

The immediate issue is the election result, in which the ruling Communists won a majority in the single-chamber parliament. The election was declared fair by outside monitors, who assessed what happened on the day, but the composition of electoral registers looks dodgy, as does the overwhelming support that the Communists enjoyed from the main media.

The protesters are loosely tied to established opposition parties. They are cross about the election and even more annoyed by the outgoing president, Vladimir Voronin. Mr Voronin has stated that, although he would step down in accordance with the constitution’s term limit, he would stay in politics as a “Moldovan Deng Xiaoping”. That seemed to suggest no change from the economic and strategic failures of the past two decades, which have seen Moldova’s 4m population languish in a geopolitical limbo between Russia and the European Union. Most Moldovans favour Europe but the political elite, mainly Soviet-trained and Russian-speaking, has found it hard to break old ties and habits.

Mr Voronin has wobbled in both directions. Of late he has seemed to favour ties with Moscow, chiefly because a deal with the Kremlin seems to offer the only hope of solving the frozen conflict with the self-declared state of Transdniestria. This densely populated and industrialised sliver of land on the eastern bank of the Dniester river has maintained an unrecognised independence since a brief civil war that finished with Russian intervention in 1992. Western attempts to resolve that debilitating impasse have got nowhere, whereas Russia has kept up a stream of initiatives.

With decent leadership and goodwill on all sides, it would be possible to have friendly relations with both Russia and the EU. But Moldova’s leaders have ended up with the worst of both worlds, ignored by the EU and bamboozled by Russia.

The most divisive question is relations with Romania. The Moldovan Soviet republic, which gained independence in 1991, was carved out of pre-war Romania in 1940, as a consequence of the Hitler-Stalin pact; Transdniestria, always in Russian hands, was bolted on. Nico Popescu, of the European Council of Foreign Relations, says that demands for closer ties with Romania have strengthened in recent years, as that country’s EU membership has contrasted ever more sharply with Moldova’s status as a “semi-failed state”. As well as EU flags, some protesters this week carried Romanian ones.

That has infuriated the Moldovan authorities. They find it much easier to fight the bogeyman of Romanian revanchism and chauvinism than defend their own dismal record in office. Andrei Popov, of the Foreign Policy Association, a Moldova-based think-tank, believes that the authorities may even be stoking pro-Romanian element in the protests in order to discredit the opposition’s wider political demands.

There is little evidence that Romania has made a big effort to undermine Moldova. Romanian politicians, notably the president, Trajan Basescu, have made grandiloquent and tactless statements. The mutual detestation between him and Mr Voronin is legendary. One practical Romanian policy has proved controversial: allowing Moldovans with roots in the pre-war Romanian state to apply for passports.

The political upheavals cry out for attention from the EU, which has failed to get to grips with Moldova’s ills. As with Ukraine’s orange revolution five years ago, it may take a heavyweight outsider to get talks going between entrenched but discredited authorities and an enthusiastic but incoherent opposition. If Europe cannot solve Moldova’s problems, it is hard to see much future for the trumpeted “Eastern Partnership” which is meant to reinvigorate EU policies towards the six ex-Soviet countries on its eastern borders.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13447119&source=features_box_main

Same, though I've not read any of his writing aside from Devil's Dictionary quotes in a very long time. May be time to revisit his writing. However, any man who doesn't actually die but rather writes an awesome letter saying he might die and then disappears into the chaos of the Mexican revolution without a trace has most definitely followed an awesome and unique path in his life.

*I realize, of course, Bierce is quite dead, but no one knows for sure! I prefer to believe that he ran into a highlander, cut off his head and stole his immortality, and now wanders the world offering bitingly cynical and pithy observations to the otherwise oblivious.

Provided he was not "shot to rags", he said he intended to go to South America because "interesting things happen there".

The theories that are most fun concerning Bierce say that he knew to much about government conspiracies (for instance, he predicted William McKinley's assassination only days before it happened) and had to flee. There are a number of references in The Devil's Dictionary to a powerful organization controlling the world behind the scenes. H. P. Lovecraft slyly steals one Bierce's creations, The God Hastur, for use in the Cthulhu mythos.

Silly, but great stuff.

...but opposition to communism is also vital because Communism and freedom can never go hand in hand....

It is simplistic statements like these that make me despair. I wonder if it's an effect of the US political system. Two parties, each symbolising one side of the left-right divide. I wonder if it creates a false dichotomy in the mind of those US citizens that don't employ critical thinking skills.

....election moniters are claiming that voter fraud was commited...

Here is The Economist's take on it. . .

The immediate issue is the election result, in which the ruling Communists won a majority in the single-chamber parliament. The election was declared fair by outside monitors, who assessed what happened on the day, but the composition of electoral registers looks dodgy, as does the overwhelming support that the Communists enjoyed from the main media.



Please try to read your own posts more carefully.

Here is The Economist's take on it. . .

Read my earlier post:

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34821&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=60102286c5

http://www.dzeno.cz/?c_id=18021

So, it appears that the communists winning was predicted well in advance (though the margin was uncertain) due to a number of factors (including the fact that none of the other parties tried to appeal to anyone other than ethnic Moldovans) and that generally, election standards were good (with some small issues with improving voter registration and increasing media neutrality).

... so overthrowing a legitimately elected government for disagreeing with your ideology = good?


Or even your own source. The Economist isn't nearly as outrageous as you are and admits that the elections were declared fair.

It is simplistic statements like these that make me despair. I wonder if it's an effect of the US political system. Two parties, each symbolising one side of the left-right divide. I wonder if it creates a false dichotomy in the mind of those US citizens that don't employ critical thinking skills.
Considering that what passes for "left" in the US (ignoring for a moment the inherent problems of the whole right-left categorization) I'd argue that it is probably more of a relic of the cold war mindset.

from the article of The Economist quoted by TAI:

The immediate issue is the election result, in which the ruling Communists won a majority in the single-chamber parliament. The election was declared fair by outside monitors, who assessed what happened on the day, but the composition of electoral registers looks dodgy, as does the overwhelming support that the Communists enjoyed from the main media.


More or less the same standards in Italy in the last 60 years, once you substitute "single-chamber" with "bicameral", "ruling Communists" with "ruling Democrazia Cristiana party", and "that the Communists" with "that Berlusconi".

Yet no one riots through the streets to topple Berlusconi and call for new elections. Maybe we should begin...

Also, here in Italy we have a 4% threshold at the lower house (8% iirc at the Senate)... more or less like Moldova's 6%. Yet I didn't hear anyone in the world complaining about the italian threshold being anti-democratic... maybe because that law was made by Berlusconi in a rush just before the 2006 elections?

It is simplistic statements like these that make me despair. I wonder if it's an effect of the US political system. Two parties, each symbolising one side of the left-right divide.

Each symbolising the same side of the left-right divide, that is, right-wing. The US Dems aren't exactly "left-wing", or, at least, not in any European meaning of it.

Great advertisement for Twitter I see....

Also, the commies commited voter fraud.

- Moldovan election monitors on Friday warned of violence and possible fraud in the former Soviet republic's upcoming parliamentary vote (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/262899,moldova-election-monitors-see-possible-vote-fraud-violence--summary.html)

Let's forget about the election monitors, here.

Was the election rigged?

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe gave a mostly positive assessment of the poll, saying election day went smoothly, though it noted some flaws. The Communist victory was not unexpected - opinion polls before the vote gave it about 36%, while the three main opposition groups mustered only about 22% between them.

But opposition figures have made allegations of repeat voting by Communist supporters, and one OSCE observer questioned the group's "too warm" assessment. Baroness Emma Nicholson told the BBC that she and others had a "very, very strong feeling" that there had been manipulation.
BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7989780.stm)

Democracy is only good when you can be assured that:

1. Nobody cheats.

2. Whoever wins is not going to come and take all your stuff.


Neither seem to be in evidence here.
Is there evidence that the communists will "take their stuff"?

Since my guy didnt win it clearly wasnt fair!

Any direct action against any activity by any Communist party anywhere in the world is a good thing.

Anything that tends to smash Communist power is a good thing.

Anything that leads to the day when Communism has become one with the dodo is a good thing.

Unlike the worthless losers rioting against the G-20 meeting and against NATO, these brave souls actually advance the cause of human freedom.

:hail: Props to the protesters.

Dude, youre the poster boy for "I only support democracy when my guy wins!" Guess how many people take you seriously?

Dude, youre the poster boy for "I only support democracy when my guy wins!" Guess how many people take you seriously?

The White Citizens' Council takes him very seriously.

Each symbolising the same side of the left-right divide, that is, right-wing. The US Dems aren't exactly "left-wing", or, at least, not in any European meaning of it.

I'd daresay that US Democrats tend towards a solidly center platform, whilst the US Republicans tended towards a Right-Center platform, as in most terms the wings are the way-out-there's. A communist or fascist party would be a -wing party.

Snip.

And then you claim to be pro-democracy.

Rissotia, Dakini and Gift-of-god, the "outside moniters" that you are siding with, that The Economist quoted, is the OSCE. However, British members of the OSCE claim that the Russian members influenced the report of a "fair election".


A report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe on Sunday's vote gave a mostly positive assessment of the poll.

But a British member of the OSCE's observation team questioned that conclusion.

Baroness Emma Nicholson said she found it "difficult to endorse the very warm press statement" from the head of the OSCE.


"The problem was that it was an OSCE report, and in the OSCE are, of course, the Russians, and their view was quite different, quite substantially different, for example from my own," she told BBC News.

She said she and other observers had a "very, very strong feeling" that there had been some manipulation, "but we couldn't find any proof".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7989360.stm
Now frankly, call me whatever you want, but I trust the British a hell of alot more than I trust the Russians [when it comes to democracy]. The Russians can't even function a democracy in their nation, what makes you think they'd be responsible enough for 'democracy' abroad?

Baroness Nicholson stated that: "The Russians from the organization influenced this report. She also declared that at the numbering of the votes that at 1 o'clock the Communist had 35% of the votes and the 15-16 parties from the opposition 40-45% altogether while shortly later, at 8 o'clock the sitaution changed radically and the communists had 50%."
http://www.cotidianul.ro/emma_nicholson_critica_raportul_osce_referitor_la_alegerile_din_republica_moldova-79833.html
There have also been cases of fraud reported by voters, with deceased and nonattendant persons reportedly voting. [7][8][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chi%C5%9Fin%C4%83u_riots#Background

Also, people are pissed because of the Communist President trying to pull a putin-esque move and stay in power in the government, as The Economist shows:

Mr Voronin has stated that, although he would step down in accordance with the constitution’s term limit, he would stay in politics as a “Moldovan Deng Xiaoping”. That seemed to suggest no change from the economic and strategic failures of the past two decades, which have seen Moldova’s 4m population languish in a geopolitical limbo between Russia and the European Union. Most Moldovans favour Europe but the political elite, mainly Soviet-trained and Russian-speaking, has found it hard to break old ties and habits.

The Communist government is keeping Moldova back. Its are pro-Western, pro-Romanian and pro-EU. It's Communist government is pro-Moscow.

Let's see where the past couple years of Communist rule have brought Moldova, shall we?

Moldova is Europe's only communist state and one of its poorest, with an average monthly salary of only $350. Thousands of its people seek work abroad to support their families, sending back $1.6 billion in remittances last year - about the same amount as the state budget.
Yes, clearly the Communists are working wonders. . .


And more on the election fraud. . .
International observers had judged the election to be fair but the Mayor of Chisinau, Dorin Chirtoaca, alleged that turnout had been inflated to cover up ballot fraud and multiple voting. Mr Chirtoaca is also deputy leader of the opposition Liberal Party.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6052601.ece

And then you claim to be pro-democracy.

I am pro-freedom. As are the thousands of Moldovans who were protesting:

Up to 20,000 people were said to be on the streets, many chanting "Freedom, freedom" and "Down with the communists".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6052601.ece

I am pro-freedom. As are the thousands of Moldovans who were protesting:

No, you're not, and no, they're not.

No, you're not, and no, they're not.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14681211&postcount=151

I am pro-freedom.No, you're not.
He's pro having the freedom to agree with him, does that count?

He's pro having the freedom to agree with him, does that count?

Not really. :p

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14681211&postcount=151

And yet, if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be clamoring for these students to be arrested and tortured, and for the "elected government" to outlaw the opposing party.

So, no, TAI, I don't have to listen to what you say.

So, no, TAI, I don't have to listen to what you say.
You really are not good at this debating thing, are you? I linked you to sources talking about fraud and russian manipulation, and your response is "I don't have to listen to you."

Wow, that's weak. I suppose it's a step up from your usual cowardly "tl;dr" excuse, though. :p

You really are not good at this debating thing, are you? I linked you to sources talking about fraud and russian manipulation, and your response is "I don't have to listen to you."

Wow, that's weak. I suppose it's a step up from your usual cowardly "tl;dr" excuse, though. :p

Votes are being recounted. I'll listen to the results.

As for you, you claim to support democracy, but will jump at any opportunity to overthrow it when it disagrees with you. So, no, I do not have to listen to you.

As for you, you claim to support democracy, but will jump at any opportunity to overthrow it when it disagrees with you. So, no, I do not have to listen to you.
Any opportunity? List 5 cases where a [non-illiberal] democracy was overthrown with my support.

Communisam will preival for lenin tito stalin fidel.........

Communisam will preival for lenin tito stalin fidel.........

What?

And then you claim to be pro-democracy.

Its only democracy when their side wins, silly!

Any opportunity? List 5 cases where a [non-illiberal] democracy was overthrown with my support.

Well, South America has 12 countries. Central America has 7. The Caribbean, 13. A good deal of them all had democratically-elected governments whose overthrowing you support. Spain by itself is another one. That adds up to 33. The [non-illiberal] bracket is a subjective copout designed to mean whatever you want it to mean. So, I outright reject it. You support overthrowing democratically-elected governments or you do not. That simple.

The Russians can't even function a democracy in their nation, what makes you think they'd be responsible enough for 'democracy' abroad?

Last I checked, the Russian's democracy is working just fine.

Rissotia, Dakini and Gift-of-god, the "outside moniters" that you are siding with, that The Economist quoted, is the OSCE. However, British members of the OSCE claim that the Russian members influenced the report of a "fair election".
And what would their motivation for that be?


Now frankly, call me whatever you want, but I trust the British a hell of alot more than I trust the Russians [when it comes to democracy]. The Russians can't even function a democracy in their nation, what makes you think they'd be responsible enough for 'democracy' abroad?
Aye, the evil Ruskies. They're all the same. Another kind of hive-mind there, I guess. The anti-thesis of the British, all of whom are trustworthy siply by virtue of being born in a functioning democracy...

That said, let's revisit what she said:

Baroness Emma Nicholson said she found it "difficult to endorse the very warm press statement" from the head of the OSCE.


"The problem was that it was an OSCE report, and in the OSCE are, of course, the Russians, and their view was quite different, quite substantially different, for example from my own," she told BBC News.

She said she and other observers had a "very, very strong feeling" that there had been some manipulation, "but we couldn't find any proof".

My bold and underlining. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7989360.stm)



The Communist government is keeping Moldova back. Its are pro-Western, pro-Romanian and pro-EU. It's Communist government is pro-Moscow.
Pro-EU, Pro-western, and wants to improve relations with Russia. That's the current government. And the long-running dispute with Russia concerning the "Pridnestrovie-problem" hasn't been solved yet, something that has put a damper on Moldova-Russia relations for quite a few years now.

Let's see where the past couple years of Communist rule have brought Moldova, shall we?


Yes, clearly the Communists are working wonders. . .
Not that you are able to provide proof that a different government would have done any better, but... so what?


And more on the election fraud. . .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6052601.ece
As of now these are only unsubstantiated allegations presented by a member of the opposition party.

Well, South America has 12 countries. Central America has 7. The Caribbean, 13. A good deal of them all had democratically-elected governments whose overthrowing you support. Spain by itself is another one. That adds up to 33. The [non-illiberal] bracket is a subjective copout designed to mean whatever you want it to mean. So, I outright reject it. You support overthrowing democratically-elected governments or you do not. That simple.
Thanks for the geography tips. I didn't ask you how many countries are in Latin-America. I asked you what [non-illiberal] democracies have been overthrown with my support. You couldn't answer that. The fact that you refuse to differentiate between an illiberal democracy and a liberal democracy shows at best that you are ignorant of political science and at worst that you don't care, which is ridiculous. Either way, you failed that debate.

Thanks for the geography tips. I didn't ask you how many countries are in Latin-America. I asked you what [non-illiberal] democracies have been overthrown with my support. You couldn't answer that. The fact that you refuse to differentiate between an illiberal democracy and a liberal democracy shows at best that you are ignorant of political science and at worst that you don't care, which is ridiculous. Either way, you failed that debate.

At the very least, you support illiberal democracies being overthrown by other illiberal democracies, as long as the ones doing the overthrowing are capitalist.

Unless youre going to start claiming Pinochet was running the country as a liberal democracy.

Last I checked, the Russian's democracy is working just fine.

Debatable.

Continuing centralization of power in the executive branch, a compliant State Duma, corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law, media restrictions, and harassment of some NGOs eroded the government's accountability to its citizens. The government restricted opposition political parties' ability to participate in the political process. The March presidential election was marked by problems during the campaign period and on election day, as reported by independent Russian and European observers, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which included the abuse of government resources, media bias in favor of the ruling party and its candidate, authorities' refusal to register opposition party candidates, lack of equal opportunity for conducting campaigns, and ballot fraud.
US State dep. Human Rights Report for Russia 2008 (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm)

Rissotia, Dakini and Gift-of-god, the "outside moniters" that you are siding with, that The Economist quoted, is the OSCE. However, British members of the OSCE claim that the Russian members influenced the report of a "fair election".

There is nothing in that quote to suggest that the Russians had any undue influence. And it does clearly point out that even the most skeptic of the election monitors were unable to find proof of tampering.

Now frankly, call me whatever you want, but I trust the British a hell of alot more than I trust the Russians [when it comes to democracy]. The Russians can't even function a democracy in their nation, what makes you think they'd be responsible enough for 'democracy' abroad?

This is nothing more than an insulting generalisation about Russians. Please try to debate like an adult.


Baroness Nicholson stated that:

"The Russians from the organization influenced this report. She also declared that at the numbering of the votes that at 1 o'clock the Communist had 35% of the votes and the 15-16 parties from the opposition 40-45% altogether while shortly later, at 8 o'clock the sitaution changed radically and the communists had 50%."
http://www.cotidianul.ro/emma_nichol...ova-79833.html

That link does not lead to a page that has that text. Or any english text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chi%C5%9Fin%C4%83u_riots#Background

Again, following the wiki sources does not bring me to an article that says in English what you claim they say. For someone who complains about people not using English on an English forum, I suggest you follow your own advice.

Also, people are pissed because of the Communist President trying to pull a putin-esque move and stay in power in the government, as The Economist shows:

The Communist government is keeping Moldova back. Its are pro-Western, pro-Romanian and pro-EU. It's Communist government is pro-Moscow.

Let's see where the past couple years of Communist rule have brought Moldova, shall we?

Yes, clearly the Communists are working wonders. . .


This is irrelevant to the question of voter fraud.


And more on the election fraud. . .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6052601.ece

Let us pretend that he is not biased, even though he is part of the opposition. Does he have any evidence of voter fraud?

Thanks for the geography tips. I didn't ask you how many countries are in Latin-America. I asked you what [non-illiberal] democracies have been overthrown with my support. You couldn't answer that. The fact that you refuse to differentiate between an illiberal democracy and a liberal democracy shows at best that you are ignorant of political science and at worst that you don't care, which is ridiculous. Either way, you failed that debate.

I don't care, nor do I have to care for that difference. They are democracies. That simple. Your manifest support has appeared for Brazil's, Chile's, Spain's, and, IIRC, Argentina's and Venezuela's. It stands to reason you'd support the overthrowing of other ones.

Last I checked, the Russian's democracy is working just fine.

Russia

Freedom House: "Not free"
free/partly free/not free

Index of Economic Freedom: Mostly unfree
free/mostly free/mostly unfree/unfree

Worldwide Press Freedom Index: Difficult situation
good situation/satisfactory situation/noticeable problems/difficult situation/very serious situation

Democracy Rating: Hybrid regime
full democracy/flawed democracy/hybrid regime/authoritarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indices_of_freedom

I don't care, nor do I have to care for that difference.
Unforunately, as this is a political discussion about intenational politics, you must care for political terms. "I don't care" is not my problem, it just means you lose the debate.

Gosh, must I teach you everything. Come prepared next time:

An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which although fairly free elections take place, citizens are cut off from real power due to the lack of civil liberties. This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists but its liberties are ignored, or to the simple absence of an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties. The term illiberal democracy was used by Fareed Zakaria in an often cited 1997 article in the journal Foreign Affairs.[1]

Illiberal democratic governments may believe they have a mandate to act in any way they see fit as long as they hold regular elections. Lack of liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly make opposition extremely difficult. The rulers may centralize powers between branches of the central government and local government (having no separation of powers). Media is often controlled by the state and strongly support the regime. Non-governmental organizations may face onerous regulations or simply be prohibited. The regime may use red tape, economic pressure, or violence against critics.



They are democracies. That simple.
Unfortunately, it's not . . . as I've just showed you. You would fail any political science class with that attitude, by the way.

Unforunately, as this is a political discussion about intenational politics, you must care for political terms. "I don't care" is not my problem, it just means you lose the debate.

Gosh, must I teach you everything. Come prepared next time:






Unfortunately, it's not . . . as I've just showed you. You would fail any political science class with that attitude, by the way.

Regardless of H2's errors:
At the very least, you support illiberal democracies being overthrown by other illiberal democracies, as long as the ones doing the overthrowing are capitalist.

Unless youre going to start claiming Pinochet was running the country as a liberal democracy.

Snip.

Cute. You must now prove the countries whose democratic regimes you supported the overthrowing of are "illiberal".

That link does not lead to a page that has that text. Or any english text.
It is just what I quoted, except I posted it in english on the forum, instead of in Romanian. So that all could understand. Don't be a jerk.


Again, following the wiki sources does not bring me to an article that says in English what you claim they say. For someone who complains about people not using English on an English forum, I suggest you follow your own advice.
I posted the English translation of the quote which was in Romanian. Are you trying to be obtuse?


This is irrelevant to the question of voter fraud.
Not irrelevant to the overall situation that people want the communists out. Voter fraud is just one part of this.

By then it is too late.

Well, since the communists have been in power for quite a while now...

Already too late.

Not irrelevant to the overall situation that people want the communists out. Voter fraud is just one part of this.

Whether it's a majority of people or a minority thereof is the main point - about which you seem not to give a shit.

Cute. You must now prove the countries whose democratic regimes you supported the overthrowing of are "illiberal".
I "must" do nothing. You made the claim "You'll take any opportunity to overthrow a democracy when you don't agree with the winner" or however you worded it. 1. That's not true. I don't support the overthrow of President Obama, for example. 2. In reponse, I asked you to show me 5 [non-illiberal] democracies that have been overthrown with my support. You failed to do that and instead looked stupid counting countries.

Thus, you lose.

Not irrelevant to the overall situation that people want the communists out. Voter fraud is just one part of this.

"People" you say...

How many?

Regardless of H2's errors:

At the very least, you support illiberal democracies being overthrown by other illiberal democracies, as long as the ones doing the overthrowing are capitalist.

Unless youre going to start claiming Pinochet was running the country as a liberal democracy.
I supported certain illiberal democracies being overthrown by revolutionary movements. There was no way of telling what form of government (whether liberal democracy, illiberal democracy or dictatorship) the revolutionary/transitional government would eventually take. That's why they call sucessful revolutionary governments "transitional" governments, because they are transitioning from what existed into something that will exist. I opposed what existed and beleived what "will" exist (though unknown) would be better.

I still maintain that, in the case of Chile, for example.

What about this?

Last I checked, the Russian's democracy is working just fine.

Russia

Freedom House: "Not free"
free/partly free/not free

Index of Economic Freedom: Mostly unfree
free/mostly free/mostly unfree/unfree

Worldwide Press Freedom Index: Difficult situation
good situation/satisfactory situation/noticeable problems/difficult situation/very serious situation

Democracy Rating: Hybrid regime
full democracy/flawed democracy/hybrid regime/authoritarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indices_of_freedom

Voter fraud is just one part of this.

And unproven. Speculate all you want, without proof, its meaningless.

I "must" do nothing. You made the claim "You'll take any opportunity to overthrow a democracy when you don't agree with the winner" or however you worded it. 1. That's not true. I don't support the overthrow of President Obama, for example. 2. In reponse, I asked you to show me 5 [non-illiberal] democracies that have been overthrown with my support. You failed to do that and instead looked stupid counting countries.

Thus, you lose.

You supported the overthrowing of:

Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Spain, and Argentina - that I can recall and that you supported openly here.

Elected, legitimate democracies.

What about this?

Russia's elections were generally agreed to be have been free of voter fraud, at least the last one. Thats all I was refering to.

Russia's elections were generally agreed to be have been free of voter fraud, at least the last one. Thats all I was refering to.
Was not. :p

Gravvy already covered that one:

The government restricted opposition political parties' ability to participate in the political process. The March presidential election was marked by problems during the campaign period and on election day, as reported by independent Russian and European observers, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which included the abuse of government resources, media bias in favor of the ruling party and its candidate, authorities' refusal to register opposition party candidates, lack of equal opportunity for conducting campaigns, and ballot fraud.

US State dep. Human Rights Report for Russia 2008 (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm)

And some more:

International observers reported that the December 2007 State Duma election was not fair and failed to meet many international standards for democratic elections. Likewise, the March 2 election for president, assessed to be still not free and not fair, repeated the flaws of the State Duma election, with observers expressing concern over the registration process, unequal access to the media by candidates, and abuse of administrative resources. Dmitriy Medvedev, the candidate of the dominant United Russia party, handpicked by his predecessor, became president in March with 70 percent of the vote.

Was not. :p

Gravvy already covered that one:



US State dep. Human Rights Report for Russia 2008 (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119101.htm)

And some more:

PACE disagreed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2008

Representatives from the GOLOS monitoring group stated that "the Election Day was held in a relatively quiet atmosphere in contrast to the State Duma election day. Such large-scale violations observed then as campaigning next to polling stations, transporting of voters, intimidation of voters and others were practically non-existent." They did however report irregularities in the election.[3]

The Commonwealth of Independent States observer mission said the election was free, fair and in line with international standards. "The CIS observer mission states that the election is a major factor in the further democratization of public life in the Russian Federation, and recognizes it as free, open and transparent," said Nauryz Aidarov, head of the CIS mission.[5]

Observers from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization said the election was free, fair and in line with international standards.[4]

An observing group from Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the result of the election was a "reflection of the will of an electorate whose democratic potential was, unfortunately, not tapped". They said "In the elections, which had more the character of a plebiscite on the last eight years in this country, the people of Russia voted for the stability and continuity associated with the incumbent President and the candidate promoted by him. The President-elect will have a solid mandate given to him by the majority of Russians."[51] [52]



Conflicting reports it seems.

I have to disagree with you there, not all 'patriots' are like that, the Sean Hannity types, sure...

But, I would present myself as an example of someone who is patriotic, yet acknowledges our mistakes, and is willing to accept change...

Now, if you try to say my culture/people are horrible humans, then, yeah, Im going to argue you down, but, that doesnt mean I ignore our faults or resist change....

There is a certain (additional?) stigma attached to the word 'patriot' since it has largely been claimed as the territory of those who are ONLY patriots when a certain ideology governs.

As in: "I am a patriot but I believe we need to take all those scum-suckers out back, shoot 'em, and install a real leader who can run things without a pussy congress"?


That's the ticket.


"[A]n enlightened but inferior lexicographer"--I love that stuff. :tongue:

You must love Martial.

Here is The Economist's take on it. . .

Awesome!

I love it when you present Economist articles for me to ignore. Keep it up!

It is simplistic statements like these that make me despair. I wonder if it's an effect of the US political system. Two parties, each symbolising one side of the left-right divide. I wonder if it creates a false dichotomy in the mind of those US citizens that don't employ critical thinking skills.


Two be more accurate: Two parties, both symbolising the SAME side of the left-right divide.

The American 'left' is largely aesthetic.

Awesome!

I love it when you present Economist articles for me to ignore. Keep it up!

lol

Let's see where the past couple years of Communist rule have brought Moldova, shall we?


A poor and backwards country has been greatly enhanced and enriched over the last two terms.

So... you approve, then?

Conflicting reports it seems.

That may in part be because he also included a quote about the 2007 State Duma election, and not just the 2008 presidential election.

You supported the overthrowing of:

Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Spain, and Argentina - that I can recall and that you supported openly here.

Elected, legitimate democracies.

Finally you give me something to work with.

Brazil: Goulart brought Brazil into a political and economic crisis and was ruining the economy and bringing Brazil on the path to a civil war. But yes, that one is debatable if it was an illiberal democracy or not . . . hard to tell because Goulart's crimes were his political and economic destruction of the country, not his authoritarianism and centralization of power (though he did seek to centralize more power than was originally desired to have). I'll give you a maybe, at best 1.

Chile: Illiberal democracy under Allende. He was on the road to forming a marxist totalitarian state.

Venezuela: What overthrow of democracy did I support in Venezeula? Also Venezuela is an illiberal democracy.

Spain: Is hardly that simple. There was a civil war brewing in Spain for years and years. You make it seem as if there was a peaceful, stable liberal spanish democracy and then all of a sudden *BAM* Franco and his goons overthrew it with violence. The history is FAR more complicated. . .

Argentina: The overthrow of Isabel Peron? 1. We have never talked about it so you don't know my positions on the matter. 2. Are you seriously claiming she ruled over a liberal democracy?
The Nunca Mas ("Never Again") report released in 1984 by the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons recorded 600 disappearances and 500 assassinations under the Peronist governments from 1973 to 1976, and it is today acknowledged that the Triple A alone murdered about 600 people.

So at best you have 1 case . . . and that one is iffy. 1 is a bit different from "any opportunity" . . .

hell yes
http://woman03.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/revolucion-francesa-7008.jpg

Death to communist scum.

A poor and backwards country has been greatly enhanced and enriched over the last two terms.

So... you approve, then?
No, I don't. Basically all of the Eastern Block was poor and backwards thanks to Communism, but since the end of the cold war most Eastern European countries have seem remarkable growth. The two worst countries in Europe are the ones still stuck (held?) back closest to the Soviet days; Belerus and Moldova.

So no, I don't approve.

You supported the overthrowing of:

Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Spain, and Argentina - that I can recall and that you supported openly here.

Elected, legitimate democracies.
Who are pretty much riddled with every political problem imaginable, and are on a constant path towards full forced collectivization.

Freedom's on the march.

hell yes
http://woman03.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/revolucion-francesa-7008.jpg

http://webranding.org/images/spectre_of_communism.jpg

fuck yeahhh
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/content/binary/Pinochet2.jpg

http://webranding.org/images/spectre_of_communism.jpg

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/battles/revolutionary-war-minutemen.jpg

The will of the free man is unstoppable.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/battles/revolutionary-war-minutemen.jpg

The will of the free man is unstoppable.

Chances are the minute men lost that battle. How can I guess? There arent any French there helping them or paying their salaries:D

Chances are the minute men lost that battle. How can I guess? There arent any French there helping them or paying their salaries:D
You, Sir, are a disgrace to the Crown.

You, Sir, are a disgrace to the Crown.

Huh?

Chances are the minute men lost that battle. How can I guess? There arent any French there helping them or paying their salaries:D
Funny how they won that battle actually.

Whats this? A statist is wrong?

Funny how they won that battle actually.

Whats this? A statist is wrong?

lol Im not a statist. Keep it up though.

lol Im not a statist. Keep it up though.

why the lenin then D:

"Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15"

That means Im a social libertarian.

It helps to know what youre talking about before you start flinging accusations.

That means Im a social libertarian.

It helps to know what youre talking about before you start flinging accusations.

but I realized my mistake and ninja-edited before you posted so it doesn't count

That means Im a social libertarian.

It helps to know what youre talking about before you start flinging accusations.

So you're only half-tyrannical, which is even worse than being all tyrannical and being honest.

Being a libertarian socially always winds up not working in statist political systems. It means you get +60% dissent.

why the lenin then D:

I like Lenin.


Not Stalin.

So you're only half-tyrannical, which is even worse than being all tyrannical and being honest.

Being a libertarian socially always winds up not working in statist political systems. It means you get +60% dissent.

Whats with all the noobs all of a sudden?


I am not a statist.

I like Lenin.


Not Stalin.
Yeah I like some random despot mass-murderers but I don't like some other ones.

Usually the hairstyle defines my choice.

Yeah I like some random despot mass-murderers but I don't like some other ones.


Ah. You dont know too much about Lenin then. Ok.


Besides, there isnt a single person in history who may disagree with you on things that you dont admire?

Im done here. I really have better things to do then deny whether or not Im a statist with noobs.

I like Lenin.


Not Stalin.

Lenin wanted the Revolutionary Government to be a simple yes-man to the (his) Bolshevik Party, not to actually function as a government. Not to mention his preferred way of arguing down any opposition was to call them stupid, or traitors, or both.

Lenin was just as much of an egotistical maniac as any other centrist tyrant, never forget it.

Ah. You dont know too much about Lenin then. Ok.


Besides, there isnt a single person in history who may disagree with you on things that you dont admire?

Im done here. I really have better things to do then deny whether or not Im a statist with noobs.
Well I just don't see how a Liberal (which if you truly are then I'm all for it even if you are left leaning) can like such a horrible figure as Lenin.

Freedom's on the march.

Where's it going? I'd prefer if it decided to hang around instead...

Ah. You dont know too much about Lenin then. Ok.
Lolz, communist revisionist history. It's like real history, only made up!

Well I just don't see how a Liberal (which if you truly are then I'm all for it even if you are left leaning) can like such a horrible figure as Lenin.

Because he is an interesting figure. For the same reason I like Ghangis Khan, really.


Lenin did a lot of good things. They dont excuse his bad things, but at least he did good as well.

Lenin wrote some nice stuff. But when he came to power, Jesus Christ, he was awful. Very, very awful and brutal.

Lolz, communist revisionist history. It's like real history, only made up!

Whatever kiddo. Revisionist history is ignoring the good someone did and pretending there was only bad.

Lenin did a lot of good things. They dont excuse his bad things, but at least he did good as well.
I'm really curious about this statement. Not because its "good things", but rather "a lot of good things"

No, I don't. Basically all of the Eastern Block was poor and backwards thanks to Communism, but since the end of the cold war most Eastern European countries have seem remarkable growth. The two worst countries in Europe are the ones still stuck (held?) back closest to the Soviet days; Belerus and Moldova.

So no, I don't approve.

Basically, all of the Eastern Bloc was poor and backwards thanks to Western blocking of communism.

I can ignore the rest of your bullshit, all the way down to the Moldova bit - Moldova was broke, and now it's doing much better. That looks like a positive thing.

Your approval, then, is worth less than nothing.

Lenin wrote some nice stuff. But when he came to power, Jesus Christ, he was awful. Very, very awful and brutal.

Ringo was worse.

Basically, all of the Eastern Bloc was poor and backwards thanks to Western blocking of communism.

I can ignore the rest of your bullshit, all the way down to the Moldova bit - Moldova was broke, and now it's doing much better. That looks like a positive thing.

Your approval, then, is worth less than nothing.

The Eastern Bloc was terribly poor not because of communism, but because of the horridly terrible regimes that were in power during 20th century. Unless you regard those regimes as communist.

Ringo was worse.

I disagree, his work with Thomas the Tank Engine was the finest piece of cynical ironic psychedelia I have ever seen.

The Eastern Bloc was terribly poor not because of communism, but because of the horridly terrible regimes that were in power during 20th century. Unless you regard those regimes as communist.
Saying that they're communist and horrible/terrible is rather redundant.

I disagree, his work with Thomas the Tank Engine was the finest piece of cynical ironic psychedelia I have ever seen.

:tongue:

The Eastern Bloc was terribly poor not because of communism, but because of the horridly terrible regimes that were in power during 20th century. Unless you regard those regimes as communist.

Well, corrupt and despotic regimes didn't make it any easier, but the point I was making is that it's intellectually dishonest of people to say that 'communism failed' when communism was continuously attacked and blocked. How do you know it 'fails', if you never actually let it?

The argument is trotted out over and over, and it doesn't get any truer with the repetition. It's like kicking a dog in the throat everytime it opens it's mouth, and then saying dogs 'fail' because they never bark.

Well, corrupt and despotic regimes didn't make it any easier, but the point I was making is that it's intellectually dishonest of people to say that 'communism failed' when communism was continuously attacked and blocked. How do you know it 'fails', if you never actually let it?

The argument is trotted out over and over, and it doesn't get any truer with the repetition. It's like kicking a dog in the throat everytime it opens it's mouth, and then saying dogs 'fail' because they never bark.
This is like saying

"Why don't we make everyone my slave and deprive them of all rights"

and then complain because people won't let you implement it.

Well, corrupt and despotic regimes didn't make it any easier, but the point I was making is that it's intellectually dishonest of people to say that 'communism failed' when communism was continuously attacked and blocked. How do you know it 'fails', if you never actually let it?

The argument is trotted out over and over, and it doesn't get any truer with the repetition. It's like kicking a dog in the throat everytime it opens it's mouth, and then saying dogs 'fail' because they never bark.
Communism fails even when it's legal and voluntary, like in Israeli Kibbutzs. It's also hardly like the communist bloc didn't attack the West, which didnt collapse. If you have to build a wall manned by guards with machineguns to lock people into a system, it probably isn't great.

So, what you're saying is, if we had freed flows of trade and capital to the Soviet Union, communism would have worked. Let's forget about the walls, the guard towers, the dogs, the barbed wire fences, the checkpoints, the spotlights, the tariffs, the import duties, the quotas, for just a moment, even if they were erected by the Soviet Union, because that was an obviously good set of choices to make in retrospect.

Except then we would have actually undermined it even further and faster by bringing high-quality goods made by far less tyrannically controlled enterprises on the cheap. Oh! Kind of like the SEZs in the PRC! Hey, go figure.

Well, corrupt and despotic regimes didn't make it any easier, but the point I was making is that it's intellectually dishonest of people to say that 'communism failed' when communism was continuously attacked and blocked. How do you know it 'fails', if you never actually let it?

The argument is trotted out over and over, and it doesn't get any truer with the repetition. It's like kicking a dog in the throat everytime it opens it's mouth, and then saying dogs 'fail' because they never bark.

What do you mean by continuously attacked and blocked? By whom? Do you mean the soviet union itself attacking any attempt at having true communism put in place? Or are you talking about the cold war?

Communism fails even when it's legal and voluntary, like in Israeli Kibbutzs.


And, yet, it has worked in Christian communes.


It's also hardly like the communist bloc didn't attack the West,


There's a Soviet version of Vietnam out there, somewhere?


...which didnt collapse. If you have to build a wall manned by guards with machineguns to lock people into a system, it probably isn't great.

I think you're confusing corrupt government with the socio-economic model.

The Bush regime tortured people - is that a searing indictment of capitalism?

So, what you're saying is, if we had freed flows of trade and capital to the Soviet Union, communism would have worked. Let's forget about the walls, the guard towers, the dogs, the barbed wire fences, the checkpoints, the spotlights, the tariffs, the import duties, the quotas, for just a moment, even if they were erected by the Soviet Union, because that was an obviously good set of choices to make in retrospect.


I'm a scientist. So - what I'm saying is - if you don't run the experiment, or if you 'kind of' run it, but you keep changing the circumstances, or deliberately interfering with the results...

... then, when you present a paper on it, your paper is going to be laughed at by your peers.

And, yet, it has worked in Christian communes.
Personally I have no problem with collectivism if its voluntary.


There's a Soviet version of Vietnam out there, somewhere?

No the Soviet Union never aided bloodthirsty totalitarian guerrillas anywhere nor did they directly invade other sovereign states.


I think you're confusing corrupt government with the socio-economic model.

The Bush regime tortured people - is that a searing indictment of capitalism?
Lol bush a capitalist

keep on brining the comedy gold

What do you mean by continuously attacked and blocked? By whom? Do you mean the soviet union itself attacking any attempt at having true communism put in place? Or are you talking about the cold war?

Yes to both, but mainly to the latter.

In the end, I think it largely came down to weight of numbers - and it still took three-quarters of a decade for the queered experiment to fall over.

I'm a scientist. So - what I'm saying is - if you don't run the experiment, or if you 'kind of' run it, but you keep changing the circumstances, or deliberately interfering with the results...

... then, when you present a paper on it, your paper is going to be laughed at by your peers.

Can I ask what field you are involved with, what journals you write in, etc?

I'm a scientist. So - what I'm saying is - if you don't run the experiment, or if you 'kind of' run it, but you keep changing the circumstances, or deliberately interfering with the results...

... then, when you present a paper on it, your paper is going to be laughed at by your peers.

True scientists don't frequent the General board on NationStates unless they have the proper PhDs to do so.

Do you have the proper PhDs? I don't think so.

Can I ask what field you are involved with, what journals you write in, etc?

You can ask. I've even mentioned it before.

But it's not relevant to THIS topic, and runs the risk of dropping somewhere between an appeal to authority, and an ad hominem fallacy... so I'm opting out.

Do you have the proper PhDs? I don't think so.
I know I do

http://www.nsxfiles.com/images/minister_doctorate_med.jpg

There's a Soviet version of Vietnam out there, somewhere?

The Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia?

I'm a scientist. So - what I'm saying is - if you don't run the experiment, or if you 'kind of' run it, but you keep changing the circumstances, or deliberately interfering with the results...

... then, when you present a paper on it, your paper is going to be laughed at by your peers.

The vast, overwhelming majority of the economic problems the soviet union had, were nothing to do with protectionism from the west. Seriously, the only person I've seen argue that the model applied by the soviet union might have worked is Andaras.

True scientists don't frequent the General board on NationStates unless they have the proper PhDs to do so.

Do you have the proper PhDs? I don't think so.

If you have nothing worthwhile to say, you can actually choose not to post nonsense, by NOT clicking on the little 'quote' button.

It's a new feature. Try it.

I know I do

http://www.nsxfiles.com/images/minister_doctorate_med.jpg

I am getting a new credit card.

The Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia?

Territorial expansion, not interventions to stop the green menace.

Territorial expansion, not interventions to stop the green menace.
"Green Menace"? Did Hulk get all angry again?

I'm sure the funding of violent guerrillas all over the world probably makes the USSR expansionist and hostile. If that doesn't then continued support of other mass-murdering regimes (seeing as how your argument conveniently overlooks all the internal slaughter) must count as well.

it still took three-quarters of a decade for the queered experiment to fall over.

What are you actually referring to here? I don't define failure as whether the government could keep in power. I define by if it was actually ever 'good', and during the entire history of 'communism' in the Eastern bloc, I would never, ever, ever want to live there, even if there had been no political oppression and class warfare.

The vast, overwhelming majority of the economic problems the soviet union had, were nothing to do with protectionism from the west.

The Soviet Union had access, very rapidly, to massive industrialisation. They also had raw materials.

What the Soviet Union lacked - because of geography, mainly, was the same thing Russia has ALWAYS lacked - (reliable) food.

The easy solution to that in the US, for example, is to trade with your neighbours - if you have corn but no cotton, and they have cotton, but no corn - you trade them out.

The west had industrialisation, but a hunger for more. It also had control of major food markets - which it embargoed Soviet access to.

Despite all this, the USSR beat the west into space - running the same race uphill, they still reached the finish line first - so it's dishonest to say that the model was totally inherently flawed.

But the experiment was never actually attempted.