@Putin33 "And you cannot simultaneously claim I am too idealistic while whining that I support 'reprehensible shit'."

What? Sure I can. Your idealism causes you to defend the actions of Mugabe and the Kim family. You suspend your moral judgment when it would cause you to withdraw support from authorities that espouse the same ideals that you have.

"Not as important as the part which makes sentences comprehensible."

What wasn't comprehensible? I was pointing out that you're letting ideology replace your instincts.

"I'm not stuck in utopian la-la land insisting on moral purity, like you"

What? You're introducing this "moral purity" thing again and I have no idea why. When have I insisted on that? I only insist that we accept all humans as being corrupt, defend ourselves from their likely incompetence, and be prudent in empowering some people over others. Where's the moral purity angle? If anything I'm saying we should always assume immorality and incompetence and proceed defensively.

"It might be a moderate position in Hamilton County or CincinniTucky, not anywhere else."

Snob.

^ If by "moral purity" you mean rejecting Mugabe and the Kims, what I'm rejecting is the *authoritarian system that empowers them so much*. Kim as mayor of Minneapolis would have limited ability to act and a high potential to be thrown out. Immorality is rife and unavoidable; what is avoidable is empowering it.

You're such a fraud. You routinely insult people's intelligence and call people nasty names with alacrity. I believe you called me Put-fuck for about two months straight and routinely insinuate that I'm a babykiller.

You're like Ron Jeremy scolding people about promiscuity or Ken Lay lecturing people about corporate responsibility.

"Sure I can. Your idealism causes you to defend the actions of Mugabe and the Kim family. You suspend your moral judgment when it would cause you to withdraw support from authorities that espouse the same ideals that you have."

My idealism is causing me to suspend my moral judgment? Typical Tendmote gibberish.

When have you insisted on moral purity? How about always. You cannot say a single positive thing about any public official anywhere because they don't meet your arbitrary standards for conduct. You call them all sociopaths. You insist on extreme limitations on government power because being morally pure is more important than getting anything done for those who need a government that actually works.

"Snob."

Damn straight.

I called you Put-fuck like a year ago, or maybe six months ago. Since then, *I* have changed and decided on a more reasonable (and as it happens, forum friendly) course of action.

"I was pointing out that you're letting ideology replace your instincts."

Please tell me what ideology would that be. Mugabe is not a Marxist. He's in fact a conservative Catholic. Putin is a conservative as well. I, unlike you, can support people who don't agree with my politics. You, the moderate, cannot tolerate a modicum of political dissent without calling people monsters.

"Since then, *I* have changed and decided on a more reasonable (and as it happens, forum friendly) course of action."

Until next week, when you're back to being Krellin's little toadie.

Of course, I recognize when I have faults and strive to change them. I recognize when my views are off and adjust to be more in line with reality. But that's just me - a reasonable person who doesn't think himself infallible.

@Putin33 "My idealism is causing me to suspend my moral judgment? Typical Tendmote gibberish."

Are you saying Mugabe and the Kims are *consistent* with what you consider moral? Or are you suspending that judgment?

"cannot tolerate a modicum of political dissent without calling people monsters. "

Not calling a mass murderer a monster doesn't change the fact he is a monster.

I'm saying I don't have to agree with Mugabe and Kim's every act to express solidarity against those who want to turn them into bombed out neoliberal satrapies. And I can acknowledge where they have actually made positive steps, like in healthcare (DPRK) and land reform (Zim).

You're saying that refusing to hold people to absolutist moral standards is me being overly idealistic, that makes no sense whatsoever. That's like calling Reagan an idealist for supporting Reza Pahlavi.

Make a criticism that is actually comprehensible, for once.

"Not calling a mass murderer a monster doesn't change the fact he is a monster."

You gleefully hope poor people starve to death, so I'd be a little hesitant to go around calling people monsters.

If I may interpose in this dialogue, may I suggest more on Global Warming, or should we return to fighting & heavy drinking? - On authority, I am told "Father Frost" of the solar New Year is a Marxist-Leninist invention to vaguely placate the masses, & replace the so-called "Opium" of same. In Leningrad, Hero City, the Intourist guide drank more vodka & my champagne & as I had presented her with a printed screed by Isaiah Berlin asked, Do Westerners speak of Philosophy? [ As opposed, say, to Marxist-Leninism ]

Refusing to hold people to absolute moral standards, while at the same time supporting their absolute power, truly is an overcommitnent to your anti-liberalwest ideals.

Liberal democracy addresses the inevitable immorality if people in power by limiting that power. authoritarianism does introduce a reqirement for near perfect morality because the power has no limitation. moral failings that are tolerable in weak rulers are less tolerable in dictators and cause more damage. you are blind to this.

"You gleefully hope poor people starve to death."

No, Putin, I don't. there may have been a time when I felt like TVR, but that time has passed. And I never "gleefully hoped" anyone would starve. But as I said, I can recognize when my views don't conform to reality and, like most rational people, can alter them to be a more reasonable view of the world around me.

"Liberal democracy addresses the inevitable immorality if people in power by limiting that power. authoritarianism does introduce a reqirement for near perfect morality because the power has no limitation."

This is just parochial minded holier-than-thou rhetoric and betrays a total lack of interest in how governments elsewhere in the world work. No system gives anybody "absolute power". Power is always divided. The main difference is the mechanism for gaining office. You think bourgeois elections in which billionaires compete with each other or trade favors makes liberal democracy morally superior to what you call "authoritarianism". Even though similar competitions may exist you won't recognize them as valid because they don't look the part. Zimbabwe, for example, has a coalition government with a former opposition party that openly called for armed intervention not too long ago. You'd never know it because it doesn't fit with the "enemies of America are evil" zeitgeist that you blindly regurgitate on a daily basis.

Liberal government doesn't address immorality, it just makes sure that the private sector can do whatever they want with no accountability with vote buying and favor trading. It makes sure government is weak because weak government always benefits the strong because they don't they need help.

Other forms of government have divisions of power, they just aren't between competing coteries of super-rich people necessarily. There are plenty of factions within the Zanu-PF/MDC government in Zimbabwe and plenty of factions with the CCP. China is run by a committee, not a single person. I'd venture to guess the President of China has less individual authority than the President of France.

The 5th Republic of France is governed under the De Gaullist constitution with a strong prez - as amended after the 1968 student reform protests

"No, Putin, I don't"

Liar.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=908755&page-thread=9#threadPager

Mind showing me where in on that page I "gleefully hoped" poor people would die? Also, I have stated in this very thread that my views have changed and you had to go back to *over* a year ago to August of 2012. This is almost 2014. You went back more than 16 months to dig that up. I think I covered that when I said my views have changed because, unlike you, I can recognize when I am wrong and change my views.

http://95.211.128.12/webdiplomacy/forum.php?threadID=1078538&page-thread=5#threadPager

Here's a thread from this month saying the very same thing, actually going even farther in repulsive glee for starving people to death. So much for your bullshit "new leaf" story you're now peddling.


Draugnar Online (12 D (G))
New7 Dec 2013
Actually, Draugnar wants to let them die and decrease the surplus population. Killing is an action. Letting nature take it's course and weed out

"Forcing people to work is capitalism at it's finest. If they can't work either because their real efforts to find a job have been fruitless or because they have a disability (old age counts as a disability as does being under 18l them we should care for them. If they can but won't look for work or accept an offered position/won't work, to hell with them. Let them starve and/or freeze."

From the August 2012 thread:

"If you refuse to take care of things and you go bankrupt in court, starve! I don't give a fuck if you die and decrease the surplus population. I'm not Ebeneezer Scrooge who is gonna be visited by some ghosts and change my mind either. Scrooge at the beginning is me. Scrooge at the end is a fucking socialist."

American leaders are also evil, but they are weak and undermine each other, and most people are not in poverty. Mugabe calls the shots for 34 years, and achieves 5% growth off the back of 95% unemployment. I guess that suggests it's headed for 94% unemployment. Kim, much the same. Is it worth keeping them in power on the grounds that they're anti-American? I guess people like Putin33 are buying into that trade.

It's weird. What's the real complaint about America? That it embodies a system where workers were only paid 80% of what their work was worth? Let's smash it all to bits then, and make do with farming carrots by hand. Better to have nothing than to be missing 20% of something.

Dude! Have you never heard of sarcasm? The recent one was quite literally sarcastic and referring to Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol".

Also, "To hell with them, if they won't work or at least look for work, let em starve" is hardly "with glee". Fuck dude, you must find your life very gleeful if you mistake anger for glee cause you are the most angry sumbitch I know, next to krellin and at least I know he is doing it as a front to offend and wake people up. You're just an angry mofo 24/7, so you must be absolutely fucking giddy from glee.

Everything you say is a lie, Draugnar. Absolutely everything. You're such a fraud that you can't even tell what sarcasm is anymore. You make up everything. Your entire personality is fake. Your life story is fake. Your political positions are fake. Your posts are fake. You're nothing but a fucking fake.

"American leaders are also evil, but they are weak and undermine each other, and most people are not in poverty. Mugabe calls the shots for 34 years, and achieves 5% growth off the back of 95% unemployment."

Mugabe was receiving awards from the British as late as 1994 for his leadership of Zimbabwe. Mugabe inherited a country that was divided by a racial caste system, and damaged by civil war. He was forced to implement draconian austerity by the IMF in the early 1990s with no complaint from people like you. But as soon as he does anything about land inequality he becomes the devil incarnate and a "dictator" to be beaten into submission with economic strangulation, which lo and behold leads to inflation and a bad economy. Nonetheless, since 2008-2009 Zimbabwe has been in recovery, and has done so with a coalition government. Not one word of credit will ever be given by fuckers like you, though. No, instead you'll play off people's ignornance, make up unemployment numbers out of your ass, and in general behave like a chauvinistic dickhead who can't comtemplate the realities of life outside wonderful fucking America, who is blessed with nothing but resources and fantastic geography but still has millions of people in poverty.

But why should we complain about that? Tendmote is doing just fucking dandy who gives a fuck. Millions of people in the richest country in the world, with no threat of invasion, and with verdant land everywhere living in poverty? Why the hell is that a problem? We have a Mugabe or a Kim to bash and feel about. Never mind that we bombed Kim's country into the stonage in the 50s and covered it with mines, and an arming its enemies to the teeth and have never signed a peace treaty. We can't tolerate context or history when Hate and xenophobia are called for.

Look at that! Putin is all gleeful! He must be having a fucking gleegasm right about now!

I'm not saying we should "get" Mugabe, I'm saying it's a pretty shitty example of governing a country. For instance, "hate" and "xenophobia" have quite a lot to do with Mugabe's attitudes toward homosexuals. Did some American action forced him into that position?