(POLL)Alexis Arguello Or Floyd Mayweather, who is the greater fighter?

[Benncollinsaad]

And I think true believing Communists are pigs in service of the most evil, mass-murdering, and misynthropic ideolology to ever inflict itself on mankind. Note I differentiate between "true belivers" in that perverted philosphy and those forced into servitude by it. The latter I pity. The former I despise.

Poet

Chinese and North Koreans are the ones that have polluted the image of communism the most. I don't like them. Russians used to also be very opressive, but they still had some good leaders like Lenin, Khruschov and Trotsky.

[StarshipTrooper]

Chinese and North Koreans are the ones that have polluted the image of communism the most. I don't like them. Russians used to also be very opressive, but they still had some good leaders like Lenin, Khruschov and Trotsky.

Lenin and Trotsky were as big a mass-murderers as any of them. Khruschev certainly sent his share of people to the Gulags. Regardless of who the leader is the ideology is inherently oppressive as it has as it's basis the notion that the individual has no rights: Only the collective has rights. Therefore any crime against an individual is permissable in the name of the collective. Every individual is a slave of the state (ie. the collective). THAT is oppression by ANY definition. No one with any sort intelligence can come away from reading Marx and Lenin without seeing that under the guise of love and compassion for humanity their beliefs were, in fact the exact opposite. Communism only loves humanity in the abstract (ie. it's vision of what humanity SHOULD be in their eyes), it has a pathological hatred for humanity the specific (ie. what humanity actually is). In other words, it loves the IDEA of humanity but hates humanity itself. Hence why I consider it the most misynthropic ideology ever devised.

Poet

[Benncollinsaad]

Lenin and Trotsky were as big a mass-murderers as any of them. Khruschev certainly sent his share of people to the Gulags. Regardless of who the leader is the ideology is inherently oppressive as it has as it's basis the notion that the individual has no rights: Only the collective has rights. Therefore any crime against an individual is permissable in the name of the collective. Every individual is a slave of the state (ie. the collective). THAT is oppression by ANY definition. No one with any sort intelligence can come away from reading Marx and Lenin without seeing that under the guise of love and compassion for humanity their beliefs were, in fact the exact opposite. Communism only loves humanity in the abstract (ie. it's vision of what humanity SHOULD be in their eyes), it has a pathological hatred for humanity the specific (ie. what humanity actually is). In other words, it loves the IDEA of humanity but hates humanity itself. Hence why I consider it the most misynthropic ideology ever devised.

Poet

Gee, how deep. How come you've never been asked to appear on 60 Minutes or some other biased American political show? All that is not what Tito's idea of communism was. Yes, we had a one party system, but everybody prospered from it and only the extreme nationalists didn't like it. We were much better off economically and had much more freedom than the other communist nations.

[StarshipTrooper]

Gee, how deep. How come you've never been asked to appear on 60 Minutes or some other biased American political show? All that is not what Tito's idea of communism was. Yes, we had a one party system, but everybody prospered from it and only the extreme nationalists didn't like it. We were much better off economically and had much more freedom than the other communist nations.

Translation: You can't respond intelligently to anything I posted. Oh I'm SO shocked! True believing Marxists usually can't.
Your typical Communist isn't interested in truth: Only in obvuscation and deception of the poor benighted masses who are "too ****** to know what's good for them". Referr back to my statement of Communism's psychopathic hatred of mankind. They really do have nothing but contempt for the great mass of humanity.

Poet

[BigMacFoster]

And yet...PedoPoet has shown to be very sympathetic to the Contra's cause,As violent and sadistic as an opposing resistance force can be.

Such accusations that have been shown and proven involve the kidnapping and torturing of civilians,the targeting of health care clinics and workers for assassination,The kidnapping and raping of innocent teenage girls suspected to be related to those involved with the Sandinista National Liberation Front.


This is whom PedoPoet supports ladies and gentleman.I wonder what his opinion is in regards to this guy



Robert DePugh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Robert Bolivar DePugh)
Jump to: navigation, search
Robert Boliver "Bob" DePugh (born 15 April 1923; died 30 June 2009[1]) was an American anti-Communist activist who founded the Minutemen militant anti-Communist organization in 1961.

Contents [hide]
1 Life and career
2 Selected publications
3 References
4 External links


[edit] Life and career
DePugh was born in Independence, Missouri, where his father served as deputy sheriff.[2] He enlisted in the United States Army during World War II, but he was dismissed for nervousness and depression. He attended Kansas State University for a few months before dropping out. DePugh went on to found a veterinary drug firm in 1953 that folded in 1956. He enrolled at Washburn University briefly, then started BioLab, another veterinary drug firm, in Norborne, Missouri, which was more successful.[3] In addition to veterinary products, the company produces a malt-flavored ultra-compact storage food for humans called Minuteman Survival Tabs.[4] Some 45 years later, this product is still popular in survivalist circles. He became a member of the John Birch Society[5] and according to a biography he was influenced by the House Un-American Activities Committee.[6]

DePugh published a 10-page pamphlet on guerilla warfare via the Minutemen in 1961.[7] The Minutemen's newsletter was called On Target. He was founder of the Patriotic Party in 1966.[8]

In 1966, DePugh was arrested on federal weapons charges, which were later dismissed.[9] Their offices were bombed in 1967,[10] and DePugh resigned from the Minutemen in 1967. In February 1968, he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Seattle, Washington for conspiracy to commit bank robbery. Also in 1968, he was arrested for violation of federal firearms laws. He skipped bail and went underground for over a year until he was caught in 1969 in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. He was convicted in 1970 and released from prison in May 1973. DePugh later wrote an anti-communist quasi-survivalist manual, Can You Survive?, and was associated briefly with Liberty Lobby.[11]

In the 1980s DePugh became involved in the Identity Christianity movement. In the early 1990s he was convicted on a morals and ****ography charge with an underage girl[12] and on three counts of federal firearms violations.[13] DePugh eventually grew disgusted with all politics and retired from activism.[8]

He died on 30 June 2009 at his home in Richmond, Missouri.

[Steak]

Top Ten fighters Mayweather Jr beat:
Genero Hernandez Top 3
Angel Manfredy #4
Gregerio Vargas #10
Diego Corrales #1
Jesus Chavez #4
Jose Luis Castillo #1
DeMarcus Corley #6
Arturo Gatti #7
Zab Judah #4
Carlos Baldomir Champion Status
Oscar DLH #6
Ricky Hatton Champion Status at 140lbs

Top Ten fighters Alexis Arguello beat:
Jose Legra #8
Art Hafey #3
Ruben Olivares #6
Leonel Hernandez #3
Royal Kobayashi #8
Cocoa Sanchez #8
Alfredo Escalara #1
Arturo Leon #7
Alfredo Escala 2 #4
Rafael Limon #3
Bobby Chacon #3
Jim Watt #2
Ray Mancini #10
Andrew Ganigan #5
Billy Costello #3


The bolded are the guys they beat at 130lbs.
The Italicized are the guys they beat at 135lbs.

Discuss.

[GJC]

People who are of a Marxist persuasion lable anyone who is anti-Communist "pro-Facist". It's the oldest game in the book: Anyone who is not a fellow traveller is ipso-facto a "Facist", "Imperialist", "Exploiter", ect. ect. ect.

Poet

Poet, I'm no lover of communist regimes as they have been proved to fail time and time again and many of your comments do ring true.
That said do you not think that the U.S. had a habit of labelling any movement who were fighting against an oppressive regime and wanted the people to benefit from a country's wealth rather than a corrupt few, Communist?
I think in many cases by applying sanctions etc they drove many regimes that were probably mildly socialist into the arms of the communists.
It is a stain on America that they continued to support The Khymer Rouge in Cambodia long after Pol Pot's excesses were known simply because he was anti communist.
I have no truck with oppressive dictatorships but to support one against a ********ic albeit left leaning movement is not for me.

[StarshipTrooper]

Poet, I'm no lover of communist regimes as they have been proved to fail time and time again and many of your comments do ring true.
That said do you not think that the U.S. had a habit of labelling any movement who were fighting against an oppressive regime and wanted the people to benefit from a country's wealth rather than a corrupt few, Communist?

I think in many cases by applying sanctions etc they drove many regimes that were probably mildly socialist into the arms of the communists.

Saying someone is "mildly Socialist" is rather like saying a woman is "sort of pregnant". Either they subscribe to Marx or they do not.

In general the label fit the vast majority of those movements that you speak of and were, in fact, backed and supplied by the Soviets and/or their puppet regimes such as Cuba.

It is a stain on America that they continued to support The Khymer Rouge in Cambodia long after Pol Pot's excesses were known simply because he was anti communist.

I think you're a bit off here since the Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge WERE, in fact, Communists who were supported by Red China as opposed to the North Vietnamise who were backed by the Soviet Union. What you had there was a pissing contest between two rival Communist powers and their puppets.

I have no truck with oppressive dictatorships but to support one against a ********ic albeit left leaning movement is not for me.

I'm not fond myself of propping up one brutal dictatorship in the face of a rival one. I find it distastful in the extreme. My desire would be to take down both. I would take issue with your characterization of those movements as "********ic". Installing a "dictatorship of the proletariet" is NOT ********ic ie. "one man, one vote, ONE TIME" is not a ********ic movement. Nor is mob rule, while fitting the dictionary definition of "pure democracy", fit in with our modern concepts of democracy. The unbridled passions of the armed mob are quite as oppressive as any dictatorship. There is only a change in how that oppression is decided upon. That's anarchy, and liberty and anarchy are most definately NOT compatable.

Poet

[GJC]

Saying someone is "mildly Socialist" is rather like saying a woman is "sort of pregnant". Either they subscribe to Marx or they do not.

In general the label fit the vast majority of those movements that you speak of and were, in fact, backed and supplied by the Soviets and/or their puppet regimes such as Cuba.

We have a Labour Party in Britain which whilst I am not a huge fan of them I wouldn't have said that in their history they have been under the grip of the Socialists?
So I would hope that you agree that there is a big difference between communism and socialism?
As for the vast majority of those movements being backed by the Soviets you could easily say that was a by product of the other side being backed by the U.S.A. wars make strange bedfellows.

I think you're a bit off here since the Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge WERE, in fact, Communists who were supported by Red China as opposed to the North Vietnamise who were backed by the Soviet Union. What you had there was a pissing contest between two rival Communist powers and their puppets.

Yes, probably a bad example re the communism angle but the Khymer Rouge did have U.S. support which was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend and I think has continued in Nicaragua which is I hope you will agree an odious regime. I am pretty sure that every movement that were trying to throw off oppression had it as their aim to replace it with Soviet oppression but sometimes I'm pretty sure that U.S. foreign policy probably drove some of these movements into the arms of the Soviets.

I'm not fond myself of propping up one brutal dictatorship in the face of a rival one. I find it distastful in the extreme. My desire would be to take down both. I would take issue with your characterization of those movements as "********ic". Installing a "dictatorship of the proletariet" is NOT ********ic ie. "one man, one vote, ONE TIME" is not a ********ic movement. Nor is mob rule, while fitting the dictionary definition of "pure democracy", fit in with our modern concepts of democracy. The unbridled passions of the armed mob are quite as oppressive as any dictatorship. There is only a change in how that oppression is decided upon. That's anarchy, and liberty and anarchy are most definately NOT compatable.
Poet[/QUOTE]

OK give me your view on the ********ically elected Salvador Allende?

[GJC]

Yes, probably a bad example re the communism angle but the Khymer Rouge did have U.S. support which was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend and I think has continued in Nicaragua which is I hope you will agree an odious regime. I am pretty sure that every movement that were trying to throw off oppression didn't have it as their aim to replace it with Soviet oppression but sometimes I'm pretty sure that U.S. foreign policy probably drove some of these movements into the arms of the Soviets.

Is what I meant to say!!!