Why should a hamburger flipper make the same as a highly skilled worker???

[bripat9643]

Industry is what made Britain wealthy, and it's colonies also became wealthy. Russia conquered about 1/5th of the world and it wallowed in poverty until the end of the 19th Century.

no, the colonies got looted, and when they finally could throw off the British yoke, they did.

"They did" what?

Former British colonies are poor because they follow the economic polices you endorse.

 

[bripat9643]

Left or right, extreme governments can only survive by murdering those most capable of opposing them. It gets rid of anyone smart enough to lead the opposition and scares the hell out of the rest of the population.

Pinochet's murder of the leftist leaders in the soccer stadium is a case in point: it was done in broad daylight in the capital for good reason.

The "disappearing" of those who criticized the government was also quite public. It was done to frighten people.

Chile was undergoing a civil war. Cuban mercenaries and their local allies were waging war on the government. Spies and traitors get executed during wars. Lincoln executed thousands of Americans without a trial, but I don't see any of you Lincoln worshippers whining about that.

Milton Friedman expressed regret that his perfect test case was marred but such "excesses". He failed (or refused) to realize that without such brutality, the general population would never have voted for his economic shock therapy.

The general population supported Pinochet and his actions to get rid of foreign communist and the traitor allies.

Other than the Nazis, extreme right wing governments haven't really had control of countries large enough to murder millions but the Nazis certainly did wonders in Central Europe, decimating Jewish, gypsy and others they deemed "undesirable".

The Nazis weren't right-wing. They were socialists. Only socialism gives government enough control over the population to conduct wholesale murder. That's the real reason you never find so-called "right-wing" governments that engage in it.

Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah of Iran, the Somoza Family in Nicaragua, all supported by American governments, were brutally repressive.

They were amateurs compared to Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot.

The whole reason why Iran hates the U.S. today can be summed up in 4 words; the Shah of Iran.

The real reason is Islamic extremism.

So far as the U.S. Was concerned, better dead than red was no joke. They supported every right wing tinpot dictator out there as long as he rejected communism.

Better dead than red isn't a joke. Once the reds get control, lots of people end up dead. The rest go to the Gulag.

 

[bripat9643]

Left or right, extreme governments can only survive by murdering those most capable of opposing them. It gets rid of anyone smart enough to lead the opposition and scares the hell out of the rest of the population.

Pinochet's murder of the leftist leaders in the soccer stadium is a case in point: it was done in broad daylight in the capital for good reason.

The "disappearing" of those who criticized the government was also quite public. It was done to frighten people.

Milton Friedman expressed regret that his perfect test case was marred but such "excesses". He failed (or refused) to realize that without such brutality, the general population would never have voted for his economic shock therapy.

Other than the Nazis, extreme right wing governments haven't really had control of countries large enough to murder millions but the Nazis certainly did wonders in Central Europe, decimating Jewish, gypsy and others they deemed "undesirable".

Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah of Iran, the Somoza Family in Nicaragua, all supported by American governments, were brutally repressive.

The whole reason why Iran hates the U.S. today can be summed up in 4 words; the Shah of Iran.

So far as the U.S. Was concerned, better dead than red was no joke. They supported every right wing tinpot dictator out there as long as he rejected communism.

Are you aware of what commies did where they were in power? I'm sure you are. But regardless, you're still rooting for reds. No wonder why...

She lives in a dream world where Cuban mercenaries are the good guys.

 

[JoeB131]

Allende received 36% of the vote, a bare plurality. Under Chilean law, Congress (who had the final say) were not required to elect Allende President with only a plurality. Nevertheless, Congress had not previously challenged a plurality, and moderate Christian Democratic deputies were not ready to start now. Congress elected Allende on conditions (Oct 1970), the most important of which turned out to be the Army's autonomy

And they got decades of military dictatorship and thousands of citizens murdered. This by you is a good thing?

 

[JoeB131]

Chile was undergoing a civil war. Cuban mercenaries and their local allies were waging war on the government. Spies and traitors get executed during wars. Lincoln executed thousands of Americans without a trial, but I don't see any of you Lincoln worshippers whining about that.

well, no, because it wasn't true. Lincoln didn't execute thousands of people. Nor were there Cuban mercenaries.

The general population supported Pinochet and his actions to get rid of foreign communist and the traitor allies.

Okay, you've gone off into crazy town now.

 

[JoeB131]

"They did" what?

Former British colonies are poor because they follow the economic polices you endorse.

No, they are poor because the British looted them of anything of value.

 

[bripat9643]

Left or right, extreme governments can only survive by murdering those most capable of opposing them. It gets rid of anyone smart enough to lead the opposition and scares the hell out of the rest of the population.

Pinochet's murder of the leftist leaders in the soccer stadium is a case in point: it was done in broad daylight in the capital for good reason.

The "disappearing" of those who criticized the government was also quite public. It was done to frighten people.

Milton Friedman expressed regret that his perfect test case was marred but such "excesses". He failed (or refused) to realize that without such brutality, the general population would never have voted for his economic shock therapy.

Other than the Nazis, extreme right wing governments haven't really had control of countries large enough to murder millions but the Nazis certainly did wonders in Central Europe, decimating Jewish, gypsy and others they deemed "undesirable".

Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah of Iran, the Somoza Family in Nicaragua, all supported by American governments, were brutally repressive.

The whole reason why Iran hates the U.S. today can be summed up in 4 words; the Shah of Iran.

So far as the U.S. Was concerned, better dead than red was no joke. They supported every right wing tinpot dictator out there as long as he rejected communism.

Are you aware of what commies did where they were in power? I'm sure you are. But regardless, you're still rooting for reds. No wonder why...

The facts about the "democrat" Allende:

Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/allende-leftist-martyr-myth/​

President, 1970–1973
In 1970, Chile had very close elections, with a three-way split: Allende received 36.2% of the vote, Alessandri (National Party) 34.9% and Tomic (Christian Democratic Party) 27.8%. The Chilean Congress then had to choose between the first two. The Christian Democrats agreed to support Allende in return for his agreement to the “Statute of Democratic Guarantees”, which meant that large changes required approval by Congress, and the military must remain politically neutral. However, Allende admitted to the French communist writer Regis Debray that his agreement was just “a tactical necessity” to gain power, never intending to honor it.

Instead, Allende embarked upon radical changes. He formed his own personal armed gang, the G.A.P. (Grupo de amigos personales, Group of Personal Friends), and started taking over buildings, factories, mines, and banking. His goons took over almost 6,000 farms, putting 60% of arable land under the control of Marxist buffoons, who could only plant 30% of it. Congress protested, and the courts also ruled against his gangster government seizures. But Allende ignored or violated over 7,000 court rulings, including a unanimous Supreme Court resolution. He was following the playbook of his close friend, Cuban despot Fidel Castro, who supplied agents, arms and propaganda.

The results of this socialist stupidity should surprise no one. Allende inherited a budget surplus of over U.S.$343 million, but left it with a deficit of more than $300 million. Manufacturing and agriculture declined precipitously, shortages were rampant, and inflation averaged 300%.​

 

[bripat9643]

Chile was undergoing a civil war. Cuban mercenaries and their local allies were waging war on the government. Spies and traitors get executed during wars. Lincoln executed thousands of Americans without a trial, but I don't see any of you Lincoln worshippers whining about that.

well, no, because it wasn't true. Lincoln didn't execute thousands of people. Nor were there Cuban mercenaries.

The general population supported Pinochet and his actions to get rid of foreign communist and the traitor allies.

Okay, you've gone off into crazy town now.

Yes, actually, Lincoln did execute thousands of people. Furthermore, he put thousands of people into his own personal gulag. He shut down 300 hundred news papers and arrested their editors.

And there were plenty of Cuban mercenaries in Chile. Allende invited them in so he could slaughter his critics and turn the country into a Soviet client state.

General Augusto Pinochet in Perspective

Salvador Allende and his Marxist-Socialist coalition party "Unidad Popular", employing massive electoral fraud and with financial backing from the Soviet Union, barely succeeded in obtaining a plurality of 36 per cent in Chile's 1970 presidential elections.

· With an army of some 14,000 foreign Communists, Allende began to transform Chile into a totalitarian dictatorship.

· Allende's administration was thoroughly packed with Cubans, Soviets, and other international Communists.

· In short order, the Allende forces had depleted the treasury, destroyed the economy, illegally expropriated thousands of private farms, homes, and businesses and unleashed a wave of terror.

· Chile's judiciary and legislature, as well as prominent leaders of all sectors of Chilean society, repeatedly condemned Allende's actions and called upon the military to intervene.

· The Pinochet-led coup was supported overwhelmingly by the Chilean people, who also voted to approve the new constitution offered by the junta.

· Documents and arms captured when Allende was overthrow, on 11 September 1973, proved that Allende was planning to stage his own coup on 19 September, and to kill large numbers of his opponents. ​

 

[bripat9643]

Allende received 36% of the vote, a bare plurality. Under Chilean law, Congress (who had the final say) were not required to elect Allende President with only a plurality. Nevertheless, Congress had not previously challenged a plurality, and moderate Christian Democratic deputies were not ready to start now. Congress elected Allende on conditions (Oct 1970), the most important of which turned out to be the Army's autonomy

And they got decades of military dictatorship and thousands of citizens murdered. This by you is a good thing?

Traitor commies were executed. That is a good thing.

 

[Ame®icano]

"They did" what?

Former British colonies are poor because they follow the economic polices you endorse.

No, they are poor because the British looted them of anything of value.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, so poor because of British imperialism...

 

[Dragonlady]

Chile was undergoing a civil war. Cuban mercenaries and their local allies were waging war on the government. Spies and traitors get executed during wars. Lincoln executed thousands of Americans without a trial, but I don't see any of you Lincoln worshippers whining about that.

well, no, because it wasn't true. Lincoln didn't execute thousands of people. Nor were there Cuban mercenaries.

The general population supported Pinochet and his actions to get rid of foreign communist and the traitor allies.

Okay, you've gone off into crazy town now.

Yes, actually, Lincoln did execute thousands of people. Furthermore, he put thousands of people into his own personal gulag. He shut down 300 hundred news papers and arrested their editors.

And there were plenty of Cuban mercenaries in Chile. Allende invited them in so he could slaughter his critics and turn the country into a Soviet client state.

General Augusto Pinochet in Perspective

Salvador Allende and his Marxist-Socialist coalition party "Unidad Popular", employing massive electoral fraud and with financial backing from the Soviet Union, barely succeeded in obtaining a plurality of 36 per cent in Chile's 1970 presidential elections.

· With an army of some 14,000 foreign Communists, Allende began to transform Chile into a totalitarian dictatorship.

· Allende's administration was thoroughly packed with Cubans, Soviets, and other international Communists.

· In short order, the Allende forces had depleted the treasury, destroyed the economy, illegally expropriated thousands of private farms, homes, and businesses and unleashed a wave of terror.

· Chile's judiciary and legislature, as well as prominent leaders of all sectors of Chilean society, repeatedly condemned Allende's actions and called upon the military to intervene.

· The Pinochet-led coup was supported overwhelmingly by the Chilean people, who also voted to approve the new constitution offered by the junta.

· Documents and arms captured when Allende was overthrow, on 11 September 1973, proved that Allende was planning to stage his own coup on 19 September, and to kill large numbers of his opponents. ​

Your article was written by a John Birch Society staffer. Those loons saw commies under every bed. This article parrots the lies fed to Congress by the CIA, whose accounts were widely discredited by every independent source of the day.

Allende was a leftist, and was most certainly being courted by Moscow, but suggestions that he had an army of Cubans and was preparing to massacre his people have been completely refuted.

I've been a political junkie since I was in my teens and remember well what happened in South America during this time frame. It was violent and it was brutal and the entire continent suffered. People risked their lives just asking what happened to their loved ones. The most courageous of these were the Argentinian grandmothers who were raising their grandchildren after their parents were "disappeared". The grandmothers appeared silent in public squares to ask what had happened to their children.

For God's sake man, check your sources, read everything out there. Stop pretending that right wingers are benevolent leaders keeping their people safe. They're not,.

And Nazis were most definitely right wingers. The reason Hilter was tolerated and appeased by England, France and other European counties was that he hated communism. I realize that you on the right don't want to acknowledge that he was one of you, but the bald fact is that Hilter was a rightwing extremist.

 

[Dragonlady]

"They did" what?

Former British colonies are poor because they follow the economic polices you endorse.

No, they are poor because the British looted them of anything of value.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, so poor because of British imperialism...

Canada declared its independence from Britain in 1867. New Zealand declared independence in 1835. Canada, New Zealand and Australia didn't have large populations to exploit.

India, Burma, Egypt, St. Kitts, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, and Hong Kong. Hong Kong is the only colony that it can reasonably be said was made wealthy by the British, and it was more it being the major trade link between east and west that made it such a success.

 

[Ame®icano]

Your article was written by a John Birch Society staffer. Those loons saw commies under every bed. This article parrots the lies fed to Congress by the CIA, whose accounts were widely discredited by every independent source of the day.

Allende was a leftist, and was most certainly being courted by Moscow, but suggestions that he had an army of Cubans and was preparing to massacre his people have been completely refuted.

So you reject article because it was written by John Birch Society staffer, regardless if article was true or not. OK, then you wont have problem accepting the facts that came from source itself. I mentioned earlier Mitrokhin archives that support in details all that KGB was doing in that time period in Chile and elsewhere. Just don't say you know more about what KGB did there then KGB themselves.

I've been a political junkie since I was in my teens and remember well what happened in South America during this time frame. It was violent and it was brutal and the entire continent suffered. People risked their lives just asking what happened to their loved ones. The most courageous of these were the Argentinian grandmothers who were raising their grandchildren after their parents were "disappeared". The grandmothers appeared silent in public squares to ask what had happened to their children.

You for sure remember a lot that happened. Even more that didn't.
Btw, what's courageous about staying silent?

For God's sake man, check your sources, read everything out there. Stop pretending that right wingers are benevolent leaders keeping their people safe. They're not,.

And Nazis were most definitely right wingers. The reason Hilter was tolerated and appeased by England, France and other European counties was that he hated communism. I realize that you on the right don't want to acknowledge that he was one of you, but the bald fact is that Hilter was a rightwing extremist.

 

[Marxist]

Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.

Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.

You need to study history and economics.

It's hard to get facts into your thick head. Under Pinochet, Chile was controlled by military. You keep talking about capitalism and there wasn't. It was necessity to prevent communist from taking power. It happened in Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru... and they all pretty much ended up military rule and returned to democracy and constitutional republics.

Communism from taking power? So, we can't let other countries decide what to do democratically if we don't agree with it?

 

[bripat9643]

Allende received 36% of the vote, a bare plurality. Under Chilean law, Congress (who had the final say) were not required to elect Allende President with only a plurality. Nevertheless, Congress had not previously challenged a plurality, and moderate Christian Democratic deputies were not ready to start now. Congress elected Allende on conditions (Oct 1970), the most important of which turned out to be the Army's autonomy

And they got decades of military dictatorship and thousands of citizens murdered. This by you is a good thing?

They would have got far worse under Allende: gulags, block wardens, mass executions and crushing poverty, possibly even mass starvation. Most citizens wouldn't even notice they were under a dictatorship. Hell, we're under a dictatorship now, and turds like you love it.

The so-called "citizens" were traitors to their country who were assisting a foreign invader to take over their country.

 

[Marxist]

You completely ignoring the part when the poor suffer when the bubble bursts, as shown throughout history.
1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - History, you little idiot.
http://chilepd7.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18866608/3547659_orig.jpg - Doesn't look "wealthy" to your capitalist standard you moan all day about.
The welfare state? Tell me all about nordic countries.

As for your picture, what is that supposed to prove? I could go to Detroit and take thousands of pictures that make that place look like paradise.

Here are some pics of the socialist paradise called Cuba:

Venezuela:

Yes, and they're not even socialist, but let's ignore what they were like before this. Show me chile's housing again, for the poor people, not the wealthy.

Yeah, I know, whenever the socialism is put into practice and the results are too obvious to ignore, it's not "real socialism."

But socialism has been put into practice. It has worked, and wonderfully, you can refer to my signature for something I've repeated 50 times already that no one wants to look at. Oh yeah? The results when compared to the past are still an improvement, but I won't lie and say it's socialism, tell me the definition again?

All your examples are short lived, lasting little more than a year. Why is that? I haven't studied any of them, but I'm sure upon further investigation I'll find that these examples all collapsed because the members were starving to death.

The definition of socialism is "government control of the means of production." Any other claims are bullshit. The term "socialist anarchy" is an oxymoron.

A little more then a year? More proof you don't look into anything. Wait, the definition of socialism?

1. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Your bullshit is really irritating me, even your fellow comrades are turning against your lies.
The members were starving to death???? LOL, THEY COLLAPSED DUE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST THEM.

 

[Marxist]

Allende received 36% of the vote, a bare plurality. Under Chilean law, Congress (who had the final say) were not required to elect Allende President with only a plurality. Nevertheless, Congress had not previously challenged a plurality, and moderate Christian Democratic deputies were not ready to start now. Congress elected Allende on conditions (Oct 1970), the most important of which turned out to be the Army's autonomy

And they got decades of military dictatorship and thousands of citizens murdered. This by you is a good thing?

They would have got far worse under Allende: gulags, block wardens, mass executions and crushing poverty, possibly even mass starvation. Most citizens wouldn't even notice they were under a dictatorship. Hell, we're under a dictatorship now, and turds like you love it.

The so-called "citizens" were traitors to their country who were assisting a foreign invader to take over their country.

You keep bringing up bullshit that you know would not happen. Gulags? Mass executions? Utter bullshit, you know nothing about Allende, and you always bitch about communists being apologetic to lenin or whatever, look at what you're doing.

 

[Marxist]

History isn't propaganda.

True, but you read the later, not the former.

Are you telling me america never put in place a psychopatic dictator in chile who slaughtered his own people? That batista was better off then castro?

The United States had nothing to do with putting Pinochet in power, and he was hardly a psychopath. He was a true patriot who saved his country from communist scum like you.

The people of Cuba were most definitely better off than they are under the Castro regime. Just ask any Cuban living in Florida.

Pinochet was a psychopath.

And yes, we did help him gain power.

Chile is an economic success story - especially when you compare it to Cuba, as both were roughly about as wealthy as each other in 1960. But whitewashing history doesn't help your argument.

If you have any evidence aside from your opinion that Pinochet was a psychopath, please post it. I'm interested in seeing it.

And, no, the U.S. government did nothing to help Pinochet gain power. That's a left-wing myth. during the election where Allende was elected the CIA gave some of the opposition parties assistance with their campaigns. That's the extent of U.S. involvement.

Before Castro came to power, Cuba was the wealthiest country in Latin America.

Among the most infamous methods of murder involved Pinochet's henchmen dropping pregnant women out of aeroplanes. He believed this was a way of avenging soldiers killed by Allende's supporters. He was quoted to have said "If you kill the bitch, you kill off the offspring."[23]

Sounds like a fucking psychopath to me.

 

[Ame®icano]

Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.

Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.

You need to study history and economics.

It's hard to get facts into your thick head. Under Pinochet, Chile was controlled by military. You keep talking about capitalism and there wasn't. It was necessity to prevent communist from taking power. It happened in Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru... and they all pretty much ended up military rule and returned to democracy and constitutional republics.

Communism from taking power? So, we can't let other countries decide what to do democratically if we don't agree with it?

They did it themselves. Their own military stepped in to prevent countries being destroyed by commies and ending up like Cuba. Btw, Castro is pure example of getting in power democratic way.

 

[Marxist]

Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.

Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.

You need to study history and economics.

It's hard to get facts into your thick head. Under Pinochet, Chile was controlled by military. You keep talking about capitalism and there wasn't. It was necessity to prevent communist from taking power. It happened in Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru... and they all pretty much ended up military rule and returned to democracy and constitutional republics.

Communism from taking power? So, we can't let other countries decide what to do democratically if we don't agree with it?

They did it themselves. Their own military stepped in to prevent countries being destroyed by commies and ending up like Cuba. Btw, Castro is pure example of getting in power democratic way.

Really? Tell me more about our role in stopping the vietnam elections when we knew Ho chi would get the people's support.