View Full Version : (POLL)Alexis Arguello Or Floyd Mayweather, who is the greater fighter?


Boxing_12
09-25-2009, 03:27 PM
Vote and discuss
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MskyGZGLQMI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MskyGZGLQMI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1Cs0t6Cxs9Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1Cs0t6Cxs9Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Obama
09-25-2009, 03:38 PM
Floyd, but he's got more legacy to build to erase any doubt. It's only a matter of another 3-4 fights or so to seal the deal once and for all.

BigMacFoster
09-25-2009, 03:39 PM
130? Mayweather
p4p? Mayweather

And give it up St.Lion.Start using your real account you ole silly joker you.

Floyd, but he's got more legacy to build to erase any doubt. It's only a matter of another 3-4 fights or so to seal the deal once and for all.


Yawza,jOLLY JEE JIMIKINS MR GODSMITH,I BELIEVE WE HAVE A DOWTer AND A HATER,WHAT SHOULD WE DO DR ZEUS?

KILL HIM? CUT HIM? SLASH HIS TYRES?

NO! WE WAIT.

Obama
09-25-2009, 03:48 PM
Yawza,jOLLY JEE JIMIKINS MR GODSMITH,I BELIEVE WE HAVE A DOWTer AND A HATER,WHAT SHOULD WE DO DR ZEUS?

KILL HIM? CUT HIM? SLASH HIS TYRES?

NO! WE WAIT.

Maybe you meant to type your own name when you called St. Lion a silly joker.

Benncollinsaad
09-25-2009, 03:56 PM
Arguello was a Contras-supporter, therefore I can never like him.;)

BigMacFoster
09-25-2009, 03:57 PM
Give me a break Dunce.I could care less what you and your boyz up in phillay think.

Benncollinsaad
09-25-2009, 04:00 PM
Give me a break Dunce.I could care less what you and your boyz up in phillay think.

Phillay??What are you on...about?

BigMacFoster
09-25-2009, 04:06 PM
Seeing as you changed your avatar yet again,I see no reason as to why you could not use the one that I suggested,It's simple yet effective,very much like you apart from being effective.

http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/no-****-sherlock.jpg


Most importantly,speak when spoken to............you stupid prick.

Benncollinsaad
09-25-2009, 04:49 PM
Seeing as you changed your avatar yet again,I see no reason as to why you could not use the one that I suggested,It's simple yet effective,very much like you apart from being effective.

http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/no-****-sherlock.jpg


Most importantly,speak when spoken to............you stupid prick.

I got news for you chump-I'm not the only one who changes avatars! Many others do. Most people here change there avatar in fact, some more regularly than others. You really are stupid.:nonono:

RightCross94
09-25-2009, 07:26 PM
Alexis is greater historically as of now. But head to head I think Floyd would beat him.

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 09:45 AM
Arguello was a Contras-supporter, therefore I can never like him.;)

Being against Communists is a point in his favor.

Poet

Benncollinsaad
09-26-2009, 10:13 AM
Being against Communists is a point in his favor.

Poet

You know who Contras where?? They were pro-fascists!

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 11:15 AM
You know who Contras where?? They were pro-fascists!

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

Benncollinsaad
09-26-2009, 11:21 AM
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

Maybe because anti-communists most often ARE just that.:rolleyes:

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 11:47 AM
Maybe because anti-communists most often ARE just that.:rolleyes:

Not unless they voted for Benito Mussolini. Sorry bub: Your lot doesn't get to rewrite the dictionary to suit your Soviet puppet masters. You've clearly been inbibing too much Red propoganda and it's warped you little mind.

Poet

BigMacFoster
09-26-2009, 12:05 PM
The Contra's were simply freedom fighters,Very much like that of the Angolan Anti-Communist freedom fighter Group UNITA,Very much like that of that ANTI-Communist islamic militant group Mujahideen.

In truth Al-Qaeda are also freedom fighters.....just set about in the wrong time,Throw them back twenty five years and they are brave,noble men.

Benncollinsaad
09-26-2009, 12:31 PM
Not unless they voted for Benito Mussolini. Sorry bub: Your lot doesn't get to rewrite the dictionary to suit your Soviet puppet masters. You've clearly been inbibing too much Red propoganda and it's warped you little mind.

Poet

Eat **** you idiot, you have no clue where I am coming from, if you did you wouldn't call me a Soviet puppet! I am from Yugoslavia, the only "eastern" country that was outside Soviet's grasp!

Thing is, guys like you and that princemanfoster over there, you know **** about communism, the REAL communism. All you know is Soviet type communism and even that isn't much!

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 12:57 PM
Eat **** you idiot, you have no clue where I am coming from, if you did you wouldn't call me a Soviet puppet! I am from Yugoslavia, the only "eastern" country that was outside Soviet's grasp!

And still Communist regardless of whether Tito got along with Stalin or not you pathetic twat. Reds are all the same whether they're from Russia, Serbia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Albania, El Salvador, ect. ect. ect. All mass-murdering pigs sucking on the same ideological teet.

Poet

Benncollinsaad
09-26-2009, 01:05 PM
And still Communist regardless of whether Tito got along with Stalin or not you pathetic twat. Reds are all the same whether they're from Russia, Serbia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Albania, El Salvador, ect. ect. ect. All mass-murdering pigs sucking on the same ideological teet.

Poet

What'd I say? Anti-communists don't see any difference between a Soviet commie or a Yugo commie, all that matters to them is that they are red. "If you see red, kill it!" You represent that side well.

There's a big difference between being a non-communist and being an ANTI-communists. The former I respect. The latter I think are garbage.

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 01:14 PM
What'd I say? Anti-communists don't see any difference between a Soviet commie or a Yugo commie, all that matters to them is that they are red. "If you see red, kill it!" You represent that side well.

There's a big difference between being a non-communist and being an ANTI-communists. The former I respect. The latter I think are garbage.

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

Benncollinsaad
09-26-2009, 01:17 PM
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.

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 01:35 PM
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
09-26-2009, 01:42 PM
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.:D 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.

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 01:57 PM
Gee, how deep.:D 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.

:twak: 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 stupid 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
09-26-2009, 01:58 PM
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

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

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
09-26-2009, 02:16 PM
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
09-26-2009, 03:09 PM
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 democratic albeit left leaning movement is not for me.

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 03:52 PM
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 democratic 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 "democratic". Installing a "dictatorship of the proletariet" is NOT democratic ie. "one man, one vote, ONE TIME" is not a democratic 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
09-26-2009, 04:09 PM
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 "democratic". Installing a "dictatorship of the proletariet" is NOT democratic ie. "one man, one vote, ONE TIME" is not a democratic 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 democratically elected Salvador Allende? :)

GJC
09-26-2009, 04:11 PM
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!!!

Obama
09-26-2009, 04:14 PM
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.

Could have sworn DLH was #3 JMW at the time. Anyways, not a massive difference in the level of talent they beat at 135 and 130, but Arguello's list is better over all. Problem is, Arguello also lost at 135.

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 04:29 PM
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?

Communist = a Socialist with a Gulag and a Killing Field. Either way they derive from the same collectivist ideology of Marx that deprives the individual of his liberty and makes him a slave of the state in the name of the collective.


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.

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 agree the Batiste regime in Nicaragua deplorable and had to go but NOT to be replaced by the Sandinistas who, in fact, were worse.


OK give me your view on the democratically elected Salvador Allende? :)

He's a Communist dictator pure and simple. As I said before, the principle of "one man, one vote, ONE TIME" doesn't cut it with me. This is a case of oppressive mob rule empowering the oppressive rule of a Marxist dictator undoubtably with any subsequent "elections" rigged (as you see in Venezuela) to ensure the mob doesn't rectify their error.

Poet

Benncollinsaad
09-26-2009, 04:42 PM
Communist = a Socialist with a Gulag and a Killing Field. Either way they derive from the same collectivist ideology of Marx that deprives the individual of his liberty and makes him a slave of the state in the name of the collective.




I agree the Batiste regime in Nicaragua deplorable and had to go but NOT to be replaced by the Sandinistas who, in fact, were worse.




He's a Communist dictator pure and simple. As I said before, the principle of "one man, one vote, ONE TIME" doesn't cut it with me. This is a case of oppressive mob rule empowering the oppressive rule of a Marxist dictator undoubtably with any subsequent "elections" rigged (as you see in Venezuela) to ensure the mob doesn't rectify their error.

Poet

Too bad Pinochet never got to meet you before he died. You'd make a fine junta man. Its clear to me now that you are a Bush-like extreme righty. Cuba is a communist country, but they are not dictatorship. Fidel is a much better president than any of your presidents, save JFK, Clinton and Carter. And maybe Obama. You can't stand having a communist country so close to you. So you try to paint a black picture about Cuba. Your fooking media only shows Cuba's worst sides. Not to mention the right wing Cuban scum in Florida and their activities. But some famous Americans like Jack Nicholson, Ry Cooder, Oliver Stone and Ted Turner even have all spoken warmly of Cuba and Fidel's leadership. It must hurt.

Also, Benicio Del Toro, a Puerto Rican, has made a movie about Che Guevara. Errol Flynn was an another admirer of the revolutionaries.

GJC
09-26-2009, 04:51 PM
Communist = a Socialist with a Gulag and a Killing Field. Either way they derive from the same collectivist ideology of Marx that deprives the individual of his liberty and makes him a slave of the state in the name of the collective.


Poet that genrealisation would do Joe McCarthy proud, you are better than that.


I agree the Batiste regime in Nicaragua deplorable and had to go but NOT to be replaced by the Sandinistas who, in fact, were worse.
[/QUOTE]
Well the Contra's are also awful.
Given that your main argument against Communism seems to be the inevitable dictatorship that follows you surely can't support the Contra's?
Nicaragua seems to be a case of pick your favourite dictatorship.


He's a Communist dictator pure and simple. As I said before, the principle of "one man, one vote, ONE TIME" doesn't cut it with me. This is a case of oppressive mob rule empowering the oppressive rule of a Marxist dictator undoubtably with any subsequent "elections" rigged (as you see in Venezuela) to ensure the mob doesn't rectify their error.

Poet[/QUOTE]
There was little evidence that he was going to abolish elections but very little evidence that Pinochet was going to call any. As I said I'm not a fan of communists but I would pick a democratic communist over a Facist dictator.

GJC
09-26-2009, 04:56 PM
Cuba is a communist country, but they are not dictatorship. Fidel is a much better president than any of your presidents, save JFK, Clinton and Carter. And maybe Obama. You can't stand having a communist country so close to you. So you try to paint a black picture about Cuba. Your fooking media only shows Cuba's worst sides. Not to mention the right wing Cuban scum in Florida and their activities.
Also, Benicio Del Toro, a Puerto Rican, has made a movie about Che Guevara. Errol Flynn was an another admirer of the revolutionaries.

Benn,
Fidel hasn't called too many elections in 50 years though?
I would probably say he was a minute improvement on the corrupt Batista but the Cubans deserve better than both.
Guevara made for a nice T shirt but he had anm awful lot of blood on his hands my friend.

Benncollinsaad
09-26-2009, 05:01 PM
Benn,
Fidel hasn't called too many elections in 50 years though?
I would probably say he was a minute improvement on the corrupt Batista but the Cubans deserve better than both.
Guevara made for a nice T shirt but he had anm awful lot of blood on his hands my friend.
Yes, but whose blood?? Batista soldiers and those Bolivian pro-fascist soldiers blood, yes. Don't take that movie "Lost City" seriously. It's all anti-communist US Cuban propaganda. Che never let anybody get executed unless it was completely necessary. And how much blood does Tony Blair or GW Bush have on their hands??

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 05:08 PM
Too bad Pinochet never got to meet you before he died. You'd make a fine junta man.

I have no use for Pinochet either.


Its clear to me now that you are a Bush-like extreme righty.

Wrong again! I'm a Liberterian who has no use for EITHER entrenched political party.


Cuba is a communist country, but they are not dictatorship.

:haha: Smoking weed again? By their own admission they are a dictatorship of the proletariet. What part of that did you miss in between bong hits?


Fidel is a much better president than any of your presidents, save JFK, Clinton and Carter. And maybe Obama. You can't stand having a communist country so close to you. So you try to paint a black picture about Cuba. Your fooking media only shows Cuba's worst sides. Not to mention the right wing Cuban scum in Florida and their activities.

Considering this statement comes from a Yugoslav Commy it's hardly worth cyber-ink it's written with.


But some famous Americans like Jack Nicholson, Ry Cooder, Oliver Stone and Ted Turner even have all spoken warmly of Cuba and Fidel's leadership. It must hurt.

Also, Benicio Del Toro, a Puerto Rican, has made a movie about Che Guevara. Errol Flynn was an another admirer of the revolutionaries.

Some Americans are also well known as being fellow travellors who never met a brutal Communist dictator they didn't slobber over. All that proves is some Americans are suckers for Communist propaganda or are otherwise true believers themselves. They have been a number of famous Americans who were also Communists and I consider them insidious slime as well. You can include Michael Moore in that latter catagory.

Poet

GJC
09-26-2009, 05:12 PM
Yes, but whose blood?? Batista soldiers and those Bolivian pro-fascist soldiers blood, yes. Don't take that movie "Lost City" seriously. It's all anti-communist US Cuban propaganda. Che never let anybody get executed unless it was completely necessary. And how much blood does Tony Blair or GW Bush have on their hands??

I didn't mean in battle I meant when he was put in charge of the "tidying up" after the Cuban revolution.>
Whether or not the people who were executed deserved it there was little due process.
Re Bush and Blair, probably a fair point but a different argument for a different day?

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 05:15 PM
Poet that genrealisation would do Joe McCarthy proud, you are better than that.

The point is, I'm opposed to the underlying ideology whether it comes equipped labor camps and massacres or not.


Well the Contra's are also awful.
Given that your main argument against Communism seems to be the inevitable dictatorship that follows you surely can't support the Contra's?
Nicaragua seems to be a case of pick your favourite dictatorship.

The fall of the Sandinistas wasn't followed by a dictorship though. It was followed by an inept republic that dropped the ball.


There was little evidence that he was going to abolish elections but very little evidence that Pinochet was going to call any. As I said I'm not a fan of communists but I would pick a democratic communist over a Facist dictator.

I reject both. If a majority voted to have you burned at the stake would that make it any less evil?

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 05:18 PM
I didn't mean in battle I meant when he was put in charge of the "tidying up" after the Cuban revolution.>
Whether or not the people who were executed deserved it there was little due process.
Re Bush and Blair, probably a fair point but a different argument for a different day?

Usually their crime was to be a "class enemy" or they resisted forced collectivization. THAT'S the "necessary executions" he's defending. When the individual has no rights that's the inevitable result.

Poet

GJC
09-26-2009, 05:33 PM
The point is, I'm opposed to the underlying ideology whether it comes equipped labor camps and massacres or not.

Sure well thats a matter of political taste but it is a bit strong to lump democratic socialism and the extreme of Soviet Communism together.
I'm taking a real stab in the dark and putting you at right of centre here :) but I wouldn't label you a fascist because of that.

I reject both. If a majority voted to have you burned at the stake would that make it any less evil?

Poet[/QUOTE]
No, but it would be democratic I guess :)
Back at you though just because an odious regime is anti communist does it put it on the side of the angels?

Oh and fellow travellers is a hell of an emotive term to use, surely you don't think that McCarthy was anything other than a rabble rousing opportunistic half wit?

Ziggy Stardust
09-26-2009, 05:55 PM
Sure well thats a matter of political taste but it is a bit strong to lump democratic socialism and the extreme of Soviet Communism together.

I'm taking a real stab in the dark and putting you at right of centre here :) but I wouldn't label you a fascist because of that.

Not really, what I am is a Liberterian which essentially makes me anti-authoritarian. I don't believe anybody, either collectively or individually, has the right to tell another individual what to do or not to do if they are not directly harming someone else ie. murdering or raping for example.


No, but it would be democratic I guess :)
Back at you though just because an odious regime is anti communist does it put it on the side of the angels?

I would not. As I stated before I have no use for the Batistes and Pinochets of the world either. I find that sort of thing distastful in the extreme.


Oh and fellow travellers is a hell of an emotive term to use, surely you don't think that McCarthy was anything other than a rabble rousing opportunistic half wit?

It's an accurate term that wasn't coined by McCarthy. As for McCarthy himself, he was a baffoon who did more to HELP the cause of international Communism with his demogogic antics. It gave Communists an enormous crutch in that from his time on any time someone opposed Communism they could just scream "McCarthyism!" and put their opponents on the defensive. McCarthy wasn't concerned about Communism he was concerned about his own personal bid for power and simply used anti-Communism as a vehicle. Were there Communists inside the US governement selling the country out to the Soviets? Sure! The final proof came when the KGB archives where open which revealed the true extent of Soviet infiltration. McCarthy certainly didn't do a damn thing address the issue with his public spectacles not to mention that his tactics tip-toed perilously close to despotism themselves. They did far more harm than good and as far as I'm concerned Joe McCarthy can rot in hell.

Poet

Poet

BigMacFoster
09-26-2009, 06:08 PM
OK give me your view on the democratically elected Salvador Allende? :)

Or the democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq,Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán,Patrice Lumumba

JC Warrior
09-27-2009, 02:01 AM
Arguello but not because of talent alone. A great fighter finds an opponent who will bring the best out of them and fights them in such a way that makes it an ATG fight. Not just in terms of talent, but also in terms that makes people talk about it for years to come, regardless of era or contemporaries.

What comes to mind is of course versus Pryor. In the case of Ali, fighting Frazier elevated him from one of the greatest to "the Greatest". Duran & Leonard, Hearns & Hagler, Prime & Megatron, Balboa & Creed, etc.