I’m still wondering how he manages to justify saying that North Korea did not start the Korean Conflict. I mean, some of his juvenilities are pretty obviously seated in his love of being in love with the idea of being a communist; however, this last bit is beyond even that.
The same way he denies all the other stuff he denies…by willful ignorance, a belief that anything printed by the ‘western media’ (which seemingly includes just about every rational and accepted historical writer and author) is all lies and vast distortions, and a focus on how evil America is. It’s easy, really, when you take those attitudes. Same way people believe that the moon landings were a hoax or that 9/11 was really pulled off by a shadowy coalition of Jews and the Bush Administration…
-XT
Oh, yeah. I forgot he accused me of being a CTer. That was pretty comical. As another poster said, you can’t buy comedy like that.
Yep…these days you can post on the SD for free, so you don’t have to buy it! 
-XT
Except that isn’t what he does, he just uses dishonesty and trolls. Like when it’s pointed out that NK actually started the war but he claims that, well, sure NK attacked first but America was “meddling”, so really America started the war.
He’s stupid, but not stupid enough to believe that “didn’t start shooting” = “started shooting” and “started shooting” = “didn’t start shooting”.
If he’s posting, there’s a pretty decent probability that he’s trolling.
tomndebb has called him on the carpet. Seems that either he’ll just quit posting (which I don’t think he is capable of doing) or he’ll simply ignore the moderator’s instructions and thus get banned. He certainly doesn’t have the mettle to actually comply with a reasonable request. We’ve certainly not seen such an action on Commissar’s part yet.
Awwwwwww. I’m sad, I was having fun playing with the troll.
I’m still maintaining that he’s just a stupid primary school, perhaps even a stupid secondary school student who’s just plain stupid. Too stupid, in fact, to be able to realize that there really are educated folks, smart folks, and folks who are both educated and smart, who actually know what they’re talking about. It’s an odd kind of trolling. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone shows up all of a sudden either bemoaning the poor treatment Commissar’s received here or supporting him.
I’d like to see him step up respond to those who have challenged his rhetoric. It could lead to some really interesting debate here. But, like an inflatable date, there’s so much promise and so little delivery from him.
The thing that showed to me that he is a joke or a troll (not that they are exclusive) was when on the recent shootout between North and South Korea I posted a cite from Aljaseerashowing agreement with the reported actions from the western media by the belligerent forces. And although he claimed to respect the source, he still dismissed the report!
Never mind that Aljazeera HQ and reporters were threatened by the western powers for their critical reporting from Iraq and elsewhere, I guess the Commissar’s head would explode when trying to explain away the critical reports from Aljazeera to the Libyan regime that said for example that “Gaddafi has lost it ..” not yet on the ground, but his mind; and that Gaddafi is jamming the Aljazeera signal to Libya.
Man, if tom demanded that standard of argument from all posters in GD, the place would be a complete ghost town within a month.
That was my thought exactly… Asking somebody to outline their entire political theory in a single post seems somewhat unreasonable, and perhaps just a little bit unfeasible. :dubious:
Well, we’ll see how it goes. I can include more links in my posts, but I don’t see a practical way to quickly create the type of complete political manifesto that Tom seems to expect.
Shit yeah. I’d be really lonely over there. 
Most people don’t flaunt the incoherence of their ideas with such persistent obliviousness.
If you had backed up your posts with anything, it would not be asked of you now.
And, if you could, answer a previous posters question. If living under communisum is so great, why are they all trying to leave? Why are they prevented from doing so?
And do you have ANY cite that the riots in Libya are being caused by anything other than people wanting to get rid of Gaudafi so that they and there children might have a better life?
Hell, he actually claimed that because Quadaffi is bussing in and arming thugs to support him, the level of popular support and opposition to his regime is equal. It’s polling, by firepower.
He’s like some sort of derterministic social Darwinist.
You misspelled “retarded monkey-creature”.
I didn’t take tomndebb as asking for a manifesto. I think he was more looking for an explanation of why you sometimes support dictators and sometimes don’t; sometimes require actual communism and sometimes don’t; sometimes support mass murder and sometimes don’t; sometimes support people power and sometimes don’t; and accept only whatever cite is convenient, with no consistency. IOW, if the only questions in supporting a regime are, “Does the US hate them, and can I hand-wave away anything bad people say about them?”, then you should at least say so. That said, I personally think all your beliefs are knee-jerk reactions, and then you do whatever you need to in order to justify them, which would make your incoherence an honest acquisition. If that’s how you operate, though, the Dope probably isn’t for you.
I don’t think that this is a plausible interpretation of his demands. Let’s quote him directly:
“So, just to ensure that you are not a troll, you will now take the time to lay out a consistent political philosophy with an explanation of your beliefs.”
Um, that clearly seems to be a request for a complete political manifesto, applicable to me and me alone. I don’t foresee Tom ordering other posters to set forth self-contained arguments delineating their support of capitalism or representative democracy.
To answer your query (which, once again, I take to be an implausible interpretation of Tom’s strange demands): it’s a complicated world out there. Sure, humans prefer simplicity, and we would all be happier if I could give you a two-pronged test for determining what qualifies as a “good” government and what doesn’t. Unfortunately, the inherent complexity of human politics make such an oversimplified approach untenable.
To address some of your individual points:
(1) “Dictators.” - I am an autocrat, and support proper autocratic governments. Not every authoritarian government is a government worth supporting. Whereas the Colonel’s government is a beneficial one, the tyrannical Saudi regime is not. The devil, as always, in in the details. What are the economic policies? What is the foreign policy? Is international sovereignty respected? Is there a way for people to enter and leave? Etc.
(2) “Communism” - I am a realist. I would prefer that all governments were socialist autocracies. Failing that, I’ll settle for non-socialist autocracies that leave their people better off than they would be without them (think Singapore). Once, again there is no simplistic “socialist-good; capitalist-bad” test here. I’ll take Singapore’s capitalist dictatorship over the Khmer Rouge any day. But I’d rather have the PRC.
(3) “Mass murder” - that’s a loaded term. As a general rule, I am a pacifist and would prefer to see all unnecessary deaths avoided. Once again, that is not possible in our current world. Politics are dependent upon popular will, which inherently involves violence now and then. Whatever happens in Libya, it is clear that violence will be the key to the final solution. Whichever side prevails will do it by the barrel of the gun. We cannot avoid this, so we may as well accept it and move on.