And now that you had to explain that, the jig is up. Unless, of course, we just went back to our definition of troll that didn’t require proof of sincerity. The guy is here to stir crap up, so he’s a troll.
Also, Hero: If you are posting in a thread about him, you are feeding him, too. Heck, you seem more upset than a lot of the other people in this thread. A good troll doesn’t care what specifically makes you upset, just that he’s gotten you angry.
No, it’s not likely other posters are going to be asked to do the same. After all you’re the one going out of his way to provoke people. The request remains in force and the longer you ignore it, the more you’re going to convince the staff you’re trolling.
Addressing the many contradictions would also be a good place to start, like lauding a man like Gadaffi who stifles the education and health care of his own people and uses millions of dollars for his children to visit European pleasure palaces while more than a quarter of young people in his nation are unemployed and sponsors terrorism abroad…
While Commissar is trolling about how his ‘preferred dictator’ gives his people health care and takes care of their economic needs and education and doesn’t use military force in acts of aggression and so on.
Aside from central government planning of the economy, nothing that Gaddafi does qualifies as socialism. He is a tin pot dictator of the Duvalier-Battista-Hussein mold, running the country for the benefit of himself and his family.
His “pan-Arab” and “pan-African” claims were little more than propaganda used to try to get support for his regime in the 1970s and early 1980s and he has not used any of his country’s oil wealth or even his bully pulpit to actually promote those goals in any concete way in the last 25+ years.
You support the suppression of people through violence to promote your own wealth? 
At any rate, even if you claim this is some sort of declaration of your overall political views, (which I find less than plausible), my specific instructions to you were not limited to that point. You can choose to behave in a more straightforward manner in your Gaddafi thread or I will be forced to withdraw my limited defense that you might not be a troll in continuing staff discussions.
But none of those things are actually happening, it’s all western propaganda, don’t you know…
Anyway, I guess it’s true that if one hangs out here long enough, one will see every concievable political position, no matter how bizarre or extreme, such as a guy who is in favor of unelected strong-man dictatorships, as long as they can figure out a way to call themselves ‘socialist’…
Commissar, you do understand that you are likely to have a hard time convincing anyone other than yourself that such a position is in their own best interest, right?
Hey, all’s not lost for Commissar. After all, the UN Security Council has referred Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court for investigation of war crimes. Commissar can be a character witness!
Communism is for the masses, not the leaders.
But even his beloved PRC voted against Libya. :eek:
The question for Commissar is “Why do you hate America?”
I know this is thrown around as a joke a lot, but in his case I think it is a serious questions. Did America steal your lunch money when you were a kid? Did America date that hot girl in high school that you wanted to go out with? Were you a little nerd in school and America was on the football team and made fun of you and your friends? There must be some traumatic incident we can trace this hatred back to.
Or maybe he feels unworthy of his computer, high-speed Internet access, iTouch, Ford Mustang and other lovely things he has living in America and really wants to live in the “Glorious People’s Republic of China” ™ and work on a farm along with millions of native Chinese without all these fancy high-tech gadgets and enjoy the fruit of his labors supporting the people who are manufacturing our computers, iPods and Nike shoes. I’m sure a communist like him would be welcomed with open arms.
Nope, he’s gone on record as saying that’s not good enough for him. Even teaching English wouldn’t be good enough for him. He thinks he should be somewhere up in the leadership.
He’s not a communist, he’s a troll.
Oh, did I forget the sarcasm smilie? :smack:
Yeah, he is definitely a troll. No one could possibly spew all that crap with a straight face.
Well, they really confused and misguided many children in the past because of that horrible “A Horse With No Name” song, I really hate America! I…
.. What? 
His style shows he’s been educated in the country he so reviles. That’s biting the hand that fed him. It’s nothing less than traitorous.
You know, this might be the key to his…let’s call it thinking. If he is in fact, an immigrant, then he cannot legally be President of the US. Of course, that’s an elected position. So, let’s work backwards (just like his “thinking”), if you will:
*His assessment of his own self-worth is obviously off the scale. (Appropriately enough, I had originally missepelled scale as skill.)
*Presidency is considered by a fair number of people to be the most important position in the world.
*Constitutionally, one must be a native-born US citizen to be president.
*The Presidency is a democratically-elected (indirectly elected but not a coerced or sham election) posiition.
*There is a minimum age requirement to qualify for the Presidency.
*Commissar cannot qualify.
#Therefore, not only the Presidency is bad, but everything associated with it (America, Democracy, free and fair elections, etc.) is The Ultimate Evil.
You see, if you put on your Insane Thinking Cap[sup]tm[/sup], it all makes perfect sense*.
*Operation of ITC: Ensure you place ITC on your head. Note that this is not needed if you neglect to remove cranium from own posterior insertion position. To achieve maximum potential while using your ITC, have two other individuals assist you; one to hold your head in the toilet, the other to flush said toilet. Optional accessories: ear plugs, two (2) in number, to be used to prevent one’s own brains from draining out of one’s cranium either during flushing or during sleep. {Note: Credit for the ear plug accessories instructions to Drill Sergeant Bailey of the United States Army, late 20th century.}
I just like callin’ people fools.
Gigo, IMO you win the thread. 
Hmmm… If we were to employ your style of argument, we could effectively “refute” any political position by simply refusing to accept all of the premises. For example, you simply dismiss Gaddafi’s socialism on the basis that:
“Aside from central government planning of the economy, nothing that Gaddafi does qualifies as socialism.”
With all due respect, a centrally-planned economy pretty much assures that you have a socialist state in one fell swoop. This may not be enough for you, but it’s sufficient for me, and I am the one whose economic beliefs are being discussed here. Moreover, I would argue that Gaddafi has done much more to advance the cause of socialism but, once again, none of that is necessary in order to establish him as a socialist in my eyes.
Also, I like how you simply dismiss his pan-Arabism and pan-Africanism as cynical positions meant to strengthen his own power. This is nothing more than editorializing; I believe that the Colonel’s positions are sincerely held, and you do not. That is fine, given that reasonable minds may differ. It does not mean that your take on the matter is automatically the correct one.
Why would that matter? The beauty of my system is that it specifically disregards mob opinions. We do not need to convince the masses of anything; we simply need to rule and rule well. This will result in a peaceful, progressive, and prosperous society, which in turn will keep the masses happy and thus give us the mandate for continued rule. We will be judged by the results.
I am not sure why you would consider this relevant, my friend. The political decisions of five states do not automatically establish anything at all concerning any other state. The fact that the Colonel does not have any strong allies on the permanent Security Council does not somehow nullify his political ideology. This is not a matter that can be decided by Brits, Frenchmen, Chinese, or anyone else; this is for Libyans and Libyans alone to resolve.
Incidentally, before you start cheering on the ICC, do keep in mind that it is not an organization that your Empire actively supports. The US is one of the few nations that has refused to ratify the Rome Statute; in fact, Bush infamously tried to “unsign” it. More interestingly, the Empire has stated that it does not consider itself within the Court’s jurisdiction… and has actually passed domestic legislation authorizing the invasion of the Hague to free any Imperial troopers charged with serious crimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members’_Protection_Act
Good stuff.
Some readers will remember comm bullshitting on the subject the Rome Statute earlier when he claimed that it couldn’t possibly apply to non-signatory nations (even after repeatedly being corrected with cites) and that there was nothing wrong with that. But that’s because NK was the country involved. Now that it’s America, gosh darn, it’s all about how horrible The Empirey Empire of Imperialism is.
Almost as if he’s trolling Americans.
Firstly, it is obviously logically valid to attack its argument by attacking its premises. Your basic argument was, “This list defines good leaders; Qaddafi matches this list; therefore, Qaddafi is a good leader.” Your list is silly —it’s too vague, and its values are incoherent. Nor does Qaddafi match most of the items on the list. Hence, neither premise is true. To be more specific, one item on your list is a centrally planned economy; but a centrally planned economy is worthless if the planning’s sole purpose is to enrich the leader, rather than the citizens. And hey, if a centrally planned economy is your sole criterion for supporting a government (and it may very well be, so far as anyone can tell), then run with it. But remember, we have already and will continue to refute your political positions by attacking their premises, both normative and descriptive. That’s what debate means.
Long story short, [in your account] the masses are judging their own self interest, you think (except solely retroactively). In a democracy, this is called accountability representation, and it’s a necessary part of representation. But of course, you ignore that violence is an easy way of changing self interest: your government represses and impoverishes you, but since you’d rather be poor than dead, you don’t try to overthrow it. When enough people are repressed and impoverished, they may rebel; but the outcome of the rebellion is about more than popular will. The government is usually better armed, and there is always a a group who is gaining wealth at everyone else’s expense; they will fight for their interest. This description matches Libya extremely well — and, for that matter, Egypt.
In reality, Libya is a major exporter of oil, and foreign countries (China high among them) really need its cooperation to get their citizens out safely. That all five countries (and a majority of seventeen popular countries) would act strongly against Qaddafi anyway should tell you something. As to your latter point, even the USA informally supports the ICC every time it agrees to refer cases to it. Not to mention, not all of us are Americans…
There’s also the fact that despite his nonsense about peace and prosperity and such, when a tyrant like Quadaffi oppresses his people and keeps them poor with inadequate education and health care while enriching his own family to go play in Europe… Comissar explicity rejects any and all democratic solutions. And if the people dare to use the only remedy left to them, force, commy wants them butchered.