Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#92
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
What has he ever done to you to make you hate him? How much damage has he done directly to your life?
He ran for president for self-aggrandizement and then found out that too many people are actually stupid enough to vote for him. He never wanted to be president, but his narcissism prevented him from quitting. Then he got hooked
on people worshiping him. It's so ridiculous that no one ever came up with a story like that, but it's real life. It's your stupidity that made it possible.
In 2024, he was forced to keep it up, to escape his own crimes.
He is now on a rampage vengeance campaign to hurt everyone who elected him.
You're just dumb enough to not understand when he tells you.
oops 87
Trump, head of The Trump Organization since 1971, first dabbled in presidential politics in the early summer of 1987.
The problem is that you agree with him.
Are you talking about Trump?
Enriching himself was his second goal, besides staying out of prison.
Trump is putting African dictators to shame, with his record corruption.
With every tariff announcement, his friends and family made a fortune
on the stock market, with insider trading, which is a crime. If he didn't
control the DOJ and the FBI, this would be investigated right now.
And, what has he done to you to earn such baseless loathing? You were fine with him until he ran for POTUS the first time.
I knew him to be a piece of shit, long before he ran for president.
I didn't know the extend of it, because he was keeping under the radar, but as soon as he went public, I started investigating him and found an almost unending pile of shit, that each on their own should discredit him to ever vote for him. His character alone should be a reason, but you support him despite everything combined.
Either you have been living under a rock, or you just like horrible people.
You started “investigating,” like some sort of Sherlock Holmes, but with the internet solely as your source, no doubt.
Yeah. We all know that everything on the internet is true, accurate, and based solely on facts and reality. It’s a totally reliable source on which to form opinions regarding politics, culture, and science.
(Rolling my eyes right now)
That was sarcasm, by the way. I had to alert you of that as this medium is not conducive to expressing it in clear fashion.
My, my, my. The derangement syndrome is real! It is absolutely stunning the amount of mental gymnastics those suffering from it will go through to justify their outrageous unsubstantiated claims based on rumors, misinformation, and propaganda! The street lawyers and basement detectives spewing this “information” are amazingly brilliant, all of them able to draw accurate and insightful conclusions from mere gossip, lies, innuendo, and rumor!
I can’t help but wonder if Hillary Clinton also got the same level of investigatory attention from you amateur sleuths, or is this all just sour grapes being pressed simply because she lost to him and you people just cannot let it go.
I find it telling that none of you had a problem with him before he replaced the (D) behind his name with an (R). The rage that was expressed after that happened is palpable. The desperation for extracting vengeance for daring to “leave the plantation” is driving force behind it all!
Nothing is too low nor unethical, just as long as “we get Trump.”
Wow.
Do you have anything else than the internet?
Did you ever do business with him? I guess not.
The internet is a jungle with everything between absolute lies and accurate science. It's up to your critical thinking skills and knowledge to know what's what.
It's easy to recognize when right-wing media is lying. If they are very vague,
you can be sure that they are lying. When journalists are adding lots of details,
it makes it easy to verify those claims.
I don't like Hilary Clinton. Why bring her up? It's a 'whataboutism'. In any case, she is horrible, but not nearly as vile, evil, criminal and corrupt as Trump.
I don't care about a D or an R, because there are lots of D's that I hate.
That's the thinking of an American, who is used to only 2 parties. We have 27. That requires lots more political insight.
Trump was an asshole when he was a Democrat too. You should learn to look beyond party lines. It makes you an easy victim for scamming.
Pal you got some kinda nerve to come to Bella’s forum thread trying to spread your communist hatred and your bull shit and shame on cat to agree with any thing you say take your commie bull shit and hit the high way peddle that crap 💩 in your own country
My question to you is, “Who gave you the right to comment on anyone’s right to post here as long as Bella! allows it? Ananas is not a communist. He’s a socialist with opinions that are relevant to the political situation in this country. Our politics don’t just affect this country. Right or wrong we influence the politics of the world. He has as much right to opine as you. Perhaps more. His views are well thought out. At the very least, he has solutions to our problems unlike from those that just criticize.
Yes, socialism is an important—and in many interpretations, essential—part of communism, particularly in Marxist theory, which has heavily influenced modern understandings of both terms.
Classical Marxist View (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)
Marx and Engels used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably in works like The Communist Manifesto (184
Lower phase — Society still bears marks of capitalism (e.g., distribution "to each according to his contribution," with some inequalities).
Higher phase — A fully developed classless, stateless society with distribution "to each according to his needs," abundance, and no money or state.
Marx did not label the lower phase "socialism."
Later Marxist-Leninist Interpretation
Vladimir Lenin, in The State and Revolution (1917), popularized the distinction:
Socialism is the lower or first phase of communism: the transitional stage after the proletarian revolution, where the state (as a dictatorship of the proletariat) exists, classes are abolished, means of production are socially owned, but distribution is based on work contributed.
Communism is the higher phase: stateless, classless, moneyless, with full abundance.
This view became standard in Marxist-Leninist traditions (e.g., USSR, China), where countries like the Soviet Union described themselves as "socialist" (building toward communism). Socialism here is crucial as the necessary foundation and pathway to achieve full communism.
Broader or Non-Marxist Views
Outside strict Marxism, socialism is often seen as distinct and not necessarily leading to communism:
It can involve mixed economies, democratic processes, private property alongside public ownership, and gradual reforms (e.g., democratic socialism in Nordic countries or social democracy).
Communism is viewed as more radical: aiming for complete abolition of private property, classes, money, and the state, often through revolution.
In these contexts, socialism is not "part" of communism but a separate ideology sharing roots in opposing capitalism and seeking greater equality.
Summary
In the dominant theoretical framework influencing communist movements (Marxism-Leninism), socialism is fundamentally important as the initial, transitional stage required to build communism. Without socialism, communism cannot be reached, as it develops the productive forces and eliminates capitalist remnants. In other usages, the terms are more separate, with socialism as a milder alternative. The confusion stems from historical shifts in terminology after Marx's death.
1.6s
You can try to correct them, but they don't want to be correct.
Understanding politics doesn't serve their ruling class.
Socialism isn't the first step to communism, that is Grog parroting
decades of indoctrination. It just summarizes what's available.
Capitalism and communism end up at the same place; wealthy and powerful people controlling everything and the people owning and controlling NOTHING. That's because power and wealth corrupt everything. It doesn't matter where you start to centralize money. If it's the government, they will accumulate money and power and strip it away from the people.
If you let private citizens take too much money and exploit everyone else, they will accumulate money, buy more and more power, strip it away from everyone else and take over the government. The result is the same.
If you then combine it with stupid cult-like followers, who are willing to fight and die for their leaders, because they will get a bit more scraps than the rest, that is very similar to the 'communism' of Russia. The best term to use for that is totalitarian state-capitalism.
With the billionaires now entering your government, when they are not satisfied with buying politicians anymore, turning a corrupt democracy in a sham-democracy, while only allowing speech that they like, ignoring the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch, you're heading at mach speed to the same thing: totalitarian state-capitalism. I just call it 'communism',
in the comment below, because that's how it's known by the masses.
Marxian communism (theoretical):
- Economic power: fully distributed
- Political power: fully participatory
Socialism of the Dutch Socialist party (Idealism):
- Economic power: extensive redistribution, strong public control
- Political power: high participatory input and grassroots movements
Socialism of the Dutch Socialist party (current pragmatism):
- Economic power: highly redistributive, but constrained by status quo
- Political power: supports optimizing normal parliamentary politics
Stalinist USSR / Pol Pot’s Cambodia ('communism' as the masses know it):
- Economic power: extremely concentrated
- Political power: extremely authoritarian
Putin’s leadership (Russia, 2000s–present):
- Economic power: highly concentrated (state-control and oligarchs)
- Political power: extremely authoritarian (centralized, repression)
MAGA capitalism:
- Economic power: highly concentrated (billionaires = job providers)
- Political power: strongly authoritarian (cult-leader Trump rules all)
at some point.
I was just watching a video about people leaving MAGA.
Look what this woman said (from 6:27‑7:42).
only registered users can see external links
1947 webster dictionary
You are in the group of you will own nothing and be happy.
modern socialist try to separate themselves from their forefathers to try to win over skeptics. but in the end, either system will leave wealthy government officials riding the backs of the poor, only difference with socialism from communism, is the government feeds them some treats as they suffer like free aspirin and birth control pills calling it health care..
You are trying to put down the idea as bad. In excess it could be just like capitalism is as it’s being practiced today in our country. For your benefit here’s some information for you:
Socialism is fundamentally both an economic and political system, advocating for collective or government ownership/control of production and resources to promote equality, but its implementation varies widely, from state-run economies (like Soviet communism) to mixed systems with strong social welfare and regulation (like democratic socialism in Nordic countries). It's a broad ideology focused on social welfare, fair wealth distribution, and shared resources, contrasting with pure capitalism's focus on private profit.
Here’s another gem from the leading “socialist” of the 20th century:
"Why should freedom of speech and freedom of press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government?”
He was an evil bastard who laid the groundwork for what all the Leftist “useful idiots” are doing today.
Lenin was a Democrat. He said this: "We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”
I’m glad he is dead. I wish his ideas had died with him.
the difference between communism and socialism? You are really proud
of your ignorance, aren't you?
Your orange buffoon is literally forcing big companies (like Intel) to sell off
part of their ownership to the government. If a Democrat did that, you would
be shouting "COMMUNISM!" from the rooftops. I predicted that MAGA would
go communist, you just don't understand it enough to see it happening.
You let Elon Musk, a South African immigrant (probably got his citizen status illegally, if you check it) rummage around in your government finances and your private citizen data, without any oversight or transparency.
Your VP serves a billionaire who own a mass surveillance tech company.
You're blindly supporting a future where the trillionaire techbro's join with
your (next) billionaire president and corrupt politicians, and rule over the poor masses with mass surveillance and an iron fist, just like East Germany before the fall of the iron curtain. There is no difference between the government owning the means of production, and the owners of the means of production having full control of the government. It's both COMMUNISM.
YOU are the COMMUNIST!!!
I am a SOCIALIST: I want to maximize democracy and decentralize ownership of the means of production, making everyone who participates in it benefit
from it directly, without owners exploiting the working class. I would be content with Social Democracy, but I prefer Democratic Socialism, which is the flavor
of Socialism that I like. What you call "socialism" isn't Socialism, and it is definitely not communism as it is known from history.
When phart is talking about Ukraine, that's my business more than yours.
Europe is close to war, with your former enemy. We chose your side in the
cold war, joined NATO with you, gave you control over most of the world
and it's resources, and now your hanging us out to dry, because your
fascist wannabe dictator loves every horrible dictator in the world and
hates democracies. You follow that traitor like he is Jesus.
Until your dictator bans all speech that he doesn't like, I'll be here
crapping all over your cult of hate and ignorance.
How about the internet being the open marketplace of ideas, little snowflake.
The only differences between socialism and communism are just a matter of a few degrees of separation.
Confiscation of wealth are the principles of both philosophies. The Socialists merely put a smiley face on their theft of the resources for which we worked.
You’re a watered down Stalinist.
Lenin was accurately explaining Marx there, with socialism being the step towards communism, in his THEORY, but the what Lenin ended up working towards was the complete opposite of what Marx intended. Instead of full human emancipation (freedom from exploitation, alienation, and scarcity),
in a classless, stateless community, that provides people each according
to their needs, Lenin turned out to be a dictator, who exploited his people, 'alienated' everyone who disagreed and stole grain from his people to feed his army.
Obviously, Lenin had an absolute authoritarian view. If you are confusing that with the Marxist ideal, you're either being ignorant or dishonest.
Additionally, I don’t believe you understand communism at all. Otherwise, you would not be equating it with capitalism. They are not the same, and it’s either a blatant lie or extremely naive to assert they are one and the same.
You are using terminology like "worshipping at the altar", to intentionally associate it with a religion. That's also bullshit, because "Modern Socialism" is based on secular humanism, the opposite of religion.
In my country, the Socialist Party was funded by hardworking people, who were the sons of a factory worker, a pipefitter, and a butcher. They all grew up solidly working class, and they all started out working in factories or as craftsmen. Some of them became full-time trade unionists, but many of the original party organizers had working class jobs to pay the bills. When their political careers started to earn money (representatives are getting paid), they donated 50-75% to their party, only keeping around median wage. When they wrote books that made money, they donated the proceeds to the party. With that money, the party supported political activism for the working class people protesting their exploitation and unsafe working conditions. An early big action was protesting against houses getting build on the highly poisoned ground of demolished factories.
My current party leader, Jimmy Dijk, grew up in a working class family. His father worked as a window cleaner. His parents had to work hard to make ends meet, which contributed to his conviction that politics should pay more attention to people with modest incomes. He did support his own education, by working in a cardboard factory.
You are correct that most of the Socialist Party organizers now have at least decent educations, but they ALL came from solidly lower working class families. I myself have a good education and come from a solidly lower working class family. My father was the main income provider, as an electrician, working for employers his whole life. People get their socialist views from seeing working class people struggle. Right-wingers are the ones who had it easy, growing up spoiled, and having an easy go at life, in at least middle income families. They PRETEND coming from poor backgrounds, PRETEND that they needed to struggle, but having made it big, because they are so smart, but most of them grew up with a silver/golden spoon in their mouths.
Look at the party that you support, and find me one politician who wasn't at least a millionaire, or had millionaire parents, before they entered politics.
Did any of them work a normal working class job? How many of them needed to pay for their own education?
Trump had everything handed to him, but he still needed to be a criminal to cover up and compensate for his constant fuck-ups. He is the absolute example of someone failing upwards.
You are just jacking off and then calling it intercourse.
There can be multiple sources all parroting the same lie. "Verification" is not going to help, unless you understand how to recognize facts and false arguments.
Sometimes I jack off, sometimes I have intercourse. I know the difference.
I still have some time left to inform myself about what's happening in the world.
I want to know what is real and what is false, because I make choices in life that affect me, people I care most about, and the world I one day will leave behind. I prefer to live my life among happy people who are thriving, humanity looking out for each other and people who represent me in politics solving the problems that negatively affect that. If you think that you are doing the same, then please explain your logic.
Plus, where were your complaints while the Biden family were taking advantage of not only the Biden presidency, but also the Biden vice-presidency during the Obama regime? (D) gets a pass, while (R) is pilloried?
My, how our outrage becomes selective when the letters behind the names of those in office change!
Can your bias be any more obvious?
Well?
to not support him. If you don't see Trump BEING a horrible piece of shit,
on a daily basis, then you probably think behavior like that is normal.
That makes me question your morality and how you treat other people.
If you don't, then why do you think people like Trump should be president?
from taking even more of Ukraine, the next time they feel like attacking Ukraine.
How can you expect Zelensky to agree with that?
Let's say he does sign it, how long do you think the "peace" will last?
Besides it may not matter anyway, Chernobyl is leaking due to a drone strike.
probably be the last to go extinct. It's wild bees that you need to worry about.
Other pollinators, including flies, butterflies, beetles, birds, and bats, would continue
to help pollinate plants, but they generally do not pollinate as effectively as bees for many crops. Some plants that depend heavily on bees would produce much less fruit or seeds without them. Humans wouldn’t necessarily go extinct without bees, but agriculture, food diversity, and ecosystems would face major disruptions.
Would humans go extinct without bees?
only registered users can see external links
Did you actually READ anything, or are you just saying shit that you want to believe?
There are generally two to three times as many wild honey bee colonies as managed ones worldwide. This is a worrying fact by itself, showing the impact
of humans on the earth. However, consider this: When combined, humans and livestock account for roughly 95–96% of all mammalian biomass on the planet.
What do you think that nature needs to survive?
Do you think humanity can survive, when nature dies?
Do you even care?
You could try to actually argue against it. Can you?
Yep, you got it right, we survived it, that doesn't mean we or anyone else haven't had side effects from it.
I remember when that plant in japan messed up, the radiation levels in the grain in the midwest US went up. Thanks to the radiation traveling by jet stream.
Radiation from thermo-nuclear war won’t kills the insects, including cockroaches and bees. It’s the ensuing nuclear winter that will wipe out most insect species.
Elevated radiation levels emitted by Chernobyl won’t ever come close to exterminating insect life. If the original initial release didn’t kill them, neither will a slowly leaking hole in the sarcophagus.
How Radiation Concentrates in the Food Chain:
1) Bioaccumulation: This occurs when an individual organism absorbs radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) from air, water, or soil faster than it can excrete them. Radionuclides often "mimic" essential nutrients; for example, Strontium-90 mimics calcium and is stored in bones, while Cesium-137 mimics potassium and builds up in muscle tissue.
2) Biomagnification: As small organisms are eaten by larger ones, the concentration of persistent radionuclides increases at each level of the food chain. Predators must consume large quantities of prey to survive, effectively "collecting" the total toxic load from hundreds or thousands of organisms lower in the chain.
3) Trophic Transfer: In aquatic environments, radionuclides are absorbed by phytoplankton and zooplankton, eventually reaching top predators like large salmon or lake trout, which may have concentrations high enough to cause deformities or death.
How This Affects People:
Humans sit at the top of many food chains and are affected primarily through the ingestion of contaminated food and water.
- Radioactive Iodine (I-131): Quickly moves from contaminated pasture to milk and, once consumed, accumulates in the thyroid gland, significantly increasing the risk of thyroid cancer, especially in children.
- Cesium-137: Distributes throughout the body's soft tissues and muscles, leading to long-term cancer risks due to its 30-year half-life.
- Strontium-90: Becomes a "bone-seeker," integrating into the skeletal structure and potentially causing bone cancer or leukemia.
Do you think an environment where the bees die, is not damaging YOUR health?
That's indeed all a more serious and more imminent problem than the current little increase in the background radiation, I agree. But it took hundreds of billions of dollars to keep it limited to a little increase in the background radiation. Those are the downsides of nuclear energy, which make it a stupid alternative for fossil fuels.
There are better alternatives, that are not linked with risks of country-disrupting costs for eons, making large areas of the earth uninhabitable and easy access to nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. Why support expensive and dangerous solutions over cheap and safe ones?
If you care about it, you are supporting the wrong party/president.
They care about wealthy people being allowed to exploit you,
at whatever cost to your livelihood, health and life period.
They show you daily how much they hate poor people with brown skin.
They hate poor people with white skin, only a little bit less.
If you think that you don't qualify as 'poor', don't worry, you will.
Nuclear is not a good answer to our energy problem.
Coal smoke can be filtered, coal slag used for arrogate in concrete and asphalt , solar works on the roof of a factory or home, wind can work but has alot of issues. hydro works and does the least damage, geothermal works with little to no damage to the enviroment.
to someone on your own political side. I am SO proud of you.
that radiation isolated.
only registered users can see external links
If they don't disassemble the reactor (which would be incredibly expensive), they will need to keep it covered for many hundreds to thousands of years, which would be incredibly expensive. Since Ukraine will probably not be able to pay for it, that means the rest of the world needs to, unless we want it to spread all over the earth.
At least Japan is capable of paying for their "little accident" themselves. They made the whole of earth a little bit more radioactive, resulting in accumulation of radioactivity in animals on top of the food chain (humans), but at least they are doing a reasonable job of containing it now. Still, it will probably cost them much more than nuclear power ever made them. That's the constant gamble being taken, by every country who is using nuclear power. The slightest accident or inevitable natural disaster can damage your country more than nuclear power ever benefited it.
If your country is ever at war, or there are some terrorist who don't like you, you could just paint a big bullseye on every nuclear plant, because that's the reality of it.
It's much better to use that big nuclear reactor in the sky for energy. It's cheap, it's safe, and it doesn't blow up for another 5 billion years.
New Comment Go to top