http://i.minus.com/imKASwfpjUx2V.gif

awesome, still no olympic gold or stanley cup for ovechkin

nope

also relevant:

http://i.imgur.com/InlCLvr.jpg

where the hell pp found that pic?

trife: prolly quite relevant since putin was watching that match.


poor russkies, no olympic hockey medal since 2002 (bronze), not that world championships have been gone much better, gold and silver on this decade.

Knock knock

Who is there?

Tre Kronor

5-6

Knock knock

Who is there?

Tre Tutten

6-1

I think the Russian players should be looking to defect NOW!!!!

That guy must have been REALLY drunk, they were losing 6-0 to USA in that game

wait, trife knows what the stanley cup is?? the definition of character assassination if ever there was one!

they had a figure skater.. my guess is maybe sixteen, seventeen years old? she fell once or twice during her skate, but oh brother, third world standards do certainly come into play at a certain point in time. am i wrong? tell me i'm wrong :P

She actually is fifteen Braden ;) not legal at all in any country in the world ;)

you've never been to west virginia, have you?

ok, so i was wrong- i asked :P

pfffffffft. even 14 years old girls get married in 3rd world countries and sometimes even younger.

or in macau you can buy one for the night

As AT's dully authorized West Virginian in residence, I officially confirm that she is good to go in WV. The law in WV says 16, but everybody knows hillbillys cain't read no how.

lol@archaic

is it anything like justifieds kentucky??

also, russia... leave the ukraine alone :(

qq

russia please dont try to economically leverage ukraine into your sphere of influence!!! let western interests buy ukraine into THEIRS! i side with the nazis because the western media told me they're anti-russia and on our side

bolsheviks did far worse than german fascists ever did.

and yes, by ancestry i am jewish.

a) no they didnt and b) what do bolsheviks have to do with anything

do you not understand the relevance of why braden brought this up? *blinks*

i am an expert at losing track of which name i'm posting under :D

Agreed, those people are having serious problems now, sad world we live in....

i definitely dont. russia isnt bolshevik, communist, socialist, or anything. and all they did was convince ukraine into joining their trade union when ukraine and the EU had been making eyes at each other. russians arent fighting in the ukraine upheaval right now or anything either soo?

http://www.ibtimes.com/...-ukraine-protests-1556654

blid fell into the deep whole of bolshevik lies. welcome to nineteen seventeen and on!

the holodomor, anybody? history is fun, lets try and learn it before we comment on it?

(and that doesn't even start to suggest the atrocities carried out in the name of communism in korea, vietnam or the wonderful little history of the khumar rouge and pol pots little idiot crimes against humanity)

I live in West Virginia as well.

what does the "holodomor" have to do with anything happening here or now. or are you not arguing anbout relevance, but trying to argue that they killed more people than the nazis? well that's quite a highjack. but i'd reply that i don't understand how deaths during a famine can be compared to nazi death camps? doesn't make much sense to me. and why do people who died during a famine count in the "communist death count," but you never count the millions killed by capitalist aggressors in vietnam? iraq? korea??? or how about colonialism and the millions killed in africa by the belgians and french, the native populations wiped out by conquistadors, etc? or, more closely related to the "holodomor"... the death counts for the holodomor are based off of census records. what about the extensive missing population caused by capitalism during the great depression? the same methods used to count holodomor casualties would reveal 7-8m dead in the great depression, by man-made capitalist famine. So yeah!

seriously though what do "bolsheviks" have to do with the current unrest

were you not being facetious? if not, i misunderstood and if so this entire conversation is moot :(. i read that as you suggesting the west was as bad as the communists (don't try and fool me that modern day russia isn't still communist, please)

" but i'd reply that i don't understand how deaths during a famine can be compared to nazi death camps?"

yea, drought or floods killing crops and peoples food is one thing, a government purposefully causing the famine, the translation of holodomor being man made famine, is entirely different. they actively thought of a way to murder ukranians, and carried out that thought so people would eat their neighbours for meat, and then later die. you don't systematically kill off livestock for any other purpose than to remove it from a populations ability to sustain life.

i aint never murdered nobody, the bullet through the back of his skull killed him, i aint did nothing but pull a lever attached to a yada that pulled the yada that had the pin hit the bullet and then chemistry did it's part, and then ballistics did it's part.. i'm not to blame?


"what about the extensive missing population caused by capitalism during the great depression?"

may i ask, was it hoover or roosevelt that dried the prairies, ruining agriculture? was it hoover or roosevelt that caused the stock market crash in 29? was it hoover or roosevelt that we blame for the immediate death of "7-8m dead in the great depression"?

i'm sorry, but fdr is akin to stalin? the great dust bowl was not man made.. i suppose irresponsible methods of agrarian life may to be blame, done by man yes, but it wasn't derived of and carried out through and by the government so as intentionally to murder people. but, if we want to split hairs, fdr was a socialist. short of banning private property, i'd have called him a communist.

bolshevism is alive and strong, we can call it social democracy all we please, at a certain time we'll need to understand euphemism.

sometimes arguments simply don't carry weight. comparing the depression, an economic or agrarian misstep is far different from intentionally murdering people, while your only interest in the outcome is the death of the people you wish to murder.

after america liberated the planet from it's aggressors, it kind of had every right to set up governments that wouldn't continue to murder people or start world wars. communism, rather communist leaders, inherently defied this reasoning, and the truman doctrine outright stated exactly what would happen.

" seriously though what do "bolsheviks" have to do with the current unrest"
i make little to no distinction between bolshevism, communism or social democratism (the latter may indeed not be an actual word :P)

(ps, i still like you, politics be damned)

can we get back to the underaged russians in short skirts and skates, please? :P

(you may also note i call bolshevism when, on express, i have to pay over 49 for a bushel of food, so grain of salt, please :P)

neither has ukraine's best interests in mind, they both just want to expand/protect their sphere of influence and use ukraine economically. joining the russian-led customs union *may* be the worse option of the two, however literal nazis are taking over the maidan protests, hence my facetious post above. but uh, if you think modern day russia is still communist, this conversation stops here. you're beyond the pale buddy: do you even know what communism and capitalism are? how could modern day russia be communist? that doesn't even make sense.

putin murders lawyers or journalists whom dare suggest what i do, so.. fair, the economic structure may not be communist, per se, but still a dictator who cares naught for basic human rights, equality, the sustaining of life, or the freedom of a single person under his influence or those of which he hopes to be under his influence?

their constitution on wikipedia can say one thing, but actively within russias "sphere" is there a single difference, save maybe the tanks or helicopters, between now and say, the nineteen eighties? (speaking of which, after the fall of "soviet" russia, who was it that gained the most and kept all their power or influence? oh yes, of course, the former communist leaders, funny, no?)

what happened to the ice dancers? won't somebody think of the ice dancers? :(

where is PP? I haven't been called a racist yet :(

uhhhhhhhhh this is pretty important.

yo there's been hundreds of dictators throughout history, and a whole lot of them have been capitalist. "dictator" does not mean "communist" or imply a country is communist in the slightest. chile: salvador allende is elected democratically, pinochet leads a capitalist-backed coup and rules as dictator. vietnam: ho chi minh has the support of a staggering 80% of vietnam, the US partitions the country and installs the dictator ngo dinh diem in south vietnam. or turning to more modern times, is assad a communist? obviously not... and btw, putin isn't even a dictator. he was democratically elected, repeatedly, by the russian people. just because russia has gotten up to some dirty stuff under his rule doesn't make him communist at ALL, or a dictator.

ok, a widely acknowledged part of the collapse of the soviet union was the auctioning off at bargain prices of state industries to connected people. this created a class of oligarchs, that's why there's so many russian billionaires out there, it was basically the looting of the people's assets by the elite (basically, capitalism in hyperspeed). people that were connected remained connected, people that had influence retained influence, but that's got nothing to say about the functioning of the current economy. these new oligarchs are EXTREMELY capitalist and operate according to capitalist principles.

oh and btw, about the holodomor stuff you wrote before: if capitalism caused the great depression (and it did), then all those deaths can be attributed to capitalism. why do you think deaths caused accidentally by bad science (lysenkoism in soviet agriculture) can be attributed to the economic system, but deaths caused by a capitalist economy running off the rails can't be attributed to capitalism? people are starving all the time because of capitalist indifference, and that's putting it generally - the strings we've attached to loans that we hand out to places like haiti force them to adopt economic policies that lead to their own continued starvation and death.

there's not a good reason to think russia intentionally caused the famine, by the way. there *are* arguments that they preferred to direct the food they harvested to the russian people over the ukrainian people, that is, they had russo-centric policy. but if there's a food shortage there will be people starving regardless of how the food is allocated. and how is that different than imperialist japan collecting food from vietnam while leaving millions of vietnamese to starve? and so on...

to suggest russia was somehow righteous in it's stealing of ukranian food reserves for the russo centric population of bolshevik russia is akin to suggesting that the nazis thought zyklon b would be benefitial to jews in exfoliation.

you can not condemn one and encourage another. both were the systemic death of those whom the ruling power perceived not to be worthy of life.

this mentality, this active thought process, this instrumentation of will or man power was never in the very fluffing least appropriated on the north american continent. (edit, save the death of the red man, the dirt worshiping injuns, but them right? smallpox was Gods work)

what ever happened to ""but uh, if you think modern day russia is still communist, this conversation stops here.""?

and, fdr you credit for the death of seven plus million people? lets just get this out there, yea?

I think when you go from being 'democratically elected', LMFAO! as the President with ALL POWERS AND MIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT,then when your term is over, you are magically 'democratically elected' as Prime Minister with ALL POWERS AND MIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT, and then when your 'term' is over, you are YET AGAIN, magically 'democratically elected' as President with ALL POWERS AND MIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT. You are a dictator, sorry. But that aside, Putin is a dictator.

no, i credit capitalism for that. the depression started before fdr ever took the helm as well.

i didn't say it was righteous, i just compared it to imperial japan - decidedly NOT communist - who did the same thing. so how is it symptomatic of communism? it's just natural that if there's a food shortage, most will try to feed their own before they feed others.

you know bloomberg got elected mayor of nyc, then reelected, and THEN changed the law to allow third terms, and then got reelected. nobody suggests he's a dictator for that. rather, they suggest he's a dictator because he banned big gulps.

COMMUNISM DOESN'T KILL PEOPLE.

NEITHER DOES CAPITALISM.

WHEN PEOPLE GRANT GOVERNMENTS THE POWER TO RULE THEM, GOVERNMENTS KILL PEOPLE. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE EXAMPLES YOU TWO ARE TOSSING AT EACH OTHER TO TRY TO SHOW HOW HORRIBLE THE OTHER SIDE IS. THE COMMON THREAD IS NOT AN ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY. THE COMMON THREAD IS A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH TOO MUCH POWER. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY.

THIS IS WHY COMMUNISM (ON A LARGE SCALE) HAS NEVER WORKED AND NEVER CAN. COMMUNISM REQUIRES THAT THERE BE A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH THE AUTHORITY TO RULE THE MASSES, IN ORDER TO ENSURE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. PROBLEM IS, ONCE PEOPLE HAVE POWER, THEY TEND TO BECOME GREEDY AND CORRUPT.. THAT PESKY PART OF HUMAN NATURE THAT CAUSES US ALL TO LOOK OUT FOR OUR OWN SELF INTEREST FIRST INEVITABLY LEADS TO THE FAILURE OF ANY GOVERNING SYSTEM WHICH REQUIRES A PERSON OR GROUP TO HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER OVER OTHERS.

FREE MARKET CAPITALISM CAN AND HAS WORKED. IT IS JUST VERY RARELY ALLOWED TO FLOURISH FOR LONG, BEFORE POLITICIANS DECIDE TO TRY TO TAKE CONTROL, AND GAIN THEMSELVES SOME POWER. AND POLITICIANS ARE VERY SKILLED AT GETTING THE MASSES TO BUY INTO THE POLITICS OF ENVY AND GREED, OF US VS THEM (RICH VS POOR IN THIS CASE) AND OF FEAR (YOU NEED US TO PROTECT YOU!).

AND BLID, YOU COMPARED THE THEFT OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE'S ASSETS TO THE RICH IN CAPITALIST SYSTEMS... YOU DO REALIZE I'M SURE, THE HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. IN THE CASE OF SOVIET RUSSIA, THOSE ASSETS WERE ALL TAKEN FROM THE PEOPLE BY FORCE BY AN ALL POWERFUL GOVERNMENT. IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY, THE TRADE WHICH MAKES SOME PEOPLE RICH IS VOLUNTARY. NO ONE FORCES THE MIDDLE CLASS TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THE NEWEST SHINY OBJECT. NO ONE FORCES PEOPLE TO BUY PRODUCTS LIKE A FANCY CAR, OR A NEW COUCH, OR HEALTH INSU... OH WAIT.

I MISS CAPITALISM.

Bloomberg is a dictator though.

"no, i credit capitalism for that. the depression started before fdr ever took the helm as well. "

then you credit herbert hoover with having murdered seven plus million people? don't pretend like i didn't give you the option of either.


your argument is quite funny, indeed, considering you likely have no idea what the epidemic prevention and water purification department was, heh.

so, i'm sorry, japan did what to marginalize or lessen the scope of mass murder? imperial japan got nuked, twice. and quite frankly, rightfully so.

so, you condone experimenting on humans, ie eugenics, you condone starving populations, ie redistribution of privately owned agriculture, or you simply refuse ever to accept that the west is inherently pro human rights, and the rest of the world doesn't give two fluffs about human life?

i am for life and rights, you seem to be incessantly against both?? i don't quite understand.. i may use slight rhetoric, but i'm still on the side of right.. you seem only to defend the side of the wrong? nay, as you see it, the righteous? are we trying to make jokes, or what?

no it doesnt

short-sighted as hell. politicians are paid by the capitalists to protect the capitalist's interest. you can say that's anti-capitalism, but that's how it works in most 'democratic' system. campaign donations, paid advertising, etc, that's all the natural behavior of capitalists, working in their self-interest, it's all a natural outcome of capitalism, and that's what leads to politicians passing laws that protect bankers or whatever dumb fluff you don't like and think is not "pure" capitalism.


no, wrong. i'm not talking about soviet russia taking assets. that was cool as hell. i'm talking about post-soviet russia auctioning off assets to a select few. like the nation's copper industry being sold for pennies on the dollar to prokhorov, and that's not even one of the most egregious examples.

if you can call it voluntary. we all gotta work, we all gotta feed our families. then you get goldman sachs buying and trading commodities and increasing the price of food. you got an ubiquitous media that sells people unneeded fluff - advertisements designed to influence and control people's decisions, even targeted at young children, and not just advertisements, but corporate news presenters as well.

Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks

why do i have to credit one dude when it was the entire system, multiple factors all within capitalism caused the depression. read an article about "causes of the depression." that's what caused the depression.


uh what?


uh what?


uh what?


well yeah, that i disagree with.

well braden, it's not really worth discussing tihs with you, as you're even more of a rabid ideologue than i am, to the point where you call modern capitalist russia "bolshevik," and your logic takes strange leaps that i can't make sense of

uh, what?

see, its fun not even to try to make points.

we already determined you had no interest in carrying on the conversation.

and you have two president, herbert hoover or fdr, which one caused the depression? oh, i'm sorry, the american revolution, distancing itself from the english monarchy, THAT is what caused the great depression? warshington? jefferson? adams? where do you place the blame? on the entirety of the economic system? then the american revolution, is indeed, the cause of the death of seven plus million people come the depression?

i'm confused. i at least relate my ridiculous arguments to history, you seem to make it up as you go, i call you on it with rhetoric and questions, and you ignore it as me.. what, not understanding how history works?

i, of course, mean, uh what?