...COMPLETELY bat shit insane!

You are saying that the people that we are killing now in Iraq somehow dont matter because socialism in the past has killed so many more.... how the hell socialism became the subject of this thread, I dont know- but what the hell, lets run with that for a moment, shall we?

By your argument- if you can call it that- as long as some ill defined "us" keeps the death toll lower than the sum total of deaths attributed to an equally ill defined socialist "them" we are still ahead in your twisted moral calculus.

You seem to have made your post to this thread a nonsensical continuation of your argument with ER in the thread below... why, I have no idea- it certainly does not follow logically, but that just brings us back to my point at the start of this post.

Above you said:

The victims of socialism and its accompanying non-industrialization are so much more plentiful. 70,000 in China in one week and in Burma 15,000 more. The US can't match that stuff even when Democrats set off atomic bombs over civilian towns.

I am unsure how socialism caused earthquakes and typhoons- or how it follows in ANY way from the post you are replying to, but I think some would take issue with your claim that the good old US cant compete when it comes to body count...

Specifically there are millions of american indians that were slaughtered by wonderfully unrestrained greed- or 'enlightened self interest' as that pathetic pseudo-intellectual Ayn Rand liked to call it. I suspect you dont think those deaths count, right? I would be interested to know why you leave those deaths out of your accounting- Can you explain to us why those millions dont get put in your ledger of death, in the column labled "Greed's body count"?

Don't worry- I dont actually expect you to have a coherent answer- we all know you are a sham, a farce really. Dont hurt your little brain thinking about it, because as luck would have it we have a quote from Ayn Rand to tell you (and TB) how to think about it:

They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent

-- pseudo-philosopher, pseudo-human being Ayn Rand addressing West Point, 1974

Ok, so we had the right to commit genocide because they were not putting the land to good use- we could use the land and rivers to fuel industrialization that would increase personal wealth of the hard working newcomers... (Odd that this glosses over the fact that by doing this we were not only depriving millions of their rights to personal property, but depriving them of their rights to exist....).

So the millions of dead from the genocide waged on the american indians dont count against capitalism and greed, because we had the right to do it in the name of capitalism...

But when China moves millions off their ancestral lands in order to build a monumental hydro-electric project to further their attempts at industrialization that is still an example of the evils of a communist regime, right?

sigh...

Ok well, what about the millions killed by the lucrative slave trade... do they count in your body count tally? That was unrestrained capitalism and greed and, as you say:

Denying and denigrating greed is counterproductive.

Greed is good, right...? Funny thing is Ayn Rand claims that capitalism did away with slavery, that capitalism cannot function with slave labor. But the facts seem to contradict her there... as long as slaves were nothing more than livestock to be bought and sold like livestock capitalism did quite well. It was abolished when it was decided that slave owners were no longer allowed to keep humans as their personal property. In essence, government stepped in and removed the "private property" of the slave owners... Hmmmm... maybe Ayn Rand cant save you here...

Millions died from the slave trade, do you not count those millions because they were 'just livestock' at the time?

What about the children working in horrible conditions in sweat shops for capitalist companies? What about the wars fought and people killed to protect the interests of american corporations in other countries? What about our support of vile governments that enslave their people and deprive them of human rights just because they control vast amounts of oil to fuel our economy?

Tell you what, why dont you sit down and write out a death toll for socialism, and figure out how much larger it is than the death toll on 'YOUR' side. Then get back to us and tell us how many more Iraqis we can kill in this war, which- as far as I can tell- never had a DAMN THING to do with socialism!

This thread had nothing to do with socialism until you brought it up... The political cartoon above must have really hit a nerve.
------------------------------
P.S. I have noticed that no matter the topic you ALWAYS find a way to link it to one of your bizarre delusional obsessions- you take science topics and twist them into a nonsense discussion of your pseudoscience garbage about vorticies, frequencies and resonances etc, in political discussions you twist and contort to turn it into a discussion about the evils of socialism (as you did here), on matters of society you often manage to contort it into an incomprehensible gordian knot of your pseudoscience and hatred of socialism- your delusional nonsense swirls around you like effluent going down a toilet.... Has it occurred to you that it swirls around you not because you are the center of it all, but because you suck so hard?