essex canary 622 Posted March 13 As per the attached. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dylanisabaddog 6,133 Posted March 13 21 million books is quite an achievement though, isn't it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dylanisabaddog 6,133 Posted March 13 12 minutes ago, Google Bot said: Let It Bleed That's given me a sugar craving 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badger 2,745 Posted March 13 I was quite excited to see something about Lenin on here - I like a good political argument - but don't really understand the point 😕 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cambridgeshire canary 7,797 Posted March 13 What pills did you pop into your coffee this morning? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul101 190 Posted March 13 (edited) you can say what you like when you kill 20m people who oppose you Bolshevik theory is kill everyone and anyone who disagrees and that is not counting the countless millions sent to work and re-education camps Including all the Socialists who formed the goverment they ousted do not forget they had the second revolution and never overthrew the tsar lenin was in Germany at the time Edited March 13 by Paul101 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul101 190 Posted March 13 (edited) 3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said: 21 million books is quite an achievement though, isn't it? not as much an achievement as killing nearly that many people Edited March 13 by Paul101 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dylanisabaddog 6,133 Posted March 13 12 minutes ago, Paul101 said: not as much an achievement as killing nearly that many people Good point well made Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dylanisabaddog 6,133 Posted March 13 27 minutes ago, Badger said: I was quite excited to see something about Lenin on here - I like a good political argument - but don't really understand the point 😕 Join the club Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barham Blitz 869 Posted March 13 From the first two sentences I thought it was going to be a neo-Marxist explanation as to how the intricacies of Wagner's tactical structure meant that he couldn't play Sainz or Van Hooijdonk for weeks. But then I realised it was just mildly amusing Delia bashing. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul101 190 Posted March 13 29 minutes ago, Barham Blitz said: From the first two sentences I thought it was going to be a neo-Marxist explanation as to how the intricacies of Wagner's tactical structure meant that he couldn't play Sainz or Van Hooijdonk for weeks. But then I realised it was just mildly amusing Delia bashing. a bit like using the Nazis to make a mildly amusing point Offensive Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 622 Posted March 13 1 hour ago, Google Bot said: Let It Bleed That was the album that Delia for which Delia designed the cover. Some very interesting lyrics on the last track. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheGunnShow 7,377 Posted March 13 1 hour ago, Barham Blitz said: From the first two sentences I thought it was going to be a neo-Marxist explanation as to how the intricacies of Wagner's tactical structure meant that he couldn't play Sainz or Van Hooijdonk for weeks. But then I realised it was just mildly amusing Delia bashing. "Hegel is arguing that reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically, it exists only in the imagination and Marx is claiming it was offside". 😉 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 622 Posted March 13 1 hour ago, Paul101 said: you can say what you like when you kill 20m people who oppose you Bolshevik theory is kill everyone and anyone who disagrees and that is not counting the countless millions sent to work and re-education camps Including all the Socialists who formed the goverment they ousted do not forget they had the second revolution and never overthrew the tsar lenin was in Germany at the time Trotsky was the leader of the first 2017 revolution for a power sharing arrangement. Lenin having returned from abroad and being a Bolshevik which Trotsky wasn't was the architect of the second autumn 1917 revolution. Stalin was the mass murderer whom Lenin warned against following his stroke in 1922 prior to his death in 1924. Trotsky was driven out by Stalin and murdered in exile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul101 190 Posted March 13 (edited) 53 minutes ago, essex canary said: Trotsky was the leader of the first 2017 revolution for a power sharing arrangement. Lenin having returned from abroad and being a Bolshevik which Trotsky wasn't was the architect of the second autumn 1917 revolution. Stalin was the mass murderer whom Lenin warned against following his stroke in 1922 prior to his death in 1924. Trotsky was driven out by Stalin and murdered in exile. Everyone of the communist party leadership was guilty Stalin just learned from his master Let's take a little history quiz. Which of the following features of the Soviet state were first introduced under Lenin, and which by Stalin: 1. The Gulag system of slave labor camps 2. The Cheka (secret police agency eventually known as the KGB) 3. Collectivization of agriculture leading to mass famines 4. Mass executions with little or no due process 5. A one-party state, with bans on all opposition parties (including socialist ones) 6. Suppression of freedom of speech and religion 7. Confiscation of private businesses, including even small businesses 8. Invading other nations in order to spread communism there 9. State control of the media for purposes of promoting regime propaganda, and preventing distribution of opposition speech If you answered Lenin, you were correct in every case! And virtually every one of these measures was also supported by Trotsky, Bukharin, and other Bolshevik leaders Edited March 13 by Paul101 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,711 Posted March 13 1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said: "Hegel is arguing that reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically, it exists only in the imagination and Marx is claiming it was offside". 😉 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Paddons Beard 2,789 Posted March 13 Christ . Keep it light lads. Some of us are trying to find out if Hanley is fit . 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cambridgeshire canary 7,797 Posted March 13 5 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said: Christ . Keep it light lads. Some of us are trying to find out if Hanley is fit . I wonder if Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung has any infomation we can gain and use to analyse player injuries? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badger 2,745 Posted March 13 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said: Christ . Keep it light lads. Some of us are trying to find out if Hanley is fit . He certainly is if you accept Hegel's argument that reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics but if you believe Kant that fitness (as with all reality) exists only in the imagination, he isn't. On the other hand, if you believe (and understand) the theory of the multiverse, as put forward by Hugh Everett, there are many universes where Hanley is fit, and many where he is not. 🤔 Edited March 13 by Badger Added words Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 6,381 Posted March 13 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Badger said: He certainly is if you accept Hegel's argument that reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics but if you believe Kant that fitness (as with all reality) exists only in the imagination, he isn't. On the other hand, if you believe (and understand) the theory of the multiverse, as put forward by Hugh Everett, there are many universes where Hanley is fit, and many where he is not. 🤔 ...and some in which he is a footballer and some in which he is not Edited March 13 by PurpleCanary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Paddons Beard 2,789 Posted March 13 10 minutes ago, Badger said: He certainly is if you accept Hegel's argument that reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics but if you believe Kant that fitness (as with all reality) exists only in the imagination, he isn't. On the other hand, if you believe (and understand) the theory of the multiverse, as put forward by Hugh Everett, there are many universes where Hanley is fit, and many where he is not. 🤔 Yikes. Good job I didn’t mention Gibson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badger 2,745 Posted March 13 7 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said: Yikes. Good job I didn’t mention Gibson. Yes, I imagine that even in the multiverse there aren't that many universes where they are both fit at the same time! 😉 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Google Bot 3,929 Posted March 13 32 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said: Christ . Keep it light lads. Some of us are trying to find out if Hanley is fit . He's got a case of the trotsky's i'm afraid. Although should clear up within 24 hours. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Angry 2,016 Posted March 13 The Bolsheviks are the 80%, the Mensheviks are the 20%. (I failed my history O Level but I think I’ve got that right). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 6,276 Posted March 13 4 hours ago, Badger said: He certainly is if you accept Hegel's argument that reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics but if you believe Kant that fitness (as with all reality) exists only in the imagination, he isn't. On the other hand, if you believe (and understand) the theory of the multiverse, as put forward by Hugh Everett, there are many universes where Hanley is fit, and many where he is not. 🤔 By this logic there is a universe where when the ball hits his head following an attacking corner, it goes in the goal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 622 Posted March 13 1 hour ago, Mr Angry said: The Bolsheviks are the 80%, the Mensheviks are the 20%. (I failed my history O Level but I think I’ve got that right). Something like that. Trotsky was a 20 per center so Lenin is OK. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites