Your opinion of Stalin?

[Ed Anger]

Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.

Ok, I may have been wrong.  Nobody has taken the position Tim understood anything other then the numbers setting out the score beside all the letters which described the beating the Patriots took.  Letters which formed words that Tim may or may not have understood.

What the hell? Since when have been on your shit list?

NOBODY LIKES YOUR FUCKING TEAM.

[Tamas]

For starters, it is well known there was a shitload of scientific and historic books published under Stalin's name, which in fact were written by other, actually educated people.

This not only proves that he went a long way to portray himself as an intellectual, it also proves he was not one.

Also, reading books does not an intellectual mean. Drinking cocktails and being gay is not the key either, Marty.

The bolshevik leadership was full of intellectuals, and Stalin majorly pwned all of them. Why? In part, because they were actually theoretical communists trying to achieve something, while Stalin was a thug trying to get as much power as possible.

Secondly, and more importantly, because being an "intellectual" does not equal being smart and good in practical situations, which politics and intrique is. In fact it almost guarantees the opposite. As much as us theoretical types like to think otherwise, gaining political influence and power over fellow humans is very much a question of down-to-earth methods and social backstabbing you only need a hint of intelligence to be good at.

So stop this discussion it is fucking stupid.

[Sahib]

For starters, it is well known there was a shitload of scientific and historic books published under Stalin's name, which in fact were written by other, actually educated people.

This not only proves that he went a long way to portray himself as an intellectual, it also proves he was not one.

Also, reading books does not an intellectual mean. Drinking cocktails and being gay is not the key either, Marty.

The bolshevik leadership was full of intellectuals, and Stalin majorly pwned all of them. Why? In part, because they were actually theoretical communists trying to achieve something, while Stalin was a thug trying to get as much power as possible.

Secondly, and more importantly, because being an "intellectual" does not equal being smart and good in practical situations, which politics and intrique is. In fact it almost guarantees the opposite. As much as us theoretical types like to think otherwise, gaining political influence and power over fellow humans is very much a question of down-to-earth methods and social backstabbing you only need a hint of intelligence to be good at.

So stop this discussion it is fucking stupid.

I'm sorry, citation needed.

[grumbler]

For starters, it is well known there was a shitload of scientific and historic books published under Stalin's name, which in fact were written by other, actually educated people.

This not only proves that he went a long way to portray himself as an intellectual, it also proves he was not one.

Also, reading books does not an intellectual mean. Drinking cocktails and being gay is not the key either, Marty.

The bolshevik leadership was full of intellectuals, and Stalin majorly pwned all of them. Why? In part, because they were actually theoretical communists trying to achieve something, while Stalin was a thug trying to get as much power as possible.

Secondly, and more importantly, because being an "intellectual" does not equal being smart and good in practical situations, which politics and intrique is. In fact it almost guarantees the opposite. As much as us theoretical types like to think otherwise, gaining political influence and power over fellow humans is very much a question of down-to-earth methods and social backstabbing you only need a hint of intelligence to be good at.

So stop this discussion it is fucking stupid.

I'm sorry, citation needed.

Tamas will now cite an obscure academic paper of 639 pages. It will mention Stalin's unintellectuality in a half sentence in a footnote on page 562. Of course Tamas will refuse to tell you where to find it exactly.  Instead of citing obscure sources he refutes them because they don't address the precise point he argues. As usual, he declares victory unless his opponent jumps through all the nitpicky loops he holds up for them.  He'd probably say that the way his debates are always like this on here because of the lack of intellectual challenge the posters pose.

[Syt]

*unoriginal copy/paste with names exchanged*

Still going on about this, gramps?

[Malthus]

After reading so many goddamned pages, I have come to the realization that most of you have little Stalins inside.

Well, yeah.

But a little Ex-Lax(tm) will take care of that.

[crazy canuck]

Nobody has yet taken the position that Tim has understood anything he has read other then the final score of yesterday's football game.

Ok, I may have been wrong.  Nobody has taken the position Tim understood anything other then the numbers setting out the score beside all the letters which described the beating the Patriots took.  Letters which formed words that Tim may or may not have understood.

What the hell? Since when have been on your shit list?

Its NFL playoff season and the Patriots lost.  You are going to be a target until at least next weekend. 

[Razgovory]

For starters, it is well known there was a shitload of scientific and historic books published under Stalin's name, which in fact were written by other, actually educated people.

This not only proves that he went a long way to portray himself as an intellectual, it also proves he was not one.

Also, reading books does not an intellectual mean. Drinking cocktails and being gay is not the key either, Marty.

The bolshevik leadership was full of intellectuals, and Stalin majorly pwned all of them. Why? In part, because they were actually theoretical communists trying to achieve something, while Stalin was a thug trying to get as much power as possible.

Secondly, and more importantly, because being an "intellectual" does not equal being smart and good in practical situations, which politics and intrique is. In fact it almost guarantees the opposite. As much as us theoretical types like to think otherwise, gaining political influence and power over fellow humans is very much a question of down-to-earth methods and social backstabbing you only need a hint of intelligence to be good at.

So stop this discussion it is fucking stupid.

The worst thing about Stalin is he didn't totally destroy Hungary.

[The Brain]

I don't think Stalin was less destructive than grumbler.

[Eddie Teach]

The worst thing about Stalin is he didn't totally destroy Hungary.

Not Stalin's fault you can't control your appetite.

[crazy canuck]

The worst thing about Stalin is he didn't totally destroy Hungary.

Not Stalin's fault you can't control your appetite.

Bad one.

[grumbler]

*funny-as-balls shit copy/paste with names exchanged*

Still going on about this, gramps?

Sure, gramps; it is still funny as balls. 

Some stuff is so mind-blowingly stupid that it is fun to throw it back into the originator's face repeatedly.

[grumbler]

I don't think Stalin was less destructive than grumbler.

And I don't think Stalin less fundamentally unintellectual than The Brain.

[The Brain]

Should we: get a room?

[Syt]

Sure, gramps; it is still funny as balls. 

Some stuff is so mind-blowingly stupid that it is fun to throw it back into the originator's face repeatedly.

Well, I'm glad that you're easily amused. I guess it takes some load off the shoulders of your male nurses at your old people's home.