May 2007: Otoya Yamaguchi - A REAL Ninja

**The_Tao** · Posted On: 6/29/2007 2:09pm

I really shouldn't be laughing about this article but I am

**hpr** · Posted On: 6/29/2007 2:15pm

I find it offensive that he didn't wear tabis, black gi and a mask. And why the hell did he let himself get caught? He should have used teh ninja magic/sleight of hand and vanish in a puff of smoke. Traditionalist my ass.

**Inspector Pi** · Posted On: 7/06/2007 6:37am

Your article, so of course you can write what you want. And people can write what they want criticizing the article. And you can write what you want critciizing the criticism. Isn't freedom awesome?

Very few historic badases were good people, really. No one complained about the Spartans being baby killers and slavers and generally violent, psychopathic assholes, after all (of course, that's by today's standards, not the standards of Bronze Age Greece).

But, I agree that running up and stabbing some unarmed guy, while not wimpish, isn't that badass either. It's mildly badass, but the comparison to the VA Tech shooter was actually completely valid. Or the 9/11 terrorists. Yeah, you can't deny that people that throw their lives away have some conviction, but it's not really badass when they're going after unarmed targets. Whatever their conviction, they at least want a situation they can control to go out on. The forty seven Ronin would be a better example of badass assassination, since they actually took risks.

**tyciol** · Posted On: 7/09/2007 4:17pm

Originally Posted by DAYoung

Badass? Nope. He rushed an unarmed old bloke with a big knife.

You want badass with a sword?

YUKIO MISHIMA

Still nationalist, still fanatical, but he had the balls to kill himself (seppuku, i.e. slowly, painfully), not some old man he disagreed with.

How exactly is killing yourself badass? It's lame and cowardly. Killing yourself is the most unresisting sort of opponent you could fight: an opponent that helps you kill them. You have to keep living while bearing guilt and dishonour, like Himura Kenshin!

He's not just attacking an old guy with a sword, he's attacking a heavily guarded leader of a nation, a socialist one to boot.

**AAAhmed46** · Posted On: 8/15/2007 2:26am

**** i shouldn't bring this threadback to life but.....

Socialist isn't communist. That doesn't make him a bad guy.

Sweden is socialist, im sure not all of it's politicians are bad people.

**AAAhmed46** · Posted On: 8/16/2007 2:02pm

With that logic, technically your saying terrorists are badass. They operate on the same logic, they are willing to put themselves at so much risk they end their lives in the process.

The guy was a politician, he wasn't planning any genocides or anything.

He wasn't saddam hussain or even a dictator.

And socialist and communist are very different things. Im a liberal recently turned centrist who's leaning toward a more libertarian view.
Using your logic, even the current existing government would be considered socialist...technically. We have no idea what type of socialism this japanese dude had in mind, or what he planned.

Did he have balls? Yes he did. But it doesn't make it right.

Compareing a fat ass middle aged politician from japan to hitler is pretty funny.

Yes your right, there is a place for violence in this world.

But think of it like this: There is a time and a place. This was not it. Not even close.

Phrost made a funny ass post, hell i laughed when i read this article.

But doesn't change the fact that this guy didn't kill hitler or Osama bin laden. Just some stupid ass politician.

For all we know, this man truly believed in the ideals of his socialism, whether or not it's practical. He could have been a good man. Hell ive met MARXISTS, that are very good people. They ahve some quirky views, but they arn't bad people.

Look at Ron paul.

If some crazy evagelical or communist extremist guy tried to kill him for his socialially libertarian views and desire for a libertarian government, would it be justified? I like ron paul. I don't agree with everything he says, but i like the guy. But should he die because someone disagrees with him politically?

Now if Ron paul tried to gas a bunch of jews or Gypsies, then yeah, he deserves to die.

But he isn't, and has no intention to.

**GoldenJonas** · Posted On: 8/16/2007 2:54pm

Originally Posted by Adam Alexander

One: The reason we, as Americans, hate communism isn't because it's communism, but because it's socialistic. Real Americans hate socialism because it uses the law to burden one group with the care of another group. That socialism isn't communism matters as much as whether you like or dislike sniffing my ass. Either way, it stinks just the same.

You have no idea what the hell you are talking about and I will assume that the "we" you are referring to is actually just "you" and your misinformed and ignorant understanding of political doctrine, theories, and socio-economic paradigms and the development of the wide array of political ideologies throughout history.

In short:

There are many aspects of the present US Government that can described as "socialistic" to varying degrees.

Socialism, in its purest theoretical form, evolves from communism and general political dialectic. Thus, Socialism is communistic, not the other way around. Regardless, both statements are profoundly general to the point of being almost nonsensical.

The bolded statement is just dumb. In a pure socialist society there are no "groups", each individual is equally burdened (although under Marx's theory this is not a "burden" but is an accepted and cherished part of life) with the care of everyone else.

Anyway, sorry I missed this piece when you originally posted it Phrost; well written, I disagree, but well written none the less.

**GoldenJonas** · Posted On: 8/16/2007 2:54pm

Originally Posted by Adam Alexander

One: The reason we, as Americans, hate communism isn't because it's communism, but because it's socialistic. Real Americans hate socialism because it uses the law to burden one group with the care of another group. That socialism isn't communism matters as much as whether you like or dislike sniffing my ass. Either way, it stinks just the same.

You have no idea what the hell you are talking about and I will assume that the "we" you are referring to is actually just "you" and your misinformed and ignorant understanding of political doctrine, theories, and socio-economic paradigms and the development of the wide array of political ideologies throughout history.

In short:

There are many aspects of the present US Government that can described as "socialistic" to varying degrees.

Socialism, in its purest theoretical form, evolves from communism and general political dialectic. Thus, Socialism is communistic, not the other way around. Regardless, both statements are profoundly general to the point of being almost nonsensical.

The bolded statement is just dumb. In a pure socialist society there are no "groups", each individual is equally burdened (although under Marx's theory this is not a "burden" but is an accepted and cherished part of life) with the care of everyone else.

Anyway, sorry I missed this piece when you originally posted it Phrost; well written, I disagree, but well written none the less.

**Zendetta** · Posted On: 8/16/2007 5:26pm

Originally Posted by Adam Alexander

Take your theories about what is what and take a look at what happens when they're applied. Here's a hint: Soviet Union.

Hint: Scandanavia.

Education, health care, life expectancy, standard of living - they are smoking us like a cuban cigar.

**GoldenJonas** · Posted On: 8/16/2007 5:31pm

Originally Posted by Adam Alexander

AAA, good people make bad choices. They should pay for those bad choices.

GJ, STFU. Take your theories about what is what and take a look at what happens when they're applied. Here's a hint: Soviet Union.

To both, that some socialist ideas have gained enough ground to force a compromise in their direction and trying to use that as some sort of defense of socialism or saying that "real Americans" are for socialism is comparable to saying that because a compromise was made to allow slavery because the hand was forced, "Americans are for slavery".

Real world: Compromise is a necessary evil.
Real world: Real Americans respect freedom.
Real world: Socialism and communism are for scum.

So your stateing that the former Soviet Union is a good example of what Karl Marx envisioned as a Socialist societal economic and political state/system?

Your ignorance knows no bounds....

Neither the former Soviet Union, China, or Cuba adheared to what Marz, Engle, or Plato for that matter theorized as being a truely communal society.

They were in fact demonstrations of imperial totalitarianism with illusory communist doctrines to provide its citizenry with the illusion of equality at their best and oppressive dictatorships who perpetuate the societal caste system and both physically and psychologically imprison their citizens resulting in self-genocide of the poorer elements of their respective societies at worst.

What gets in the way of achieving a true communist or socialist society is one thing, the present sense and state of human nature. Competition in one form or another makes the world go round whether its athletic, economic, or political. This is a fact of life.

I never stated tried to provide an ingenious and arbitrary definition for a "R34L American". That short sighted and completely close minded function was a fecal byproduct of your own truncated imagination.

You remind me of one of the indoctrinated lemmings that made up the McCarthy Tribunal in the 1950's.

For the record, I am a firm believer in the benefits of capitalism and I find I often agree with both republicans and democrats on certain issues. However, misinformation is never a good basis for a belief system whether it be social, economic, or political.

So, you can keep your own definition of what a "Real American" is and I will continue to refuse to classify every individual regardless of citizenry by such an idiotic, misinformed, overly generalized classification.