|
Arafat's dead (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
you are a ing moron sir, I will take pictures in the streets of Syria and Lebanon and show you how the girls wear mini skirts.
I will bring back this thread and post those pics so idiots like you can shut the up!
and westerners being threatned... too much tv idiot, bull is happening in Iraq because of the occupation, you know that.
Are the westerners harrassed when they go work in the ARABIC gulf states and make fortunes?? I don't think so... :rolleyes: |
Drewfactor has a warped viewof the middle east, exactly what the western media wants him to beleive. He thinks the whole of the middle east resembles taliban run afghanistan.
oh yes.. he knows the situtation there becuase his parents rode thier bikes through there back in the day...lol |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I've got nothing against G, he acts his age. |
he sure does, in person and online .. an upstanding guy!
|
|
|
| drgoodvibe |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
he sure does, in person and online .. an upstanding guy!
|
:p |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
First of all i just want to thank you for writing everything twice, very appriciated :p
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]It's not "very" right or "very" left. There's a hard line at the left and right edges. Swedes can call it whatever they please, but the fact of the matter is that Sweden is a left-wing, socialist welfare state. |
So the definition of the ultimate left would be that the government controll everything, produce everything etc. The ultimate right on the other hand would be the opposite, the individual does what he/she want to, the government is non excistant etc. Can we agree on that?
Assuming that you agree on my definition above lets take some examples:
-Sweden have less laws regulating personal freedom and more promoting personal responisblilty than Canada or the US and most importantly, much less than a totally controlling state. (More right than left)
-The free market is ruling, the government keep out of most buisnesses and contract as much as possible. (More right than left)
-The governemtn pays for everyone's education, health care and other basic government functions (although you still have the choice to go to a private school or hospital or a private driven hospital/school paid by the government). (quite center/left)
-Democracy (right)
-Free speech (right)
I know that you will call me something bad and not agree at all, but seen which side it is closer to, sweden is somewhat more close to a capitalist state than a communist state.
So what am i trying to say, that sweden is a right/capitalst country? No! Im saying that even tho you might be right that there is a definiton of what is right or left it doesnt make sense to use it since booth sides are extreme and most of the world leans over towards the one side. What i have also shown by this is that the two point scale sucks. ;)
| quote: | | That's the whole point. To some people maybe it's a lot, to some people maybe it's a little, but it's 1 kg no matter which one you call it. Behind all the silly semantics there is actually an objective reality. |
The question still remains, is it a lot or is it a little? It might be a close to non excistant mass compared to the universe as a whole, but for a human it is still a amount worth talking about. So would it make sense to call 1 kg a neglectable mass? No it wouldnt, even tho it would be correct compared to the absolute edges (which in this cases would be 0 and the total mass of the universe i guess).
| quote: | | Well actually there are numerous middles, and centrists come in many different flavours. It just means that you carry certain right-wing views and certain left-wing views that tend to balance each other out, and that you don't "align" yourself with either side, which is true. The primary reason that Canadian (and a lot of European) Leftism disgusts me is the smarmy attitude that everyone who doesn't agree is stupid - typically accompanied by an absence of facts to support why the disagreeing party is actually incorrect - whereas the Canadian "right" usually has no problem listening to other people's ideas. Now, that doesn't mean a Rightist won't speak up and say that those ideas are a crock, but there's usually a "because", followed by a rational explanation, and sans the anger and personal insults. |
well, i would agree that the far right or the far left usually dont listen rationally to arguments and is to fanatic about their beliefs to listen to someone else, but people in there between usually do try to listen to others arguments. So this is not only for "european and candian left" but also for the US rights and their alikes.
| quote: | I tend to be central on both the social and fiscal scales. For example I am:
- An atheist (definitely Left) |
considering todays defintions atheist would probably be left, but it could aswell be right imo.
| quote: | | - Against drug regulations (Left) |
This would most definetely be right on the stricly correct right-left scale.
| quote: | | - For gun regulations (Left) |
Indeed.
| quote: | | - For the right to an abortion (Left), with certain restrictions relating to age of consent/age of majority/etc. |
well, also this should be to right imo.
| quote: | | - Against affirmative action (Right) |
Right indeed.
| quote: | | - For welfare, but restricted to about half the minimum wage for a limited time period (Left by an objective standard, Right according to socialists) |
would it really be more left than right? In a communist state everyone would be given a "minimum wage", in a capitalst state they would be given nothing. "Your state" would offer them half the minimum wage for a limited amount of time, that is close to 0 than to the minimum wage.
| quote: | | - Against corporate taxes and consumption taxes (Right) |
right indeed...
| quote: | - For income taxes to support military and law enforcement, preferably a flat tax (center)
- For equal rights, but offended by sexism masquerading as feminism (call that what you want)
- Against public schooling, but have no problem with public educational funding (i.e. voucher systems)
- Against government-controlled health care, but have no problem with a two-tier system or public insurance |
No need to take more examples, you have got my point (even if you might still not agree with it :p).
| quote: | Ya gettin' my drift here? These things hardly define an extreme-right-wing philosophy. In fact I'm pretty much a Liberal, the way Liberal was defined about 30-40 years ago before it became a "left" term.
Yes, being an electrical engineer, I learned quite a bit of physics. I learned that the ETR is widely misunderstood. And I learned that everything is quantized with distinct minima and maxima. I'd hazard a guess that anyone who paid attention in physics would be well aware that not only are there absolutes, but that the universe would cease to function without them.
But don't worry, I know it was just a joke. ;) |
Good ;) |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
unecessary thread.. let it be
|
Let's not be disrespectful....Make peace not wars.
Someone close this thread immediately.... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
So the definition of the ultimate left would be that the government controll everything, produce everything etc. The ultimate right on the other hand would be the opposite, the individual does what he/she want to, the government is non excistant etc. Can we agree on that? |
Yes, although strictly speaking the extreme right is considered to be a fascist dictatorship. It depends on whether or not you associate the "right" with religion or not - I don't, so I consider extreme right to be anarchy.
| quote: | -Sweden have less laws regulating personal freedom and more promoting personal responisblilty than Canada or the US and most importantly, much less than a totally controlling state. (More right than left)
-The free market is ruling, the government keep out of most buisnesses and contract as much as possible. (More right than left)
|
These aren't facts - it may be how you personally feel about Sweden's policies, but in North America their system is known as the "cradle to grave" system and is hardly about personal responsibility and free market.
Having said that... I DO think Europeans actually have a greater sense of personal responsibility than Canadians despite the nanny state, but we have to keep culture and government separate here.
| quote: | | -The governemtn pays for everyone's education, health care and other basic government functions (although you still have the choice to go to a private school or hospital or a private driven hospital/school paid by the government). (quite center/left) |
Yes, and Sweden definitely has the right idea there.
Actually, democracy isn't really on the right of the scale. Democracy is often used as a blanket term to denote Western values, but the true "right" is a republic, such as the constitutional republic of the USA, where the constitution has the highest power, government the next highest, and popular opinion is not relevant. Constitutional monarchies like Britain and Canada also apply, although Canada in the 21st century doesn't really fit the bill anymore.
Democracy taken literally is actually left of center.
| quote: | | -Free speech (right) |
That's iffy. Anyone with beliefs right of absolute communism tends to think of free speech as fundamental. Free speech is also not completely free, as there are laws against libel and slander. "Hate speech" laws and "anti-discrimination" movements are also against free speech - I'm not sure how bad the situation is in Sweden, but you'll find it's pretty rough in Canada, with all kinds of groups telling you what you should and should not be able to say.
| quote: | | I know that you will call me something bad and not agree at all, but seen which side it is closer to, sweden is somewhat more close to a capitalist state than a communist state. |
Why would I call you something bad? I don't need to resort to personal insults to assert my stance here.
Anyway, what you're saying is completely true, Sweden is closer to a capitalist state than a communist state, but a pure capitalist state would be dead center - that's what capitalism is. Capitalism means that government exists but is there to *protect* individual rights (namely the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). A capitalist society still has a criminal code and a military, it just doesn't regulate the market.
Which means that Sweden, being pretty far from communism but still not quite pure capitalist, would be on the left side of the scale (AKA socialist).
| quote: | | So what am i trying to say, that sweden is a right/capitalst country? No! Im saying that even tho you might be right that there is a definiton of what is right or left it doesnt make sense to use it since booth sides are extreme and most of the world leans over towards the one side. What i have also shown by this is that the two point scale sucks. ;) |
Well, as I explained earlier, it does make sense; your analysis was based on a flawed argument. ;)
Never did I say that the two-point scale is any more valid than the four-point scale though. They're both valid. It's just that on the two-point scale, you have to take into account both the social and fiscal meaning of a policy before classifying it as left or right, which you've neglected to do and I will explain below (skipping the comment about "a lot or a little" because we've been over that already):
| quote: | | well, i would agree that the far right or the far left usually dont listen rationally to arguments and is to fanatic about their beliefs to listen to someone else, but people in there between usually do try to listen to others arguments. So this is not only for "european and candian left" but also for the US rights and their alikes. |
No doubt about it, the hard Right (particularly the religious Right) can be just as stubborn as the hard Left, but you and others seem to enjoy classifying American Centrists as hard-Right, gun-toting bible-thumping hicks. There certainly are those types down south, but they are not nearly as common as many Canadians and Europeans would like to believe. Bush in particular is certainly not a crazy right-wing cowboy like so many here enjoy stating.
| quote: | | considering todays defintions atheist would probably be left, but it could aswell be right imo. |
One could make an argument for it being central, but definitely not right. Since religion has no fiscal meaning, it has to be looked at socially, and socially it's on the far left unless you're like me and view environmentalism/multiculturalism/etc. as a kind of religion in itself which exists left of atheism. But I don't think you're going to agree with me on that, so let's just say that atheism is on the left. :p
| quote: | | [Against drug regulations] This would most definetely be right on the stricly correct right-left scale. |
Fiscally, it's on the right. Socially, it's on the left.
| quote: | | [Abortion]well, also this should be to right imo. |
How do you figure? Abortion is, again, almost a strictly social issue, and it's definitely on the left. The only way of speaking about abortion in the fiscal sense is in whether or not they should be publicly funded, but even entering that debate implies that there's a public health care system and in that case we're already on the left.
| quote: | | [Welfare]would it really be more left than right? In a communist state everyone would be given a "minimum wage", in a capitalst state they would be given nothing. "Your state" would offer them half the minimum wage for a limited amount of time, that is close to 0 than to the minimum wage. |
Minimum wage laws are left-wing, I'll concede that, but you talk of minimum wage as if it's a guaranteed wage (in the context of a communist state). Minimum wage laws can still exist under a [relatively] free-market economy, it's just that they only apply to people who have jobs.
Personally, I don't think that minimum wage laws should exist in a free market, but in a heavily regulated market such as Canada's, they are absolutely necessary. That's a whole other debate, so let's not get into it. I'll simply say that, okay, if we are talking about welfare in a state without a minimum wage law, welfare should be just enough to pay for food, shelter, and the tools to apply for a job (postage, transportation expenses, whatever). Welfare SHOULD also be tightly regulated in terms of providing proof of where the money is going - it's unfortunate that in Canada it is one of the only systems that ISN'T really regulated.
Better?
Hope that clears it up! |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
you are a ing moron sir, I will take pictures in the streets of Syria and Lebanon and show you how the girls wear mini skirts.
I will bring back this thread and post those pics so idiots like you can shut the up!
and westerners being threatned... too much tv idiot, bull is happening in Iraq because of the occupation, you know that.
Are the westerners harrassed when they go work in the ARABIC gulf states and make fortunes?? I don't think so... :rolleyes: |
Easy there, take a step back, breath deep, it's ok.
Of course the middle east isn't a total, anarchy-ridden hell hole...
But I rest my case, if there's these forces of liberty, freedom, and tolerance are actually prevalent in that part of the world..where's the global support from the rest of these so called arab/muslim moderates? Where's the world-wide condemnation towards terrorists from all these moderate people?
I'll tell you. They're too busy condemning Israel and America for being the perpetrators of all the problems.
It's the perpetual victim complex that plagues middle easterners. It's all the fault of someone else, don't dare take an objective look at your own leaders and the flaws in your own society, just blame Israel and America.
I'm not just targetting the middle east here, it's this victim complex that drove the irrational hatred of the Irish terrorists and it even plagues people I see at work who do nothing but complain about "the management" or some other target of their contempt. |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Drewfactor has a warped viewof the middle east, exactly what the western media wants him to beleive. He thinks the whole of the middle east resembles taliban run afghanistan.
oh yes.. he knows the situtation there becuase his parents rode thier bikes through there back in the day...lol |
That is the sort of elitist condescension constantly coming from people on your side of the argument: "Your views and opinions are not valid because you're brainwashed by the Western media." "You're too stupid and ignorant to be able to think on your own." Gimme a break.
Perhaps the language I am using in my posts is inflammatory to some of you guys, and if so, good..cuz otherwise you won't read my posts. I've found that the only way to engage people in any rational debates around here is to start using strong language. Unfortunately nobody sees through it and/or they are afraid to engage me in a debate so it's just easier to throw labels at me.
So, if actually living travelling through the most rural and sparsely populated as well as spending months and weeks in the big cities of the region we're discussing is not a valid basis for forming some opinion of the region...and getting your info from all Western media outlets is not valid...then what is!? Al-Jezeera? The radical fringe-leftist websloggs you like to read? C'mon.
Besides, I work with several people who have worked in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait. I also work with many doctors who are over here from Saudi etc... If they are not adequate sources of info on the middle east, then I don't know what is.
Nobody here can tell me that by all objective standards, that you could just walk around freely as a Westerner in most places in the muslim world without a much greater threat to your security than the vast majority of places in America, Canada, or Europe.
So, let's ease up on the hate folks. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
That is the sort of elitist condescension constantly coming from people on your side of the argument: "Your views and opinions are not valid because you're brainwashed by the Western media." "You're too stupid and ignorant to be able to think on your own." Gimme a break.
|
how about you give yourself a break and actually look at what you write before you post it
and while you continue to make generalizations why not add a couple of racial slurs to fortify your arguments
or better yet.. make some more analogies using your ter |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
But I rest my case, if there's these forces of liberty, freedom, and tolerance are actually prevalent in that part of the world..where's the global support from the rest of these so called arab/muslim moderates? Where's the world-wide condemnation towards terrorists from all these moderate people?
I'll tell you. They're too busy condemning Israel and America for being the perpetrators of all the problems.
|
hehehe but thats your problem. Its not because you never heard about their condemnation that they doesn't exist.
Do you seriously think that the CBC for example has the time to tell you about every head of state/government reaction to a certain terrorist act? Obviously, for practical reaons, NO.
If you dig deeper you'll find that you're wrong on this one too.
I'm not gonna google about condemnations from the arab/muslim world, do it yourself.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| avikonen |
Irony reigns supreme. Yes, Nat. The PLO had all kinds of monetary opaqueness and people were getting fed up with Arafat as a minister. If Sharon didn't push to get rid of him, he probably would have been voted out by his own people but instead will be glorified as a freedom fighter. So his own archenemy has promoted his legacy. Makes me think of that saying in a perfect world, those two would be lovers ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by tatgirl
sums it all up right there.
People defending him, as if he were Mother Theresa? He was supposed to step down LONG ago, and never did. His approval rating within his own community had dropped long ago. The only reason they didn't kill him themselves was out of respect. And what, may I ask, did he actually DO for his people? Where's all that money he collected from all those international countries to improve living conditions, etc? All that talk about his wife standing to inherit all that money. Why the hell should she inherit what was never hers? He stole from his own people.
I am certain that whomever will come in power next will do a much better job. |
|
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
how about you give yourself a break and actually look at what you write before you post it
and while you continue to make generalizations why not add a couple of racial slurs to fortify your arguments
or better yet.. make some more analogies using your ter |
Remember that thread a while back about Carabana? Remember all the people going on and on about the violence, the scantily dressed fat girls, and all those nasty things going on? I made a facetious comment about everybody being racist against blacks or Jamacians and everybody ripped on me for "pulling out the race card" and "crying racism."
How are my comments any different? It's ok to diss violent blacks, but it's not ok to diss murderous muslims?
According to Cyrus King (and apparently alot of people on this board) anybody who supports Bush are dumb (not to mention the litany of vicious remarks made about Americans or Jews). Oh, I see, this kind of generalization is ok to make.
I'll state it again. I'm not making racist generalizations about muslims and arabs. BUT, there are facts here. Sure, the vast majority of muslims are peaceful. However, the vast majority of terrorists are muslim. Can one not make this point without being labelled racist? Or, is your moral cowardice so strong and you're so steeped in political correctness that you can't face this fact? |
|
|
|
|
