(Small note of defence of socialist nations -- Canada, and I presume that you and others here think we are socialist, does not have a deficit ... that's right, NO deficit. Our debt per capita is higher than yours, thanks largely to high spending in the 80's followed by FTA and a recession in the early nineties. However, we have been running a surplus for the past five years or so. So kiss my ass with your 'socialism ruins the economy' rhetoric.)
Anyway, there is no indication yet that the bomb in question is from AQ or ETA, so hold your horses with the commentary. Further, even if it is AQ, they still have the right to be pissed at Spain, who aren't withdrawing troops in Iraq until late June. Even further, your expectations that things 'change overnight' is very short-sighted, don't you think?
Anyway, there is no indication yet that the bomb in question is from AQ or ETA, so hold your horses with the commentary. Further, even if it is AQ, they still have the right to be pissed at Spain, who aren't withdrawing troops in Iraq until late June. Even further, your expectations that things 'change overnight' is very short-sighted, don't you think?
WOW....Your in rapid fire form this AM.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Further, even if it is AQ, they still have the right to be pissed at Spain, who aren't <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pardon me what give Al Q the right to be pissed at anything.What gives them any justifcation??...Jesus!....Are you saying Al Q. is sending the message to Spain "Your either with us or against us." What is that some kind of cowboy outfit?
....alright I guess you got me on the socialist thing,as far as Canada goes...maybe.
Pardon me what give Al Q the right to be pissed at anything.What gives them any justifcation??...Jesus!....Are you saying Al Q. is sending the message to Spain "Your either with us or against us." What is that some kind of cowboy outfit?
....alright I guess you got me on the socialist thing,as far as Canada goes...maybe.
Okay ... let's qualify a little something here -- just because you and I don't like the delivery methods that AQ and others use does not mean that their underlying grievances hold absolutely no water. The fact that the US and the other 'infidels' as they call us refuse to even acknowledge, never mind address, what those underlying issues are means the conflict, and the terrorism that goes with it, will NEVER go away.
I think the impasse that we've come to will lead us to one of two things; either the West retreats from the MidEast altogether (including no more support to corrupt regimes in the region, including Israel) or a major 'clash of civilisations' occurs which will all but eliminate the chance of mutual survival. The anti-West sentiment is picking up momentum, as is the anti-Arab sentiment. We can either engage in WWIII or we can leave them well enough alone.
I think the impasse that we've come to will lead us to one of two things; either the West retreats from the MidEast altogether (including no more support to corrupt regimes in the region, including Israel) or a major 'clash of civilisations' occurs which will all but eliminate the chance of mutual survival. The anti-West sentiment is picking up momentum, as is the anti-Arab sentiment. We can either engage in WWIII or we can leave them well enough alone.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
I think the impasse that we've come to will lead us to one of two things; either the West retreats from the MidEast altogether (including no more support to corrupt regimes in the region, including Israel) or a major 'clash of civilisations' occurs which will all but eliminate the chance of mutual survival. The anti-West sentiment is picking up momentum, as is the anti-Arab sentiment. We can either engage in WWIII or we can leave them well enough alone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sometimes conflict is unavoidable, as it seems in this "clash of civilizations." I don't like the Arabs' chances in this one. They're digging their own graves.
I think the impasse that we've come to will lead us to one of two things; either the West retreats from the MidEast altogether (including no more support to corrupt regimes in the region, including Israel) or a major 'clash of civilisations' occurs which will all but eliminate the chance of mutual survival. The anti-West sentiment is picking up momentum, as is the anti-Arab sentiment. We can either engage in WWIII or we can leave them well enough alone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sometimes conflict is unavoidable, as it seems in this "clash of civilizations." I don't like the Arabs' chances in this one. They're digging their own graves.
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
(Small note of defence of socialist nations -- Canada, and I presume that you and others here think we are socialist, does not have a deficit ... that's right, NO deficit. Our debt per capita is higher than yours, thanks largely to high spending in the 80's followed by FTA and a recession in the early nineties. However, we have been running a surplus for the past five years or so. So kiss my ass with your 'socialism ruins the economy' rhetoric.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Give it time dear; it most assuredly will.
Also -- you must surely be aware that a budget deficit is not the sole indicator of an economies health.
Also -- one might argue that the 11% or so difference between what the Canadian government takes in and what it spends represents an apalling large amount of money just being stolen and squirreled away by the state, which is just a little bit worse than stealing and wasting it in my book.
Also -- with all that surplus money you'd think that they could do something about your allegedly free, allegedly functional healthcare system, the one that virtually every Canadian of my acquaintance calls horrid despite the way that patriotic Canucks scream around the Internet about what a great thing it is.
Also -- one would think that with all that excess dough Canada could de-nationalise its steel mills, see if the steel industry up there is actually capable of competing without the state selling production locally at cost and internationally at market rates.
And, and, and. You get the picture.
Congratulations on your budget surplus.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
(Small note of defence of socialist nations -- Canada, and I presume that you and others here think we are socialist, does not have a deficit ... that's right, NO deficit. Our debt per capita is higher than yours, thanks largely to high spending in the 80's followed by FTA and a recession in the early nineties. However, we have been running a surplus for the past five years or so. So kiss my ass with your 'socialism ruins the economy' rhetoric.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Give it time dear; it most assuredly will.
Also -- you must surely be aware that a budget deficit is not the sole indicator of an economies health.
Also -- one might argue that the 11% or so difference between what the Canadian government takes in and what it spends represents an apalling large amount of money just being stolen and squirreled away by the state, which is just a little bit worse than stealing and wasting it in my book.
Also -- with all that surplus money you'd think that they could do something about your allegedly free, allegedly functional healthcare system, the one that virtually every Canadian of my acquaintance calls horrid despite the way that patriotic Canucks scream around the Internet about what a great thing it is.
Also -- one would think that with all that excess dough Canada could de-nationalise its steel mills, see if the steel industry up there is actually capable of competing without the state selling production locally at cost and internationally at market rates.
And, and, and. You get the picture.
Congratulations on your budget surplus.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>including no more support to corrupt regimes in the region, including Israel) or a <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
X..Would that include their own corrupt regime??...Look these guys are just a sick fanatical fringe of Islam,that hates anything western or western values or basic human rights...They know in their heart of hearts if their people were given a REAL choice of personal freedom and the pursuit of their own happiness, the head nuts like OBL are finished.So they make the west to be the villian..
OBL comes from millions how many daycare centers has he built?...How many farmers has he subsidized?...How much foreign aid has he given to his own people??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The fact that the US and the other 'infidels' as they call us refuse to even acknowledge, never mind address, what those underlying issues are means the conflict, and the terrorism that goes with it, will NEVER go away.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It will never go away...until their gone away,there will always be an "underlying" issue with those nuts...I've never seen where they took yes for an answer.
[This message was edited by Patriot on April 02, 2004 at 10:25 AM.]
X..Would that include their own corrupt regime??...Look these guys are just a sick fanatical fringe of Islam,that hates anything western or western values or basic human rights...They know in their heart of hearts if their people were given a REAL choice of personal freedom and the pursuit of their own happiness, the head nuts like OBL are finished.So they make the west to be the villian..
OBL comes from millions how many daycare centers has he built?...How many farmers has he subsidized?...How much foreign aid has he given to his own people??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The fact that the US and the other 'infidels' as they call us refuse to even acknowledge, never mind address, what those underlying issues are means the conflict, and the terrorism that goes with it, will NEVER go away.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It will never go away...until their gone away,there will always be an "underlying" issue with those nuts...I've never seen where they took yes for an answer.
[This message was edited by Patriot on April 02, 2004 at 10:25 AM.]
With all due respect, and with a full understanding that Bin Laden et al are complete whackjobs, even many of the US's 'natural' allies think it to be bordering on villainy, too. Again, just because they may be wrong, doesn't automatically mean that you (and us) are right.
When you say that given the choice Iraqis and others would prefer freedom, there is little argument that they would prefer freedom from tyrants over strangleholds, no doubt. But I'm not so sure you can make such a sweeping statement that they would actually prefer democracy, if given the choice. I've read in many sources that a large number of those from the MidEast (varies depending where you look) would like to see Islam incorporated into their gov't more.
Westerners need to stop presuming that our way of life is desired by all, and that we are somehow appointed the bearers of democracy. It's fallacious.
Phaedrus: I'd argue on point with you but I'm not economically wound up this a.m. I'd like to know where you get this 11% figure from, tho. Got a link? Oh, and one other thing -- capitalism is as much an experiment at the moment as socialism is failing ... don't be too hasty in giving it props. It would appear, if global public reaction is any indication, that things aren't going so well in that department, either.
When you say that given the choice Iraqis and others would prefer freedom, there is little argument that they would prefer freedom from tyrants over strangleholds, no doubt. But I'm not so sure you can make such a sweeping statement that they would actually prefer democracy, if given the choice. I've read in many sources that a large number of those from the MidEast (varies depending where you look) would like to see Islam incorporated into their gov't more.
Westerners need to stop presuming that our way of life is desired by all, and that we are somehow appointed the bearers of democracy. It's fallacious.
Phaedrus: I'd argue on point with you but I'm not economically wound up this a.m. I'd like to know where you get this 11% figure from, tho. Got a link? Oh, and one other thing -- capitalism is as much an experiment at the moment as socialism is failing ... don't be too hasty in giving it props. It would appear, if global public reaction is any indication, that things aren't going so well in that department, either.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I've read in many sources that a large number of those from the MidEast (varies depending where you look) would like to see Islam incorporated into their gov't more.
Westerners need to stop presuming that our way of life is desired by all, and that we are somehow appointed the bearers of democracy. It's fallacious.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree...but in this country if one chooses to live by strict rules of Islam they can and do...they CHOOSE to..thats their freedom of choice..
I think this country wouldn't give a shit less what kind of goverment they have as long as their goverment wasn't in the buissnes of teaching and following up on the hatred of the west, based a lot on their own distortions with the message that the west and Israel should be annihilated...Then its personal.
Al Q is just another hate based KKK with different style head dresses.
Westerners need to stop presuming that our way of life is desired by all, and that we are somehow appointed the bearers of democracy. It's fallacious.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree...but in this country if one chooses to live by strict rules of Islam they can and do...they CHOOSE to..thats their freedom of choice..
I think this country wouldn't give a shit less what kind of goverment they have as long as their goverment wasn't in the buissnes of teaching and following up on the hatred of the west, based a lot on their own distortions with the message that the west and Israel should be annihilated...Then its personal.
Al Q is just another hate based KKK with different style head dresses.
Here is where our disagreement starts, then. The KKK hated blacks and jews and such for no reason other than race. Actions and words were inconsequential. AQ, in my belief (and the beliefs of those authors from whom I get my info) don't hate the West simply because they're the West ... they hate them (us) because of our continued support of corrupt regimes (since we're on the subject of Saddam ..) at the expense of Muslims at home. If the US et al were to completely pull out of the MidEast and stop their support of Saudi, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt and now Lybia, much of the anti-West sentiment would dissipate. When was the last time a terrorist group attacked Russia?
There is a real failing on the part of Western society to respect the sovereignty of these nations and the region as a whole. Separate, but equal. Imagine this scenario in the reverse, and tell me -- what would you do?
Either we get out of there or we annhilate them. I don't see that we have any other alternatives at this time.
There is a real failing on the part of Western society to respect the sovereignty of these nations and the region as a whole. Separate, but equal. Imagine this scenario in the reverse, and tell me -- what would you do?
Either we get out of there or we annhilate them. I don't see that we have any other alternatives at this time.
xpanda wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Phaedrus: I'd argue on point with you but I'm not economically wound up this a.m.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you say so. Given that Hayek and Mises shredded Socialism to pieces decades ago, and the world still insisted on giving it a try, and every wide-scale Socialist and communist endeavour since then has either collapsed or bastardised itself into a mixed-market scenario, only the truly weak-minded and weak-moraled would still advocate it today. That is axiomatic, regardless of whether or not I am a capitalist. It's just plain stupid of anyone -- anyone, regardless of background or intent or pedigree -- to buy into the ludicrous premises of Socialism.
The only arguments against capitalism, such as are thrown up weakly and ad nauseum by eek, are not examples of capitalism at all, but of corporatism (closet Fascism as practiced by the UK and US and most other governments in the modern world, but really excelled at by the white people nations.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'd like to know where you get this 11% figure from, tho.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
An approximation based on Canada's budget figures for 2000/01. $ 178.6 billion in revenue, $ 161.4 billion in expenditures. Now that I've put a calculator to it, it's only 10.65%, not 11%
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Oh, and one other thing -- capitalism is as much an experiment at the moment as socialism is failing ... don't be too hasty in giving it props.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't follow you. Capitalism is not a system some dope made up and attempted to impose on the world; on the contrary it is the way that substantially everything in the universe works from the lemonade stand on the corner to evolution to the way stars generate energy. So it managed to finally get codified and granted an -ism ... big whoop.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It would appear, if global public reaction is any indication, that things aren't going so well in that department, either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If by this you mean that public opinion is against capitalism, I don't know how anyone could expect anything else -- nearly total rejection by the human race of an axiom which basically states that if you don't pull your own weight and then some, you and everyone who depends on you is fücked and no one cares, versus "from each according to his ability -- to each according to his needs." As far as popularity contests go, that's a pretty one-sided deal. However, since capitalism is a natural law and not dependent upon popular vote any more than gravity is, I believe that in the long run it will all work out for the best, even if the best is not what 99% of the human race *wants*.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Phaedrus: I'd argue on point with you but I'm not economically wound up this a.m.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you say so. Given that Hayek and Mises shredded Socialism to pieces decades ago, and the world still insisted on giving it a try, and every wide-scale Socialist and communist endeavour since then has either collapsed or bastardised itself into a mixed-market scenario, only the truly weak-minded and weak-moraled would still advocate it today. That is axiomatic, regardless of whether or not I am a capitalist. It's just plain stupid of anyone -- anyone, regardless of background or intent or pedigree -- to buy into the ludicrous premises of Socialism.
The only arguments against capitalism, such as are thrown up weakly and ad nauseum by eek, are not examples of capitalism at all, but of corporatism (closet Fascism as practiced by the UK and US and most other governments in the modern world, but really excelled at by the white people nations.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'd like to know where you get this 11% figure from, tho.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
An approximation based on Canada's budget figures for 2000/01. $ 178.6 billion in revenue, $ 161.4 billion in expenditures. Now that I've put a calculator to it, it's only 10.65%, not 11%
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Oh, and one other thing -- capitalism is as much an experiment at the moment as socialism is failing ... don't be too hasty in giving it props.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't follow you. Capitalism is not a system some dope made up and attempted to impose on the world; on the contrary it is the way that substantially everything in the universe works from the lemonade stand on the corner to evolution to the way stars generate energy. So it managed to finally get codified and granted an -ism ... big whoop.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It would appear, if global public reaction is any indication, that things aren't going so well in that department, either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If by this you mean that public opinion is against capitalism, I don't know how anyone could expect anything else -- nearly total rejection by the human race of an axiom which basically states that if you don't pull your own weight and then some, you and everyone who depends on you is fücked and no one cares, versus "from each according to his ability -- to each according to his needs." As far as popularity contests go, that's a pretty one-sided deal. However, since capitalism is a natural law and not dependent upon popular vote any more than gravity is, I believe that in the long run it will all work out for the best, even if the best is not what 99% of the human race *wants*.
Phaedrus
Well, I am sure you've figured by now that I don't consider myself socialist, although there are a couple of socialist ideologies which I do support, namely universal health care and education. (very difficult to shake Canadians loose of this, even the more conservative ones.)
As per your assertion that socialism is supported because of it's ability to take care of us at our weakest (or laziest, depending on who you talk to) is dead true. So I wonder why you consider that (widespread support, that is) to be a detriment? In fact, your last statement leads me to wonder if you believe that capitalism will survive at the expense of democracy? Surely the notion of the 'free market' is completely dependent upon the full and willing participation of its consumers?
The fact remains that, like it or not, corporatism has become the current model that capitalism is perceived to not only endorse, but to aspire. Corporatism in my opinion is little different from the more corrupt regimes on this planet and is being supported by large NGOs and gov't the world over. The backlash against this is undeniable and the culprit will be capitalism -- the victor may well be socialist ideology.
Oh, and I am confused by your assertion that socialism is for the 'weak-moraled.' Please do explain.
As per your assertion that socialism is supported because of it's ability to take care of us at our weakest (or laziest, depending on who you talk to) is dead true. So I wonder why you consider that (widespread support, that is) to be a detriment? In fact, your last statement leads me to wonder if you believe that capitalism will survive at the expense of democracy? Surely the notion of the 'free market' is completely dependent upon the full and willing participation of its consumers?
The fact remains that, like it or not, corporatism has become the current model that capitalism is perceived to not only endorse, but to aspire. Corporatism in my opinion is little different from the more corrupt regimes on this planet and is being supported by large NGOs and gov't the world over. The backlash against this is undeniable and the culprit will be capitalism -- the victor may well be socialist ideology.
Oh, and I am confused by your assertion that socialism is for the 'weak-moraled.' Please do explain.
Real Capitalism in the US died with the crash at the end of the 20's.
A bankrupt system that couldn't even feed its own citizens properly, just like the final collapse of communism.
The mixed system has seen far more people benefit, and is far more adaptable than either of the two aforementioned systems that are at the extreme end of the spectrum.
A bankrupt system that couldn't even feed its own citizens properly, just like the final collapse of communism.
The mixed system has seen far more people benefit, and is far more adaptable than either of the two aforementioned systems that are at the extreme end of the spectrum.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Either we get out of there or we annhilate them. I don't see that we have any other alternatives at this time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
X With the natural progression of the world it we are bound to bang heads,its inevitable...look at the students in Iran,they see the writing on the wall,the more western culture bleeds in to their society the more they want and with the internet and globilization and the rest of it,they are sick of being inside looking out....To think that the Mullahs and emams and other assorted clerics don't have their own agenda is naive...
Bin laden and the like only appeal to the shit heads and sickos...I think the real question is who really wants to annihilate who...they want to annilate us...but we can anniliate them....We would not be speaking if it was the other way around.
X With the natural progression of the world it we are bound to bang heads,its inevitable...look at the students in Iran,they see the writing on the wall,the more western culture bleeds in to their society the more they want and with the internet and globilization and the rest of it,they are sick of being inside looking out....To think that the Mullahs and emams and other assorted clerics don't have their own agenda is naive...
Bin laden and the like only appeal to the shit heads and sickos...I think the real question is who really wants to annihilate who...they want to annilate us...but we can anniliate them....We would not be speaking if it was the other way around.
Phaedrus: had to have a look myself, so found this:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr/2001/afr01_3e.html#Budgetary%20Expenditures
When I do my math, I get a net difference of 9% between revenues and expenditures. Alarming still, but I also noticed that 'debt repayment' was not included on that list of expenditures. Our surpluses of the past several years have gone directly to that end -- why this is not listed I don't know, but that is my understanding. When I have more time, I will be looking into this most definitely.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr/2001/afr01_3e.html#Budgetary%20Expenditures
When I do my math, I get a net difference of 9% between revenues and expenditures. Alarming still, but I also noticed that 'debt repayment' was not included on that list of expenditures. Our surpluses of the past several years have gone directly to that end -- why this is not listed I don't know, but that is my understanding. When I have more time, I will be looking into this most definitely.
Patriot: we won't be having an argument on who will win the 'annhilation' game for certain, but again I can't get over how innocent you make the US out to be where international relations are concerned.
And, speaking of naivetée, assuming that Westerners can just walk about 'liberating' people and that this will be welcomed is absurd. I think we should be leaving them alone, personally. They don't want us there and our decisions to stay/expand are completely self-serving and have nothing to do with liberation or freedom or any such crap that our leaders purport.
And, speaking of naivetée, assuming that Westerners can just walk about 'liberating' people and that this will be welcomed is absurd. I think we should be leaving them alone, personally. They don't want us there and our decisions to stay/expand are completely self-serving and have nothing to do with liberation or freedom or any such crap that our leaders purport.
I overall agree with you, but they certainley should be answering for the plight of their own people and stop blaming everyone else...You notice how with them its nothing to do with them its everybodyelse.
To me once they lash out like they have and INTENTIONALLY murder 3000 INNOCENT people, then all bets are off...Good conversation though..except for the kiss my ass remark...but then again.???
To me once they lash out like they have and INTENTIONALLY murder 3000 INNOCENT people, then all bets are off...Good conversation though..except for the kiss my ass remark...but then again.???
