Kitch

It's the most important place to all muslims. Attack it and you will have created a lot more enemies. But that leaves this in the realm of strategy of war... what is the point of this "war" that you say "they" started? How did they do that? Be careful about your answer... think back, waaaaayy back.

For real man?

Does the cost of the weapons used today compare to those of the 60s and 70s? I'm not well read on this but the dollar figures per month that are published about the cost of America's war in Iraq are pretty large!

Dude, imagine how I would look talking to these people. Check this out... I was kicked off the forum I listed above... because the moderator accused me of being a guy that pretended to be a Vietnam War Vet!! They're WHACKED!

You seem to be very well educated on financial happenings of the economy. I understand the idea of the invisible hand but what I don't understand is how it can't lead to the problems that a leftist like me is worried about. Could you please explain to me why it won't lead to a massive imbalance in power/resources to a few people? Or does capitalism really assume that anyone who doesn't "get ahead" really hasn't worked hard enough?

None of you conservatives on this forum are REAL conservatives!!! You're a bunch of phonies!!! Check out this forum to see what real conservatives are all about!!! http://www.conservativesforum.com/ Just joking... I think anyone would be scared if these people were in the majority! (They're not in the majority in the U.S.... are they???)

I don't want to turn this into an insult tennis match... I really don't. But I have to ask the question, why might there be so many violent Americans? (It's a sincere question).

This is where economics overlaps with reality of life rather than just the reality of finances. On that note, economics is the study of decisions made about limited resources. Money is only an aspect of that. Increases in income do result in increases in happiness (proportionally) only until basic needs are met. Then any increase in happiness is either not proportional to an increase in income or there is a plateau... "Typically market health measures such as GDP and GNP have been used as a measure of successful policy. However, although on average richer nations tend to be happier than poorer nations, beyond an average GDP/capita of about $15,000 (most of the world's nations have less than this), studies indicate the average income in a nation makes little difference to the average self-reported happiness." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_economics On that note, my given definition of rationality has nothing to do with the reality of human behaviour, individual or group. Individuals are NOT always rational. I don't think you can even quantify, generally, how often or determine circumstances that humans generally are rational. We each have a slightly different perspective on EVERYTHING... how then could we even define what rational behaviour is? The decision made by people within one standard deviation of the centre of a bell curve? And nobody has acknowledged the absurdity of the fundamental assumption that resources are infinite... or that growth is not contingent upon LIMITED resources. Could somebody please explain how it could be possible for the market to grow indefinitely? Seriously... somebody?

The logic doesn't make sense to you because you don't seem to understand it. If nobody has children, the species doesn't perpetuate. This is not about the services that they could potentially provide... how can you look at children in such a utilitarian way? Say you own a business, and everybody decides not to have children. Who are you going to sell your products to? I believe educating those kids should be the responsibility of society. How can I function as an individual if the people that I interact with are illiterate? I'll help pay for the education of others, no problem. So by your logic, if we give incentive for people to become cops, then couples will be enticed to have kids? There are far too many assumptions for this to work... such as the assumption that parents determine the life choices of their kids... such as the assumption that IF parents did, somehow the number of cops wouldn't be too large to compensate. I've tried, but I can't really understand when people don't want to be 'punished' for not having kids... presumably by paying taxes that go toward education. I really can't see that as being anything other than selfish. If some one out there wants to try and explain this to me in a way that DOESN'T indicate selfishness, I'm eagerly waiting.

QUOTE(Slim MacSquinty @ Oct 7 2008, 04:11 PM) * This thread is truly hilarious, being anti Harper is like a grade school clique, you join the group, you feel comfortable but you have no idea why. Frightening, but funny. All of these quasi-convos about the two parties are childish. Why is it that it's clique to be against a right wing politician? Why can't (maaaaaany) conservatives accept that people have different priorities? Again, reasonable and intelligent people can and do reach very different conclusions given the same information... but according to some people, if you don't reach similar conclusions to their own, you're inferior in your capacity to comprehend the world! It's like calling somebody stupid because they like sausage on pizza instead of pepperoni. Better still, it's like calling some one stupid if they don't like pizza!

why?

You've misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I'm not one to jump in discussions about liberal and conservative parties. There's nothing between the lines in what I said. I'm simply saying, around the world right now, there are governments that are conservative, socialist and everything in between. The economies around the world are suffering from the same/similar problems. So we can't really blame any government of any ideology for what's happening, can we? I mean, I know that governments DO impact their own economies. But it seems that there are forces greater than those that governments apply to economies. No?

I'd like to read this guy's book. I, personally, can't think of any evidence that could falsify the god hypothesis. Thus, I can't (at the moment) consider the god hypothesis a scientific one. That doesn't mean that there can't be discussion about its validity... just that I don't think it can be evaluated using the scientific method. But, again, just because I can't think of evidence that would falsify it doesn't mean that none exists! Speaking of the guys you mentioned... what do you think of Hitches (spelling?)? I'm reading "God Is Not Great: How religion poisons everything" right now and it seems OK so far.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressrele...r/06/bush.shtml http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm Who knows if he actually said that. But I've heard him say some messed up things about god in reference to his wars.

What does this mean? What does it mean to get the job done? Why are our troops in Afghanistan anyway?

I hear a lot of talk about the Liberal party of Canada being the cause of a lot of financial problems. Did anyone see the news this week? Did you see how many countries are in financial trouble? Is it REALLY a government that can cause that? Is it a big coincidence that the governments of the past say, 10 years, have cause the world's stock markets to fall in late 2008? OR Is the discussion about the economy, in terms of election campaigns, REALLY nothing more than fear mongering... no matter which side you're on? Meaning, if the government really has little to do with economic cycles, they why do we believe politicians when they blame each other for bad times or take credit for good times?

I'm presumed to be akin to that club seemingly because I am on the left of the spectrum. I honestly didn't expect my accusation on this topic to be taken too seriously... if it was, great, if it wasn't great. But never the less, since I started posting on these forums last year... scratch that, since I started expressing leftist views, I've been ridiculed by right leaners before they know a thing about me. Very few people have attacked my logic, and I appreciate those that do... my ideas are not static or set in stone. More often than not people attack people, not ideas. And, I can't speak from the perspective of a right winger talking to lefties, but from my side, righties presume that a person is unintelligent, unreasonable or naive if they don't agree with right leaning views. It appears that the most common tool of the right leaning debater is ridicule! I'll take the heat for THIS thread, but M.Dancer, why did you stop responding to my questions about media consolidation? Why did few people challenge me about my definitions of liberal vs. conservative... and I know that it was read.. SOME people did challenge... but not my definition, my understanding of education. And when I shot back... nothing! Let's play ball kids. I struck out here, but I'm being intentionally walked elsewhere. How cocky do I sound right now!! Wow.

No, I don't get angry with students easily. This is definitely not how I would react in a classroom. Your nice little cheap shot doesn't work though, guy. This isn't a classroom. I'm not a 'teacher' on these forums. Are teachers not people too? Or do we fold up and get filed away at night? That's a very adolescent perspective my friend. And my intolerance is not for disagreement. On the contrary I expect disagreement here... it's what these forums are all about. Take a look at some of the other exchanges between me and dude... I don't expect you to agree with me getting angry, but I'd hope you'd understand.

I shouldn't have reacted like that, I admit. I'll explain why I did though... not to defend myself or justify, but so that hopefully my reasons are understood. I'm not going to sugar coat it... your response to my first post in this thread was ridiculous. I don't know how anyone could dispute that... but that doesn't matter. Soon after I read that, I read the post from the guy who was homeless for a while and made it out and now owns his own company and to tell you the truth, I was touched by that. I sincerely felt for the guy (sympathy and pride). And your response to him was to question whether he was REALLY happy that he was given opportunity through social programs OR if he was proud of himself for working hard. I thought, how dare this guy assume to know what another person, who dealt with such things, knows or feels... or imply that he shouldn't feel the way that he claimed. Sorry dude, but that's arrogant and ignorant. From there, I just got more and more angry with things that you had to say. Like branding me a Layton supporter because I'm a teacher. Like calling me a liar because I used an unsupported anecdote... you can attack the merit of my words, but to attack me is both unfair and illogical. A lot of things you say DO indicate that you either presume to know what people think (not that you tell them what to think... explicitly), or imply that their opinions should be different... eg. the guy who was homeless, the guy who said socialism isn't that bad. He said it WASN'T THAT BAD! He did not say that he like it better or that it was good... not that bad. Regardless, you, and others, are right. I shouldn't have gotten angry... really, this is an online discussion with people that I don't know and never will. Still, if you don't like something that I've said, do me a favour and attack my words in a logical way. Don't attack me personally. Calling a person stupid does not make them wrong. Showing why you think they're wrong can.

I'm a leftist... and pretty far to the left. But when an intelligent person speaks of true free market ... theories?... I can't help but be intrigued. It's almost counterintuitive to our Western mindset... in a way that I am all over. We LOVE control. We believe that the Earth is ours to do with what we please... really, we believe it is our duty to protect it. That doesn't make sense, though, since the Earth did just fine before we developed that attitude. I really like the idea of 'letting go'... meaning, of the economy, like you just explained. I can't help, being a leftist, to be skeptical though. I mean, a Marxist society would suffer from people who would take advantage by not contributing what they can and taking more than they need. But I feel that a true free market society would suffer because people who are more successful than others, whether it's for a reason or not (meaning, if they worked hard or got "lucky" by investing in the right stocks), inevitably gain influence and 'power' that people with less money don't have. (I'm on some heavy drugs after a day surgery right now, so I can't articulate that as well as I'd like... but I hope you get the gist).

My apologies to the forum, I don't want to be banned.

Again, you fucking try to tell somebody else what they think!!! Are you really that fucking thick skulled and ignorant??? You'd probably argue with a person eating a hamburger about whether or not they like beef, wouldn't you?

Dude, thank you for that. I'll explain myself again because I don't expect you to find everything else I've said on the matter. Replace UN in my original post with NATO... is that better? Or is it still wrong. I'm sure that if money was coming our way, it's more to pay for our presence there, not as a source of revenue. I shouldn't have (unintentionally) implied that. I will NOT admit that my friend is misinformed. I didn't present details correctly, and, in the end, it doesn't matter anyway because, apparently, Martin sent our troops there. As a teacher I am exactly what I need to be. Partial to the truth insofar as I/anyone is aware of/capable of knowing the truth. And yes, I am aware that an anecdote does not constitute evidence. I meant only to present an anecdote. Please don't patronize me, as clearly, I am not a moron.

Bud, there must be something wrong with you mentally. Either you can't read, you don't know how to reason, or you're still so emotionally damaged about your prof and your bad grade that you will lash out at some one who doesn't agree with you. Who the hell are you to criticize me for throwing info out there that I won't support? You ACTUALLY thought that you could dispute my definition of a liberal by implying that it couldn't be so because your prof gave you a bad grade! You ACTUALLY accused a guy who said that he was homeless and benefited from social programs of not being sure of his own opinions! Cry me a fucking river kid. On THIS topic, if Martin sent our troops to Afghanistan, then my half hearted accusation of Harper is incorrect and that's that... no? NO, because you feel like this is an opportunity for you to stick it to me. My buddy said what he said, I believe him, can't prove it, and that's that. I'm not expecting that anyone take it seriously if they don't want to. But I am neither a liar nor ignorant. Challenge me on some other thread bud. Challenge something else that I've said. Assuming that because I'm a teacher I support Jack Layton is your best shot at me. Do I need to explain the logical fallacy there?

For starters, I'm not a moron. I re-read your post and, well, you didn't say anything about research and DID just imply that we should trust our elders. But that doesn't matter now... I'm glad that you clarified. The green party doesn't simply want people to hug trees and get high, though. That's misleading (I know it was a joke). Thank you for your post. I'm glad that you said what you said... I'm not one for simply 'believing' things that are said, and as such, even if an older person gave me some wisdom, I'd reflect on it and perhaps do some research and make my own decision. Your message HERE, sir, is indeed what young people need to do. BUT, I would caution you and anyone who reads this to assume that just because something is written in a book it is legit and trustworthy. EVERYTHING has to be read critically, whether it's on some website or in a 600 page hard cover book.