truthwins
-
Posts
16 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by truthwins
-
-
McCain (McRaZy) was right, he's retarded when it comes to economics.
-
Rumsfeld is simply an oblivious Neo-Fascist maniac. He has an 80% disapproval rating among Americans, likely even lower among non-US residents. IOW, if you support Rumsfeld, you are ANTI-AMERICAN and ANTI-WORLD.
But he's likely behind the scenes somewhere, with his rabid dogma, practicing strategies and manipulations to rule the world, and destroy all the disbelievers... by bombing them into submission (and civilian casualties are simply peripheral rationalizations).
-
Bush-Wacko policies have GREATLY increased :
-Infant mortality rates in the US
-Deaths of civilians oversees
-US incarceration rate
-US poverty rates
-Number of US citizens going hungry
-US per capita debt
-World mistrust of Neo-Conservatism
-Religiosity in gov't policy (Church-State FUSION)
-Environmental damage
-Corruption
While DEcreasing :
-Average US life expectancy
-World peace
-Federal gov't transparency
-Trust of federal gov't
-Infrastructure funding (Katrina)
-Civil liberties
Apparently, Neo-Conservative policies lead to widespread death, incarceration, torture, secrecy, poverty, loss of liberty and general destruction. That's why 70% of Americans oppose Bush and his Neo-Conservative administration, and FAR MORE than 70% oppose such insane, authoritarian right-wing policies outside of the US.
IOW, Neo-Conservatism is ANTI-AMERICAN and ANTI-WORLD.
-
Whoever he chooses will simply be a PUPPET of the military, the corporations, the DEA, and the prison/torture industry.
-
Why didn't the Neo-Cons follow the Kelowna Accord through ? If you blindly allow an entire segment of the poulation to fall through the cracks, it DOES have an effect on the country as a whole.
Why close your eyes to high infant mortality, poverty, crime, shoddy living conditions and poor educational standards ? Why not try to stimulate a boosting of said group through programs, until they come more in line with the rest of the population WRT socio-economic statistical indicators ?
Hopefully, no callous and malicious dismissivity abounds...
-
Do you support the status-quo 2-party domination (similar to the US system) ? "Liberals or Conservatives" is as similarly a limited 'choice' as "Democrat or Republican" is.
Or, would you like to see a more diverse ideological choice available possibly under multi-party proportional representation ? Imagine this...
NDP - Green - Labour - Liberal - Conservative - Libertarian
Imo, there would be much more voter participation (all the european, scandinavian and australian elections have more parties and higher voter participation) and less chance of one party to dominate.
Any parties I missed you'd like to add ?
-
I'm sorry you would have to define what you mean by socialist. Socialism, in my view is an evolutionary process toward the totalitarian state. While differentiation can be made regarding ideology, such as between the extreme right fascist-syndicalist or Nazi type of totalitarianism and the extreme left revolutionary communist type of totalitarianism, the goal of all socialism is similarly totalitarianism.
I think it a mistake to think of socialism only in terms of it being totalitarian, or "pure" as you call it. A "predominantly" socialist system is just one that is closer to the end goal of totalitarianism or "being pure".
Now let's not confuse laissez-faire with extreme right-wing. The only thing extreme about your claim of there existing an "extreme right wing laissez-faire capitalist fringe" is in it's oxymoronic content. Right wing extremism has nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism. Fascism and Nazism do indeed have corporatist elements in it's ideology but they are no less dictatorial than any politburo. Economic domination of society is also a part of all socialist ideologies and have nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism.
The policy of cutting taxes in and of itself is not a move toward a more capitalist system. It is a governmental economic regulatory tool, often abused by government as a form of vote buying. Unless a tax cut is accompanied with at least equal cuts in government spending and bureaucracy it is not a move toward capitalism. Your complaint is with government corporatism, that is to say, socialism, not capitalism.
The political scene becomes a very complicated tangle, which I believe is intentional, when viewed from current political theory. I think the lay person, the average citizen, need only understand that government either gets bigger or it gets smaller and to heck with left, right, as someone termed it, socred, I believe, "false dialectics". I would have called it an artificially contrived dialectic for the purpose of creating political complexity and erudition.
A whole science has been created out of that "dialectic".
We should call extreme left and right wing ideologies just different factions vying for control of the centralized power of the totalitarian state. They will be adversarial but they are not by any means opposites, They could conceivably be, and in actuality are, looked at as a dialectic.
Gotta go! It's another glorious day!
2008 Oslo Norway vs. 1980 Moscow USSR ... see the principled difference ? The former is free, democratic, non-corrupt, peaceful and prosperous, because it stops at the semi-socialist point and goes no further, the people have 8 parties to choose from and they simply vote center-right if the system goes left of the center-left point. That's what social-DEMOCRACY is.
...too bad us North Americans can't operate in the middle or even understand and acknowledge it, it's between the 2 extremes.
On a strictly economic policy based left-right spectrum, laissez-faire capitalism is the farthest right point, in strictly economic terms.
That's why politicalcompass.org places foreign & social policies top-bottom on the authoritarian-libertarian scale... it's more of a clear policy aspect distinction.
-
And what, exactly, does Marijuana have to do with this Bill?
thank you.
Hypocritical banishment according to the mainstream, corporate monopolizing standard.
-
Here we are again! The use of 'progressive' as a synonym for 'leftwing' thought.
'Progressive' is now the new 'gay'...
That's the logic of a juvenile pea-brain, the vast majority of center-left views, like mine, are heterosexual.
Add a northern Ron Paul express to the mix then.
NDP----Green-----Libertarian
Wouldn't that be a more progressive spectrum than the one provided by 2-party monopolizing dinosaurs ?
Lieberals--------------CONservative
-
Under corporate tycoon Paul Martin, the Liberals became corrupted and then imploded.
Under waffling, wimpy, lame and timid Dion, a closet supporter of Harper's Neo-Con policies, the Liberals proved once and for all how truly untrustworthy, right-wing and destructive they really are.
-
Wearing a puss on your face is going to solve this? And why the gratuitous shot at the US? Is that your national sport?
Bush has a 30% approval rating in the US. 70% of Americans OPPOSE Neo-Con policies. I am with the vast majority of Americans.
You are ANTI-American.
Exposing the manifestations of 8 years of insane Neo-Con policy is PRO-American. Exposing the Republican domination is PRO-American.
-
No way, not as long as it is still illegal in the US. You say we should learn from prohibition, well yes we should. Organized crime in Canada was doing a bang up trade in booze during prohibition in the US. It will be no different with pot. There are valid arguments for legalization but getting organized crime out of the business isn't one of them while it is still illegal in the US.
No, Canadians would have a legal avenue, an option AWAY from the American criminals. But you want to BAN that option. You want to TIE us to the draconian policies of the Republicans.
If you fully legalize weed in Canada, while the US has it illegal, Canadians would be able to grow a few plants for personal use, for about 10 dollars. Why would they go and buy from ruthless criminals 100's of miles away for 1000X the price ? They wouldn't.
If the US still had alcohol prohibition in 2008, and Canada had Molsons, would you bypass store-stocked Molsons to go and support Capone style thugs instead ?
-
Harper is a dishonest obfuscator, just like Bush.
Harper is a secretive authoritarian, just like Bush.
A vote for Harper is a vote for Bush.
-
Are secretive CIA torture prisons funny ?
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=se...isons&meta=
America the world's leading jailer is funny ?
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=us...earch&meta=
1000's of dead American soldiers is funny ?
100 dead Canadian soldiers is funny ?
Several 1000 dead Iraqi civilians is funny ?
The US having the highest child poverty rate in the western developed world is funny ?
The US having millions of it's OWN citizens going hungry every year is funny ?
-
Give us all a break....Correct me if i'm wrong but did'nt the NDP and green party want combat troops in Darfur...but i guess it's OK to continue the cycle of violence if we are feeding the masses,
So what does the left call it when a government uses military force to over throw a foreign government in order to feed it's people...and to stop the violence....or do we reserve the words imperialistic militarism, corporate profits for the right.....
Problem with the left is in most cases they don't know what they want, and everything on the right is bad until they want a piece of the pie.....
Stop saying "us all", as if your blindly militaristic attitude and dogma is accepted by 99-100% of the population.
Your smear of "the left", shows that you are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between authoritarianism, pacifism, social democracy, communism, pragmatism,.... the left is like one big cloudy boogey man to you, because you have been brainwashed by neo-liberal and neo-conservative thought.
It's about the precise role, strategy and tactics (you should know this). The current Canadian role is one based on the BUSHIAN NEO-CONSERVATIVE MODEL OF OCCUPYING AND AGGRESSIVELY TARGETTEING SUSPECTED GENERAL AREAS via *preemptive* front-line tactics. This approach is what CAUSES the civilian casualties to mount, and THAT in turn causes more anguish and regret among family members who had a son, daughter, mother or father killed, and THAT serves as impetus for MORE radicalization and terrorist recruitment.
The only alternative is precisely surgical targetting of absolutely confirmed terrorist *individuals* (not vaguely suspected areas), a ceasefire, and negotiation and compromise.
The current Canadian role has Canadians dying (and killing innocent civilians) for the policies of Rumsfeld. If they wouldn't have attacked Iraq, THEY would have kept adequate forces in Afghanistan and Canadians wouldn't have had to sub in for the departed primary combat role, which is the obligation of the US forces.
The Canadian role should be first aid and infrastructure building, NOT rampaging Bushian-Rumsfeldian aggression.
With the current approach, all we will do is manicure a breeding ground of anti-North-American hostility and resentment, leading to an infinite supply of terrorists.
This is the empirical truth. It wasn't known before, but now, in 2008, it is quite obvious.
Rush comments on black president
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Yeah, Limbaugher is so pumped full of toxic pharmaceutical poisons, that he's a blindly oblivious hypocrit.