Bob

Supporting lower tax rates on capital gains is about incentivizing investment, to offset the risk of investment. I'm not sure I completely accept the argument, but that's how it goes.

CPCFTW, I was having a very similar discussion with my father the other day, and he was telling me the same thing you're saying in here with respect to the reasoning behind the lowered rate at which income generated from investment is taxed. Specifically, we were talking about whether or not the lower tax rate on capital gains was justified. My father echoes what you're saying here, in the sense that he thinks the risk involved with investing in securities/equities as well should be offset by lower rates of tax in order to incentivize investment to create economic growth. The problem is it's difficult to overcome the rhetoric about how capital gains are mainly a staple of income for the most wealthy of Canadians. It's typically the richest people that earn serious income (in terms of absolute dollars as well as in terms of a proportion of their total income) through capital gains, so lower capital gains taxes end up looking like a "tax break for the rich", which appeals strongly to people like jacee who view successful people with contempt (they're greedy) and who admire losers who can't make a living (they're too honest and good-natured to make it in this cruel world!).

Yeah I saw it on Russian television today on Rogers. Hilarious.

Your point is clear, the Jewish people should not have self-determination and independence actualized through the state of Israel, and that our history is fake in this land. "Palestinian" nationalism, on the other hand, manufactured after June of 1967, is somehow real and meaningful. Indeed, "Palestinian" nationalism is retroactive and can be backdated to any arbitrary starting point in history you find convenient! As usual, like most on the left, you lionize losers and worship weakness. Inferior and barbaric societies and cultures, in your view, are indeed better than ours and have only experienced stultification of their development as a result of our evil Western imperialism. It doesn't matter what political issue we examine in these forums, as you always manage to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator of leftism where everything is always a power struggle with the moral and noble weak party who are oppressed by the greedy and evil powerful party. It's as I've said before, it's the Dances With Wolves narrative.

Just in case anyone hasn't yet realized it, wyly explicitly opposes Jewish statehood and nationalism. In his perverted and sick world, we don't have a right to our own self-determination and independence via statehood. That's why the beautiful Law of Return, which enshrines every Jewish person's birthright to make Israel his or her home if he so chooses, is a "racist" immigration policy. It's funny how the most racist and hate-filled societies (Islamic-Arabic societies) are made into the victims of racism in this upside-down world portrayed by the likes of wyly. Of course, "Palestinian" laws that make selling property to a Jewish person punishable by death are no problem. Not that it really matters, no sane Jewish person would ever live in a "Palestinian"-administered and occupied territory, but the law is indicative of what kind of people we're dealing with.

Despite all the money going to the UN to pay for insane salaries for third-world trash in Italian suits, the UN has the nerve to run ads soliciting donations to help "the children in Somalia". Excuse me, what the HELL did you do with all the billions you already got and continued to get?!

It's the theatre of the absurd, where all the inferior third-world trash, socialist/communist cesspools, Islamist and theocratic dictatorships, coalesce and attack the West on America's dime. Broken, pathetic, and inferior societies getting on their fancy soapboxes and condemning America, the West, Israel and everything else they are jealous of. It's pathetic, but not as pathetic as America and friends continually paying for it...

One major hurdle that needs to be overcome is widespread public opinion of the UN. Most of the public has been fed a narrative from the leftist media of the UN as a dignified and worthwhile institution that operates in good faith and represents "the will of the world" (nevermind that most Canadians are completely oblivious of how inferior most of the world is). Public opinion needs to mobilized towards one of contempt for the UN, where those who work for the UN are reviled, and where the public reflexively opposed the UN in all of its operations and decisions. The concept of "international law" must be equally derided. Hopefully this occurs in the future, but in the meantime I'm still regularly seeing people, ordinary and otherwise, talk about the UN as some sort of esteemed organization whose positions needs to be carefully considered and generally accepted. Turn on CBC and watch that cute little spineless idiot Evan Solomon "retort" to the softest form of a "conservative" opinion with something along the lines of, "...but the UN says" without being instantly ridiculed. We need to get to the point where anyone who would invoke the UN in a positive or even neutral sense is immediately ostracized as the enemy within, or, at best, massively ignorant to the point of being unworthy of serious consideration.

PIK - I certainly agree with the general thrust of your post, the UN is a disaster and disgusting association of anti-democratic and and-Western dictatorships, theocracies, and communist regimes. The free world must stop funding this pulpit from which the leaders of the inferior third-world trash societies can espouse their usual rhetoric against us as our supposed "equals". It is also important for the truth of the UN to be made known to ordinary people, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be happening as the usual morons of the leftist media regularly cite the UN or its affiliates/subsidiaries without shame. We need to get to a point in our society where anyone who invokes the UN's proclamations or positions with a straight face is immediately derided as a mouthpiece (useful idiot) for Islamists (55 countries from the UN's 190-ish total states) and third-world trash states (much of Africa). People need to be made embarrassed to support the UN or parrot its declarations and decisions through humiliation. Unfortunately, many people still view the UN in high esteem, and have an ignorant belief in its good intentions and fair structure. This must change. It's expected for verminous journalists to reference the UN without question, as I expect nothing less from them, but when supposedly "conservative" or "right-wing" politicians walk on eggshells and gently question this or that policy of the UN without outright slamming it and calling for its absolute abolition, you know you've got a problem. It doesn't need tweaking, it doesn't need a review, it doesn't need more transparency, it doesn't need more funding, it doesn't need increased oversight, it needs ABOLITION. And before you get abolition, we need mainstream disgust and revulsion with the institution and most of its membership and public humiliation of all those who willfully stand in its defense (typically leftists and other idiots who live in the world of ideas and not reality). At the same time, I agree with mentalfloss - this is not an original subject. There are threads out there, that although perhaps dusty from disuse, you can revive with some new insights.

You're again ignoring the context, as if the story is so simple - "Israel kills 'Palestinian' kids". You think Israel can send in the RCMP to serve an arrest warrant in these places? This is a war, and people die. Want 'Palestinian" kids to stay alive? Stop using them in the infrastructure of terror, and stop embedding the infrastructure of terror where they live (operating our of apartments and schools, for example). In your sick world the terrorists should be granted impunity because destroying them inevitably ends up with injured of killed "Palestinian" children. So just let the rockets fly, let the murderers plot, and let the shootings continue...

ok, so we have at least narrowed down the Obama quote/statement reference... now bold/colour highlighted above. As you state, that quote has you interpreting Obama as labeling opinions held, like yours as you self-describe and attach to this quote, as "racist". You've extended upon that Obama racist labeling to now include an Obama implication of "bigotry". It would seem clear that the only possible interpretative phrasing in the statement centers on the words, "rejecting the lie". In your assessment, you are attaching, to Obama, racist and bigotry labeling over his having used the words, "rejecting the lie". Have I understood and captured this correctly? dense? The context wasn't your stated universality; clearly, Obama's several references to "some" (races, religions and ethnicities), in relation to Arab Spring, didn't imply universality. Obama was very pointedly clear, unlike yourself. You've also 'moved the goal posts' in terms of extending upon Obama's generalized reference to "democracy", to imply it inherently means, "Western democracy". Obama spoke, 'to the lie'... you presume to speak, "for the liars". Obama did not speak, "to the liars", nor presume upon, "liar motivations". You double-down on your earlier suggestions that Obama is labeling practitioners of the lie as, "racist and bigoted" (with you now adding "prejudiced" to the mix). Apparently, in your world, the foundation of that expressed lie couldn't simply reflect upon any of the mixed-bag grouping of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, mistakes, misconceptions, disagreement, error, etc.. Rather, you extend upon Obama's own intent/motivation to imply he is labeling, "the liars" (yourself by self-attachment), as "racist, bigoted, prejudiced", for rejecting the lie. Accordingly, I interpret you are mistaken on several fronts... that you misunderstand, misinterpret and misconceive... not just Obama. This has got to be one of the most absurd posts I have ever read of MLW. I mean that. Here you are, with Obama's statements as plain as day, trying to misrespresent them for the clear purpose of - disagreeing with me. Obama specifically didn't mention Arabs/Muslims in order to imply universality of democracy. If Obama didn't believe in the universality of democracy (and he does), then he would have specifically mentioned the Arabs/Muslims. Obama's message was clear - democracy is a universal ideal that the Arab/Muslims are trying to achieve via the "Arab Spring", and that those of us who are skeptical, or outright reject, this concept of democracy's universal appeal across all cultures/societies/ethnicity are prejudiced liars.

Of course, their failures are because of the "Western Imperialism". Back to the basic point, I don't see Western democracy and freedom as universal ideals that will resonate widely in the Arab/Muslim world. That is why they will, in my view, remain inferior societies. Unless they change, of course.

ok, so we have at least narrowed down the Obama quote/statement reference... now bold/colour highlighted above. As you state, that quote has you interpreting Obama as labeling opinions held, like yours as you self-describe and attach to this quote, as "racist". You've extended upon that Obama racist labeling to now include an Obama implication of "bigotry". It would seem clear that the only possible interpretative phrasing in the statement centers on the words, "rejecting the lie". In your assessment, you are attaching, to Obama, racist and bigotry labeling over his having used the words, "rejecting the lie". Have I understood and captured this correctly? Are you that dense? Clearly Obama implied that it is a bigoted position to reject the assertion that democracy is a universal ideal. Arabs/Muslims don't seem to have any desire to have Western democracy. They want Islamism. So, according to Obama, I'm a "liar". And why else would I lie unless I was, of course, a hater of Muslims (prejudiced, racist, bigoted, etc)? Why is it taking so many posts for you to understand this? My point is incredibly simple.

Well, we can play chicken-and-egg with politics and economics. I agree with you, but Arab/Muslim societies don't seem to value freedom in the economic sphere any more than they do economics in the social sphere. Consider that Islam opposes interest collection/payment on loans. Without a basic system of lending where risk is paid for in the form of interest, you're going to have major economic issues. Basically, I don't think Arab/Muslim politics will allow for the system of economic freedom you're telling me is required for the development of democracy and other institutions of freedom. I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't think there's any serious desire, or even basic understanding of, economics in the Arab/Muslim societies. They want Islam and think Allah will save them and bring back the glory days of conquest and subjugation of the infidels.

How is it possible that you state not hearing "anything that approached <my> claim", yet then post the very quote that I accurately described? Obama clearly implied that people like myself who do not accept the argument of the universality of democracy are somehow bigoted. Even a glance at the Middle East (with the exception of beautiful and civilized Israel, of course) reveals the lack of universality of the Western values of democracy and freedom.

Time will tell. Like I said, I hope Bush is right, but I'm not convinced democracy is as universal as he says. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case if we take a snapshot of the world right now. I also know that Bush's perspective here wasn't new. I'm not sure if you've read, and I'm not sure I'd recommend it, but Bush did state something along the lines of Natan Sharansky's, "The Case for Democracy", being his favourite book and being greatly influential on his worldview. I read that book, and it basically argues (weakly, in my view) for the universalism of democracy. Unsurprisingly, Natan Sharasnky also stakes out an optimistic position on this so-called "Arab Spring", as if these Arab/Muslim mobs are somehow informed by Western values of democracy, freedom, and pluralism. I just don't think Arabs/Muslims care about democracy. They are a society/civilization built on destroying all cultures they come into contact with. The religion is an ideology of conquest. They do not respect dissent. They do not value openness or real innovation, but prefer to live in some sort of bubble where they "maintain their (inferior) ways".

But you wouldn't resist if it was occupied by the British or the Ottomans, right? The "Palestinians", who never had any sovereignty or control over this land, and indeed never even existed as a nation until they manufactured this false identity in the late sixties, were completely docile until the Jewish "illegal immigration" of the late 19th century. Then they got worked into a frenzy of pogroms and mass murder, killing us and trashing our homes, religious sites, and businesses. So this imaginary hypothetical of yours doesn't fly, because the "Palestinians" are only motivated to "resist" a specific group of people from "their land".

Children are often used in the infrastructure of "Palestinian" terror. American soldiers are seeing the same thing in Afghanistan and Kuwait, fighting youth who are barely teenagers. Remember, when a 15-year-old points a gun at you and begins to fire, it is a war crime to defend yourself and your fellow soldiers and citizens.

Black Dog continues to use fascist and leftist record as a method of analyses of the two ideologies, while ignoring how they actually are implemented in practise. We are living in the real world, by you are living in the fantasy world of rhetoric. Take for example you statement that universal equality and human rights are a "pillar of liberal thought". If that was true, and it certainly is not, why is the left obsessed with passing racist/prejudiced/sexist affirmative-action policies and establishing quotas for hiring and admission to schools for groups they label as "disadvantaged"? The left, of course, claims to care about equality, but does exactly the opposite. The right, in practise, is the only side advocating for real equality (opposing racist/prejudiced/sexist government interventions to give benefits to certain groups). If you want to continually pretend that rhetoric is the way which we will examine these ideologies, then communism will end up being a utopia. Nobody in here is saying that leftism is the same as fascism. What is being said, and it's certainly true, is that leftism and fascism have much more in common than the contemporary right and fascism in practise. So why is fascism described as an "extreme right-wing ideology"? Well, we know the answer to that... just another myth passed around as "common knowledge" by the left.

The Jewish sense of humour is still alive and well. Remember that comedy is Haram!

I hope George Bush is right in his philosophy (that democracy truly is universal), but I'm not convinced he is. Democracy can't exist if there isn't widespread support for it ideals in a society, and Arabic/Islamic societies are hardly democratic by any measure. Obama echoed something similar in his recent address to the UNGA, where he labeled opinions held by some of us who are skeptical of the possibilities for democracy among Arabs/Muslims as "racist". Well, when you have societies that largely support execution of apostates, who desire a strong role for Islam in their governments and societies (theocracy to oppress those who view things differently), and support mass murder in order to achieve these ends... well, I think our skepticisim is well-founded. Arab/Muslim democracy? I'll believe it when I see it, given that Islam is antithetical to true democracy.

The usual myopic leftists, believing that inside every Muslim is a progressive liberal waiting to jump out, are pretending to understand the motivations behind the recent tensions misleadingly labeled as the "Arab Spring". As if all these people running through the streets are informed by deep desires for democracy, pluralism, freedom, and liberty. Let's see how things develop before you folks pretend to understand Arabic/Islamic societies. These are deeply religious, conservative, anti-gay, anti-dissent, largely uneducated, and highly indoctrinated societies. Their heroes are not Western political philosophers who advocated for freedom, but figures of conquest like Muhammad and Ataturk.

Again, Jews in Germany were educated, well-to-do, and productive members of society. You cannot compare the role of Jews in Germany with "Palestinians" in Israel and the territories. I already said, had we been half as murderous and violent as the "Palestinians", we would certainly have deserved expulsion. I also don't wish any harm to "Palestinians", I simply have the basic needs of my own people in mind. Namely, the ability to live in peace and security and not worry about Islamists murdering our children on the way to school or in a nightclub.

A much more interesting question for the forum participants to ponder is, "What is the breaking point for supporting the removal of most or an entire population or identifiable group from your vicinity"? Is "ethnic cleansing" ever permissible? What if 50% of an identifiable group supports mass murder towards the political objective of destroying your country and its basic institutions? What is 75% of that group feels that way? 99%? What is the criteria for which you would accept and support the removal of most or all of n identifiable group from your land?

wrong thread.