Left wing hypocrisy

[blueblood]

Me thinks that you need to come to grips with the fact, that all this "wealth," these financial systems, this way of life.......it's all just a smoky illusion, and can drift away at any point. Look what's happening down south, in the utopia of capitalism.

Bullocks, capitalism has been around for hundreds of years and has improved the lives of millions of people. Can socialism say that?

The U.S. has been through worse and still manages to come out on top.

[Goat Boy©]

Bullocks, capitalism has been around for hundreds of years and has improved the lives of millions of people. Can socialism say that?

The U.S. has been through worse and still manages to come out on top.

Agree, America is down, not out by any means. I'm just saying, things are relevant, it all depends on perspective. Take a second to empathize, you might be surprised where you land.

[reasonoverpassion]

That very same military industrial complex that represents what, 6% of the US GDP? I have to say, the extreme left slander get's way farther out there than the right wing equivalent.

The problem with the military-industrial complex (a phrase quoted by much admired Republican president Eisenhower) is that it doesn't produce wealth it sucks wealth. Sure some people get rich and some Congressional districts benefit. But the whole complex is wholly subsidized by the taxpayer and it become self justifying

From his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

[White Doors]

The fact you call it a coup shows how ignorant you are.

Along with the rest of the Canadian public who have no idea whats going on but decides to vote in a pole anyways.

The fact you put numbers of different poles in the same sentence really damages your credibility.

Coming on an Internet forum calling the majority of Canadians 'ignorant' and 'have no idea what's going on'

Questioning another posters 'credibility'

Referring to a political 'poll' as 'pole' twice in the same post.....

Priceless!

[White Doors]

It's legal and constitutional, but not necessarily democratic. If it was democratic the coalition would have been presented to the people of Canada before the election.

Well said

[speaker]

That's for sure, and the very strong canadian banking system wouldn't be getting billions of taxpayer dollars, and the conservatives wouldn't have tried to stifle the opposition, And all the talk about co-operation wouldn't have disappeared in one fell swoop.

The coalition members are trying to get themselves elected, just like the conservatives. At that point they don't need to even think about the necessity of a coalition. It's only afterwards when the Conservatives decide they can afford to tick off 62% of the voters that the coalition looks like a good idea.

[capricorn]

Speaking of hypocrisy.

Don’t Let Your Right to Vote be taken Away

12/8/2008

All weekend, I’d been hearing rumors about this, but today I was really surprised to read press reports about various MPs moving for an immediate vote to elect our Leader next Wednesday, in the Commons caucus.

I thought I’d seen a lot of politics over 30 years of public service, but this one really came from left field.

The idea of taking away the vote from tens of thousands of grassroots activists in every part of Canada, and reducing the franchise to just 76 men and women seems so out-of-step with the modern world. It makes you shake your head.

---

It’s up to us to put a stop to this hasty, ill-considered idea for electing our leader. I am raising my voice publicly for your right to vote. Please help me by raising yours as well.

http://www.bobrae.ca/en/blog/dec7

Rae wants the leader of the Liberals to be selected democratically. How come the same respect for the vote is not extended to Canadians so that they may have a say on a coalition government? If democracy is good for the Liberal Party I suggest it's good for Canadians.

[White Doors]

Speaking of hypocrisy.

http://www.bobrae.ca/en/blog/dec7

Rae wants the leader of the Liberals to be selected democratically. How come the same respect for the vote is not extended to Canadians so that they may have a say on a coalition government? If democracy is good for the Liberal Party I suggest it's good for Canadians.

Kind of amazing that Bob doesn't even see fit to see the irony here eh?

my god.

What it tells you is that he doesn't give a crap about votes 'counting' he only gives a crap about Bob Rae.

[Goat Boy©]

That's for sure, and the very strong canadian banking system wouldn't be getting billions of taxpayer dollars, and the conservatives wouldn't have tried to stifle the opposition, And all the talk about co-operation wouldn't have disappeared in one fell swoop.

Canadian banks are strong. All deposits are backed 150% by the CDIC.

[Oleg Bach]

The difference between American banks and Canadian banks is, American banks are interested in money. Canadian banks are interested in power. And if we don't remember - the tons of money that Canadian buisness men brought up into Canada during the prohibition era was stock piled...where as American bootleggers blew their wad - Canadian banks bank - and don't invest all over hells half acre - Americans gamble...ha ha ha.

[speaker]

Kind of amazing that Bob doesn't even see fit to see the irony here eh?

my god.

What it tells you is that he doesn't give a crap about votes 'counting' he only gives a crap about Bob Rae.

and Capricorn wrote, " Rae wants the leader of the Liberals to be selected democratically. How come the same respect for the vote is not extended to Canadians so that they may have a say on a coalition government? If democracy is good for the Liberal Party I suggest it's good for Canadians."

When the Liberals are in power I'm almost as opposed to them as I am to the New Conservatives.

But I don't understand your reasoning Here. The Bloc, and the Liberals and the New Democrats were elected to be part of the government. In fact more of them were elected to be a part of the government than the Conservatives. If the party with the most seats can't govern then any other party can try to prove that it can.

If the Independants could get enough MPs behind them then they could form the government.

They too were elected to help in the government of Canada. The Conservatives simply decided that they didn't want to help do that and met disapproval because of that. Which is more democratic?

[speaker]

Canadian banks are strong. All deposits are backed 150% by the CDIC.

The difference between American banks and Canadian banks is, American banks are interested in money. Canadian banks are interested in power. And if we don't remember - the tons of money that Canadian buisness men brought up into Canada during the prohibition era was stock piled...where as American bootleggers blew their wad - Canadian banks bank - and don't invest all over hells half acre - Americans gamble...ha ha ha.

For institutions that aren't interested in Money the Canadian banks have been pretty successful at reporting massive and record profits every quarter for as long as I can remember. That's why they are strong. That's why taxpayers shouldn't be giving their tax dollars to the money lenders.

It's like the comment made recently about capitalism in general, It relies on the privatization of profits and the socialization of losses.

[ToadBrother]

Bullocks, capitalism has been around for hundreds of years and has improved the lives of millions of people. Can socialism say that?

Yes, and for the same reason. After the failed revolutions of the 19th century, most western countries grabbed a brain and started developing the rudiments of later social programs; free public education, various Poor Laws (though not liberal by our standards, they certainly were by the standards of the day), and later various welfare programs like unemployment insurance, old age pension and income support. Some of these, interestingly enough, were even brought in by conservative governments in some countries.

No country on the planet is completely capitalistic in nature. Such a country would be, as some observed, a race to the bottom. Every industrialized country in the world is some mix of capitalism and socialism, simply because swinging too far one way or the other is going to spell disaster. We can bicker over what the ratio is, and what sectors of society or the economy it is applied to, but this sort of idiotic statement "socialism is a failure" is every bit as uninformed as the idiotic statement "capitalism is a failure".

The U.S. has been through worse and still manages to come out on top.

Lots of great empires have, until they haven't. Rome was an unstoppable force, until it started to fail through a combination of effective military rule, bad leadership, debasement of the coinage and just plan bad luck brought it to the ground, and left it open to the barbarians.

[blueblood]

Yes, and for the same reason. After the failed revolutions of the 19th century, most western countries grabbed a brain and started developing the rudiments of later social programs; free public education, various Poor Laws (though not liberal by our standards, they certainly were by the standards of the day), and later various welfare programs like unemployment insurance, old age pension and income support. Some of these, interestingly enough, were even brought in by conservative governments in some countries.

No country on the planet is completely capitalistic in nature. Such a country would be, as some observed, a race to the bottom. Every industrialized country in the world is some mix of capitalism and socialism, simply because swinging too far one way or the other is going to spell disaster. We can bicker over what the ratio is, and what sectors of society or the economy it is applied to, but this sort of idiotic statement "socialism is a failure" is every bit as uninformed as the idiotic statement "capitalism is a failure".

Lots of great empires have, until they haven't. Rome was an unstoppable force, until it started to fail through a combination of effective military rule, bad leadership, debasement of the coinage and just plan bad luck brought it to the ground, and left it open to the barbarians.

Where does socialism get it's money from? By raiding people's wallets. Capitalism has improved the lives of everyone. The only reason Conservatives employ some socialist means is because they are popular and they have elections to win. Some eastern countries by your logic must have had a stroke of genius and went all out on these "help the poor and screw business" schemes. You tell me which country is better to live in.

Socialism is a failure, as August says the NYSE has been around for 200 years and the USSR only lasted for 80.

The US is one of the most stable countries in the world. It doesn't have near as many problems as the other "empires". Those great empires have lasted for close to a thousand years. The world is so interconnected now that the chance of a country like the US failing are very very slim.

[ToadBrother]

Where does socialism get it's money from? By raiding people's wallets.

That's how large-scale societies have functioned since they were first invented. The earliest written records we have are tax records from Sumeria. That's the way all human societies function

Capitalism has improved the lives of everyone.

As have social programs. Even the greediest of the greedy during the 19th century came to understand that having a massive poverty-stricken underclass was ultimately enormously expensive.

The only reason Conservatives employ some socialist means is because they are popular and they have elections to win. Some eastern countries by your logic must have had a stroke of genius and went all out on these "help the poor and screw business" schemes. You tell me which country is better to live in.

You never even read what I said, clearly.

And Conservatives support social programs because if they didn't, they wouldn't be in power. To gain power in a democracy with nearly 100% enfranchisement means that you have to run the country for more than just those with something to put in their wallets.

Socialism is a failure, as August says the NYSE has been around for 200 years and the USSR only lasted for 80.

Communism is not the only form of socialism. Socialism is a wide array of political theories.

The US is one of the most stable countries in the world.

And it has plentiful numbers of social programs.

It doesn't have near as many problems as the other "empires".

By what standard do you measure that? It has a large socio-economic underclass, it's militarily overextended, has an increasingly problematic currency and has had eight years of incredibly bad leadership dominated by individuals of a distinctly martial nature, but like the Praetorian Guard of the late Roman Empire, with little practical military experience.

Those great empires have lasted for close to a thousand years. The world is so interconnected now that the chance of a country like the US failing are very very slim.

Empires don't fall from without, they fall from within. Rome didn't fall because of barbarians, it had always been encircled by them, it was the internal rot that allowed them in. The Ottoman Empire didn't fall because the Russians, French and Brits were gnawing at it, it fell because a couple of centuries of poor leadership had lead to restive regions that the Great Powers could easily incorporate.

I'm not saying the US will fail, but by the end of this century, if not sooner, it will surrender it's pre-eminence to the rising powers in the East; in particular China. And this is hardly a surprise, China has been a key component of the world economy for centuries, even if they didn't know that.

The US long was able to sustain its pre-eminence because it was the premier industrial power, but that has been in large part surrendered to other jurisdictions. How can it possibly sustain the very source of its power if everyone else but the US is actually building the goods.

But that's all besides the point. The US talks a good line about libertarian ideals, but it's got welfare, social security, unemployment programs, medicare and so on.

[blueblood]

That's how large-scale societies have functioned since they were first invented. The earliest written records we have are tax records from Sumeria. That's the way all human societies function

As have social programs. Even the greediest of the greedy during the 19th century came to understand that having a massive poverty-stricken underclass was ultimately enormously expensive.

You never even read what I said, clearly.

And Conservatives support social programs because if they didn't, they wouldn't be in power. To gain power in a democracy with nearly 100% enfranchisement means that you have to run the country for more than just those with something to put in their wallets.

Communism is not the only form of socialism. Socialism is a wide array of political theories.

And it has plentiful numbers of social programs.

By what standard do you measure that? It has a large socio-economic underclass, it's militarily overextended, has an increasingly problematic currency and has had eight years of incredibly bad leadership dominated by individuals of a distinctly martial nature, but like the Praetorian Guard of the late Roman Empire, with little practical military experience.

Empires don't fall from without, they fall from within. Rome didn't fall because of barbarians, it had always been encircled by them, it was the internal rot that allowed them in. The Ottoman Empire didn't fall because the Russians, French and Brits were gnawing at it, it fell because a couple of centuries of poor leadership had lead to restive regions that the Great Powers could easily incorporate.

I'm not saying the US will fail, but by the end of this century, if not sooner, it will surrender it's pre-eminence to the rising powers in the East; in particular China. And this is hardly a surprise, China has been a key component of the world economy for centuries, even if they didn't know that.

The US long was able to sustain its pre-eminence because it was the premier industrial power, but that has been in large part surrendered to other jurisdictions. How can it possibly sustain the very source of its power if everyone else but the US is actually building the goods.

But that's all besides the point. The US talks a good line about libertarian ideals, but it's got welfare, social security, unemployment programs, medicare and so on.

They have been collecting taxes in the times of monarchs and since Roman times. If you think that is socialism, your out to lunch. For all intents and purposes we draw the line at the US, yes they collect taxes, but they are in no means a socialist country. Their gov't has a capitalist philosophy, so does every other intelligent country in the world. Having a country with a socialist philosophy is not only wrong, but it is evil.

If you think people are poor because of capitalism that's a bald faced lie. People are poor because they lack drive, intelligence, and opportunity. Socialism takes opportunity away from people and punishes the people who give it. Ireland is a great example of this. It is one of the most capitalist countries in the world. Instead of screwing business over, they have developed a pro business attitude and slashed taxes. This led to a result of massive foreign investment, massive opportunity, and an unemployment rate Canada can only envy. Countries that have a pro business attitude that slash unnecessary taxes have been proven to be extremely successful and their citizens enjoy a better quality of life. If poor people werent' so blatantly stupid and realized that gouging corporations so they can have welfare and other left wing nonsense screws themselves over, the better off everyone else is.

The US won't surrender it's pre-eminence. Without the US the east is a basket case. Case in point right now. China needs customers for its manufacturing. China is about 80 years behind the US. If the US gets energy independance, which it will, the US is back in the ball game. The higher energy rises, the more it hurts China as a manufacturing power. Higher energy means more and more manufacturing stays home because transportation costs will be too expensive. If unions would realize that factory workers have no business earning 80 bucks an hour, the safer their jobs will be in a competitive global market. The US also has the most stable currency in the world, the most efficient army in the world, and it's citizens live better than most other countries in the world. It is in no danger of collapsing no matter how much you want it to. The US maintains it's power through management, it can shut down those factories around the world at the drop of a hat.

As BC says, socialism sucks for everybody, capitalism sucks for a few.

[Bryan]

socialism sucks for everybody, capitalism sucks for a few.

I'm not so sure that's entirely true. Socialism benefits exceptionally lazy people.

[ToadBrother]

They have been collecting taxes in the times of monarchs and since Roman times. If you think that is socialism, your out to lunch. For all intents and purposes we draw the line at the US, yes they collect taxes, but they are in no means a socialist country. Their gov't has a capitalist philosophy, so does every other intelligent country in the world. Having a country with a socialist philosophy is not only wrong, but it is evil.

You were complaining about taxes being used in this fashion. In Rome itself, there were three million people, much more than the economy at the time could hope to provide jobs for. The term "bread and circuses" refers to the fact that the Roman government had to provide both food and entertainment to this huge mass of people (three million people was an unparalleled metropolis 2000 years ago). In effect, the city of Rome was one big welfare state. The alternative were riots, which did happen.

If you think people are poor because of capitalism that's a bald faced lie. People are poor because they lack drive, intelligence, and opportunity. Socialism takes opportunity away from people and punishes the people who give it. Ireland is a great example of this. It is one of the most capitalist countries in the world. Instead of screwing business over, they have developed a pro business attitude and slashed taxes. This led to a result of massive foreign investment, massive opportunity, and an unemployment rate Canada can only envy. Countries that have a pro business attitude that slash unnecessary taxes have been proven to be extremely successful and their citizens enjoy a better quality of life. If poor people werent' so blatantly stupid and realized that gouging corporations so they can have welfare and other left wing nonsense screws themselves over, the better off everyone else is.

Is there anybody out there that actually believes this? Socio-economic conditions are based on numerous factors, and to simply say the poor are poor because they're lazy is so bizarre a generalization that it borders on outright dishonesty. You're no different than the British aristocrats and industrialists who let three million Irishmen starve because they believed precisely the same thing of the Irish; that they lacked drive and intelligence.

The US won't surrender it's pre-eminence. Without the US the east is a basket case.

China was a major economic force before the United States was even founded. Don't confuse what the Great Powers did in her crippling her in the 19th century.

Case in point right now. China needs customers for its manufacturing. China is about 80 years behind the US. If the US gets energy independance, which it will, the US is back in the ball game.

China has a population in excess of a billion people. That's not only a cheap labour force, but a pretty big market in its own right.

The higher energy rises, the more it hurts China as a manufacturing power.

It hurts everyone else as well.

Higher energy means more and more manufacturing stays home because transportation costs will be too expensive. If unions would realize that factory workers have no business earning 80 bucks an hour, the safer their jobs will be in a competitive global market.

So let me get this straight, socialism is bad because it makes people lazy and stupid, except when it makes people 80 bucks an hour. Nothing like a cogent, coherent argument.

The US also has the most stable currency in the world, the most efficient army in the world, and it's citizens live better than most other countries in the world. It is in no danger of collapsing no matter how much you want it to. The US maintains it's power through management, it can shut down those factories around the world at the drop of a hat.

Actually, the average standard of living in the US is lower than a number of other Western nations.

As BC says, socialism sucks for everybody, capitalism sucks for a few.

Socialism makes sure that the rabble doesn't simply take what they want by force. Want to know why socialism really rose in the West? Because of the French Revolution. The minute they parted poor ol' Louis from his head, Western governments suddenly realized that if they didn't do something to take care of the underclass, the underclass would simply take what it wanted.

[M.Dancer]

1) Rome's population was around 1 million

2) Riots were common in Rome and were written about by contemporary writers like livy

3) Chisa has not been an ecomomic power until recently.

Actually, the average standard of living in the US is lower than a number of other Western nations.

Plese feel free to show with figures who and by what measure.

[-VMG-]

I'm not so sure that's entirely true. Socialism benefits exceptionally lazy people.

Depends how you socialism is implemented.

The little regulation of our welfare system allows for many people to exploit it.... if it was overseen better this would happen a lot less.

and by saying that it tells me you don't really know what exactly goes into socialism...

[blueblood]

You were complaining about taxes being used in this fashion. In Rome itself, there were three million people, much more than the economy at the time could hope to provide jobs for. The term "bread and circuses" refers to the fact that the Roman government had to provide both food and entertainment to this huge mass of people (three million people was an unparalleled metropolis 2000 years ago). In effect, the city of Rome was one big welfare state. The alternative were riots, which did happen.

Is there anybody out there that actually believes this? Socio-economic conditions are based on numerous factors, and to simply say the poor are poor because they're lazy is so bizarre a generalization that it borders on outright dishonesty. You're no different than the British aristocrats and industrialists who let three million Irishmen starve because they believed precisely the same thing of the Irish; that they lacked drive and intelligence.

China was a major economic force before the United States was even founded. Don't confuse what the Great Powers did in her crippling her in the 19th century.

China has a population in excess of a billion people. That's not only a cheap labour force, but a pretty big market in its own right.

It hurts everyone else as well.

So let me get this straight, socialism is bad because it makes people lazy and stupid, except when it makes people 80 bucks an hour. Nothing like a cogent, coherent argument.

Actually, the average standard of living in the US is lower than a number of other Western nations.

Socialism makes sure that the rabble doesn't simply take what they want by force. Want to know why socialism really rose in the West? Because of the French Revolution. The minute they parted poor ol' Louis from his head, Western governments suddenly realized that if they didn't do something to take care of the underclass, the underclass would simply take what it wanted.

You are trying to justify selling a botched system because everyone charges taxes, people have elections to win. People are poor because at least one of these three criteria are met, they lack drive, they lack intelligence, and/or they lack opportunity. With socialism you are taking opportunity away from people to succeed and everyone is poorer for it. Your irish example of 3 million people shows the lack of opportunity criteria. The other two factors are what happens in Canada, there is plenty of opportunity to succeed, people are either too dumb, or too lazy to go for it.

That big market of China is tweet all when they don't have money to buy their products. Take a look what's happening to the auto sector, no money means no buying of crap.

Socialism is bad because it punishes people from succeeding. Factory workers making 80 bucks an hour for screwing on lugnuts is punishing consumers and their company's bottom line so they can make a king's ransom for menial work. Argument stands.

And people in the US aren't punished for succeeding. The potential for people to enjoy a high standard of living in the US is higher than a number of Western nations.

Do you want to know why socialism is unpopular in the US? Because of the American Revolution. Those people flat out rejected being punished for succeeding by having to pay extortional taxes to the United Kingdom. The minute they drove the redcoats from American soil, people realized that punishing it's citizens for succeeding is a recipe for disaster. Western governments realized that punishing its middle and upper class, the middle and upper class will take what it wants.

[stevoh]

Socialism is bad because it punishes people from succeeding.

The only difference between socialism and capitalism is who runs the show.

[Poli-Sci Student]

The other two factors are what happens in Canada, there is plenty of opportunity to succeed, people are either too dumb, or too lazy to go for it.

I don't know that this is true. I've come from a fairly middle-class family that's doing fairly well for itself. Maybe the people who don't own computers or don't currently have access to the internet would love to argue with you, but they can't. If your access to society depends on your ability to spend money on certain things, it's hard to become educated or participate in the debate.

[M.Dancer]

The only difference between socialism and capitalism is who runs the show.

Well yeah...and opportunity and freedom

[-VMG-]

Well yeah...and opportunity and freedom

socialism does not have to limit opportunity or freedom..... and usually someone who is socialist nowadays is usually someone who is socially liberal..

socialist ideals are anything from universal health care... to giving workers shares in the company... to nationalizing industry...

You are taking the extreme socialism and labeling it as generic socialism.