The Right Wing Needs To Grow Up!

[dnsfurlan]

First the average American is pretty much mostly the lower-class, as the lower-class makes up most of the American population. They are ignorant.

Mr Farrius,

I respectfully submit that you are the one who is ignorant.

You provide absolutely no justificiation for a sweeping generalization that most of America belongs to the lower-class. Indeed, your comments could even be interpreted as being racist, since blacks represent a disproportionate segment of the lower-class. Is it actually your contention that blacks are more ignorant than Canadians?

Ignorance and hate don't make for very effective advocacy. I prefer to debate the issues, not untangle mysterious assertions and contradicting logic.

[RB]

Ronda

Recognising that racism is a very serious and contentious issue, interactive discussions as in this forum is very pro-active in dealing with sometimes mostly denials

well had to find and re-read that post and i am afraid i didn't go though it all, but i wasn't sure i had written much about racism

there is no doubt that all the reasons you give contribute to some failure. i was mostly contending that there is a distinction between wealth and education, a social difference, and a political gap.

Hard to say but there is descrimation and unless we are prepare to accept a reality, we will continue to deny:

- equal rights and opportunities to all individuals

Policies for equal opportunities in the workplace is not set up for policy sake. There are identifiable causes for such actions. Enough cause to amend it, to correctly match the current issues and to make sure it is enforceable by law

there is nothing wrong when lobbying groups advocate to let everyone know of their rights and obligations

[nova_satori]

Cowardice in foreign affaris [oh come on the Muslims will love us if we just hug them and kiss them],

Can't help myself. [Oh come on the Muslims will love us if we murder their families, they will love us if we just send bombs into markets, and if we kill their children on a daily basis. What's not to love about people who kill your friends and family on a daily basis?]

Under the right-wing, the world will go blind.

[dnsfurlan]

Can't help myself. [Oh come on the Muslims will love us if we murder their families, they will love us if we just send bombs into markets, and if we kill their children on a daily basis. What's not to love about people who kill your friends and family on a daily basis?]

Under the right-wing, the world will go blind.

This is just silly. We go after the terrorists and the dictators, not the children. Such a statement is wreckless and unintelligent. Its one thing to be against violence. Its quite another to make plainly stupid comments. Like, thats what we're doing, killing friends and family on a daily basis. If you're going to argue the issue, try to do it like an adult. It might help your side instead of completely discrediting it.

Furthermore, there is even evidence that people in the so-called Muslim world are happy that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are gone. From the way you frame your arguments, it seems you aren't happy to see them gone.

Aren't you against terrorists? Don't you think that we're the good guys? Don't you think we have the right to go after the terrorists? Don't you think its a good thing that evil dictators are toppled? Don't you think freedom is at stake now in Iraq?

No. You think we kill children. Wow, you are brilliant!

[KrustyKidd]

Furthermore, there is even evidence that people in the so-called Muslim world are happy that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are gone. From the way you frame your arguments, it seems you aren't happy to see them gone.

Do a quick search for "Iraqi Polls" and you will find all sorts of stuff on what the people themselves think. It blows the left out of the water.

[Black Dog]

This is just silly. We go after the terrorists and the dictators, not the children

Cluster bombs don't make distinctions. Conservatiove estimates put the number of Iraqi civilian dead at 10,000+. All terrorists to you, I suppose.

Aren't you against terrorists?

Me, I'm against all terrorism, especially in it's most pervasive and destructive form: state terrorism.

Don't you think that we're the good guys?

There are no "good guys" in this.

Don't you think we have the right to go after the terrorists?

Which ones? The Saudis who allegedly perpatrated the 9-11 attacks? They're dead. The people who supported and financed them are still around, consorting with the President of the U.S.A, while America spends billions rooting out "terrorism" in a ruined country that never attacked it and posed no threat.

Don't you think its a good thing that evil dictators are toppled? 

Yes. But a better thing would be for the west to stop propping them up in the first place.

Don't you think freedom is at stake now in Iraq?

Who's freedom? Ours or the Iraqi people? I loathe the way the word and concept of freedom has been co-opted and turned into a buzz word by Bush, his puppetmasters and fawning media syncophants. "Freedom" to them means "America: right or wrong".

[dnsfurlan]

QUOTE 

Don't you think that we're the good guys?

There are no "good guys" in this.

I think that says as much about your position as anything else. You seem to think we are just like the terrorists.

Why don't you go over there and fight for them, if there cause is so just? Your infatuation with the cause of terrorism is intriguing indeed.

If I'm wrong here, then maybe you could spell out some of your solutions to terrorism, instead of hating everything the United States and Bush stand for.

Me? I don't have any problem declaring my hatred of the terrorists and everything they stand for. I'm surprised you do.

You? Well, again, you think we kill babies. Brilliant!

[Black Dog]

I think that says as much about your position as anything else. You seem to think we are just like the terrorists.

Why don't you go over there and fight for them, if there cause is so just? Your infatuation with the cause of terrorism is intriguing indeed.

If I'm wrong here, then maybe you could spell out some of your solutions to terrorism, instead of hating everything the United States and Bush stand for.

How about using the time-tested and effective methods of counterterrorism (intellignece gathering, co-operation with other countries, law enforcement and selective use of force) instead of bombing the crap out of whatever country happpens to drift into your cross-hairs. How about you stop cozing up to foreign dictators (like the House of Saud or Mushareff) who support terrorism? Howzabout you stop the shameless plundering the developing world and the accompanying exploitation of foreign resources for domestic profit? Those would be a nice start.

The fact that you interpret my views as being "hating everything the United States and Bush stand for." shows you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. (Seriously: show me where I've said "I hate America and everything it stands for.")

Me? I don't have any problem declaring my hatred of the terrorists and everything they stand for. I'm surprised you do.

What part of:

Me, I'm against all terrorism, especially in it's most pervasive and destructive form: state terrorism.

did you nott understand?

You? Well, again, you think we kill babies. Brilliant!

Well you do. Get your head out of the sand.

www.robert-fisk.com/iraq3_2apr2003.jpg

www.robert-fisk.com/1_146933_1_6.jpg

Do these look like terrorists to you??? :angry:

[dnsfurlan]

How about using the time-tested and effective methods of counterterrorism (intellignece gathering, co-operation with other countries, law enforcement and selective use of force)

This isn't happening now? Who has their head stuck in the sand?

instead of bombing the crap out of whatever country happpens to drift into your cross-hairs

This is supposed to be an intelligent assessment?

How about you stop cozing up to foreign dictators (like the House of Saud or Mushareff) who support terrorism? Howzabout you stop the shameless plundering the developing world and the accompanying exploitation of foreign resources for domestic profit? Those would be a nice start.

Does any of this, even if you accept its validity, justify anything the terrorists do? You seem to think they have every reason to be doing what they're doing. Is it so hard to denounce everything about the terrorists without denouncing some aspect of America and the West. Because, even with all the flaws, I'll take America over the terrorists any day of the week. To me, you seem to be confused on this point.

Who's freedom? Ours or the Iraqi people? I loathe the way the word and concept of freedom has been co-opted and turned into a buzz word by Bush, his puppetmasters and fawning media syncophants. "Freedom" to them means "America: right or wrong".

Doesn't Bush, or any American, have the right to laud the virtues of freedom, especially since America is probably the biggest reason why it as prevailed in the world today. Your "loathing" of Bush's use of this term, as well as your belief that we are all the bad guys I think justifies my reading that you resent America.

We can go on about this forever. My simple point is that people like you equate our actions with those of the terrorists. And, to the extent you do that is the extent to which you show how willing you are to rationalize the actions of those whose SOLE PURPOSE is to kill as many of us as they can.

Again, we ain't perfect. But America is helping to rebuild Iraq. America has made this world a better place. Can you really say the same thing about the terrorists? And, if you can't, then why spend so much energy defending them?

Wouldn't the things you really believe in be better served without allying your principles with such pure evil?

I just don't see why you use the cause of the terrorists to buttress the causes you believe are right. If America and its policies are flawed, that's one thing. If you have to justify the terrorism while you're at it, then that's quite another.

[Black Dog]

How about using the time-tested and effective methods of counterterrorism (intellignece gathering, co-operation with other countries, law enforcement and selective use of force)

-----------------------------------

This isn't happening now? Who has their head stuck in the sand?

Oh it's happening, albeit on a smaller scale than it should. After all, "black ops" don't have the same cachet as full on exercise of military might. The President can't "land" on an aircraft carrier to declare "Mission Accomplished!" for something as mundane as the lawful arrest of terrorist suspects.

Does any of this, even if you accept its validity, justify anything the terrorists do? You seem to think they have every reason to be doing what they're doing. Is it so hard to denounce everything about the terrorists without denouncing some aspect of America and the West. Because, even with all the flaws, I'll take America over the terrorists any day of the week. To me, you seem to be confused on this point.

God, but you are thick. Analyising the casuses of terrorism is not the same thing as "justifying terrorist actions." If you choose to frame the debate in this fashion,well, you're an idiot. If that lin eof thinking is the one that dominates U.S. society, you'll never, ever win the war on terror.

I've already denounced terrorism, and think it needs to be countered at the sub-national and the national level.

Doesn't Bush, or any American, have the right to laud the virtues of freedom, especially since America is probably the biggest reason why it as prevailed in the world today. Your "loathing" of Bush's use of this term, as well as your belief that we are all the bad guys I think justifies my reading that you resent America.

Bush and his ilk (you included, apparently) use the word "freedom" as a rhetorical club to bludgeon people over the head, while lacking any kind of understanding of what the word means. And again: where did I say America was the "bad guys"? There's no such dichotomies here, only competing geopolitical interests. Your black and white/giood and evil outlook on the world is limiting.

Again, we ain't perfect. But America is helping to rebuild Iraq. America has made this world a better place. Can you really say the same thing about the terrorists? And, if you can't, then why spend so much energy defending them?

Who are "the terrorists" exactly? Al Q'aeda? Hamas? The Tamal Tigers? The IRA? The UDF? the C.I. freaking A? Jesus. How can you win a war against an enemy you can't even identify? As for "terrorists" not making the world a better place, let's not forget that "terrorists" founded the United States. "Terrorists" fought fascists in Spain and the Nazis in Europe before America even entered the war. "Terrorists" helped create the state of Israel.

Wouldn't the things you really believe in be better served without allying your principles with such pure evil?

I just don't see why you use the cause of the terrorists to buttress the causes you believe are right. If America and its policies are flawed, that's one thing. If you have to justify the terrorism while you're at it, then that's quite another. 

If you equate questioning the policies of a national governemnt with "justifying terrorism", you are so far gone as to not really be worth debating. (It's not a tough concept to grasp: why are you having such a hard time with it?)

[dnsfurlan]

You equated our action regarding terrorism with killing babies.

You equated us with the evil terrorists by stating, brilliantly, that there are no good guys in this.

I'd really like to know how framing the issue in these terms doesn't help terrorists market their claims of moral righteousness to the rest of the world.

I have no problem taking our side against the terrorists. You spend most of your time equating what we do with what they do. "Killing babies" and "No Good Guys" is a virtual surrender to their language. Why not just send them a cheque while you're at it. I heard they could use the money.

There is a war going on out there. And you're more concerned with our flaws than with their flaws. If I'm thick in that regard, then I'll wear that title with pride. In trying to be on the right side of the issue, I don't apologize for taking a stand that demands SOME moral clarity. Without it, you get the kind of mixed message rationalizations people of your views are so proud of.

And, I do so even conceding the points you are making, which I ultimately don't do. You can debate our role in spreading justice or a lack of it in this world. But I certainly stop when someone claims we kill babies and are the bad guys too.

I think what Canada, America, and the rest of the free world stand for is much more than the reduction of our actions to be equated with that of the terrorists.

And, as long as I hear this crap about us killing babies and being the bad guys, I'll remain as thick as I can about it without apology.

For that matter, where do you get off calling me thick? What is this rhetoric about "killing babies" and "we're the bad guys too" but a pure example of spewing hatred towards societies that have done more to provide human happiness to people than the terrorists would in a million years? Tell me how that isn't thick!

Reducing our actions to "killing babies". Razor-thin logic it ain't.

[Black Dog]

You equated our action regarding terrorism with killing babies.

Perfectly justified since, in conducting the war on terror, the U.S. has killed babies. That's a fact.

You equated us with the evil terrorists by stating, brilliantly, that there are no good guys in this.

If you choose to interpret my unwillingness to adopt the ridiculous dichotomy of "good versus evil" that you frame this debate in as equating you with terrorists, that's your problem, not mine. I stand by my statement.

Now, I could go into the rest of your stuff, but won't bother as it' snot all that new. Suffice it to say that by simply accepting, without question or reservation, that your country is "right" in all things and is the sole arbiter of truth, justice, freedom, and little fluffy kittens, you are derelict in your duty as a citizen of a democracy.

For democracy and its attendant freedoms to survive and flourish, citizens must be aware, informed and above all, willing to ask questions of their leaders and demand accountability for the actions committed in the name of society (including killing babies). Instead, I see a willingness to surrender critical thought to so-called conventional wisdom, to fall into outmoded forms of jingoistic nationalism and subvert your own will to the will of the nation's leadership. To, in short, stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and shut your mouth and declare "My country: right or wrong!"

Who then, is really anti-American: those who accept without question the action sof the nation's leadership, regardless of their motives or the consequences, or those who would seek to keep the Republic on the path set down by it's founders 225 years ago?

"The American people ... should be specially careful not to permit themselves to be influenced in their decision by high-sounding phrases of indefinite meaning, by vague generalities, or by seductive catchwords appealing to unreasoning pride and reckless ambition. More than ever true patriotism now demands the exercise of the soberest possible discernment."

-Sen. Carl Schurz 1898

[PIK]

On 9/3/2003 at 6:02 PM, Mr Farrius said:

No problem. Let's start with reforms. We liberals want change. What kind of change? We want equal rights for all people. I personally support affirmative action. I've noticed people throughout this forum saying affirmative action is racist. However it is not. All affirmative action merely does is be conducive to diversity. It does not discriminate. It does not restrict. All it does is attempt to include a more variety of races and ethnicities into colleges or the workplaces. After all, the American constitution states all men are created equal right? I as a liberal Canadian shake my head when I see conservatives complaining about not getting all the opportunities they already get. Another type of reform is economic reform. Right now America is in over a trillion dollar deficit. Regardless of what anyone says, America needs to get rid of that. The only thing conservatives have done right is in regards to the defense of our nation. Domestically, they have plunged America deeper into a deficit. It started declining when Bush came into office neh?

Canada is a more politically stable nation, because whatever it wants to get done isn't influenced by a divide in politics. We are not at each other's throats because one of us disapproves of the action of another. In other words, we get what we need to get done without constant bickering.

Good enough? Or do you need more explanation?

Well Trudeau is doing a good job spending money and dividing the country, I wonder if this guy still believes what he said. This countyry was pretty quiet when harper ran it, now under trudeau we are at each other's throats.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

This countyry was pretty quiet when harper ran it, now under trudeau we are at each other's throats.

This depends on your perspective.  My newsfeed was screaming every day when Harper was PM.  Not so much now.

[Michael Hardner]

Also - is this a record ?  Response to Black Dog (who left years ago) took 14 years, 18 days.

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This depends on your perspective.  My newsfeed was screaming every day when Harper was PM.  Not so much now.

Its relative to your political leaning i guess as mine is opposite of yours.

[Bonam]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also - is this a record ?  Response to Black Dog (who left years ago) took 14 years, 18 days.

Think so, this is the oldest thread I remember seeing necro'd!

[Guest]

Where's the first post ever?

[-TSS-]

Kind of gives you perspective reading the op; the same babble goes on years and years. Without looking at the date there is very little which makes you think that can't have been written today.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2003-08-25 at 11:31 PM, Craig Read said:

What the snivelling left calls 'nuanced thinking' is a cloak for confused, rudderless philosophical nonsense.

The Left have been wrong on every major issue in the past 50 years. Their manly defense is slander and lies. Clinton is their priest. Chretien their saint. If they can't win the argument on facts and empiricism they put their hands on their hips and stick their tongue out, and then start to cry. Liberals love winning arguments by crying, preferably while hugging a baby seal.

Treason, lies, demagoguery all wrapped up in nationalism, saving the world, or crying for the poor. Forget the fact that there are a thousand ways to help the poor, only the left know the CORRECT and MORAL way. No debate is needed on health care - my god you want to reform it - BABY KILLER !!!

Cowardice in foreign affaris [oh come on the Muslims will love us if we just hug them and kiss them], is reflected by limp wristed inactivity at home. Rising debts, taxes and budgets - all used to buy off whomever screams the loudest and uses their 'Charter of Rights' to achieve 'equality.' This appeals to the Left, they love vague jargon and legalese - it makes them appear smart.

Churchill saw this nonsense coming. So too did Orwell. Go back to the 30s and 40s and read their works. They criticise the grand illusion that is National Socialism.

Are you really a socialist spoofing ignoramuses on the right? 

Yeah, Chrétien the leftist (!) was so wrong to control the deficit. 

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Are you really a socialist spoofing ignoramuses on the right? 

Yeah, Chrétien the leftist (!) was so wrong to control the deficit. 

Hint: the post you've responded to is dated 2003.

[H10]

On 9/4/2003 at 11:06 AM, Hugo said:

Dnsfurlan, Neal, you are both right. Some more points about AA:

1) To "fix" discrimination by discriminating against someone else does not resolve the problem, it just moves it.

2) To promote the idea that certain ethnicities need special treatment just furthers the wrongful idea that people of other ethnicities are different from and somehow inferior to "the rest of us". Far from moving towards a more egalitarian and colour-blind society, it moves away from it and actually encourages discrimination.

3) It not only insults minorities by implying that they lack the skills to succeed on their own, it actively encourages them to fail by placing the less qualified of them in positions they are unable to fulfill. In that way, it actually furthers ideas of, say, black inferiority by ensuring that more blacks than ever are failing university courses - just looking at the statistics, it would be easy to conclude that blacks are just stupid.

To that end, more discrimination will result. If you are conducting job interviews, with universal educational AA you could safely assume that any black applicants were not as smart as the white ones (since the blacks had gotten their degrees through quotas, not skills, and the whites had been good enough to fit into the reduced white-student quota and thus probably exceeded the minimum requirements). On that basis, I can see many companies just dismissing black applicants out of hand.

4) As with any cheating, it raises the question: would you have succeeded anyway, on your own merit? Even if AA does succeed in producing more minority doctors, lawyers and politicians, the question will still be there: would they still have been able to be those things were it not for AA?

Actually affirmative action presumes that the white decision makers will behave in a biased manner against the non-white person regardless of qualification and that the history of racism against non-white people is so deeply entrenched into white society, as the research is overwhelming that this is the case, but for affirmative action, there would be no real possibility of an integrated society.  I suggest you listen to LBJ speech at Howard University in the 1960s if you are confused.

However, if anyone would or ought be questioned on the merit of their skills, the historical evidence would suggest if any, it ought be white people, specifically wealthy white males who have benefitted from an old boys club and centuries of affirmative action, which gave them free education, free land, free labor all at the expense of non-white people, specifically african americans and native american groups.

 

'You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.''

L.B.J. went on to set out the history of discrimination and the ''special nature of Negro poverty'' to make the case that to right these wrongs, ''equal opportunity is essential, but not enough.''

 

And people of other ethnicities are different.  When were white people in Canada enslaved, robbed of their culture, mass genocided by the federal government, kidnapped out their country, have their land stolen and discriminated against for hundreds of years, denied voting rights and given inferior education, schools, and housing based off of their skin color?  I don't think that happened to white people as any identifiable group in large numbers, so it would be silly to deny that there is a difference.

 

You even claimed affirmative action furthers the idea of "black inferiority". You see, you said, further, so that idea is and was already out there, or else there is nothing to further, suggesting there are a group of people (white) who prior to affirmative action already believe african-canadians to be "inferior".  Thus by your own statements you actually prove the problem is not affirmative action, as white people already believed africans to be inferior before affirmative action (hence segregation +racism + slavery + genocide).   The problem is the miseducation of white people on raced based issues.  So the answer is not to get rid of affirmative action, but to get rid of racist ideas in white people's heads.  And that only occurs by exposing them to non-white people who can dismiss those beliefs, and since whites believed that africans are inferior before africans even had rights in the country, and whites had entrenched themselves into the economic decision making positions, the only way to change these beliefs are with robust affirmative action policies.

[PIK]

On 10/4/2017 at 6:35 PM, Michael Hardner said:

This depends on your perspective.  My newsfeed was screaming every day when Harper was PM.  Not so much now.

That is because the left was in denial about losing the election, same as is happening in the states. The country was quiet for the most part and the provinces were not fighting the feds. We are now in debt big time where they want to tax everyone to death. Most of his promises were lies, blatant lies and he has screwed almost every file. He has thrown women under the bus, and got caught accidentally telling the truth about phasing out the oilsands. And now I hear they are talking to australia about buying thier old planes, because he has screwed that file up also. He screwed the east on deferring the ships and making damn sure the pipeline does not go thru. And as I have said before , canada is too small a stage for trudeau and by selling out the country by making it a safe zone for all people on the earth and by killing the oilsands, he will be look at such a  great leader in the eyes of the left he will be the next leader of the UN. And it will be to late before the blinded people of canada realize what went on.