Women's rights, or Islam?

Neat. What were your approximate coordinates? If you don't mind me asking.

 

6


Have a bit of time between packing so will reply quickly

LOL not the fucking Political Compass again, you do now it’s skewed and far too simplistic it doesn’t really tell me anything – I prefer to take a person on what they say – and your Social Darwinist views and anarcho-capitalist ideas put you on the far right of politics.

 

6

The discussion is that you seem more interested in spreading far right propaganda but seem unable and uninterested in defending it from criticism and that is spread out over several threads only one I believe is locked so why not defend your ideas in one of the others?

Again another expression of your either/or mentality – win or lose – I’m not looking for a win I’m genuinely trying to understand why you hold onto views you seem unable to defend from criticism, I don’t think I’m going to ‘win’ because in the real world politics doesn’t usually bring ‘wins’ just outcomes that can be to one degree or another better or worse. Think about the Republicans ‘winning’ the tax plan bill, who really ‘won’ in that? If a bad bill is passed is that a win?

Is you NOT answering the questions or criticisms a ‘win’ for me, I don’t think so since I still don’t know why you hold onto ideas you seem unable to defend from criticism ?

 

6

Another piece of propaganda is not a discussion.

What the fuck has Venezuela got to do with anything? Why do you think it is ‘the elephant in the room’? I remember been critical of Chavez who I saw as a populists (like Trump) more interested in himself than sorting out the countries many problems and would probably make things worse.

But really what the fuck are you on about or is this more of your anti-left propaganda – oh look at Venezuela oh that’s what happens when lefties are in control – you know that’s as stupid as saying ALL right wing governments will inevitably turn into Nazi Germany.

Can you stop being simplistic and start addressing the many outstanding questions and criticisms of your views?

SAME MO – ALL lefties are heinous people or will inevitably become heinous people - Oh yeah those dastardly lefties blar blar blar …same old crap.

AND AGAIN – so what form would your ‘government’ take you don’t seem to want democratic governments so what would you have? You keep putting statements like this out there but never seem able to answer the questions or address the criticisms. Why is that?

 

6

So let’s look at that - you are happy to pump out ill-informed statements about things you admit to knowing little about because….well…because you want to post propaganda about stuff you know little about?

Do you think that helps anything?

You admit you are basically wasting your time and ours – because you are too busy to do any studying?

Why not stop posting until you have actually done the reading - you know use the time that you do at the moment posting to do some study and give some thought to the things you post at the moment with little or no thought or knowledge?

This is exactly the point

Who said they were ‘anti-capitalists’ you have not read the books so you are ignorant of what they say BUT you still want to make a (anti-left) comment so you do from a position of ignorance.

As with this, as with virtually everything else you comment on – they seem to come from a position of little or no knowledge.

How is that helpful?

 

However they got there, they're here and are a fact of life. Trying to get rid of them by supporting right wing causes or libertarian myths is counterproductive, because you just feed the beast. When Republicans say they want less government, they mean less programs for the poor and middle class, and more for the oligarchs. Removing regulations in the food and beverage industry would leave us eating rat meat and drinking bottled sewerage.

 

Here are my political test results. I took it just for you all to see if you still think I'm fringe right:



The Political Compass

I've taken this test a few times. I usually fall in this general area. Sometimes I'm slightly more right depending on my mood.

[/QUOTE] Your test results are interesting, but probably not definitive. I took the test too, and on some items, could go either way. My results put me square in the libertarian left category, probably because of my liberal views on speech, sex, drugs and rock'n roll. So BAMN/Antifa Stalinist terrorist I am not. One thing the questionnaire may not capture is your consistent, strident obsession with attacking and ridiculing Muslims and your tendency to assume that anyone who is to your left is a card carrying Stalinist/terrorist, or has to prove otherwise. Ordinarily those are right wing characteristics, and your views are so off the charts on these matters that the questionnaire doesn't address them.

 

That's just like saying my pro-choice views automatically make me a lefty.

While I can agree that my limited regulation and fiscal views are pretty right leaning, I don't think it's the same as being an absolute rightist. Many right wingers want the government to police morality. Enforce what we do with our bodies and what we do behind closed doors, for example. I distance myself from things like that, which may be what brings me closer to the center in the political test.

I sure hope that many of us common citizens would land below the equator line. There are probably large numbers of authoritarian outliers though. Supporting the use of violence to take the rights of your opponents away would likely put someone in the authoritarian quadrants. Hate groups and violent extremist groups are guilty of just that.

And yes, I do agree that some of those questions in the quiz are ones that I'm split down the middle on, and have mixed feelings about. For me, the death penalty is one of them.

However, I'm not sure how my hard criticisms of a very conservative, religious culture with a regressively traditionalist approach governance puts me further to the right? If anything, it puts me further to the left, and you and Balbus further right for defending such religious authority.

 

Thank you for clarifying that. Just because you don't like hearing my reasons for justifying my viewpoints, doesn't mean I'm unable to defend them. I'll admit I haven't answered every single on of your questions. But you sometimes cherry pick the questions I ask too.

The fact that he was a hardcore leftist championed by many progressives here in the west. I'll admit I can't recall if you and I were talking at the time of his peak popularity or not. But of course, Venezuela introduced a socialist model and the country failed. No surprises there. Nevertheless, I'm glad you say you were critical of him at the time. You might say socialism works in Scandanavia and your country, but actually the United Kingdom is more of a free market society than the United States. And the United States ties with Denmark at 17th and 18th place. Whereas Sweden is at 19th place

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Hitler hated capitalism. Please do some homework, and I'll do your assigned reading books to me. Deal?

I think a little regulation, with government enforcement could be a good thing. I just think that the people in government need to be replaced often, and the regulations must be re-evaluated and voted on consistently over time

Democrats love poor people. That's why their policies create so many of them.

Even in a regulated society, spoiled meat still slips through the cracks and gets sold to the consumer. It happens occasionally to this day. I once found a broken blade from a box cutter in a piece of bread I bought from a licensed bakery. I can't imagine why a company would deliberately sell poisoned food and contaminated water, deliberately harming their customers. However I think that holding companies accountable who are careless with the purity of the food they sell, through regulation, is perfectly acceptable.

 

"A very conservative, religious culture with a regressively traditionalist approach" toward governance is ordinarily to the right, so if you're critical of that it would put you to the left on that particular issue. Good for you. Apparently your answers to other items offset that, and you landed on the right of the scale. Again, the questionnaire doesn't measure Islamophobia and misogyny, and it doesn't capture the intensity of sentiments on particular issues.

 

left wing is really bad, there's a reason the eagle always faced left on nazi flags

 

I figured that was because he had to cough, during the exam.

 

Here's mine:

 

...

 

Rankings on Economic Freedom[/URL]
[/Quote] The notion that the United States is more socialist than Scandanavia is indeed surprising, and might alert the reader to the possibility that the information is wrong. In the case of the "Contry Rankings: World and Global Economic Rankings on Economic Freedom. that is a likely possibility. The rankings are put out by notorious right wing propaganda sources: the Wall Street Journal, which is as objective as Fox news (I.e., biased as hell!) and the Heritage Foundation, described by Dr. John Miller, economics professor at Wheaton College, as"Washinton's foremost right-wing think tank". Debunking the “Index of Economic Freedom” For example,"the United States is downgraded for passing Sarbanes-Oxley, a law that seeks to improve corporate accounting practices and to make CEOs responsible for their corporations’ profit reports. The segment of the U.S. population whose economic freedom this law erodes is tiny, but it’s obviously that segment-not workers and not even shareholders-whose freedom counts for the folks at the Journal and at Heritage." Denmark, a country which has narrowed its income growth to one of the smallest in the world, and controls its corporations through regulations and trade union power that would give Wall Street Journal readers palpitations, is presented as less socialist than the United States because it had a lower official corporate tax rate than the U.S. (which few if any U.S. corporations paid because of the loopholes, and anyhow that's been fixed by the U.S. recent tax legislation. Ninety percent of Scandanavian businesses are privately owned, but with much higher regulation than U.S. companies encounter. Socialist or not?

 

"Socialism" ,like Fascism, is one of those terms that's bandied about as a kind of cuss word for things the rightwingers dislike. Cranks in my community often write in to the local newspaper denouncing this or that government activity as "socialist": school bond issues, a dog park, a senior citizens' center, etc. But the term "socialism" has a narrower meaning: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".Definition of SOCIALISM Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. socialism These definitions are more precise, being focused on the means of production. But they raise additional questions: is it "ownership'" or effective control that's important. In the Scandanavian countries, at least 90% of the industries are in private hands, but heavily regulated by the State and constrained by state-encouraged trade unions. Socialist? I'd say "yes". Few economies of the world, past or present, have been "socialist" in the sense of State ownership of all means of production. Most countries have "mixed' economies. And it also matters what the government that controls the economy is like: democratic or authoritarian. Propagandists like to slip around among these ambiguities in building a case for or against socialism. With this in mind, let's consider a couple of Six-eyed's claims.

I doubt that "many progressives here in the west" admired Hugo Chavez. What is your source for that? I had the same reservations about him as I do of Trump. I thought he was a narcissistic demagogue, albeit one from the Left, who used the upswing in world oil prices in the early 2000s to nationalize basic industries and introduce extensive welfare programs. When the world oil prices fell in the late 2000s, he had to engage in some major belt-tightening. He was the Left-wing version of the Republican legislators,here in Oklahoma, who short-sightedly used the same high oil prices to push through massive tax cuts that left the state short of revenue when the oil prices fell. I don't think socialism or capitalism per se are to blame, just lack of political foresight.

Then there was Hitler.

Deal. In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans says it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of , or an outgrowth of , socialism" (p. 173). Was Hitler a "socialist"? The name of this movement was "National Socialism", so that would seem to suggest the answer is yes. But it's more complicated than that. Hitler hated socialists, and his Brown shirt thugs fought with them in the streets before his rise to power. After he became Chancellor, he put through programs that left the Junkers in control of the land and the captains of industry in control of the factories.In contrast to Socialism, Hitler's Nazism emphasized race over class. See Hitler was not a socialist, even if he did stash champagne ; Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist? Debunking a Historical Myth As John Ralston Saul points out: capitalism was resonably content under Hitler, happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco and delirious under Pinochet.

BTW, I suppose I should state my own position on the subject of socialism. I'm not a believer of State ownership of basic industries except in the limited existing sense of public utilities. I do believe in regulation to protect the environment and assure a social safety net through Social Security and Medicare, and I favor expanded welfare state measures to provide free college education, and medical benefits to all members of society. Strictly speaking, such "welfare state" measures are not socialism, since they don't involve ownership of the means of production, which I think is economically inefficient.

 

I'm perfectly OK with some public services being offered by the collective whole. But I think it's a safe bet that most of you wouldn't say I identify as a socialist. I just think private industry does it better through competition than government can through monopolization and robbing... erm I mean taxing us at gunpoint.

Scandinavian countries ARE mixed economies though.

Here's a quote from Denmark's prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Democratic socialists like Sanders are opposed to global capitalism, free trade, vouchers for private schools. While at the same time they support socialistic price floors and ceilings like a federal minimum wage. But Sweden, Norway, Denmark, embrace these things and lack a minimum wage and offer vouchers to for-profit education organizations.

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono

You know, the usuals, including, but not limited to:

Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Clinton advisor Joseph Stiglitz, Jeremy Corbyn, Naomi Klien, Noam Chomsky, to name a few respected voices of the progressive side.

Sean Penn, Michael Moore and Oliver Stone pay tribute to Hugo Chávez
Joseph Stiglitz, in Caracas, Praises Venezuela’s Economic Policies
In Venezuela, the destructive force of socialism is at work

I believe I may've said something about this in the locked thread. Racism does not strictly identify with any economic system, but you would need a powerful state government to enforce racist laws. Laws that benefit some at the expense of others, obviously. Many democrat/progressive/left policies are all about implementing laws that benefit some at the expense of others: Welfare, affirmative action, diversity quotas, amnesty, etc.

 

Well, here in this country, if we don't teach 1st generation children English, we are cruelly setting them up for failure.


Yeah they got government healthcare. At the expense of being herded by men with sticks:

Saudi man uses long rod to control and ‘herd’ young Muslim women at school | Paul Joseph Watson (Video)

 

What drives these laws and policies is the notion that we can travel back in time to "right historical wrongs". The flaw in this plan is that the people who should be paying the price for the historical wrongs are all dead and have been for quite some time. Because of this simple fact, the resources needed for this "noble" venture must be taken from someone else. From people who didn't actually do any of the hideous shit that happened in the past.

But if not them, then who? Who will pay for all this "wrong righting"?