Some Usefull Info.

Balbus, your problem is that you insist that everyone fit onto your traditional european class war political spectrum. You objective is for a big government technocrat socialist state so solve all problems with social engineering and wealth confiscation. Thus, for you politics is the study of what flaws in society are preventing such an ideal government from coming to power, and debate is about "educating" people who can't see the beauty of such a system.

I don't think Rat is "extreme right wing". I think that although elements of his ideology are, and many of the sources he reads are probably far more "extreme right wing" than he realises, he is not. You simply do not understand American politics well enough to comprehend that, and you will continue trying to hammer that round peg into a square hole until long after everyone else has abandoned this thread.

Your debating approach is patronising, pedantic, and arrogant. Sorry man but you are completely out of touch.

 

Ah the defender of unrestrained wealth consolidation into the fewest hands as possible (at the expense of the bulk of our nation's populace) presumes himself sufficiently versed with American politics to lecture about the evils of "big government technocrat" systems, ignoring the plain fact that few if any governments in the world can come close to competing with the over-inflated size and indeed invasive practices of our Washington (and environs) establishment.

Indeed, its got be someone or something else out there that is evil, inefficient or otherwise misguided, never our own system or leaders regardless of the ongoing disenfranchisement and impoverishment of our once much touted broad-based middle class.

It becomes increasingly apparent with his every post that PB cares only for his own pampered elitist comfort whilst society (ours or any other) can make do with the crumbs left to it in the margins.

God forbid we should entertain any notions of equitable wealth redistribution for the maintenance of future opportunity, that would disrupt the princely lifestyles of the top 1% who can't be satisfied with just one house, yacht, car, learjet, cayman bank account (for handy tax avoidance purposes of course), et al.

No indeed, its got to be business as usual without question for ol PB, even though that track is leading us, with ever increasing speed, straight into economic meltdown. Clearly the preferred model for PB is to grab as much as possible and leave the rest to go down with the ship rather than own up to the obligation of giving back to the society from whence one has benefitted to such a grand extent.

The man and his myths folks, selfish and rotten to the core.

 

Thank you Point

Interesting analysis but am I wrong or do you seem to be letting a bit of personal animosity creep into your post…no...I’m sure your being objective -)

Yes certainly my views are coloured by the traditions of European political ideas, I’m European and have lived in several places in Europe, it would be unusual if they weren’t. I’ve also mainly studied European history and the history of European political thought. I have read books on US history and politics but it is only 200 years old, and is in no way my major concern. In fact as I have pointed out on several occasions I came to these forums in an effort to learn and understand.

I have learnt a lot and gained some understanding but I hope for more and that is the reason I remain. I hope that you and others will help and I thank you in advance.

**

"For you politics is the study of what flaws in society are preventing such an ideal government from coming to power, and debate is about "educating" people who can't see the beauty of such a system"


You say this line as if it was a reproach, Why?
Think about it if a person did have that political view or another what should they do?

Imagine that the flaw they saw in a society was absolute monarchy and their ideal was democracy. Would you say that it would be wrong of the person to try and educate people who couldn’t see the beauty of such a system?

Do you think that all the political writers, debaters and pamphleteers of the past were somehow wrong to try and persuade people?

What other way would you wish for people to take?

**

You don’t think Rat is "extreme right wing" but by his own admission he thinks the Democrats and Republicans are left wing and you think "his ideology are and many of the sources he reads are probably far more "extreme right wing" than he realises".
So to call him right wing and to ask him to defend his views in debate are somehow wrong, why, because I "simply do not understand American politics well enough to comprehend".

So are you saying that American political thought is incomprehensible to anyone but an American, if so that smacks of that old chestnut ‘American exceptionlism’ with is implication that Americans somehow have superior knowledge, and you call me arrogant.

What is it ‘others’ need to be understood about American politics that will make libertarianism seem left wing? That US society is so far to the right that to be tolerant of gays and pot smokers is to be a leftie?

Please Point I’ve said it before think before you post.

Cheers

Balbus

PS: Do you get the bank holiday if so have a good long weekend and the weather for once looks good.

 

Gonna help you out a little PB. Rat you still have to respond to PB's post number 9.

 

Number of threats? I assume you meant threads?

What is my political agenda? And if I have a political agenda, as you claim, what makes it any worse than your political agenda, other than that you're a fascist and intolerant of opinions that differ from your own?

So maybe I am a "right-winger." I never said I was or wasn't, all I am trying to say is that I don't find it necessary to cling to labels, going around referring to myself as this or that. This is a forum to discuss issues involving war and politics, not argue like a child over who is "left wing" and who is "right wing."

What exactly do want to know about me and my politics, Balbus? You seem to be awfully concerned about my politics. Why?

What "right wing views" and "propaganda" am I pushing, other than that I believe a small government is preferable to a big government, which is often corrupt and exploits the people that it's supposed to serve and protect. Contrary to what you believe, big government does nothing to place restrictions on the corporations which it is in bed with. Government has gotten progressively larger over the years, along with it so has corporate greed and exploitation.

That's your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. Frankly, I don't think much higher of your political ideology. I care even less for your rotten, pompous attitude.

 

Democrats and Republicans ARE both left-wing. How can any person that is remotely versed in politics say that either party is fiscally conservative? Bush is supposedly a conservative, yet look at his spending record. How is this conservative?

How are the massive debts and deficits accumulated under Bush conservative? How is the Patriot Act conservative? How is open borders conservative? How is the outsourcing of jobs conservative? How is the destruction of the country's economy conservative?

The problem with you is that you are incapable of seeing beyond the rhetoric. Because Bush is called a "conservative" by the media and spouts a bunch of empty moral and religious rhetoric, you believe he is conservative.

So please tell me, what makes the Republican Party, in your opinion, "conservative"? What makes George W. Bush a "conservative"?

People who think Bush is a conservative really need to go back and do some reading.

As far as my sources, I use both right-wing and left-wing sources. I use right-wing conservative sources like News With Views, The New American and World Net Daily, as well as left-wing liberal sources like Counterpunch, Truthout and Common Dreams.

I also use sources that are not aligned with either side, like Infowars, Prison Planet and Rense.com.

I agree with much of the Left's analysis on many issues. I just don't agree with their solutions and their vision for the country.

I always defend myself in debate. The problem is, your version of a "debate" is always about personal politics. Anytime I bring up facts based on a particular subject, you ignore them.

 

What exactly in that thread do you want me to respond to that I haven't already?

 

Rat

Your political views are important because you are the one that is here and it is you that seems to be championing and pushing a certain political viewpoint, that of the libertarian movement.

Which leads to the second problem that you continually seem to claim that ‘libertarian’ sources are ‘independent’ when they are not they are preaching a right wing political opinion.

 

You haven't said how you know the pictures are defiently legitimate after saying nothing could be considered defiently legitamate... unless I missed something

 

So?

Because I am "the one that is here"? What is that supposed to mean? Aren't you and everyone else here as well? Aren't you also "championing and pushing" a "political viewpoint"? Isn't anybody that has anything to say about politics championing or endorsing a political viewpoint? If so, is this wrong? Should it be made illegal?

I don't find myself "pushing" anything. I simply have my own opinions. Is it wrong for people other than yourself to have opinions?

I never said that. I don't even consider any of my sources "libertarian." Many of them are independent -- not all -- but they're not necessary "libertarian." As I stated in my previous thread, I use sources from both the alternative and mainstream media, and from all points of the political spectrum.

I am not like you, I actually have some knowledge about politics and don't blindly judge everything based on labels and names.

 

I was implying that if those pictures, taken from the Washington Times were faked or illegitimate, then so could any picture found in that (or any other) supposedly legitimate mainstream publication.

What I am saying is, it could be illegitimate, but what makes it any more so than every other picture in the Washington Times, other than for the fact that the picture forces one to question something that goes against the accepted "norm" of the herd?

 

That makes is equally illegitimate, not DEFINITELY LEGITIMATE.

And even ignoring the fact that your point is completely and utterly irrelevant, you have never even managed to establish that these pictures actually appeared in the Washington Times anyway. You think the article exists because an anonymous person on the internet said it did.

So when you say something is DEFINITELY LEGITIMATE, you mean it could be illegitimate.

HUH?

Quit beating around the bush. DEFINITELY LEGITIMATE, when said by you, seems to mean absolutely nothing.