[mapleleafsnation]

stemmer stemmer:

mapleleafsnation

$1:

Oh come on! I was saying what he was. I was not dragging anything as a debate (did I say if being a supporter of Iraq is good or not?). Usually the American right is more prone to agree with the war on Iraq, can't we agree on this? If we can't well you should open your eyes. Just go and check how many members of the republicain party support Iraq (or Afghanistan because the US is there too) and how many member of the democractic party support it. Heck you might even find a peer-reviewed study about it if you look hard enough (peer-reviewed is a guarantee of some sort of quality, Goldberg is not peer-reviewed).

And global warming is divided along political lines. The Liberals, NDP and Democrats all believe it is true while the Conservatives and Republicans do not believe. So sorry, I don't understand your point.

That's because you can't make link between what you comment on and my reply to your comment.


"Dragging the Iraq war into this thread just informs me you are clutching at straws....!!!!" - stemmer

That was your reply to

"Goldberg is a supporter of the Iraq War and has advocated for American military intervention elsewhere in the world. He has defended historical colonialism in places such as Africa as more beneficial than it is generally given credit for; in one column, he suggested that U.S. imperialism on the continent could help solve its persistent problems."

Now the post that you replied to (the one I just cited) was proving that Goldberg is a right-wing conservatives. He fits right into the republicain mold the public opinion has.

Do you see the point now? I was showing that Goldberg was a conservative because earlier you said.

stemmer stemmer:

He was on Glen Beck around Christmas time and this man has thoroughly researched his book... AND you have proof he is a right-wing activist or is that your "loaded view"...????

Maybe you should go back and re-read the thread, order the book from Chapters or Amazon... Then come back to the discusion...

[Benoit]

"How do you stand toward Fight Club, the movie of David Fincher (1999)?"

All the liberals claim, "Ah, it's proto-fascist, violent, blah, blah, blah." No, I am for it. I think the message of Fight Club is not so much liberating violence but that liberation hurts. What may falsely appear as my celebration of violence, I think, is a much more tragic awareness. If there is a great lesson of the 20th-century history, it's the lesson of psychoanalysis: The lesson of totalitarian subordination is not "renounce, suffer," but this subordination offers you a kind of perverted excess of enjoyment and pleasure. To get rid of that enjoyment is painful. Liberation hurts.

http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thr ... ublimation

[Mustang1]

ka3bour ka3bour:

Liberals =
liberals with Dion as a leader =

Someone didn't get the memo - this is about IDEOLOGICAL Liberalism. It's okay, Benoit will trump you any minute...

[Benoit]

romanP romanP:

Benoit Benoit:

Today there is no danger of a come back of fascism because the main popular veneration is not centered on a person but on things from the marketplace, that is impersonal goods.

I would say that fascism is manifest in many areas of capitalist society, it's just much more covert than it was in the past. For instance, the way WalMart operates could be easily be classified as fascism. They conduct business by undermining the law, undermining communities and undermining smaller business for the greater good of a monolithic corporation that uses slave labour as a means of production. That doesn't sound a whole lot unlike fascism to me.

The employees of Walmart are not yet devoting a personality cult to the Walton family.

[romanP]

You could liken some WalMart customers to following a personality cult. There are an awful lot of people who don't buy anything anywhere but WalMart. Sometimes, it's because it's actually the only store around.

[Dayseed]

romanP romanP:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

mapleleafsnation made a good observation earlier when he lamented the ignorance of the common person on matters of politics. This thread bears that out. Ask any of the ranters or posters to actually discuss the post in detail and you're met with dodges, shifts or crybaby whines. It's sad, but it does explain how Goldberg sells books

You could say that about just about any political thread on this forum, or any thread where knowledge of a subject is required. It's not just politics, it's everything. People are just damn ignorant.

Roman,

Most people on here don't discuss ideology. They discuss nothing more than tribalism in a political vein. Your party blows, my party is awesome type bullshit. It's divisive and rarely advances any understanding of the pros and cons of any particular piece of policy.

COMMENT CORNER EXPLAINS POLITICAL ARGUING

[Benoit]

romanP romanP:

You could liken some WalMart customers to following a personality cult. There are an awful lot of people who don't buy anything anywhere but WalMart. Sometimes, it's because it's actually the only store around.

Only when the customers will start buying in WalMart pictures of the Walton family will we be justified to speak of a personality cult.

[romanP]

Why do they need pictures of the Walton family? The purchase of the products speaks for itself.

[ShepherdsDog]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

ka3bour ka3bour:

Liberals =
liberals with Dion as a leader =

Someone didn't get the memo - this is about IDEOLOGICAL Liberalism. It's okay, Benoit will trump you any minute...

He missed that memo when he was at his Friends of Hamas meeting.

[Benoit]

romanP romanP:

Why do they need pictures of the Walton family? The purchase of the products speaks for itself.

You have to better understand the role played by fetishism in fascism.

[Joe_Stalin]

romanP romanP:

.
Global warming is not divided along political lines, and your divisions are bunk anyway. Stephen Harper does actually seem to be committed to enacting useful environmental policy, which is something the Liberals never really did.

What is divided is those who think they should act responsibly for how they affect the environment they live in, and those who do not.

It is divided along political lines in the main. Harper does not believe that man made CO2 is melting the Northwest Passage and that the sea will rise 22 feet. He does realize that many people are concerned, many are hoodwinked and many are just plain suckers for any eco activist bandwagon that is in vogue. So reality forces him to spend millions to placate these people. At least he did not give $2 billion to Russia to buy carbon credits. Putin appreciated the gift, the Liberals felt warm and fuzzy for doing Gore's bidding and homeless people froze and starved on wintry streets.

The sly eco-activists managed to tie polluting the environment with the naturally occurring climate changes. The leftwing media and leftwing politicians saw an opportunity to discredit the Tory government. Facts and taxpayers money went down the toilet. No TV station ever does a series on all the scientists who have differing views. Those stations are useful idiots too. Everything now is tied to GW. Katrina, rising insurance rates, cooling oceans, whatever.
Ever hear that those bumper crops were due to the 1/2 deg F rise in the last 50 years?

[Benoit]

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

romanP romanP:

.
Global warming is not divided along political lines, and your divisions are bunk anyway. Stephen Harper does actually seem to be committed to enacting useful environmental policy, which is something the Liberals never really did.

What is divided is those who think they should act responsibly for how they affect the environment they live in, and those who do not.

It is divided along political lines in the main. Harper does not believe that man made CO2 is melting the Northwest Passage and that the sea will rise 22 feet. He does realize that many people are concerned, many are hoodwinked and many are just plain suckers for any eco activist bandwagon that is in vogue. So reality forces him to spend millions to placate these people. At least he did not give $2 billion to Russia to buy carbon credits. Putin appreciated the gift, the Liberals felt warm and fuzzy for doing Gore's bidding and homeless people froze and starved on wintry streets.

The sly eco-activists managed to tie polluting the environment with the naturally occurring climate changes. The leftwing media and leftwing politicians saw an opportunity to discredit the Tory government. Facts and taxpayers money went down the toilet. No TV station ever does a series on all the scientists who have differing views. Those stations are useful idiots too. Everything now is tied to GW. Katrina, rising insurance rates, cooling oceans, whatever.
Ever hear that those bumper crops were due to the 1/2 deg F rise in the last 50 years?

Eco-fascism is impossible.

[Joe_Stalin]

Google it and take your pick from over 200,000 hits.

Start with this one. http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germa ... peter.html

[romanP]

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

romanP romanP:

.
Global warming is not divided along political lines, and your divisions are bunk anyway. Stephen Harper does actually seem to be committed to enacting useful environmental policy, which is something the Liberals never really did.

What is divided is those who think they should act responsibly for how they affect the environment they live in, and those who do not.

It is divided along political lines in the main.

Whatever that means.

$1:

Harper does not believe that man made CO2 is melting the Northwest Passage and that the sea will rise 22 feet.

I don't think you know that, and I don't think he thinks that. If nothing is melting the ice in the northwest passage, then why is it melting? I think this is what is called "attributing your own beliefs and what you wish people would believe to other people."

$1:

He does realize that many people are concerned, many are hoodwinked and many are just plain suckers for any eco activist bandwagon that is in vogue. So reality forces him to spend millions to placate these people.

No, the reality is that we have an environmental problem that needs taking care of. If he were just throwing money around, he would not bother to create legislation that protects the environment.

$1:

At least he did not give $2 billion to Russia to buy carbon credits. Putin appreciated the gift, the Liberals felt warm and fuzzy for doing Gore's bidding and homeless people froze and starved on wintry streets.

Homeless people would have starved and froze to death anyway. The Liberals were never exactly a beacon of hope for the homeless, nor are the Conservatives.

$1:

The sly eco-activists managed to tie polluting the environment with the naturally occurring climate changes.

Well, they are related. Any change you make to your environment changes your environment. If you put a lot of smoke in a small room, you may suddenly notice that it is becoming hotter and harder to breath. You can pretend that nothing is happening, but then you won't live for very long, and will probably die in a fire.

$1:

The leftwing media and leftwing politicians saw an opportunity to discredit the Tory government.

You don't know if this has anything has anything to do with "left", because there is only one party of the "right." How can other "right wing" parties dissent if THERE ARE NONE?

[romanP]

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

Google it and take your pick from over 200,000 hits.

Start with this one. http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germa ... peter.html

Wow, a random webpage says some stuff. It must be true, and could not possibly be biased!