babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » The leftist tide against America

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The leftist tide against America
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 10 October 2001 01:15 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Those of us in middle years or older readily recognize the most vociferous among the such activist lobbies of recent years have been the feminists, the gays and lesbians, the conservationists, and the aboriginals. And all four - but most notably, the feminists - have done much to popularize and expose us to the views about the U.S. put boldly and so widely approved by the aggressive Thobani, McDonough, and Rebick.

> by Douglas Fisher > Ottawa Sun
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com .

From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
QuikSilver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1470

posted 10 October 2001 01:32 PM      Profile for QuikSilver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
uggggggh. My three favorite ladies, neatly packaged all together.
From: Your Wildest Fantasies | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 October 2001 01:44 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, judes! Fisher says that you've influenced Jean Chretien! Way to go!

Do I not remember Doug Fisher, eons ago, as a New Democrat? I thought I also remembered him as a better journalist than this -- anyone else find this oddly jerky and incoherent?

I guess that email address is there for a reason ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 10 October 2001 02:41 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Judym, you actually read the Ottawa Sun?!?!
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 10 October 2001 02:47 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I read all, I see all, I know all. I am Barney. I am Jebus. I am the alpha and the omega.

Okay, okay, so that's a lie. Someone forwarded the spew to me, and I thought folks might be interested.

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 October 2001 02:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're not Jebus.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JonnyHaggis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 651

posted 10 October 2001 02:54 PM      Profile for JonnyHaggis   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Was that article for real, or just satire? If it was satire it was pretty funny. Otherwise, I'm scared.

Actually, I just re-read it, and now I'm confused even more - is this an article 8against* NGO's and democracy, or *for* them? Everythyng he's describing is great, he just seems upset about it for some unexplained reason.

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: JonnyHaggis ]


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 10 October 2001 04:56 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl, apparently, yes, this is one in the same.

Perhaps he didn't mean it to read as a negative piece. I find its tone somewhat more ambiguous on second reading.

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 10 October 2001 06:07 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't understand, is Michelle Jebus, or is Judym Jebus?

SAVE ME JEBUS!!!!!


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 10 October 2001 06:10 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look, I wanted some of the Jebus glory, but then I admitted it was a lie. Please, be gentle, Jebus.
From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jebus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1540

posted 10 October 2001 06:10 PM      Profile for Jebus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My child, you blaspheme. I am Jebus. Michelle is my prophet. Everything Michelle says is absolute truth. Adjust your perceptions accordingly.
From: Nietzsche is dead. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 10 October 2001 06:38 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting column in the Winnipeg Sun on how the left's approach would be to Bin Laden and the terrorists. And he's pretty much hit the nail on the head.
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/brodbeck.html

From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 10 October 2001 06:40 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hear you Jebus, and I shall obey!!!!

What of your other prophets? Skdadl and Earthmum? Shall I follow them as well?

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365

posted 10 October 2001 07:03 PM      Profile for machiavellian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
JCL and "go to hell" - those words just work so well together...

I am so sick of hearing this argument - "if people from the left went to bin Laden's cave, he'd just kill them as they yelled that they're on his side" - "the left is telling us not to fight terrorism at all" "the left wants us to do nothing and let the terrorists blow us up" -

NO, if the left had any say, TERRORISTS WOULDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE because all of the machinery that went into making them would be gone!!! Come on, like if someone on the American right, armed to the teeth, walked into bin Laden's cave he would smile and welcome them in. Like killing him will kill anti-American sentiment and end the cycle of violence. It's ridiculous, these people obviously do not take the time to actually listen to the alternatives that the left is presenting before they discount them.

GRRR!!


From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 10 October 2001 08:20 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seriously, how do you deal with a group whose intent is to kill anyone who isn't an Islamic fundamentalist? Or what if it was Christian extremists? People who use violence only understands violence.

Al Qaieda is already a hypocrite because if they're out to defend Islam, why did I see a few pictures of the dead people from the WTC who were Muslim or Islamic? Put it through your head, they do not only hate America. They hate the people who are born in America. Live in America. They hate the President all the way down to an innocent child born in a hospital in the middle of nowhere. They do not care if you sympathize with them or not. They won't even care if you were born in America and you are 100% in favour of them. They are a threat to our security as a nation and to democracy. Sure people are afraid of flying after what happened. That's what terrorism does. To terrorize us to prevent us from living life. They terrorize us to speak out against the government in fear of our lives. It doesn't matter which side of the spectrum. Last thing I'll ever do is speak against what I believe is the right course of action. I will not be badgered with fear of possible attack against Canada if the use of biological weapons are used.

As for those saying the UN should be doing something and not the US, well, on paper and theoretically it sounds good. But the UN is only effective if EVERY country is on board and on the same radio frequencies. Same with the discussion I had with a very close left wing friend of mine, wealth sharing sounds good but would only work if everyone agreed. But every one of us has a choice to decide for themselves. Believe it or not, in high school, I didn't know where my politics stood. So to define my politics, I looked at the issues, and their arguments. I chose to be right leaning because I felt there were inconsistencies in the left's thinking. As I'm sure people who chose to be left leaning see the right's arguments having inconsistencies.


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 10 October 2001 08:41 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe you're changing the subject of this thread to a topic we find on about sixty per cent of the other threads around here. Anyone game to quickly get this back on track?
From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lalance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 640

posted 10 October 2001 09:46 PM      Profile for Lalance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have to disagree with the comment "if the left had any say, TERRORISTS WOULDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE".

Sweden had a respectable, leftist government a few years ago. Had a reasonable, likeable, leftist prime minister, too.

Olaf Palme was shot down in the street, courtesy of a terrorist. There goes that theory.


From: Victoria | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 October 2001 10:00 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahem, really?

Your biases feed your ignorance, my dear.

quote:
PRETORIA, South Africa (Reuter) - The former chief of a covert South African police hit squad said Thursday an apartheid spy was involved in the 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, a staunch apartheid foe.

Eugene de Kock made the allegation while testifying in a mitigation of sentence hearing before the judge who convicted him last month of six murders and a series of other crimes.

De Kock, a colonel in the apartheid-era police, told the judge he had volunteered information to the prosecution.

``Like the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme,'' he said.

``It was one of Craig Williamson's 'Operation Long Reach' projects. I wanted it to be investigated before it was covered up,'' he said.

Williamson was one of the white-minority government's most effective spies during the 1970s and 1980s and has admitted to carrying out bombings and other actions against anti-apartheid activists.

De Kock gave no indication what motive Williamson would have had for involvement in Palme's murder but the Swedish leader had close ties to the African National Congress, whose leader Nelson Mandela won South Africa's first all-race election in 1994.

Williamson could not be reached immediately for comment on de Kock's statement. Operation Long Reach was a secret program by the apartheid government to harass or silence its opponents abroad.

De Kock has previously said during the trial that he and Williamson collaborated in blowing up the ANC offices in London while the ANC was still waging its liberation struggle.

Palme's assassination by a gunman in a Stockholm street has never been solved although a broad range of theories have been put forward. The murder weapon has never been found.

De Kock told the judge he had every opportunity to escape from custody after he was first arrested in 1994 but had chosen to face the charges against him.

``I had copies of the police station cells keys made. I could have got out at any time of night or day. The choice was mine,'' he said.

De Kock has applied to the country's Truth and Reconciliation Commission for amnesty for his crimes. The commission, set up to heal the wounds of apartheid, has powers to grant amnesty to perpetrators of human rights abuses who confess to their deeds.


Source: http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/murder/scsa960926.html


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 October 2001 10:08 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WingNut: Rather interesting. A lot of the "open secrets" that I keep talking about you've managed to find documentary proof for. For example I have stated elsewhere (not on this messageboard, in this case) that it's something of an accepted hypothesis (and thus an open secret) that South Africa was the only nation to gain from bumping off Olof Palme.

(other open secrets I have mentioned involve the USA deliberately sending ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein and his government as regarded the status of Kuwait )

So please don't stop digging up those nuggets of gold.

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lalance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 640

posted 10 October 2001 10:11 PM      Profile for Lalance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahem, really. Your naivety outweighs your objectivity, my dear.

de Kock sounds like a regular nutbar, like the crazies who keep on showing up at the Dalla police precinct, claiming THEY shot JFK.

What's his motive -- that Olaf Palme liked Nelson Mandela.

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions probably do provoke some pretty bizarre confessions


From: Victoria | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 October 2001 10:21 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Consider it logically. Olof Palme was an outspoken Swedish Prime Minister who didn't shy away from calling a spade a spade when it came to apartheid.

You can't get much better credentials than that for being a target for assassination by a country run by people who didn't much like the idea of others pointing out that pesky little problem with their social system: it was unfair.

Why not Mikhail Gorbachev, you might ask? After all, he ran one of the biggest nations in the world which had a close relationship with the South African Communist Party, which was also anti-apartheid much as the ANC was.

Well, the first rule of being a bully is "never pick on someone your own size or bigger than you". If the South African government had been crazy enough to send an assassin after Gorbachev, who I might remind you lived in a country filled to the brim with paranoid KGB agents and who had a heavy guard on him at the Kremlin and at any dachas he went to, the USSR probably would have been tempted to just nuke the everloving bejeezus out of South Africa for pulling that stunt.

But Sweden was and is a semi-socialist democracy which did NOT believe in having excessive numbers of police officers surrouding the leader, and did NOT believe in having a paranoid secret police watching any foreigner roaming around the nation's capital. So what better target than a leader who had every right to expect that the citizens of his own country would not wish him harm, and in fact who often liked to walk around the capital with his wife?

You want cowardly? That's cowardly. Gunning down a leader of a nation which had never known the touch of a totalitarian state, or the fear of terrorism.

So don't give me that guff about "outlandish confessions."


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
QuikSilver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1470

posted 10 October 2001 10:30 PM      Profile for QuikSilver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
---------------------------------------------------------
NO, if the left had any say, TERRORISTS
WOULDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE because all of the machinery that went into making them would be gone!!!
---------------------------------------------------------

About the most ridiculous comment I've ever read on these boards (and there have been a few doozies). If America were run by true blooded, bet-wetting, passifist, leftists for the past 100 years; China, Russia, Germany and others would surely be wreaking havic on an unfathomable scale as we speak. Terrorists with airplanes would be small potatoes.


From: Your Wildest Fantasies | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 October 2001 10:41 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ahem, really. Your naivety outweighs your objectivity, my dear.

de Kock sounds like a regular nutbar, like the crazies who keep on showing up at the Dalla police precinct, claiming THEY shot JFK.


Well then, my dear, do your own research. Lift the clouds of your own ignorance.

If you find contradicting evidence, please present it.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 October 2001 10:24 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In a polarized world (where, by definition, overgeneralizing thugs take over at all extremes), how does the death of one independent, reasonable, decent person prove or disprove any theory except the obvious truth that thugs have taken over?

Remember Lord of the Flies? In a polarized world, people who pipe up to make the argument from reason often end up having boulders dropped on their heads. That's not to say we shouldn't keep piping up. Indeed, all the more reason. We can't go on; we'll go on. God bless Olaf Palme.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 11 October 2001 01:14 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Olof Palme warned against supporting religious fundamentalism as a tactic against communism.

I lived in Sweden under Olof Palme.

Lalande knows nothing of Olof Palme.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lalance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 640

posted 11 October 2001 01:30 PM      Profile for Lalance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff: with all due respect, it's a silly argument to say, "I lived in country X, Y or Z -- therefore, you don't know what you're talking about." Plus, you really don't know whether I've lived in Sweden as well, do you?

But this is a digression -- I'd like to return to Machiavellian's statement that "if the Left had any say, TERRORISTS WOULDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE".

Well, the Left had its "say" in two gigantic experiments of the 20th century: Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. They exercised State terrorism, mostly on their own people, to the tune of approx. 15-20 million dead in Russia, and 10-15 million dead in China. The exact figures will never be known.

Gulags, mass executions, and mass starvation of peasants through economic "experiments" were all part of these regimes' arsenals or terror.

And on a much smaller scale, what about the Red Brigade, Bader Meinhoff (sp?) and the Japanese Red Army. All sounds pretty left to me.

Or are you working on a different definition of the left -- one that conveniently doesn't include the above-mentioned regimes?


From: Victoria | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 11 October 2001 01:46 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Totalitarianism isn't unique to the left. It's unique in a broad sense to human nature.

Or should we get into a frivolous who's worse debate?


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 October 2001 02:57 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
LaLance: for pete's sake, you should know better than that!
quote:
Well, the Left had its "say" in two gigantic experiments of the 20th century: Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. They exercised State terrorism, mostly on their own people

"Communist" Russia or China had absolutely nothing to do with the left (apart from the slogans they used).

Once they got power, their immediate victims were those who meant the slogans! There were no left or right left (sorry for the pun) only the rulers and the ruled, like in any dictatorship.

They had as much in common as the West has with Adam Smith and the principles of Capitalism.

And yes, I know it first hand, because I did live there for decades before I managed to escape.

Do you think that Adam Smith would have approved of a 15 billion dollar "aid" to the airline companies? Whatever happened to taking risks and self-reliance and competing based on the quality of swervice alone?

Just in case you did not notice, we have a welfare system for the corporations who are all lining up for government subsidies, bailouts, grants and tax writeoffs.

Not mentioning the weapons and space programs of the governments that provides all the money needed for R&D for large corporations. We pay for it and they profit from the results.

I remember when automatic teller machines were installed in the 70-s, The Royal Bank applied for and received a $170 million tax-writeoff for the R&D they performed. They profited from it and thousands of tellers lost their jobs.

The above mentioned principles of capitalism is applied only to ordinary citizens (nobody offered me a massive bailout when I miscalculated and suffered losses!)

Please rethink your claim that the left had their chance. The only chance the left had in recent memory was Bob Rae's NDP and boy, did he ever betray his mandate! Now that was a royal screwup.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 October 2001 02:59 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One of the most interesting things about some on the right is their selective recounting of history. Mao and Stalin were bloody dictators no doubt about it.

But on the right we had Hitler, Franco and Mussollini.

And what about the White Hand, the Contras, Colombian death squads, Pinochet, Papa Doc, Somoza, and so many we could list them forever?

Or is Lalance working on a different definition of the right -- one that conveniently doesn't include the above-mentioned regimes?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 October 2001 03:05 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WingNut, I must repeat myself (see two posts up):

Stalin and Mao had absolutely nothing to do (other than wholesale murder) with what we call the left!!!

(Sorry for the vehemence, very sore point for me)


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 October 2001 03:09 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am not saying they did Zatamon. I do not think Hitler and Franco have anything to do with what we consider to be the Canadian right, either. I was attempting to draw a parallel to perhaps demonstrate the extent to which the argument put forward is simply ludricrous and without any credibility, except perhaps in the mind of the author.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 11 October 2001 03:15 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What about Lalance’s claim about the silliness of an “I was there” argument?
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 October 2001 03:16 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
agreed WingNut, sorry for the shouting! It just pisses me off that (due to past and ongoing propaganda) because of the total misuse of the words: "communist" or "socialist" (equating them with brutal dictatorships in Russia and China) everyone now thinks that those words mean something monstruous.

They only mean people who believe in being nice to each other, helping those in need, making sure nobody starves or has to sleep on a bench or under a bridge. These qualities apply equally to Jesus, Mother Theresa, etc., etc.

Remember the quote: "If I help the poor, they call me a saint, if I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist".


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lalance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 640

posted 11 October 2001 04:57 PM      Profile for Lalance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or ... if they (Americans)give foreign aid, they're told it's never enough. If they ask why countries are destitute, they're told:

a. none of your business, you global-capitalist buccanneers;

b. Because of western colonialism

c. It's not poverty -- just a different way of life that should never, ever be criticized, for how can Westerners truly understand


From: Victoria | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 11 October 2001 05:23 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
if they (Americans)give foreign aid, they're told it's never enough

Of the 22 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the US is as the bottom of the list when is comes to foreign aid.

The top 5 are Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg. The bottom five are the US, Italy, Spain, Austria and Canada.

Source: http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00006000/M00006501.pdf (Page 91)


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 October 2001 05:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who hereabouts is urging the U.S. to salve its conscience with foreign aid?

Last time I looked, the left was urging fair trade, not foreign aid. I anyway am allergic to Lady Bountiful routines and would much rather see countries, like people, freed from depending on the largesse of the condescending class/imperial centre.

However the rest of the world, through the UN, helps ravaged economies in the Third World to steady themselves, the U.S. should be restrained from participating, just as for a time it cannot realistically be part of a serious UN peacemaking force.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 October 2001 05:29 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lalance, since you did not reply to my correcting your statement:
quote:
the Left had its "say" in two gigantic experiments of the 20th century: Stalin's Russia and Mao's China

does it mean that you agree with my correction (see above)?

Please indulge me with an answer, I am curious.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lalance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 640

posted 11 October 2001 05:52 PM      Profile for Lalance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that terms such as Left and Right don't have much meaning when we examine the likes of Hitler and Stalin, except in certain specific circumstances.

For example, what about the forced collectivization of farms belonging to the Kulaks of the Ukraine. Yields went way down, and people starved to death.

Isn't communal ownership -- the ideals of the collective -- a hallmark of the traditional left, as opposed to individual ownership?


From: Victoria | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 October 2001 05:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 11 October 2001 06:04 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That darling of neoconservative thought, New Zealand, just nationalized their airline. If Stalin and Mao are synonymous with “left”, you can tell skdadl that “nationalization” is the same as forced collectivization.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 11 October 2001 06:27 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Isn't communal ownership -- the ideals of the collective -- a hallmark of the traditional left, as opposed to individual ownership?

Isn't that along the same lines of feudalism of the Middle Ages?

It's been years since I last remember learning about feudalism in school.


Well, private ownership is better than collective ownership. Most people who own a private business will work harder to make it fly while if a business owned by a government tends to really suck. Like how many here doesn't get pissed off waiting at the Motor Vehicle Branch to get something done that takes 5 minutes to get done take a half hour or even 15 minutes on a slow day?


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 October 2001 06:40 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lalance, when we say "left" we have to define what we mean by the word. It normally means either some kind of "Socialism" or "Communism".

According to Marxist theory (it was compulsory subject for me at University):

Socialism means an economi system where everyone produces according to his abilities and consumes according to his contribution. Ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the State.

Communism is an economic system where everyone produces according to his abilities and consumes according to his needs. All means of ownership is in the hands of the collective, there is no money, the State has withered away and it is one big happy family.

Anyway, that is Marxist theory (there are many variations on the theme) which has nothing to do with the forced collectivization and the induced mass starvation in Ukraine (the red army walked in there before winter and removed all food they could lay their hands on to break the spirit of resistence to Stalin's absolute power drive).

In the West, "left" means a lot of things to a lot of people, but in no way does it include or imply collective ownership of the means of production except in areas that are deemed "essential public need" industries.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 11 October 2001 06:48 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lalance thinks that the fact that the murder of Olof Palme was definitive proof against the theory that, if the left were in power, there would be no terrorists.

This is a non-sequitur. The main idea is that
terrorism festers where social wrongs go unaddressed. Olof Palme was in power in Sweden, and his assassin was from the former Yugoslavia. Olof Palme had intelligent things to say about the former Yugoslavia,
but he was not in a position to address social wrongs there.

People with some experience of Sweden are extremely unlikely to make a comment like Lalance's. First, they learn to think in their schools. Second, it is quite offensive to enlist a tragedy like this for a petty debating point.

An analogous comment might be: "John Lennon wanted to live in America; I guess he found out what a dumb idea that was!" Then add in the fact that Palme was an elected Prime Minister, and some sense of the crass callousness of the remark starts to come through.

Do I really know that Lalnace has no experience of Sweden? Yep.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 11 October 2001 06:52 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How many here hate being on hold for a Bell or Rogers rep? Good thing Nortel wasn’t government run! It's funny how peons work harder in a corporate bureaucracy than a public one.

Note in New Zealand, nationalization of the airline happened because it was deemed an essential service. The fear was that given tourism represents 30% of the economy, a foreign carrier wouldn’t be sensitive to local demands.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 October 2001 07:12 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
clockwork, have you read "Lucifer's Hammer" by Jerry Pournelle? It is one of the "end of the world" scenarios when a comet hits Earth and civilization suddenly comes to an end except in small pockets here and there.

The story runs in a small farming community in California that survives intact, but there is no outside help they could count on.

In spite of they all being the typical rugged individualists, capitalist by nature and upbringing, they all vote for a "communist-style" system of sharing and central planning, because that is the only way they can hope to survive the coming winter (due to the inherently superior effectiveness of a system that eliminates waste and duplication that goes with competition.) /Sorry for the monster sentence - I am too lazy to break it up!/

What I am trying to say: the problem is not with the system of sharing and planning, but with the power-base it is built on. If those in power pay only lip-service to the idea and in practice promote their friends, relatives, party-faithful to positions of importance (instead of those most competent to handle it), then the system, by definition, becomes inefficient, bueraucratic, stupid and unresponsive.

There are many examples where the system works brilliantly (e.g. the Mondragon System in Spain, still going strong after decades in operation).

So tell your politicians to stop patronage (good luck) in the public sector and appoint managers who are actually experts in their fields. (I often wondered about Cabinet members: today he is a minister of Fisheries, tomorrow a minister of Justice, day after minister of indian affairs - what a genius he must be, to be top dog in all these. - anyone read/saw "Yes Minister"?)


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lalance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 640

posted 11 October 2001 09:26 PM      Profile for Lalance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff: my parents were Swedish -- but that doesn't make me an expert on Sweden as a whole, or even a little. Do you have degree in Swedenology or something? Sounds good.
From: Victoria | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 11 October 2001 09:28 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
blah, blah, blah! Boy you people sure do know how to destroy a wonderful thread. Get back on topic, will you?

Now, back to Jebus...


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 12 October 2001 08:52 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zatamon, I agree… I work in a wet dream of private nepotism. I owe my job to it. So I have no preconceived notions of what makes an efficient organization and an inefficient one.

Lalance, is your degree in knowitalology? My parent are human beings and no more than 52nd cousins of someone who is Swedish. That entitles me to agree with jeff house.

Oh, Jebus save us all!


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 12 October 2001 10:07 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My parents are Scottish. I bet any number of people on this board know a great deal more about Scotland than I do. I know you go to London, England and turn left. Turn left? Lalance will never visit.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 October 2001 10:39 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. My mother was born a German citizen. My grandparents still speak the language, and Mom can speak it too. I never learned German, and while I could probably point out Germany on a map, don't ask me to pinpoint Berlin or anything else on an unmarked map of Germany.

As such, I feel perfectly qualified to speak on any and all issues of German politics.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 12 October 2001 12:04 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
If any Babblerstm are of Uruguayan heritage, you should go back to where you came from! We don't want your kind around here!
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BillCostley
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1495

posted 13 October 2001 12:43 AM      Profile for BillCostley   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is Lalance a truly dedicated Americanophile?
From: Wellesley MA usa | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jahangir
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1537

posted 13 October 2001 11:25 AM      Profile for Jahangir     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re: Machavellians theory that the Lefts policies would have prevented terrorism.
I agree but up to a point. What would happen would be that the right wing nuts, greed oozing out of their pores, would be the terrorists, just yearning to enslave some-one/destroy something for their own profit.But for the most part I agree with that "Machiavellian" Statement. Thats what leftists around the globe are saying! Address the root causes of terrorism and the problem will just go away. These folk have tried every imaginable way to have their concerns addressed and were stymied every step of the way by American vetoes.
The people who give government it's legitimacy, the voters, have just ignored the problems human beings in other parts of the world face, and have continued to complacently believe that we could go on exploiting others ad infinitum. We dismissed civilian deaths in other countries as "just collateral" damage. Well guess what? Collateral damage just bit us on the ass.
It's time for people to open their minds and take a critical look at the policies of their Governments to properly understand the reasons for this tragedy.
"There is a principle that cannot fail to keep a person in everlasting ignorance, That principle is known as contempt prior to investigation"!
The people who for years have just accepted the pap thats fed to them by the Media must really be having a tough time right now.
The truth is coming out(re:The Wests policies over the years) and they just cannot handle it. All the old beliefs are being challenged, long held opinions are being toppled. With the advent of the internet, "news" cannot be manipulated as it once was and people are finding that the truth is rather hard to take. We've tried it the Rightwingnuts way for so looong and all we have to show for it are endless bombings of dirt poor countries/ sanctions that kill children, trade deals that impoversh entire countries. P'raps it's time to try something different.
Something like perhaps using International bodies to resolve conflicts(however long that may take), making real efforts to address longstanding grievances, that kinda thing!
But to do the same damn thing over and over and over again(Bomb, overthrow, arm, destabilize,kill children,maim people, collateral damage)and to expect different results must surely be the true definition of insanity!

From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
sherpafish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1568

posted 13 October 2001 03:48 PM      Profile for sherpafish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has any one else recieved the Bomb Them With Butter, Bribe Them With Hope e-mail forward? It points out what no other mainstream media source seems willing to deal with; the simple truth that the Taliban and the people ruled by the taliban are two seperate bodies (duh). No doubt in my mind that the Taliban is not an enlightened dictatorship. (I guess we could call them Afgan right wingers?)
After the world (north america, rather) started looking harder at the problems in that part of the world, most rightwing thinkers I know responded with empathy for the people living under such a harsh regime. Would giving these people aid and helping them regain freedom within their own country further the generations of anger that fuels terrorist tactics or is the best way to stop that anger by killing many of the people they know (as is the current rightwing solution)? I know that the answer is obvious to all. heebie-jebus be praised.

From: intra-crainial razor dust | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 13 October 2001 11:33 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do I not remember Doug Fisher, eons ago, as a New Democrat? I thought I also remembered him as a better journalist than this -- anyone else find this oddly jerky and incoherent?

It was a little before my time, but I think you're right both about the New Democracy and the journalism. This piece, though, wasn't just oddly jerky and incoherent -- it was completely so. I can only surmise that he's lost it.

Actually, his piece reads a bit like the complaint of a one-time New Democrat who's disgusted that his old-time, salt-of-the-earth social democratic party has been hijacked by the feminists, gays and lesbians, and so forth. A real, if usually muted, tendency among one-time NDPers in Canada.

And did you notice his shot at Judy Rebick -- an "emigrant from the U.S."? Translations:

(a) she's an ungrateful daughter of the American Revolution who couldn't find a platform for her views in that great Republic to the south, and so moved to the natural home of anti-Americanism;

(b) she's an immigrant (and since she's white like us, it's OK to call her so), and therefore her stoking of the fires of resentment hereabouts is illegitimate. (By implication, then, so is Professor Thobani's).

Or maybe I'm over-interpreting.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 14 October 2001 12:11 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
M'boy: Eh?
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 October 2001 12:14 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Meades, I was confused too, but I figured I just missed something. Uruguay?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 14 October 2001 12:34 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does it have something to do with the "family relations translating into geographical-politico-historical knowledge" discussion?

Where's Jebus when you need her


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jebus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1540

posted 14 October 2001 12:48 AM      Profile for Jebus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did I mention that I'm from Uruguay?
From: Nietzsche is dead. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 October 2001 11:54 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
right wing nuts

HEY!

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 October 2001 04:07 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Food for Thought
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 31 October 2001 01:24 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Address the root causes of terrorism and the problem will just go away.

quote:

These folk have tried every imaginable way to have their concerns addressed and were stymied every step of the way by American vetoes.

Like when the entire world pleaded with them not to destroy the standing buddha's. Like when the entire world asked them not to harbour bin laden. It was the world that tried every imaginable way to have their concerns addressed and were stymied every step of the way by Taleban brutality.

quote:

The people who give government it's legitimacy, the voters, have just ignored the problems human beings in other parts of the world face, and have continued to complacently believe that we could go on exploiting others ad infinitum.

So the fact that voters do not agree with you makes them responsible?? I guess that they should be punished? Another system taking power away from voters might work better????

quote:

We dismissed civilian deaths in other countries as "just collateral" damage. Well guess what? Collateral damage just bit us on the ass.

Again we have someone who wants to hold everyone but the leaders of these countries responsible.

quote:

It's time for people to open their minds and take a critical look at the policies of their Governments to properly understand the reasons for this tragedy.

Why don't you specify which policies you feel lead to rise of the Taleban and the terrorist attack. Hopefully you'll offer some realistic alternatives other then, "we should have allowed afghanistan to become communist slaves, we had no right in responding to their requests for help"

quote:

All the old beliefs are being challenged, long held opinions are being toppled.

Which long held opinions are being toppled?

quote:

With the advent of the internet, "news" cannot be manipulated as it once was and people are finding that the truth is rather hard to take.

Would that be the same internet that the taleban would prevent their citizens from accessing? Would that be the same "news" that the Taleban and Bin Laden attempts to manipulate?

quote:
Something like perhaps using International bodies to resolve conflicts(however long that may take),

however long that may take leads to the deaths of people being oppressed by the Taleban, the WTC etc.... How many more genocidal massacres have to occur?

quote:

But to do the same damn thing over and over and over again(Bomb, overthrow, arm, destabilize,kill children,maim people, collateral damage)and to expect different results must surely be the true definition of insanity!

Actually each time we do it different and the results are better.

Your alternatives are being tried. The U.N. tries to resolve conflicts before they turn to aggression. The world has attempted to negotiate with the Taleban. Sept. 11 signalled their failure.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
hamm1259
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1708

posted 02 November 2001 05:54 AM      Profile for hamm1259     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
as for all the dictators on the right U forget Franco (Spain), Salazar (Portugal), Batista (Cuba) and the apartheid regime in S. Africa.
From: Portland, OR USA | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 02 November 2001 12:21 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
and I as a canadian voter am qualified to deep and meaningful dialogue on any subject dealing with Canadian politics, history and demographics.
does it strike anyone else as ironic that a discussion on leftism,socialism and communism should hold the last great bastion of economic communism, the American military-industrial machine up as the right?
Doesn't military funding comprise the over-whelming majority of their budget, the rotc program allow military over-view of the secondary education funding, and doesn't a nice expensive war seem to be their avenue of choice for economic recovery?

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 November 2001 06:40 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The definition of the USA as the most right-wing of all industrial nations has to do with their socio-cultural setup as much as it has to do with their economic makeup.

Military spending in the 1960 ran 40% of the US federal budget. Since the 1980s it has run between about 20 and 25% of the federal budget.

Yes, the USA *is* fond of using government intervention in the economy under the rubric of military spending, ("Military Keynesianism") but this does not obviate the fact that the USA stridently refuses to restructure their economy on a more socialist basis such as the Western European nations have or even Canada has.

It's how you spend your money, not what gets spent, that defines the regime in question.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca