Just chucking it out there
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Article: Obama has slight edge against Romney
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Just chucking it out there
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
They road the libertarian band wagon, because they know that they can make more profit with less government regulation in the form of health, environmental and safety standards
No true Scotsman huh?
Just chucking it out there
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
This doesn't surprise me at all. I was just saying that politicians tend to lie and sell themselves just to get into office. If I were to vote in an American election I most likely would vote for Obama even though he too isn't 100% honest I'd still prefer him over any republican that I can think of.
marine1
Honorary Master
Its you're
If supporting the Republican party and not supporting the ANC, Islamic militants and left wing hippies makes me right wing then ........
By the way I supported the Democrats when Clinton was in charge
Its you're
If supporting the Republican party and not supporting the ANC, Islamic militants and left wing hippies makes me right wing then ........
By the way I supported the Democrats when Clinton was in charge
Well for me right wing and left wing are defined as:
Right wing - Selfish economics. Its all about mine mine mine mine. Pretty much... Fark the future for todays gains.
Left wing - Giving economics. Its about about building & developing for the future.
I believe too far and too right are both bad. Im left of centre. You are far right.
marine1
Honorary Master
And I do not for one minute subscribe to either.
I do believe somewhere in the middle I like to belong.
I cannot accept the left wing attitude of giving giving giving. Thats one of the reasons the world is such a bloody mess.
I also do not believe in taking taking taking, there are some who really need the help and greed will not fix any of these problems.
You guys seem to think the lefties can do no wrong, I beg to differ.
Love it, you dont support Obama so you are right wing
Don't know about that, but if you do support Obama then chances are you have more of a liberal approach to politics.
Of course you do. You are very far right wing.
Then you might wanna try move to the left of Genghis Khan before you get there.
This is why you are far right wing. You make up random stuff and believe it. Too far and too left AS I stated in my previous post is bad. You are not a moderate.
Show me dont tell me.
Its like I wrote something... and your brain didnt take it in. You only saw what you wanted to despite the reality. I specifically state, "I believe too far and too right are both bad."
You are so funny.
Dont confuse right wing and left wing with liberal and conservative.
You get social liberals and social conservatives (meaning a left bend in both groups).
I ascribe left wing and right wing to economic policies, and liberal and conservative to civil rights
Probably not accurate but all the terms are very ambiguous.TheHiveMind
Banned
Just chucking it out there
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
Miliband isn't leftist because he was a clever child
He is a leftist because his mommy and daddy were marxists.. His grand daddy was a militant communist who collaborated with the soviet union against Poland, his own country.. He turned out to be a trojan swine, and a zionist (if you are to believe the Russians)
To be a leftist is obviously a good strategy to acrue "social capital" in the current ideological climate, so you will find smarter children gauging the trends more accurately, and taking the strategy that best serves their own interests, and gives them the most social capital. Yes, they are generally smarter, they are also very opportunistic.
Last edited:
Interesting, you probably find alot of right wingers posing as left wingers for this very reason.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
They road the libertarian band wagon, because they know that they can make more profit with less government regulation in the form of health, environmental and safety standards
No true Scotsman huh?
no they passed regulations to favour themselves and to not allow other competitors to get into the market. In general libertarians are against government regulations because they favour x over y, so how can this action of them be libertarian?
But sure I guess even a communist can call himself a libertarian and pass communist legislation, the no true Scotsman fallacy does hold.
What you're getting at though is that some libertarians will say one thing and do the exact opposite, which is what I thought initially would happen with the tea party movement.
Last edited:
I stated clearly why. "less government regulation in the form of health, environmental and safety standards". If what you said was the main reason then they would be building the government as according to you it only entrenches their position. Government has a history of also destroying oil monopolies like you allude to.
"The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus."
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz227ZE3HLg
"Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism or libertarian communism[2][3][4][5])"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
I dont understand this.
Last edited:
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
Standard oil never reached a monopoly, however the current regulations prohibits new oil companies to exist, it actually protects the current oligopolies.
Go and look at the regulation that republicans did indeed pass, they are forming a system of laws that benefit them and are neglecting other laws that could be harmful to them. If they were opposed to all regulation (which I am ) then they would be a different story, however the tea party is cherry picking certain laws in their propaganda and they neglect others, it is all funded by the Kochs.
the idea that they fund government regulation puts them into your mainstream conservative category.
it makes as much sense as Christianic Atheism.."Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism or libertarian communism[2][3][4][5])"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
The tea party movement might have started off as a libertarian movement with Ron Paul being the think tank behind it, however unfortunately the tea party is now as corrupted as they come, they moved away from their original values, but they still call themselves libertarians.
Last edited:
They got close enough that everyone suffered.
I did a search and I could find no legislation that would prevent a new oil company from forming.
The tea party was astroturfed from the start (read that newyorker article. Its 10 pages and detailed). They support a lot of the groups you are a fan of. They are the money behind the Cato Institute.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
not even true, the competitors were catching up, by the time the anti trust law was passed their market share dropped from 95% to 64% (read your own link), the anti trust law destroyed the opportunity for many competitors to catch up.
Look at all the regulations that oil companies have to comply with, that itself increases the cost of putting up an oil company and leads to oligopolies. John D Rockefeller did a lot of good for the world though by producing oil costs to consumers at lower prices, his son however went the political way and messed things up.
actually from your own link on standard oil
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you currently see 147 oil companies in America, let along the world? I only see an oligopoly.
I support some of the groups yes, that doesn't mean that I support the tea party in total or the Koch brothers, they ran on the conservative ticket during the time of Reagan, now they are running on the Libertarian ticket, they are pure evil.
This is left-right in the international context. In the south african context, right-wing is hate everything that isn't your own race, left-wing doesnt much care for race.
The ANC and Cosatu are right wing. They sprout all the EU left wing phrases about sharing the resources of the country, but then if you look deeper, that sharing is based on colour, on race. Exactly the same as the AWB, Old Nats etc., just a different race.
This is National Socialism. Socialism for "the nation" only.
The same as the apartheid govt, and the same as Nazi Germany.
The problem in South Africa is there are no significant number of true democrats. There are only black nazis and white nazis in large numbers who dominate the debate on either side.
Wow.. just wow. lol.
You gotta get outta that bubble man.
So you admit that there is no legislation to to stop someone from forming their own oil company. You have now revised your original comment to something along the lines of, "but the regulations are too expensive!".
I see 146 oil companies in America just on Wikipedia.
I agree that they are pure evil. Now have you ever wondered why you enjoy the propaganda sponsored by people that you call , "pure evil"?
unskinnybob
Expert Member
Didn't travel to the UK for an education I'm guessing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics Left wing
In politics, the Left, left-wing and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society.[1][2][3][4] They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics Right wing
In politics, the Right, right-wing, and rightist have been defined as acceptance or support of social hierarchy.[1][2][3] Inequality is viewed by the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1] whether it arises through traditional social differences[4] or from competition in market economies.[5][6] There is a range in level of right-wing positions. The politics of the centre-right involve the acceptance of a degree of hierarchy in society based on the idea that inferior quality of behaviour will lead people to inferior status positions, but claims that people can leave inferior status positions and raise themselves by changing their choices of behaviour.[7] The far-right involves support of strong or complete social hierarchy in society, and supports supremacy of certain individuals or groups deemed to be innately superior who are to be more valued than those deemed to be innately inferior.[8]