Harper is nothing but a total contradiction!

[CDNBear]

Socrates, "TYPICAL TORY SPIN, WHAT A PILE OF HAWG WASH!!!"

This is unfounded and cynical speculation at best. Who would not feel as Harper asys he does?

Socrates, "The Canadian Tory Government is on record not paying for funeral costs on some of the dead soldiers."

Funeral costs were paid. Funeral costs were not set by Harper. They were increased. It remains possible to pay any amount to bury a person.

"Families are on record making public statements on this important contradiction."

Persons speak out and there is no contradiction. Harper is not to blame.

"On top of all a soldier in Winnipeg the other day was having emotional problems in public and the cops shot the pure soul."

On top of nothing Harper is not a Winnipeg policeman.

You've got nothing but a baseless political rant. And who is your hero? How would he or she make it all go away? You spew out nonsense and blame and that's all you've got to show here.

Well said, and how true your words are.

Against my better judgment I'll respond to CdnBear..

You missed the facts there Bear! The facts are that every conquering body has throughout history practiced oppression of the conquered.... Europeans did it to native North Americans. Your eagerness for bloodshed and war in the spirit of the same "we know what's best for everyone in the world"...as the British the French and the Americans whom you seem to admire so much clearly demonstrates that you're an apple Bear, white on the inside but red on the outside....

You know what Mikey, I've grown tired of your childish name calling, especially when you steep it in racial provokation. You know full well I find that term racially offensive and yet you, the good Toaist, just throw it about and at me with such glee.

Your arguement is as vacuuous, I am sure.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior Bear, and how would you estimate the aftermath of both Afghanistan and Iraq will compare to that historical truth?

Based on the past? Hmmm, such historic pasts as what? Other then Iraq and Afghanistans that is.

No doubt you honestly believe that everything's as simple as 1 + 1, but it isn't.

Again an assumption and an opinion based on your ideology vs. mine and your emotions thereof. Not on any actual data.

Lets not forget your other claims against me.

I'm a neocon.
A Russian.
I refered to Palestinian children as retarded babies.
And a myriad of other baseless accusations, I'm still waiting to see proof of.

Were the natives who fought against the invasion of Canada by the U.S. terrorists?

Of course not.

Were the natives who illegally occupied various lands around the nation terrorists Bear?

Yes, so long as they use violence, tear down infrastructure and use tactics unbefitting the mere protest via civil disobedience and expressing civil discourse.

Again, a fact already on record. The fact you asked it, yet again, only shows your grasp of the past is tenuous at best.

There are some similarities between the natives of Afghanistan and North American natives but the world has changed a great deal from those older times to today.

And I wish for you to go to the closest reserve and tell the people of that reserve that, take a video camera, I'ld like to see the ensuing maylay.

Are you responsible for endorsing the torture of prisoners and the kidnapping of prisoners conducted by the United States?

No I am not, but I do not see the entire operation as bad. No other acts of terrorism have happend since eh?

Who asked you if sexually molesting denegrating and abusing prisoners was OK?

No one, but I highly doubt they need my authorisation to the ugliest of jobs, so as you can take the subway in relative safety.

But you'll suggest that the Afghan people had more control over their government...or the drug lords who continue to harvest bumper crops of poppies ..and supported entertaining the Al Queada training camps....how would they know Bear?

My problem isn't with the average Joe Afghani. It's with the Taliban and the multitudes of foriegn nationals that have flooded the country for this fight.

Oh...you didn't think I knew that eh? Well you guessed wrong or were blissfully unaware that the bulk of the opposition is made up of foriegn nationals, not the averge Joe Afghani.

But hey, don't let that ruin your petty lil rant.

It's absolutely normal for the transplanted European mongrels that call Canada and the United States their "home" to brandish their facility at wholesale slaughter as the moral "right" to practice regime-change and assassination and invaison on pretext and lies, but to see that you join them in their hypocrisy is sad.

Ya ya, I'm a hypocrite, blah, blah, blah, and for your next act...

You think your the first to call me a hypocrite?

I served in the Van Doos, my people stood against my Regiment. Better men then you look at me out of the corner of their eye. They haven't made me sway my oath, nor my path.

What makes you think you are better then them? (Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question)

Yes Walter they were, and they did quite nicely at it as well, however we're discussing modern contempory occurances.There have been no attacks of Islamicfundies anywhere on the continent of North America, not one shred of forensic evidence exists to prove any crime of the sort. However we do know of the existence of survalence tapes that have not been realeased to the public yet. I suggest that those tapes will never be seen , they're likely to have been destroyed of course.

I can't think of anything else to say to that then...

I'm saying that no one cared about the Taliban prior to 9/11. I'm also saying that the U.S. lost interest in both Afghanistan and the Taliban as they pursued the entirely unrelated invasion of Iraq.

I don't care about Iraq, it was a misguided attack and flawed idea, to say the very least!

Chamberlain had good reason for not wanting to find fault with Hitler. The first World War had not long been over and he was not particularly interested in dragging Britain into another. Chamberlain hadn't a lot of reason to doubt Hitler's intentions at the time either. The rants of the warmonger, Winston Churchill, notwithstanding.

OK then. The multitude see it taking place way different then that.

But thank God they did, lest we all be goose stepping to the trains running on time.

Coziness? Oh! You mean the fact that Osama Bin Laden married the Taliban leader's daughter, and the fact that Al Qaeda financially supported the Taliban. Yeah, I'd say they were pretty cozy.

Good, so you get my point, they were not going to hand him over for a trial at any cost.

I've seen no data to support that. What I have seen, is data to show that the CIA knew very little of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda until 1991 and 1998 respectively.

I know many a folk around these parts do not believe any of my sources are unbiased, so here's a snippet from the Guardian, a quote haven for those that balk at my position.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,,551037,00.html

And on that note...One of the conspiract theoriststs favourite haunts...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/binladen_cia.html

There's a myriad more with greater information, but they would be at sites that would be molked incessently by the left that abound around these parts...

If you're interested, I'll post them as well.

 

[jimshort19]

Walter, "For every evil action, there must be an equal or opposite reaction that will eventually cause the evildoers to self-destruct.

Evil actions do have self-destructive effects upon those who are vulnerable by virtue of being redeemable, but no immediate effect upon those whose conscience is dead already. The ultimate effect, if any, is 'hereafter'.

Walter, "The antichrist is... a group of people that have infiltrated every aspect of society and have conquered the world financially and militarily if needed.

And if not? You forgot to take your meds again Walter. The antichrist is everybody but you.

Walter, "It is an international group... who’s ultimate goals are the illusions..."

Yes, it's a secret club, with a secret handshake and secret symbols and secret secrets. Clever bastards, they obey the law just to stay out of jail where they belong. We must keep them from getting the illusions! The real power is in the illusions.

Many rulers have made themselves out to be gods literally, in ancient times. More recently the Fuhrer came close. Every despot is on the same path, and many if not most people are readily corrupted by power. It is over the top to suggest in a literal way that your secret society wants to be God(s).

Your delusions border on paranoia, but are probably mild enough to enable you to function normally most of the time. If you were given much power it would be like the revenge of the nerds on acid.

 

[Walter]

Walter, "For every evil action, there must be an equal or opposite reaction that will eventually cause the evildoers to self-destruct.

Evil actions do have self-destructive effects upon those who are vulnerable by virtue of being redeemable, but no immediate effect upon those whose conscience is dead already. The ultimate effect, if any, is 'hereafter'.

Walter, "The antichrist is... a group of people that have infiltrated every aspect of society and have conquered the world financially and militarily if needed.

And if not? You forgot to take your meds again Walter. The antichrist is everybody but you.

Walter, "It is an international group... who’s ultimate goals are the illusions..."

Yes, it's a secret club, with a secret handshake and secret symbols and secret secrets. Clever bastards, they obey the law just to stay out of jail where they belong. We must keep them from getting the illusions! The real power is in the illusions.

Many rulers have made themselves out to be gods literally, in ancient times. More recently the Fuhrer came close. Every despot is on the same path, and many if not most people are readily corrupted by power. It is over the top to suggest in a literal way that your secret society wants to be God(s).

Your delusions border on paranoia, but are probably mild enough to enable you to function normally most of the time. If you were given much power it would be like the revenge of the nerds on acid.

Are you sure it was me you wanted to name in your post? I'm very confused by it.

 

[jimshort19]

Abject Apology

Walter, old buddy, indeed I had scanned your quote of Dark Beaver, and attributed the madness to you. I thought you were chanelling Dark Beaver. In fact, I thought that you were the second guy this week that I've found channelling Dark Beaver. I thought, "hey, this is a regular secret society conspiring to take over the world!"

Nope, it's just Dark Beaver. How does he find me?

 

[warrior_won]

I don't care about Iraq, it was a misguided attack and flawed idea, to say the very least!

But Iraq is very relevant. The U.S. was responding to a "terrorist attack". An "act of war" as they called it. They pointed their finger at who they accuse of having done it. But do they go after who they say did it? No! Not really!

Instead they spin it into a justification for going into Iraq and eliminating Saddam Hussein. What happened to the "act of war" allegedly orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? What "act of war" did Iraq perpetrate on the United States? Where are the "weapons of mass destruction" that Iraq was allegedly stockpiling for use on the U.S. or her friends?

You don't care about Iraq? Don't you find it odd that the coalition you're defending and fighting with (allegedly) only cares about Iraq? Doesn't that raise questions in your mind?

OK then. The multitude see it taking place way different then that.

But thank God they did, lest we all be goose stepping to the trains running on time.

The multitude? When Chamberlain signed the peace pact with Hitler, the British people gave a collective sigh of relief. Hitler was not far into his war on Europe when that pact was signed. To suggest that there were "multitudes" poo-pooing Chamberlain's peace pact with Hitler is an ignorant exaggeration at best.

Good, so you get my point, they were not going to hand him over for a trial at any cost.

The Taliban were not going to turn Osama Bin Laden over at any cost? There would only be a bona fide cost to the Taliban if they had turned him over. Don't ignore reality when making your argument, son.

The Taliban were going to be deposed no matter which way you sliced it. They were essentially in a 'no win' situation. If they were to turn over Osama Bin Laden or key figures in the Al Qaeda organization, they would have forfeited even the possibility of 'breaking even'.

The Taliban didn't turn over Osama Bin Laden because they couldn't turn over Osama Bin Laden. It wasn't because they didn't want to... Or chose not to. Although, it would have been suicide for them to have chosen to even try turning him over to the coalition.

Besides, there's not a whole lot of evidence to suggest that Osama Bin Laden is even really wanted by the U.S.

I know many a folk around these parts do not believe any of my sources are unbiased, so here's a snippet from the Guardian, a quote haven for those that balk at my position.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,,551037,00.html

And on that note...One of the conspiract theoriststs favourite haunts...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/binladen_cia.html

There's a myriad more with greater information, but they would be at sites that would be molked incessently by the left that abound around these parts...

If you're interested, I'll post them as well.

I prefer not to get my information from those who actually profess to have a bias. I prefer just getting the unfiltered facts and forming my own bias.

My research shows that the CIA became aware of Osama Bin Laden through surveillance of other people. Osama Bin Laden's name just kept popping up.

The CIA didn't know what Osama Bin Laden was doing, or what his intentions were. Nevertheless, they did begin monitoring his communications. Including his satelite phone calls, which Osama Bin Laden mistakenly believed to be unsurveillable.

The CIA knew nothing of Al Qaeda until 1998. That's right! Just four short years prior to the 9/11 attack.

So I don't see how the CIA could have been using him as a "go between" when they knew damn near nothing of him.

 

[darkbeaver]

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

 

[darkbeaver]

Are you sure it was me you wanted to name in your post? I'm very confused by it.

Walter, old buddy, indeed I had scanned your quote of Dark Beaver, and attributed the madness to you. I thought you were chanelling Dark Beaver. In fact, I thought that you were the second guy this week that I've found channelling Dark Beaver. I thought, "hey, this is a regular secret society conspiring to take over the world!"

Nope, it's just Dark Beaver. How does he find me?

More corporate bungling, the right hand dosn't know what the other right hand is doing.

Fellow posters, lend me your ear, here lies the very problem facing our parliamentary democracy at this very moment in time, the inability of the right to even cooperate in a slanderous attack on a humble forest animal without wasteing time=money and stepping on each others feet. If we had not caught them on tape they would have overbilled for a shoddy job.:lol:

 

[CDNBear]

But Iraq is very relevant. The U.S. was responding to a "terrorist attack". An "act of war" as they called it. They pointed their finger at who they accuse of having done it. But do they go after who they say did it? No! Not really!

Correct, hence my assertion that it was misguided, a few times now.

Instead they spin it into a justification for going into Iraq and eliminating Saddam Hussein. What happened to the "act of war" allegedly orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? What "act of war" did Iraq perpetrate on the United States? Where are the "weapons of mass destruction" that Iraq was allegedly stockpiling for use on the U.S. or her friends?

I have no idea, I would have bet they would have found some, but then again Syria would make a great 'U-Store' stall...non?

You don't care about Iraq? Don't you find it odd that the coalition you're defending and fighting with (allegedly) only cares about Iraq? Doesn't that raise questions in your mind?

I don't care about Iraq on the basis, my country isn't there and rightly so.

My brothers and sisters are in Afghanistan, hence my constant vigilance.

The multitude? When Chamberlain signed the peace pact with Hitler, the British people gave a collective sigh of relief. Hitler was not far into his war on Europe when that pact was signed. To suggest that there were "multitudes" poo-pooing Chamberlain's peace pact with Hitler is an ignorant exaggeration at best.

So how was it Winston gained power?

Oh ya...those damned dangling chads in Florida did it.

Nothing like missing the change in the tides, when the news hits the covers.

The Taliban were not going to turn Osama Bin Laden over at any cost? There would only be a bona fide cost to the Taliban if they had turned him over. Don't ignore reality when making your argument, son.

Son?

I'm not your son and I'm not ignoring reality, although it appears that you are ignoring the context of my assertions and the facts.

I don't care why or what for, I know that they would never have turned over Osama, as you so strenuously keep pointing out as well.

The Taliban were going to be deposed no matter which way you sliced it.

Once you've made your bed, one must lie down it at some point.

They were essentially in a 'no win' situation. If they were to turn over Osama Bin Laden or key figures in the Al Qaeda organization, they would have forfeited even the possibility of 'breaking even'.

Pacts with the devil oft lead to burned fingures.

The Taliban didn't turn over Osama Bin Laden because they couldn't turn over Osama Bin Laden. It wasn't because they didn't want to... Or chose not to. Although, it would have been suicide for them to have chosen to even try turning him over to the coalition.

Again...made beds and pacts with the devil.

I made some bad choices in life, I delt with them and the consiquences.

Besides, there's not a whole lot of evidence to suggest that Osama Bin Laden is even really wanted by the U.S.

Just the bounty.

I prefer not to get my information from those who actually profess to have a bias. I prefer just getting the unfiltered facts and forming my own bias.

Of which I have no doubt.

My research shows that the CIA became aware of Osama Bin Laden through surveillance of other people. Osama Bin Laden's name just kept popping up.

Then your research is flawed.

The CIA didn't know what Osama Bin Laden was doing, or what his intentions were. Nevertheless, they did begin monitoring his communications. Including his satelite phone calls, which Osama Bin Laden mistakenly believed to be unsurveillable.

No, they knew nothing of Al Qaeda, Osama had been a bag man since Russia was poking Afghanis.

The CIA knew nothing of Al Qaeda until 1998. That's right! Just four short years prior to the 9/11 attack.

That isn't true.

He was first indicted by the US in 98, but he was well onto the radar by 96, as an enemy of the US. Hence their actions along with the Saudis to have him expelled from the Sudan.

So I don't see how the CIA could have been using him as a "go between" when they knew damn near nothing of him.

Osama wasn't born with Al Qeada, he was around long before that lil group of nuts got together.

I've seen enough evidence and documentation to convince me that he was indeed a CIA bagman during Russia's occupation of Afghanistan. Including video, sworn statements, Court testimony, and Gov't documentation.

Your confusion may lie in the fact that OBL was still on the 'friendly' list until his hatred of the US surfaced in the mid 90's.

Here, this might help, it's a timeline that for the most part, is quite bang on.

CNN

 

[warrior_won]

Osama wasn't born with Al Qeada, he was around long before that...

I'm aware. He was number two under his mentor, whom was assassinated. There's some speculation that Osama Bin Laden ordered the hit.

I've seen enough evidence and documentation to convince me that he was indeed a CIA bagman during Russia's occupation of Afghanistan. Including video, sworn statements, Court testimony, and Gov't documentation.

When did his hatred of the U.S.A begin? It was long before 1996. There's evidence that he was anti-U.S. as early as the first Gulf War. Osama Bin Laden did not want U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Which, on the face of it, would appear to contradict your assertions that Osama Bin Laden was working with the CIA to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Osama Bin Laden is NOT a stupid man. I would hazard to guess that he would not have wanted the U.S.A. in Afganistan to replace the invading Soviets. To assist the U.S.A. in driving out the Russians would be tantamount to opening the door for the Americans in Afghanistan. I just don't see your assertion as making much sense.

Your confusion may lie in the fact that OBL was still on the 'friendly' list until his hatred of the US surfaced in the mid 90's.

Yes, I'm quite aware that Osama Bin Laden made several trips to the U.S.A. I recall reading a quote attributed to him. Something to the effect that "people looked at him as though he were in the circus."

CNN

CNN and Time-Warner don't have much credibility in my most humble view.

 

[CDNBear]

When did his hatred of the U.S.A begin? It was long before 1996. There's evidence that he was anti-U.S. as early as the first Gulf War. Osama Bin Laden did not want U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

Odd how that is exactly how the CNN timeline puts it, I see it and the world sees it...Off radar, Gulf war part 1, US builds base in SA, OBL gets balls in knot. Ya pretty much how it went down.

Which, on the face of it, would appear to contradict your assertions that Osama Bin Laden was working with the CIA to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Ummmm, not sure how you came up with that or how it contradicts any of my assertions, it actually seems to follow my asserts and prove them more then anything else. The Afghan Russian war was concluded almost a full decade prior.

To assist the U.S.A. in driving out the Russians would be tantamount to opening the door for the Americans in Afghanistan. I just don't see your assertion as making much sense.

That's because you read it upside down and backwards.

Osama, was the bagman between the US, the supplier of arms and training to the Mujahadeen, the freedom fighters, trying to push the Russians out. Which they did successfully by 88.

CNN and Time-Warner don't have much credibility in my most humble view.

Maybe so, but at least they have a grasp of history.

 

[warrior_won]

Odd how that is exactly how the CNN timeline puts it, I see it and the world sees it...Off radar, Gulf war part 1, US builds base in SA, OBL gets balls in knot. Ya pretty much how it went down.

There are other sites on the Internet that provide more detailed accounts. Have you looked at al Qaeda's website?

Ummmm, not sure how you came up with that or how it contradicts any of my assertions, it actually seems to follow my asserts and prove them more then anything else. The Afghan Russian war was concluded almost a full decade prior.
That's because you read it upside down and backwards.

You said that Bin Laden worked with the CIA. You've produced nothing to show that. You've linked to a timeline that showed Bin Laden was not wanting America in Saudi Arabia. Given Bin Laden's position on America's presence in any Islam country, Afghanistan being one such, it would seem unlikely that Osama Bin Laden would assist the USA in gaining a foothold there. Which is what I read you to be suggesting.

Osama, was the bagman between the US, the supplier of arms and training to the Mujahadeen, the freedom fighters, trying to push the Russians out. Which they did successfully by 88.

What exactly do you mean by the term 'bagman'? Do you mean that he bought munitions from the US and gave them to militias fighting the Russians? Because if that's what you mean, that does not establish a link between the CIA and Osama Bin Laden.

Maybe so, but at least they have a grasp of history.

However, there's very little information in their timeline that contradicts what I had previously said in this thread. There certainly isn't anything about involvement with the CIA.

 

[Said1]

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Mussolini was a butthead. In his ideal, the state, through various channels, controlled the corporation. His theologies changed over time anyway, going from bad, to worse. Corporatism in reverse, mehbeh? :lol:

 

[CDNBear]

There are other sites on the Internet that provide more detailed accounts. Have you looked at al Qaeda's website?



You said that Bin Laden worked with the CIA. You've produced nothing to show that. You've linked to a timeline that showed Bin Laden was not wanting America in Saudi Arabia. Given Bin Laden's position on America's presence in any Islam country, Afghanistan being one such, it would seem unlikely that Osama Bin Laden would assist the USA in gaining a foothold there. Which is what I read you to be suggesting.



What exactly do you mean by the term 'bagman'? Do you mean that he bought munitions from the US and gave them to militias fighting the Russians? Because if that's what you mean, that does not establish a link between the CIA and Osama Bin Laden.



However, there's very little information in their timeline that contradicts what I had previously said in this thread. There certainly isn't anything about involvement with the CIA.

Here, read this and get back to me...

Afghanistan, the CIA, Bin Laden and the Taliban

 

[darkbeaver]

Mussolini was a butthead. In his ideal, the state, through various channels, controlled the corporation. His theologies changed over time anyway, going from bad, to worse. Corporatism in reverse, mehbeh? :lol:

The trains ran on time. Hey Said1 the corporatists and clergy and monarchists who payed and played to put him in power never complained about him. Are you sure you're cut out for the corporate dog eat dog world? You seem way to nice.:lol:

 

[CDNBear]

?

Hey...where'ld ya go!!!???

I know it's a long read, but wtf?

lmao!

The trains ran on time. Hey Said1 the corporatists and clergy and monarchists who payed and played to put him in power never complained about him. Are you sure you're cut out for the corporate dog eat dog world? You seem way to nice.:lol:

Ah yes, the trains ran on time, how wonderful!!!

DB, I'ld rather live in the illusion of freedom, then die in the reality of oppression.

You can keep your socialism. Every single socialist regime has been the harbinger of death.

 

[jimshort19]

CDNbear, "DB, I'ld rather live in the illusion of freedom, then die in the reality of oppression."

Good point. I'd rather live than die also. As for illusions vs reality, intellectually speaking, I prefer reality. How about, "I'd rather live in the reality of freedom than the reality of oppression." Both do exist.

CDNbear, "You can keep your socialism. Every single socialist regime has been the harbinger of death."

This is way too close to the truth, as close as Tide is to clean underwear. And there is a reason. Socialism is morally defective, is a moral error. Is this true? And what is the error? You are clearly not afraid to tell the truth about socialism based on historical fact, but and you predict the future to be the same as the past with socialism, but how about why?

 

[CDNBear]

Good point. I'd rather live than die also. As for illusions vs reality, intellectually speaking, I prefer reality. How about, "I'd rather live in the reality of freedom than the reality of oppression." Both do exist.

Arguably so.

This is way too close to the truth, as close as Tide is to clean underwear. And there is a reason. Socialism is morally defective, is a moral error. Is this true?

Not, well not really, not so much as the human error involved.

Socialism as an ideology is quite acceptable to me, one because I would agree that capitalism has several draw backs, but ancestrally, my peoples made it work. (The Haudenosaunee{Iroquois} were a communal people, not communist thought, lol.)

And what is the error?

Mans greed for power.

You are clearly not afraid to tell the truth about socialism based on historical fact, but and you predict the future to be the same as the past with socialism, but how about why?

Because I've watched it eat itself time after time. Even sans the US embargo against Cuba, Fidel has been an oppressive prick. Disidence is not tolerated under the banner of the collective state. Even moderates like Chavez, take steps to increase their power. Not much different then capitalism, but why jump from the frying pan into the fire?

Very scary stuff.

 

[jimshort19]

Zzrchov, "Arguably so."

You're not going to concede that freedom exists? Because it is not your design? Because it is compromised and, aruably, oppressive? True, but that's just a little bit of what's too bad before you are king.

Socialism is morally defective, is a moral error. Is this true?

Zzarchov, "Not, well not really, not so much as the human error involved."

How can you dismiss moral error by saying that it is human? We're not talking about zebra culture or the secret liofe of plants here.

And what is the error?

Zzarchove, "Mans greed for power."

And there we have it! Representative democracy is the bedrock on which human rights are built. Usurp that and other rights fall like dominoes. But socialism without the socialist is a wonderful thing to have reprresented in our legislature, society and economy. Socialism from moderates, selfless and wise, they are too few, but they exist as surely as freedom, and as imperfect.

Zzarchov, "Even moderates like Chavez, take steps to increase their power. Not much different then capitalism, but why jump from the frying pan into the fire?

Chavez is a meglomaniac who being drunk with power has been corrupted. Capitalism is, and why speak of it as though it were disposable when it cannot be got rid of? It can be centralised, and we may change the name to socialism which sounds nice, but it's only centralised capitalism, only monopolistic, and it can only work under a representative democracy because monopoly's are essentially oppressive. Socialism is not, is a figment of the imagination of would-be kings. But it sounds nice. Organized do-gooding. What a concept. Let's give it a nice name and see if we can use it to make me king.

 

[jimshort19]

So, I mix up Zzarchov and CDNBear. I forgot the face that the name was written on. It is early here, or late, but clearly the time of my excuse if you will.

 

[CDNBear]

Zzrchov, "Arguably so."

LOL, I'm CDNBear, not the Z man...but I'll forgive ya, Z's cool, so it's not like an insult or anything.

You're not going to concede that freedom exists?

No, but for good reason.

Because it is not your design?

No, because we live in a society, complete with rules to live by, therefore not under the ideology of ultimate freedom. True enough, we have the freedom of choice, religion, assembly and so on...all the ultimate freedoms not present in the socialist state, by and large. But we are not truly free. We must hold a job, or live off others, we must work to produce, or fall into disrepair.

So no, we are not free as far as freedom in its purest sence, but as far as being able to breath free, live without the shackles of the socialist dogma 'the people are all equal and the state thinks for them', yes we are free.

Because it is compromised and, aruably, oppressive? True, but that's just a little bit of what's too bad before you are king.

Very true, but one would have to want to be king...non?

How can you dismiss moral error by saying that it is human?

Simply because the ideal socialist view is equality, no classes, no one is lost. But then you add man, a simple but competitive beast. Someone must rise to the top. Thus some are more equal then others.

We're not talking about zebra culture or the secret liofe of plants here.

No, we're talking of man and the human error.

And there we have it! Representative democracy is the bedrock on which human rights are built. Usurp that and other rights fall like dominoes. But socialism without the socialist is a wonderful thing to have reprresented in our legislature, society and economy. Socialism from moderates, selfless and wise, they are too few, but they exist as surely as freedom, and as imperfect.

Agreed.

Chavez is a meglomaniac who being drunk with power has been corrupted. Capitalism is, and why speak of it as though it were disposable when it cannot be got rid of? It can be centralised, and we may change the name to socialism which sounds nice, but it's only centralised capitalism, only monopolistic, and it can only work under a representative democracy because monopoly's are essentially oppressive. Socialism is not, is a figment of the imagination of would-be kings. But it sounds nice. Organized do-gooding. What a concept. Let's give it a nice name and see if we can use it to make me king.

LOL, now your waxing poetic. But oh so truthfully.