ILL-FEELING between Britain and France over the invasion of Iraq has plumbed new depths with the desecration of that most sacred of memorials, a war cemetery.
The defilement of Commonwealth war graves in northern France coincided with a poll for The Times which found that 54 per cent of Britons no longer regarded France as a close ally because of its opposition to the war.

Relations will be further rent by a second poll, in Le Monde, showing that only a third of the French felt that they were on the same side as the Americans and British, and that another third desired outright Iraqi victory over “les anglo-saxons”.

Eleven thousand Allied soldiers lie buried in well-tended peace at Etaples, on the Channel coast near Le Touquet, victims of the struggle by Anglo-Saxons to liberate the French from the German invaders during the First World War.

Last week the obelisk raised in their memory was defiled by red-painted insults such as “Rosbeefs go home”; “May Saddam prevail and spill your blood”; and, in a reference to the long-dead casualties beneath the manicured turf, “They are soiling our land”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-631671,00.html


Now I can understand people who oppose this Iraq War, I'm not a big fan of it myself. BUT to defile the graves of men who gave their lives to liberate France, what the f*ck does that do for "peace"??? It has become apparent that many of the French people have forgotten their countries history.

The fact that a third polled in France want Iraq to win, is further proof that the French are becoming less and less an ally to America and the British.

France is no longer an ally. They are now, in general, a bunch of miserable people that realized that they are becoming increasingly unimportant and that their status as a World Power is fading into the history books.

To defile graves like that is beyond my understanding. If I ever killed an enemy soldier and if there was time, I'd dig him a grave and bury him. I dunno why, but I respect the dead whether I liked them or not.

To attack gravestones of soldiers that DEFENDED your country and paid in BLOOD for your freedom is below ... everything. I don't know about Britain, but I pray France never ever needs the help of the United States again because I doubt it will be there.

Ignorance certainly is bliss, isn't it Jerrek?

Ignorance is Blix. And do you disagree with me? Do you support this desecration of the graves and war memorials? I make a stand againt it and you make a stand against me. What is your position? :bugeye:

I think it is wrong to do such a thing. The odd thing is that before, when we were allies with France, they were a powerful supporter, a nation in the nuclear tea party, etc. Now they are a bunch of weak bastards fading into the history books. Except for the last decade or two, there has not been a time in the last 1000-1500 years when France has not held a large sway in world politics. The US has been around for 200 years. How can you possibly say that they are fading away when, to them, we are merely another foreign power gunning for world domination, merely another foreign power ready to collapse?

Except for the last decade or two, there has not been a time in the last 1000-1500 years when France has not held a large sway in world politics. Except for the last decade or two. Don't you think that is hurting? Especially since some young upstart that has only been around for 200 years are now controlling world politics?

desecrating graves? pfft! legit form of political expression. getting arrested for vandalism as a result? even better! you aint seen shit yet!

Originally posted by spookz
you aint seen shit yet!

You really think so, is it possible for the French to sink any lower than this???

Hey! Don't take the the actions of a few demented individuals as representative of all of France. I think the French see this war for what it really is.... the religiously motivated action of a lynch mob.

Don't forget the French helped us win the revolutionary war (that we fought against Britain). They also gave us the Statue of Liberty as a gift, and the French Resistence put up a pretty good fight of their own against the Nazis (with our help of course).

Have a glass of French wine and chill out. I'm glad there are other countries taking a stand against this war. Maybe it will influence both the U.S. and Britain to be more responsible members of the international community.

"Rosbeefs go home"


Heh. For some reason that made me laugh.

spookz -

please say you had your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek.

Although I feel that in this war, the Iraqis are the "good guys" vs. the invaders, I find it extremely hypocritical for France to be claiming the moral high-gorund on this issue. It should be apparent to anyone with an understanding of history that France has commited their share of imperialist atrocities, and that their reluctance to be involved in this one is largely motivated by self-interest.
That said I think its great that they're on the right side, regardless of their motivation.

As to the desecrating of gravesites, I find the idea that anyone would do that so outragous that I'm tempted to say that it was probably done by agent-provocateurs(people out to intentionally discredit the anti-war movement), as similiar things have been done in the US before, but I really don't know enough about the situation in France to make a judgement on it.

Originally posted by alphascent
Hey! Don't take the the actions of a few demented individuals as representative of all of France. I think the French see this war for what it really is.... the religiously motivated action of a lynch mob.

This incident is symptomatic of the way the French have related with America the past few decades.

Don't forget the French helped us win the revolutionary war (that we fought against Britain). They also gave us the Statue of Liberty as a gift,
This was a LONG time ago, Modern day France is a disgrace to it's proud history.

and the French Resistence put up a pretty good fight of their own against the Nazis (with our help of course).
Bwahahaha! Isn't "French Resistance" an oxymoron...;)

Have a glass of French wine and chill out.
Why, California wine is better.:D

I'm glad there are other countries taking a stand against this war. Maybe it will influence both the U.S. and Britain to be more responsible members of the international community.
France is only looking out for their financial interests. They care as little for the Iraqi people as Rumsfield and Cheney do.

Hey! Don't take the the actions of a few demented individuals as representative of all of France.

Well put alpha!

C'mon people keep this issue in perspective. By the way, who the hell started this idiotic thread anyhow. It reaks of media sensationalism.

Originally posted by Coldrake
spookz -

please say you had your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek.

why coldrake?
if i see the usa expanding this shit war, my tactics will get more radical. screw the french, i want graves desecrated right here at home

static

wasnt the french resistance covered in a thread you participated in? why do you still mock them? do i have to defend them again?

cali wine is better. bastards are complaining that cheap imports are killing the industry! how ironic!

:D

yes. their interests is correct! this radicalization of opinion on their part would have never happened if america did not act like a spoiled child (freedom fries)

but I respect the dead whether I liked them or not.

yes, the problem is only when they are alive. then i hate em and wish they were dead. then i respect them. i like dead people. they are honorable. could everybody just roll over and die? i have lot of respect to hand out

:D

why coldrake?
if i see the usa expanding this shit war, my tactics will get more radical. screw the french, i want graves desecrated right here at home

Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that except to say that I think you should go out and desecrate some graves and hope you get your ass kicked for your efforts.

Originally posted by fireguy_31
Well put alpha!

C'mon people keep this issue in perspective. By the way, who the hell started this idiotic thread anyhow. It reaks of media sensationalism.
Media sensationalism???:p Surely you could do better than that.

What perspective will make me understand vandalizing graves?


Spookz:

wasnt the french resistance covered in a thread you participated in? why do you still mock them? do i have to defend them again?
The French are like right wing nuts, Spookz. They claim the high moral ground on issues, but their actions speak differently.

Media sensationalism??? Surely you could do better than that.

I don't have to, all this BS is rhetoric which by nature is destructive rather than constructive.

When I use the word perspective it doesn't mean "how" you look at something but, on the contrary, "what" you're looking at. France does not favor this war, period. Ignore the actions of a few idiots.

by the way static, I like your tag-line "Truth, Justice, and the American Way!" It should read, more appropriately, "Truth and Justice the American Way!"

Originally posted by Coldrake
Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that except to say that I think you should go out and desecrate some graves and hope you get your ass kicked for your efforts.

hey no problem with that. if the cause is worthy, i'll take a beating! maybe i can show my bloody face on tv and blame the facist pigs
whats with the superstition? 21st century and all that! graves are dirt! nothing more

;)

Originally posted by fireguy_31
I don't have to, all this BS is rhetoric which by nature is destructive rather than constructive.

When I use the word perspective it doesn't mean "how" you look at something but, on the contrary, "what" you're looking at. France does not favor this war, period. Ignore the actions of a few idiots.

When a third of the French are rooting for Iraq to win, it's hard to ignore. This kind of behavior is not isolated in France, they have been Anti-American for a while now.

Originally posted by static76
The French are like right wing nuts, Spookz. They claim the high moral ground on issues, but their actions speak differently. Hellll NO. Please don't group them with me. That socialist country has more in common with socialist U.S.S.R. than my right-wing views.

When a third of the French are rooting for Iraq to win, it's hard to ignore.

Now that is a good thread starter. ;)

Originally posted by Jerrek
Hellll NO. Please don't group them with me. That socialist country has more in common with socialist U.S.S.R. than my right-wing views.
When I say "right wing nuts", I'm talking about the far right, not normal people on the right.

No, the farther and farther you move to the right, the less government you get. Absolute right = anarchy. Absolute left = communism and fascism. Now I know half of you will disagree with me here and will put communist on the left and fascism on the right, but then riddle me this. Where do you put anarchy on your scale, and where do you put the libertarians? I'm right, very right. Just left of anarchy. A libertarian if you will.

The French are very far left leaning with their incredible big government (traditionally socialist), lots of social services (socialist, left), welfare state (socialist, left), gun control (socialist, left), and lots of government control over everything (socialist, left).

If I myself move more right I can only see myself become an anarchist because I firmly believe "the best government is the one that governs least." I don't see myself suddenly deciding to create a big fascist government.

Yeah if they are right wing I would hate to see your left :-P

Jerrek,
Anarchy and communism go hand in hand and are both very left wing positions.
In fact, there are large groups of people who consider themselves "anarcho-communists" Under communism, theoretically there would be a melting away of the state as it became unecessary(anarchy) Both communism and anarchism hold that people can exist on an equitable basis without a government.
Most people who call themselves libertarians are either somewhere in the middle on the political spectrum as they support the government maintaining a capitalist system(a right wing position) and yet want the government to allow citizens certain libertys(drug use, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc., a left wing position). Facism, along with stalinism, are at the far right on the political spectrum as they are based on inequality and grant people very few rights.

Jerrek: I preffer this http://www.politicalcompass.org/ . Straight line left/right is totally innacurate.

Originally posted by jps
Jerrek,
Most people who call themselves libertarians are either somewhere in the middle on the political spectrum as they support the government maintaining a capitalist system(a right wing position) and yet want the government to allow citizens certain libertys(drug use, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc., a left wing position). Facism, along with stalinism, are at the far right on the political spectrum as they are based on inequality and grant people very few rights.

freedom of drug use, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, are very right beliefs. The very right believe that you shouldnt need them as rights thought because the goverment should be in absolutly no position to restrain what you can't smoke, say, and have. The far right rely on other institutions such as religion, economonics, education and family instead of just goverment. The right believe equality as in that everybody should be treated equal.

Stalinism and facism are left because they have goverment control over everything. It realies on goverment to control social norms instead of the other institutions. Rights must be given because the goverment could take them away because they have that power. Equality is based on what people actually have and so the goverment can treat people diffrently. How the right can support capitalism and Stalinism is proof that you have this wrong. ;)

blankc,
the straight line left right is more accurate than the libertarian square graph in my opinion. Its true that politics is not one dimensional, but it is not two-dimensional either, to attempt to place someone's political views on a grid that took every dimension into account would be far too complex. Authoritarianism is considered right-wing on the standard left-right view and can be factored in when deciding where to place an individual.

Originally posted by Salty
freedom of drug use, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, are very right beliefs. The very right believe that you shouldnt need them as rights thought because the goverment should be in absolutly no position to restrain what you can't smoke, say, and have. The far right rely on other institutions such as religion, economonics, education and family instead of just goverment. The right believe equality as in that everybody should be treated equal.
Not at all. The far right is constantly arguing that the views of religion should be enshrined in the government whereas the left works to maintain a seperation between church and state. The view that morality should be legislated is a right wing view. The right, by supporting capitalism supports inequality.


Originally posted by Salty
Stalinism and facism are left because they have goverment control over everything. It realies on goverment to control social norms instead of the other institutions. The left wing does not believe in controlling social norms at all.

Originally posted by Salty
Rights must be given because the goverment could take them away because they have that power. Equality is based on what people actually have and so the goverment can treat people diffrently.
Governments always have the power to control people. The difference between left and right can not be characterized as a difference between big and small government but rather through what they believe the government should do and who it is made up of. Leftists believe that the government should be directly accountable to and made up of the people, rather than a seperate controlling force as advocated by the right. As such, ultimately a far left government would be not necessary as people would be self regulating. A right wing government, because of this, will always need to be maintained as without it there woudl be no way to enforce the restrictions.


Originally posted by Salty
How the right can support capitalism and Stalinism is proof that you have this wrong. ;) This doesn't make sense. I'm assuming you left something out?

David Horsey (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3.13.2003) (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=808)

Commentary would only ruin it.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by jps
[B]Not at all. The far right is constantly arguing that the views of religion should be enshrined in the government whereas the left works to maintain a seperation between church and state. The view that morality should be legislated is a right wing view. The right, by supporting capitalism supports inequality.

Thats because the christian fanatics get involved with the right's views. So it just appears that way. The right see it as that the goverment Federal goverment should'nt even be able to tell schools what to do in the first place they do not like have the goverment getting involved in the other institutions.


The left wing does not believe in controlling social norms at all.

Yeah it does. Gun control, Hate crime legislation, Affirmitive action are all left ideas.


Governments always have the power to control people. The difference between left and right can not be characterized as a difference between big and small government but rather through what they believe the government should do and who it is made up of. Leftists believe that the government should be directly accountable to and made up of the people, rather than a seperate controlling force as advocated by the right. As such, ultimately a far left government would be not necessary as people would be self regulating. A right wing government, because of this, will always need to be maintained as without it there woudl be no way to enforce the restrictions.

Niether side wants a pure democracy that never works. That just ends up as 2 wolfs voting to eat the sheep.m The left feel that people are corrupted by the outside world and that. The right feel that people are born evil and so goverment is evil but is necissary they need to limit it though. Seriously read up on idelogy. Or some sort of idealogoy course.



This doesn't make sense. I'm assuming you left something out?

You state that Capitalism is a right view and that Stalinism is also. Capitalism is because it promotes goverment not getting involved in one of the instutions (economy). The left which lean on the goverment more then the right belive in more socialist economies. Where the goverment does get involved in the economy. (i.e. stalinism, communism ex)

Originally posted by Jerrek
The French are very far left leaning with their incredible big government (traditionally socialist), lots of social services (socialist, left), welfare state (socialist, left), gun control (socialist, left), and lots of government control over everything (socialist, left).


But their leaders are largely conservative and on the right. The French president Jacques Chirac is on the right , and the guy who he ran against was on the far right, Jean-Marie Le Pen.

France seems to lean closer to the far right, than the far left by the leaders they choose...

Anarchy and communism go hand in hand and are both very left wing positions. Oh that is interesting.... More on this later.


In fact, there are large groups of people who consider themselves "anarcho-communists"And a large percentage consider themselves libtertarian-anarchists.


Under communism, theoretically there would be a melting away of the state as it became unecessary(anarchy) No, under communism there is TOTAL government. You're missing the core definition of communism here.


Both communism and anarchism hold that people can exist on an equitable basis without a government. No.


Most people who call themselves libertarians are either somewhere in the middle on the political spectrum as they support the government maintaining a capitalist system(a right wing position) and yet want the government to allow citizens certain libertys(drug use, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc., a left wing position) Left wing position... You mean like the Democrats (lefties) are always fighting for our God-given right to bear arms?


Facism, along with stalinism, are at the far right on the political spectrum as they are based on inequality and grant people very few rights. And on the oppose end of the spectrum people have total rights? You know, like communism encouraged everyone to own firearms? Complete freedom of speech to critisize the communist government like you want right?


Jerrek: I preffer this http://www.politicalcompass.org/ . Straight line left/right is totally innacurate. I know you need two or three dimensions to be more accurate, but one dimension is usually what you get when you speak in political conversations. In this case, left and right simply means the amount of government you think is necessary.

On the right you have anarchy (total government). Move a bit to the left and you have Libertarians (virtually no government, no regulations, and all that crap), move more and you get Republicans, then Democrats, Socialists, Communists/Fascists who both liked total government.


The left wing does not believe in controlling social norms at all. HAHAHAHAHA


The difference between left and right can not be characterized as a difference between big and small government but rather through what they believe the government should do and who it is made up of. See, this is where I differ from you. Left and right implies size of government, not beliefs. Certain beliefs go hand-in-hand with one side though, but you get exceptions like socialists that support the war and right-wingers that don't support the death penalty.


Yeah it does. Gun control, Hate crime legislation, Affirmitive action are all left ideasExactly.


But their leaders are largely conservative and on the right. The French president Jacques Chirac is on the right , and the guy who he ran against was on the far right, Jean-Marie Le Pen.

France seems to lean closer to the far right, than the far left by the leaders they choose...I'm sorry, but I just can't agree there. French leaders are *very* socialistic, and very left.



jpbs, do you honestly put me in the middle of the political spectrum? I'm a Libertarian. "The best government is the one that governs least." I'm for decriminalizing all drugs, pro capital punishment, anti abortion, anti UN, pro gay relationships (government should have no control over what people do in that arena), I'd support getting rid of ALL sex laws that currently regulates what two consenting people can do and can't do (i.e. anal sex is illegal in some states), I'd kill 90% of the federal government starting with the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Reserve (there is nothing federal about it and there is no reserves, just a bunch of rich snots), Homeland Security, relax gun control laws, increase military spending, cut social programs, cut taxes, abolish social security (it ain't working anyways), get rid of medicare (it ain't working), no social welfare please (let charities do it), and so on. Oh and abolish all the tax laws and institute a flat hmm, say 10 to 15% tax rate for individual income tax, and say 20% for corporate income tax. That would quickly turn our deficit into a surplus...

Do you think that is "middle?" I don't.

In fact, if I want to become more extreme, I can only see myself going with anarchy. I don't see myself start waving swatzikas and being a Nazi. Neither do I see myself a communist whever everyone owns everything.

I'm right-wing. Not left ok?

Jerrek
No, under communism there is TOTAL government. You're missing the core definition of communism here.I find this a very interesting point because it illustrates to a degree a certain sense of misunderstanding that exists even among modern Communists, to speak nothing of their opponents.

When we think of the Communists, we tend to think of the Bolsheviks, whom we generally consider the founders Soviet Communism with their Revolution. But even that notion is slightly inaccurate (http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/OctRev.html).

In the modern day I find it impossible to argue that Bolshevik Communism has not failed. Such an argument would fly in the face of logic; I might as well pretend that a little more wax, or a different breed of feathers, will help me exceed Icarus.

But here we strike a vagary that is very common to large ideological arguments. Consider the "Three C's": Capitalism, Communism, Christianity--none of them have ever been executed according to their tenets.

The United States is not Capitalist except by common vernacular; public education, medicare, corporate welfare, personal welfare, public libraries, &c. There is no particular core creed of Capitalism that I've ever seen; the idea is generally re-expounded by each generation of financial movers and shakers. Like Communism, and unlike the people at Capitalism dot org (http://www.capitalism.org), Capitalism is not a governing system in and of itself, but an economic arrangement. The United States is capitalist insofar as it is a democracy; we are redefining the words to meet our condition.

Communism is clearly not a governing system in and of itself. When we think of the Bolsheviks, or, by more sinister terms, The Party, we find its very idea contrary to the Communist Manifesto (http://www.yclusa.org/readup/manread.html):
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian° principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

Note: "sectarian" - German editions use "separate"

(Section II (http://www.yclusa.org/readup/man-2.html)) The execution of Communism went about as well in the hands of the Bolsheviks as the execution of Christianity in the hands of the Inquisitors. And in part, this was because of the various governing styles applied to the Revolution. While Communism is a leftist position, Stalinism is a rightist position. Remember, for instance that, despite all of the United States' "Hitler" talk about Saddam Hussein, the truculent Iraqi leader learned his trade from Stalin. (What part of Iraq, for instance, resembles the Communist Manifesto?)

When people think of the Communist totalitarianism of the past, they forget that Communism is actually an economic idea that can theoretically be applied to various forms of government. On paper, a Communist Republic is not out of the question. In practice? Well, it's never been tried properly.

What's strange, Jerrek, is that I notice that our primary difference (I'm noting your libertarian platform here) comes essentially in two groups: violence and subsistence. And where the violence part puzzles me in general as a human phenomenon, the subsistence issues are intriguing considerations. Does the elimination of Dept. of Education, for instance, mean the end of public education, or is it left then to the states? And what will be the relation of wages to taxes? It's an interesting consideration for me, who is the stay-home parent and always a scheming artist of sorts. Honestly? If I got a contract for a novel, we could afford to support a 15% flat tax. On the income we have now, a flat tax with no credits or deductions would put a definite hitch in feeding my child.

I would urge you to remember, though, that despite all else, capitalistic economic systems require a large poverty class to support the minority beneficiaries. And dealing with that little side effect is where Communism comes from.

I also wanted to comment that left and right have to do with rights and how they're defined. Many rightists, even the moderates, that I know, think of their right to earn and spend as their most vital. I'm of a different mind. You can give me all the money in the world, but if I'm not happy, I don't care how rich I am. What would be the point of money I can't spend as I choose, or words I cannot speak? So even when it comes down to small issues of institutions vs. people I side with the people. Even the libertarian rightists I know have a certain institutional dependency: they seem to depend on commercial and industrial sectors in a near-antithesis of Communist support of the laboring class. Imagine if Microsoft, Boeing, and the petrol interests were the highest institutional authorities, instead of just falling all over themselves to control the highest institutional authorities? One of the reasons the left got such a hold in this country to begin with is abuses of the working class by corporate bosses who were, in essence, the law insofar as their workers were concerned.

Here's one: Can you imagine paying maximum-security prisoners union wages so that they, in turn, can pay for their incarcerations? ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Jerrek
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree there. French leaders are *very* socialistic, and very left.


How are they on the far left? The conservative French president Jacques Chirac supports big government, just like our conservative president GW Bush. Under Bush, the government's control of it's citizens has grown more than any other pres. in modern history. Bush has also increased the size of our government, just like his father, Reagan , and so on...

I think your falling into the trap of believing that anyone who disagrees with rightwing leaders, must be a leftist. I remember in the 2000 election when this happened to John McCain, and how his campaign was sabotoged. Many of the far right still want to run him out of the Republican party.

Well just because he is a republican dosent mean he has to act like hes right wing all the time. Remeber to become president you have to move twoards the middle of the people. Also with terrorism on the rise :/

You make some interesting points, Tiassa. I don't quite agree with you on putting Stalinism on the right though.


When people think of the Communist totalitarianism of the past, they forget that Communism is actually an economic idea that can theoretically be applied to various forms of government. On paper, a Communist Republic is not out of the question. In practice? Well, it's never been tried properly. Hehe, I definitely need to think about this, and maybe read a bit more on the topic.


And where the violence part puzzles me in general as a human phenomenon, the subsistence issues are intriguing considerations. What do you mean by the violence part?


Does the elimination of Dept. of Education, for instance, mean the end of public education, or is it left then to the states? No, even I as a libertarian can see the need for public and universal education. That is indeed one of the corner stones of modern society. However, I don't want the government to play such a big part in it. Actually, I will create a post later this week (it will need some time to write up) outlining why exactly I don't want certain parts of the federal government to be there. In any case, the federal government should have no jurisdiction over public education. It is a state matter, and even on the state level I want to see minimal interference. Private schools is a much, and parents that send their children to private schools should get some kind of tax voucher.


And what will be the relation of wages to taxes? Eh? Can you elaborate? I don't quite understand the question.


Honestly? If I got a contract for a novel, we could afford to support a 15% flat tax. On the income we have now, a flat tax with no credits or deductions would put a definite hitch in feeding my child. Well, I just named a percentage really. Russia recently implemented a flat tax system (see this link (http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php/890.htm)) of 13% on personal income tax. And you know what? The government brings in MORE revenue than ever before. My dad pays 46% income tax right now. I don't think that is fair and quite frankly, it doesn't do a lot for me to know if I work harder I'm going to be taxed more.


I would urge you to remember, though, that despite all else, capitalistic economic systems require a large poverty class to support the minority beneficiaries. And dealing with that little side effect is where Communism comes from. Perhaps, but not necessarily. In just about every communist nation so far we've seen widespread poverty and hunger. True, you are going to have incredibly rich and incredibly poor people in a capitalistic society, but that is how it should be. Now I know there is *some* merit for certain people that can't work and depends on other people, but by far the largest part of those dependent on welfare are just lazy. Besides, our poor is richer than most countries' rich people.


I also wanted to comment that left and right have to do with rights and how they're defined. Well, answer my questions in my previous post... Where do you put anarchists, where do you put libertarians, and where do you put me? In the middle?


The conservative French president Jacques Chirac supports big government, just like our conservative president GW Bush. The right, traditionally, does not support a big government. I don't want the Department of Homeland Security. I want 90% of the federal government gone. *poof*


think your falling into the trap of believing that anyone who disagrees with rightwing leaders, must be a leftist. No, I don't. My dad is a conservative and there are quite a few things he and I disagree on (drugs, gay stuff, sexual stuff, etc.)

Originally posted by Salty
Well just because he is a republican dosent mean he has to act like hes right wing all the time. Remeber to become president you have to move twoards the middle of the people. Also with terrorism on the rise :/

GW Bush did try to pass himself as a moderate during the 2000 elections, but his record indicates otherwise. You don't really think of him as a "compassionate conservative"...:bugeye: :D

Originally posted by Jerrek

No, under communism there is TOTAL government. You're missing the core definition of communism here.
Not at all. Marx explicitly stated that the latter stages of communism would include the melting away of the state. Thats part of the definition


Originally posted by Jerrek
No..
Well thats a well thought out argument. I was tempted to quote your entire post and just right "no" as my response, but since you did make a few stabs at real points I decided against it.


Originally posted by Jerrek
Left wing position... You mean like the Democrats (lefties) are always fighting for our God-given right to bear arms?.. democrats lefties? only relative to the republicans. The US's two political parties are just about the same ideologically.
On most issues the democrats are slightly more to the left than the republicans, on some its the other way around.

Originally posted by Jerrek
And on the oppose end of the spectrum people have total rights? You know, like communism encouraged everyone to own firearms? Complete freedom of speech to critisize the communist government like you want right?? A true communist government would indeed allow people to have firearms, freedom of speech etc.

You can call yourself whatever you want. but you should be aware that your views place you in the middle of the political spectrum as far as everyone else is concerned. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
I would go on, but the rest of your post is either repetition of the issues i addressed above or were addressed by Tiassa.

but you should be aware that your views place you in the middle of the political spectrum as far as everyone else is concerned. Folks, remember this. Remember I'm NOT extreme. Remember I'm not a radical fascist. Remember I'm a moderate, smack in the middle of the spectrum. Stay tuned. :cool:

Originally posted by Jerrek
by far the largest part of those dependent on welfare are just lazy.

On what do you base this ridiculous assertion?

Im not saying alot of people abuse it but I personally know some people that abuse the goverment's saftey nets.

"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget."
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/


The "right" seems to support welfare also...

Special intrest can get into politics also. Its not like there is ever a pure right or pure left goverment inpower at any time in the united states. There are very few people that are even pure right or pure left wing.

Originally posted by static76
GW Bush did try to pass himself as a moderate during the 2000 elections, but his record indicates otherwise. You don't really think of him as a "compassionate conservative"...:bugeye: :D

Im not saying anything really I just pointed out Idealalogy. I sometimes go wtf? When he does some stuff. He put a tarrif on steel that confused the hell outa me.

I dunno I can't read the guy's mind though. Maybe American Steel made a large campaign contribution :confused: Both parties porkbarrel all the time

The French are Scotland's oldest allies. Through the centuries both our countries opposed the English but there is no justification for defiling the graves of men who fought to ensure freedom. I have blood relations buried there and if I knew their graves were being desecrated I would not be responsible for my actions. These are not just words,

What do you mean by the violence part?Capital punishment, increased military, relaxed gun control: these things are what I meant by the violence part. I generally border on Anarchism except that I see the benefits of statehood; there may yet be an undiscovered compromise, a degree of separation not yet accounted for or rationalized. If I find it, of course, I'll let people know.
Eh? Can you elaborate? I don't quite understand the question.Nicholas Sparks got $1.2 million for Message in a Bottle. I don't ever expect to get paid a sum like that for anything I write. But if I write a bestseller, then obviously I can afford a flat tax.

However, there are people in the world, and at present I'm one of them, where a 15% flat tax can make a serious difference. I've got reserves to call on--the elimination of various habits--before feeding my child becomes a problem, but I'm also aware that I'm in a great position despite all this. Most people can't expect what I've somehow managed to wring out of the world. So I think about the people who just don't have the comforts I have. (After all, I can presently afford to call a DSL connection a living necessity, so things ain't really too bad.)

More than nitpicking the number, I'm just trying to make a thin example out of an abstraction. If you make $20,000 a year (e.g. flight attendant; read some horror stories about pay scales for pilots, too) ....

And that's a great example: one of our roommates at the other house lives there because it's all he can afford; I was surprised when I saw his income declaration on the rental application. He flies around the world, and is trained to defend an airliner against terrorist attacks, and I made more pushing mail at an insurance company ... :bugeye: But the $6,600 a year constituted approximately 1/3 of his income; I won't subject you to a living breakdown of the rest of it at this point, but coughing up even $2,000 (10%) for taxes is flat-out obscene. I suppose he could always live out at his mother's house, but in addition to his car insurance, such a move would double his fuel consumption.

Statistical equality (I pay the same statistical percentage as the next guy) often overlooks the effect of what the statistics represent.

And I also wanted to mention, without sarcasm, that if your Dad is actually paying out 46%, he needs a better accountant. While I'm aware of the absurdity of the tax brackets in the US, I can't say I've ever known one person who doesn't file a 1040EZ who pays their actual percentage. Typically, at that bracket, people have a bazillion ways to deduct and exempt.

My favorite tax idea is a transaction tax, called "Equal Tax" in Oregon (an unsuccessful marketing name), the details of which are fairly simple. If you exchange money for goods or services, there is a two percent tax. A broad range of standard transactions are exempted--e.g. payroll deposits, &c. All other taxes are wiped off the board. Everybody pays the same rate, and everybody pays the same rate when they exercise their buying power. Strangely, the opposition in Oregon was banks, CPA's, and the utility companies. The calculated revenue was five times the contemporary Oregon budget. I've never seen one of these taxes enacted, though, so I am unaware of practical data from the field.
In just about every communist nation so far we've seen widespread poverty and hunger. They're starting from the ground up. The rich, generally speaking, do not revolt on behalf of Communism. When the working class takes power, it doesn't automatically make them richer. Certes, corruption, &c. But no economic center amid prosperity has yet found reason to up and go Red at a moment's notice.
Besides, our poor is richer than most countries' rich people. Here I look to a Sufi saying: Is the best we have really the best we can do?

There's no question about certain lazy people on welfare, but what about the rest of society?

Taxes aside, what do you think would happen if American companies paid livable wages abroad? Just because it's the third world we can pay a pittance? I'll never forget the arguments over Kathy Lee's child-labor scandal in the mid-1990's: Thanks to American companies, these children at least have the opportunity to contribute to the family's survival. I always wondered why we didn't pay the parents enough to begin with.

Ah, yes ... our standard of living would collapse.

You would have enjoyed 1997--I think it was--in Seattle. King County, amid a tax rebellion, shut down the county's Emergency Medical Services. It was a freaking disaster. People complained that election laws were broken to build our two sports arenas, but nobody made much about the slipshod, hokey special election scheduled to fix the funding problem. It was an amazing moment for Libertarianism, even though the party itself had nothing to do with the ignorance-inspired debacle. Oregon is presently going through a similar problem with public schools in Portland. (While I lived in Oregon, the people capped property taxes, panicked when school funding took the expected and prescribed hit while the revenue system shifted to the new form of support, called on the legislature to fix the problem, and ended up with skyrocketing property taxes and continually problematic school funding. I tend to think the current Portland crisis has something to do with the 1990 general election.)
Where do you put anarchists, where do you put libertarians, and where do you put me? In the middle?Anarchism is the extreme end of leftism. Libertarianism requires a second axis to measure. I think of the anti-federalist old school, but where my balance of left and right looks at the effects of the ideas on people in general, Libertarianism necessarily looks at the self.

If People - Institutions is the left/right division I make along the X axis, Libertarianism must be measured somewhere in relation to the Y axis, indicating a specific brand of selfishness that is not particularly villainous inasmuch as it's human. We tend to worry about ourselves. Libertarianism recognizes that. Beyond that I would have to invoke witchcraft and Crowley to make a more subtle distinction.

Libertarianism looks at the left/right wrangling over other people and says, "That's all well and fine, but what about Me?!"

I should probably get off the horse, since I'm just rambling at this point.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

As this thread was drifting away from the French and into the area of political philosophy in general, It brought to my mind the year 1963.

Being an old geezer , I remembered an old political argument from 1963. That was the year that a national 5 digit zip code system was proposed. And it became a quite heated political topic.

The liberals saw the zip codes as simply a more efficient way to deliver mail.

The conservatives saw the zip codes as a way for the federal government to keep track of their location, and to track them down and take away their freedom, liberties, playboy magazines, you name it, they were afraid the zip codes would allow the government to to find them and seize whatever.

Shortly before that there had been a big political squabble over whether automobile manufacturers should be required to install seat belts in every new car coming from their factories.

As it turned out in both cases, it was the moderates of both parties who decided the issues. The two party system is badly bent but not entirely broken. At its worst it is barely adequate, but at its best, it is the best.



:) :)

Well Tiassa, a note. I don't expect people in the low end income to pay tax. If you make say $15,000 a year I can see how even 10% is a lot to you. I do, however, advocate a flat tax rate OVER a certain amount. Say that amount is $30,000, you would pay 10% of whatever you make over $30,000. If you make $35,000, you pay 10% of $5,000 which is $500.


And I also wanted to mention, without sarcasm, that if your Dad is actually paying out 46%, he needs a better accountant. While I'm aware of the absurdity of the tax brackets in the US, I can't say I've ever known one person who doesn't file a 1040EZ who pays their actual percentage. Typically, at that bracket, people have a bazillion ways to deduct and exempt. We are in Ontario. My dad is in the highest tax bracket which is the 46% bracket. That is 35% federal income tax and another 11% provincial income tax. Even me, a university student with an income of $16,000 last year paid 22% income tax over $8,000, which equates to about $1,800 in INCOME TAX. Then another $2,200 was deducted for unemployment insurance (MANDATORY) and Canada pension plan (also mandatory). In total the government took $4,000 from my $16,000. Now tell me, is that fair?


My favorite tax idea is a transaction tax, called "Equal Tax" in Oregon Now that sounds interesting. I will have to look into that before I can comment.


shut down the county's Emergency Medical Services Well in Canada they are permanently shut down. :rolleyes:


Anarchism is the extreme end of leftism. So I'm almost extreme left?

Originally posted by Jerrek
Well Tiassa, a note. I don't expect people in the low end income to pay tax. If you make say $15,000 a year I can see how even 10% is a lot to you. I do, however, advocate a flat tax rate OVER a certain amount. Say that amount is $30,000, you would pay 10% of whatever you make over $30,000. If you make $35,000, you pay 10% of $5,000 which is $500.


That's a pretty good idea. Take the income level at which the standard of living is acceptable, and tax after that, but only starting at that so the rich wouldn't feel too burdoned. But can a country survive on that level of tax income? I'm sure it would be considerably less money for the government, and thus it'll never happen anyway.

Originally posted by Jerrek
So I'm almost extreme left?
You're only an anarchist by your personal definition of the word, which is at odds with the accepted one.

Blankc

What Bush just tried to do with this last tax cut for the wealthy would have left a level of tax income that we could not have survived on. Luckily both parties saw the light.

Jerrek
In Canada you have some specific advantages, especially free health care. Health care in America is a nightmare.

Originally posted by blankc
That's a pretty good idea. Take the income level at which the standard of living is acceptable, and tax after that, but only starting at that so the rich wouldn't feel too burdoned. But can a country survive on that level of tax income? I'm sure it would be considerably less money for the government, and thus it'll never happen anyway. Not quite true. Russia has an INCREASE in tax revenue by almost 50 PERCENT.


The success of Russia's flat tax shouldn't surprise anyone. Hong Kong has had a flat tax for a long time, and it's been the world's fastest-growing economy over some 50 years. Indeed, there are growing signs that China may implement a flat tax in the near future. Talk about a man-bites-dog story! One of the few remaining communist nations may get a flat tax before America. At this rate, the United States may wind up in the same category as France, Cuba and North Korea.

To be fair, President Bush is moving America in the right direction. He already has pushed one tax cut through Congress (though most of it has yet to take effect). Now he is urging lawmakers to end the double taxation of dividends and expand IRAs. All of these policies shift us -- slowly but surely -- in the direction of a flat tax.

In Canada you have some specific advantages, especially free health care. Health care in America is a nightmare. A health care we don't use of course. We've been 3 1/2 years in Canada and we've yet to find a doctor that can help us. We always end up either in the walk in clinic or the ER.

Of course, dentists ain't funded. It would have costed me $980 to get my wisdom teeth pulled. And optometrits ain't funded... neither is prescription medication, psychologists, and a list of other things. Do you know what? We have *private* insurance to cover the rest. And do you honestly think it will run you over $50,000 (part of what my dad paid in income tax) in the United States to get health coverage for your family? No thanks. This health care system is under funded (unless they raise income tax to 70%), lacking, and stupid. 7 months on average for a MRI? No beds in the hospitals?


Health care in America is a nightmare. Better a nightmare than nothing at all. If it was so bad in the States, Canadians wouldn't flock over the border to get treatment.

The same thing happens here as far as getting in to see a specialist. usually about 5 to 8 weeks.

Seeing the family doctor is also a nightmare. Most people who need immediate attention are sent to "urgent " care or "emergency". Most MD's here are now using nurse practioners to see patients and write perscriptions. that was unheard of 15 years ago.

I have read about Canadians coming here for health care, but at the same time Americans are going to Canada to buy their prescription drugs. Elderly people here have no drug benifits.

We have 45 million people with no health care period!

A lot of our problems are due to the fact that medical care is a big corporate business.

always liked french ladies always thought french guys were sissys hates wine after i drank too much of it if there ladies want to leave them i think we could find room for them 154000 thousand american solidiers died in france and were buried there because the french were grateful to us for liberating them they gave us graveyards and signed a bill saying they would care ffor there graves well now this is typical french way they were run over by hitler because they straddled the fence too long then and this proves they are chicken i really think we need to take there ladies in and we might be able to breed some american qualities into them

It took me less then a week to see a specialist a couple days ago. I live in Florida btw.

Those 45 million with out health care choose not to get it. We don't force people to buy the goverment's health care plan

The problem is the amount of money that has to go into researching these perscription drugs.

The problem is that people are trying to pass laws that regulate doctors causing them to buy insurace and having to float the bill to health care.

"we dont force people to buy the governments health care plan"

Exactly what health care plan does the US government sell???

It seems we have strayed form France to politics to health Care In Florida. :) partly my fault..

btw A French conglomerate named Sodexho Alliance has an 800 million dollar contract to provide food for the United States Marine Corp. In addition it provides food and caffeteria services to over 400 American colleges.

I just read this string.

Damn some people. I lived in France for (4) years. Absolutely loved it but that was 59-63. Just before that pussy De -Gaulbladder threw the US out of France.

It has been down hill ever since.

What I find the most telling here is take a pencil and make two columns mark those posters that show the willingness if not eagerness to desecrate the graves of those that freed them from Hitler and put them in one column.

Now put those that are opposed to such activity in the other column.

What you find is the anti-war, anti- American group is mostly (not entirely) in the lets desecrate some graves column.

And us purported war mongers and hate mongers (which is BS labeling just because we don't agree with the ignorant pussies) is strongly virtually 100% against such conduct.

Sort of gives a definition for each group I think.

Makes me glad you view me as a war monger even though I am not.

And who the hell really gives a shit that 1/3 the French want Iraq to win. I sure as hell don't.

Of course we could just bend over and be polite, kiss ass and say please don't hurt us, please don't kill us. Horse shit. The bastards came over here and killed Americans. Anybody (and that will includes the French) that thinks they can come over here and kill us or kill us when we are over there on vacation, you got another thought coming and I suggest you damn well make it a good one because they AIN'T going to be any second chances.

Originally posted by justiceusa
"we dont force people to buy the governments health care plan"

Exactly what health care plan does the US government sell???

In Canada they tax you to pay for the Health care. You have to pay the tax. Hence "we dont force people to buy the goverments health care plan"

I don't expect people in the low end income to pay tax I certainly hold myself answered. Thank you.
We are in Ontario. My mistake. I know exactly squat about Canadian tax structures. I do, however, stand on the application to Americans.
Now tell me, is that fair?Honestly? I wouldn't know. I don't know what all you get in return for it. I get wars for $75 billion, detailed investigations of fellatio for $40 million, a lethal drug war of ludicrous cost (http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm), and a nearly blind faith placed by our government in for-profit solutions to all of our human needs.
Now that sounds interesting. I will have to look into that before I can comment.What's funny is that the first link I came across on a Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=oregon+%22equal+tax%22&btnG=Google+Search) was a PDF from Cascade Policy Institute (http://www.cascadepolicy.org/..%5Cpdf%5Cfiscal%5CI_1010.pdf) calling it a "step backward in public finance". With your Libertarian platform, you might actually agree with that document. However, there's a bizarre digression having to do with affirmative action and race relations that somehow becomes analogous to part of the objections ... we can go through that if it becomes important.

This guy, Walter Huss (http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/may1998/guide/rcan/gov/husswa.htm), is the very strange individual who presented the tax; my father had heard of him somewhere so we dropped by one of his meetings as he worked toward the ballot. He was definitely a weird guy, but even removed from the 90's glitz of Clintonian America, the idea has potential to be workable.

Of course, I could be wrong; I've found a 1998 Willamette Week (http://www.wweek.com/html/fed.state050698.html) article that refers to the plan as a "bad sci-fi novel". I just remember that it sounded good back around 1994 or so when I first heard of it.
So I'm almost extreme left?Mayhaps. But military spending and a large state security structure aren't exactly anarchic or leftist. But my anarchism comes largely from the American post-Haymarket movement: Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre, and others. Large military and security structures, no matter how well-intentioned, don't fly well in those circles. I'm also a fan of Lysander Spooner's "Vices Are Not Crimes" (http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/ls-vanc.htm), though the copy at Anarchy Archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/) is 404 at the moment, so I've linked another.

One of the great problems of Anarchism, of course, being that for all its acuity in viewing the problems, its solutions remain ineffable if they exist at all.

And the death penalty thing ... not a leftist thing at all.

Like I said, you need a second axis by which you might measure your Libertarian platform.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

re 'we dont force people to buy the govenments..........."

Ohh K I get it. Sometimes my old brain is a little slow.:)

Saddam made the same point when he exhorted omnipotence by modifying the flag of Iraq. Perhaps it would be more honest if America did the same, and added in flowing script "F__k with us and you're bug food" across the stripes of Old Glory.