No, you can't, because that would involve reading their minds. Unless you mean situations where the person explicitly states their political positions, but in that case, everyone who can read can discern who's who, too. There is no one way that individuals in any group behave.
That's part of the faculty of judgement. If you accept that one cannot make a judgement, then you volunteer insanity.
Has it ever occurred to you that just because you hate someone on one "side," that doesn't mean you're part of the Other Side?
Hate? I don't hate anyone. I hate what some people do. But hating strangers? Not my thing. And people who are leftist do often turn around and become decent human beings. I was a leftist myself when I was far less experience, less educated and more reactionary. Now that my faculties are more developed, I can discern rationally who's who. But that doesn't mean that certain postures that people take don't deserve denigration and derision. When the insane have taken the asylum, it's not a very good time to try to analyze them. First, they need to be stripped of power.
Um, the war is what we are talking about and it and most people now think it was a mistake. Bush owns that legacy. There would have been no Obama and Affordable health care act without it, so you can thank the Iraq war supporters for that. And it was Bush who signed the law. I'm a libertarian and I was against all that from day one.
I was talking about the war. The monetary cost of the war was a side issue brought by someone else and I simply responded to it. Anyone who thinks the war was a mistake doesn't get to brush it off as "everyone thinks it was a mistake". Just Bush gets to own that policy, you get to own your position. You have to have a damn good reason to justify status quo as it before the war. Oh, and the original comment to which I responded called it a war crime to even start that war (not a mistake -- a crime). I would love to see anyone try to defend that position.
I don't recall a wartime ally of Iraq attacking our naval base in Hawaii.
Not in Hawaii. no. But he was allied with Al Queda. He may have had nothing to do with attack on 9/11, but his allies did. Just like the allies of Germany attacked us. And Saddam Hussein was in a legal state of war with the United States, so the "Germany had declared war" comparison still holds.
Saddam Hussein had declared war on the United States. He even tried to assassinate a US President. Oh, and if "declared war" is a justification for invasion, does that mean that Hitler was justified in invading France? France did issue a formal declaration of war a year before Hitler's invasion. The truth is that our war on Iraq was just as if not more justified than our war on Germany. He was allied with our enemies, he took steps to harm us and our allies. He wasn't successful as much as we thought he was, but he was on a war path against us. And had he not been removed, no one knows where we would be today.
That's a lie. Plain a simple. The TARP was passed under Bush. The stimulus was passed in the 2nd month of the Obama administration. It was passed by Criminal Democrats in House and Senate and signed by the Criminal Democratic President. This theft was entirely guilt of the Criminal Democratic Party.
The more important issue is that over 100K Iraqis died, with 4486 US soldiers dead and 32,223 wounded. And for what? We now have another dictator and Badgad is #1 on the most violent city list.
Different topic. A war gone badly is a mistake -- not a crime. But you simply don't know what the alternative would have been. Saddam was taking shots at US fighter planes all throughout the Clinton administration. You simply don't know that keeping him in power would not have proven more costly (in terms of lives) than what has happened. The was didn't turn a good situation into a bad one. It turned a bad situation into a different bad situation. But before calling it a mistake you'd have to show that the alternative would have been better.
You seem happy that we borrowed money from China to make Iran stronger, but the 90% who supported the war at the time is smarter now.
Your ability to read my from internet comments is unsurprisingly bad. But I don't blame you for it. Mood is hard to read from text for everyone -- not just you. The war went badly, sure. Rumsfeld should have been fired much sooner. But it wasn't costly considering what it did. And it certainly was not a crime considering what it attempted and what it accomplished.
Bush increased the debt by about 5 trillion in his two terms.
4.3 trillion. And he had to fight a war and deal with post-dot-com crash of the economy. And that 4.3 trillion included the 700+ billion of the bank bail out that both Obama and Hillary voted for (as senators).
They didn't have a budget. Obama assumed office in early 2009 and began work on implementing his policies
Are you really taking everyone to be an idiot? Does this idiotic, factually wrong, argument ever work on anyone? Here, idiot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
This was a spending act over and above the budget. It was passed under Obama in his 2nd month in office. It was entirely financed through deficit. It was 831 billion dollars. That alone is twice the largest deficit that Bush had ever ran (400 billion dollars).
who is this "we"? You and the other leftists in your remedial reading class? Leftist dumb ass... oh, but I repeat myself.. don't worry it's for your benefit. You know... so that an idiot like you might have a chance at understanding.
No, actually the Iraq war was very economical in monetary terms. The entire cost of the war FOR ALL THE YEARS is less than the "stimulus" that Democrats stole under Obama in the 1st year of Obama administration.
The deficit has been reduced by more than half in 6 years. The national debt has increased greatly, because of the huge deficit which Obama inherited from Bush.
No, it hasn't. Even the smallest of Obama's deficits is larger than the largest Bush deficit. And tax receipts are highest in history, so it's not because of people not paying enough taxes. He is just too incompetent to do anything right (including managing government's finances).
The deficit has grown at the fastest pace though. And it's not because of the economy. Tax receipts are the highest in history and the deficits are the highest in history. You can't blame it on economy or on "Bush tax cuts" because tax receipts are the highest in history.
Removing Saddam Hussein from power was not a crime. Removing his regime from power was not a crime. As for the claim that it destabilized the region, you simply don't know that. You don't know what would have happen in the alternative. Allowing him to stay in power could have destabilized the region much, much more. You can't disprove that. I am not saying that you have to. But I am saying that you can't claim that the Bush administration produced a bad situation. There was already a bad situation. They produced one of the possible alternatives. You would have prove to me that the alternative of allowing him to stay in power would have been better for the region before you can claim that it was a mistake to remove him (much less a crime).
Just as United States had "no grounds" to remove Hitler from power. Nazi Germany did not attack the United States in Pearl Harbor. Did United States illegally fight the war against Nazi Germany, too? Everyone knew that it was Imperial Japan which attacked Pearl Harbor.
It was the combination of good cause and opportunity. Arguing that it was just an opportunity or just a good cause would produce an easily refutable argument. But having both good and opportunity together in one situation makes it a simply inexcusable not take action. Oh, and since it was a good cause calling it a crime against humanity is blatantly wrong.
I would love to see that trial. So you are trying me for removing from power Saddam Hussein, who gassed his own people, took shots at my county's air force, invaded his neighboring country. And those are crimes against humanity? What's next? Trying Eisenhower for killing employees of the Nazi Germany who were simply going about their business trying to solve their labor problems??
It's a political attack on a selected conservative group. Most former Russians in the US are conservative. This administration has already shown that they have no scruples in attacking their political enemies by using the instruments of state. This is just another example. You can accuse me of paranoia all you want, but Obama's entire election was done through Bayesian inference micro-targeting of special groups. Since Russian Jews are (almost overwhelmingly) Republican and well-educated, they represent a very target-rich environment for any leftist trying to smear the right.
I hear the Russians implanted someone as high as the owner of the company. And now you can use it for free anywhere in Russia. Theft. Plain and simple.
Mad. But then I was provoked. My point stands. Left is a tyranny. Obama is just being true to himself to those who elected him when he solidifies the power of the tyranny.
You are so ignorant, you don't know wtf you're talking about.
Oh, I know exactly what I am talking about. And you can try to get me to accept voluntary insanity all you want. But as much as absolute understanding is impossible, basic understanding is inevitable. And faculty of reasoning is based on abstractions which, by their nature, do not require full details but only underlying principles. And the natural logical conclusion of every left philosophy is tyranny. Left is a pro-tyranny philosophy. Show me a leftist and I'll show you a supporters of most tyrants in the world (if not a tyrant himself). Left is pro-crime, pro-slavery, anti-human, pro-insanity, pro-subjugation.... with a smile... a smog obnoxious condescending smile. And you can attempt to continue your assault on reason all you want. You can have people with funny hats or funny hair cuts or even funny beards telling you that insanity is inevitable or indistinguishable from sanity. But sanity not indistinguishable from insanity. And the fact that they haven't got a way to describe the difference between the two doesn't change the fact that the difference is there. And if you are really stupid enough to think that I don't understand the left, then you have not business talking. I get it. I just happen to know why it is flawed. It is not that I don't get the underlying assumptions of the left and disagree with it's conclusions. I get them. And they are wrong. They ultimately confuse cause and effect. And based on that confusion they try to view the world. That is why the left are always the ones attempting to get everyone to volunteer insanity. Because their view of the world is based on a wrong premise they can't make sense of the world despite their otherwise-well-developed faculty of deduction. But their insanity will not be mine. Oh, and "ignorant"? Fuck off.
Did you forget that YOU were the one that said "all leftist ideologies have always resulted in totalitarian dictatorships."?
No, I was the one who said it.... And the question remains. Do any of the members embrace a fully-leftist ideology? If they embrace a mix of leftist and market-based ideologies, then their regimes only become tyrannical in as much as the amount of leftist ideologies they accept.
Careysub provide a counter example to your statement to show that your statement was false.
No, he didn't. He didn't provide an example of any fully-leftest regime. The examples he provided are mixes of left and market-based regimes. That's why they didn't succumb to dictatorships.
Keep in mind that it was you who used the words "all" and "always".
And I was accurate. All lefitst regimes do. The most leftist a regime is, the more it tends towards tyranny. All fully-socialist regimes are tyrannies. Even Communist China is no longer fully Communist. That's why it is not a full tyranny anymore. Leftist ideology is abandoned of volition in favor of coercion. The only possible outcome of embracing that fully is a full totalitarian state. In as much as a regime does not embrace coercion and allows for cooperation of willing participants, such participation has to be accounted for with tokens of exchange (aka money). Without accounting of individuals' contributions, you quickly get non-cooperative members who live to take advantage of others and the whole thing descends into anarchy and collapses. Once the accounting is established, you have a market-based system which is not leftist by any means.
Or, are you going to go "no true scotsman"
It's not a true scotsman argument if I point out that they don't meat the hypothesis criteria without mentioning the conclusion criteria. If they are a mixed system of leftist and market-based philosophies, then they are not (by definition) fully leftist. How is that a no-true-scotsman-type argument? No mention of the conclusion was made in pointing that the criteria of the hypothesis were not met.
As for "and which member..." It's not up to us to prove your assertion for you.
No, but it is on you to prove that the criteria of the hypothesis were met if you wish to use as a counterexample.
He is clearly a leftist President. Left is pro-tyranny. It always has been. GW Bush was a "compassionate conservative" which was a code word for left-leaning conservative. Obama is full-on leftist. The only natural outcome of leftist philosophy is government control of as many aspects of citizens lives as possible. The more leftist they are, the more control they want. Obama is not stopping NSA because he is being true to who he is. He is not doing it despite of his world view. He is doing it because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can't, because that would involve reading their minds. Unless you mean situations where the person explicitly states their political positions, but in that case, everyone who can read can discern who's who, too. There is no one way that individuals in any group behave.
That's part of the faculty of judgement. If you accept that one cannot make a judgement, then you volunteer insanity.
Has it ever occurred to you that just because you hate someone on one "side," that doesn't mean you're part of the Other Side?
Hate? I don't hate anyone. I hate what some people do. But hating strangers? Not my thing. And people who are leftist do often turn around and become decent human beings. I was a leftist myself when I was far less experience, less educated and more reactionary. Now that my faculties are more developed, I can discern rationally who's who. But that doesn't mean that certain postures that people take don't deserve denigration and derision. When the insane have taken the asylum, it's not a very good time to try to analyze them. First, they need to be stripped of power.
Um, the war is what we are talking about and it and most people now think it was a mistake. Bush owns that legacy. There would have been no Obama and Affordable health care act without it, so you can thank the Iraq war supporters for that. And it was Bush who signed the law. I'm a libertarian and I was against all that from day one.
I was talking about the war. The monetary cost of the war was a side issue brought by someone else and I simply responded to it. Anyone who thinks the war was a mistake doesn't get to brush it off as "everyone thinks it was a mistake". Just Bush gets to own that policy, you get to own your position. You have to have a damn good reason to justify status quo as it before the war. Oh, and the original comment to which I responded called it a war crime to even start that war (not a mistake -- a crime). I would love to see anyone try to defend that position.
I don't recall a wartime ally of Iraq attacking our naval base in Hawaii.
Not in Hawaii. no. But he was allied with Al Queda. He may have had nothing to do with attack on 9/11, but his allies did. Just like the allies of Germany attacked us. And Saddam Hussein was in a legal state of war with the United States, so the "Germany had declared war" comparison still holds.
Saddam Hussein had declared war on the United States. He even tried to assassinate a US President. Oh, and if "declared war" is a justification for invasion, does that mean that Hitler was justified in invading France? France did issue a formal declaration of war a year before Hitler's invasion. The truth is that our war on Iraq was just as if not more justified than our war on Germany. He was allied with our enemies, he took steps to harm us and our allies. He wasn't successful as much as we thought he was, but he was on a war path against us. And had he not been removed, no one knows where we would be today.
That's a lie. Plain a simple. The TARP was passed under Bush. The stimulus was passed in the 2nd month of the Obama administration. It was passed by Criminal Democrats in House and Senate and signed by the Criminal Democratic President. This theft was entirely guilt of the Criminal Democratic Party.
The more important issue is that over 100K Iraqis died, with 4486 US soldiers dead and 32,223 wounded. And for what? We now have another dictator and Badgad is #1 on the most violent city list.
Different topic. A war gone badly is a mistake -- not a crime. But you simply don't know what the alternative would have been. Saddam was taking shots at US fighter planes all throughout the Clinton administration. You simply don't know that keeping him in power would not have proven more costly (in terms of lives) than what has happened. The was didn't turn a good situation into a bad one. It turned a bad situation into a different bad situation. But before calling it a mistake you'd have to show that the alternative would have been better.
You seem happy that we borrowed money from China to make Iran stronger, but the 90% who supported the war at the time is smarter now.
Your ability to read my from internet comments is unsurprisingly bad. But I don't blame you for it. Mood is hard to read from text for everyone -- not just you. The war went badly, sure. Rumsfeld should have been fired much sooner. But it wasn't costly considering what it did. And it certainly was not a crime considering what it attempted and what it accomplished.
Bush increased the debt by about 5 trillion in his two terms.
4.3 trillion. And he had to fight a war and deal with post-dot-com crash of the economy. And that 4.3 trillion included the 700+ billion of the bank bail out that both Obama and Hillary voted for (as senators).
They didn't have a budget. Obama assumed office in early 2009 and began work on implementing his policies
Are you really taking everyone to be an idiot? Does this idiotic, factually wrong, argument ever work on anyone? Here, idiot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... This was a spending act over and above the budget. It was passed under Obama in his 2nd month in office. It was entirely financed through deficit. It was 831 billion dollars. That alone is twice the largest deficit that Bush had ever ran (400 billion dollars).
who is this "we"? You and the other leftists in your remedial reading class? Leftist dumb ass... oh, but I repeat myself.. don't worry it's for your benefit. You know... so that an idiot like you might have a chance at understanding.
No, actually the Iraq war was very economical in monetary terms. The entire cost of the war FOR ALL THE YEARS is less than the "stimulus" that Democrats stole under Obama in the 1st year of Obama administration.
The deficit has been reduced by more than half in 6 years. The national debt has increased greatly, because of the huge deficit which Obama inherited from Bush.
No, it hasn't. Even the smallest of Obama's deficits is larger than the largest Bush deficit. And tax receipts are highest in history, so it's not because of people not paying enough taxes. He is just too incompetent to do anything right (including managing government's finances).
The deficit has grown at the fastest pace though. And it's not because of the economy. Tax receipts are the highest in history and the deficits are the highest in history. You can't blame it on economy or on "Bush tax cuts" because tax receipts are the highest in history.
Removing Saddam Hussein from power was not a crime. Removing his regime from power was not a crime. As for the claim that it destabilized the region, you simply don't know that. You don't know what would have happen in the alternative. Allowing him to stay in power could have destabilized the region much, much more. You can't disprove that. I am not saying that you have to. But I am saying that you can't claim that the Bush administration produced a bad situation. There was already a bad situation. They produced one of the possible alternatives. You would have prove to me that the alternative of allowing him to stay in power would have been better for the region before you can claim that it was a mistake to remove him (much less a crime).
Just as United States had "no grounds" to remove Hitler from power. Nazi Germany did not attack the United States in Pearl Harbor. Did United States illegally fight the war against Nazi Germany, too? Everyone knew that it was Imperial Japan which attacked Pearl Harbor.
It was the combination of good cause and opportunity. Arguing that it was just an opportunity or just a good cause would produce an easily refutable argument. But having both good and opportunity together in one situation makes it a simply inexcusable not take action. Oh, and since it was a good cause calling it a crime against humanity is blatantly wrong.
I would love to see that trial. So you are trying me for removing from power Saddam Hussein, who gassed his own people, took shots at my county's air force, invaded his neighboring country. And those are crimes against humanity? What's next? Trying Eisenhower for killing employees of the Nazi Germany who were simply going about their business trying to solve their labor problems??
It's a political attack on a selected conservative group. Most former Russians in the US are conservative. This administration has already shown that they have no scruples in attacking their political enemies by using the instruments of state. This is just another example. You can accuse me of paranoia all you want, but Obama's entire election was done through Bayesian inference micro-targeting of special groups. Since Russian Jews are (almost overwhelmingly) Republican and well-educated, they represent a very target-rich environment for any leftist trying to smear the right.
I hear the Russians implanted someone as high as the owner of the company. And now you can use it for free anywhere in Russia. Theft. Plain and simple.
And there should be have a law requiring Linus to backport everything to 2.2 and 2.4 kernels... in the interests of national security (or something).
Mad. But then I was provoked. My point stands. Left is a tyranny. Obama is just being true to himself to those who elected him when he solidifies the power of the tyranny.
You are so ignorant, you don't know wtf you're talking about.
Oh, I know exactly what I am talking about. And you can try to get me to accept voluntary insanity all you want. But as much as absolute understanding is impossible, basic understanding is inevitable. And faculty of reasoning is based on abstractions which, by their nature, do not require full details but only underlying principles. And the natural logical conclusion of every left philosophy is tyranny. Left is a pro-tyranny philosophy. Show me a leftist and I'll show you a supporters of most tyrants in the world (if not a tyrant himself). Left is pro-crime, pro-slavery, anti-human, pro-insanity, pro-subjugation.... with a smile... a smog obnoxious condescending smile. And you can attempt to continue your assault on reason all you want. You can have people with funny hats or funny hair cuts or even funny beards telling you that insanity is inevitable or indistinguishable from sanity. But sanity not indistinguishable from insanity. And the fact that they haven't got a way to describe the difference between the two doesn't change the fact that the difference is there. And if you are really stupid enough to think that I don't understand the left, then you have not business talking. I get it. I just happen to know why it is flawed. It is not that I don't get the underlying assumptions of the left and disagree with it's conclusions. I get them. And they are wrong. They ultimately confuse cause and effect. And based on that confusion they try to view the world. That is why the left are always the ones attempting to get everyone to volunteer insanity. Because their view of the world is based on a wrong premise they can't make sense of the world despite their otherwise-well-developed faculty of deduction. But their insanity will not be mine. Oh, and "ignorant"? Fuck off.
Did you forget that YOU were the one that said "all leftist ideologies have always resulted in totalitarian dictatorships."?
No, I was the one who said it.... And the question remains. Do any of the members embrace a fully-leftist ideology? If they embrace a mix of leftist and market-based ideologies, then their regimes only become tyrannical in as much as the amount of leftist ideologies they accept.
Careysub provide a counter example to your statement to show that your statement was false.
No, he didn't. He didn't provide an example of any fully-leftest regime. The examples he provided are mixes of left and market-based regimes. That's why they didn't succumb to dictatorships.
Keep in mind that it was you who used the words "all" and "always".
And I was accurate. All lefitst regimes do. The most leftist a regime is, the more it tends towards tyranny. All fully-socialist regimes are tyrannies. Even Communist China is no longer fully Communist. That's why it is not a full tyranny anymore. Leftist ideology is abandoned of volition in favor of coercion. The only possible outcome of embracing that fully is a full totalitarian state. In as much as a regime does not embrace coercion and allows for cooperation of willing participants, such participation has to be accounted for with tokens of exchange (aka money). Without accounting of individuals' contributions, you quickly get non-cooperative members who live to take advantage of others and the whole thing descends into anarchy and collapses. Once the accounting is established, you have a market-based system which is not leftist by any means.
Or, are you going to go "no true scotsman"
It's not a true scotsman argument if I point out that they don't meat the hypothesis criteria without mentioning the conclusion criteria. If they are a mixed system of leftist and market-based philosophies, then they are not (by definition) fully leftist. How is that a no-true-scotsman-type argument? No mention of the conclusion was made in pointing that the criteria of the hypothesis were not met.
As for "and which member ..." It's not up to us to prove your assertion for you.
No, but it is on you to prove that the criteria of the hypothesis were met if you wish to use as a counterexample.
He is clearly a leftist President. Left is pro-tyranny. It always has been. GW Bush was a "compassionate conservative" which was a code word for left-leaning conservative. Obama is full-on leftist. The only natural outcome of leftist philosophy is government control of as many aspects of citizens lives as possible. The more leftist they are, the more control they want. Obama is not stopping NSA because he is being true to who he is. He is not doing it despite of his world view. He is doing it because of it.
And which member of OECD has a fully socialist (rather than mixed) economy?