[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]kingkong0124LOL dude, i despise him too, that was just classless though. It's the only way to demoralize Islamic extremists like OP.
MUSLIMS in London armed with Muslamic ray guns **BREAKING NEWS**
This topic is locked from further discussion.
MrPraline - "Suddenly?"
oh wait.....
lmao BossPerson
LOL <3ghoklebutter
lmfao
Optical_Order
there we go.
[QUOTE="GrayF0X786"]MrPraline?
[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] LOLPWSteal_Ldpinchdude, i despise him too, that was just classless though. It's the only way to demoralize Islamic extremists like OP. no it just shows how desperate and far you have to go to just hurt me. lol
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]lol. define 'extremist'BossPersonCAIR, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Qulliam Foundation, The Muslim Canadian Congress, Tariq Ramadan, Edward Said, Rashis Khalidi, should I go on?The only extremists you mentioned were Hamas and Hezbollah. I wont engage you on that since you are insane enough to think that the Muslims canadian congress and Rashid Khalidi are muslims extremists (laughable, really). But people in Hezbollah and Hamas should be arrested not gathered up and shot The former head of the MCC said that all Israelis are legitimate targets for murder, citing Israel's mandatory national service. Rashid Khalidi is a staunch anti-Zionist and historical revisionist who provides "intellectual" cover for terrorism. That is quite extreme. Although the MCC and Rashid Khalidi aren't out there with an AK-47 and planning the next mass murder operation, they provide the political and "intellectual" cover for these movements. You think all Russian-communists picked up arms and fought in 1917-1919? There are many dimensions to extremism, and you play into their game when you start accepting some of them as non-extremists.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="kraychik"] CAIR, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Qulliam Foundation, The Muslim Canadian Congress, Tariq Ramadan, Edward Said, Rashis Khalidi, should I go on?kraychikThe only extremists you mentioned were Hamas and Hezbollah. I wont engage you on that since you are insane enough to think that the Muslims canadian congress and Rashid Khalidi are muslims extremists (laughable, really). But people in Hezbollah and Hamas should be arrested not gathered up and shotThe former head of the MCC said that all Israelis are legitimate targets for murder, citing Israel's mandatory national service. Rashid Khalidi is a staunch anti-Zionist and historical revisionist who provides "intellectual" cover for terrorism. That is quite extreme. Although the MCC and Rashid Khalidi aren't out there with an AK-47 and planning the next mass murder operation, they provide the political and "intellectual" cover for these movements. You think all Russian-communists picked up arms and fought in 1917-1919? There are many dimensions to extremism, and you play into their game when you start accepting some of them as non-extremists. well ill look into the MCC, but even then, those are more fundamentalists/racists/idiots. I consider an extremist someone willing to pick up an rpg as opposed to a fundamentalist, someone who is just living in 700 AD
The former head of the MCC said that all Israelis are legitimate targets for murder, citing Israel's mandatory national service. Rashid Khalidi is a staunch anti-Zionist and historical revisionist who provides "intellectual" cover for terrorism. That is quite extreme. Although the MCC and Rashid Khalidi aren't out there with an AK-47 and planning the next mass murder operation, they provide the political and "intellectual" cover for these movements. You think all Russian-communists picked up arms and fought in 1917-1919? There are many dimensions to extremism, and you play into their game when you start accepting some of them as non-extremists. well ill look into the MCC, but even then, those are more fundamentalists/racists/idiots. I consider an extremist someone willing to pick up an rpg as opposed to a fundamentalist, someone who is just living in 700 AD The world is much more black and white than you like to think it is. Perhaps you're self-indulging your ego when you pretend to be able to grasp all the nuances and degrees of this or that idea or movement or concept, but on many issues there is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Even in the leftist-dominated political culture of Canada, the views of the MCC and Rashid Khalidi would be seen as extreme (if you believe that extremism is context-based and relative). You probably have some misplaced sympathies rooted in your Arabic background. You need more deprogramming. Again, extremism has both violent actors as well as "intellectual" thought-leaders. They have a synergistic relationship.[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]The only extremists you mentioned were Hamas and Hezbollah. I wont engage you on that since you are insane enough to think that the Muslims canadian congress and Rashid Khalidi are muslims extremists (laughable, really). But people in Hezbollah and Hamas should be arrested not gathered up and shotBossPerson
It's the only way to demoralize Islamic extremists like OP. no it just shows how desperate and far you have to go to just hurt me. lol It's not just for you. I was hoping others like you would get offended as well.[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"] dude, i despise him too, that was just classless though. GrayF0X786
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]well ill look into the MCC, but even then, those are more fundamentalists/racists/idiots. I consider an extremist someone willing to pick up an rpg as opposed to a fundamentalist, someone who is just living in 700 AD The world is much more black and white than you like to think it is. Perhaps you're self-indulging your ego when you pretend to be able to grasp all the nuances and degrees of this or that idea or movement or concept, but on many issues there is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Even in the leftist-dominated political culture of Canada, the views of the MCC and Rashid Khalidi would be seen as extreme (if you believe that extremism is context-based and relative). You probably have some misplaced sympathies rooted in your Arabic background. You need more deprogramming. Again, extremism has both violent actors as well as "intellectual" thought-leaders. They have a synergistic relationship.Well you referenced the Qulliam foundation earlier. A search reveals that it is a group trying to "de-extremisize" Islam in Europe? How can that be an extremist group? Are the somehow trying to justify extremism?[QUOTE="kraychik"]The former head of the MCC said that all Israelis are legitimate targets for murder, citing Israel's mandatory national service. Rashid Khalidi is a staunch anti-Zionist and historical revisionist who provides "intellectual" cover for terrorism. That is quite extreme. Although the MCC and Rashid Khalidi aren't out there with an AK-47 and planning the next mass murder operation, they provide the political and "intellectual" cover for these movements. You think all Russian-communists picked up arms and fought in 1917-1919? There are many dimensions to extremism, and you play into their game when you start accepting some of them as non-extremists. kraychik
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]well ill look into the MCC, but even then, those are more fundamentalists/racists/idiots. I consider an extremist someone willing to pick up an rpg as opposed to a fundamentalist, someone who is just living in 700 ADBossPersonThe world is much more black and white than you like to think it is. Perhaps you're self-indulging your ego when you pretend to be able to grasp all the nuances and degrees of this or that idea or movement or concept, but on many issues there is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Even in the leftist-dominated political culture of Canada, the views of the MCC and Rashid Khalidi would be seen as extreme (if you believe that extremism is context-based and relative). You probably have some misplaced sympathies rooted in your Arabic background. You need more deprogramming. Again, extremism has both violent actors as well as "intellectual" thought-leaders. They have a synergistic relationship.Well you referenced the Qulliam foundation earlier. A search reveals that it is a group trying to "de-extremisize" Islam in Europe? How can that be an extremist group? Are the somehow trying to justify extremism? probably left leaning politically, so they're bad in his eyes. (i'm probably right aren't i)
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]well ill look into the MCC, but even then, those are more fundamentalists/racists/idiots. I consider an extremist someone willing to pick up an rpg as opposed to a fundamentalist, someone who is just living in 700 AD The world is much more black and white than you like to think it is. Perhaps you're self-indulging your ego when you pretend to be able to grasp all the nuances and degrees of this or that idea or movement or concept, but on many issues there is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Even in the leftist-dominated political culture of Canada, the views of the MCC and Rashid Khalidi would be seen as extreme (if you believe that extremism is context-based and relative). You probably have some misplaced sympathies rooted in your Arabic background. You need more deprogramming. Again, extremism has both violent actors as well as "intellectual" thought-leaders. They have a synergistic relationship. 1. the world isnt black and white, certainly not politically. 2. Canada is leftist? from what I know , it has a conservative government. 3. I dont think BossPerson needs any "deprogramming" due to his background, frankly I find him quite reasonable. as for those 2 you mentioned , I know little about them , but I dont consider the MCC anywhere near a threat as the salafists for instnace.[QUOTE="kraychik"]The former head of the MCC said that all Israelis are legitimate targets for murder, citing Israel's mandatory national service. Rashid Khalidi is a staunch anti-Zionist and historical revisionist who provides "intellectual" cover for terrorism. That is quite extreme. Although the MCC and Rashid Khalidi aren't out there with an AK-47 and planning the next mass murder operation, they provide the political and "intellectual" cover for these movements. You think all Russian-communists picked up arms and fought in 1917-1919? There are many dimensions to extremism, and you play into their game when you start accepting some of them as non-extremists. kraychik
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]well ill look into the MCC, but even then, those are more fundamentalists/racists/idiots. I consider an extremist someone willing to pick up an rpg as opposed to a fundamentalist, someone who is just living in 700 ADBossPersonThe world is much more black and white than you like to think it is. Perhaps you're self-indulging your ego when you pretend to be able to grasp all the nuances and degrees of this or that idea or movement or concept, but on many issues there is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Even in the leftist-dominated political culture of Canada, the views of the MCC and Rashid Khalidi would be seen as extreme (if you believe that extremism is context-based and relative). You probably have some misplaced sympathies rooted in your Arabic background. You need more deprogramming. Again, extremism has both violent actors as well as "intellectual" thought-leaders. They have a synergistic relationship.Well you referenced the Qulliam foundation earlier. A search reveals that it is a group trying to "de-extremisize" Islam in Europe? How can that be an extremist group? Are the somehow trying to justify extremism? I'm gonna fill you in on a little secret... sometimes organizations misrepresent themselves. You think you can judge the Quilliam Foundation by its self-description? Why not judge every product, service, individual, and organization that way? Let's just allow them to describe themselves in a line or two and trust them. You're not this stupid, so why are you saying such stupid things? Maybe it's the Arab in you. Hilariously, I saw videos of the head of the Quilliam Foundation (phony moderates) debating Anjem Choudhary, it was extremist vs. somewhat-less-of-an-extremist. It was funny, I tell you.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="kraychik"] The world is much more black and white than you like to think it is. Perhaps you're self-indulging your ego when you pretend to be able to grasp all the nuances and degrees of this or that idea or movement or concept, but on many issues there is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Even in the leftist-dominated political culture of Canada, the views of the MCC and Rashid Khalidi would be seen as extreme (if you believe that extremism is context-based and relative). You probably have some misplaced sympathies rooted in your Arabic background. You need more deprogramming. Again, extremism has both violent actors as well as "intellectual" thought-leaders. They have a synergistic relationship.kraychikWell you referenced the Qulliam foundation earlier. A search reveals that it is a group trying to "de-extremisize" Islam in Europe? How can that be an extremist group? Are the somehow trying to justify extremism? I'm gonna fill you in on a little secret... sometimes organizations misrepresent themselves. You think you can judge the Quilliam Foundation by its self-description? Why not judge every product, service, individual, and organization that way? Let's just allow them to describe themselves in a line or two and trust them. You're not this stupid, so why are you saying such stupid things? Maybe it's the Arab in you. Hilariously, I saw videos of the head of the Quilliam Foundation (phony moderates) debating Anjem Choudhary, it was extremist vs. somewhat-less-of-an-extremist. It was funny, I tell you.Lol @ "the Arab in me"
We somehow have predispositions to idiocy or stupidity?
Ok that's enough muslim threads for a while
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]well ill look into the MCC, but even then, those are more fundamentalists/racists/idiots. I consider an extremist someone willing to pick up an rpg as opposed to a fundamentalist, someone who is just living in 700 ADDarkman2007The world is much more black and white than you like to think it is. Perhaps you're self-indulging your ego when you pretend to be able to grasp all the nuances and degrees of this or that idea or movement or concept, but on many issues there is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Even in the leftist-dominated political culture of Canada, the views of the MCC and Rashid Khalidi would be seen as extreme (if you believe that extremism is context-based and relative). You probably have some misplaced sympathies rooted in your Arabic background. You need more deprogramming. Again, extremism has both violent actors as well as "intellectual" thought-leaders. They have a synergistic relationship. 1. the world isnt black and white, certainly not politically. 2. Canada is leftist? from what I know , it has a conservative government. 3. I dont think BossPerson needs any "deprogramming" due to his background, frankly I find him quite reasonable. as for those 2 you mentioned , I know little about them , but I dont consider the MCC anywhere near a threat as the salafists for instnace. So you think because Canada elected the Conservative Party to a majority government in the last election means Canada doesn't have a dominant leftist political culture? Interesting. You also think that a party which has the word "conservative" in it is automatically conservative? Also interesting. While the world isn't black and white, I'm saying it isn't nearly as nuanced and complex and leftists pretend it is. Overexaggeration of irrelevant minutes "issues" is a tool of obfuscation the left uses to shut down debate and evade core issues (costs and outcomes). Leftists love to portray conservatives as simplistic folks who see things in black and white terms, while they are more capable of grasping the complexity and nuances of this or that issue. It's ridiculous, and BossPerson is engaging in it, and from what I can see, BossPerson seems too smart to fall for that stupidity. Although BossPerson was dumb enough to support leftist policy self-entitled as "campaign finance reform"....
I'm gonna fill you in on a little secret... sometimes organizations misrepresent themselves. You think you can judge the Quilliam Foundation by its self-description? Why not judge every product, service, individual, and organization that way? Let's just allow them to describe themselves in a line or two and trust them. You're not this stupid, so why are you saying such stupid things? Maybe it's the Arab in you. Hilariously, I saw videos of the head of the Quilliam Foundation (phony moderates) debating Anjem Choudhary, it was extremist vs. somewhat-less-of-an-extremist. It was funny, I tell you.Lol @ "the Arab in me"[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]Well you referenced the Qulliam foundation earlier. A search reveals that it is a group trying to "de-extremisize" Islam in Europe? How can that be an extremist group? Are the somehow trying to justify extremism?BossPerson
We somehow have predispositions to idiocy or stupidity?
Look it's a joke.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"] The world is much more black and white than you like to think it is. Perhaps you're self-indulging your ego when you pretend to be able to grasp all the nuances and degrees of this or that idea or movement or concept, but on many issues there is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Even in the leftist-dominated political culture of Canada, the views of the MCC and Rashid Khalidi would be seen as extreme (if you believe that extremism is context-based and relative). You probably have some misplaced sympathies rooted in your Arabic background. You need more deprogramming. Again, extremism has both violent actors as well as "intellectual" thought-leaders. They have a synergistic relationship.kraychik1. the world isnt black and white, certainly not politically. 2. Canada is leftist? from what I know , it has a conservative government. 3. I dont think BossPerson needs any "deprogramming" due to his background, frankly I find him quite reasonable. as for those 2 you mentioned , I know little about them , but I dont consider the MCC anywhere near a threat as the salafists for instnace. So you think because Canada elected the Conservative Party to a majority government in the last election means Canada doesn't have a dominant leftist political culture? Interesting. You also think that a party which has the word "conservative" in it is automatically conservative? Also interesting. While the world isn't black and white, I'm saying it isn't nearly as nuanced and complex and leftists pretend it is. Overexaggeration of irrelevant minutes "issues" is a tool of obfuscation the left uses to shut down debate and evade core issues (costs and outcomes). Leftists love to portray conservatives as simplistic folks who see things in black and white terms, while they are more capable of grasping the complexity and nuances of this or that issue. It's ridiculous, and BossPerson is engaging in it, and from what I can see, BossPerson seems too smart to fall for that stupidity. Although BossPerson was dumb enough to support leftist policy self-entitled as "campaign finance reform"....No outside money in campaigns from corporations or unions or w/e. Everyone gets an equal avenue to shout their message, those with the best message get the best traction. Sound stupid?
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]Well you referenced the Qulliam foundation earlier. A search reveals that it is a group trying to "de-extremisize" Islam in Europe? How can that be an extremist group? Are the somehow trying to justify extremism?Darkman2007I'm gonna fill you in on a little secret... sometimes organizations misrepresent themselves. You think you can judge the Quilliam Foundation by its self-description? Why not judge every product, service, individual, and organization that way? Let's just allow them to describe themselves in a line or two and trust them. You're not this stupid, so why are you saying such stupid things? Maybe it's the Arab in you. Hilariously, I saw videos of the head of the Quilliam Foundation (phony moderates) debating Anjem Choudhary, it was extremist vs. somewhat-less-of-an-extremist. It was funny, I tell you. I dont know if id call them extreme, more like stupid they claim that more democracy in the Arab world will combat Islamism , when I would have thought they would have known that if anything, democracy will bring the Islamists to power. Call it whatever you want. Again, this is the difference between a horrible decision being rooted in malice and evil, or a horrible decision being rooted in stupidity and ignorance (most leftists). Democracy could world in the Middle East and other Muslim-majority countries if it's a REAL democracy, not just majority-rule. Real democracy is more than just allowing 51% of the population to murder the other 49%, right?
So you think because Canada elected the Conservative Party to a majority government in the last election means Canada doesn't have a dominant leftist political culture? Interesting. You also think that a party which has the word "conservative" in it is automatically conservative? Also interesting. While the world isn't black and white, I'm saying it isn't nearly as nuanced and complex and leftists pretend it is. Overexaggeration of irrelevant minutes "issues" is a tool of obfuscation the left uses to shut down debate and evade core issues (costs and outcomes). Leftists love to portray conservatives as simplistic folks who see things in black and white terms, while they are more capable of grasping the complexity and nuances of this or that issue. It's ridiculous, and BossPerson is engaging in it, and from what I can see, BossPerson seems too smart to fall for that stupidity. Although BossPerson was dumb enough to support leftist policy self-entitled as "campaign finance reform"....No outside money in campaigns from corporations or unions or w/e. Everyone gets an equal avenue to shout their message, those with the best message get the best traction. Sound stupid? Incredibly stupid. And incredibly hypocritical. First of all, it's none of your business what someone does with his or her money, whether or not it's a corporation (a legal person) or union. When you tell Hollywood that they can't spend money on leftist films and the news to not propagandise its viewers with leftist political narratives you'll be less of a hypocrite. Everything is political, and your desire to control how money is spent directly by private individuals or entities directly and indirectly towards political objectives while ignoring the very same thing going on from Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Rob Reiner, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Oliver Stone and his son, and endless other examples illustrated your simplicity and hypocrisy.[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] 1. the world isnt black and white, certainly not politically. 2. Canada is leftist? from what I know , it has a conservative government. 3. I dont think BossPerson needs any "deprogramming" due to his background, frankly I find him quite reasonable. as for those 2 you mentioned , I know little about them , but I dont consider the MCC anywhere near a threat as the salafists for instnace.BossPerson
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]No outside money in campaigns from corporations or unions or w/e. Everyone gets an equal avenue to shout their message, those with the best message get the best traction. Sound stupid? Incredibly stupid. And incredibly hypocritical. First of all, it's none of your business what someone does with his or her money, whether or not it's a corporation (a legal person) or union. When you tell Hollywood that they can't spend money on leftist films and the news to not propagandise its viewers with leftist political narratives you'll be less of a hypocrite. Everything is political, and your desire to control how money is spent directly by private individuals or entities directly and indirectly towards political objectives while ignoring the very same thing going on from Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Rob Reiner, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Oliver Stone and his son, and endless other examples illustrated your simplicity and hypocrisy. It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash. And your fooling yourself if you think hollywood liberals compensate for the hundreds of millions coming from big oil and wall street (who also fund the democrats as well) Its limiting freedom of speech for a greater cause. Not all rights are absolute. We cant live life by what we read on paper, we have to make real decisions looking at real variables. Its the same reason why pure capitalism or communism leads to self destruction.[QUOTE="kraychik"] So you think because Canada elected the Conservative Party to a majority government in the last election means Canada doesn't have a dominant leftist political culture? Interesting. You also think that a party which has the word "conservative" in it is automatically conservative? Also interesting. While the world isn't black and white, I'm saying it isn't nearly as nuanced and complex and leftists pretend it is. Overexaggeration of irrelevant minutes "issues" is a tool of obfuscation the left uses to shut down debate and evade core issues (costs and outcomes). Leftists love to portray conservatives as simplistic folks who see things in black and white terms, while they are more capable of grasping the complexity and nuances of this or that issue. It's ridiculous, and BossPerson is engaging in it, and from what I can see, BossPerson seems too smart to fall for that stupidity. Although BossPerson was dumb enough to support leftist policy self-entitled as "campaign finance reform"....kraychik
"It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash"
I completely agree with you. Elections should not be based on who can throw around the most money - should be limits set.
Edit:http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/election-spending/party-campaign-expenditure
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]No outside money in campaigns from corporations or unions or w/e. Everyone gets an equal avenue to shout their message, those with the best message get the best traction. Sound stupid?BossPersonIncredibly stupid. And incredibly hypocritical. First of all, it's none of your business what someone does with his or her money, whether or not it's a corporation (a legal person) or union. When you tell Hollywood that they can't spend money on leftist films and the news to not propagandise its viewers with leftist political narratives you'll be less of a hypocrite. Everything is political, and your desire to control how money is spent directly by private individuals or entities directly and indirectly towards political objectives while ignoring the very same thing going on from Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Rob Reiner, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Oliver Stone and his son, and endless other examples illustrated your simplicity and hypocrisy. It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash. And your fooling yourself if you think hollywood liberals compensate for the hundreds of millions coming from big oil and wall street (who also fund the democrats as well) Its limiting freedom of speech for a greater cause. Not all rights are absolute. We cant live life by what we read on paper, we have to make real decisions looking at real variables. Its the same reason why pure capitalism or communism leads to self destruction. are political parties in Canada really allowed to recieve any donation they want from anybody? no limits?
Yea, limits on expenditure would be wise as well. Without it, elections essentially descend into huge PR/ advertising campaigns like what you see in the US. The actual issues are barely discussed, especially in mainstream media."It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash"
I completely agree with you. Elections should not be based on who can throw around the most money - should be limits set.
Edit:http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/election-spending/party-campaign-expenditure
Ravensmash
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]No outside money in campaigns from corporations or unions or w/e. Everyone gets an equal avenue to shout their message, those with the best message get the best traction. Sound stupid?BossPersonIncredibly stupid. And incredibly hypocritical. First of all, it's none of your business what someone does with his or her money, whether or not it's a corporation (a legal person) or union. When you tell Hollywood that they can't spend money on leftist films and the news to not propagandise its viewers with leftist political narratives you'll be less of a hypocrite. Everything is political, and your desire to control how money is spent directly by private individuals or entities directly and indirectly towards political objectives while ignoring the very same thing going on from Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Rob Reiner, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Oliver Stone and his son, and endless other examples illustrated your simplicity and hypocrisy. It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash. And your fooling yourself if you think hollywood liberals compensate for the hundreds of millions coming from big oil and wall street (who also fund the democrats as well) Its limiting freedom of speech for a greater cause. Not all rights are absolute. We cant live life by what we read on paper, we have to make real decisions looking at real variables. Its the same reason why pure capitalism or communism leads to self destruction. I knew you believed the lie of money elections, which is a typical leftist narrative (despite the Democratic party consistently being the largest recipient of mega-donations from heavy-hitting lobbyists over the past few decades) to attack money and wealth, albeit hypocritically. If you believe that money buys elections (and it most certainly does not), it says two things about you. One, you have a contempt for the average person and view yourself as a higher-functioning individual that needs to protect those who don't know what it's in their best interests. You think that you, as well as other leftists, should police the messages spread in our society by controlling funding for political messages. That's just pure leftist arrogance, but that's fine, we're all used to it. Second, you actually think that money buys elections, which it doesn't. Imagine I gave you twice the money of Romney or Obama, would you win the election? Hell no. If you read Freakonomics, they shatter this myth by providing many examples of more highly-funded political campaigns losing, as well as indicating that for most donors, their perception of electability determines where they send their money. In other words, money follow succesful candidates, rather than your narrative of money BUILDING successful candidates. You've got the chicken-and-egg thing all mixed up. It's alright though, you can be forgiven considering you're just parroting the common wisdom (which is actually ignorance) that many leftists believe. Nice job ignoring the billions and billions of dollars spent by the left in the media (Hollywood and most news outlets) to sell a leftist message and pretending that there is any comparable amount of money and access to public opinion from "big oil and wall street".
But, elections aren't based on who has the most money. Elections are based on who gets the most votes. Don't you get that? Elections aren't auctions, as you're portraying them to be."It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash"
I completely agree with you. Elections should not be based on who can throw around the most money - should be limits set.
Edit:http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/election-spending/party-campaign-expenditure
Ravensmash
Typical right wing Muslims.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Incredibly stupid. And incredibly hypocritical. First of all, it's none of your business what someone does with his or her money, whether or not it's a corporation (a legal person) or union. When you tell Hollywood that they can't spend money on leftist films and the news to not propagandise its viewers with leftist political narratives you'll be less of a hypocrite. Everything is political, and your desire to control how money is spent directly by private individuals or entities directly and indirectly towards political objectives while ignoring the very same thing going on from Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Rob Reiner, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Oliver Stone and his son, and endless other examples illustrated your simplicity and hypocrisy. Darkman2007It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash. And your fooling yourself if you think hollywood liberals compensate for the hundreds of millions coming from big oil and wall street (who also fund the democrats as well) Its limiting freedom of speech for a greater cause. Not all rights are absolute. We cant live life by what we read on paper, we have to make real decisions looking at real variables. Its the same reason why pure capitalism or communism leads to self destruction. are political parties in Canada really allowed to recieve any donation they want from anybody? no limits?
If I recall correctly, and I should, the current contribution limit from an individual in Canada to a political candidates is $1200. It's stupid and immoral, but it's the law.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash. And your fooling yourself if you think hollywood liberals compensate for the hundreds of millions coming from big oil and wall street (who also fund the democrats as well) Its limiting freedom of speech for a greater cause. Not all rights are absolute. We cant live life by what we read on paper, we have to make real decisions looking at real variables. Its the same reason why pure capitalism or communism leads to self destruction. BossPersonare political parties in Canada really allowed to recieve any donation they want from anybody? no limits?No, in America they are for the most part. They receive unlimited money to entities called "superpacs" which are technically supposed to be independent of the political campaign, but in reality, they do all the dirty work for the campaign (negative advertising). And they can receive unlimited funds and their donors dont have to be revealed until after the campaign if im not mistaken. Although in Canada, Harper has previously proposed cutting government funding of elections. Since rich companies and people almost always support the right (for economic reasons obviously) you can guess who would win in a situation like that. heh , using money to change the political landscape is pretty low, in Israel the law prohibits anyone from donating more than 1900 shekels to any party (thats about 500 US dollars), and corporations are banned from donating altogether. parties get their funding from the government directly based on how many seats they have in the Knesset (and they have to allow the public and the state watchdog access to the list of donations) of course there is still alot of backscratching on the part of the civil service.
are political parties in Canada really allowed to recieve any donation they want from anybody? no limits?[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash. And your fooling yourself if you think hollywood liberals compensate for the hundreds of millions coming from big oil and wall street (who also fund the democrats as well) Its limiting freedom of speech for a greater cause. Not all rights are absolute. We cant live life by what we read on paper, we have to make real decisions looking at real variables. Its the same reason why pure capitalism or communism leads to self destruction. kraychik
If I recall correctly, and I should, the current contribution limit from an individual in Canada to a political candidates is $1200. It's stupid and immoral, but it's the law.
I actually think its a smart idea, anyone should be free to contribute, but Id rather have politics dictated by politics, not money.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash. And your fooling yourself if you think hollywood liberals compensate for the hundreds of millions coming from big oil and wall street (who also fund the democrats as well) Its limiting freedom of speech for a greater cause. Not all rights are absolute. We cant live life by what we read on paper, we have to make real decisions looking at real variables. Its the same reason why pure capitalism or communism leads to self destruction. BossPersonare political parties in Canada really allowed to recieve any donation they want from anybody? no limits?No, in America they are for the most part. They receive unlimited money to entities called "superpacs" which are technically supposed to be independent of the political campaign, but in reality, they do all the dirty work for the campaign (negative advertising). And they can receive unlimited funds and their donors dont have to be revealed until after the campaign if im not mistaken. Although in Canada, Harper has previously proposed cutting government funding of elections. Since rich companies and people almost always support the right (for economic reasons obviously) you can guess who would win in a situation like that. What about CBS's "memogate/Rathergate" scandal with the false hit-piece against Bush accusing him of being AWOL from his military service for a year weeks before the election? Was that "dirty work"? You live in a dreamland where you think political speech should only be controlled if it comes from "big oil and wall street". It's also a lie that "rich companies" overwhelmingly support the right. It is in the interests of megacorporations to have extensive regulations to protect them from competitors and make it more difficult for new entries into the market, which is something the left can be expected to deliver. In the context of Canada, consider that CRTC protects the major telecommunication firms from foreign competition, while hurting the Canadian consumer. That's a product of leftism. You think these companies will fund politicians who want to dismantle the CRTC?
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] are political parties in Canada really allowed to recieve any donation they want from anybody? no limits?Darkman2007
If I recall correctly, and I should, the current contribution limit from an individual in Canada to a political candidates is $1200. It's stupid and immoral, but it's the law.
I actually think its a smart idea, anyone should be free to contribute, but Id rather have politics dictated by politics, not money. Politics isn't dictated by money, though. That's a leftist mythology. How can you be so arrogant to think that people are so stupid as to be brainwashed by well-funded campaigns? Why don't we give the Nazi Party a hundred billion dollars to campaign in Canada and see how far they get? If your narrative is true, and it most certainly isn't and is actually demonstrably false, then better-funded campaigns will always win.[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]But, elections aren't based on who has the most money. Elections are based on who gets the most votes. Don't you get that? Elections aren't auctions, as you're portraying them to be. Elections are also based upon campaigning for votes. Campaigning costs money, and as such someone with less money is at a distinct disadvantage than someone who throws millions 24/7 in order to smear their opponents, glorify their policies, or swerve popular opinion towards their line of thinking."It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash"
I completely agree with you. Elections should not be based on who can throw around the most money - should be limits set.
Edit:http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/election-spending/party-campaign-expenditure
kraychik
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash. And your fooling yourself if you think hollywood liberals compensate for the hundreds of millions coming from big oil and wall street (who also fund the democrats as well) Its limiting freedom of speech for a greater cause. Not all rights are absolute. We cant live life by what we read on paper, we have to make real decisions looking at real variables. Its the same reason why pure capitalism or communism leads to self destruction. BossPersonI knew you believed the lie of money elections, which is a typical leftist narrative (despite the Democratic party consistently being the largest recipient of mega-donations from heavy-hitting lobbyists over the past few decades) to attack money and wealth, albeit hypocritically. If you believe that money buys elections (and it most certainly does not), it says two things about you. One, you have a contempt for the average person and view yourself as a higher-functioning individual that needs to protect those who don't know what it's in their best interests. You think that you, as well as other leftists, should police the messages spread in our society by controlling funding for political messages. That's just pure leftist arrogance, but that's fine, we're all used to it. Second, you actually think that money buys elections, which it doesn't. Imagine I gave you twice the money of Romney or Obama, would you win the election? Hell no. If you read Freakonomics, they shatter this myth by providing many examples of more highly-funded political campaigns losing, as well as indicating that for most donors, their perception of electability determines where they send their money. In other words, money follow succesful candidates, rather than your narrative of money BUILDING successful candidates. You've got the chicken-and-egg thing all mixed up. It's alright though, you can be forgiven considering you're just parroting the common wisdom (which is actually ignorance) that many leftists believe. Nice job ignoring the billions and billions of dollars spent by the left in the media (Hollywood and most news outlets) to sell a leftist message and pretending that there is any comparable amount of money and access to public opinion from "big oil and wall street". The reason i wouldnt win even with 2 billion dollars is because nobody knows who I am. Money obviously buys election since it buys advertisements. Whether or not it is marxist to assume that the average person is a dumb sheep; the fact of the matter is money makes you speak louder. While I would love to believe all people are rational and free thinking and can see through advertisements and look up the issues for themselves (on the internet since mainstream media is an abomination [all of them]), the truth is the average person is not that smart. Call me a marxist if you want to, thats the truth. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html And frankly, this is not even an attack on the right, I dont care if hollywood liberals spend 3times as much as business guys and corporations, its a perversion of democracy. You seem to think I follow the democrat-republican narrative. IMO they are both disgraces to American democracy. Its also the revolving door in washington that needs to be shut. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-19/siemens-hires-former-afghanistan-commander-stanley-mcchrystal.html Like I said, your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is demonstrably false. Moreover, your attitude that money builds candidates and campaigns rather than the other way around is also demonstrably false. You think Obama won the 2008 election because he had much more money to campaign than McCain, or did money go to Obama because more people thought he was the better candidate? It's a sick mentality to control how people can spend their money and express themselves, which is one of the most basic liberties in a free society. As a leftist, though, of course you don't respect this. No matter how many times you try to parrot the leftist narrative of money determining outcomes, it'll never be true. I could give you ten times the campaign budget of Obama and Romney and you wouldn't even come *close* to winning the American Presidency, which shatters your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes. Like I said, your position is stupid and hypocritical, especially considering you rambled about "big oil and Wall Street" while ignoring all the leftist money spend in the news and Hollywood to perpetuate the leftist political narrative. We need MORE money in politics, not less. Let people express themselves as much as they are willing to.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"]But, elections aren't based on who has the most money. Elections are based on who gets the most votes. Don't you get that? Elections aren't auctions, as you're portraying them to be. Elections are also based upon campaigning for votes. Campaigning costs money, and as such someone with less money is at a distinct disadvantage than someone who throws millions 24/7 in order to smear their opponents, glorify their policies, or swerve popular opinion towards their line of thinking. Yes, campaigning costs money. But people donate to candidates they believe have a chance of winning and candidates they believe in. They won't give money to losers. It's like I've already said, money follows successful politicians, while leftists like you think that money BUILDS successful politicians. You have the chicken-and-egg mixed up. We need only look at the Republican primaries to see how Santorum was vastly outspent by Romney is certain states yet did exceptionally well."It is my business if those funding politicians are getting special favours from them. Is it really democratic when the person with the most money wins 9/10 times (something I believe McCain said himself, look for it if you want to). I think the person with the best message should win, not the person with the most cash"
I completely agree with you. Elections should not be based on who can throw around the most money - should be limits set.
Edit:http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/election-spending/party-campaign-expenditure
Ravensmash
From http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/
LEVITT:When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It?s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we?re talking about really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote.
What Levitt?s study suggests is that money doesn?t necessarily cause a candidate to win ? but, rather, that the kind of candidate who?s attractive to voters also ends up attracting a lot of money. So winning an election and raising moneydogo together, just as rain and umbrellas go together. But umbrellas don?t cause the rain. And it doesn?t seem as if money really causes electoral victories either, at least not nearly to the extent that the conventional wisdom says.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment