StarGateWars Forums

LegendaryApophis wrote:

Universe wrote:Radical Right To Parliament!

There's already enough of them...(there shouldn't be any >_<)
And also enough of their bs about holocaust being a minor detail in history, like if attempt of extermination of Jews was close to nothing.

pops as always has it all mixed up... attempt of extermination of jews was made by radical nationalist left. but true.. somehow nationalism is seen as "radical right" (even by nationalists themselves). but the right/left division applies to the views on the economy (left: more goverment intervention; righ: less goverment intervention). nationalism is nationalism. it's neither left nor right.

Mordack wrote:Yes to free trade, and greater economic co-operation during the recession.

And big fat no to anything which impacts British sovereignty and gives our own parliament less control of our own country.

*changes "british" to "irish"*
*agrees*

Grand Admiral Martin wrote:Europe needs to band together to get through this crisis.

I am for deepening and widening. The EU nation is not a fantasy. Just have to hope France/Germany keep moving things along.

*removes the grand admiral martin for taoiseach bar*


here's the truth about the eu (or how the brits (and others) got screwed)

here's how to fix things a bit

Corran Horn wrote:

LegendaryApophis wrote:

Universe wrote:Radical Right To Parliament!

There's already enough of them...(there shouldn't be any >_<)
And also enough of their bs about holocaust being a minor detail in history, like if attempt of extermination of Jews was close to nothing.

pops as always has it all mixed up... attempt of extermination of jews was made by radical nationalist left. but true.. somehow nationalism is seen as "radical right" (even by nationalists themselves). but the right/left division applies to the views on the economy (left: more goverment intervention; righ: less goverment intervention). nationalism is nationalism. it's neither left nor right.

/facepalms

I got all mixed up? Radical nationalist left? Are you really serious?
Far left are anticapitalists, how did Hitler fund his rise? German industrial capitalists who were blinded by him, thinking they could make him stop commies to come and prevent him to do more than this. In other words manipulate him. Can tell why far right in Europe was worshipping Hitler literally in those years eh?
Want to know a far left genocider? Pol Pot from Cambodgia. Against elites and intellectuals such as Mao. Hitler however assimilated (or tried) elites into his crap.

What's next? Mussolini and Franco were far left too?

Far right can be defined in Europe as: populism, nationalism, racism and/or xenophobism, eurosceptisism, anti-immigrationism (of *any* sort), libertarianism (economically far right) etc...

A dictatorship/totalitarianship is all about autoritarian power, so they need to control things...then comes ideology.

LegendaryApophis wrote:

Corran Horn wrote:

LegendaryApophis wrote:

Universe wrote:Radical Right To Parliament!

There's already enough of them...(there shouldn't be any >_<)
And also enough of their bs about holocaust being a minor detail in history, like if attempt of extermination of Jews was close to nothing.

pops as always has it all mixed up... attempt of extermination of jews was made by radical nationalist left. but true.. somehow nationalism is seen as "radical right" (even by nationalists themselves). but the right/left division applies to the views on the economy (left: more goverment intervention; righ: less goverment intervention). nationalism is nationalism. it's neither left nor right.

/facepalms

I got all mixed up? Radical nationalist left? Are you really serious?
course i'm serious. hitler was more left then right (unless you call "right" this "capitalism" we have nowdays )
Far left are anticapitalists, how did Hitler fund his rise? German industrial capitalists who were blinded by him, thinking they could make him stop commies to come and prevent him to do more than this. In other words manipulate him. Can tell why far right in Europe was worshipping Hitler literally in those years eh?
what "far right" europe?

Want to know a far left genocider? Pol Pot from Cambodgia.
wow! you've got this one right!
Against elites and intellectuals such as Mao.
aye. some intelectuals have poor intelects..
Hitler however assimilated (or tried) elites into his crap.

Far right can be defined in Europe as: populism, nationalism, racism and/or xenophobism, eurosceptisism, anti-immigrationism (of *any* sort), libertarianism (economically far right) etc...
all wrong.
if a goverment controls economy it moves to the left (towards communism). if it controls something else (religion, access to guns, immigration, etc) it moves "up" towards fascism. so theoretically one can have a fascist government with far right free market economy. so the first part of your list is not far-right, but far-up and libertarianism is far-down. you've got everything totally mixed up. you keep mixing left/right with up/down. what you dodn't like is "far-up" but somehow you keep calling it "far right"

A dictatorship/totalitarianship is all about autoritarian power, so they need to control things...then comes ideology.
democratic goverments also control things. sometimes they are more tyrannical than dictators. it's what they do with the power they have that counts. eu governments control their economies more than pinochet, which puts them further to the left than this dictator

http://www.politicalcompass.org

this explains why the world is so badly screwed up:


nobody in the right-bottom part, which happens to peacefully coexist with the laws governing human societies (and economies) as self-regulating systems in critical state.

btw: i don't liek that "neo liberalism" there. they got this one wrong.

What "far right" in Europe? People matching what I described, those guys doing nazi sign in other countries between 1936-1939 in public events.


Definition of Princeton dictionary for "far right":

reactionary: extremely conservative
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Wiki defining:

Usage

The term far right has been used by different scholars in conflicting ways.[2] The term far right is mostly used to describe fascism, Nazism and other ultra-nationalist as well as reactionary ideologies and movements.[3][4][5][6] The BBC has called politician Pim Fortuyn's politics (Fortuynism) far right because of his policies on immigration and Muslims.[7] The term far right has been used by some, such as National Public Radio, to describe certain authoritarian governments that promote free market capitalism, such as that of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.[8][9] Left-wing publication New Left Review has called Ronald Reagan's policies "radical right".[10] The term radical right has also been used to refer to "a libertarian movement which places the individual squarely in the center" and has "even attacked such sacred taboos as taxation".[11]


You limitate yourself to degrees of market relationship. As much as economy is important, politics are NOT ONLY that!
You are too specific in your approach of things. It's not only about market/economy relationship.

What I mean is...in an economist point of view, you would be correct, in a larger scale, it's different.

If far right was ONLY about free marketism extremism..they wouldn't be that much antagonized!

i'm not limiting. i'm clearing things up. 'cos some bunch of ppl uses the term in many different contexts 'cos it fits their goals (far-right = bad) creating this confusion. right/left should be used only in the context of economy (or there's not much difference between,let's say, me and mussolini, hitler and the likes). for the other political contexts there's new words needed (like up/down i'm using).

as for your dictionary definition. here's where it goes wrong (these guys are linguists not necessarily good at logical thinking):

far right: reactionary: extremely conservative

(n) conservative, conservativist (a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas)
(adj) conservative (resistant to change)

so assume the current idea is something totally opposite to fascism and now some fascist movement appears attempting to change the state of things.
according to this dictionary a far-right person would be a person reluctant to change the status quo, thus a person opposed to fascism.

yes.. words have power. confuse the meanings of words and brainwashing sheeple comes easy.


ah.. one more thing:
*places the individual squarely in the center and attacks the sacred taboo of taxation*

Corran Horn wrote:i'm not limiting. i'm clearing things up. 'cos some bunch of ppl uses the term in many different contexts 'cos it fits their goals (far-right = bad) creating this confusion. right/left should be used only in the context of economy (or there's not much difference between,let's say, me and mussolini, hitler and the likes). for the other political contexts there's new words needed (like up/down i'm using).

as for your dictionary definition. here's where it goes wrong (these guys are linguists not necessarily good at logical thinking):

far right: reactionary: extremely conservative

(n) conservative, conservativist (a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas)
(adj) conservative (resistant to change)

so assume the current idea is something totally opposite to fascism and now some fascist movement appears attempting to change the state of things.
according to this dictionary a far-right person would be a person reluctant to change the status quo, thus a person opposed to fascism.

yes.. words have power. confuse the meanings of words and brainwashing sheeple comes easy.


ah.. one more thing:
*places the individual squarely in the center and attacks the sacred taboo of taxation*

Strangely enough, some conservatives supported fully Hitler and Mussolini back in 30s. How can you explain that?

Awwww, dont we all love been victims of the utterly stupid & retarded Marshall plan. how wonderful

/sense the sarcasm

lol, facism=/= communism

the polarization of politics is retarded. And is a giant hurdle in allowing government to function properly.

But whatever it's europe, don't let me stop you political hooligans from flashing your colors.

Can someone finally explain me what is polarization of politics? (translation issue that is for me)

All powers (law, executive and parliament-like) in same hands?

If yes, it is I said already, regress.
(if the all powerful does it wrong, which is very likely, then there is NO WAYS to fix it, and then it's dooming, thus why concentration of powers is epic fail)
One person "killing" its country, and nobody able to do anything against it...why the hell anyone would want such political suicide? It's NAIVE to believe it would do good. Power corrupts, don't forget it. And this saying can be verified pretty easily when "power" tends to be important.

There comes explanation why it's an epic fail. Even though I felt it was obvious. But well, why not explain things to prevent mistakes? And to prove that I *indeed* have arguments to back my ideas.

People don't realize what chance they have to live in democracies. They forget that if they didn't, most of their actions/opinions/ideas etc would be impossible, if not forbidden, if not punished. Fact you can criticize your governement and policies is what many many people in this world would DREAM to have because they never had it, or at least lost those rights. It's a priviledge to live in UK, France, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, USA...because of governments we have. We can voice our opinions, vote for left, right, centre. We can publically support socialists in a conservative country, and conservatives in a socialist country. People not being in democracies cant. They get arrested and/or spied just because they are from opposition. That's what comes along with extremism, dictatorship, centralisation of powers, etc...

And hmmm don't count me in "political hooligans", I'm *much* better than that! (whatever are political hooligans lol)

Jack wrote:

LegendaryApophis wrote:Can someone finally explain me what is polarization of politics? (translation issue that is for me)

Basically, Pops, electing the extreme left and the extreme right to political office.

Ohhh that?

It's more a fail than I thought then! (centralising powers, don't know how I came with linking it to polarizing though )


Edit: Should I add that I insulted noone with this page posts, just criticized ideas/opinions?

polarizing in politics comes out of a dichotomy created amongst people and issues through a fixed association into political groups.
It creates a flase dichotomy among issues, because it takes different ideas, solutions, and stereotypes and seperates it into A or B; when maybe C would be a better/more accurate option.

No one will consider C though because it(or parts) doesnt jive with the political redorick associated with CAMP A or B. This can be overcome with comprimise or exacerbated through (what i call) The martyr philosophy.

e. i. Free trade vs protectionism kind of thing; One or the other kind of option that has been polarized with political BS. When actually a more aristotle approach works best in these times.

Now to quote an interesting and sorta on topic post:

Universe wrote:I'd support a European Federation.
Under the following conditions:


1. Founder Member States are awarded double voting rights in parliament decisions.
2. Founder Member States each have at least ONE Chair in the various EU Councils.
3. Schengen Treaty applies only to Founder States.
4. Further additions to the EU must meet strict economic and infrastructural requirements, and a unanimous vote from all Member States.
5. Province/County level administration overrules National or Federation administration, but are kept in check by Federal Commissariates.
6. The High Chancellor, 'President of the EU', will have complete executive powers as guaranteed and limited by the European Constitution.
7. The power of the High Chancellor is balanced by the European Parliament and the Grand Federal Court.
...

I agree with most of those.

I also would like to add, being a student in a "disadvantaged" country regarding university studies, European wide basic rules for university, not about programs, professors etc...but on how we enter in university.

European wide selective entry on rates and disappearance of "free" university (I mean, basic entry set to something acceptable). I don't mean everyone follows top UK universities at 30k/year, of course, just set "minimal" entry considering each countries average GDP/inhabitant ratio. Helping people who can't afford by student income and help by reducing entry BUT people who DESERVE to go to university (not like some PARASITES I see on university sometimes who don't deserve to be there as they are just here to get student income then run away). Finally, scaled university system based on skills (last year of high school rates of which course you plan to follow in uni + high school diplom rates).

A+ rates
A/A-/B+ rates
B/B- rates

Below B- rates you are out, sorry!

http://www.euprofiler.eu/

Choose your country, then answer questions, state your opinion on importance, parties you would vote for (be careful with it, can make bug with result of poll), then check where you are (pro/anti UE, left/right wing), what parties you are closest to (by % can be chosen with different countries parties).

Only for Europeans test, of course

lenihan + cowen= lack of interest

I'm close to a centrist party of Lithuania, a liberal-nationalist party of Canaries (yes! ), and Partido Popular from Spain (Jose Maria Aznar party)...otherwise, close to right wing french parties. According to this site.