StarGateWars Forums

Oh my...

Apophis the Great wrote:_A Leftist is not a term I'd use, rather what nationalists or right wing use to describe anyone who has lil bit of democratic opinion and wishes to have democracy instead of tyrrany, and who doesnt like strong and charismatic arrogant leader that takes all decisions with his circle of most fidels followers to dictate country. A leftist can be communist, socialist, social democrat, center neutral or republican moderate person.

Apophis the Great wrote:_Nationalist is a person who believes his nation is best one, who would rather prefer whole world destroyed but his nation than the opposite. He doesnt give an heck of problems of other contries as long as they dont "dare" to annoy his country. They are often xenophobs and/or racists, as they don't like at all people from outside. They are for learning only their history and language, nothing else, and believe their country is superior to others. They believe they are a superior ethny/race, and others don't deserve to live in their country as they have "dirty blood".

*looks for gagging smilie*

Apophis the Great wrote:_Augusto Pinochet was a dictator hired by CIA to counter strike Salvador Allende who was socialist president elected by population from Chile. Pinochet was the commandant of army forces and decided to take over the power and decimated the loyal presidential guards to Allende. He installed a dictatorship where any opposant is sent to jail, interrogated, tortured, then killed. Thousands of people disappeard under his dictatorship which lasted around 20 years. The putsch happend on september 11 if I'm right (yeah you recognize rhis date for something else...). Opposition parties were forbidden and reprimated by jail torture and death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

Wow, just wow. Pops, while I respect your right to differ in opinion, you should realize the world is not as black and white as it appears, or people try to make it appear.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:Oh my...

Apophis the Great wrote:_A Leftist is not a term I'd use, rather what nationalists or right wing use to describe anyone who has lil bit of democratic opinion and wishes to have democracy instead of tyrrany, and who doesnt like strong and charismatic arrogant leader that takes all decisions with his circle of most fidels followers to dictate country. A leftist can be communist, socialist, social democrat, center neutral or republican moderate person.

hey it's what right wing call of being leftist in my country anyway, so maybe not accurate for YOUR country, but is for MY country. Also forgot to mean the democracy over tyranny for fact democracy allows free expression and not full police state with list of forbidden thing longer than the list of sites on the net. As I said, NEVER a term I use, as it is NOT a term people not from right wing use here.

Apophis the Great wrote:_Nationalist is a person who believes his nation is best one, who would rather prefer whole world destroyed but his nation than the opposite. He doesnt give an heck of problems of other contries as long as they dont "dare" to annoy his country. They are often xenophobs and/or racists, as they don't like at all people from outside. They are for learning only their history and language, nothing else, and believe their country is superior to others. They believe they are a superior ethny/race, and others don't deserve to live in their country as they have "dirty blood".

*looks for gagging smilie*
uh?

Apophis the Great wrote:_Augusto Pinochet was a dictator hired by CIA to counter strike Salvador Allende who was socialist president elected by population from Chile. Pinochet was the commandant of army forces and decided to take over the power and decimated the loyal presidential guards to Allende. He installed a dictatorship where any opposant is sent to jail, interrogated, tortured, then killed. Thousands of people disappeard under his dictatorship which lasted around 20 years. The putsch happend on september 11 if I'm right (yeah you recognize rhis date for something else...). Opposition parties were forbidden and reprimated by jail torture and death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

Wow, just wow. Pops, while I respect your right to differ in opinion, you should realize the world is not as black and white as it appears, or people try to make it appear.

You actually beleive I'm enough non cultured that I needed to check wiki? No I did by my own knowledge, laugh of it if you wish, but SURE THAT 80% of people here don't even HEARD of this name once!! (about pinochet)

I see 16 years instead of 20...so what? I had most of facts true. Considering it was from what I KNEW and not copy-paste from wiki.

Nothing here in my post is from wiki or anything else than my own knowledge, by the way.

Alright, got some clarification. However, I think it would be interesting to note that the ideas behind right/left wing are in fact, French. They come from when the French nobles and the French lower class were both represented in the legislature, where the nobles sat on the right and the lower class elected on the left. The nobles fought to keep things the same, so conservatives have been considered right wingers. The progressiveness of the left side is why liberals are associated with the left side.

Now, those tags have adopted over the years, but in America, liberal (left) is usually associated with more welfare and social laisse faire (I know I butchered that word). The right is, well, more conservative, socially and usually fiscally (except when it comes to the military).

Why am I writing this? Because I get the feeling you associate most right wingers with Nazi storm troopers and skinheads, and most left wingers with the heroic and liberty seeking revolutionaries, when it just isn't true most of the time. Maybe that's just the difference between America and France.

Oh, Pinochet was quoted because of the CIA reference. Read the wiki article.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:Alright, got some clarification. However, I think it would be interesting to note that the ideas behind right/left wing are in fact, French. They come from when the French nobles and the French lower class were both represented in the legislature, where the nobles sat on the right and the lower class elected on the left. The nobles fought to keep things the same, so conservatives have been considered right wingers. The progressiveness of the left side is why liberals are associated with the left side.

Now, those tags have adopted over the years, but in America, liberal (left) is usually associated with more welfare and social laisse faire (I know I butchered that word). The right is, well, more conservative, socially and usually fiscally (except when it comes to the military).

Why am I writing this? Because I get the feeling you associate most right wingers with bad storm troopers and skinheads, and most left wingers with the heroic and liberty seeking revolutionaries, when it just isn't true most of the time. Maybe that's just the difference between America and France.

Oh, Pinochet was quoted because of the CIA reference. Read the wiki article.

I know that conservatives are NOT ALL right wing, times changed. French lower class contains MANY right wing people, your statement is right for 70s and 80s (excepted conservatives are considered as "right" side simply, not right wing).
I know of the US sense, democrats are like center-right people, with few left points. Reps I know they are that.
Right wing not necessarly skinheads, existing left wing skinhead too. And right wing for me is everything that is negationist, super-nationalist, neo nazi, and anyone who thinks right are too soft or even leftist sometimes (yeah maybe not in US but here yes!!!)!
There aren't right wing heroes for me, nothing good, while I accept fact left wings did few good things in history, dont get me wrong tho, I'm nothing wing, I'm center-left or social dem if you wish.

right. looks like ya thought that by yerself. not that i agree with all what ya said, just it doesn't look like copied from somewhere/someone. just learn a bit of logic so ya don't contradict yerself (as phoenix pointed out)

Apophis The Great wrote:_Augusto Pinochet was a dictator hired by CIA to counter strike Salvador Allende who was socialist president elected by population from Chile. Pinochet was the commandant of army forces and decided to take over the power and decimated the loyal presidential guards to Allende. He installed a dictatorship where any opposant is sent to jail, interrogated, tortured, then killed. Thousands of people disappeard under his dictatorship which lasted around 20 years. The putsch happend on september 11 if I'm right (yeah you recognize rhis date for something else...). Opposition parties were forbidden and reprimated by jail torture and death.

one thing: he was appointed. the army officials asked him to become a leader.
now. i'm not supporting all that "any opposant is sent to jail, interrogated, tortured, then killed", but ya need to remember that his opposition consisted of armed paramilitary guerilla groups (what we call now "terrorists"). ANY CIVILIZED country on this planet fights terorrists (well. officially) and using interogations, jails and killing is justified.

ahh.. btw: "ozzy" was also democratically elected by population of Germany.

edit:
that's the diagram i was talking about:


there was a more detailed version of it somewhere. just can't find it right now.


edit ''
ok. this is it (youse just need to convert the diagram above so the axes are right):

my position on it is a bit deformed by certain questions that were more related to me rather than my point of view on the organization of society.

this is us elections:


no political leader on this planet is in the right quadrant. that explains why the world is such a stupid place to live.

This is my take on the article Phoenix felt like bringing to my attention in the Ron Paul topic.

"McCain said the United States should pressure the European Union and UN Security Council to impose sanctions on the Sudanese government."
... No one places sanctions on another government without an agenda of either aggressive negotiations or war. Basically John McCain wants to get in other countries business and tell them what they should and shouldn't be doing. So much for spreading Democracy.

"he employs much of the Bush administration’s rhetoric about terrorism, often arguing that if the United States pulls out of Iraq, the terrorists “will follow us home.”"
... In other words he believes in spreading propaganda about terrorism like the Bush administration, to keep people in a constant state of fear.

McCain said: "The promotion of democracy and freedom is simply inseparable from the long-term security of the United States"
... Which means he believes any other nation in the world that is not of the same Democratic lineage as the U.S. will always be considered a threat.

"In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, McCain said that upon Castro’s death, the United States should “offer a package of trade, of assistance, of economic development, of assistance in democratization—and tell them we will give them all of those things and in return we are asking them to embark on the path to democracy. Including setting a date for free and fair elections."
... Funny how he just wants to ask Cuba to embark on the path to democracy but thinks spreading it by force everywhere else is alright. Mind you he still supports the sanctions on Cuba, so it's one of those, say one thing and do the opposite kind of situations. Sneaky McCain.

"McCain also says the United States needs "a new mix of military forces, including civil affairs, special operations, and highly mobile forces capable of fighting and prevailing in the conflicts America faces.""
... Sounds like a good combination, if you plan to invade future countries.

"continues to support the war effort, and is one of the most outspoken proponents of Bush’s surge strategy, even arguing that the escalation does not go far enough. He supported the president’s efforts to increase the size of the U.S. standing military by 92,000 soldiers and Marines."
... Soo, if your voting for McCain, and you claim not to be pro-war... Umm... Yeaaah...

"McCain voted in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001 and for its reauthorization in 2006."
... Wait just a second...

"Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has said that he does not think that Bush had the legal authority to employ the intelligence-gathering tactics used by the NSA."
... Oh my god! What a hypocrite!!

"McCain co-sponsored the Save Summer Act of 2004, which would have increased the legal limit on H-2B visas for seasonal nonagricultural laborers by forty thousand."
... That's right like they need more incentive to come here.

How about I put my weight behind Mitt Romney to spice things up. I didn't read all the posts so idk if I'm the first.

The big complaint about Romney has been how he shifted more conservative a few years ago so he would be more popular in a presidential bid. However, when looking how much the other candidates have shifted in the past month, this argument is no longer sound. McCain openly admits he changed up alot of his immigration stance but even now the "straight-talker" evades any discussion of the details of his plan.

Huckabee didn't even have an immigration plan until a month ago, which is also very different from his actions as governor.

Thompson doesn't really have much of a record, as his stay in the senate was fairly brief. Plus he seems asleep and I personally want my president to be wide awake when he makes decisions.

Giuliani I hve problems with on other levels as a conservative aside from the fact that he's a fairly liberal republican.

Paul is not a president for this era. Plus he seems a bit off his rocker, no offense.

Edwards is irrelevent as he will lose now. Plus he's annoying.

Clinton completely redid her entire platform twice in the past two years.

Obama doesn't have a platform, but he really likes to say the word change...alot. I swear if I hear change one more time I will scream.

Now Romney isn't a perfect candidate, but this isn't a perfect field. However, he is very intellegent (a Law and a Business Degree from Harvard), he seems to have strong moral character, which I still feel is a valuable quality in a president, and he has informed opinions on the major issues of our day. It is time this country is no longer scared of the "smart" candidate and we stop with the stupid notion of voting for the guy we feel like we could have a beer with. So come on Michigan, be smart! I might even buy an american car if you vote for Romney

Nicholai Brocov wrote:"McCain said the United States should pressure the European Union and UN Security Council to impose sanctions on the Sudanese government."
... No one places sanctions on another government without an agenda of either aggressive negotiations or war. Basically John McCain wants to get in other countries business and tell them what they should and shouldn't be doing. So much for spreading Democracy.

Sanctions immediately lead to aggressive negotiations or war? Last time I checked, there already was a war going on, a civil war that started in the ‘90s, in which the government has turned a blind eye to, or even supported the ravaging of the minority rebels, just like they supported the oppression of that same minority. And now, they’ve fired on UN and AU peacekeepers.
Personally, I’d rather not support the economy of such a government.

Nicholai Brocov wrote:"he employs much of the Bush administration’s rhetoric about terrorism, often arguing that if the United States pulls out of Iraq, the terrorists “will follow us home.”"
... In other words he believes in spreading propaganda about terrorism like the Bush administration, to keep people in a constant state of fear.

You can call everything you want propaganda, but these are international terrorists who planned and initiated two major attacks on American soil, carried out one, and attacked an American destroyer. And that was for defending one of their own, strict Islamic governments from a rabid madman.

Nicholai Brocov wrote:McCain said: "The promotion of democracy and freedom is simply inseparable from the long-term security of the United States"
... Which means he believes any other nation in the world that is not of the same Democratic lineage as the U.S. will always be considered a threat.

Name five nations that the US has cordial diplomatic contact with that has a dictator and/or oppresses the rights of its citizens. I can only think of one, Saudi Arabia (who I’m hoping we can abandon the moment we can get a good alternative energy).

Nicholai Brocov wrote:"In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, McCain said that upon Castro’s death, the United States should “offer a package of trade, of assistance, of economic development, of assistance in democratization—and tell them we will give them all of those things and in return we are asking them to embark on the path to democracy. Including setting a date for free and fair elections."
... Funny how he just wants to ask Cuba to embark on the path to democracy but thinks spreading it by force everywhere else is alright. Mind you he still supports the sanctions on Cuba, so it's one of those, say one thing and do the opposite kind of situations. Sneaky McCain.

You missed this part apparently. Castro isn’t dead, that sneaky guy.

Nicholai Brocov wrote:"McCain also says the United States needs "a new mix of military forces, including civil affairs, special operations, and highly mobile forces capable of fighting and prevailing in the conflicts America faces.""
... Sounds like a good combination, if you plan to invade future countries.

Military forces are used for more than invasions. Bosnia was not an invasion and I’m sure all of those people could have been used then. Basically, he’s advocating a more flexible military, which I see no problem with. Plus, the first two proposals are just as useful in peace time, if not more so (SF soldiers are often used to train allied forces and cover more than just combat operations).

Nicholai Brocov wrote:"continues to support the war effort, and is one of the most outspoken proponents of Bush’s surge strategy, even arguing that the escalation does not go far enough. He supported the president’s efforts to increase the size of the U.S. standing military by 92,000 soldiers and Marines."
... Soo, if your voting for McCain, and you claim not to be pro-war... Umm... Yeaaah...

I’m for finishing what we started, I never said anything about invading a new nation (which is what I associate with warmongering). There are times when you can start something, put it down, and leave with the option to come back later if you want or have times. And then there are times when you must stay with the ship through hell and high water. This is one of those latter times, but I doubt my arguments to 'stay the course' will move you if I went into them. (I even put the sarcastic '' just for you!)

And yes, I too support a larger military. Considering our current military is a volunteer force and is supposed to be able to fight two wars at once, and is stretching thin. In Iraq, if we had a larger occupational forces in the beginning and had not gone through with two stupid moves, this insurgency would probably not have reached the level it did. More troops-more people to send in to do the job right (*grumbles about Donald Rumsfeld and incompetence*).

Nicholai Brocov wrote:"McCain voted in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001 and for its reauthorization in 2006."
... Wait just a second...

I’m not even going to comment on this, because I’m pretty sure anything I say will be attacked as pro-government propaganda.

Nicholai Brocov wrote:"Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has said that he does not think that Bush had the legal authority to employ the intelligence-gathering tactics used by the NSA."
... Oh my god! What a hypocrite!!

Your cynicism is really getting to me. You see a contradiction between voting for the Patriot Act and wiretapping? I don’t, as the Patriot Act does not state that that the President may wiretap without a warrant, and neither does the law on wiretapping that was amended by it. Bush was going without warrants, the Patriot Act still requires a warrant to justify wiretapping.

Nicholai Brocov wrote:"McCain co-sponsored the Save Summer Act of 2004, which would have increased the legal limit on H-2B visas for seasonal nonagricultural laborers by forty thousand."
... That's right like they need more incentive to come here.

Wow, that’s the most one of the most condescending statements I’ve seen on this forum, made more so by the fact that this is not a RP issue, but a RL one. Visas are by far preferred to illegal immigration, don’t you think? Or do you support evicting all 12 million illegal immigrants, who make up 1.2% of our population and are part of the foundation that allows many Americans to enjoy their cushy lifestyles.



I’m finding your continued attack like style very annoying. I know I’m not going to convince you of anything, but I’ll keep posting just so that those undecided people get another view besides your unforgiving cynicism.

To be fair, what the McCain immigration plan would allow would be all illegal immigrants in the US to pay a 5k dollar fine and register for a type of visa that can be renewed forever. It's not a very strong program and won't solve one of the big parts of the problem.

That said, now all of the Republican candidates are supporters of building the border fence first, though a few changed to that position recently.

Mathlord wrote:To be fair, what the McCain immigration plan would allow would be all illegal immigrants in the US to pay a 5k dollar fine and register for a type of visa that can be renewed forever. It's not a very strong program and won't solve one of the big parts of the problem.

That said, now all of the Republican candidates are supporters of building the border fence first, though a few changed to that position recently.

I hadn't heard that part of his plan, but a path to citizenship is better than evicting all of them, which some of the more radical Republicans seem to be suggesting. While border security is needed, a way to citizenship is also. As well as a better Mexican economy, but we can't do anything about that

We could always designate North Dakota as "path to citizenship" zone. It's not like anyone lives there to be displaced, plus with the option of moving there or leaving the country, the illegal aliens would move back to Mexico without a hesitation

My appologies for offending North Dakota, but you guys deserve it

Actually, sugar beets are made in North Dakota, so there might be a place for all those immigrants to live. Until the first winter.

Jack wrote:

Phoenix of Terra wrote:While border security is needed, a way to citizenship is also. As well as a better Mexican economy, but we can't do anything about that

Yeah we can, we could always invade Mexico, and force them into the union

Yes, and we'll take care of Canada by using global warming to start the next ice age to force them all south and into US citizenship.