Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011
Results 201 to 215 of 215
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Corporatism.
    Which, curiously, was not a Nazi agenda.
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Which, curiously, was not a Nazi agenda.
    Bollocks! Corporatism is integral to facism.
  3. #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Bollocks! Corporatism is integral to facism.
    So all corporatism is bad?
  4. #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Bollocks! Corporatism is integral to facism.
    Facism differed in many aspects from Nazism.
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    So all corporatism is bad?
    Yes. Minimizing businesses control over gov't is best for the people.

    (Contemporary popular usage of the term is more pejorative, especially when used as the shorter form corporatism (corporativism usually implies only the Italian construct indicating public rather than private organizing), emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex)
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Facism differed in many aspects from Nazism.
    And big biz was intertwined with the National Socialists. Ask Bush's grand-dad.
  7. #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    And big biz was intertwined with the National Socialists. Ask Bush's grand-dad.
    What you neglect is that corporatism isn't a collaboration between state and business for the benefit of business but for the benefit of the state. Also, it isn't just involving business but labor organizations as well. This is always the omission when discussing Nazism/Facism with folks on the Left.
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    What you neglect is that corporatism isn't a collaboration between state and business for the benefit of business but for the benefit of the state. Also, it isn't just involving business but labor organizations as well.
    The state uses the greed of business to achieve this.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    This is always the omission when discussing Nazism/Facism with folks on the Left.
    Consistency is important to us Lefties.


  9. #209  
    I lost ya at 'yes'.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes. Minimizing businesses control over gov't is best for the people.

    (Contemporary popular usage of the term is more pejorative, especially when used as the shorter form corporatism (corporativism usually implies only the Italian construct indicating public rather than private organizing), emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex)
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    The middle east isn't about religion. Its about culture, affiliations and tribalism. Why do you think the Sunni's and Shia's are killing each other, despite both being Muslims?

    (or the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland)

    BTW, is it extreme not to believe in fairies and Santa Claus? Exactly same issue.

    Surur
    Interesting premise. The middle east isn't about religion...

    My limited understanding is that the rift between shia and sunni is indeed religious, specifically, an argument over who is the rightful successor of Mohammed, e.g., his first caliph.
  11. #211  
    ... and the differences between protestants and catholics are that protestants don't think the pope should be their gateway to heaven. Yet they don't blow each other up except in Northern Ireland. In the end religion is just a label to define a group. The fact is that people with differences tend to find reasons to fight. If people had exactly the same religion and skin colour, but disagreed about which economic system to apply, they would still fight. Such is the way of the world.

    Surur
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #212  
    religion is more than a label of defining a group. Its a framework for controlling a group.
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    religion is more than a label of defining a group. Its a framework for controlling a group.
    As are national boundaries.

    Surur
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    If you wanted to minimize civilian casualties BOTH due to your own bullets AND the turmoil which you EXPECTED to come from this action you would not have started in the first place. That is the point which you refuse to accept.
    Again, Spin to suite your needs. By your philosophy if we ever feel there is going to be retaliation or the possibility of the loss of life then we should never act against anyone for any reason at anytime. There were probably hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in WWII, but I guess we should have left Europe under the hand of Germany. We should have left the other half of the world under the rule of Japan's militarian empire. As for my expectations, here is what I have stated in the last part of this post:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...34&postcount=3

    Again to the point of the discussion....if the terrorists are attacking innocent civilians....THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ATTACKING AND KILLING INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND BABIES.

    Here is a some of what they are doing this week:
    Police find 9 heads in fruit boxes near Baghdad
    Second Grisly discovery follows similar one on Saturday; bomb kills Iraqi pedestrian

    BAGHDAD, Iraq - Police found nine severed heads in fruit boxes near a volatile city northeast of Baghdad on Tuesday, authorities said, the second such discovery in less than a week.

    ---------------

    The boxes containing the heads all from men were discovered by a highway in the village of Hadid near Baqouba, a mixed Shiite-Sunni Arab city 35 miles northeast of Baghdad that has seen a recent rise in sectarian violence.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13163802
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    My problem is not with the ending of the list but with the beginning. You dont think whole lot preceded:
    1. Terrorists do not like USA.
    2. USA in Iraq.
    3. Terrorists Kill Iraqi Muslim innocent mom shopping with her kids because USA is in Iraq.

    That the start of your list is so short indicated your lack of understanding of the antecedents of the situation in Iraq. That cant be very good for developing insight.

    Surur
    Spin....Spin.....you have read my many posts about my understanding of Iraq. You always spin for your benefit with little regard for the truth or misrepresenting the facts or another poster. For a refresher:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=101

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    ... and a few million who agree. Less every day at the rate you are killing them though.

    (or is that ever more, the more you try and kill them)

    Surur
    Again, you totally ignore and have NO problem with the terrorist purposely killing 200 times more civilians that the US troops accidentally kill.

    YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS: If you denounce the accidental killings while trying to limit civilian casualties by the US troops, and then support and cheer on the intentional and premeditated killing of innocent civilians in greater numbers....and still maintain a creditable component of a debate.
  15. #215  
    Sorry Hobbes, I still have to see much insight from you. Did it occur to you that those 7 heads could be from sectarian violence (as apposed to anti-US-inspired terrorism)? Iraq is a tinder keg just waiting to go off.

    As I said (and which you conveniently snipped) I do not accept that Iraq posed a serious threat at the time of the invasion, and if Bush believed this it was with willful ignorance (and thats being generous). Therefore I hold Bush and his cronies personally responsible for the whole turmoil in Iraq, as he was warned this would happen, and did not double check his supposed intelligence diligently enough to see what millions of other people could see: That Iraq was already disarmed.

    In that way there is no accidental killings in Iraq. USA willfully decided to depose of a government that posed no threat, with no regard to the consequences to the population.

    Regarding you 200 times more claim, that it so ridiculous its not even funny. If you look at the Iraq Body Count web site (the only source, as USA conveniently does not keep track of the numbers they kill) USA directly killed a 37% of the dead, 10% of the dead were civilian deaths caused by attacks on the US forces (e.g. caught in IED's), 2.5% in firefights between the US and Iraq resistance, and only 11% were directly targeted by terrorists. 36% were caused by the increase in general crime.
    http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2116

    So, to correct your number, US kills more than 3 times more Iraqis than the terrorists.

    Its time for you to leave.

    Surur
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011

Posting Permissions