Your political views

[civman2000]

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.59

A couple days ago in school I took a political spectrum test...I was 4 times as liberal as anyone else in the class

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spartak
As usual you miss the point and hide behind grand sweeping statements... no-one disagrees that command economies are inefficient and fail to provide the same degree of wealth creation as a free market system.

Then why the hell are we discussing anything?

What you miss is that they also provide a degree of security and protection for the workers that can be preferable to the do or starve elements of the free market. Unchecked greed is both discusting and ruins just as many lives as the eveils you rail against.

Speak english. I will try to make out what you trying to say... you are saying capitalism doesn't provide any protection to workers? Well it does. And you are in no position to say whether it doesn't or not. I am not for feudalism but capitalism.

Maybe the lack of investment in agriculture contributed to to the situation in those days.

Maybe. But it was mostly disorganizational issues.

Also if I am not mistaken the years after Stalin's dealth were not actually years of shortage thanks to tehr reforms of agriculture made by Krushchev.

You are mistaken. Krushchev probably was the worst leader possible that paved the way for the disorganization of the entire economy. He was removed from power because of mistakes he made.

If you actually checked your facts properly before spouting off you would know that the great famine in the Ukraine that caused most of Stalin's victims actually happened in the 1920's and early '30s when the soviet economy was rebuilding after the revolution and civil war and as a consequence of collectivisation.

Actually from what I recall, I never said anything about the famine of the 1920s or 1930s you *****. I was talking about the 1940s and 1950s where Stalin sent oh about 20 million to death camps.

Now I'm not defending that but would you defend the Enron and Worldcom scandals which represent some of the worst excesses of the Free Market or would you defend the exploitation and theft of oil from the Ogoni people of Nigeria?

I would defend neither. Enron and Worldcom's behavior was despicable and in violation of the laws of economics. What they did was against the law. And I wouldn't defend the "so called exploitation" of some people in Nigeria... if they truely are being neglected then maybe the Nigerian government should clean up its act.

Or perhaps you would defend the environmental catastrophes that GM crops potential represent? Do you like the idea that GM companies deliberately design the seeds to be infertile so a poor farmer pressured into accepting the crops can't keep the seeds after he harvests to replant as normal but has to stump up more cash to the companies?

You have no evidence of that. So bascially you are speaking out of your ass.

I hope not but that doersn't mean that we just denounce the Free Market as monstrous and castiagate anyone who supports it do we? No it means that we recognise that extremes are bad and work for a middle course of whatever system we have.

I am against having any socialism in the free market. You interfere with it then there will be problems like inefficiceny, i.e, Argentina is an example where the government interfered too much. Anyways, the government is for this: the enforcement of laws. The laws must be enforced and there must be a strong base for the government to enforce them. That is all the government should be for. Public services and Law enforcement.

Now I am afraid that you Fez are a very extreme and agressive individual and I hope that one day you will learn to take a more measured and reasonable approach.

Maybe you should look at the mirror because you are the aggressive individual.

You debating skills leave much to be desired and if I can only give your last two posts -10/10. More reasoned arguments are needed and less hot headed denounciations.. OK?

My arguments are reasonable, whereas your's are not. You attack me for things I didn't say.

[spartak]

Originally posted by Fez
Then why the hell are we discussing anything?

We are not discussing - I would call this a row..

Originally posted by Fez
Speak english. I will try to make out what you trying to say... you are saying capitalism doesn't provide any protection to workers? Well it does. And you are in no position to say whether it doesn't or not. I am not for feudalism but capitalism.

Actually I think this started off because of your agression about people who disagreed with capitalism

Originally posted by Fez
Maybe. But it was mostly disorganizational issues.

Source and evidence for this please.

Originally posted by Fez
You are mistaken. Krushchev probably was the worst leader possible that paved the way for the disorganization of the entire economy. He was removed from power because of mistakes he made.

Clearly you have no real knowledge of the situation during Soviet times in Russia. Khrustchev came to power precisly because he was able to get some growth out of the Russian agricultural sector when before it had been something of a mess. If you ever see a matryushka doll depicting Russian leaders the one of Khrustev has an ear of corn in his hand to show his success in agricultural matters.

Originally posted by Fez
Actually from what I recall, I never said anything about the famine of the 1920s or 1930s you *****. I was talking about the 1940s and 1950s where Stalin sent oh about 20 million to death camps.

Again you display your ignorance - the majority of this figure of 20 million were involved in the Ukranian famine (Boshko I agree it was caused politically but I never denied that Stalin was a monster). Anyway what have the actions of a monster got to do with beging agreessive with people who don't necessarily agree with the Free market. More people have died in more hoprrible ways over the years in the name of religion but noone has agot at Christians for the actions of Torquamanda or The Witchfinder General do they?

Originally posted by Fez
I would defend neither. Enron and Worldcom's behavior was despicable and in violation of the laws of economics. What they did was against the law. And I wouldn't defend the "so called exploitation" of some people in Nigeria... if they truely are being neglected then maybe the Nigerian government should clean up its act.

I actually agree with you here but the enormous Bribles the Oil Companies pay the politicians and military in Nigeria prevent that. Again another side effect of capitalism is corruption.

Originally posted by Fez
You have no evidence of that. So bascially you are speaking out of your ass.

Source HERE and the following is from HERE

What are the areas of greatest practical promise or danger for genetically modified foods (GMF) in the next 5 years? 20 years?

The greatest promise is that companies that manufacture GM seeds are promising to engineer plants to withstand harsh growth conditions and to prolong the shelf (storage) life of crops. This could allow food to be grown in more areas and increase availability. However, this could also mean more expensive foods and other crop products. And that is a danger to consumers, especially people from poor countries. Seed companies will want to control the seed. In some instances, GM crops are engineered so that the products of the supplied seed cannot be replanted for future crops (that is, the crops have sterile seeds). The main interest of the seed companies is not to eradicate poverty but to make as much profit as possible. The commercial interest of these companies is understandable as they are the ones investing money to develop the technology. However, they should say so publicly and should not hide behind slogans like "GM foods will help solve malnutrition in Africa." I disagree with Florence Wambugu (one of Africa’s leading plant geneticists with ties to Monsanto) saying "In Africa, GM food could almost literally weed out poverty." The main causes of hunger in Africa are complex and include wars and poor land management. African governments should invest in solving the latter and deal with the former. As somebody rightly pointed out, "The solutions to malnutrition are political and not necessarily technological."

Capitaism at its finest - and now who is talking out of their fundement?

Originally posted by Fez
I am against having any socialism in the free market. You interfere with it then there will be problems like inefficiceny, i.e, Argentina is an example where the government interfered too much. Anyways, the government is for this: the enforcement of laws. The laws must be enforced and there must be a strong base for the government to enforce them. That is all the government should be for. Public services and Law enforcement.

Did the government interfear too much or did the govenerment make the mistake of following the instructions of the IMF? Quote me one country that has benefited from IMF "advice"?

Originally posted by Fez
Maybe you should look at the mirror because you are the aggressive individual.

Who is calling whom an ass and who is using swear words. When you work that out you will see the agressive individual.

Originally posted by Fez
My arguments are reasonable, whereas your's are not. You attack me for things I didn't say.

And you swear at me and call me an ass and call me a liar - when in fact I can provide evidence and links for my statements.

I know you won't take my advice but I suggest you do some simple google searches before accusing others of lying. It's less embarressing that having your accusations thrown back in your face with evidence you have it wrong.

Am I still on your ignore list?

[Giancarlo]

You know you can go on for centuries with your ramblings and the fact is I don't have time to counter the falseness of your statements. Believe me if I did have time I would blast them away but I have to eat now and have some work to do. This isn't a damn excuse it is just how my life is. I don't have all day to spend on the internet responding to crap by people I don't even know. Get off the drugs and look at reality. And study up on your history for a change too.

[spartak]

Originally posted by Fez
You know you can go on for centuries with your ramblings and the fact is I don't have time to counter the falseness of your statements. Believe me if I did have time I would blast them away but I have to eat now and have some work to do. This isn't a damn excuse it is just how my life is. I don't have all day to spend on the internet responding to crap by people I don't even know. Get off the drugs and look at reality. And study up on your history for a change too.

Classic Fez.

Do I win?

[Giancarlo]

You *****, you didn't win this.

[spartak]

Originally posted by Fez
You *****, you didn't win this.

Basic rule of debate - once the opposition resort to swearing you win.

I win!

[Giancarlo]

You lose.

[civman2000]

actually, he did win.

[Az]

I really like that article, esp. the fact that it doesn't attack the idea of GM crops themselves , but the manipulative way in which the corporations use them.

[Kramerman]

I won...

[Giancarlo]

Civman, he lost.

[Kramerman]

yep, I won, obvioulsy

EDIT: Oh ****.... Fez, you capitalized the 'c'!!!! Your ****ed!!!

[loinburger]

Fez: one of the basic rules of debating is that arbitrarily declaring yourself to be the victor doesn't make it so. Either justify why you think that you won the debate, or else take your medicine quietly.

Note: restating your position does not constitute a valid justification.

[Giancarlo]

I don't take medicine, loincrap.

[loinburger]

That was an invalid justification of your position, Fez. Try again.

[Shi Huangdi]

No, I Win!

[Giancarlo]

Obviously you all lost, so I win!

[Pekka]

I just did mine and got results back:

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.13

I didn't understand few of the questions, so I just randomly picked them. But looking at the map, I think it's about right for me.

[Pekka]

Oh no.. I think myself more as a libertarian .. mm.. center? In economics I'm not way much to the other than the other.. well what the hell it doesn't matter what the tests says.

But understanding the actual poll, I go with the Center.

[MattHiggs]

CBeast!

[alofatti]

Quoted from Fez:
"But don't propose punishing the private sector, or it will end up like the private sector in Argentina. Battered because of the punishment it received from the country. The facts are their, punishing and destroying the private sector will push unemployment way up."

You don´t know a THING of what is happening in Argentina. So, WE have punished the private sector, right?? There is a limit of bullshit that I am willing to support but this does it!

[alofatti]

Quoted from Fez:
"I am against having any socialism in the free market. You interfere with it then there will be problems like inefficiceny, i.e, Argentina is an example where the government interfered too much."

You know? Recent analyst are starting to think that Argentine crisis surged because the government interfered too little...

[alofatti]

I found Spartak arguments much more convincing than Fez ones, and with better "bibliographical" support. And he did not resort to swearing. The other thing is that I
personally agree with most of what he said.
I will give my vote for Spartak.

[MrFun]

I voted myself as being slight left, based on my life experience, and my values.

[spartak]

Looks like the jury decided you lost Fez - which is as it should be anyway.

Now you would do yourself some favours if you actually studied our debating styles and see where you lost it.

[Pandemoniak]

I agree with Spartak, u lost Fez...

And Im so fed up to meet some evil greedy capitalist pigs who havent read Chomsky and think Smith's theories have been applied...

[Sonic]

...you must had not met some bad totalytarian communist killers if you say so... just kidding, obviously.

[loinburger]

Pande: Have you read Hobbes yet, you crazy anarchist?

[Giancarlo]

Alofatti: What the hell do you know about the Argentine crisis? You don't know anything. There was too much government interference... there was also something called the Menem era of recklessness. Spartak's arguments were very weak in all aspects.

SCREW YOU SPARTAK, I DID NOT LOSE THIS.