Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Hey, that's a bit unfair - our resident young American spends most of his time thinking about moooslims!

Cheers,
Shafique

I agree, but that would only be detrimental to society when profits are taken by taxation and the central bank is manipulating interest rates lower, so that every investor is fighting for a Return on Investment in far to liquid world of easy money. (look out the window)

At that point, ethics are out the door. Especially when Marxist government guarantees everything. Were all Keynsians now!

Keynesian socialists are the Communists! ...We need a revolution!

To respond to those questions, first of all, capitalist economies don't need to have communal welfare from government. It is a (socialist) politician that seeks to attract voters and raise taxes so that he/she can take claim on society's poor. This should not be necessary in a truly free capitalist economy.

Hell, I would never like to live in your version of capitalist economy..

I wonder how they could manage misfortunes like i.e..- Rise in birth defects, aids spread, inrease in the number of children with autism -auto-immune diseases, rise in mentally handicapped people, too many people with psychological problems, bacteria-virus clamity, deadly illnesses,draughts, natural disasters,Famine, new chernobyls or infact just being a man or woman aged over 40 incase employers don't wish to employ costly staff and prefer inexperienced cheap labour etc.

I guess under such circumstances our compassionate Rob would like to offer his billions to bail out human losses in favour of his loss of all he had..

Berrin wrote:

To respond to those questions, first of all, capitalist economies don't need to have communal welfare from government. It is a (socialist) politician that seeks to attract voters and raise taxes so that he/she can take claim on society's poor. This should not be necessary in a truly free capitalist economy.

Hell, I would never like to live in your version of capitalist economy..

I wonder how they could manage misfortunes like i.e..- Rise in birth defects, aids spread, inrease in the number of children with autism -auto-immune diseases, rise in mentally handicapped people, too many people with psychological problems, bacteria-virus clamity, deadly illnesses,draughts, natural disasters,Famine, new chernobyls or infact just being a man or woman aged over 40 incase employers don't wish to employ costly staff and prefer inexperienced cheap labour etc.

I guess under such circumstances our compassionate Rob would like to offer his billions to bail out human losses in favour of his loss of all he had..

Like almost all idealists Rob is ready to harsh infinite number of people to prove his "model".

In my world, the private sector would be strong and rid of excessive tax burdens (I opt for 15 percent flattax) so that the private sector can flourish and individuals can decide to contribute to charity.

When people do good, they have a moral urge to do good to others. Take that away from them (by government intervention in the economic system: inflation, taxation) and you can scrap ethics and morals from your private sector.

Besides, government doesn't produce anything other than excessive and inefficient regulation. It is the private sector that produces tools that make our life easy. I never saw a government create a medicin for cancer treatment. Have you?

I know you don't.

-- 29 May 2010, 18:11 --

Red Chief wrote:
Like almost all idealists Rob is ready to harsh infinite number of people to prove his "model".

You never had ideals you g-damn Redneck from the Soviet era!
Only ethic you had was your Smirnoff Vodka...

RobbyG wrote:You never had ideals you g-damn Redneck from the Soviet era!
Only ethic you had was your Smirnoff Vodka...

Only for your information "Smirnoff Vodka" has never been Russian. It was Western plagiarism and in this extend an opinion of Westerns how something Russian shoud taste or look like. Sale of this bogus brand is prohibited on all territory of Russian Federation.

Drink genuine product and you will have the same manners as Russian aristocrats of XIX century had, my little friend.

I know. The Russian elixer is cheaper to mix.

Na zdorovje, my reddish friend from the Dnepr region.

The traveling circus is gone but one clown is still available.

At your service!

In my world, the private sector would be strong and rid of excessive tax burdens (I opt for 15 percent flattax) so that the private sector can flourish and individuals can decide to contribute to charity.
When people do good, they have a moral urge to do good to others.

How could have you been such a twat all this time.Now you're getting to be a good muslim

But hey what makes you think that every person will have moral urge to do good when there is also a drive to hoard wealth until everyone gets what the richest is able to get most?

Protestant ethic.

Look at Germans - they pay taxes more accurately than any other nation, almost 100%.

mooshlim my butt.

Well, wealth is subjective and depends on the individuals needs and desires. If you are affluent, you can afford to spend money to charity and donate to the private institutions who take care of the poor, homeless and disabled. If there is enough wealth in a country, some percentage will flow to these funds and such goodwill will reflect on themselves. In a world of capitalism with a truly free market economy, everything can be taken care of privately, and government only regulates the area's where there is gross negligence.

Government should always and ever be limited to serve and protect the people. And when you look at the USA of today, you know that government is in bed with corporate America. The private sector lobbies for billions of dollars every year with Congress and Senate to get their way paved into legislation. This is not free market capitalism. That crony capitalism. Corporatism.

So what the world really needs is a bit of proper Austrian economic philosophy. Start reading Berrin. Drop the mooshlim madness. God doesn't exist, Pbuh neither. We need sanity in this world and productive capacity.

Two right hands and hard labour will do the trick. And the occassional arm-chair scientist to keep you under the gun.

Well, I read what Rob posted, looked up the Weimar Republic's credentials and indeed I agreed with Chomsky's assessment.


I guess we've moved on from the initial allegations that Chomsky hates facts and lies.

Ya know, for someone who writes excessively long posts (often on topics you know little about), you are rather mum about why, exactly, you believe the Weimar republic was the peak of Western civilization.

I guess we have indeed moved on from the allegations of 'lies' and now want to know which part of Rob's descriptions of Weimar republic I approve of as justification for Chomsky's valid statement that I quoted in full above.

Interesting that.

Chomsky 3, eh - 0.

Cheers,
Shafique

Good summary Shaf.

I see young loon is having another go at Chomsky, this time using Memri videos! Now that IS funny.

Sigh.

Perhaps he's not happy with the score being Chomsky 3, eh 0 and wants to go for a German score line?

Cheers,
Shafique

“Even on the rare occasions when Mr. Chomsky is dealing with facts and not with fantasies,
he exaggerates by a factor of, plus or minus, four or five.”
- Walter Laqueur
(The New Republic, March 24, 1982)“

If you go through the link, you would see numerous half truths, distortions and outright lies the author exposes.

So, the 3 instances YOU chose to look at eh and which transpired that Chomsky wasn't lying - was that just bad choice on you part?

I reckon we could get to 200 - 0, but as it stands

Chomsky 3, eh 0. (i.e. you've so far been 100% wrong)

Cheers,
Shafique

The Lie: “If 2-2½ million people… have been systematically slaughtered by a band of murderous thugs [then intervention is sought]… [But not] if the figure of those killed were, say, less by a factor of 100 – that is, 25,000 people… [or] if the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state…”37

The Truth: No honest observer thought that only 25,000 died under the Khmer Rouge or that
the mass deaths were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation. A UN investigation
reported 2-3 million dead, while UNICEF estimated 3 million dead.38 Even the Khmer Rouge
acknowledged 2 million deaths – which they attributed to the Vietnamese invasion.39

37 After the Cataclysm (South End Press, 1979), pp138-9.

eh - so as to not embarrass you further when I look up Chomsky's references, can I ask whether you checked the reference in regards to the 25,000?

If you did, please post it in full and in context (the ... ... in the quote are awfully suspicious)

Cheers,
Shafique

Oh dear.

Chomsky 4, eh 0.

event horizon wrote:The Lie: “If 2-2½ million people… have been systematically slaughtered by a band of murderous thugs [then intervention is sought]… [But not] if the figure of those killed were, say, less by a factor of 100 – that is, 25,000 people… [or] if the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state…”37

The Truth: No honest observer thought that only 25,000 died ...

Well, the book is available on Google Books and Chomsky isn't lying:

Full quote:

If 2-2½ million people, about a 1/3 of the population, have been systematically slaughtered by a band of murderous thugs who have taken over the government, then McGovern is willing to consider military intervention. We presume that he would not have made this proposal if the figure of those killed were, say, less by a factor of 100 – that is, 25,000 people -though this would be bad enough. Nor would he have been able to propose the extreme measure if the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors."

No lie, just a valid presumption. eh punked again.

Do you want to go for 5 -0?

Cheers,
Shafique

if the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors."

Wow snowflake.

That's far from a punking.

Chomsky argues throughout the chapter that the massacres in Cambodia were instances of 'peasant revenge'. He also goes on to downplay the evidence that millions died in Cambodia - questioning the now accepted figures that a significant fraction of the Cambodian population was decimated by the Khmer Rouge.

Elsewhere, Chomsky said the massacres were comparable to those committed after the liberation of France, where 30-40 thousand were killed rather than Nazi brutality where millions died.

The 'presumption' wasn't a rhetorical question if the massacres described by McGovern were inflated, as you have tried to spin it. It was Chomsky's belief that they were.

Do you want to go for 5-0, or is your 100% record enough to show that you cannot, after all, show that Chomsky lies?

The point is now clear your quote deliberately left out the words 'we presume' and presented something that was not a lie as a lie.

(BTW Kudos if you read the whole chapter, I've only managed to read about half of it and check some of the references Chomsky gives - pretty meticulous stuff. Puts Bob Spencer to shame. Chomsky makes his points very well and contrasts spin with evidence. I understand why you don't like him. )

I'm also reminded of this reviewer on Amazon responding to an anti-Chomsky rant (and thought it appropriate to post here):

This review is useless for several reasons.
1) It doesn't cite a single actual reference to the work in question.
2) It doesn't cite its own claims (which refugee reports exactly did it write off? The ones reporting the massive starvation caused by intense bombing by US bombers between 1970 and 1975?)
3) It's the only thing that really fits the author's description of being "written as a savage and bitter satire of professional academics-cum-polemicists".

I'm inclined to believe that either the [reviewer] didn't read the book or read it quite poorly, as nearly all of his points can be refuted by simply reading the work in question. Chomsky never condones the Khmer Rouge. This book is not even ABOUT the Khmer Rouge, necessarily. It's about the American Mass Media's handling of the situation which, in my opinion, is expertly handled

Cheers,
Shafique

Chomsky said the massacres carried out by the Khmer Rouge - where over one million Cambodians perished, countless others tortured, displaced, etc - was comparable to the liberation of France, which resulted in the deaths of 30-40 thousand people, not Nazi atrocities.

So, do you want to go for 5-0 or do you need time to dig out another misquote of Chomsky?

I refer you to the review I quoted above as it appears you too haven't actually read the book you're pontificating about.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:Chomsky said the massacres carried out by the Khmer Rouge - where over one million Cambodians perished, countless others tortured, displaced, etc - was comparable to the liberation of France, which resulted in the deaths of 30-40 thousand people, not Nazi atrocities.

What part of the above did you not understand?

Ha ha.

So, do you want to go for 5-0 or do you need more time to invent some quotes that you want to attribute to Chomsky?

Are you a masochist, or a secret Chomsky fan - can't quite figure you out.

Cheers,
Shafique

I don't understand what's funny - that you're predictably dumb or that Chomsky is quoted as claiming that the massacres in Cambodia are comparable to the ones during/after the liberation of France, not the atrocities carried out by the Nazis ?

What's funny is that you've so far produced 4 quotes from Chomsky which you initially claimed to be lies and turn out to be not lies when we see the full quotes.

I'm asking whether you want to go for 5-0 now, and whether you're not actually a secret fan of Chomsky because you've been exposing the slurs against him.

So, do you want to go for 5-0 or do you need more time? As for what Chomsky wrote in the book from 1979 - I have already commented that it appears that you haven't actually read the book. But even your latest insinuations don't amount to actual quotes which show Chomsky is lying - all the points I've read on this subject are quite well made and don't constitute lies - but I suspect you're just a secret Chomsky admirer. C'mon fess up.

Cheers,
Shafique

The Lie: "The US and Britain... killed maybe 100,000 people [in the occupation of Iraq] by last October [2004]..."

The Truth: A 2004 study by anti-war researchers blamed the Iraq war for 100,000 deaths. It counted both enemy killings and allied killings; counted both combatants and civilians; and included deaths from crime, accidents, heart attacks, strokes, infections, etc. And independent analysis of its figures suggested that 39,000 had been killed by either side and that the rest had died from other causes.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

I see you still don't want to address Noam's comparison of the Allied liberation of France to Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.