FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Australian PM gives strong defence of gay marriage

Australian PM gives strong defence of gay marriage

(1:57) At a Q&A session, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd answers a question by Christian pastor Matt Prater about gay marriage.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: iknowlessthanyoudo (1560 days ago)
How much further evolved might civilization be today had religion not resisted reason every step of the way.
ReplyVote up (164)down (157)
Original comment
How much further evolved might civilization be today had religion not resisted reason every step of the way.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1560 days ago)
"Reason from progressives" gave us eugenics, nazi's, lysenkoism, maoism,Pol pot, etc etc. A little opposition is good for society
ReplyVote up (178)down (191)
Original comment
"Reason from progressives" gave us eugenics, nazi's, lysenkoism, maoism,Pol pot, etc etc. A little opposition is good for society
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1559 days ago)
I don't understand what you mean by "Reason from progressives". Is reason different depending on where or who it's from?
ReplyVote up (187)down (170)
Original comment
I don't understand what you mean by "Reason from progressives". Is reason different depending on where or who it's from?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1559 days ago)
unchallenged liberal progressive reasoning often ends up creating hell on earth, as in the examples above
ReplyVote up (189)down (176)
Original comment
unchallenged liberal progressive reasoning often ends up creating hell on earth, as in the examples above
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1559 days ago)
OK, so what is the "unchallenged liberal progressive reasoning" behind eugenics?
ReplyVote up (167)down (199)
Original comment
OK, so what is the "unchallenged liberal progressive reasoning" behind eugenics?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1559 days ago)
so you haven't heard of the fabian society ?
ReplyVote up (188)down (174)
Original comment
so you haven't heard of the fabian society ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1559 days ago)
The Fabian Society supported eugenics, but that doesn't make the science right or wrong, good or bad. Science is apolitical and amoral. It's just about understanding how things actually are, whether we like it that way or not. If the goal is a world inhabited only by genetically similar people, then eugenics can make that a reality. But eugenics can't produce a genetically perfect society because there is no definition for a genetically perfect person. That is where eugenics should be challenged, it's not about science or reason. In contrast, religion is political, ie. you pick and choose which truths you want depending on whatever fits best your agenda.
ReplyVote up (171)down (188)
Original comment
The Fabian Society supported eugenics, but that doesn't make the science right or wrong, good or bad. Science is apolitical and amoral. It's just about understanding how things actually are, whether we like it that way or not. If the goal is a world inhabited only by genetically similar people, then eugenics can make that a reality. But eugenics can't produce a genetically perfect society because there is no definition for a genetically perfect person. That is where eugenics should be challenged, it's not about science or reason. In contrast, religion is political, ie. you pick and choose which truths you want depending on whatever fits best your agenda.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1559 days ago)
If a relative of yours was committed to a mental asylum, or jailed for a murder would you be happy with you and your family being sterilized because they were deemed to be inferior ? (check out sweden up to 1974).
ReplyVote up (169)down (162)
Original comment
If a relative of yours was committed to a mental asylum, or jailed for a murder would you be happy with you and your family being sterilized because they were deemed to be inferior ? (check out sweden up to 1974).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1559 days ago)
I don't understand your point. I think you are mixing up motive and method. Blaming eugenics on science is like trying to blame particle physics for Hiroshima, or blaming a murder weapon for a murder.
ReplyVote up (151)down (175)
Original comment
I don't understand your point. I think you are mixing up motive and method. Blaming eugenics on science is like trying to blame particle physics for Hiroshima, or blaming a murder weapon for a murder.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1559 days ago)
he's trying to say that social-democratic principles and eugenics go hand in hand by refereeing to the fabian society. LINK . """In the early 1900s Fabian Society members advocated the ideal of a scientifically planned society and supported eugenics by way of sterilization. This is said to have influenced the passage of the Half-Caste Act, and its subsequent implementation in Australia, where children were systematically and forcibly removed from their parents, so that the British colonial regime could "protect" the Aborigine children from their parents. In an article published in The Guardian on 14 February 2008 (following the apology offered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the "stolen generations"), Geoffrey Robertson criticised Fabian socialists for providing the intellectual justification for the eugenics policy that led to the stolen generations scandal.[30][31] Such views on socialism, inequality and eugenics in early 20th century Fabians were not limited to one individual, but were widely shared in Fabian Society.[32][33]"&qu ot;" . he's not trying to argue science, he's trying to say that the "liberal progressive POINT OF VIEW" (but he used reasoning to imply that liberals\progressives are incapable of thinking) goes hand in hand with Eugenics. I disagree with his point of view.
ReplyVote up (155)down (169)
Original comment
he's trying to say that social-democratic principles and eugenics go hand in hand by refereeing to the fabian society. LINK . """In the early 1900s Fabian Society members advocated the ideal of a scientifically planned society and supported eugenics by way of sterilization. This is said to have influenced the passage of the Half-Caste Act, and its subsequent implementation in Australia, where children were systematically and forcibly removed from their parents, so that the British colonial regime could "protect" the Aborigine children from their parents. In an article published in The Guardian on 14 February 2008 (following the apology offered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the "stolen generations"), Geoffrey Robertson criticised Fabian socialists for providing the intellectual justification for the eugenics policy that led to the stolen generations scandal.[30][31] Such views on socialism, inequality and eugenics in early 20th century Fabians were not limited to one individual, but were widely shared in Fabian Society.[32][33]"&qu ot;" . he's not trying to argue science, he's trying to say that the "liberal progressive POINT OF VIEW" (but he used reasoning to imply that liberals\progressives are incapable of thinking) goes hand in hand with Eugenics. I disagree with his point of view.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1559 days ago)
what i was trying to say is that left wing progessive zealots have a nasty habit of not taking any responsibility for the fall out of the ideas "as long as its in a good cause" aka noble cause corruption is rife and dehumanization techniques for dealing with dissenters seems to be the modus operandi for progressives. What you have to remember is that the Nazis started life as a socialist progressive green party, They were only in power for 12 years and look waht they achieved when unchallenged from within. A little opposition is good for society.
ReplyVote up (195)down (155)
Original comment
what i was trying to say is that left wing progessive zealots have a nasty habit of not taking any responsibility for the fall out of the ideas "as long as its in a good cause" aka noble cause corruption is rife and dehumanization techniques for dealing with dissenters seems to be the modus operandi for progressives. What you have to remember is that the Nazis started life as a socialist progressive green party, They were only in power for 12 years and look waht they achieved when unchallenged from within. A little opposition is good for society.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1559 days ago)
Agreed, a little (maybe even a lot) opposition is good for society. When it comes to the Nazis i must point out that they included the word "sozialistischent&qu ot; in their name just to attract people to their party and away from socialist/communist parties (hitler hated the socialists and communists). It is generally agreed that fascism is on the right side of the political spectrum. Source LINK
ReplyVote up (179)down (186)
Original comment
Agreed, a little (maybe even a lot) opposition is good for society. When it comes to the Nazis i must point out that they included the word "sozialistischent&qu ot; in their name just to attract people to their party and away from socialist/communist parties (hitler hated the socialists and communists). It is generally agreed that fascism is on the right side of the political spectrum. Source LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1558 days ago)
The nazis described themselves as socialists, because they were socialists, hitler declared himself a socialist. Fascism and communism are just two fingers on the same hand, Your are in denial.
ReplyVote up (179)down (174)
Original comment
The nazis described themselves as socialists, because they were socialists, hitler declared himself a socialist. Fascism and communism are just two fingers on the same hand, Your are in denial.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1558 days ago)
I disagree! Source: Philosophy forums LINK .User Permalink states """Sociali sm, for better or worse, is a polyvalent term. Some use it to denote any regimentation and planning in the economic sphere, and in that sense the Nazi regime was socialistic, as was the Soviet Union, and as the United States are today. In fact, this usage seems to subsume finance capitalism under socialism, which is why I think it is fairly useless. However, if socialism is understood as requiring proletarian control, the Nazi regime was not socialist, nor was the Soviet Union for that matter, given that it was controlled by large financial and industrial cartels, and given that it had reduced much of the German proletariat to slave status.""" . In another comment on the same site the same user states """General ly Classical Capitalism passed into state capitalist socialism before WWI and then through WWII, by the post war all advanced economies were socialist because the means of production had been socialize by corporate finance capital. That is the logic of capital to grow and grow beyond any control of private property, swallowing that up in order to accumulate [.....] The critical bit was socialism in the interests of whom. This was corporate-finance socialism, the same system in general that we have now -- looking after the bankers etc., at the expense of everyone else. People like me are interested only in having the state and economy working in the interest of ordinary working people. The difference in effect is huge, even if on paper only one major thing is changed. """ . I agree the most with the statements i just presented. Another interesting source states the following LINK """Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic [.....] To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right. The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such. However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was. """ I believe you are in denial.
ReplyVote up (145)down (183)
Original comment
I disagree! Source: Philosophy forums LINK .User Permalink states """Sociali sm, for better or worse, is a polyvalent term. Some use it to denote any regimentation and planning in the economic sphere, and in that sense the Nazi regime was socialistic, as was the Soviet Union, and as the United States are today. In fact, this usage seems to subsume finance capitalism under socialism, which is why I think it is fairly useless. However, if socialism is understood as requiring proletarian control, the Nazi regime was not socialist, nor was the Soviet Union for that matter, given that it was controlled by large financial and industrial cartels, and given that it had reduced much of the German proletariat to slave status.""" . In another comment on the same site the same user states """General ly Classical Capitalism passed into state capitalist socialism before WWI and then through WWII, by the post war all advanced economies were socialist because the means of production had been socialize by corporate finance capital. That is the logic of capital to grow and grow beyond any control of private property, swallowing that up in order to accumulate [.....] The critical bit was socialism in the interests of whom. This was corporate-finance socialism, the same system in general that we have now -- looking after the bankers etc., at the expense of everyone else. People like me are interested only in having the state and economy working in the interest of ordinary working people. The difference in effect is huge, even if on paper only one major thing is changed. """ . I agree the most with the statements i just presented. Another interesting source states the following LINK """Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic [.....] To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right. The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such. However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was. """ I believe you are in denial.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1558 days ago)
Wow, what a knee jerk reaction. Its jn the nature of left wing socialists to distance themselves from fascism, however the history books do not lie, and in recent elections "far right" political parties always get their biggest gains in left wing strongholds, because its the same voter demographic.
ReplyVote up (188)down (161)
Original comment
Wow, what a knee jerk reaction. Its jn the nature of left wing socialists to distance themselves from fascism, however the history books do not lie, and in recent elections "far right" political parties always get their biggest gains in left wing strongholds, because its the same voter demographic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1558 days ago)
knee jerk reaction is right, the same knee jerk reaction, or reflex that a cop has when an armed robber pulls a gun on him, it's part of the training. " in recent elections "far right" political parties always get their biggest gains in left wing strongholds" you must be from Mars, are you new on boreme? i don't think i've seen you around.
ReplyVote up (171)down (155)
Original comment
knee jerk reaction is right, the same knee jerk reaction, or reflex that a cop has when an armed robber pulls a gun on him, it's part of the training. " in recent elections "far right" political parties always get their biggest gains in left wing strongholds" you must be from Mars, are you new on boreme? i don't think i've seen you around.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1558 days ago)
no i just happen to live in one of those left wing voting areas and talk to people from this voting demographic every day. Its one of the big delusional memes of the left that fascism will come from "conservatives" , ask margeret hodge (privately)what she thinks about that
ReplyVote up (154)down (156)
Original comment
no i just happen to live in one of those left wing voting areas and talk to people from this voting demographic every day. Its one of the big delusional memes of the left that fascism will come from "conservatives" , ask margeret hodge (privately)what she thinks about that
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1558 days ago)
i think your definition of socialism is skewed. you should read the articles/links i have provided for you in my previous comments. Here's i paragraph from one of the links that i hope will be very informative for you """In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms. Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.""" Source LINK . definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (you will find a skewed definition of socialism on the internet, where it says the means of productions are controlled by the government, but that's not what socialism is about) my source LINK .
ReplyVote up (167)down (151)
Original comment
i think your definition of socialism is skewed. you should read the articles/links i have provided for you in my previous comments. Here's i paragraph from one of the links that i hope will be very informative for you """In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms. Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.""" Source LINK . definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (you will find a skewed definition of socialism on the internet, where it says the means of productions are controlled by the government, but that's not what socialism is about) my source LINK .
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1556 days ago)
Who cares what your sociology professer thinks, it doesn't alter the fact that socialists and fascists have the same core demographic voter
ReplyVote up (160)down (171)
Original comment
Who cares what your sociology professer thinks, it doesn't alter the fact that socialists and fascists have the same core demographic voter
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1556 days ago)
if by " core demographic voter" you mean human beings, then yes, you are right. If by " core demographic voter" you mean people who are tired of the current, corrupt political class, you are right, but this doesn't change the fact that some politicians use socialist slogans and misnomers because they're seeing that the people want it; for the BNP it doesn't matter how they win elections, their mentality is "tell them what they want to hear until the election is won, and then we can do whatever we want". Deceitful politicians use misnomers all the time, it's a manipulation technique. "Who cares what your sociology professer thinks" : the people do.
ReplyVote up (148)down (150)
Original comment
if by " core demographic voter" you mean human beings, then yes, you are right. If by " core demographic voter" you mean people who are tired of the current, corrupt political class, you are right, but this doesn't change the fact that some politicians use socialist slogans and misnomers because they're seeing that the people want it; for the BNP it doesn't matter how they win elections, their mentality is "tell them what they want to hear until the election is won, and then we can do whatever we want". Deceitful politicians use misnomers all the time, it's a manipulation technique. "Who cares what your sociology professer thinks" : the people do.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1556 days ago)
PS: sociology LINK . Socialism LINK .
ReplyVote up (159)down (153)
Original comment
PS: sociology LINK . Socialism LINK .
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1555 days ago)
Its only brainwashed sociology students who belive in socialism anymore
ReplyVote up (159)down (159)
Original comment
Its only brainwashed sociology students who belive in socialism anymore
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1555 days ago)
man up! your comment is that of a cynical fatalistic individual, and your comment is also wrong. I am not a sociology student but i consider myself a social democrat, and since there's at least one exception to your statement, it (your statement) is false by default. And i am not the only one in the world who favors social democracy over laisez-faire, liberal, deregulated capitalism or corporatism. I am sure you don't really believe what you just said, as i am sure that you said it only to provoke an emotional response. Generalizations undermine your intellectual credibility.
ReplyVote up (147)down (158)
Original comment
man up! your comment is that of a cynical fatalistic individual, and your comment is also wrong. I am not a sociology student but i consider myself a social democrat, and since there's at least one exception to your statement, it (your statement) is false by default. And i am not the only one in the world who favors social democracy over laisez-faire, liberal, deregulated capitalism or corporatism. I am sure you don't really believe what you just said, as i am sure that you said it only to provoke an emotional response. Generalizations undermine your intellectual credibility.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1555 days ago)
yes thats why its only socialist countries who have had to build walls around their country in order to keep the population in
ReplyVote up (148)down (164)
Original comment
yes thats why its only socialist countries who have had to build walls around their country in order to keep the population in
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1555 days ago)
allegedly socialist countries. remember Misnomer? the countries started out as socialist but they all ended up being dictatorships ruled by one man or a small aristocratic elite, pretending to be socialists. I find myself repeating this: a true socialist direct democracy has never been tried. definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
ReplyVote up (134)down (148)
Original comment
allegedly socialist countries. remember Misnomer? the countries started out as socialist but they all ended up being dictatorships ruled by one man or a small aristocratic elite, pretending to be socialists. I find myself repeating this: a true socialist direct democracy has never been tried. definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1555 days ago)
By your own words every attempt made to build a socialist state will end up in failure, As they used to say in Romania (under ceausescu remember him (and his psychopath wife with her hundreds of honorary degrees )) "we know the theory, but the practice is killing us". Now because every attempt has such a large probabilty of ending in disaster, may i suggest that we logically invoke the precautionary principle and therefore never ever ever attempt to build a socialist state ever ever again.
ReplyVote up (154)down (177)
Original comment
By your own words every attempt made to build a socialist state will end up in failure, As they used to say in Romania (under ceausescu remember him (and his psychopath wife with her hundreds of honorary degrees )) "we know the theory, but the practice is killing us". Now because every attempt has such a large probabilty of ending in disaster, may i suggest that we logically invoke the precautionary principle and therefore never ever ever attempt to build a socialist state ever ever again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1554 days ago)
""By your own words every attempt made to build a socialist state will end up in failure"' nope, it's """almost attempt made to build a socialist state has ended in failure""" . Look at Switzerland, they have a direct democracy and a very large part of the principles of their society are socialist; Look at Finland, Norway, Iceland, even France and Germany, at the basis of their society stands social democracy. I;m not advocating the creation of a 100% socialist state, I am for a direct democracy (among other forms of government) which will automatically implement socialist policies and capitalist policies, depending on the vote of the people. A direct democracy, like the one in Switzerland will lead to the perfect balance between capitalism and socialism (at last in theory). I remember reading an article that said "if the EU is to survive it should take notice to it's smaller federate cousin in the alps, Switzerland". Once again, I am not for socialism i am for Social democracy, however, i often find myself defending socialism from people who insist on topics such as "Hitler was a socialist, Stalin was a socialist, pol pot was a socialist, etc". No they were not, they were manipulative and ruthless dictators, and Hitler was a fascist, and fascism derives from...but we already talked about this. To me, a direct democracy is almost the same thing as social democracy, because the people have the last word on pretty much everything, including economic policies. However, if you would have seen some of my previous comments on other posts, you would have noticed my "iran/vatican/secula r" possible form of government theory/hypothesis. " Now because every attempt has such a large probabilty of ending in disaster," i could say the same think about capitalism... 2008 economic recession ring a bell? how about the fake wars for oil&gas corporations? we should probably never attempt a capitalist society either. Now that doesn't make much sense, does it?
ReplyVote up (155)down (172)
Original comment
""By your own words every attempt made to build a socialist state will end up in failure"' nope, it's """almost attempt made to build a socialist state has ended in failure""" . Look at Switzerland, they have a direct democracy and a very large part of the principles of their society are socialist; Look at Finland, Norway, Iceland, even France and Germany, at the basis of their society stands social democracy. I;m not advocating the creation of a 100% socialist state, I am for a direct democracy (among other forms of government) which will automatically implement socialist policies and capitalist policies, depending on the vote of the people. A direct democracy, like the one in Switzerland will lead to the perfect balance between capitalism and socialism (at last in theory). I remember reading an article that said "if the EU is to survive it should take notice to it's smaller federate cousin in the alps, Switzerland". Once again, I am not for socialism i am for Social democracy, however, i often find myself defending socialism from people who insist on topics such as "Hitler was a socialist, Stalin was a socialist, pol pot was a socialist, etc". No they were not, they were manipulative and ruthless dictators, and Hitler was a fascist, and fascism derives from...but we already talked about this. To me, a direct democracy is almost the same thing as social democracy, because the people have the last word on pretty much everything, including economic policies. However, if you would have seen some of my previous comments on other posts, you would have noticed my "iran/vatican/secula r" possible form of government theory/hypothesis. " Now because every attempt has such a large probabilty of ending in disaster," i could say the same think about capitalism... 2008 economic recession ring a bell? how about the fake wars for oil&gas corporations? we should probably never attempt a capitalist society either. Now that doesn't make much sense, does it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1554 days ago)
obsessed aren't you, but you only have to look at the history books to see the utter failure of socialism, mainly because they always seem to end up in the hands of an insane dictator.
ReplyVote up (181)down (162)
Original comment
obsessed aren't you, but you only have to look at the history books to see the utter failure of socialism, mainly because they always seem to end up in the hands of an insane dictator.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1554 days ago)
stubborn aren't you, but you only have to look at the world you live in to see the undeniable success of socialist policies LINK , mainly because you're obsessed by the False idea that socialism Always ends up in the hands of an insane dictator. Tell me how liberal economic policies (or rampant libertarian capitalism, for all of you Americans out there) are so much better than social democratic ones.
ReplyVote up (165)down (218)
Original comment
stubborn aren't you, but you only have to look at the world you live in to see the undeniable success of socialist policies LINK , mainly because you're obsessed by the False idea that socialism Always ends up in the hands of an insane dictator. Tell me how liberal economic policies (or rampant libertarian capitalism, for all of you Americans out there) are so much better than social democratic ones.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1554 days ago)
yes yes whatever you know there are hundreds of such survays out there for gullible idiots like you to belive in, have you ever heard the phrase "He who pays the piper calls the tune" forgive me, if thats the sort of "proof" you are pushing thrn you have no argument, Its like the good old days under stalin "everybody's happy (and if you aren't we will shoot ya)"
ReplyVote up (151)down (169)
Original comment
yes yes whatever you know there are hundreds of such survays out there for gullible idiots like you to belive in, have you ever heard the phrase "He who pays the piper calls the tune" forgive me, if thats the sort of "proof" you are pushing thrn you have no argument, Its like the good old days under stalin "everybody's happy (and if you aren't we will shoot ya)"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1554 days ago)
1) you are questioning the credibility of the OECD LINK and the validity of their report LINK without bringing any evidence to prove your claim other than your angry,cynical fatalism. 2) you just called me a gullible idiot without providing any proof for your accusation (i suppose you got angry for having to face the truth). 3) ""He who pays the piper calls the tune"" is RIGHT, so i'm guessing you missed this boreme post LINK and here's the source for the post LINK , how 'bout them capitalist bankers, huh? Next time when you're trying to make a point bring to the table something with a bit more substance than calumny. Here's some homework: LINK
ReplyVote up (133)down (178)
Original comment
1) you are questioning the credibility of the OECD LINK and the validity of their report LINK without bringing any evidence to prove your claim other than your angry,cynical fatalism. 2) you just called me a gullible idiot without providing any proof for your accusation (i suppose you got angry for having to face the truth). 3) ""He who pays the piper calls the tune"" is RIGHT, so i'm guessing you missed this boreme post LINK and here's the source for the post LINK , how 'bout them capitalist bankers, huh? Next time when you're trying to make a point bring to the table something with a bit more substance than calumny. Here's some homework: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1554 days ago)
no politically savvy organisation these days commissions a survey without gaming the result in advance, and if by chance they accidently get one that goes against their stated aims, well it will get buried, are you really that naive and retarded you haven't worked that out yet.
ReplyVote up (140)down (127)
Original comment
no politically savvy organisation these days commissions a survey without gaming the result in advance, and if by chance they accidently get one that goes against their stated aims, well it will get buried, are you really that naive and retarded you haven't worked that out yet.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1554 days ago)
seems to me you have no case and you resort to conspiracy theory to try and make your point; and on top of that you resort to calumny and name calling. And i'm also pretty sure you didn't check any of the links i gave you. Conspiracy theory to achieve what? what's there to gain for an evil mastermind / evil aristocracy from a socialist direct democracy? Anyway, there was a guy on boreme who, whenever he lost an argument resorted to conspiracy theory and name calling, and he couldn't even provide the links to his sources; he called himself MAD and you sound a lot like him. Sorry mate, but as far as i'm concerned, this conversation is over, and you lost the argument. Cheers! I'll let you have the last word. (it'll consist mostly of insults but go for it) GO!
ReplyVote up (125)down (131)
Original comment
seems to me you have no case and you resort to conspiracy theory to try and make your point; and on top of that you resort to calumny and name calling. And i'm also pretty sure you didn't check any of the links i gave you. Conspiracy theory to achieve what? what's there to gain for an evil mastermind / evil aristocracy from a socialist direct democracy? Anyway, there was a guy on boreme who, whenever he lost an argument resorted to conspiracy theory and name calling, and he couldn't even provide the links to his sources; he called himself MAD and you sound a lot like him. Sorry mate, but as far as i'm concerned, this conversation is over, and you lost the argument. Cheers! I'll let you have the last word. (it'll consist mostly of insults but go for it) GO!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1554 days ago)
Latest comment: Look everyone socialist Kevin Rudds been kicked out of power.According to that retard guest123456789 its because the majority of australians are either 1) conspiracy theorists or 2) evil capitalist bankers (or in cahoots with evil capitalist bankers). This is because loads and loads of surveys and literature read by guest123456789 say that the only logical option is to be a socialist. Anyone who disagrees with guest123456789 is logically wrong, because guest123456789 is always right. This is because guest123456789 has been feed loads and loads of surveys and literature. I think guest123456789 should get out more and find out how the world really works
ReplyVote up (137)down (141)
Original comment
Latest comment: Look everyone socialist Kevin Rudds been kicked out of power.According to that retard guest123456789 its because the majority of australians are either 1) conspiracy theorists or 2) evil capitalist bankers (or in cahoots with evil capitalist bankers). This is because loads and loads of surveys and literature read by guest123456789 say that the only logical option is to be a socialist. Anyone who disagrees with guest123456789 is logically wrong, because guest123456789 is always right. This is because guest123456789 has been feed loads and loads of surveys and literature. I think guest123456789 should get out more and find out how the world really works
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1555 days ago)
1) You should read the bnp manifesto, it might come as a bit of a shock and 2) all parties operate on "tell them what they want to hear untill the election is won"
ReplyVote up (142)down (144)
Original comment
1) You should read the bnp manifesto, it might come as a bit of a shock and 2) all parties operate on "tell them what they want to hear untill the election is won"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1555 days ago)
1) as people get fed up of the corporate oligopolies that have come to rule us all, yo will find all sorts of extremism flourishing all across the world, that doesn't mean socialism or social democracy are bad things, especially considering that a true socialist direct democracy has never been tried . 2)most parties not all of them,
ReplyVote up (133)down (152)
Original comment
1) as people get fed up of the corporate oligopolies that have come to rule us all, yo will find all sorts of extremism flourishing all across the world, that doesn't mean socialism or social democracy are bad things, especially considering that a true socialist direct democracy has never been tried . 2)most parties not all of them,
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1560 days ago)
twat
ReplyVote up (208)down (197)
Original comment
twat
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1560 days ago)
It depends on the opposition. As we learn and understand more about everything, we have to ditch old ideas as well, otherwise our thinking ends up full of contradictions.
ReplyVote up (108)down (153)
Original comment
It depends on the opposition. As we learn and understand more about everything, we have to ditch old ideas as well, otherwise our thinking ends up full of contradictions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1560 days ago)
agreed but most of the new ideas are crap in practice, thats why you need opposition, to make sure the flaws are noted, and consequently ideas modified or rejected, otherwise you end up with groupthink and regimes like the khmer rouge
ReplyVote up (141)down (146)
Original comment
agreed but most of the new ideas are crap in practice, thats why you need opposition, to make sure the flaws are noted, and consequently ideas modified or rejected, otherwise you end up with groupthink and regimes like the khmer rouge
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: TheMaldonian (1559 days ago)
Look at those nations which are ruled by doctrines planted firmly in the unflinching belief systems of ancient religions. Practically every one of them is undemocratic, mysongyonistic and riddled with sectarianism. You cannot stop reason, you cannot stop thought and you can't stop science and discovery. And if a bloke wants to shag a bloke, who's business is it anyway?
ReplyVote up (140)down (144)
Original comment
Look at those nations which are ruled by doctrines planted firmly in the unflinching belief systems of ancient religions. Practically every one of them is undemocratic, mysongyonistic and riddled with sectarianism. You cannot stop reason, you cannot stop thought and you can't stop science and discovery. And if a bloke wants to shag a bloke, who's business is it anyway?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Maniac (1560 days ago)
the close up on the christian twat makes him look like a maniac
ReplyVote up (157)down (176)
Original comment
the close up on the christian twat makes him look like a maniac
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Tesla's mega-battery goes online in South Australia
Tesla's mega-battery goes online in South Australia
Elon Musk celebrates progress on world's largest battery installation
Elon Musk celebrates progress on world's largest battery installation
Giant mud crab
Giant mud crab
Jim Jefferies finds out if the Great Barrier Reef really is dying
Jim Jefferies finds out if the Great Barrier Reef really is dying
Rare roll cloud spotted in Queensland, Australia
Rare roll cloud spotted in Queensland, Australia