Socialist landslide in Portugal!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson
Molly, You're being sillier than ever before.

And the gouverment would fall even if it didn't lie, simply because people are generally cowards.

I do respect your ability to back up insults, bald assertions and unfounded speculation with not so much as a single fact.

You should go into Conservative politics, or the church.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
a ****ing collapse of another country.. I thought was nice..

Damn dominos. Do you think the US should invade?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Damn dominos. Do you think the US should invade?

Dominoes or a house of cards?


It's all in the great game....



Let's play Risk or Diplomacy!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by St Leo
East Germany was intentionally run into the ground by the Soviets.

How so? It had the highest per capita income in the Soviet block.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

You have a problem explaining why DPRK was doing better than RoK up until the 1970s.

Please show per capita income figures in purchasing power parity then show the North Koreans could actually buy anything in the local store.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
a ****ing collapse of another country.. I thought was nice..

Too bad, my Gives a F*ck is broken.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I do respect your ability to back up insults, bald assertions and unfounded speculation with not so much as a single fact.

You should go into Conservative politics, or the church.

And isn't that an insult to both me, conservatives and the church?
You're basing your knowledge on biased and low-quality sources like Zosimos and this crazy website which link You've posted here once. You were defending thesis that western Ukraine was Roman Catholic, and can't accept the fact Greek-catholic church in Ukraine exists only in former Austrian territories.
Here, You deny the fact that the tragedy in Madrid seriously changed the result of last Spanish elections...
What can I say?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
Here, You deny the fact that the tragedy in Madrid seriously changed the result of last Spanish elections...
What can I say?

No, he is not. He is denying that people voted out the conservatives out of cowardice, which is your own insult. He is stating--quite correctly, as exit polls overwhelmingly showed at the time--that the conservatives in Spain were booted for how they handled the attack and their false accusation against the Basques.

So you can say, "you're right molly, I was wrong, I'm sorry."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
Here, You deny the fact that the tragedy in Madrid seriously changed the result of last Spanish elections...
What can I say?

Of course, people like you ignore that support didn't fall until the Conservatives were forced to admit they had been lying about the ETA being behind the bombings, when they learned right away that AQ was behind it. In fact, it probably would have been an even bigger landslide had the Socialists not forced the Conseravties to out themselves, and did it for them instead. People don't like being made fools of.

[Boris Godunov]

And more on that:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407150007

But the assumption that terrorists successfully brought about Aznar's defeat in Spain is questionable. Even if the Madrid terrorist attacks had not occurred, polls show that the election would have been very close. Opinion polls taken before the attack showed the Populist Party's lead over the rival Socialist Party to be between as few as three percentage points and as many as six percentage points -- figures at or near the statistical margin of error.

Furthermore, in the March 21 European edition of TIME magazine, Paris and Brussels bureau chief James Graff reported, "[J]ust hours before the bombings, results leaked from private PP [Aznar's Populist Party] and PSOE [Zapatero's Socialist Party] polling showed the parties in a dead heat, according to the veteran Madrid journalist José Antonio MartÃnez Soler." Even though the American edition of TIME accepted that the Spain bombings may be motivating Osama bin Laden to engage in "preelection terror," the magazine reported that the result of the Spanish elections would likely have been "similar" had they been held a year before: "[P]olls last March found that as much as 90 percent of Spanish voters opposed their government's support for the war in Iraq. The latest terror attacks simply put the Iraq issue back at center stage."

Other evidence suggests that the terrorist attacks may have had some effect on the outcome of the election -- but only indirectly and not in the manner that the terrorists purportedly intended. After the bombings, the Populist Party was greatly weakened by public accusations of a cover-up when, as Graff noted, the "government [led by Aznar] persisted in blaming the Basque terrorists of ETA -- even after news broke of an al-Qaeda connection" as possible retaliation for "Aznar's support for the war in Iraq, which 90% of Spaniards opposed."

The Washington Post reported on March 16 that determining that the ETA Basque separatists committed the attack would have proven politically beneficial to Aznar (and his government), who had "been widely credited for taking a tough stance against ETA." However, when it became apparent to many voters that Aznar was covering up Al Qaeda's responsibility for the attack, distrust of Aznar (which had already taken root, in part as a result of what the Post described as "claims that Aznar's government had concealed damaging information about a major oil spill off Spain's Atlantic coast two years ago") grew. As Graff reported, "[O]n election day, the Socialists surged to an astounding 5% lead over the PP."

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You're just trolling, right? Wealth in money is real as far as human society is concerned, even if it's nothing more than electrons. Wealth isn't just things, it's also obligations, and all of those obligations would disppear if the stock market crashed to zero, and that's a hell of a lot of wealth.

Che defending capitalism against a loony communist.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Che defending capitalism against a loony communist.

Err, money and wealth aren't exactly specific to capitalism you know

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Che defending capitalism against a loony communist.

I'm not defending capitalism, just the notion that non-tangible wealth isn't real.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The question to ask is, if it's real wealth in the stock market, how could it all vanish in a puff of smoke? When the market goes up, where did the money in it come from? It's all just funny stuff.

If a virus wiped out your bank account with no trace, would you have lost real wealth?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, he is not. He is denying that people voted out the conservatives out of cowardice, which is your own insult. He is stating--quite correctly, as exit polls overwhelmingly showed at the time--that the conservatives in Spain were booted for how they handled the attack and their false accusation against the Basques.

So you can say, "you're right molly, I was wrong, I'm sorry."

Boris, could You please read his post first?
He didn't claim that. If I should apologise it's only one word, "only", which I used as emphasis, but which's meaning is incorrect in my sentence.
Molly did not write what You claim He did, He just replied "how many times did he (Usama) vote?"
which I read as denying of Usama's influence on the elections. Perhaps it was not intended, even Molly has some common sense I guess, perhaps He wanted to temper my opinion - and then, and only then, He'd be right, but if that's what He's ment, He should've done it in a clear way, not in a blurry sarcastic way that He did.

Even if the partial responsibility for electing the smaheful Zapateronians rests on Aznar's handling of the case, it is only result of the primary action, that is terrorist attack. I do not deny it. My point stays.

Also, if You read my posts with attention, You' find out that in fact, I didn't deny that what gouverment did didn't have any influence. But some voted for socialists of cowardice, it is obvious. And the rise of votes for socialists after it was said it wasn't ETA that conducted the attacks can be explained both by the gouverment's behaviour and by that only then it was clear that it had to do with Spanish presence in Iraq.

No matter what, backing of from Iraq by Zapatero, if really it didn't (unlike much of its support) come of cowardice, but naivity of pacifism or populism, it will be seen as such by the terrorists and by the world in general and that's white the right thing to do was to let the forces stay precisely because the attack has happened.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Of course, people like you ignore that support didn't fall until the Conservatives were forced to admit they had been lying about the ETA being behind the bombings,

Is it sure it was a lie, and not fooling themselves as well as the rest?
Also, what I've written above: it's a secondary thing. Without the attack, there would be no question if the gouverment lied or not.
And even without the lie, the support for conservatives would fall.