Guardian: Bush planned for war all along. & knew it was unlikely there were WMDs.

[Ted Striker]

StarLightDeath vs. Caligastia

Racist of the Year Deathmatch

[StarLightDeath]

You're right, I'm anti caucasian and indian. God I hate myself.

[Ted Striker]

You should hate yourself

Ya big racist

[StarLightDeath]

Something tells me, since you hail from the People's Republic of California, that your definition of racist probably isn't the dictionary definition of racist.

Here, let me help you out.

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
Actually they aren't even close to being the majority yet and it's not going to happen because there is a big backlash in the US right now on both sides of the aisle. Eventually the border is going to get locked down and those here will assimilate.

The majority of children born in California are hispanic and have been for the last five years. Also New Mexico and Arizona are in a similiar demographic catagory. Those are not small states so I don't believe you are correct in saying they aren't even close to being a demographic majority because in several states they are.

Oerdin you are a reactionary on here...and look who surrounds you. In the US you are a moderate that leans left and far left on some issues.

I suppose, as always, it depends upon how we define terms such as far left, left, center, right, far right. The traditional way which most people define it is as follows. Far right = reactionary, Right = conservative, Centrist = center, Left = liberal, Far Left = communits. A socialist would be moderately left. Have you ever taken a polysci class or read a book to learn what those terms mean? In case you haven't I will tell you.

A reactionary wishes to return society to a previous social order. They believe things have gone totally wrong and the only way to fix it is to return to the past. An example of a reactionary would be the monarchists after the French revolution who wanted to end the Republic and restore the French monarchy.

A conservative believes that society is just about as good as it can possiblely and thinks that only a few minor changes should occur. The conservative still wants to go forward but at a very very slow rate.

A centrist believes that the current systemis mostly good but that there are several issues which need to be addressed. They believe such changes can be effectively dealt with by the existing social order and want to effect change by using the current system. Women who wanted the right to vote would be a historical example of centrists.

Liberals believe there are significant changes which must be made to the social order but that these changes can be made with in the existing social order if enough effort is made. black civil rights leaders who wanted to significantly change the southern social order through nonviolence would be an example of liberals. Socialists are even further to the left then liberals and believe even more radical change is needed to create a better society or to correct injustice.

Communists believe that the entire existing social order is unjust and that the system cannot be reformed through the existing social order. They believe society needs to fundimentally change in order to prevent the gross injustices of the past from reoccuring. The obvious example of this would be the over throw of the Russian monarchy.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
Something tells me, since you hail from the People's Republic of California, that your definition of racist probably isn't the dictionary definition of racist.

Here, let me help you out.

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Your description of "Hispanics" was very thoughtful. I wonder what "they" would think about it?


You don't even know a Hispanic person, that's pretty obvious.


You do know you're a racist though.

[StarLightDeath]

The majority of children born in California are hispanic and have been for the last five years. Also New Mexico and Arizona are in a similiar demographic catagory. Those are not small states so I don't believe you are correct in saying they aren't even close to being a demographic majority because in several states they are.

Yes, and look at the trouble it's causing for you guys, especially in your education system. Are you guys ever going to fix this ****?

I suppose, as always, it depends upon how we define terms such as far left, left, center, right, far right. The traditional way which most people define it is as follows. Far right = reactionary, Right = conservative, Centrist = center, Left = liberal, Far Left = socialist.

I just define it as conservative, moderate-right, moderate-left, liberal, anti-American traitor trash that should be executed.

[StarLightDeath]

Your description of "Hispanics" was very thoughtful. I wonder what "they" would think about it?


You don't even know a Hispanic person, that's pretty obvious.


You do know you're a racist though.

My business partner happens to be hispanic and he's from Argentina. He actually agrees with me about my definition and we always talk about how Spanish is trying to take over English. Why don't you try proving my description wrong? You tell me how combining native indians and caucasians makes a new race. Also, you miserably fail to prove I'm a racist and the only way you can call me one is by using your own defintion of one. It is obvious that under the dictionary's definition I am not one.

[Ted Striker]

LOL

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard

Okay, you're a racist according to my definition, and a bigot according to your own.

It's also clear you discriminate against Mexicans in particular, but you probably lump anyone from Central America in that group.

You racist bigot.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath


Why don't you try proving my description wrong? You tell me how combining native indians and caucasians makes a new race. It is obvious that under the dictionary's definition I am not one.

race1 Audio pronunciation of "race" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

Jeez you don't even understand your own definition. What the hell kinda business do you run without any decent thinking skills?

[StarLightDeath]

Again, you keep repeating the same **** over and over and using your trademarked thumb sign without really any substance. Though when you look at all your other posts I guess this is the norm for you. No matter how many thumb signs you give or how many little LOL smileys you put in it doesn't help to prove your point. It's probably best to wait for someone to come by and help you out which I think is what you're doing.

[Dinner]

Continuing the topic of my last post to help those people who do not understand the terms. These are the traditional ideological positions of various political streams of thought. Each has it's obvious problems which I shall not deal with here. Instead I simply state their relative positions.

Communist - They believe that all means of production should be owned by the state in order to prevent one class of people from using another class of people. A profits should be reinvested into the people and into new state owned means of production.

Socialist - They believe that society must be based upon individual property ownership however businesses must be regulated in order to prevent abuse. Further some major means of production (typically key industries) are so vital to the nation or so open to abuse that the state should collectively own them. France nationalizing most of its car industry in the late 1940's or most other 1st world nations nationalizing health care are examples of socialism.

Facism - Private property should be the basis for the national economy but all means of production should be subordinate to the needs of the state and be regulated in a fashion which best benifets the state. The glory or the needs of the state take priority over the needs of individual businessmen to make a profit.

Then there are the various shades of capitalism which vary based upon the amount of regulation. It goes from a completely laisez affair system with no regulations at all to a market capitalist system which retains individual ownership but which regulates in order to prevent abuse.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
Are you trying to get a rise out of me, Agent Kujan?

-Arrian

Not particularly.

Are you saying I'm wrong? I could give you a list of warmongering and anti-democratic actions the US has performed in the last 50 years if you like.

Compare that list with the behaviour of Canada or Sweden.

[Arrian]

How about comparing with any other major power. Apples to apples and all that. Canada and Sweden are Oranges. Or maybe orange smoothies.

That's not really the point, though. Are you wrong? It depends on what makes a country "warmongering and anti-democratic." The accusation certainly seems to suggest that the USA is, overall, a country that warmongers and opposes democracy. Has the USA fought wars it should not have fought? Yes. Has the USA engaged in overthrowing governments or helping out others (despotic ones)? Yes. Does that make the United States, overall, a "warmongering and anti-democratic" country? IMO, the simple answer is "no" and the more complex answer is "less so than any other major world power." No country that has ever existed and has been large & powerful has a clean track record. Hell, even Sweden and Canada have probably done things the shouldn't have done.

Not that such things matter to you, when you can make yourself feel superior by throwing out smug one-liners.

Returning to my original point about the Guardian: I can get the same information elsewhere, without the bile concerning all things American.

The Bush Administration wanted war with Iraq and nothing was gonna stop them. SHOCKER! I knew this already, without the brilliant insight of the Guardian.

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Although it was a great post Arrian...and spot on as well, it will fall on deaf ears of those with an anti-American agenda. Sad to see those people so limited in their thought process....