Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 134
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,245
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Hanson was exposed as a racist bigot, whereas Cornes was exposed as a bit incompetent. It's not quite the same kettle of fish (but I do think Labor would have been better served to disendorse Cornes).
    Hanson was never exposed as anything of the sort. Her views were determined as unpalatable to the general population.

    If you wish to argue that in your opinion she was a racist bigot, feel free and I'll debate the issue (not that I would vote for her in a pink fit).
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,122
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Hanson was exposed as a racist bigot
    Only if you define treating all races equally, as advocated by Martin Luther King, as "racist". You know, "judging by the content of our character not the colour of our skin."

    I wouldn't vote for her either, because of her isolationism/protectionism and a basically leftist economic package.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Only if you define treating all races equally, as advocated by Martin Luther King, as "racist". You know, "judging by the content of our character not the colour of our skin."
    For his next trick, Jono will demonstrate that black is white..

    I am not sure what is "equal" about moratoriums on either Asian or Muslim immigration.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,245
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    I am not sure what is "equal" about moratoriums on either Asian or Muslim immigration.
    Perhaps I can help. Hanson was wishing to limit (not ban) Asian and Muslim immigrants as a proportion of all races and creeds for the sake of proportional balance of overall immigrants - and only until that balance was brought to bear, IIRC.

    And more broadly, she wanted a slower rate of immigration across the board (again not cessation). Her marking a point on a line is just as valid as someone else marking a point, unless anyone who nominates a rate under someone else's is branded a bigot (which I note is not the case you are making).

    I'm not a commentator on the issue because she had no traction with me as a serious candidate and I didn't pay close attention to the minutiae. I did listen to the apoplectic outrage opposing her, but I only heard noise, misquotes, appalling paraphrasing of her and no substance.
    Last edited by Basil; 02-12-2007 at 11:23 PM.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,122
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    For his next trick, Jono will demonstrate that black is white..
    That's your thing, since you think that "racist" means "treating all races equally" and "anti-racist" means "privileges based on skin colour".

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    I am not sure what is "equal" about moratoriums on either Asian or Muslim immigration.
    Once again, Keating's favourite Imam, Sarcofelis Hilaly. Some of us don't want his type here to spread hatred of Australians, Jews, and women who won't wear a burqa.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  6. #6
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    Perhaps I can help. Hanson was wishing to limit (not ban) Asian and Muslim immigrants as a proportion of all races and creeds for the sake of proportional balance of overall immigrants - and only until that balance was brought to bear, IIRC.
    What you just described would count as racism under my interpretation.

    Using race discriminate, when there is no justification. Where is the proof that having a balance in race immigration provides any tangible benefits. Is it not better to assess indivuals based on their own merits regardless of race?

    How does race effect a person ability to perform as part of the Australian community?

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,122
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    What you just described would count as racism under my interpretation.
    Come off it! Islam is not a race. And we have every right to insist that if people want to come to Australia, certain things are unaceptable, like sentencing the victim of gang rape to flogging and jail, or trying to lynch a teacher for naming a teddy bear "Muhammad", or declaring that women without burqas were "cats' meat" as Keating's favorite Imam "Sarcofelis" Hilaly said ...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Using race discriminate, when there is no justification.
    Indeed not. This includes the racist policy of affirmative action.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Where is the proof that having a balance in race immigration provides any tangible benefits. Is it not better to assess indivuals based on their own merits regardless of race?
    Where were you when Labor instituted the White Australia policy?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    How does race effect a person ability to perform as part of the Australian community?
    It doesn't. Any more silly questions?
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 03-12-2007 at 05:45 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,245
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    What you just described would count as racism under my interpretation.
    OK, we'll have to agree to differ. I'll try (as best I can) illustrate why I reject your rationale. I note that this topic (for me) is highly subjective. While I can't claim that my, your, Hanson's, anyone's approach is right or wrong; I believe I can successfully refute your (I say 'subjective') claim (subjectively!)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Using race discriminate, when there is no justification.
    I believe your rationale is far too narrow (and I assume not just for the sake of argument). You have cited two things:
    1. Race to discriminate
    2. Lack of justification

    1. Race to discriminate
    Using the Hanson model (and again I do not claim to be an expert), I believe she wished to substitute (pro tem) one race for another. Let's say (and it appears fine for the sake of your blanket rejection) that she wished to substitute Asian for Sudanese.

    However, one must examine further, especially in the face of such a weighty claim. For instance, if she were later to seek to redress what she saw as an imbalance of too many Sudanese, by slowing their rate of acceptance and increasing Asian immigration, one would have to also claim that now she was being racist (towards Sudanese in favour of Asians). From the argument you have put forward, there is no other conclusion.

    So my first finding in her defence is that an allegation of racism against her fails because her supposed racism is part-time and importantly not directed a particular race, but at any group who happens to be 'winning' the quota system.

    A benefactor which gives it money to blind people in year one and then deaf people in year two cannot be subject to a claim of discrimination and a subsequent scrutiny of merit.

    2. Lack of justification
    She did justify her position by wishing for a balanced mix of people. That is justification. You or I may not agree with her intention, but she has supplied a reason, and the reason bore no resemblance to a White Australia policy.

    In fact a case could be made that retaining the 'imbalanced' status quo is unfair to the lesser represented. Jono made this point quite succinctly. Try this for size:
    "Australia is a racist pig of a place. It's predilection for favouring Asian immigration is the clearest and most insulting action possible. The only conclusion that can be drawn by this policy of imbalance is that Australia proactively favours Asians over Africans."

    Sounds good, doesn't it? This PC crap and intellectualising must stop.

    So that is the second reason why I reject the foundation of your assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Where is the proof that having a balance in race immigration provides any tangible benefits.
    I don't have any. Hanson probably doesn't either. I hope to demonstrate with my next that the question is (unintentionally) the wrong one to pose. I believe her rationale was one of balance and what seems reasonable - ie embrace a multicultural society - and making sure it is in fact multicultural!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Is it not better to assess indivuals based on their own merits regardless of race?
    This is where I think your position gets stickier than a toffee shop meltdown. Indeed it's where I think any over-simplistic approach suffers the same fate. I'll seek to show that you selectively pick a point on a continuum, claim it to be correct and at at the same time, reject another point on the continuum. Let's have a look.

    "Assess individuals based on merit?" Fine for a First XI selection - not with a global crisis that's been going on for decades. Right now billions of people need to get out of where they are - right now! Thousands will be dead by the time I finish this post!

    It is clear that the only, I repeat 'only', morally sound way ahead is to stuff jobs, the economy and any other white bread ideals we have and get the whole lot over here - NOW (oops another 1,000+ just died during that paragraph). We won't. Why not? Well we have considerations, don't we?

    -- We won't be able to fund chess
    -- We won't be able to fund the arts
    -- We won't be able to fund the Opera House
    -- We won't be able to fund the Olympics
    -- We won't be able to fund people with a wonky eye
    -- Keep adding - the list is endless (and embarrassing to us all, of course)

    So, returning to your question of merit, we would find millions of people meritorious. Do we accept them all? No. We have a quota. A bloody quota. Why? Because we're selfish. Could we accept 1,000,000 refugees and still exist? Yes.

    Are we focusing on Asian and Sudanese when we could/ should be focusing on people with a week to live? Yes.

    Do we fiddle around and spend hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars working out whether Mr ABC really should be allowed to live here and be reunited with his daughter who's got a job working in a bank and married a truck driver, while ... ooops there's another 1,000 people dropped off the face of the earth to be buried exactly where they dropped.

    So I entirely reject your suggestion of merit when we (globally) are missing the point entirely. We are a disgrace. Not only should we hang our collective heads in shame, I save an extra kick up the backside for arguments such as yours which fiddle and twiddle around trying to intellectualise the semantics of a situation.

    I could go on forever talking about the current system's lack of merit criteria, but I must go and have a lie down (and try not to think of the agony and misery which abounds while we chat). My head can remain firmly in the sand.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    How does race effect a person ability to perform as part of the Australian community?
    It doesn't. No one has claimed otherwise.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    Perhaps I can help. Hanson was wishing to limit (not ban) Asian and Muslim immigrants as a proportion of all races and creeds for the sake of proportional balance of overall immigrants - and only until that balance was brought to bear, IIRC.
    YRIC. Pauline wants to suspend Mulsim immigration completely.
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-29277,00.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauline
    They've just opened up the floodgates to allow people here that have no intention of being Australian or being proud Australians.

    I've actually now called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration because I believe it's not for reasons of religious or any other reason.

    But I think it is a cultural difference to us as Australians and we must protect our own culture.
    The biggest source of immigrants to Australia is New Zealand, closely followed by England. Yet somehow, she never has any concern about them. Muslims number a small proportion of immigrants to Australia (and a tiny percentage overall), yet Pauline and other fear mongers would have you believe we are being overrun.

    And more broadly, she wanted a slower rate of immigration across the board (again not cessation).
    Yet her rhetoric is all about Muslims and Asians. If she spoke only of immigration in general we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    Last edited by pax; 03-12-2007 at 11:15 PM.

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Once again, Keating's favourite Imam, Sarcofelis Hilaly. Some of us don't want his type here to spread hatred of Australians, Jews, and women who won't wear a burqa.
    Earth to Jono: not every Muslim is Sheikh Hilaly. It is possible to deny entry to individuals without denying a massive group of people on the basis of their religion.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,122
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    The biggest source of immigrants to Australia is New Zealand, closely followed by England. Yet somehow, she never has any concern about them.
    Kiwis and Poms don't fly jumbos into buildings, and NZ and England actually sentence gang rapists not gang rape victims.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Muslims number a small proportion of immigrants to Australia (and a tiny percentage overall), yet Pauline and other fear mongers would have you believe we are being overrun.
    It took only 19 on 11-9.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Earth to Jono: not every Muslim is Sheikh Hilaly. It is possible to deny entry to individuals without denying a massive group of people on the basis of their religion.
    Where are these moderate Muslims that lefties tell all about?

    Frankly, if we have evidence that someone danced with joy after 11-9, supported flogging rape victims, cheered Sarcofelis, denied the Holocaust, then we should not allow them in.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 03-12-2007 at 11:38 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,245
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    YRIC. Pauline wants to suspend Mulsim immigration completely.
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-29277,00.html
    My comments referred to her notorious platform from a decade ago. I believe I do recall correctly. Your quoted story of a month ago, I confess to having no prior knowledge of.

    There seems to be a little confusion between us over 'ceasing', 'permanent', temporary', 'ban', 'completely' and 'moratorium'. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "suspend completely". It is true that she now wishes to suspend (pro tem, viz moratorium) Muslim immigration. And this is why she is a bone-head!

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    The biggest source of immigrants to Australia is New Zealand, closely followed by England. Yet somehow, she never has any concern about them.
    Good point. And possibly a terminal one to her defence. There is the issue of adopting Australian values, but her blanket statements(?) seem to fail to acknowledge that good and bad exist in all.
    Last edited by Basil; 03-12-2007 at 11:45 PM.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  13. #13
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    I believe your rationale is far too narrow (and I assume not just for the sake of argument). You have cited two things:
    1. Race to discriminate
    2. Lack of justification

    1. Race to discriminate
    Using the Hanson model (and again I do not claim to be an expert), I believe she wished to substitute (pro tem) one race for another. Let's say (and it appears fine for the sake of your blanket rejection) that she wished to substitute Asian for Sudanese.

    However, one must examine further, especially in the face of such a weighty claim. For instance, if she were later to seek to redress what she saw as an imbalance of too many Sudanese, by slowing their rate of acceptance and increasing Asian immigration, one would have to also claim that now she was being racist (towards Sudanese in favour of Asians). From the argument you have put forward, there is no other conclusion.

    So my first finding in her defence is that an allegation of racism against her fails because her supposed racism is part-time and importantly not directed a particular race, but at any group who happens to be 'winning' the quota system.
    So was she proposing to ban caucasian (white) immigration until there was a balance between the number of caucasians and asians living in Australia? The answer is no; the underlying ideal of the policy in my opinion was to maintain the status quo of a caucasian majority in Australia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    2. Lack of justification
    She did justify her position by wishing for a balanced mix of people. That is justification. You or I may not agree with her intention, but she has supplied a reason, and the reason bore no resemblance to a White Australia policy

    In fact a case could be made that retaining the 'imbalanced' status quo is unfair to the lesser represented. Jono made this point quite succinctly. Try this for size:
    "Australia is a racist pig of a place. It's predilection for favouring Asian immigration is the clearest and most insulting action possible. The only conclusion that can be drawn by this policy of imbalance is that Australia proactively favours Asians over Africans."
    Again if we want a race (religion) balance they why target Asians and Muslims, both are already minoirty groups, based on your justification we should be restricting caucasian and christian immigration (so that we can have a balanced population).


    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    I don't have any. Hanson probably doesn't either. I hope to demonstrate with my next that the question is (unintentionally) the wrong one to pose. I believe her rationale was one of balance and what seems reasonable - ie embrace a multicultural society - and making sure it is in fact multicultural!
    The point fails again because the policy did not encourage minority cultures to migrate to Australia and restrict the majority culture White/Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    This is where I think your position gets stickier than a toffee shop meltdown. Indeed it's where I think any over-simplistic approach suffers the same fate. I'll seek to show that you selectively pick a point on a continuum, claim it to be correct and at at the same time, reject another point on the continuum. Let's have a look.

    "Assess individuals based on merit?" Fine for a First XI selection - not with a global crisis that's been going on for decades. Right now billions of people need to get out of where they are - right now! Thousands will be dead by the time I finish this post!

    It is clear that the only, I repeat 'only', morally sound way ahead is to stuff jobs, the economy and any other white bread ideals we have and get the whole lot over here - NOW (oops another 1,000+ just died during that paragraph). We won't. Why not? Well we have considerations, don't we?

    -- We won't be able to fund chess
    -- We won't be able to fund the arts
    -- We won't be able to fund the Opera House
    -- We won't be able to fund the Olympics
    -- We won't be able to fund people with a wonky eye
    -- Keep adding - the list is endless (and embarrassing to us all, of course)

    So, returning to your question of merit, we would find millions of people meritorious. Do we accept them all? No. We have a quota. A bloody quota. Why? Because we're selfish. Could we accept 1,000,000 refugees and still exist? Yes.

    Are we focusing on Asian and Sudanese when we could/ should be focusing on people with a week to live? Yes.

    Do we fiddle around and spend hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars working out whether Mr ABC really should be allowed to live here and be reunited with his daughter who's got a job working in a bank and married a truck driver, while ... ooops there's another 1,000 people dropped off the face of the earth to be buried exactly where they dropped.

    So I entirely reject your suggestion of merit when we (globally) are missing the point entirely. We are a disgrace. Not only should we hang our collective heads in shame, I save an extra kick up the backside for arguments such as yours which fiddle and twiddle around trying to intellectualise the semantics of a situation.

    I could go on forever talking about the current system's lack of merit criteria, but I must go and have a lie down (and try not to think of the agony and misery which abounds while we chat). My head can remain firmly in the sand.


    It doesn't. No one has claimed otherwise.

    I agree we can't open the flood gates and I am all for restrictions on Humanitarian immigration. Perhaps I wasn't clear what Imeant by merit; those people who could bring the most benefit to Australia regardless of race. For example people with labour skills that are in need etc. Like merit selection for a job which chooses the most suitable candidate regarless of race.

  14. #14
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Come off it! Islam is not a race.
    Of course but what about asian!!!!

    I guess you will go into some semantic arguement as to why asian is not a race

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    And we have every right to insist that if people want to come to Australia, certain things are unaceptable, like sentencing the victim of gang rape to flogging and jail, or trying to lynch a teacher for naming a teddy bear "Muhammad", or declaring that women without burqas were "cats' meat" as Keating's favorite Imam "Sarcofelis" Hilaly said ...
    Thats why we have Australian laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Indeed not. This includes the racist policy of affirmative action.
    Actually there is the justification (at least according to its supporters) for the discrimination in affirmative action policies, that is, the short term discimination will provide the opportunities to eliminate an existing inequality that can be attributed to previous racial discrimination. Whether or not it is useful is debatable. Personally I don't know enough about the sucess rate of such programs to comment. But I do fear that it provides oppportnities for policies to mask themselves as affirmative action that have another agenda (e.g. Hanson's immigration policy).

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,122
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Of course but what about asian!!!!
    What about it? I am not a supporter of the Labor-introduced White Australia Policy, and neither is Gunner.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    I guess you will go into some semantic arguement as to why asian is not a race
    No, I would ask what this has to do with being wary of radical Muslims.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Thats why we have Australian laws.
    And that's what new migrants should be prepared to live under.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Actually there is the justification (at least according to its supporters) for the discrimination in affirmative action policies, that is, the short term discimination will provide the opportunities to eliminate an existing inequality that can be attributed to previous racial discrimination.
    But as US Chief Justice John Roberts said, the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

    What AA does is punish those of the politically appointed target group for what their group has supposedly done in the past, whether or not they have personally discriminated or benefited from it; and rewards members of the politically favoured group just because they are members of that group, whether or not they have personally been victims of discrimination. The basic error of AA is treating people on the basis of their group, not as individuals.

    In practice, it benefits those already well off in the favoured group, and punishes poorer members of the target group. Or there are absurd situations as Hanson pointed out: two half-brothers with obviously the same opportunities in life in the same family, but one was eligible for Abstudy and the other was not.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Whether or not it is useful is debatable.
    And it's more than debatable that it will be short term either. They said that a quarter of a century ago!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Personally I don't know enough about the sucess rate of such programs to comment.
    I do: documented by the book Affirmative Action Around the World by Dr Thomas Sowell (himself black); see review by Dutch Martin (also black).

    In Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (Yale University Press, 2004), Thomas Sowell takes a global view in examining group preference polices in the U.S., India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Nigeria. Whichever term is used -- affirmative action in America, "positive discrimination" in India, preferences "reflecting the federal character of the country" in Nigeria, or "sons of the soil" preferences in Malaysia -- Dr. Sowell looks at the similarities in the rationale behind these countries' policies, and focuses especially on the actual outcomes.

    Among the common consequences of preference policies in the five-country sample are:
    • They encourage non-preferred groups to redesignate themselves as members of preferred groups to take advantage of group preference policies;
    • They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g. black millionaires), often times to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g. poor whites);
    • They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and
    • They engender animosity toward preferred groups as well as on the part of preferred groups themselves, whose main problem in some cases has been their own inadequacy combined with their resentment of non-preferred groups who — without preferences — consistently outperform them.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 04-12-2007 at 09:51 AM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Australian political leaders.
    By Davidflude in forum Politics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-12-2007, 03:44 PM
  2. Australian Political elections
    By Garvinator in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-09-2006, 09:00 PM
  3. The culture of selection
    By firegoat7 in forum Australian Chess Championships 2006
    Replies: 339
    Last Post: 19-01-2006, 05:18 PM
  4. Championship field
    By pax in forum Australian Chess Championships 2006
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 27-12-2005, 09:44 PM
  5. Is racism exists in Australian chess?
    By Leonid Sandler in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 18-12-2005, 09:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •