Bush fails a global test

[E-Z-B]

When other world leaders rushed to respond to the crisis caused by last Sunday's tsunamis in southern Asia, George Bush decamped to his ranch in Texas for another vacation. For three days after the disaster, the only formal response from the White House was issued by a deputy press secretary. Finally, after a United Nations official made comments that seemed to highlight the disengaged nature of the official U.S. reaction to one of the worst catastrophes in human history, the president appeared at a hastily-scheduled press conference to grumble about how critics of his embarrassing performance were "misguided and ill-informed."

The president's missteps have been noted by the rest of the world, and by diplomatic observers at home. Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Bush had missed an opportunity to display humanitarian, moral and diplomatic leadership in the world. Reflecting on the administration's response, Derek Mitchell, an expert on Asian affairs at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "I think politically they've done poorly."

At a time when the U.S. image abroad has been battered by the president's unilateral decision to order the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration should have been sensitive to the need to respond quickly and effectively to a disaster of this magnitude. But that did not happen. Bush failed to engage at the critical point and then peddled the lie that the U.S. is in the forefront of providing humanitarian aid.

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=2093

I hear that he's now increased aid to $350m. But was that just in response to his critics abroad?

[MrBadExample]

I feel sorry for anyone who was waiting for Bush "to display humanitarian, moral and diplomatic leadership in the world."

[Drocket]

Pretty much what MrBadExample said: If you're waiting for Bush to care even slightly about 100,000 dead people and millions homeless, don't hold your breath. Bush 'cares' about things only so far as it advances his political agenda.

[E-Z-B]

Pretty much what MrBadExample said: If you're waiting for Bush to care even slightly about 100,000 dead people and millions homeless, don't hold your breath. Bush 'cares' about things only so far as it advances his political agenda.

http://www.dubyasworld.com/dubya-tsunami-drive.jpg

[dtcarson]

And of course the Bush-hating media doesn't help.
He originally pledged 35 million or whatever. Not enough, give us more you stingy bastards.
Now pledged 350 million.
Seen on CNN's Factoid crawl today:
'It's All Gone: Bush's pledge of 350 million for tsunami aid empties world emergency fund' [or whatever it's called.]
Even if I detested Bush, I'd support him in the face of this biased bullshit.
I dont' care it the president, any president 'cares.' BFD. That and a dollar might get you a candy bar. *Do* something if you're going to.
How many of you have given to the tsunami aid efforts?

"Secretary of State Colin Powell estimated that the U.S. contribution in the wake of the disaster will reach $1 billion when all aid is counted. Indeed, the president noted that this country provided $2.4 billion in food, cash and humanitarian aid to cover disasters in 2003. "That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year,'' he said."

"Using a common measure of development aid, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. In second place was Japan at $8.9 billion. That doesn't include U.S. spending on special projects, such as HIV/AIDS assistance."

'Then there are personal contributions. Americans heavily support many U.S.- and internationally-based aid and relief organizations, such as the Red Cross. They routinely respond with open wallets to special fund drives for victims of disasters such as the one on the Indian Ocean. They can be expected to do so this time."

http://www.tauntongazette.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1711&dept_id=226963&newsid =13658333

Stingy? While I have only the best thoughts and prayers for those affected by the disaster, those calling us as a country or as a citizenry can, well, GFY.

[MrBadExample]

Has he ever passed a test...
Spelling?
Public speaking?
Algebra?
Air Force Physical?
Breathalyzer?

[ZarathosNY]

There is a huge Muslim population in the area. A quick response would have dispelled the notion that we are on a jihad against Muslims. It was an opportunity for Bush to help reform our image in the world, and Bush basically stayed on his ranch and read My Pet Goat.

[E-Z-B]

And of course the Bush-hating media doesn't help.
He originally pledged 35 million or whatever. Not enough, give us more you stingy bastards.
Now pledged 350 million.
Seen on CNN's Factoid crawl today:
'It's All Gone: Bush's pledge of 350 million for tsunami aid empties world emergency fund' [or whatever it's called.]
Even if I detested Bush, I'd support him in the face of this biased bullshit.
I dont' care it the president, any president 'cares.' BFD. That and a dollar might get you a candy bar. *Do* something if you're going to.
How many of you have given to the tsunami aid efforts?

"Secretary of State Colin Powell estimated that the U.S. contribution in the wake of the disaster will reach $1 billion when all aid is counted. Indeed, the president noted that this country provided $2.4 billion in food, cash and humanitarian aid to cover disasters in 2003. "That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year,'' he said."

"Using a common measure of development aid, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. In second place was Japan at $8.9 billion. That doesn't include U.S. spending on special projects, such as HIV/AIDS assistance."

'Then there are personal contributions. Americans heavily support many U.S.- and internationally-based aid and relief organizations, such as the Red Cross. They routinely respond with open wallets to special fund drives for victims of disasters such as the one on the Indian Ocean. They can be expected to do so this time."

http://www.tauntongazette.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1711&dept_id=226963&newsid =13658333

Stingy? While I have only the best thoughts and prayers for those affected by the disaster, those calling us as a country or as a citizenry can, well, GFY.

Bush has gone on to spend over $200b in Iraq so far. As the death toll was reaching tens of thousands from the tsunami, Bush pledged $0.035b only after breaking away from his vacation. That's 0.0175% of what he was willing to spend in Iraq. What does that tell you?

[Drocket]

And of course the Bush-hating media doesn't help.
He originally pledged 35 million or whatever. Not enough, give us more you stingy bastards.
It is pretty dang stingy when you consider that he planned to spend more on his inaguration. Because, after all, parties for rich people are more important than millions of homeless poor people.

Now pledged 350 million.
AFTER he gets called on being a cheap SOB. If there hadn't been a public outcry over his penny-pinching in the face of one of the worst natural distasters in human history, do you really think he would have bothered?

Seen on CNN's Factoid crawl today:
'It's All Gone: Bush's pledge of 350 million for tsunami aid empties world emergency fund' [or whatever it's called.]
Sounds like the emergency fund needs more funding. Oh, wait, we threw all the money down the rathole in Iraq so Bush's oil buddies could make a few billion more bucks.

Stingy? While I have only the best thoughts and prayers for those affected by the disaster, those calling us as a country or as a citizenry can, well, GFY.
The US citizenry has helped relief efforts quite a bit. Bush, on the other hand, is a heartless, cold-blooded bastard. And since he is the chosen representative of our country, his actions (or lack thereof) make us look bad.

[dtcarson]

What's it supposed to tell me?
The US gives 40% of all relief aid in the world.
What's that tell you?

And don't forget, Bush didn't spend that money himself. There's this little thing called the Congress that helps to sign the checks. They've proven quite adept at filibustering judicial nominees, if they wanted to stop spending on Iraq, they could. But they pander to whatever way the polls are showing. What does that tell you?

And my issue isn't with giving. I'm all for helping people who need help, and this disaster is definitely one of Nature's most brutal. But if we're going to help, don't say 'Hey, you didn't give me enough!' Again, this is directed at the US-hating politicos, not the people who are affected by the tragedy. If I need help, I appreciate every bit of help I can get, I don't badmouth the people who gave, because it wasn't enough.

I don't have a problem with the private population helping more than the government. In almost every category, private money can be spent more productively than government money. So 1 million from Bill Gates' charity can be more powerful than 2 million official US dollars.

[E-Z-B]

What's it supposed to tell me?
The US gives 40% of all relief aid in the world.
What's that tell you?

This is a disaster of biblical proportions. When was the last time something like this happened? Noah's ark? It's going to require much, much, much more money than what was in that fund previoiusly to deal with this situation.

And don't forget, Bush didn't spend that money himself. There's this little thing called the Congress that helps to sign the checks. They've proven quite adept at filibustering judicial nominees, if they wanted to stop spending on Iraq, they could. But they pander to whatever way the polls are showing. What does that tell you?

That tells me that Congress shouldn't be controlled by Republicans.

And my issue isn't with giving. I'm all for helping people who need help, and this disaster is definitely one of Nature's most brutal. But if we're going to help, don't say 'Hey, you didn't give me enough!' Again, this is directed at the US-hating politicos, not the people who are affected by the tragedy. If I need help, I appreciate every bit of help I can get, I don't badmouth the people who gave, because it wasn't enough.

Yeah, the U.S. should've donated $1 then bitch at everyone who calls them stingy.

[bignick]

Like we would just sit here and not help. We are the #1 contributer to disasters in the world.

FUCK all of you that say the US isnt doing its part.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What responsibility do we have to pay one damn dime for relief? There's no Constitutional provision for giving away millions of dollars just because it's the "nice" thing to do.

You morons.

[bignick]

What responsibility do we have to pay one damn dime for relief? There's no Constitutional provision for giving away millions of dollars just because it's the "nice" thing to do.

You morons.

LOL, I was going to post a similar statement. Some peopel just dotn get i PAD, they just dont get it.

[gamefreak]

Where was Kofi Annan? On vacation. (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-1-2005_pg7_41)

The US has already pledged $350 million which will probably increase with time. That is not counting private funding with the Red Cross having some $45 million (reportidly) already. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world, is only donating $10 million. (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1174078,001301540000.htm)

Oh and what are the tsunamis up to now? 150,000? Guess how many Saddam killed. (http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html)

[E-Z-B]

Wow. The last few posts apparently reflect the "Christian values" of the republican party. Good thing bush "won" the election on "moral values".

[camoor]

The current US administration (and large swaths of the midwest) only became interested in Darfur after they heard that there was a significant amount of Christians there (and enough still has not been done)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/international/africa/01sudan.html

You expect them to care about Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindis? That would involve reading the entire Bible, especially the part about the "Good Samaritan". Bushy's much more interested in promoting the parts that label homosexuality as a sin against god and that outlaw birth control.

http://www.superosity.com/blatantbush/webshirt-oreillyvsjesus-lg.jpg

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You know, you're equating government with religion EZB and camoor. You're saying because an election issue was moral values it is now up to the government to step in and act like Christians. We're not allowed to act Christian, that would be a violation of church and state wouldn't it?

What's wrong with me giving $100 to Oxfam, the Red Cross or CARE? Why does our government need to give $350 million when individuals and groups in this country have donated billions and thousands upon thousands of man hours?

Reliefe doesn't need to come from government to be representative of us as a country. Only fools like you think it is so.

[camoor]

You know, you're equating government with religion EZB and camoor.

Nope, Bush did that. I'm only pointing out how hypocritical Bush's faith actually is.

Guess what PAD? It's my tax money too. I want to support building shelter for displaced Indonesian orphans in instead of occupying Middle East countries and killing Muslims in wars that have nothing to do with WMDs.

The fact that this US administration had to be shamed into helping the victims with significant funds is a disgrace.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

WAH WAH WAH!

Your tax dollars probably couldn't buy a stapler, desk calendar and a pack of office pens. STFU.

[elprincipe]

Like we would just sit here and not help. We are the #1 contributer to disasters in the world.

shaq-fu all of you that say the US isnt doing its part.

I'm 100% with you on this one. People act as if Bush could will it and it would be done instantaneously. We sent out military aircraft and ships within hours after the tsunami to do recon and then move in aid and workers. People who are blaming Bush for directing this effort from Texas not Washington or those who somehow think the U.S., who is doing the most, is not doing "enough" are just plain ignorant or Bush- and U.S.-hating tools.

[camoor]

WAH WAH WAH!

Your tax dollars probably couldn't buy a stapler, desk calendar and a pack of office pens. STFU.

Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.

[bmulligan]

Has he ever passed a test...
Spelling?
Public speaking?
Algebra?
Air Force Physical?
Breathalyzer?

Well, he did have a better college grade point average than Al Gore.


This has to be the most naive statement to date from the camoor keyboard:

Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.

Don't look now, but your age is showing....

[Drocket]

Your tax dollars probably couldn't buy a stapler, desk calendar and a pack of office pens. STFU.
Considering that those supplies quite possibly cost the government $50,000+ because the people who award government contracts tend to do so under the influence of bribes and kickbacks, quite possibly not...

[camoor]

This statement has to be the most naive statement to date from the camoor keyboard:

Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.

Don't look now, but your age is showing....

Corporate interests have always played a part. However Congress has been completely hijacked by corporate interest, and this President acts a puppet for every big corporation from oil to pharmaceuticals.

Nice trick though, trying to insinuate that I am naive because I didn't believe that corporate interest played a part in politics before Bush.


Exclusive - not divided or shared with others

[bmulligan]

Corporate interests have always played a part. However Congress has been completely hijacked by corporate interest, and this President acts a puppet for every big corporation from oil to pharmaceuticals.

Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.

Nice trick though, trying to insinuate that I am naive because I didn't believe that corporate interest played a part in politics before Bush.

It's not a trick, you're the one who said it as a statement of fact. Oh yeah, guess what ? Congress represents groups of people with interests, they always have. They also represent people with money or who own property; always have. Bet you didn't realize THAT one either, eh?

[camoor]

Corporate interests have always played a part. However Congress has been completely hijacked by corporate interest, and this President acts a puppet for every big corporation from oil to pharmaceuticals.

Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.

So when did it happen buddy? My sources tell me Jan. 20, 2001 -- You have something different?

[Drocket]

Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.
All you have to do is look at copyright laws to see that it has. Congress has on many occasions through the 70's and 80's ensured that copyright laws have given consumers adaquate fair usage rights. As recently as 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act to ensure that consumers have the right to copy their audio CDs for their own person use.

Now, however, we have a congress completely beholden to the recording industry and Hollywood, who pass utter crap like the DMCA, who's goal is quite clearly to gut Fair Use, if not eliminate it completely. This is a complete reversal of the position that Congress pushed a mere 12 - well, 13 now, I guess... - years ago. So, unless you're less than 13 years old, yes, this has happened recently, within our lifetime.

[bmulligan]

It happened the day after the first congressional election. Representatives have always represented certain interest groups, be they land owners, coffee importers, tobacco growers. Congresspeople are enlisted to reflect their suitors, always have been.

In fact, one might say that the job description of a representative is to use his influence to promote the corporate, or capitalist interest of his constituency.

[bmulligan]

Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.
All you have to do is look at copyright laws to see that it has. Congress has on many occasions through the 70's and 80's ensured that copyright laws have given consumers adaquate fair usage rights. As recently as 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act to ensure that consumers have the right to copy their audio CDs for their own person use.

Now, however, we have a congress completely beholden to the recording industry and Hollywood, who pass utter crap like the DMCA, who's goal is quite clearly to gut Fair Use, if not eliminate it completely. This is a complete reversal of the position that Congress pushed a mere 12 - well, 13 now, I guess... - years ago. So, unless you're less than 13 years old, yes, this has happened recently, within our lifetime.

So becuase Congress reverses itself, they are beholden to industry, nice leap. I guess prohibition wa repealed becuase they were beholden to the liquor industry. And slavery was repealed becuase they were beholden to the , to the, to the.........?

[Drocket]

So becuase Congress reverses itself, they are beholden to industry, nice leap.
This isn't just a minor reversal of a small point of law: this is the complete dismantling of Fair Use, which has existed since the first US congress created the first US laws establishing Copyright. When you throw away 200 years of consumer protection in order to make some media companies happy, what exactly do you call that, other than being beholden to the industry?

The fact is simple: for 200+ years, Congress has worked hard to balance the needs of information creators with the rights of the public to use that information. Why? Because congress works for US, the people of the United States. In one simple (well, far from simple... Its written in double-speak legalese to disguise most of what it does...) act, they threw that away and shit all over the American public.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.

I'm sure you're not really dumb enough to believe that.

[camoor]

Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?

Oh that's right, since Bush was elected.

I'm sure you're not really dumb enough to believe that.

What a surprise. An ad-hominem attack, a put-down post that offers no evidence to the contrary.

Even you can do better then that PAD.

[camoor]

Riiiiight. And this has just happened recently, within our lifetime. Okay.
All you have to do is look at copyright laws to see that it has. Congress has on many occasions through the 70's and 80's ensured that copyright laws have given consumers adaquate fair usage rights. As recently as 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act to ensure that consumers have the right to copy their audio CDs for their own person use.

Now, however, we have a congress completely beholden to the recording industry and Hollywood, who pass utter crap like the DMCA, who's goal is quite clearly to gut Fair Use, if not eliminate it completely. This is a complete reversal of the position that Congress pushed a mere 12 - well, 13 now, I guess... - years ago. So, unless you're less than 13 years old, yes, this has happened recently, within our lifetime.

So becuase Congress reverses itself, they are beholden to industry, nice leap. I guess prohibition wa repealed becuase they were beholden to the liquor industry. And slavery was repealed becuase they were beholden to the , to the, to the.........?

What are you trying to prove? That congress is beholden to special corporate interests from day one (by sponsoring legislation like the DMCA). Or that congress managed to balance corporate and civil legislation in the past (citing acts such as the abolition of slavery that granted civil rights to a segment of America at the expense of the bottom line for certain corporate interests)

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You honestly believe that the rich, corporations and large political donors just started having major influence beginning January 20, 2001?

You my friend are dumber than dirt.

[camoor]

You honestly believe that the rich, corporations and large political donors just started having major influence beginning January 20, 2001?

You my friend are dumber than dirt.

My quote "Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?
Oh that's right, since Bush was elected."

Exclusive means not divided or shared with others. In the past, corporate interests were balanced against what was fair for the average US citizen to a much greater degree. The level of almost-complete corporate control of congress and the white house is a fairly new development.

The Jan 20 comment was just me making a joke in my conversation with bmulligan. I thought it was obvious to everyone that a change like the one I have described is actually part of a greater, more gradual shifting towards increased corporate influence in government. The joke centered around the fact that the Bush Administration has been pretty blatant about their support of corporate interests, as long as the interests don't tip into Enron territory (Jan 20, 2001 was the date of Bush Jr's first inaguration)

No need to resort to your usual bullying and name-calling, PAD.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Wah, you called me on something, I can't take it WAH!

You're still dumber than dirt.

[Drocket]

PAD, the fact that you're completely out of your depth is showing :P

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I believe half or more of you expected me to say "Who cares if 150,000 people died. They're all stupid non-Christian brown people who never contributed anything to the world. We're all better off without them.".

Some of you need to get your heads examined and take a long hard look at why it is the party that most closely represents your personal beliefs will not control one branch of government for another 10 years or more. Think about this, you haven't controlled any house in Congress for 10 years. You're not going to get it back in the next 10. You're not going to win the White House anytime in the next 4 years. Your party is going to be out of any kind of government power for a generation or more.

You have nothing. All you can do is bitch and complain and say its your duty to question government. In reality you're whining spoil sports. You don't care about tragedy, you don't care about death and human misery. Your only wish is to criticize a President. Your lack of any kind of empathy and focus on the disaster itself is revealing; you care more about calling someone inhumane than putting those energies into raising money or doing good for millions and acting humane yourselves.

Keep it up though, you're whining your way further into political obscurity every day. You don't even need to be prodded into it, you're doing it on your own.

Good job, opposition like this is like playing 8-2 CTF on Mech Assault 2; easier than hell and gives us plenty of time to toy sadistically with your kind. Someday someone in your party will re-write "He's Just Not That Ino You" and retitle it "America's Just Not Into Us" and they'll make millions. Hell, maybe I should write it myself, I could start with the nonsensical posters here that make even those on DU seem logical.

[gamefreak]

You honestly believe that the rich, corporations and large political donors just started having major influence beginning January 20, 2001?

You my friend are dumber than dirt.

My quote "Since when has American policy been driven exclusively by the opinions of the rich and the huge corporate interests?
Oh that's right, since Bush was elected."

Exclusive means not divided or shared with others. In the past, corporate interests were balanced against what was fair for the average US citizen to a much greater degree. The level of almost-complete corporate control of congress and the white house is a fairly new development.

The Jan 20 comment was just me making a joke in my conversation with bmulligan. I thought it was obvious to everyone that a change like the one I have described is actually part of a greater, more gradual shifting towards increased corporate influence in government. The joke centered around the fact that the Bush Administration has been pretty blatant about their support of corporate interests, as long as the interests don't tip into Enron territory (Jan 20, 2001 was the date of Bush Jr's first inaguration)

No need to resort to your usual bullying and name-calling, PAD.

I would like to see your support if you don't mind.

[ZarathosNY]

You know, you're equating government with religion EZB and camoor. You're saying because an election issue was moral values it is now up to the government to step in and act like Christians. We're not allowed to act Christian, that would be a violation of church and state wouldn't it?

What's wrong with me giving $100 to Oxfam, the Red Cross or CARE? Why does our government need to give $350 million when individuals and groups in this country have donated billions and thousands upon thousands of man hours?

Reliefe doesn't need to come from government to be representative of us as a country. Only fools like you think it is so.

Acting Christian is not a violation of separation of Church and State. No one has ever said that.

[ZarathosNY]

What's it supposed to tell me?
The US gives 40% of all relief aid in the world.
What's that tell you?

And don't forget, Bush didn't spend that money himself. There's this little thing called the Congress that helps to sign the checks. They've proven quite adept at filibustering judicial nominees, if they wanted to stop spending on Iraq, they could. But they pander to whatever way the polls are showing. What does that tell you?

And my issue isn't with giving. I'm all for helping people who need help, and this disaster is definitely one of Nature's most brutal. But if we're going to help, don't say 'Hey, you didn't give me enough!' Again, this is directed at the US-hating politicos, not the people who are affected by the tragedy. If I need help, I appreciate every bit of help I can get, I don't badmouth the people who gave, because it wasn't enough.

I don't have a problem with the private population helping more than the government. In almost every category, private money can be spent more productively than government money. So 1 million from Bill Gates' charity can be more powerful than 2 million official US dollars.


Actually, the dems have shown themselves to be quite inadequate at blocking nominees. Most of Bush's nominations have gone through. The repubs blocked far more nominees under Clinton than the dems have under Bush.

[camoor]

You have nothing. All you can do is bitch and complain and say its your duty to question government. In reality you're whining spoil sports. You don't care about tragedy, you don't care about death and human misery. Your only wish is to criticize a President. Your lack of any kind of empathy and focus on the disaster itself is revealing; you care more about calling someone inhumane than putting those energies into raising money or doing good for millions and acting humane yourselves...

Good job, opposition like this is like playing 8-2 CTF on Mech Assault 2; easier than hell and gives us plenty of time to toy sadistically with your kind.

PAD, this is the VS forum. It's the place to discuss shortcomings in government policy, there is already information about how to donate to the Tsunami effort on the front page of CAG, so there was no need for anyone (Democrat or Republican) to bring it up here.

PAD, I know you're trying to be the good guy here, so I'll give you some advice - stay away from phrases like "toy sadistically". They show the soft moral underbelly of your "compassionate conservatism".

[camoor]

I would like to see your support if you don't mind.

Here's an example, Bush's support of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of sick people and seniors who can't afford the medicine. His solution involves spending more government money to keep drug prices propped up so that seniors will be able to (barely) afford the drugs. The Fed government is trying to clamp down on importation of drugs from Canada, because they claim that the Canadian drugs can't be verified as safe for consumption (yeah, right). All of these judgements help the pharmaceutical companies more then any other group.

[MrBadExample]

I would like to see your support if you don't mind.

Here's an example, Bush's support of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of sick people and seniors who can't afford the medicine. His solution involves spending more government money to keep drug prices propped up so that seniors will be able to (barely) afford the drugs. The Fed government is trying to clamp down on importation of drugs from Canada, because they claim that the Canadian drugs can't be verified as safe for consumption (yeah, right). All of these judgements help the pharmaceutical companies more then any other group.

Don't forget the energy companies that met with Dick Cheney to discuss forming Bush's energy policy back in 2000. They fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep even the names of those people secret.

[camoor]

I would like to see your support if you don't mind.

Here's an example, Bush's support of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of sick people and seniors who can't afford the medicine. His solution involves spending more government money to keep drug prices propped up so that seniors will be able to (barely) afford the drugs. The Fed government is trying to clamp down on importation of drugs from Canada, because they claim that the Canadian drugs can't be verified as safe for consumption (yeah, right). All of these judgements help the pharmaceutical companies more then any other group.

Don't forget the energy companies that met with Dick Cheney to discuss forming Bush's energy policy back in 2000. They fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep even the names of those people secret.

Just like Naked Gun 2 1/2. SMOKE, SPILL, and KABOOM :wink:

[jmcc]

You have nothing. All you can do is bitch and complain and say its your duty to question government. In reality you're whining spoil sports. You don't care about tragedy, you don't care about death and human misery. Your only wish is to criticize a President. Your lack of any kind of empathy and focus on the disaster itself is revealing; you care more about calling someone inhumane than putting those energies into raising money or doing good for millions and acting humane yourselves...

Good job, opposition like this is like playing 8-2 CTF on Mech Assault 2; easier than hell and gives us plenty of time to toy sadistically with your kind.

PAD, this is the VS forum. It's the place to discuss shortcomings in government policy, there is already information about how to donate to the Tsunami effort on the front page of CAG, so there was no need for anyone (Democrat or Republican) to bring it up here.

PAD, I know you're trying to be the good guy here, so I'll give you some advice - stay away from phrases like "toy sadistically". They show the soft moral underbelly of your "compassionate conservatism".

Compassionate conservatism in action!

http://www.rawprint.com/rawstory/images/westboro_tsunami_1230.gif

Boy, god really threw out the baby with the bathwater on that one, huh?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You fail to see one thing, I never use the phrase compassion conservatism. I don't believe it's necessary, it is redundant. It's a marketing tool one person, George W. Bush, has used I don't.

Conservatism in itself is compassionate. It is compassionate to let more people keep more of their money to decide how to use it. It is compassionate to get more people off the government dole and self sufficent so they can make more working than they would had government susistence levels. It is compassionate to have a military strong enough that it never needs to be used and wars never be fought. It is compassionate to let people decide their own medical, retirement and educational fates than have it dictated by a government that neither knows or cares about individual situations and is more concerned with growing and maintaining bureacracy.

I reject the phrase in its entirety let alone support its use or defend its redundant meaning.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

BTW, where is the overwhelming response to this disaster from the richest Muslim nations? Where are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Kuwait, Iran, UAE, Bharain, Egypt et al. in this? Where is the support from the religion of peace? Where is the outpouring of humanitarian and financial support for the world's most populous Muslim nation from their bretheren?

Those countries are again noticably silent and missing in playing any active role in a postive manner on the world stage.

At least we have a historical tie to Thailand for their strong support against Asian communism and use of their territory for the Air Force in Vietnam. I can see supporting the world's largest democracy in India. I can see how we would want to keep stability on Sri Lanka to prevent waring factions from taking advantage of a natural disaster to further their purposes. Why is it up to the Great Satan though to send money and infidels to help Muslims in Indonesia?

Wow, this "religion" of Islam sure is great.

[jmcc]

I reject the phrase in its entirety let alone support its use or defend its redundant meaning.

What responsibility do we have to pay one damn dime for relief?

Well, you've rejected half of it, anyway.

[E-Z-B]

Yes, you're right, the muslim nations are silent. But that doesn't mean the US should be too. We're the most powerful, richest nation, and we should be leading by example.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

jmcc, you are a pure unadulterated bigot. How do you think one nut job pastor putting out a flyer is in any way indictitive of a political party, President, Congress or people that voted for the above?

Are you so desperate to portray conservatives, Republicans and George W. Bush in a negative light that you'll result on a ditto produced and distributed to probably less than 500 people, before posted on the internet, to prove your point? Would you not cry bloody fucking murder if I took the most extreme leftist bilge that comes from the fringe on the other side and used it to paint the "loyal opposition" in this country?

I guess when you're a bigot against Christians and the sitting majority anything goes right?

[E-Z-B]

You fail to see one thing, I never use the phrase compassion conservatism. I don't believe it's necessary, it is redundant. It's a marketing tool one person, George W. Bush, has used I don't.

Conservatism in itself is compassionate. It is compassionate to let more people keep more of their money to decide how to use it. It is compassionate to get more people off the government dole and self sufficent so they can make more working than they would had government susistence levels. It is compassionate to have a military strong enough that it never needs to be used and wars never be fought. It is compassionate to let people decide their own medical, retirement and educational fates than have it dictated by a government that neither knows or cares about individual situations and is more concerned with growing and maintaining bureacracy.

I reject the phrase in its entirety let alone support its use or defend its redundant meaning.

Compassionate conservatism also means saving the lives of children (unless they're already born, then screw them).

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You're missing my point entirely EZB. It's up to individuals and organizations to handle this. Not the government. To date money raised outside U.S. government contributions by U.S. citizens, charities, religous organizations and corporations dwarfs those of any other nation. We give more in disaster relief privately than we do from the government. Our people lead by example in each and every world crisis.

There is no point for our government to get invovled, our citizens do a good enough job on their own.

In addition to that we have 18,000 armed services personnel and an entire aircraft carrier group providing logistical support that is not included in our, to date, $350 million pledge of aid. We give and we give and we give. It's in our populations makeup and is not exclusive to one party, one political belief system or one ruling class or another.

[jmcc]

jmcc, you are a pure unadulterated bigot. How do you think one nut job pastor putting out a flyer is in any way indictitive of a political party, President, Congress or people that voted for the above?

Are you so desperate to portray conservatives, Republicans and George W. Bush in a negative light that you'll result on a ditto produced and distributed to probably less than 500 people, before posted on the internet, to prove your point? Would you not cry bloody shaq-fuing murder if I took the most extreme leftist bilge that comes from the fringe on the other side and used it to paint the "loyal opposition" in this country?

I guess when you're a bigot against Christians and the sitting majority anything goes right?

Oh man, I'm going to end up in court now and your defense attorney is going to have you on the stand all like "PAD, would you please show the court on this neuroscientific body map exactly which nerve Jmcc touched?" And you'll point to a big huge one and start sobbing some more and the jury will all gasp and I'll stand up and start shouting that you're a damn liar and get ejected for contempt. All because I pointed out your foible. Well, sorry I hurt the feelings of your friends at that church. Go ahead. Post your cheap shot worse example of the liberal party at work. It's only fair.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What foible did you potentially address? None.

If there were an equivilent of a white robe wearing cross burning anti-conservative group though you'd be the first one signed up. Well you might have to fight a few others on this board but your bigotry is in the same vein and just as ill intentioned.

[jmcc]

What foible did you potentially address? None.

If there were an equivilent of a white robe wearing cross burning anti-conservative group though you'd be the first one signed up. Well you might have to fight a few others on this board but your bigotry is in the same vein and just as ill intentioned.

You said you were against conservative compassion because it was redundant, I pointed out that you certainly didn't have to worry about the compassion part after your comments questioning why we have to give disaster relief money at all.

And I'm already part of a anti-conservative group. It's called the humanity. It abhors stagnation forced upon people for whatever reason, secular or sacred and it always wins out in the end, because Progress is it's credo and nothing holds back Progress for long.

[Scrubking]

Why don't you liberals post what your Idol, Clinton, said about bush taking too long?

He said it was bogus and that he was 100% behind Bush. I guess you all will post anti-Clinton stuff now.

Man, you people are idiots.

And I love how people bitch about not helping other countries, but when we helped the Iraqi people you liberal bitches couldn't stop saying how we didn't need to go over there. So shut the fuck up you liberal, hypocrite bitches.

[gamefreak]

You have nothing. All you can do is bitch and complain and say its your duty to question government. In reality you're whining spoil sports. You don't care about tragedy, you don't care about death and human misery. Your only wish is to criticize a President. Your lack of any kind of empathy and focus on the disaster itself is revealing; you care more about calling someone inhumane than putting those energies into raising money or doing good for millions and acting humane yourselves...

Good job, opposition like this is like playing 8-2 CTF on Mech Assault 2; easier than hell and gives us plenty of time to toy sadistically with your kind.

PAD, this is the VS forum. It's the place to discuss shortcomings in government policy, there is already information about how to donate to the Tsunami effort on the front page of CAG, so there was no need for anyone (Democrat or Republican) to bring it up here.

PAD, I know you're trying to be the good guy here, so I'll give you some advice - stay away from phrases like "toy sadistically". They show the soft moral underbelly of your "compassionate conservatism".

Compassionate conservatism in action!

*cut*

Boy, god really threw out the baby with the bathwater on that one, huh?

Its rather hypocritical when the left says that Arabs or Muslims who are terrorists are extreamists that represent a small percentage of their people and then go off and denounce the right because of extreamists. Sure there are extreamists on both sides by why do you feel the need to bash us based on stuff like this when we're not doing the same to you?

[The_Continental]

Hey PAD - it's nice to see you on these boards again! I hate having to argue with Camoor, jmcc, and the gang all by myself.

Anyoo, Camoor, I've never gotten a final answer as to whether or you'll post (or pm) a quick bio.

My guess is that Camoor is a mid to upper class white guy - maybe in college, or just recently out of college - perhaps majored in one of the social "sciences."

I see that he lives in Arlington, so he must have a fair amount of money - or at least his dad does.

My guess is that he's never once faced social, political, religious, or economic strife in his life.

I just want to know if I'm right.

Again - as I said before - your bio isn't necessarily releant to any facts - I am just curious to see what background you have.

whatever.

[MrBadExample]

Hey PAD - it's nice to see you on these boards again! I hate having to argue with Camoor, jmcc, and the gang all by myself.

Anyoo, Camoor, I've never gotten a final answer as to whether or you'll post (or pm) a quick bio.

My guess is that Camoor is a mid to upper class white guy - maybe in college, or just recently out of college - perhaps majored in one of the social "sciences."

I see that he lives in Arlington, so he must have a fair amount of money - or at least his dad does.

My guess is that he's never once faced social, political, religious, or economic strife in his life.

I just want to know if I'm right.

Again - as I said before - your bio isn't necessarily releant to any facts - I am just curious to see what background you have.

whatever.

I'm not presuming to speak for Camoor, but it seems like if he wanted to post his bio here, he would have by now.

[The_Continental]

True - but I've done most of the work for him - all he needs to do is say "yes" or "no."

I think he misinterperets my requests as a way to "judge" him, as it were. This is entirely not the case. I am just curious is all.

I could see how he might think that the bio quoted below sounds a bit harsh - I admit. - but that's only if he feels "guilty" for coming from a well to do family.

Again - no big deal, I'm not losing sleep over it.

(I am losing sleep over WoW tho' :wink: )

Hey PAD - it's nice to see you on these boards again! I hate having to argue with Camoor, jmcc, and the gang all by myself.

Anyoo, Camoor, I've never gotten a final answer as to whether or you'll post (or pm) a quick bio.

My guess is that Camoor is a mid to upper class white guy - maybe in college, or just recently out of college - perhaps majored in one of the social "sciences."

I see that he lives in Arlington, so he must have a fair amount of money - or at least his dad does.

My guess is that he's never once faced social, political, religious, or economic strife in his life.

I just want to know if I'm right.

Again - as I said before - your bio isn't necessarily releant to any facts - I am just curious to see what background you have.

whatever.

I'm not presuming to speak for Camoor, but it seems like if he wanted to post his bio here, he would have by now.

[Drocket]

Please, no matter what Camoor says, you're just going to spin it to make it look like he's out of touch with normal Americans. If he came from a privleged background, you'll say that doesn't represent most people. If he came from a poor background, you'll say that he has a bias against the rich because he's jealous.

Its the new Republican creed: when you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. And even when you can attack the message, attack the messenger anyway because it works well with the hicks.

[gamefreak]

Please, no matter what Camoor says, you're just going to spin it to make it look like he's out of touch with normal Americans. If he came from a privleged background, you'll say that doesn't represent most people. If he came from a poor background, you'll say that he has a bias against the rich because he's jealous.

Its the new Republican creed: when you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. And even when you can attack the message, attack the messenger anyway because it works well with the hicks.

How is that any different than slamming Bush because he got wealth from his father?

[jmcc]

True - but I've done most of the work for him - all he needs to do is say "yes" or "no."

I think he misinterperets my requests as a way to "judge" him, as it were. This is entirely not the case. I am just curious is all.

I could see how he might think that the bio quoted below sounds a bit harsh - I admit. - but that's only if he feels "guilty" for coming from a well to do family.

Again - no big deal, I'm not losing sleep over it.

(I am losing sleep over WoW tho' :wink: )

Hey PAD - it's nice to see you on these boards again! I hate having to argue with Camoor, jmcc, and the gang all by myself.

Anyoo, Camoor, I've never gotten a final answer as to whether or you'll post (or pm) a quick bio.

My guess is that Camoor is a mid to upper class white guy - maybe in college, or just recently out of college - perhaps majored in one of the social "sciences."

I see that he lives in Arlington, so he must have a fair amount of money - or at least his dad does.

My guess is that he's never once faced social, political, religious, or economic strife in his life.

I just want to know if I'm right.

Again - as I said before - your bio isn't necessarily releant to any facts - I am just curious to see what background you have.

whatever.

I'm not presuming to speak for Camoor, but it seems like if he wanted to post his bio here, he would have by now.

It's really getting kind of creepy at this point. You keep begging and begging for it. It's weird. I mean, is it some sex thing? Are you hoping to be able to find him and steal his underpants off his line?

[jmcc]

Please, no matter what Camoor says, you're just going to spin it to make it look like he's out of touch with normal Americans. If he came from a privleged background, you'll say that doesn't represent most people. If he came from a poor background, you'll say that he has a bias against the rich because he's jealous.

Its the new Republican creed: when you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. And even when you can attack the message, attack the messenger anyway because it works well with the hicks.

How is that any different than slamming Bush because he got wealth from his father?

Because Camoor's wealth, if any, likely didn't come from dealings with the Nazis?

[The_Continental]

If that's what you need to think, then sure - I guess...

:roll:

wierd.


True - but I've done most of the work for him - all he needs to do is say "yes" or "no."

I think he misinterperets my requests as a way to "judge" him, as it were. This is entirely not the case. I am just curious is all.

I could see how he might think that the bio quoted below sounds a bit harsh - I admit. - but that's only if he feels "guilty" for coming from a well to do family.

Again - no big deal, I'm not losing sleep over it.

(I am losing sleep over WoW tho' :wink: )

Hey PAD - it's nice to see you on these boards again! I hate having to argue with Camoor, jmcc, and the gang all by myself.

Anyoo, Camoor, I've never gotten a final answer as to whether or you'll post (or pm) a quick bio.

My guess is that Camoor is a mid to upper class white guy - maybe in college, or just recently out of college - perhaps majored in one of the social "sciences."

I see that he lives in Arlington, so he must have a fair amount of money - or at least his dad does.

My guess is that he's never once faced social, political, religious, or economic strife in his life.

I just want to know if I'm right.

Again - as I said before - your bio isn't necessarily releant to any facts - I am just curious to see what background you have.

whatever.

I'm not presuming to speak for Camoor, but it seems like if he wanted to post his bio here, he would have by now.

It's really getting kind of creepy at this point. You keep begging and begging for it. It's weird. I mean, is it some sex thing? Are you hoping to be able to find him and steal his underpants off his line?

[jmcc]

If that's what you need to think, then sure - I guess...

:roll:

wierd.

What other excuse do you have for your stalking, then?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Oh here we go with the whole Prescott Bush got his money from the Nazi's lunacy. You're a card carrying member of the whacko extreme left all right. Any shred of credibility or hope just vanished with that statement.

You really should change your signature cartoon, I doubt there's one chick that has given you oral or had sex with you without an administration of GBH on your part.

[jmcc]

Oh here we go with the whole Prescott Bush got his money from the Nazi's lunacy. You're a card carrying member of the whacko extreme left all right. Any shred of credibility or hope just vanished with that statement.

You really should change your signature cartoon, I doubt there's one chick that has given you oral or had sex with you without an administration of GBH on your part.

They're just the facts, ma'am. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html

[The_Continental]

just curiosity - that's all.

Basically - I think *modern* socialists fall into 3 basic categories:

1. Assholes - because only an asshole would want to force people to live under a political ethos that encourages laziness and poverty.

2. Idiots - because hey, how can you be both a gamer and a scoialist anyway? Certainly anyone that understands basic econ couldn't be.

3. Shallow Bastards - cause only a shallow bastard would proclaim socialism in order to get pussy.

The fact of the matter is, Camoor hasn't yet proclaimed socialism. I'm not even sure he actually knows what it means. But man, he sure is left.

Anyways, no big deal. His daddy's money won't last forever.

If that's what you need to think, then sure - I guess...

:roll:

wierd.

What other excuse do you have for your stalking, then?

[jmcc]

just curiosity - that's all.

Basically - I think *modern* socialists fall into 3 basic categories:

1. Assholes - because only an asshole would want to force people to live under a political ethos that encourages laziness and poverty.

2. Idiots - because hey, how can you be both a gamer and a scoialist anyway? Certainly anyone that understands basic econ couldn't be.

3. Shallow Bastards - cause only a shallow bastard would proclaim socialism in order to get pussy.

The fact of the matter is, Camoor hasn't yet proclaimed socialism. I'm not even sure he actually knows what it means. But man, he sure is left.

Anyways, no big deal. His daddy's money won't last forever.

If that's what you need to think, then sure - I guess...

:roll:

wierd.

What other excuse do you have for your stalking, then?

I heard a few years ago that they use heat from crematoriums to warm housing in some socialist country in Europe. Sweeden, maybe? Are they socialist? Anyway, it seemed kinda creepy, but I guess it's alright. You're being useful even in death. I hope I'm useful after I die like that. Like maybe I could be frozen and my skull sharpened a little bit and I could put out a radioactive monster's eye or something.

[The_Continental]

Yeah - I think about that kind of stuff all the time too. :-s

I hope I'm useful after I die like that. Like maybe I could be frozen and my skull sharpened a little bit and I could put out a radioactive monster's eye or something.

[The_Continental]

btw - that doesn't seem to make any sense... wouldn't the oven need to create more heat to burn the body than the amount of energy the corpse would actually produce?

anyone know?

[The_Continental]

I guess you could dry 'em out first ....

[jmcc]

btw - that doesn't seem to make any sense... wouldn't the oven need to create more heat to burn the body than the amount of energy the corpse would actually produce?

anyone know?

Well it wasn't like they were running furnaces on it. That would require more energy than what you'd put in, but they were already burning the bodies at the crematorium in the funeral home, so someone got the idea to pipe the heat from that into houses, instead of just letting it go to waste like it had been. Our US body burners just exhaust their heat into the atmosphere as far as I know.

[gamefreak]

btw - that doesn't seem to make any sense... wouldn't the oven need to create more heat to burn the body than the amount of energy the corpse would actually produce?

anyone know?

Well it wasn't like they were running furnaces on it. That would require more energy than what you'd put in, but they were already burning the bodies at the crematorium in the funeral home, so someone got the idea to pipe the heat from that into houses, instead of just letting it go to waste like it had been. Our US body burners just exhaust their heat into the atmosphere as far as I know.

Burning bodies -> increased pollutants -> ??? -> Tsunami

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I think the majority of the "progressive" left falls into a category you left out. The guilty.

They feel guilty because of the accident of birth that made them a citizen of the richest nation in history. They feel guilty because they achieved some level of success financially and so many others haven't. Usually those kinds of people are famous actors/musicians/wiriters etc. They never really worked for their wealth, they never created a job directly, all of the wealth they create is for themselves or a coninuation of their record or movie studios wealth from not being able to milk past hits/groups/names.

The other type of progressive is the spoiled rich kid(s) that lament not only the accident of birth but are itching to rebel against "something". That something, in this case, is whatever party is in power.

The moral causes that liberalism tackled in the past; old people dying penniless, oppressed minorities, workers organizing rights etc have been solved and now need expanding on. We now need prescription drug benefits in addition to SSI and Medicare. We need talks of reparations. We need to unionize shops that have no desire to unionize; see Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes factories in this country.

Liberalism now isn't a moral crusade, it's a financial one. Everything they preach and wish to achieve comes at a financial price to someone other than them. Environmentalism takes away from property rights violating the basic tennant of a capitalist society. Organized labor; are places of employment that won't let you work unless you pay the union its thug like protection money truly free and open? Health care coverage; cha ching, lets nationalize 1/7th of GDP because 40 million out of 300 million don't have government approved "health care" forget that any one of those 40 million include 5-10 million 20 somethings that just don't think they need it, forget that that 40 million includes 10-15 million that switch jobs and as a result statistically become uninsured.

Liberalism now is socialism. There are few if any issues the left has that don't cost you, the government or someone else money and lots of it. It cost no money to give blacks the vote, what cause does the left tackle anymore that doesn't result in a huge expenditure by an enormous group of people that can "afford it".

Like I said, your movement is a joke and you're becoming irrelevent.

Funny how this thread has devolved into a "Bush sucks! They made their money from Nazis!" thread because the cogent points brought up by right thinking persons are irrefutable. Typical.

[jmcc]

I think the majority of the "progressive" left falls into a category you left out. The guilty.

They feel guilty because of the accident of birth that made them a citizen of the richest nation in history. They feel guilty because they achieved some level of success financially and so many others haven't. Usually those kinds of people are famous actors/musicians/wiriters etc. They never really worked for their wealth, they never created a job directly, all of the wealth they create is for themselves or a coninuation of their record or movie studios wealth from not being able to milk past hits/groups/names.

The other type of progressive is the spoiled rich kid(s) that lament not only the accident of birth but are itching to rebel against "something". That something, in this case, is whatever party is in power.

The moral causes that liberalism tackled in the past; old people dying penniless, oppressed minorities, workers organizing rights etc have been solved and now need expanding on. We now need prescription drug benefits in addition to SSI and Medicare. We need talks of reparations. We need to unionize shops that have no desire to unionize; see Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes factories in this country.

Liberalism now isn't a moral crusade, it's a financial one. Everything they preach and wish to achieve comes at a financial price to someone other than them. Environmentalism takes away from property rights violating the basic tennant of a capitalist society. Organized labor; are places of employment that won't let you work unless you pay the union its thug like protection money truly free and open? Health care coverage; cha ching, lets nationalize 1/7th of GDP because 40 million out of 300 million don't have government approved "health care" forget that any one of those 40 million include 5-10 million 20 somethings that just don't think they need it, forget that that 40 million includes 10-15 million that switch jobs and as a result statistically become uninsured.

Liberalism now is socialism. There are few if any issues the left has that don't cost you, the government or someone else money and lots of it. It cost no money to give blacks the vote, what cause does the left tackle anymore that doesn't result in a huge expenditure by an enormous group of people that can "afford it".

Like I said, your movement is a joke and you're becoming irrelevent.

Funny how this thread has devolved into a "Bush sucks! They made their money from Nazis!" thread because the cogent points brought up by right thinking persons are irrefutable. Typical.

Blahblahblahblahblah. Every time you non sequitur a point up, you get it smacked back down in your face. Then, you bring up another one that's refuted right away again. I know you're just trolling, but Jesus, try to be a little interesting with your $$$dancing. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=$$$dance&r=f)

In any case, try to find a society whose rules and morals haven't changed over the span of a century. Liberality=progression and that's the way society and nature at large works. You can live for now in your lovely neo-50s eutopia where there are no gay people and you're in a cold war with something, but it won't last the entire span of your life, assuming you're sub-60 years old, meaning the liberals. Put that in your pipe and suck it. You have a victory right now, but you can't win the war against change. Ever. Period.

[The_Continental]

Damn skippy PAD - It's great having you back on the boards.

I'm not sure they actually feel guilty at all, but they sure do want to convince the rest of the world that they do.

The bottom line is, you are correct. Hard working private sector citizens realize that the socialist agenda is a joke, and they vote accordingly.

What is it Churchill used to say?, "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, then you're heartless, but if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you're an idiot."

sooner or later, Camoor, jmcc, and the rest of these dudes will get real jobs. That's when they'll start caring about income redistribution and economic freedom.

Like I said - good having you back.

I think the majority of the "progressive" left falls into a category you left out. The guilty.

They feel guilty because of the accident of birth that made them a citizen of the richest nation in history. They feel guilty because they achieved some level of success financially and so many others haven't. Usually those kinds of people are famous actors/musicians/wiriters etc. They never really worked for their wealth, they never created a job directly, all of the wealth they create is for themselves or a coninuation of their record or movie studios wealth from not being able to milk past hits/groups/names.

The other type of progressive is the spoiled rich kid(s) that lament not only the accident of birth but are itching to rebel against "something". That something, in this case, is whatever party is in power.

The moral causes that liberalism tackled in the past; old people dying penniless, oppressed minorities, workers organizing rights etc have been solved and now need expanding on. We now need prescription drug benefits in addition to SSI and Medicare. We need talks of reparations. We need to unionize shops that have no desire to unionize; see Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes factories in this country.

Liberalism now isn't a moral crusade, it's a financial one. Everything they preach and wish to achieve comes at a financial price to someone other than them. Environmentalism takes away from property rights violating the basic tennant of a capitalist society. Organized labor; are places of employment that won't let you work unless you pay the union its thug like protection money truly free and open? Health care coverage; cha ching, lets nationalize 1/7th of GDP because 40 million out of 300 million don't have government approved "health care" forget that any one of those 40 million include 5-10 million 20 somethings that just don't think they need it, forget that that 40 million includes 10-15 million that switch jobs and as a result statistically become uninsured.

Liberalism now is socialism. There are few if any issues the left has that don't cost you, the government or someone else money and lots of it. It cost no money to give blacks the vote, what cause does the left tackle anymore that doesn't result in a huge expenditure by an enormous group of people that can "afford it".

Like I said, your movement is a joke and you're becoming irrelevent.

Funny how this thread has devolved into a "Bush sucks! They made their money from Nazis!" thread because the cogent points brought up by right thinking persons are irrefutable. Typical.

[jmcc]

I wish the conservative side would quit claiming to be the Christian side of the political spectrum. At no point was greed rescinded of it's deadly sin status and nowhere did Jesus say "screw your fellow man. You look out for number one and number one only."

[camoor]

I'm not going to give my bio here Continental. I have already made my reasons clear in another thread.

I am glad to discuss my political ethos though. I am not a socialist, and I actually thought that the rampant 80s liberalism in the US got way out of hand. I am a Democrat and a Capitalist who believes that some social programs, such as National Parks and the protection of the enviornment, should be continued.

I want the government to stop tipping the hand of capitalism to favor big business. I am tired of the DMCA, the tax incentives to buy SUVs, the inability of the US govt to get Micro$oft to play by the rules of capitalism (heck, even the socialists in Europe are beating the US in that effort), and all the other lobbyist-supported nonsense. Let capitalism work, and we will all prosper.

Many on this board act as if the rich get no upper hand in life. While a poor inner-city convenience store clerk works overtime to make ends meet, a rich executive at a pharmaceutical company gets a research grant to pay for the clinical tests of his drug and then gets Congress to protect his inflated drug prices from overseas competition. Fortunately, if that protection falls through he is still incorporated in Vanuatu, so no taxes need to be paid on those profits.

Many of the things that I see the Bush presidency endorsing smack of Fascism. For example, look at the undefined period of incarceration for people that the government claims are threats to the interests of the US. I'm not a fan of Fascism either.

Nor of Theocracy. Leave the US Constitution and federal/local statutes in the court of law, people should enjoy their Christian Bibles in the city park, the church, or the privacy of their own home.

I am currently to the left of center, but I have voted for moderate Republicans in the past and I will probably do so again in the future.

Continental, when did all socialists suddenly go from having intelligent, compassionate people as members to being "assholes, idiots, and shallow bastards"? (your words, not mine)

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Way to make up a word.... what the fuck does liberality mean?

What are you progressing against? You don't even know. You're against an establishment. Do you want higher taxes? Confiscation of firearms? Gay marriage? Nationalization of health care? A world wide prosperity tax that dispenses first world wealth through the third world? Do you want a world government?

You can't even say, you don't know yourself.

No Democrat has won the Presidency with a majority popular vote in 28 years. There has not been 44 Democratic Senators since 1929 and that was with 4 fewer Senators in the upper house than there are now. The Democrats have had a net loss of governors and state legislatures since 1992. Your side is losing and losing badly.

Your senators are about to oppose the first Hispanic nominee for Attorney General by basically saying we need to go easier on Taliban, Al Qaeda and other terrorists subjects in our interrogation methods. They're siding with the enemy. You think this is progress? This is the side of history you want to be on?

You've been losing for a generation and the more out of power you are the further behind ever regaining it you get. You're desperate and have no hope for moving your agenda forward. When the Supreme Court is reshaped modern American liberalism as we know it will be a footnote in history like Marxist/Leninsm.

That's progress and I'm on the right side of it.

[bmulligan]

... the inability of the US govt to get Micro$oft to play by the rules of capitalism (heck, even the socialists in Europe are beating the US in that effort), and all the other lobbyist-supported nonsense.

European socialists don't want MS or anyone else to play by the rules of capitalilsm, that's the point. It's the socialist mentality in the US that thinks MS is breaking capitalist 'law'.

Let capitalism work, and we will all prosper.

Unless you become too sucessful, then you have to give up your earnings to those more needy. You are not a capitalist, you are a socialist pretending to be in favor of freedom (definition of Democrat, BTW)

Many on this board act as if the rich get no upper hand in life. While a poor inner-city convenience store clerk works overtime to make ends meet, a rich executive at a pharmaceutical company gets a research grant to pay for the clinical tests of his drug and then gets Congress to protect his inflated drug prices from overseas competition. Fortunately, if that protection falls through he is still incorporated in Vanuatu, so no taxes need to be paid on those profits. See? Capitalism sucks, doesn't it ? If he's lucky, he'll make money on 1 drug in 50, and the government would have granted money for research for 1 in 100. That's a lot of risk. That poor convenience store clerk deserves the same salary as an executive in your version of equality, doesn't he ?

Continental, when did all socialists suddenly go from having intelligent, compassionate people as members to being "assholes, idiots, and shallow bastards"? (your words, not mine)

Continental may have different reasons but mine started when they began eliminating personal responsibility, re-defining equality as redistribution of wealth by force, and not understanding that in order for wealth to be distributed, it has to be produced by someone in the first place.

[camoor]

... the inability of the US govt to get Micro$oft to play by the rules of capitalism (heck, even the socialists in Europe are beating the US in that effort), and all the other lobbyist-supported nonsense.

European socialists don't want MS or anyone else to play by the rules of capitalilsm, that's the point. It's the socialist mentality in the US that thinks MS is breaking capitalist 'law'.


You're going to defend the business practices of Microsoft, bmulligan? You like paying hundreds of dollars for an OS full of bugs? Microsoft has stolen code, price-fixed it's product, and lied all way to the top. Against Linux, they're mounting a campaign full of FUD and backing real "winners" like SCO. Europe has the balls to stand up to a company that has had a practical monopoly for a few decades, and I salute them for this.


Let capitalism work, and we will all prosper.
Unless you become too sucessful, then you have to give up your earnings to those more needy. You are not a capitalist, you are a socialist pretending to be in favor of freedom (definition of Democrat, BTW).


Your accusation is simply not true (all of it).


Many on this board act as if the rich get no upper hand in life. While a poor inner-city convenience store clerk works overtime to make ends meet, a rich executive at a pharmaceutical company gets a research grant to pay for the clinical tests of his drug and then gets Congress to protect his inflated drug prices from overseas competition. Fortunately, if that protection falls through he is still incorporated in Vanuatu, so no taxes need to be paid on those profits. See? Capitalism sucks, doesn't it ? If he's lucky, he'll make money on 1 drug in 50, and the government would have granted money for research for 1 in 100. That's a lot of risk. That poor convenience store clerk deserves the same salary as an executive in your version of equality, doesn't he ?


Of course the poor convenience store clerk doesn't "deserve" the same salary as the rich drug executive. Drug companies never lose a profit though, so why is the government giving them hand-outs?


Continental, when did all socialists suddenly go from having intelligent, compassionate people as members to being "assholes, idiots, and shallow bastards"? (your words, not mine)

Continental may have different reasons but mine started when they began eliminating personal responsibility, re-defining equality as redistribution of wealth by force, and not understanding that in order for wealth to be distributed, it has to be produced by someone in the first place.

I'm not going to defend socialism because I do not believe that it is a system of government that works, however I would never call all of it's proponents "assholes, idiots, and shallow bastards". As for conservatives, I believe this quote says it best:

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

[bmulligan]

You're going to defend the business practices of Microsoft, bmulligan? You like paying hundreds of dollars for an OS full of bugs?

If you don't like Windows, don't buy it. You DO have a choice. You can also use a typewriter to write papers, or use a calculator to balance the checkbook. I did it all through highschool and some college before that cool macintosh was invented. Microsoft pricefixed their product you say ? Good for them. Perhaps you should mount a campain against the videogame companies because they also decide what to charge for their own products.

Of course the poor convenience store clerk doesn't "deserve" the same salary as the rich drug executive.

Why not? I'd love to hear your explanation of why everyone shouldn't be compensated equally.

Drug companies never lose a profit though, so why is the government giving them hand-outs?

On some drugs, they do lose. And the government gives many handouts to many people and organizations. We should force them to stop, I agree. And since you enjoy JS MILL:

"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."
-John Stuart Mill

[camoor]

You're going to defend the business practices of Microsoft, bmulligan? You like paying hundreds of dollars for an OS full of bugs?

If you don't like Windows, don't buy it. You DO have a choice. You can also use a typewriter to write papers, or use a calculator to balance the checkbook. I did it all through highschool and some college before that cool macintosh was invented. Microsoft pricefixed their product you say ? Good for them. Perhaps you should mount a campain against the videogame companies because they also decide what to charge for their own products.


We live in the computer age, bmulls. For many years, Windows was the only choice for PCs. Now there is Linux, which Windows is trying to run into the ground by teaming with Sun and backdoor funding the BS SCO lawsuit. Windows is an anti-competitive force, and it has slowed innovation in the field of OS technology. It's a prime example of what happens when capitalism is broken by a monopoly.

Of course the poor convenience store clerk doesn't "deserve" the same salary as the rich drug executive.

Why not? I'd love to hear your explanation of why everyone shouldn't be compensated equally.


What are you talking about? Are you a communist?


Drug companies never lose a profit though, so why is the government giving them hand-outs?

On some drugs, they do lose. And the government gives many handouts to many people and organizations. We should force them to stop, I agree. And since you enjoy JS MILL:

"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."
-John Stuart Mill


In my opinion, the government gives out too much economic help, but I don't think it should be abolished completely. There are certain situations where fiscal government help is fair and just. Consider what happens when the husband of a poor naturalized citizen mother with 3 small kids is killed while fighting in Iraq. Should she have to suffer poverty because she was unlucky enough to be widowed by the war, she suddenly has to raise 3 kids on her own, and Walmart won't give her a full 40 hours a week? Don't we, as the people of the United States, owe her more then simple gratitude for the sacrifice that she and her husband made for this great country? I don't think the government should set her up in cozy digs for life, but surely some food stamps so that her children can remain fed is not out of order. Another acceptable option would be to have the government set her husband up with a generous life insurance policy before he goes to war.

However, I don't approve of the government creating tax loopholes for huge corporations that are going to use the extra money for the corporate slush fund and $5000 shower curtains.

Great quote by JS Mill btw, I totally agree.

However by your tone, I think you may be mis-interpreting his quote as an endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism.


To the public at large, Mill was better known as the author of Principles of Political Economy 1848, a work that tried to show that economics was not the "dismal science" that its radical and literary critics had supposed. Its philosophical interest lay in Mill's reflections on the difference between what economics measured and what human beings really valued: leading Mill to argue that we should sacrifice economic growth for the sake of the environment, and should limit population as much to give ourselves breathing space as in order to fend off the risk of starvation for the overburdened poor. Mill also allowed that conventional economic analysis could not show that socialism was unworkable, and suggested as his own ideal an economy of worker-owned cooperatives.

http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm

[bmulligan]

I totally agree with you that casualties in the millitary should be treated better and their families compensated justly for their death. This is not a handout. And, frankly, there shouldn't be tax loopholes for anyone, corporate or private. A consumption tax would help eliminate inequiitites but leave the government vunerable to economic slowdown. That may be a good thing, though, to prod them into creating less restrictive trade conditions to keep the economy growing.

And Mill's quote IS an endorsement of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean corporationism. It starts with individual freedom to trade and associate with others, and ends with the responsibility of trading and associating with others.

And as far as living in the computer age, I learned to program on many an IBM cloned computer that didn't run an MS operating system. MS Windows is a recent invention which evolved and became dominant because of popularity and it's convenience. (actually, I worked with versions of the OS GUI that MS stole the idea from too). If you want MS to become less important you must stop using their products and lead by example. We have much more power as consumers than any government when deciding which companies should exist and which should not.

"It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being. "
-John Stuart Mill

And furthermore, I believe that 95% of what we use computers for is extraneous entertainment. Yezs, we live in a computer age, but we don't have to. Can you name anything you are currently doing with your computer that you need to do to survive or make a living ? I don't even care if your job is computer related, it's not really that necessary, you could quit and dig ditches for food if you had to. Cellphones aren't necessary, videogames aren't necessary, movies and records aren't required for sustenance. So statements like this don't carry much weight for me:

Windows is an anti-competitive force, and it has slowed innovation in the field of OS technology.

Anti-competitive ? The very nature of capitalism is to beat your competition; to gain as much as possible, to grow as much as possible. And how can you prove that it has slowed innovation ? You can't. If anything, it's allowed us to work more efficiently, more quickly in the business world, raising the standard of living for many. They have created the standard and you're free to write your own OS if you think you can do it better. If it is better, than people will buy it and you'll be the next billionaire the people will want to topple.

And as a side note, Sun Microsystems is one of the backers of the MS anti-trust suit. Linux variations have some gems in their camp (and some duds too) but the lack of any standard prevents any of them from being usefull an a mass scale where compatibility is key for business intercommunications and commerce. And please tell me you know that Linux was 'borrowed' from another OS too ?

[The_Continental]

This bio was all I wanted - thanks.

To answer your question - I don't think socialists have ever been "intelligent, compassionate people" - do you?

I'm not going to give my bio here Continental. I have already made my reasons clear in another thread.

I am glad to discuss my political ethos though. I am not a socialist, and I actually thought that the rampant 80s liberalism in the US got way out of hand. I am a Democrat and a Capitalist who believes that some social programs, such as National Parks and the protection of the enviornment, should be continued.

I want the government to stop tipping the hand of capitalism to favor big business. I am tired of the DMCA, the tax incentives to buy SUVs, the inability of the US govt to get Micro$oft to play by the rules of capitalism (heck, even the socialists in Europe are beating the US in that effort), and all the other lobbyist-supported nonsense. Let capitalism work, and we will all prosper.

Many on this board act as if the rich get no upper hand in life. While a poor inner-city convenience store clerk works overtime to make ends meet, a rich executive at a pharmaceutical company gets a research grant to pay for the clinical tests of his drug and then gets Congress to protect his inflated drug prices from overseas competition. Fortunately, if that protection falls through he is still incorporated in Vanuatu, so no taxes need to be paid on those profits.

Many of the things that I see the Bush presidency endorsing smack of Fascism. For example, look at the undefined period of incarceration for people that the government claims are threats to the interests of the US. I'm not a fan of Fascism either.

Nor of Theocracy. Leave the US Constitution and federal/local statutes in the court of law, people should enjoy their Christian Bibles in the city park, the church, or the privacy of their own home.

I am currently to the left of center, but I have voted for moderate Republicans in the past and I will probably do so again in the future.

Continental, when did all socialists suddenly go from having intelligent, compassionate people as members to being "assholes, idiots, and shallow bastards"? (your words, not mine)

[jmcc]

Interesting. Gates did an interview just recently in which he dubs anyone who supports open copyright schemes communists.

[The_Continental]

Man, I have been pushing a consumption tax system (in the form of the Fair Tax Act) on these boards for a long ass time. It's nice to see other proponents here.

It sounds to me as though Camoor has forgotten about his most powerful voting tool - his hard earned dollar. I vote with the dollar everyday. If you don't like something and don't support it - don't spend your hard earned dollar on it.

I've loved Clint Eastwood movies since I was a little kid, but have yet to see "Mystic River" for this very reason.

Also I find it funny that Camoor claims to *support* capitalism. It sounds like he only supports it up until the point that the hard-working individual becomes successful - at which point his wealth must be redistributed to the not-so-hard-working.

You guys love to be generous with other peoples' money.

I totally agree with you that casualties in the millitary should be treated better and their families compensated justly for their death. This is not a handout. And, frankly, there shouldn't be tax loopholes for anyone, corporate or private. A consumption tax would help eliminate inequiitites but leave the government vunerable to economic slowdown. That may be a good thing, though, to prod them into creating less restrictive trade conditions to keep the economy growing.

And Mill's quote IS an endorsement of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean corporationism. It starts with individual freedom to trade and associate with others, and ends with the responsibility of trading and associating with others.

And as far as living in the computer age, I learned to program on many an IBM cloned computer that didn't run an MS operating system. MS Windows is a recent invention which evolved and became dominant because of popularity and it's convenience. (actually, I worked with versions of the OS GUI that MS stole the idea from too). If you want MS to become less important you must stop using their products and lead by example. We have much more power as consumers than any government when deciding which companies should exist and which should not.

"It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being. "
-John Stuart Mill

And furthermore, I believe that 95% of what we use computers for is extraneous entertainment. Yezs, we live in a computer age, but we don't have to. Can you name anything you are currently doing with your computer that you need to do to survive or make a living ? I don't even care if your job is computer related, it's not really that necessary, you could quit and dig ditches for food if you had to. Cellphones aren't necessary, videogames aren't necessary, movies and records aren't required for sustenance. So statements like this don't carry much weight for me:

Windows is an anti-competitive force, and it has slowed innovation in the field of OS technology.

Anti-competitive ? The very nature of capitalism is to beat your competition; to gain as much as possible, to grow as much as possible. And how can you prove that it has slowed innovation ? You can't. If anything, it's allowed us to work more efficiently, more quickly in the business world, raising the standard of living for many. They have created the standard and you're free to write your own OS if you think you can do it better. If it is better, than people will buy it and you'll be the next billionaire the people will want to topple.

And as a side note, Sun Microsystems is one of the backers of the MS anti-trust suit. Linux variations have some gems in their camp (and some duds too) but the lack of any standard prevents any of them from being usefull an a mass scale where compatibility is key for business intercommunications and commerce. And please tell me you know that Linux was 'borrowed' from another OS too ?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I've read a lot on the fair tax or consumption tax and am a believer in it to take up income taxes that aren't reported by under the table income earners, organized crime, drug dealers, prostititution etc. However I don't think the Dumbocrats could ever stomach giving up the "punish the rich" mantra they've used for 70 years so I don't think there's any hope of it ever being approved. It's also a regressive tax to those living on fixed income.

I haven't used Windows at home in going on 6 years. I haven't used Internet Explorer daily in 2. I get by just fine with OS X, Office v.X and Camino. My compatibility issues are about 1% and that's just with sites optimized for IE. I regularly produce documents in Mac Word, Mac Power Point or Mac Excel and have no compatibility issues. MS's Mac developers are great, I kind of miss IE but with Apple bundling their own browser I guess MS knew what kind of competition that meant for them and they dropped out of the Mac browser market.

[Drocket]

I guess MS knew what kind of competition that meant for them and they dropped out of the Mac browser market.
Actually, it means Microsoft bought a huge chunk of Apple, so they don't really care if you use Apple's products or their own because they get a huge chunk of money from it either way. Also, Microsoft finds it useful to keep Apple around as a tool to fool stupid people anytime the anti-trust investigators come snooping around. "No, we're not a monopoly! Just look at Apple!" "Mr. Gates, don't you all but OWN Apple?" "Um..." But again, as I said, it fools the stupid people.

[dtcarson]

I wish the conservative side would quit claiming to be the Christian side of the political spectrum. At no point was greed rescinded of it's deadly sin status and nowhere did Jesus say "screw your fellow man. You look out for number one and number one only."

Actually, there's nothing wrong with greed.
"Avarice" is the "deadly sin", and avarice is "Immoderate desire for wealth; cupidity." The key there is immoderate. Everyone wants wealth. If you don't, send me your money via Paypal. If you don't send me anything, then you are succumbing to 'desire for wealth', which in itself is not a bad thing.
Much like the line isn't 'money is the root of all evil.'
It's
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
""For the love of money (and all it buys) placed before the love of God (in reality) is the root of all kinds of evil."

Did you catch that? Let me reread it. A clear distinction must be made between THE LOVE of money and money itself. Let this truth sink deep into your spirit. God is not anti-money, or anti-wealth, He is anti-money WORSHIP. He has helped us to identify that moneylove (worship) is the root of all kinds of evil. In fact, as we have discussed before, God's plan is that we are healthy, wealthy, and wise in this world -- as a testimony of His greatness, power, and glory to come.

Wealth is NOT the only measuring stick of our blessing from God."

"The bottom line is that money, like technology, is spiritually neutral. It can be used for good or evil. God always deals with the heart and the motives of the use of money. If the motives are pure then the fruit can be very very good. Let's stop loving things and start loving people. '

[MrBadExample]

I haven't used Windows at home in going on 6 years. I haven't used Internet Explorer daily in 2. I get by just fine with OS X, Office v.X and Camino. My compatibility issues are about 1% and that's just with sites optimized for IE. I regularly produce documents in Mac Word, Mac Power Point or Mac Excel and have no compatibility issues. MS's Mac developers are great, I kind of miss IE but with Apple bundling their own browser I guess MS knew what kind of competition that meant for them and they dropped out of the Mac browser market.

PAD, I never would've pegged you for a Mac guy. Diff'rent strokes I guess... Well we have one thing in common.

I've never owned Windows, just Macs. The only other computer I have ever had was a C-64 back in the day. I never even used IE much, always like Navigator better but now Safari rules.

[MrBadExample]

I guess MS knew what kind of competition that meant for them and they dropped out of the Mac browser market.
Actually, it means Microsoft bought a huge chunk of Apple, so they don't really care if you use Apple's products or their own because they get a huge chunk of money from it either way. Also, Microsoft finds it useful to keep Apple around as a tool to fool stupid people anytime the anti-trust investigators come snooping around. "No, we're not a monopoly! Just look at Apple!" "Mr. Gates, don't you all but OWN Apple?" "Um..." But again, as I said, it fools the stupid people.

Microsoft has sold all of its Apple stock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer

The company was struggling financially when on August 6, 1997 Microsoft bought a $150 million non-voting share of company as a result of a court settlement between themselves and Apple. (Microsoft has since sold all Apple stock holdings.)

[Drocket]

Microsoft has sold all of its Apple stock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer

Hmm, I may be out-of-date, then (of course, Wikipedia often isn't the most reliable of sources...) Of course, it just says MS sold its shares of Apple - they may have just sold them to Bill :P

[camoor]

This bio was all I wanted - thanks.

To answer your question - I don't think socialists have ever been "intelligent, compassionate people" - do you?


I guess it depends on what you think of the following socialists:
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Albert Einstein
Jack London
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nelson Mandela
Orson Welles

I think that each of these individuals contributed to the world in a unique and compelling way, making it a better place through their vision. Do I believe in socialism? No. Doesn't mean I'm going to disparage everyone who does not share my ethos.

[camoor]

In my opinion, the government gives out too much economic help, but I don't think it should be abolished completely. There are certain situations where fiscal government help is fair and just. Consider what happens when the husband of a poor naturalized citizen mother with 3 small kids is killed while fighting in Iraq. Should she have to suffer poverty because she was unlucky enough to be widowed by the war, she suddenly has to raise 3 kids on her own, and Walmart won't give her a full 40 hours a week? Don't we, as the people of the United States, owe her more then simple gratitude for the sacrifice that she and her husband made for this great country? I don't think the government should set her up in cozy digs for life, but surely some food stamps so that her children can remain fed is not out of order. Another acceptable option would be to have the government set her husband up with a generous life insurance policy before he goes to war.

...Also I find it funny that Camoor claims to *support* capitalism. It sounds like he only supports it up until the point that the hard-working individual becomes successful - at which point his wealth must be redistributed to the not-so-hard-working.

You guys love to be generous with other peoples' money.


I do think that capitalism is the best economic system for the foreseeable future. However I am not an anarcho-capitalist who believes that govenment should play no role in the economy, especially when other issues (such as general public health and the defense of the country) are at stake. IMO it is naive and ultimately foolish to support a form of capitalism that does not possess a well-defined and strictly limited amount of government intervention.

[camoor]

Microsoft is a real lightning rod for many people, and it's my opinion that they in the past they have weilded too much influence in the OS market by using illegal advatages (had they conducted their business legally, I would have no arguement with their success. Then again, they wouldn't have had to pay DrDos 150+ million either.)

Apple took the GUI OS from Xerox Doc University, Gates stole it from Apple (Jobs), leased it to IBM and history was born. Since then Microsoft has produced a product that people (generally) like to use and they have marketed it exteremely well.

This guy sums it all up pretty well:
http://www.around.com/microsoft.html

The govenment is too late to bust up a monopoly, as increasing public scrutiny is forcing Microsoft to give up many of it's old illegal gambits and play fair.

As a result, Microsoft is about to face competition once again from some unexpected sources (the miracle of capitalism in action!). Sony is creeping into households, pushing convergence with the PS2 (hence the sudden appearance of the Xbox). Linux, the "free" OS, is really going to give Microsoft a run for it's money. If Microsoft beats it into the ground, it is only a matter of time before a better, cheaper to maintain free OS will arise (Sorry Bill :twisted: )

In our smaller, interconnected, global world, smart evolutionary giants like Microsoft will need to transform themselves in new and interesting ways to stay alive. "Dumb" giants like the record labels that are supporting the RIAA will die under the crushing weight of their own stupidity.

[bmulligan]

...
As a result, Microsoft is about to face competition once again from some unexpected sources (the miracle of capitalism in action!). Sony is creeping into households, pushing convergence with the PS2 (hence the sudden appearance of the Xbox). Linux, the "free" OS, is really going to give Microsoft a run for it's money. If Microsoft beats it into the ground, it is only a matter of time before a better, cheaper to maintain free OS will arise (Sorry Bill :twisted: )

In our smaller, interconnected, global world, smart evolutionary giants like Microsoft will need to transform themselves in new and interesting ways to stay alive. "Dumb" giants like the record labels that are supporting the RIAA will die under the crushing weight of their own stupidity.

See? The free market will take care of itself with no real need for government intervention. It's not like you to provide evidence contrary to your own argument, but there it is.

...I am not an anarcho-capitalist who believes that govenment should play no role in the economy, especially when other issues (such as general public health and the defense of the country) are at stake. IMO it is naive and ultimately foolish to support a form of capitalism that does not possess a well-defined and strictly limited amount of government intervention.

I think most people, including myself, would agree with that statement. I know the founding fathers would also agree. General welfare and common defense are the only legitimate functions of government as a necessary evil. That well-defined, limited government intervention begins with the phrase "Congress shall make no law..."

[camoor]

Well, I do think that the recent OS competition is at least in part due to worldwide pressure from people and governments who viewed Microsoft's past business practices as anti-competitive and illegal. Microsoft actually spent a ton of money recently in settling up past lawsuits for this very reason, they knew that all eyes were on them.

Now captialism is spurring faster innovation and I look forward to seeing what is achieved in the near future.

[MrBadExample]

And Microsoft was being investigated for unfair business practices in the US until Bush took office and let them off the hook completely.

It's not that MS was driving other companies out of business that got them in trouble, it's how they were doing it. They claimed that software like IE was so integrated into Windows that they couldn't make it easier to remove it if you wanted to use a different browser. JAVA is another example. Sun Systems wrote JAVA as a language that would work across multiple OS's. MS tweaks it in Windows so that JAVA programs have to be written specifically for Windows.

[camoor]

And Microsoft was being investigated for unfair business practices in the US until Bush took office and let them off the hook completely.

It's not that MS was driving other companies out of business that got them in trouble, it's how they were doing it. They claimed that software like IE was so integrated into Windows that they couldn't make it easier to remove it if you wanted to use a different browser. JAVA is another example. Sun Systems wrote JAVA as a language that would work across multiple OS's. MS tweaks it in Windows so that JAVA programs have to be written specifically for Windows.

Thanks Mr. Bad

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[bmulligan]

And Microsoft was being investigated for unfair business practices in the US until Bush took office and let them off the hook completely.

It's not that MS was driving other companies out of business that got them in trouble, it's how they were doing it. They claimed that software like IE was so integrated into Windows that they couldn't make it easier to remove it if you wanted to use a different browser. JAVA is another example. Sun Systems wrote JAVA as a language that would work across multiple OS's. MS tweaks it in Windows so that JAVA programs have to be written specifically for Windows.

Thanks Mr. Bad

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

But there's nothing wrong with that practice, IMO. You are not forced to use windows. You are free to run your favorie version of linux or any other OS. MS tweaking windows to ave java specifically optimised for it is analogous to Sony requiring the use of betamax tapes in their betamax players. Why should they have to make a VCR that accepts a regular VHS tape? They own the Betamax copyright so you have to pay a fee to make Betamax tapes in the first place, big deal - no one needs a VCR to begin with.

What's the difference between that and the fact you have to buy a license to make games for the PS2 ? You need to purchase the op-code that boots the PS2 so that your game will run on the system. Should MS be able to sue Sony to make Xbox games run on their platform ?

[The_Continental]

Did those people contibute to the world in a "unique and compelling way?"

Most of 'em did - although I might argue against London and Welles.

But hey, so did Stalin, and so did Mao, and so has Kim Jong Il - and so on. Socialism, in practice, has forced more human beings to meet thier unnatural and untimely deaths than any disease or natural disaster. It continues to do so to this day. Just do some quick research about how rampant famine is in North Korea, and your heart will ache.

None of the people you mentioned were leaders of socialist nations. They were simply proponents of the idea - and I might add - it is arguable that some of them were in it for the pussy.

This bio was all I wanted - thanks.

To answer your question - I don't think socialists have ever been "intelligent, compassionate people" - do you?


I guess it depends on what you think of the following socialists:
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Albert Einstein
Jack London
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nelson Mandela
Orson Welles

I think that each of these individuals contributed to the world in a unique and compelling way, making it a better place through their vision. Do I believe in socialism? No. Doesn't mean I'm going to disparage everyone who does not share my ethos.

[camoor]

To answer your question - I don't think socialists have ever been "intelligent, compassionate people" - do you?

None of the people you mentioned were leaders of socialist nations. They were simply proponents of the idea - and I might add - it is arguable that some of them were in it for the pussy.

Note that you are now changing the arguement, suddenly it's gone from "socialists" to "socialists who are leaders of nations".

On this point I would be more inclined to agree, I can think of no compassionate national leader that used the facade of being a socialist.

However were these leaders truly socialists, or just dictators claiming to be socialists?

And BTW, exactly which one was "in it for the pussy"?

[The_Continental]

I don't consider there to be a difference. Socialism is a killer, whether Stalin or Einstein is adminstering it. When the ag industry has zero incentive to make food, food doesn't get made. When the energy industry has zero incentive to create heat, the populace suffers in the cold. And when the populace has no incentive to live - millions die, it doesn't matter who the "leader" is. The leader isn't the problem, expecting human beings to be innovative and productive in a zero-market environment is the problem.



However were these leaders truly socialists, or just dictators claiming to be socialists?

Welles, London, and Einstein were easily in it for the tang (London and Welles especially). Each of the three of them would have been nothing if they actually lived thier lives under socialism. They were aware however, of how easy tang is to get if you label yourself a Socialist.

As Ali G would say - loose hippie bitches.


And BTW, exactly which one was "in it for the pussy"?

[camoor]

I don't consider there to be a difference. Socialism is a killer, whether Stalin or Einstein is adminstering it. When the ag industry has zero incentive to make food, food doesn't get made. When the energy industry has zero incentive to create heat, the populace suffers in the cold. And when the populace has no incentive to live - millions die, it doesn't matter who the "leader" is. The leader isn't the problem, expecting human beings to be innovative and productive in a zero-market environment is the problem.



However were these leaders truly socialists, or just dictators claiming to be socialists?

Welles, London, and Einstein were easily in it for the tang (London and Welles especially). Each of the three of them would have been nothing if they actually lived thier lives under socialism. They were aware however, of how easy tang is to get if you label yourself a Socialist.

As Ali G would say - loose hippie bitches.


And BTW, exactly which one was "in it for the pussy"?

Well that's your opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that you have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader.

Canada is pretty leftist (you might even call it a social democracy) and it seems like a pretty nice place to live. So are most of the west European countries.

As for the "being socialist so they could womanize" part, that's so damn silly. These were men who wanted to be recognized as great artists and/or prolific thinkers, they were famous in their time and had no need to resort to spouting off things they didn't believe in order to get attention.

If you want to talk womanizers, at least pick someone like T. Kennedy or O'Reilly...

[The_Continental]

You're not seriously saying that socialism just hasn't been given "it's fair shake." How many dead will convince you?

20 millions Russians isn't enough?
2 million Koreans isn't enough?

You're one sick and hateful bastard.

Well that's your opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that you have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader.


I couldn't disagree more, In grad school I worked with a Canadian woman who refused to be employed in her own country. Why? Because she only took home 35% of her paycheck. She could never own a home, her own car, or even have a private retirement plan. She opted to move here instead - as did my parents, who came from a Muslim country.

If the Canadian "governement as my daddy" program sounds appealing to you, I invite you to please, move there.

Me, I'm grateful to live in the U.S. - My mother slept on a dirt floor for the first 18 years of her life. Indonesia's forced 20 year Socialism policy put my mother's family into a state of peverty and hunger they are still living in 40 years later.

To hear you say I "have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader" just makes my skin crawl. It's disgusting.


Canada is pretty leftist (you might even call it a social democracy) and it seems like a pretty nice place to live. So are most of the west European countries.


Sure they were. Why in the hell do you think men seek recognition anyway? Grow up.


As for the "being socialist so they could womanize" part, that's so damn silly. These were men who wanted to be recognized as great artists and/or prolific thinkers, they were famous in their time and had no need to resort to spouting off things they didn't believe in order to get attention.

If you want to talk womanizers, at least pick someone like T. Kennedy or O'Reilly...

[camoor]

You're not seriously saying that socialism just hasn't been given "it's fair shake." How many dead will convince you?

20 millions Russians isn't enough?
2 million Koreans isn't enough?

You're one sick and hateful bastard.

Well that's your opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that you have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader.


I couldn't disagree more, In grad school I worked with a Canadian woman who refused to be employed in her own country. Why? Because she only took home 35% of her paycheck. She could never own a home, her own car, or even have a private retirement plan. She opted to move here instead - as did my parents, who came from a Muslim country.

If the Canadian "governement as my daddy" program sounds appealing to you, I invite you to please, move there.

Me, I'm grateful to live in the U.S. - My mother slept on a dirt floor for the first 18 years of her life. Indonesia's forced 20 year Socialism policy put my mother's family into a state of peverty and hunger they are still living in 40 years later.

To hear you say I "have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader" just makes my skin crawl. It's disgusting.


Canada is pretty leftist (you might even call it a social democracy) and it seems like a pretty nice place to live. So are most of the west European countries.


Sure they were. Why in the hell do you think men seek recognition anyway? Grow up.


As for the "being socialist so they could womanize" part, that's so damn silly. These were men who wanted to be recognized as great artists and/or prolific thinkers, they were famous in their time and had no need to resort to spouting off things they didn't believe in order to get attention.

If you want to talk womanizers, at least pick someone like T. Kennedy or O'Reilly...

Wow, you really have an open mind don't you.

Good for your grad school friend.

I love how when someone points out that Canada and Western Europe are not bad places to live, or they don't have evil social policies, a conservative is there with the catchline "Why don't you move there. Get out of my country..." jumps up. What a load of :bs:

I think capitalism gives the US a competitive edge, and I don't like paying high taxes either. However I'd rather see the tax money I do pay go to causes such as needed foreign aid (for which the money is depleted in 2005) versus unnecessary foreign wars.

It must have been tough on your mom, but that doesn't change the fact that Indonesia was run by some pretty inept dictators.

Yeah, and you believe that all men are seeking recognition so they can be attractive to women. There are obvious exceptions such as the Dalai Lama that refute your point, but I tend to think that there are many more men out there that want to make the world a better place. It is not mature or healthy to have a sexual motivation for everything that you do, you have to see outside yourself and realize that many people actually think about these issues instead of always trying to show off about how much of an independent badass (or in your case party conformist) they are.

[The_Continental]

Camoor,

This is has been a relatively good discussion, but I am bowing out of it at this point.

To hear you talk about human life as though it is some sort of expendable variable - something it's okay to waste just becuase a given leader wasn't "truly socialist" - just feels awful. I consider human life to be one of the most precious of things.

When I read your shallow disragard for human life, it makes both my stomach turn and my eyes fill with tears of anger. I cannot, out of self-respect, continue this discussion with you.

Please feel free to take the last post.

[camoor]

Camoor,

This is has been a relatively good discussion, but I am bowing out of it at this point.

To hear you talk about human life as though it is some sort of expendable variable - something it's okay to waste just becuase a given leader wasn't "truly socialist" - just feels awful. I consider human life to be one of the most precious of things.

When I read your shallow disragard for human life, it makes both my stomach turn and my eyes fill with tears of anger. I cannot, out of self-respect, continue this discussion with you.


Wow, way to get emotional over nothing.

Take a look at the Ukraine if you want to see atrocities committed by a "Democracy" in name only.

Just because a system of government or leader claims to be socialist, doesn't mean that it is actually socialist. I'd never justify the actions of a so-called socialist leader like Mussolini as an indictment against socialism, just as I'd never justify the actions of a dictator who won a "democratic" election by rigging the votes as an indictment against Democracy.

I find your hypocracy hard to swallow, apparently you have muslim parents however you applaud PAD every chance that you get. Did you forget that this was the guy who put the swastika in the word "Islam"? How can you justify his equation of your parent's religion to a fascist totalitarian ideology that endorses genocide? And just because I claim that I am not going to indiscriminately hate and deride each person that has endorsed socialism, I have no respect for human life?

Please feel free to take the last post.

This is another cheap debate tactic. You realize that you can't win the arguement so you try to make it look like you're taking the "high road". You need to reexamine your philosophy on life, you might realize that it's not "all about the womanizing" and that maybe half of America has a good reason for caring about the less fortunate.

[bmulligan]

Yeah, you never have to invite camoor to take the last post, because he'll do it anyway.

Camoor believes that socialism is like the last cookie on a plate in a room of starving people. He thinks everyone will leave the cookie alone because there are always more needier people than himself. The cookie will stay there indefinitely in case of emergency, then get cut up into equal pieces for everyone. The truth is that the cookie would disappear before he even had a chance to think about taking it. The one with the most authority would take it and give a portion of it to the one who displayed the most loyalty.

Socialism can work wonderfully in a family, a clan, or other small group of people. However, when a hierarchy evolves, the ones with the most influence, resources, power will always use it to their advantage and not bow out gracefully (leave the cookie). When it gets big enough, someone has to run the clan, and you just can't depend on that person not to take the cookie for himself. This is why capitalism is more equitable. We make and keep our own cookies.

[camoor]

Yeah, you never have to invite camoor to take the last post, because he'll do it anyway.

Camoor believes that socialism is like the last cookie on a plate in a room of starving people. He thinks everyone will leave the cookie alone because there are always more needier people than himself. The cookie will stay there indefinitely in case of emergency, then get cut up into equal pieces for everyone. The truth is that the cookie would disappear before he even had a chance to think about taking it. The one with the most authority would take it and give a portion of it to the one who displayed the most loyalty.

Socialism can work wonderfully in a family, a clan, or other small group of people. However, when a hierarchy evolves, the ones with the most influence, resources, power will always use it to their advantage and not bow out gracefully (leave the cookie). When it gets big enough, someone has to run the clan, and you just can't depend on that person not to take the cookie for himself. This is why capitalism is more equitable. We make and keep our own cookies.

Blah blah blah.

There's nothing that you said that I don't agree with (besides the requisite false accusations).

Socialism would work if everyone would play fair, sadly there's always at least one asshole at the party that's going to ruin it for everyone. However maybe some day some genius will come up with a system that *forces* it to work. I'm not going to rule out that possiblity.

I'm sure the Ancient Greeks, 2000+ years ago, would have thought our idea of Democracy was completely insane and unrealistic (only 1/7 of their "democracy" could vote, the rest were slaves, foreigners, women or poor people).

Pure anachro-capitalism also has it's problems. For our current society, there needs to be a balance of humanistic social policy and darwinistic "survival of the fittest" capitalism/democracy.

As for the last post comment, that's just weak. Surely the PAD fan club can make a better excuse for why their arguements always come up short on this board.

[bmulligan]

Socialism would work if everyone would play fair, sadly there's always at least one asshole at the party that's going to ruin it for everyone. However maybe some day some genius will come up with a system that *forces* it to work. I'm not going to rule out that possiblity.

capitalism works because everyone is forced to play fairly or meet demise in the marketplace. You keep holding out for that endless cookie supply, you'll be waiting until the second coming of the Jesus.

I'm sure the Ancient Greeks, 2000+ years ago, would have thought our idea of Democracy was completely insane and unrealistic (only 1/7 of their "democracy" could vote, the rest were slaves, foreigners, women or poor people).

We don't have a democracy. Locally, yes, we rely on majority rule for day to day local statute and ordinance. Yet we are still beholdent to the constitution that restricts all governments from treading on individual rights. So I guess you're right, the greeks would not have accepted the concept of unalienable rights for all individuals.

Pure anachro-capitalism also has it's problems. For our current society, there needs to be a balance of humanistic social policy and darwinistic "survival of the fittest" capitalism/democracy.

You keep associating free market capitalism believers with anarchy, as if we believe government doesn't even have a right to exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government is a necessary evil and should be regarded as such in all aspects. The founders had just as much contempt for corruption in the hands of the powerful, but understood it's necessity to protect and mediate between citizens.

As for the last post comment, that's just weak. Surely the PAD fan club can make a better excuse for why their arguements always come up short on this board.

The only ones coming up short are the pseudo-intellectual 'thinkers' here who believe government is the beginning and end of all things good, that socialism can work if everyone could just get along, and admit in the same sentence that this is impossible.

[Kayden]

I think this thread is the perfect example of why a 2 party system is a bad idea...

There are really only two things that Republicans and Democrats can agree on. Agree to disagree and crush any competition before it can become a threat to either party.

The Democrats are a party of people with no ideas... and the Republicans are a party full of bad ideas.

Its like they're having a competition to see who can run the country into the ground the fastest. While they're busy bickering like a couple of 13 year olds try to show off whos got the largest vocabulary the country is pretty much going to hell on its own. Use the word because it says what you're thinking. Not because you want to sound smart. Using many, large multi-sylabic words in excess just makes you look like you don't really have a point and are just covering up that fact with grandoise terminology.

These guys are so busy spewing the same socio-political crap thats been slung about for decades that they have totally missed the point of what they're arguing about. They (the posters and the parties) get so wrapped up in trying to show how they're the 'best' that its all they do. For example:

Congress-y Guy #1- Ok, and now well discuss the recent power shortage in Bumfuq, CA.
Congress-ish Guy #2(R)- Well, as we all know, if Democrats weren't money hating $$$s, we could tear up all the national parks to rip out the coal to burn for energy!
Congress-type Guy #3 (D)- Yea? Well if Republicans would stop giving the rich tax breaks we could afford more nuclear plants!
Congress-noob #4(I)- If you both would stop wasting so much time searching for depleting fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power, we could come up with clean, renewable power that would let us heat our homes and run our cars off water for a fraction of the price!
Congress Guy #3- Shut the hell up!
Congress Guy #2- Yea, you stupid ass, tree huging, clean air loving, nature saving homo!
*CG2 and 3 then proceed to beat CG4 until he is a horribly disfigured and crippled for life. Being so repulsive, his constituents don't re-ellect him.*

I forgot where I was going with this... but I think we should all probably be ashamed. The ignorant, the intollerant, the selfish, the immature...

Personally, I don't really give a damn about the tsunami. Maybe I'm cruel... or maybe I'm sick of this country being demonized for helping some and then being ostricized for not helping others. If I called the shots I'd say fuck all! We have enough poor and starving people locally, why should we ship wealth abroad? I say we make a global compromize. We don't go where we aren't wanted, and in return we won't do anything when we are. These double standards need to end. Why are Americans called racist or intollerant of all the foreigners that don't speak English in America, yet we are called arrogant when we go elsewhere and expect to converse in English. Call me crazy... but if I was going to move to Japan I would make sure I knew Japanese... If I went to France I'd probably want to know French. Why am I in-turn labled a bad guy for expecting people to speak English in America!? I know the US is supposed to be a melting pot and other such things... I have no problem with blending. However, there needs to be a common language for things to go smoothly. I mean, look at the UN, 100 some odd countries and langauges and they can't get shit done!

I think I'm probably diverging here... but now I don't really care. It's late, I'm tired and I wanna rant.
I recently watch a comedy special by Louis Black that really made me think. America is the only country in the world that feels it neccisary, on a near constant basis, to remind the whole world that were the best country on the planet. Thats a very common sentiment if you frequent almost any forum with even a minor American population. Yet, the fact of the matter is, most of these people have no grounds for comparison. It is true that we have the most money... but how does that really translate into greatness? Nation-wide we've been making cuts to education... and it really shows on forums >_< We're spending billions to perpetuate a war that there is no valid basis for that, additionally, the world hates us for. Weapons of mass destruction... ok, I'll set asside the arguements of whether or not such ass backwards places could aquire them, or if they had their desire to use them... Assuming that there were WMD (like we did) shouldn't this whole fucking think ended when they weren't found? Frivolous military spending.... check! Thats just the economical part of the equation. What about all the people that died, the teenage sons and daughter, all for the sake of the fucking retard in office's personal agenda? The American people don't want us over there, the Iraqis don't want us there, the soldiers sure as hell don't want to be there... pretty much the world over, WE AREN'T WANTED THERE... So I ask... why are we still there? For more money? Does the heartless sacrifice of your nations young for money equate to greatness? Then we must truly live in the greatest country with our greatest of leaders...

[camoor]

I just love all of those "cool-as-hell" people who state that they're independent for the instant street-cred and the superior feeling that they are above all of this "2 party" nonsense.

If someone states that they are independent, and goes on a rant about how the 2 party system sucks, then they should also have the decency to explain how they plan to change it.

If you aren't Ventura, Nader, or Perot (and he's a maybe), then what have you done for the Independent party lately?

[Kayden]

I didnt say I was independant... I'm saying you're all insane. You can group people into any number of groups that satisfy everyone unless they numbered in the thousands or better.

A lot of people say they're a Democrat or Republican but they just dissagree with a few core components like gays or abortion... You have people that are supposed to follow the same ideology that can't tollerate each others view points. Its almost as bad as religion... How many Christain sects are there? They all piss and moan about how the other group is doing it wrong. If they all like the same god why the hell does it matter? Personally, I'm an atheist, so I think they're all insane :P

And as for me saying I'm independant for street cred? Thats just as assanine as PAD saying you're a socialist to get laid.

As for what we can do to change it... Ok, say I do draft up some elaborate plan that covers hundreds of pages.... big freaking deal, no one really cares. Sure, the constitution says I have the right ... or actually the responsibility to stand up and right wrongs, but if I try and fail I'm hung for treason. I don't care what they say in school, one person can't make a diffence. Atleast, not a lower middle class guy from Bumfuq, Minnesota. Also, what incentive is there for the entrenched government to change? You're certainly set in your ways, I'm willing to bet PAD would tell me to blow myself. The senators that are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on their asses sure dont want things to change...

When it comes down to it, I'm poor, can't change shit and am just left to piss and moan about how the little guy gets the shaft.

But if you want a plan I'll give you a quick little one that you're sure to tear apart because its a foolish thing that could never work that Im only proposing for 'street cred'

I think its pretty well proven that Democracy doesn't work. Atleast, not at this scale. You can't have one set of standards that fairly applies to everyone where everyone is satisfied and gets to be heard. Representatives only represent the interests of those that can pay them the most. There-in lies the problem. Democracy is just as good of an idea as socialism, but they both have the same flaw. Socialism gets the bad wrap because its much more evident. You give one guy total control of a country and it goes to his head... people notice when a whole country is devoted to serving one man's needs. In a democracy this corruption is less noticed because its done on such a wide scale that everyone is covering up for everyone else and this crookedness apears to be the norm.

Its kinda sad that if I said all we need is honest people that I would be called a fool hoping for a utopian ideal. Is it really that bad to want people to be honest? I'm not saying be nice with rainbows and puppies... I'm saying respect others... ya know that little thing that the Jesus fella said, treat others they way you want to be treated.

What we either need is leaders we can trust or break the country into smaller areas in which everyone could be heard. What we really need is a dictatorship... but with out the dick. If we could get one person to be in total control that wouldn't be corrupted, then wed be set. The system does work... I mean, look at families... granted it may be a bit dated, but it did work. You have the dad, he makes the money, he makes the rules and acts in the best interests of everone. He gets the mom to cook so everyone has food and the kids to go to school so they get smart. The problem is, when its scaled up to a whole country, dad makes mom cook just for him and then he sends the kids to the coal mines to pay for his new plasma tv...

"Now you're complaining that the human race is essentially bad... thats such a hippy thing for you to say and you're only doing it to get sex"

What ever.. The human race isn't neccesarily bad... but we do a lot of twisted shit that we don't have to just to line our pockets with a little green. Its pretty fucked up that we're so willing to trash our planet for a few bucks. Maybe I am a hippy, maybe I am a dreamer, what if I'm foolish, what if I want the impossible? Is it such a bad thing to want a world where people don't have to be afraid to be one of those who is raped, murdered or otherwise wronged every 30 seconds? Wouldn't it be nice to not need police? I just think its sad that its considered foolish for people to just get along. Most of the world worships the same god, but they kill each other because they don't do it "properly". Wars are fought over finite resources that we don't really need, but keep around because theres still money to be made... Call me a hippy, a liberal, a socialist or an egaltarian... I really don't care. The one thing you can call me for sure is sick of humanities shit.

[The Narrator's Apprentice]

Kayden was floating in the embrionic universe observing the incomprehensable when she called to him. His world immediately materialized into view as he rose his head and opened his eyes. He saw her dark form silhouetted by the sun at her back. The outlined curves of her body sent waves of feeling through him, the numbness subsided and he was now concious of his own body. Now fully aware of her impending arrival, he strained to discover her identity. Her head bobbed and he was temporarily blinded by the flash of light revealed each time she made contact with the sand. She was running.

The lustful life force pulled him erect and he rose to meet her. It was then he realized his shameful condition. He was naked, she was still coming fast, yet she was receeding. He felt another force from behind. Engulfing and warm, he was powerless to resist. He watched as her visage , frozen in time, shrank to infantessimal proportions and he became part of the blackness that swept him back into oblivion.

He awoke in a pool of his own drool, a lock of dread caught between the tilde and #1 key. He yanked it free as he lifted his heavy head. "Damn, that shit was good." He looked at the clock, realizing he'd been gone for 12 hours or maybe more. Desperately he tried typing what he had witnessed in his hallucination, but the keys weren't displaying the right letters. "I'm typing backwards," he screamed, "let me go goddamnit!"

The straight jacket was drawn tighter yet again and the nurses all made a collective frown at his condition. "He was so young," one of them said, "and he had so much potential." The party leader dismissed them as members of the third shift had just started their duties. They casually filed past the large sign that adorned the entrance to the ward which read: "FLOOR #9 OCEANA DRUG REHABILITATION AND REPROGRAMMING"

[Kayden]

..... I don't think I'm alone when I say.... huh?

Did you type that up just for me or is it some kind of 'insert fool's name here' burn? Like the anti flamer rejection letter... seriously... I'm confused

[elprincipe]

I think its pretty well proven that Democracy doesn't work.

BWAHAhaha! Do you know anything, ANYTHING about history, particularly the history of the 20th century? Obviously you don't if you make just downright stupid statements like that. I'm anti-Democrat and anti-Republican too, but that is just dumb.

[MrFriday18]

ya if the president gave money right after the disaster then, the OP would be bullshiting like a fucking idiot that we gave to much money before we could survey the damage. Also the presidents Texas Ranch has a full fledged office similar to the white house we're he can run the country. So get your facts straight.

[MrFriday18]

I think its pretty well proven that Democracy doesn't work.

Democracy works and usually lasts. Communism you can say works for the goverment but it never last for centruries, it usually always comes to an end.

[rbigfis]

I hate when people sit there and say how dare the US not donate more money. All of these foreign countries are chastising us for daring not to give quadruple the amount of every other country. I have only one question for those diplomats....

Where were you when the US was attacked on 9/11?
Where were you when hurricanes were demolishing Florida?

I'm tired of this country being guilt-tripped because we don't give enough money to other countries. When did they help us? I know this is a selfish attitude, but everyone complaining about the aid amount also complains about all of the problems in this country, i.e. taxes, social security and such.

[E-Z-B]

I hate when people sit there and say how dare the US not donate more money. All of these foreign countries are chastising us for daring not to give quadruple the amount of every other country. I have only one question for those diplomats....

Where were you when the US was attacked on 9/11?
Where were you when hurricanes were demolishing Florida?

I'm tired of this country being guilt-tripped because we don't give enough money to other countries. When did they help us? I know this is a selfish attitude, but everyone complaining about the aid amount also complains about all of the problems in this country, i.e. taxes, social security and such.

The people in southeast live in huts. Many have sold a kidney to support their family. What do you expect those people to give to the U.S.?

[elprincipe]

I hate when people sit there and say how dare the US not donate more money. All of these foreign countries are chastising us for daring not to give quadruple the amount of every other country. I have only one question for those diplomats....

Where were you when the US was attacked on 9/11?
Where were you when hurricanes were demolishing Florida?

I'm tired of this country being guilt-tripped because we don't give enough money to other countries. When did they help us? I know this is a selfish attitude, but everyone complaining about the aid amount also complains about all of the problems in this country, i.e. taxes, social security and such.

The people in southeast live in huts. Many have sold a kidney to support their family. What do you expect those people to give to the U.S.?

Well, if they really cared they'd have their 8-year-olds sew up some Air Jordans for free and send them here instead of getting paid 10 cents a day. :roll: