I am new to this post but feel like adding to this discussion,since the level of stupidity present makes me uncomfortable.

First off: despite the fact that the United States has quite a disparity between the powerful and the weak, and the media is obviously going to be biased in some way, the US is still the most responsive and representative democracy in the world.

That said, you British need to stop bragging about how tough it is in your scrawny little English villages and realize that your empire is gone. Your voice is not as loud as it once was, and that is why you are ignored when superpowers make their foreign policy decisions. Perhaps if you spent more money on defense and less on donations to Palestinian terrorists, you would be able to pull some weight in the UN or with the US. As is is, you're lucky we've defended you form every foreign threat for the last fifty years, and you aren't speaking German right now.

US media might be biased, but when you compare it to the UK, it's downright impartial. Newspapers like the Daily Mail, Guardian and Observer pass off rumors and opinions as hard facts. At least American media preface their rants with "Editorial" headlines. Although I suspect your reading is limited to issues of Club magazine and whatever rag your local football club publishes.

And you schmucks think that Hussein is a legitimate ruler and Bush is not, pointing to the 2000 election and the Florida vote counts? Unlike Saddam, who hasn't EVER had any sort of election in his twenty-plus years, when there was an issue in the US election, both parties turned to this little thing called "rule of law" (also deplorably absent in Iraq and most of the Middle East for that matter, except...drum roll please...in Israel), and the issues were settled by the Supreme Court. If there had been an election like that most anywhere in the world, my bet is that citizens would not have accepted the constitutional operation of their government but instead would have rioted, fought, and warred over which clan should ascend to power.

There IS a European stereotype. This is for good reason. The problem for you types is, you have massive Muslim populations, who are poor, violent, and unappreciative, not to mention unwilling to assimilate into your culture or nation. Good luck with them, and the unresponsive, unaccountable government you are so content to live under. In the real world, everything boils down to two things: economic power, and military power. Your are not in the same ballpark as the US in either area, so that is why you are ignored when we pursue our interests. My suggestion to you would be to emigrate to the US and become a citizen, only I'm not wiling to accept the drain on resources and pollution of the genepool that would entail. So, instead, why don't you try hitting the local library and doing a little research before you spit your nonsense out.

Cheers

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
...the US is still the most responsive and representative democracy in the world.

---

Yeah it is. Decent first post.

quote:

---

As is is, you're lucky we've defended you form every foreign threat for the last fifty years, and you aren't speaking German right now.

---

God forbid, how horrible it would be for someone to be speaking German.

quote:

---

This is probably true from your perspective. From my perspective, the converse is true.

---

I suppose the number of people who think Bush is taking over the world from Europe and america is the same. Doesn't matter though, they're all dumbfucks.

quote:

---

Both of your statements are true. This demonstrates the problem of responding to a geek who hides behind nationalism when he talks about 'you Americans' and then claims no nationality later. Do I have something against the Brits? Absolutely not. However, I really get tired of the 'hate America crowd' who expect me to roll over and play dead while they heap their uneducated vile and vindictive drivel on me and my country.

---

Thanks Nox, i respect the fact you didn't take my post so literally (although i bet you were itching, weren't you )

I wouldn't consider chuckfuck someone who i would call British, he's one of those that seek to destroy the system.

To be honest, i think we've al heard enough of this american/british hate shit so i think we should end it here (except you Vox). The one thing i will say is that due to out habit of an island, we have about as much in common with the europeans as you americans do with them.

I respect the fact you have been here, but i have been to the US, yet i would still say the state of Taxas isn't that much different to Florida. Your perspective changes when you live somewhere.

quote:

---

No. That 'good' refers to the 68%-70% (depending on which poll) of Americans who support our President. Here again, this uneducated and/or biased whatever (since he can't decide what he is) doesn't have his facts straight (not to mention the fact that he can't spell...it's Floridians).

Now I hope that I have addressed your concerns Mantis. I am NOT anti-British. I am however, anti-IDIOT. And idiot is what this jerk is.

---

Yes, you have addressed my points, and quite nicely, i was a bit pissed off when i wrote that (does it show?), as whenever liberal, commie brits come here and start posting, the anti-british comments come flying, and i don't like it.

But i will suggest we start calling him chuckfuck from now on.

All those who agree say yay.

Vox, i don't give two fucks about you bragging about the size of your penis, sorry country, at the end of the day its all shit. If Britian is so small, why do we fight alongside you in nearly every conflict this decade.

Recently we have taken back the falklands with our special forces only and a small fleet, from argentina. Have you looked at a map recently, compare the sizes of the countries and how far each one is away from the Falklands. And you think we aren't what we're cracked up to be.

Iraq, 1991, Our tank divisions ploughed straight through the Iraqis positions, i didn't see any other non-US forces try that.

Even now after Iraq, we fly missions with US pilots over Iraq.

Balklands, joint US-British missions if i remember rightly. I also rememeber the US using British bases.

Afghanistan. So recent, i probably don't even have to remind you.

Iraq 2002/2003??? British forces wil once again be alongside the US i suspect.

So, as for other shit, we aren't that bad. You use our designs for planes, our special forces train yours etc etc, need i go on?

I admit it isn't all one sided, but we aren't exactly the small timers you tried to convey us as above.

I forget the rest of your post as its utter shit and i only flicked through it. Please respond.

ho ho, upset you a little?

All things being equal, you are our closest ally, politically and militarily. Rarely do you go against our decisions, and in reciprocation we our staunch when it comes to yours.

My statement is more anti-EU than -UK. It wasn't written clearly enough. Someone posted a message about how tough it is in Stratford-upon-avonshireburg or wherever, and I was not impressed, and that is where I was aiming my anti-brit sentiment.

Now...you will admit that though there was a time when the sun always shone on the British Empire, and that time is passed? Good. I withdraw any statement that offended your lionheart, and acknowledge that yes, the UK is very cooperative when it comes to implementing US foreign policy. Good job beating Argentina, what with their half-dozen fighter jets and all, truly a show of force. And thanks for being America's buddy in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al. British soldiers are brave and tough. But don't for one minute pretend like victory was dependent on British assistance.

Once again, the rant was directed at the other countries in Europe (France, Germany especially) that freeload off of American (and British) defense, and then have the balls to demand it be used a certain way.

I don't see a response about the comparisons between our presses or governments, however. What do you say to my comments about them?

And please, lets remain civil and keep the conversation away from my genitals, or you might find yourself teabagged.

Cheers

How can you consider history your area of specialization and detest classics?

quote:

---

Once again, the rant was directed at the other countries in Europe (France, Germany especially) that freeload off of American (and British) defense, and then have the balls to demand it be used a certain way.

---

Do you rant about every country that freeloads and makes demands on the US?

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckStone:
It is not your moral resposibility to overthrow Maddas Insane as it was not your "moral reesposibility" to overthrow the Taliban.

---

I didn't say it was. I tried to clarify the word "right" for you. You wish to reel in US global aggression because it's not coterminous with your idea of morality in a civilized society. As far as I'm concerned - "rights" and "moral responsibility" are only applicable within the system in my country. What's the point of dealing with an overseas aggressor using the laws that we create for ourselves?

If the US were to conquer GB, it would be damn silly to do so within the restraints of your moral system.

quote:

---

Ultimatums are all very well but when that ultimatum was met you renayed on your own part of the bargain.

---

A promise to honor an ultimatum, is not the same as honoring it.

quote:

---

USA ... consider it a violation to own NBC weapons but are in possesion of the worlds biggest arsenal

---

I don't know what NBC means, but I'm damn glad ours is bigger than yours. With the exception of hemorroids and FuckStone posts, bigger is usually better.

quote:

---

[USA is] a fairytale land of magic and McDonalds and happy people with the freedom to shoot any black man.

---

I don't eat McDonalds; I don't believe in magic; and if I get caught shooting blacks - I go to the pen.

Vox, a nice post, and i apologize for coming across as aggressive. You'll probably read my apology to Nox later, same goes here, i just get feed up of being possibly the only pround right wing brit on the board (well maybe not, but it feels liek it) and when these bastard liberals come on and cause poeple like yourself and Nox to insult me, it annoys me.

Yes i admit the press is biased, but everyone knows that and takes it into account, i hope.

As for economics, the pound is still strong. Still top three, i never see anything but the dollar, yen, euro and pound being quoted, so not much more needs to said.


I agree that most conflicts may have been resolved by US force alone, but its always nice to get the job done quicker and easier, don't you agree.

I am quite pro-american in my thinking, as apart from a slight change in culture and stuff, we are very much alike.

I would like one day for there to be a much stronger bond between our countries, ditch the EU and join NAFTA(??) or something.

Its late, several of my last posts mey not sound right so i'm going to bed and will try to resume this conversation later.

Mantis

>>>God forbid, how horrible it would be for someone to be speaking German.<<<

I think he meant that as in living under a Nazi regime. Great job seeing that.

>>>Recently we have taken back the falklands with our special forces only and a small fleet, from argentina. Have you looked at a map recently, compare the sizes of the countries and how far each one is away from the Falklands. And you think we aren't what we're cracked up to be.<<<

Don't forget the first wartime attack by a nuclear submarine on a surface warship with escorts. hats off to HMS Conquerer, and don't forget the Royal Marines who loaded with gear did a very long forced march and defeated the Argentinians.

>>How can you consider history your area of specialization and detest classics?<<<

If you're talking about Chuck, that is far from his specialization. maybe in his own mind though.


>>>Joe have you ever been to Mogadishu. Have seen how empoverished the Somalians (skinnies)are because your beloved country-men made them that way.<<<

Yes, Chuck, I've been to Mogadishu. During the famine there. Maybe I'm dreaming, but I remember something about UN and US troops giving sacks of food to Somali familes, then getting it stolen by milita, do yourself a big, fat, favor, and look up a person by the name of Mohammed Farrah Adid. If we aren't helping them anymore, it's because the Somalis were so worried about having a rival clan ruling that they didn't want to help themselves at all, and continue to fight over things. And so, the UN left. Which is one of the few good things they have done.(on an interesting note, one of Aidid's sons was a Marine reservist with the US forces there)

quote:

---

Originally posted by preying mantis:
But i will suggest we start calling him chuckfuck from now on.

---

Two things:

First. I appreciate the totally conciliatory remarks. I took no offense from you nor did I intend any disrespect for my British friends (I really do have some). The unfortunate aspect of responding to a national from another country is that while making shots at the individual, the shotgun pellets hit innocent victims. I am NOT anti-British (as I've said before). And one more repetition, my anti-idiocy stance is not limited to non-Americans...we have enough home-grown jerks here. Please do not feel the need to apologize...this forum is for opinions. I would like to think that people use their brains to form an opinion, but that is not always the case. I find it abhorrent that many of the posters have either no facts, or blatantly distorted facts in their posts. A legitimate disagreement of the 'interpretation' of facts is fine as long as the facts are not it dispute.

Second. I will not do as you suggest on how to address chuckie. My reasoning is that I find it personally distasteful to use explitives in my posts (or flames). I have no problem hacking an idiot to shreds but I prefer to use polite language in so doing.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
God forbid, how horrible it would be for someone to be speaking German.

---

Yeah, it wouldn't be the first time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
I wouldn't want to study classics. What relevance does classics have now? When I study classics I will be fit to debate with you about Classics. This is not a question of classics it is a question of social science and history which I consider to be MY field of expertise. You piddling little classics is a cop-out.

---

To harp once Again on a point made before this, the classics refer to works of the great civilizations of the roman/hellenistic civilizations. To know anything about politics requires knoledge of them. Also one that lacks knoledge of them cannot say to have a knoledge of history. So once agian child I entreat your silence.

Oh and about the rest of your meaningless banter, military action is taken when it is in the best interest of a nation to take military action. A moral high ground is justification, a causus beli. Without it wars have a negative political impact. All nations use force to serve their interests, If you foolishly belive otherwise you might wish to add Tzu and kauslitz to your reading list.

You have been fooled by the propaganda so the oil barons can have more money. You are the proles and you live under a bushel with no comprehension of what is really happening (Please don't ask me what IS happening, I don't know either but I can that things don't add up) Every time you support your government by believing their lies, you are increasing the suffering in the world as caused by the ruling class. They know you will mindlessly follow them in the name of patriotism like sheep and it is this which gives them their power.

Proles? Oil Barons? Mindless sheep?

This isn't the sixteenth century, or the nineteenth for that matter. And I don't know what it's like in the UK, but here in the US, the "big lie" of equal opportunity and the American dream is well and truly alive. I live it right now.

The wealth in this country is open for all those who have the ability and willingness to work for it. Sure, some people are given a gift when they are born and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sometimes that gift is a father who was president (a la Dubya, our obviously illiterate and manipulated president). Sometimes that gift is family wealth. Mostly, though, it is simply intelligence, motivation, and the skill to work with people (some would say the skill to manipulate; usually those that feel shortchanged). Communism is a failure. This is not opinion, it is fact, supported by history and human nature.

NO LIFE ON EARTH EXISTS BY SHARING THE WEALTH. This is the law of nature. Get used to it, and stop obsessing over how the pie should be divvied up between the weak, stupid and worthless. I belive there is massive room for improvement in the US and the world, but it will definitely not come about through communism.

Before all you literalists get your panties in a bundle, I know my family shares everything, just like some tribes in papua new guinea, and the little kids in kindergarten, etc. Yes, we humans have learned to cooperate to survive.

I am speaking in terms of larger populations, which is what the modern world is composed of. Sharing is good in a nuclear family, or a tribe of tar babies with bones through their noses. When it comes to multi-million person populations, the only true and moral way to operate is by allowing egalitarian capitalism to function.

I believe Alan suggests you consult Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz. This is good advice. If I were you, I'd also check out Kenneth Waltz, Hans Morgenthau, and our good friend Niccolo Machiavelli. Better yet, go to your local community college and take a course on international relations, so you can have at least a concept of the reality (and surreality) of the world before you go off about the wonders of communism.

Cheers.



[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 10-04-2002).]

You are right... It's not the 16th/17th/18th/19th/or20th Century Vox, or any other century (apart from obviously 21st). That is not in dispute. But very little has changed. The power is still in the hands of the selected minority of people who don't deserve it.

The wealth of the world is favoured towards those who have few morals and therefore towards criminals and thugs and businessmen (but more towards the businessmen who are prepared to slit few throats). If only it worked like you think it did, but how much work does Bill Gates do? Very little (rhetoric see.) because he does not have the super-ego required to make him realise that stealing is wrong (guess what... He didn't invent windows...he stole it!)

I can only name one example of where Communism has failed. ONE! (and that was a lie, Communist principles were manipulated in SU)All the rest are fine. So it is not a failure. That is a fact, your fact is a lie (or opinion or whatever).

Life can exist by sharing wealth, it just chooses no to. The ideal would be a compromise which rewards the hard-working (doctors/nurses/teachers/skilled engineers etc) in an appropriate proportion, instead of rewarding ruthless maniacs like lawyers and big business men who lie and cheat and cripple opponents to gain their rewards. Do you see?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
You are right... It's not the 16th/17th/18th/19th/or20th Century Vox, or any other century (apart from obviously 21st).

---

I guess you are trainable, I taught you what century you live in.

Nox

Very constructive Nox.

Life chooses not to live by sharing for a reason. I plainly stated that for you. Communism has failed wherever it has been implemented. China is communist in name and corruption only; there is no ideology there. This is not opinion, it is fact. Communism works quite well for Fidel, but not the millions of Cubans who live on that island because it is a prison where they are shot or imprisoned if they try to leave. Name for me one communist state that has been supported by its populace, through a fair and equal vote. Name for me one communist state, for that matter, that allows fair elections for anything, including who is president-for-life. You have no evidence. History demonstrates that
forms of socialism can work in conjunction with democracy (social democracy), but when it comes to communes and collective farms and politburos, communism is a fantasy created by idealists in search of a work-free utopia.

The only place success and happiness come before work is in a dictionary.

I like you Nox.

Your Friend, Vox.

Cheers.

VOX POPULI!

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckStone:
The power is still in the hands of the selected minority of people who don't deserve it.

---

Power goes to those that are smart enough to seize it. "Deserves got nothin to do with it"

quote:

---

[Bill Gates] didn't invent windows...he stole it!

---

He didn't invent DOS either, he bought it for a couple hundred bucks, from someone that was to stupid to realize it's potential. He then licensed it (smart) to another small machine builder that had no O/S. Years later, after establishing it as the benchmark O/S, he strong-armed the big machine builders into buying his browser and office suite products. What's not to respect about that?

quote:

---

I can only name one example of where Communism has failed. ONE! (and that was a lie, Communist principles were manipulated in SU)All the rest are fine. So it is not a failure. That is a fact, your fact is a lie (or opinion or whatever).

---

Where does communism prosper? China, Cuba, etc - are all moving towards free enterprise. Commienism is dying a slow, pathetic and undignified death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
I like you Nox.

Your Friend, Vox.

Cheers.

VOX POPULI!

---

I consider that an honor...Thank you.

Nox

Brainwashsed by propaganda? You didn't even touch on any of my points, You just spouted your own rhetoric. Youve just done the text equivilent of putting your hands over your ears and saying nananananananananana.

Anyone can steal. There is no skill in it, not even at being a good thief. The behaviour exemplified by the Capitalists* (* Any of the Fatcats at the top of the tree) is that of a total shit. Shittery is rewarded in this world (Not the whole world, but the capitalist world.) I see that hard work should be rewarded, which it is to an extent, but the big bucks aren't in being smart, it's in being a turd and having no regard for other humans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckStone:
...the big bucks aren't in being smart, it's in being a turd and having no regard for other humans.

---

That's what most people say, who aren't smart. I can even hear the high-pitched whine, as your mind spins... in bitter futility.

Gates stole the Windows GUI from Apple, who stole it from Xerox. Isn't that just stealing from another "Fat Cat"? How does that hurt a "human"? SOMEONE still gets a job - producing it.

The very rich get that way by streamlining the process by which people get the things they want, or increasing productivity, or creating something new.

He still hasn't named one Communist state that has it's people prosper, or even live close to what it first promised it's people during revolt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
He still hasn't named one Communist state ...

---

And won't, because he can't.

Nox

Cuba

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Cuba

---

False.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Cuba

---

yes, the people there have prospered greatly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckStone:
Cuba

---

I was watching San Fransisco and Atlanta tonight, and Joe Buck was telling the story of Livan Hernandez's brother coming across on a raft.

Baseball's just not the same without a beer, a dog and a little propaganda right?

Tim Curry too.

Our beef is the best in the world. Better than France, better than Germany, and probably as good as US beef. Why? Because we have very very strict controls on quality... so strict that the slightest problem results in a ban until it is resolved. America gets the wrong view of this and (understandably) believes that the problems are as major as we make out. And to be honest, I don't have a clue what you are talking about with cheese. Whilst one girl does not like curry, she has INSTANTLY opted instead for the Big Mac, despite there being maybe 50 alternatives on that street alone.

As this is supposedly a political discussion, I guess it has given a whole new meaning to the expression:

"Food for thought"

FoxLeonard

As a representative of the American political system, it is relevant (just). And the Beef thing is very political, between France and Britain. It's almost caused full scale wars. (Fish did once!?)

It doesn't take much to cause war between Britain and France. It's our common heritage. The French reputedly call us "les rosbifs". I'll give you three guesses as to what that means.

McDonalds may be a symbol of American consumer culture but it has little relation to their political system.

The French do call Brits "rosbif," in reference to their tendency to turn bright red upon moderate exposure to the sun while vacationing on the Riviera.

rosbif sanglant = roast beef, rare


[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 11-08-2002).]

I thought it was supposed to be more to do with our aggressive personalities...

Isn't "rare" roast beef in France "beef which has scarcely been in the kitchen, let alone cooked". I have my beef cooked to medium in France.

we call them frogs, cos' they eat frogs. We call Germans Krauts because they eat Saurkraut. We call Liverpudlians Scousers, because they eat Scouse. And they call us rosbif because we cook our beef before eating it (we also feed it on grass, not raw sewage and scrape infected sheep brains, which) rare beef in France is beef which is likely to make you die.

I like Saurkrat.

Anyway, the people not voting are not the sort of people I want voting.

And a Big Mac is both tasty and convenient. And it has Special Sauce. Why wouldn't someone opt for it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckStone:
Our beef is the best in the world. Why? Because we have very very strict controls on quality... so strict that the slightest problem results in a ban until it is resolved.

---

Well, it's not working then, because you all would have been "banned" from PREPARING it by now.

quote:

---

I don't have a clue what you are talking about with cheese.

---

cheesy (adj)

1. like cheese: having the flavor or smell of cheese

2. unpleasant, cheap, tasteless, tawdry Antonym: stylish

- Encarta

I say either definition would apply to Ronald McDonald. How can you claim to know Americans, and not know their basic slang? ...wanker.

But like i said earlier, your countrymen seem to be lapping it up as well.

>>>>>>>Well, it's not working then, because you all would have been "banned" from PREPARING it by now.<<<<<<<<<<

Fucking idiot. Nothing personal useless X but it is very true. I'm surprised your parents let you on totse.com, surely the filters would block it? Fuckstone? I'd expect better wit from a scouser.

lol, I can grill a righteous steak though.

well at least that's something

�This is probably true from your perspective. From my perspective, the converse is true.�

-Therefore it�s his word against yours, therefore you ain�t actually dealing with �the truth� so why call it that? It suggests that people on here are somehow talking in terms of the truth, when there�s no such thing and when all we�re dealing with is opinion.

�Good, they're backwards religious zealots and the world is better off without them.
And, by your perspective, did they have the "right" to seize Afghanistan for their base of operations?�

-Not that I�m accusing you of being a Saudi apologist.
But does everyone see the hypocrisy in the US being so fucking friendly and chummy with Saudi Arabia here?

�Btw, Hussein is not "fit" to lead a camel�

-True.
But then Bush wouldn�t know a camel if it sat on his head and shat on him.

�Now...you will admit that though there was a time when the sun always shone on the British Empire�

-And now it shines upon an empire which to be honest you seem to consider �yours�.
There�s always nasty things lurking in the shadows though ain�t there?
�For every empire, a thousands slaves
For every throne, a thousand graves�
(and yes that is a lyrics, its embarrassing to quote a band, but they�re so damn good)

�don't know what it's like in the UK, but here in the US, the "big lie" of equal opportunity and the American dream is well and truly alive. I live it right now.�

-Ah, wonderful, LAND OF THE FREE!
(cowboy whoops in the background)
It only took a civil rights movement fuck knows how long to impose your own constitution upon your government right?
For something �self evident� it sure took a while.
Of course over here in the UK you�re still 7 times more likely to be stopped and searched if you�re black and for working against a system supposed to be only interested in the truth and justice. Judges wills till rip you off and basically try you on politics. 12 years in jail for getting beaten up anyone?
(Better than the death penalty over there though I suppose)
How about Italy?
They only shoot you in the head there?
And you FUCKWIT why do you think we are given freedom?
A clue would be the label written on your trainers.
Failing that consult an advertising company, the label on your head reads CONSUMER.
You got your �freedom and equality� at the price of your dignity.

�NO LIFE ON EARTH EXISTS BY SHARING THE WEALTH. This is the law of nature. Get used to it, and stop obsessing over how the pie should be divvied up between the weak, stupid and worthless.�

-According to the sociology teacher my freedom BOUGHT me there�s no such thing as the law of nature. We are determined by our socialisation. Things are always wonderful when you don�t have to look the starving in the face every morning ain�t they?
And what�s wealth?
Everyone shares it?
Without sharing there is no love, no friendship, no happiness.
Without co-operation great monuments would never be built.
Competition (also known as �mutual-struggle�) exists, no one disputes that. But co-operation (also known as �mutual-aid) is something so fundamental to our nature we overlook it every single day of our entire fucking lives.
I�d hate to live next door to you though, proper selfish bastard aren�t you?

(Apologies Vox, I just read your second post, however the above stills stands, I personally believe that this is a battle between co-operation and competition. Right now competition is on top, there�s lots of reasons why. But when I look at things under competition and I don�t see them working. Only the selfish would see it as working and frankly they�d have loved Nazi Germany)

�Try not to refer to countries with tyrants and states as the only example of places where co-operation might have had a chance too. The world could do with less �isms� less followers and more humans.
I�m sure you�ve heard it before because you sound like a neo liberal.
�But,
No Gods.
No Masters
No Slaves.
�IMO it�s the only way this will ever work.

�The only place success and happiness come before work is in a dictionary.�

-Then what do you live for?

�I consider that an honour...Thank you.�

-You lot make me laugh, all the talk on here is so very gentlemanly.
None of you MATTER!
The entire debate on here has been around people fulfilling their egos. None of you seem to give a shit about the ethics or concepts involved. Just bloating your sad geeky self-image.

�He still hasn't named one Communist state that has it's people prosper, or even live close to what it first promised it's people during revolt.�

-ARGH!
My first visit to this forum and already I know I won�t be back.
You�re all so fucking selfish, you�re all interested in your egos.
None of you are interested in KNOWLEDGE.
There are neo-liberals, conservatives, labour lovers, trade unionists, black liberationists, anarchists, Stalinists even national socialists throughout the world who I can listen to because they deal in terms of their ideology, in terms of forwarding their political beliefs but also in terms of expanding their own minds. I wish I were as good at these subjects as they are, I�m not.
But at least I�m not a self proclaimed expert like you lot, you�re a bunch of pompous bloated wankers.

Anyway
�I�m not a communist.
However your question is stupid.
Original communists never wanted to keep the state, they wanted to abolish the state either suddenly or gradually in favour of a system based on co-operation where they got a fair remuneration for their labours.
Do you know what �dictatorship of the proletariat� actually meant to Marx?
Do you consider Lenin and Trotsky �communist�?

�In the modern world voter apathy soars.
Your clothes are made in sweatshops.
The country with more WMD�s than anyone, with some of the fullest prisons anywhere, with one of the most imperialist agendas ever, declares war in the name of peace, freedom and destroying WMD�s.
This is not about some petty thing between two nations and the rampant brain dead nationalism of this thread is a bit sickening.
It�s about STATES where the state is, so is hypocrisy.
Lots of people have already died in Iraq, lots more are about o.
Throughout history leaders have declared war in the name of faith or obscure values, wake up and smell the Starbucks.
It�s about POWER.
The thing every person in this thread has aimed at gaining a bit of.

Socialisation is responsible for the way we act, we are socialised to believe in greed, selfishness and POWER because that�s the way things are run and it's very naughty to question the status quo.

For those of you who have ever read Ayn Rand, you will know that greed and competition are the forces that make the world go round. If it wasn't for man's desire to succeed, we would not be enjoying this level of wealth and comfort in the world.

There is a major difference between selfishness and self-interest.

But anyway, for those of you that have read Ayn Rand.
�Make sure you read something else as well.
Like all political writers s/he has her own little niche and position to justify, being a neo-liberal s/he (I never figured that one out you know) has to find her/his justification for selfish extreme capitalist ideas somewhere.
Believe it or not there are more people than Ayn Rand that have studied �human nature� and they�ve reached many different conclusions.

Stating that just cos Ayn Rand is a selfish cunt and thinks everyone else is that way does not necessarily make it true. Stating that in tandem with the idea that the world is basically full of comfort and is generally fluffy and happy as you do makes you look a bit stupid.
You have a very western,middle-class view of the world.

I suggest that you read some kropotkin, I�m not suggesting that afterwards you will �know� everything there is about humans or the concept of human nature. But at least you�ll have a little balance in your life.


p.s.
Did you know that the term �libertarian� was first used to describe socialists? Too bad your lot nicked it as it was a good way of setting ourselves apart from the bomb throwing brigade for a while.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sisyphus on speed:
There is a major difference between selfishness and self-interest.

---

No. No there isn't. They are one and the same. There is ONE difference... one ends with interest and the other ends with ..ishness. But that is IT!

And we don't just throw bombs. And when we they are equal bombs, and we distribute them equally. That's got to count for something.

I'm quite pleased you use the proper term..."socialists" ignorant Americans prefer "Lefty Scum" which is very open-minded....NOT!

quote:

---

Therefore it�s his word against yours, therefore you ain�t actually dealing with �the truth� so why call it that? It suggests that people on here are somehow talking in terms of the truth, when there�s no such thing and when all we�re dealing with is opinion.

---

You can claim that when dealing with theory or religious truths, but when you can actually point to examples in the world, it is no longer opinion.

quote:

---

-Not that I�m accusing you of being a Saudi apologist.
But does everyone see the hypocrisy in the US being so fucking friendly and chummy with Saudi Arabia here?

---

Already explained this before, we have to choose the lesser of evils at the momment and for what we know, the Saudis are not developing nukes. The Saudis will eventually have to be delt with, as Wahabism is abhorrnt, but for now, as we have done in the past, while unpleant to deal with, they are the lesser of evils.

quote:

---

-Ah, wonderful, LAND OF THE FREE!
(cowboy whoops in the background)
It only took a civil rights movement fuck knows how long to impose your own constitution upon your government right?
For something �self evident� it sure took a while.
Of course over here in the UK you�re still 7 times more likely to be stopped and searched if you�re black and for working against a system supposed to be only interested in the truth and justice. Judges wills till rip you off and basically try you on politics. 12 years in jail for getting beaten up anyone?
(Better than the death penalty over there though I suppose)
How about Italy?
They only shoot you in the head there?
And you FUCKWIT why do you think we are given freedom?
A clue would be the label written on your trainers.
Failing that consult an advertising company, the label on your head reads CONSUMER.
You got your �freedom and equality� at the price of your dignity.

---

You forget that the west, America, is not unique in creating slavery, but in abolishing it. When you consider this and remember this fact, America and the rest of Europe look a whole lot better. Slavery exists in Africa to this day!

Originally poseted by Sisyphus on speed:

quote:

---

-According to the sociology teacher my freedom BOUGHT me there�s no such thing as the law of nature. We are determined by our socialisation. Things are always wonderful when you don�t have to look the starving in the face every morning ain�t they?
And what�s wealth?
Everyone shares it?
Without sharing there is no love, no friendship, no happiness.
Without co-operation great monuments would never be built.
Competition (also known as �mutual-struggle�) exists, no one disputes that. But co-operation (also known as �mutual-aid) is something so fundamental to our nature we overlook it every single day of our entire fucking lives.
I�d hate to live next door to you though, proper selfish bastard aren�t you?

---

You are making a grave logic error here. You are confusing the voluntary sharing that exists between people, sharing where they choose to give, and the sharing of the gun, where the governement decides to share using the power of taxation and your hard earned dollars. The argument here is not that sharing is bad, but that forced sharing is a grave and distinct evil. You are also confusing cooperation with voluntary contractual agreements. If the government decides to build a monument, and I decided that they pay is enough to warrant my effort, I go apply for a job and work. You could claim that the Pyramids of Egypt are a great example of co-operation, the co-operation of the slave and the lash. Your last line is ignorant and derogatory. Somehow by being in a geographical proximity I am now obligated to help you? You somehow have a claim in my wealth and hard earned dollars? No you don't. My body, my work, my rewards, fuck off.

quote:

---

Only the selfish would see it as working and frankly they�d have loved Nazi Germany

---

Such a gross overexageration that it creeps into the realm of an outright lie. You have no idea of what competition is or its effects in the world.

quote:

---

�The only place success and happiness come before work is in a dictionary.�

-Then what do you live for?

---

I live for work, because I know that if I do not work, I will become a bum living on the street performing oral sex on other vagrants to feed my coke habit. One cannot expect life to back up to their house and deliver them riches, luxuries, and happiness. To have the government do that instead is to foster a debilitating laziness.

quote:

---

Do you know what �dictatorship of the proletariat� actually meant to Marx?

---

I could also ask you if you realize that at the end of his life, Marx renounced communism. It is also important to examine how communism is practiced in the "real world." The same is true of Islam. Theoretically Islam is a great religion, but when put into practice, some severe problems develop.

quote:

---

Your clothes are made in sweatshops.

---

Compared to American and most European standards, sweatshops suck, but to most of the third world, any job is better than picking through garbage heaps looking for scrap metal or starving on the streets. Sweatshops only exist becasue the labor is so cheap and the laborers are competing against each other for jobs. When more corporations move in to exploit that advantage, the corporations will have to start competing for workers, this means that they have to increase wages. Economics explains this.

quote:

---

The country with more WMD�s than anyone, with some of the fullest prisons anywhere, with one of the most imperialist agendas ever, declares war in the name of peace, freedom and destroying WMD�s.

---

This is ignorant to the extreme if you do not understand why the US has weapons of mass destruction. Imperialism, that is bull shit to. Full prisons? Most of which are drug related offences. Legalize everything. Of course we want to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Was the world a better place becasue Russia had nukes? No. Is it good to let felons buy guns after they are released? No. Saddam falls into the catefory of people who cannot be trusted to not missuse their nukes.

During the Korean war I recall that General Macarther was practically restrained to stop him from nuking Beijing! We only have your word that Saddam might misuse nukes, and I'm sorry but there is nothing to suggest that he might... although it is a good get out clause if you want to invade a country for the wrong reasons to say such as this about him. The fact that your country has already decide to replace him with a military dictatorship under General Tommy Franks completely undermines every one of the alleged reasons for overthrowing Saddam in the first place. As an Iraqi civilian once said "He may be a dictator, but he is our dictator" and what's more, he is a very effective dictator. The West may work well under a false democracy, but the Mid East does not. It is not our place to decide who should lead Iraq, the people chose Saddam in the first place, and when they are ready to get rid of him (if they ever do) they will....all in due course. It takes more than threats of violence to make people vote for Saddam, there also needs to be a genuine appreciation of his leadership and/or a complete apathy (in which case who cares).

But the USA is not going to fight Gulf War the sequel for the people of Iraq, but for the people of Esso and the people of the Bush dynasty's peace of mind. If we are going to go to war, I would appreciate it if the decision makers stopped lying about why, because to anyone with half a brain cell it is obvious!

"Already explained this before, we have to choose the lesser of evils at the momment and for what we know, the Saudis are not developing nukes." - NukeChild

This is exactly why I hate Americans! You do NOT have to choose a lesser of two evils, you should leave well alone. Your interference is unwelcome and unjustified. Also, there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that Iraq is developing nukes either... in fact there is a wealth of evidence suggesting they aren't at all. Saudi has nukes so they do not need to develop them. There is hard evidence showing that USA provides Saudi Arabia with enough nuclear weapons to eradicate most settlements in the region. Lesser of two evils? No, just the evil that is most likely to support USA in a war.

�You can claim that when dealing with theory or religious truths, but when you can actually point to examples in the world, it is no longer opinion.�
No because perception is everything.
The Vietnam war vet might well see the Vietnam war in a very different light to the peace campaigner.
Everybody interprets the �facts� through their own belief system, everybody puts their own spin on �examples�.
To claim the opposite is arrogant (from my point of view obviously)
There�s an awful lot of people who seem to think they have a monopoly on the truth, how many of them are right?

�No. No there isn't. They are one and the same. There is ONE difference... one ends with interest and the other ends with ..ishness. But that is IT!�
Humph.
I probably shouldn�t have said that actually, cos its an issue of semantics which is down to the way we all interpret words.
But to be �selfish� to me and to those I speak to. Usually means that you will fuck over others constantly to achieve your goals, to be selfish is to be greedy and interested not just in the survival of the self but in your own personal gain even at the cost of huge numbers of others and negating ethics.
This is the way corporations and states and the people behind them have always behaved and it�s the way we�re told we are.
�Self-interest� simply means the natural will to survive in the easiest way possible, that does not mean that selfishness and mutual struggle are the easiest way, nor does it imply that material gain is the most important thing there is. Since when was a juicer or 500 channels vital to your survival?
It�s the one urge beyond most reasonable doubt that we are not socialised to believe or hold but that we are born with. After this the waters get extremely murky.

�Already explained this before, we have to choose the lesser of evils at the momment and for what we know, the Saudis are not developing nukes. The Saudis will eventually have to be delt with, as Wahabism is abhorrnt, but for now, as we have done in the past, while unpleant to deal with, they are the lesser of evils.�

So basically what you�re saying here is that the US is quite happily friends with Saudi Arabia at the mo� because they don�t pose a supposed threat to US interests?
Like they were happy with the Taliban before?
Or Indonesia?
The point about Saudi Arabia is that as you say Saudi Arabia is considered a �lesser of two evils� because they�re helping the US in Iraq, the US gov makes moral judgements based on whose on �ours� and whose on �there�s�. You really don�t want to pick the wrong side.
As I mentioned on another thread, the US has trained mercenary and scumbaggy forces in the middle east for ages. That includes osama back when he was fighting the Soviets. He was armed, financed and given training by the CIA as a Mujahdeen precisely because they considered him the �lesser of two evils�.
Basically at the time the enemy was the soviet Union, so the US didn�t give a shit who they armed, who gives a toss if osama�s a fundie nut bag? he�s fighting the evil commie scum!
There�s always a lesser of two evils and the west in general is always quite prepared to fund them for as long as they don�t pose a threat to us.
Nuclear weapons are a threat to the world apparently?
So why was my government selling weapons to India and Pakistan during the nuclear crisis there?
Also,
Would you care to explain why it is your government ahs no qualms about arming Zionists in Israel who have nuclear capabilities and are definitely one of the most likely in the region to use them?
Would it perhaps be because of the combined Zionist and Christian Fundie lobby over there?
(and I say Zionist instead of Jewish for obvious reasons)

�The argument here is not that sharing is bad, but that forced sharing is a grave and distinct evil.�
Then there is no argument.
A good quote for you.
�Equality without liberty is tyranny,
Liberty without equality is slavery�
learn it well and then take another look at that label I mentioned.

�You are also confusing cooperation with voluntary contractual agreements.�
+
�You are making a grave logic error here. You are confusing the voluntary sharing that exists between people, sharing where they choose to give�
No I�m not.
I don�t wish to live with a government hanging over my head, or any state for that matter.
I�d far rather live in a society based on mutual aid, i.e. people �sharing where they choose to give�

�You could claim that the Pyramids of Egypt are a great example of co-operation, the co-operation of the slave and the lash.�
No you couldn�t.
The pyramids were built by workers who the Khufari or whatever the fuck his name was paid and treated extremely well. The permenant workers were fed meat from animals reared on ranches all over Egypt. They had no true overseer�s, the image of the lash and whip is now a commonly acknowledged piece of bullshit. Interestingly enough this being a lie plays well for the neo-liberals, too bad you didn�t know it.
When you work you should expect remuneration equally to what you put in.
That does not necessarily equal the outcome of your labours though, however that�s yet another story.


�Somehow by being in a geographical proximity I am now obligated to help you? You somehow have a claim in my wealth and hard earned dollars? No you don't. My body, my work, my rewards, fuck off.�

No but equally I wouldn�t trust you to help me out in a time of need.
I get run over and it�s an opportunity for profit.
The truly selfish man would make the best of this.
If (as I assume??) you are arguing that human beings are inherently selfish and engaged in �mutual struggle�.
�Yet you don�t have the guts to charge me for ringing the hospital or to steal my wallet when I�m unconscious then you are a hypocrite.

�Such a gross overexageration that it creeps into the realm of an outright lie. You have no idea of what competition is or its effects in the world.�
No it doesn�t.
The truly competitive Aryan would smile to see the profit he makes from everyone else.
After all that�s only human nature right?
If you are talking about human nature in terms of the free market and competition between companies then that is something else altogether.
You should start talking of it in that sense.


�I live for work, because I know that if I do not work, I will become a bum living on the street performing oral sex on other vagrants to feed my coke habit. One cannot expect life to back up to their house and deliver them riches, luxuries, and happiness. To have the government do that instead is to foster a debilitating laziness�

There�s an over generalisation from you in return.
But you do accept that in this world there is in no way, shape or form an equality of opportunity?

�I could also ask you if you realize that at the end of his life, Marx renounced communism. It is also important to examine how communism is practiced in the "real world." The same is true of Islam. Theoretically Islam is a great religion, but when put into practice, some severe problems develop.�
As of neo-liberalism.
I would ask you to point me in the direction of an IDEOLOGY that turned out well.
I would also point to the fact that I am not and will never be a communist.
I don�t like �isms�, if I�m anything I come close to syndicalist but even that is a way off the mark.
And Marx is a man I never liked, apart from anything else he beat his wife and he came to believe that in order to destroy power you must take it, recipe for disaster in my book that is.

�Compared to American and most European standards, sweatshops suck, but to most of the third world, any job is better than picking through garbage heaps looking for scrap metal or starving on the streets.�
Ahhh, so exploitation is ok provided the victim is poor then?
Or just a case of not in my back yard perhaps?
Let me ask you.
You see a starving man on the street, he is offering to work for a loaf of bread. He works for you and creates huge profits with his co-workers for the company. In return you give him just enough cash to stay alive and earn more money for you.
Have you really done him that big a favour?
Is the return he gets really justified?
Are you not just exploiting him?
During the Victorian era over here we had workhouses, were they justified?

�When more corporations move in to exploit that advantage, the corporations will have to start competing for workers, this means that they have to increase wages. Economics explains this.�
That is a highly impassional and detached statement.
Also, how long till this will happen?
How many people will survive in what is basically financial slavery till then?
How many corporations clothes and multinationals products now make their clothes in sweatshops?
Sweatshop labour has gone on for decades, it changes location and name occasionally but generally the conditions are just as shit.
No ideology, no god you worship, nothing you put faith in, will ever turn out exactly or even close to what the text books hold it up as or to what you have envisualised in your head.
Ever.
Even the much vaunted power of capitalist economics ain�t perfect.
(Also there�s the fact that companies which sell brands don�t run sweatshops. Disney and Nike can justifiably claim they don�t own a single sweatshop, in fact they now contract out to companies who in turn employ yet more companies to do the dirty work. These companies also usually operate in �free trade zones� which basically can be translated as �free for everyone cept those who do the work� in that usually these zones have very lax safety laws. Companies are invited to these zone by way of all kinds of tax break incentives etc.
This means that in instances Nike et al can even claim their contractors don�t exploit people cos it�s the company under them that exploits.
Little bits of paper can fuck morals right off out of the window nowadays�


�Was the world a better place because Russia had nukes? No. Is it good to let felons buy guns after they are released?�
Is the world better because your government invested so heavily in a nuclear arms race which Russia lost?
Is the world a better place because anyone has nukes?
Can the opportunity to wipe out the world off their own be given to a select group of people and justified?
Why were nukes developed?
Who decided they should be developed?
Why do we fight wars?
Who decides we should fight them?
You, me and the 17 year old conscript with a faulty ak47 and acne shitting his keks in the Iraqi desert?

� Saddam falls into the category of people who cannot be trusted to not missuse their nukes.�

Number of Nuclear weapons used on civilians throughout history:

US: 2
Other countrys: 0

Shit yeah it makes sense your country (confused with government intentionally) should have a moral monopoly when it comes to nuclear weapons.

�Full prisons? Most of which are drug related offences.�

Why do so many people fall to hard drugs?
I thought everyone was living in an unprecedented age of comfort?
And yes, �full prisons� you do accept that to lock someone up is to take away their freedom don�t you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
During the Korean war I recall that General Macarther was practically restrained to stop him from nuking Beijing!

---

Here is the history summation for all of you not familiar with what he is talking about. The U.S. is winning the Korean war when word starts to spread the China is going to counter-invade. MacArthur threatens to make them regret the day that they were born and sends a list of Chineese cities to Washington that he wanted to nuke in retaliation in case the chineese invaded. I guess china should have left well enough alone and stayed out of the war according to your logic Chuck. It is also important to recognize that this is why that we have civilian leading the military. There is a built in check to power.

quote:

---

he is a very effective dictator.

---

Well, i have to agree with you on that, he sure knows how to persecute his enemies and keep an iron grip on his power...

quote:

---

This is exactly why I hate Americans! You do NOT have to choose a lesser of two evils, you should leave well alone. Your interference is unwelcome and unjustified. Also, there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that Iraq is developing nukes either... in fact there is a wealth of evidence suggesting they aren't at all. Saudi has nukes so they do not need to develop them. There is hard evidence showing that USA provides Saudi Arabia with enough nuclear weapons to eradicate most settlements in the region. Lesser of two evils? No, just the evil that is most likely to support USA in a war.

---

While you are at it, why don't you pull a bunny out of your ass too. You argue an extreme isolationism, such we have stayed isolated during WWII? Should we have just let Hitler have his fun? Radical Islam is the next great threat that the world has to overcome. We choose the lesser of evils becuase by doing so, THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER. That is what it means to choose the lesser of evils, to replace something completely foul and corrupt, with something that is still foul and corrupt, but not as much. You cannot expect perfection in the world, so get used to compromise!

Now on to Sisiphus:

1st paragraph response:
I beleive that 1+2=5. So i am equally right and valid? My point is, and i never claimed religious truths, that you can say whatever you want, but when the facts of the reality are agaist you, don't be suprised when someone calls you on your bullshit.

2nd Paragrah responce:
It is not in anyones best interest to continually screw others over for gain. Why? Eventually either no one will do business with you, you get ostracized, or you will piss of someone to the point where they decide to kill you. You are not accounting for the response of others to beinf screwed. It is through the desire for material gain that there is any progress in the world. It is not out of the benevolance of the butcher or the brewer that you get your meat and beer for supper. Paraphrase of Adam Smith. Material gain is also what allows people to pursue the finer things in life like the arts and humanities. Without the backings of technology and industrialization, you would be busting your back in the fields.

3rd paragraph responce:
You have a static view of history. Times and people change and so does foreign policy towards those people and places. I don;t know where you live, so I don't know your governments relation to India and Pakistan.

The rest of your post is a confused ramble that does not take economic principles into accout. Competition does not include theft, neither does selfishness. The government exists to enforce property rights. The sweatshops are not an exploitation they are merely the guilt trip of the west because they were lucky enough to be born here instead of in a third world shit hole. If you want to understand wages, read Henery George. You don't understand wages and therefore can't understand how competition for workers effects wages.

quote:

---

�When more corporations move in to exploit that advantage, the corporations will have to start competing for workers, this means that they have to increase wages. Economics explains this.�
That is a highly impassional and detached statement.
Also, how long till this will happen?
How many people will survive in what is basically financial slavery till then?
How many corporations clothes and multinationals products now make their clothes in sweatshops?
Sweatshop labour has gone on for decades, it changes location and name occasionally but generally the conditions are just as shit.
No ideology, no god you worship, nothing you put faith in, will ever turn out exactly or even close to what the text books hold it up as or to what you have envisualised in your head.
Ever.
Even the much vaunted power of capitalist economics ain�t perfect.
(Also there�s the fact that companies which sell brands don�t run sweatshops. Disney and Nike can justifiably claim they don�t own a single sweatshop, in fact they now contract out to companies who in turn employ yet more companies to do the dirty work. These companies also usually operate in �free trade zones� which basically can be translated as �free for everyone cept those who do the work� in that usually these zones have very lax safety laws. Companies are invited to these zone by way of all kinds of tax break incentives etc.
This means that in instances Nike et al can even claim their contractors don�t exploit people cos it�s the company under them that exploits.
Little bits of paper can fuck morals right off out of the window nowadays

---

I don't remember seeing guns put to the heads of any of the workers? If it is such shit then why work at the factory when instead they have the farm or scrap heaps to go to. Now you are not looking at it from their point of view, the factory is an improvement in their lives.

Your final comments on drugs are faulty. Part of the reason that people do them is because they are illegal. Another reason is to "have fun." All full prisons mean are that we need to build more prisons. Just that factoid alone proves nothing.

Some of those were very good.
Foreign policy towards seperate countrys does change but the overall attitude remains the same.
Thats not my response, I'll try to post one on sunday when I have some free time. I'm working all week so mybrains fried and I'm knackered.
My perspective on wage system will be different to yours though.
As you have such an extensive knowledge of it then feel free to give me a quick rundown on how you see the wage system as operating till then.

There does seem to be a lot of preaching going on on this forum as opposed to debate, and I will admit I'm as guilty as the next guy, but the response to any statement made by a conservative, free-trader on this site is a version of how the conservative is so blinded by the slave-master government that keeps him happy with trivial and material things to keep his mind off of how miserable he really is.

Nonsense. As Sisyphus so insightfully says, this is all an issue of perception. Happiness to me isn't smelling the roses and helping others selflessly and "being human," whatever that's supposed to mean. Happiness to me is working hard, earning a living, and helping promote the society that has given me security, liberty, and opportunity. I despise taxation of wealth generated by my hard work to fund those who were given the same opportunity as I was, but chose not to take advantage of it like I did.

And there is a law of nature, regardless of what your sociology teacher told you about socialization. Cooperative socialization and altruistic behovior are exceptions, not the rule. Humans may cooperate with one another sometimes, but we certainly don't cooperate with the other life on this planet, we exploit it.

Boo hoo, how immoral and detatched of me to see things this way. I'm so philosophically bankrupt. I'm a pompous prick and what not. But I wasn't born this way.

I, like most other conscious humans, have learned throughout my life about myself and my country. And though my father is French and my mother Italian-American and I have dual citizenship, when the question is asked, I say I am American, with great pride. This pride wasn't pounded into my head by grade school teachers. It came because America is my home, represents my interests, and protects me from those who would harm me.

Whining about inequality and so forth is meaningless. Of course there's inequality. That's because resources are finite, and so is the amount of talent, intellect, and ability. Either you have it, or you don't.

But one thing you certainly don't have to worry about is equality, a dreadful thought that the founders of the US were considerably less eager to address than that of freedom. In europe, because of lingering nobility, colonial guilt, and socialism, forced equality is the norm (except for those fortunate enough to be in power---they are very free, and more equal than the rest). They're certainly doing well with it---high unemployment, massive unassimilating immigrant populations, rising crime, high taxes, ninety days vacation time a year and a six-hour work day...a real heaven.

US prisons are full of drug offenders not because everyone does drugs to ease the pain of being an American...it's because the laws are draconian, penned to protect the jobs of powerful law-enforcement and correctional officer unions and their lobbies, and symptoms of a bureaucracy that is more interested in keeping the tax dollars flowing into its coffers than in representing public opinion. People do drugs because they're entertaining, not because they're the opiate to soothe our dying spirits.

We don't mind supporting Israel despite its nuclear weapons because they are not a threat to use them on us (though they probably would use them to defend themselves if we threatened them, as they would without hesitation against their friendly neighbors). People claim America is subordinate to Israel because of some shadow Jewish cabal that controls everything...Americans support Israel because many Americans have family there, many Americans are Jewish, and we see commonalities within our societies, governments, and interests.

Childish name-calling and one sentence arguments deleted.

Cheers.



[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 11-13-2002).]

Great post, Vox!

I see things the same way as you, but most people on totse are hell-bent on seeing the US go to shit.

"I hate the government and love America."

-Rep. Jim Traficant

"I hate America and love the government."

-UnclNastyFingrz

Good job Vox!

ISRAEL will be the reason of your fall
remeber it

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
I'm sick of this kind of egotistical rhetoric. Listen to yourselves...

"The U.s suck because nananananan.."

"No you do because you're not American..."

You're all talking about the injustice of a ruling elite, wake up and smell your internet access!!! YOU are the elite. You are the raping a pillaging minority. Why? Because, anyone who has access to a computer and the leisure time to actually participate in this posting site is a member of this world's economic elite.

Don't come here and tell me that such and such a state sucks because they did such and such. What a load of bollocks. If you feel so strongly about the plight of our world why don't you do something about it? Don't sit back and point the finger. Don't whinge about those with more influence than you when YOU hold more influence than 2/3 of the world's population.

And don't start feeling in anyway proud of yourself because of the state you were BORN into. What have you done to earn your place in this world? If you look at an international pecking order then not bloody much. Which means you shouldn't start telling me your sob story of rising out of some grim circumstance until you have measured your starting off point with the rest of the world.

I'm sick of this moral hypocrisy. At least if you are going to live the lifestyle of an asshole, then face up to your own assholeness. We, all of us, have been fortunate enough to spend our lives in this elite segment of the world's population. WE are the oppressors, WE are the one's who must take responsibility for our actions or our inaction.

This debate about the different merit's of one's state is a foolish waste of energy. It misses the point entirely.

Shit man, I need a beer...

---

Vox, you have faced up to your assholeness... but don't get me wrong, I believe I am living a lifestyle similar to yours... so what next?

Well, it certainly won't involve giving back what my ancestors might or might not have stolen from some tar babies in Angola.

If there's no money in Africa, it's not because it was there long ago and then we took it. It's because there's very little of interest there, there's no history of innovation, work ethic, or civic-mindedness, and no education to speak of.

Third world nations will not pose a threat to the US. America will fall from internal corruption, not an outside threat. Great hegemons lose power when their people become weak, lose faith in their government and culture, and grow apathetic about protecting their interests. In the meantime, I'll be an asshole, wear my $100 Jordans, spend my disposable income on Courvoisier, and vote Republican on all issues tax, military, and foreign policy.

African poverty isn't US's fault. It's the British banks. When they said to the Africans "if we lend you this money, you can by diggers and modernise your farming, you'll get more money, and you can pay us back" But a few dry summers went by and it didn't all go to plan, by the time the machines gave up the ghost, they still hadn't paid the debt (now known as the 3rd world debt). But the farms were now not productive enough to gain enough money to pay the interest, so the British government said... grow cash crops, give them to us at knock down prices and pay it that way, but it didn't go well enough, and now they can only grow enough cash crops to pay off the interest, and there isn't enough land to grow real crops... hence starvation"

I think it's infuriating seeing these people (Tony Blair especially) standing there wringing their hands saying "what on earth can we do?" when all he has to do is write off the 3rd World debt, simple as that. But he won't because coffee and chocolate prices will go sky high. And he is too happy exploiting them to do anything about it... either that or he is too stupid to realise he can do something about it.

You are wrong about the cause of starvation. Here is the example of what happened in Ghanna. Ghanna used to have as their cash crop, the coco bean. This was where the farmers made a lot of money. This was the one product that they were really good at producing. Their government, however, decided to place a tax on the export of coco beans. This tax would be to fund modernization and social programs in the country. What instead happened was that the price of the coco bean rose above a competative level and we have a situtation called trade diversion. This is where a country is the most efficient at producing a product but has a lot of tariffs and barriers to trade that raise the price of the good to a point where other countries become more attractive to trade with, because their restrictions are less and therefore the price is lower. The farmers lost big time and reverted back to subsitance agriculuure where they just farmed for themselves. The government destroyed the coco bean industry and productive cash crop farm land was instead wasted on subsistence agriculure. There economy got flushed down the toilet by bad governmental management.

The other problem with your argument is that Africa is in most places in a state of constat warfare. Starvation gives the leader leverage over his people, as if they choose to tell him to fuck off, he chooses to not open the warehouses and let his people starve in the street. Warlords intercept food and relief shipments and sell them on the black-market for their personal gain. It is hard to have a productive economy when your crops keep getting burned and your goods stolen.

In the cases of South Africa, a lot of the white farmers who knew how to farm were attacked and driven out by the "locals." The locals however sucked at farming so production falled incredibly and people starved.

The world, as is, already can grow enough food to feed the world. Every major industiralized society subsidizes their farmers to produce less. It is a problem of distribution, not of lacking food.

The debt should not be released. These countries should not be rewarded for their manigerial incompotence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:



In the cases of South Africa, a lot of the white farmers who knew how to farm were attacked and driven out by the "locals." The locals however sucked at farming so production falled incredibly and people starved.

---

That's Zimbabwe actually. And you don't need to talk about it in past tense, it's going on right now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:


Third world nations will not pose a threat to the US. America will fall from internal corruption, not an outside threat. Great hegemons lose power when their people become weak, lose faith in their government and culture, and grow apathetic about protecting their interests. In the meantime, I'll be an asshole, wear my $100 Jordans, spend my disposable income on Courvoisier, and vote Republican on all issues tax, military, and foreign policy.

---

My opinion is that in order for your country to survive the inevitable downturn of religious moral values, it is going to have to develop a fashion of virtue, not Courvoisier. And one of the side effects of this fashion of virtue would be the American public taking more interest in world affairs, its population and the staggering low living standards that the vast majority of them suffer through.

But whatever man, shouldn't we just do what makes us happy?

Ask yourself this question. "Why do the poverty stricken countries of Africa need relief shipments?" that would require a poverty caused by something prior to the theft of the shipments by the warlords.
A combination of the stupid actions of raising the taxes so consumers went elsewhere, and the debt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
The debt should not be released. These countries should not be rewarded for their manigerial incompotence.

---

I take great offence at this attititude. I expect you are in favour of the relief though. There is massive hypocrisy in a country giving aid to a country and then immediately taking their money from them in owed debts. It would be more beneficial to the us if the debt was written off, then we wouldn't need to give aid. And the food would then be automatically in the hands of those who need it (i.e. the peasants), the warlords would lose their leverage. The reason the debt isn't released is because exploitation is cheaper than the legitimate of one country's resources.

While USA is waving it's guns at Iraq, they are missing the real tyrants. Saddam may be a dictator, but that in itself isn't bad... He looks after his people. USA's whining voice claims they are trying to free the Iraqis from his grip, but they are happy with his grip. If you want to liberate someone from a grip, look at CAR or Cote d'Ivoire. Most countries in Africa are run by warlords, who are NOT welcome. This is an example of US hypocrisy. The Mogadishu campaign (of Black Hawk Down fame) was a good campaign, America should concentrate on this rather than bullying the Middle East. Instead of the ritualistic overthrowing of relatively benign leaders (e.g Panama, Cuba, Iraq)

Here is my opinion on relief to Africa. It is almost entirely pointless as all the relief in the world will not help them in they do not have access to markets in order to sell their goods. What happens with relief is that it flows into the coutry, but then when they turn around and try to sell goods into the United States and Europe, they encounter trade barriers that effectivel negates the benefits of the aid packages. If nations really wanted to help, they would tear down their trade barriers with Africa and allow African goods to enter their country and their own goods to leave the country.

Maybe in Zimbabwe the white farmers are being run out too, but I am also certain that it is happening in South Africa.

quote:

---

While USA is waving it's guns at Iraq, they are missing the real tyrants. Saddam may be a dictator, but that in itself isn't bad... He looks after his people. USA's whining voice claims they are trying to free the Iraqis from his grip, but they are happy with his grip. If you want to liberate someone from a grip, look at CAR or Cote d'Ivoire. Most countries in Africa are run by warlords, who are NOT welcome. This is an example of US hypocrisy. The Mogadishu campaign (of Black Hawk Down fame) was a good campaign, America should concentrate on this rather than bullying the Middle East. Instead of the ritualistic overthrowing of relatively benign leaders (e.g Panama, Cuba, Iraq)

---

On numerous other occasions, you have stated that America is hated precisely because it goes into a country and interferes with their "business." This is more an example of your hypocrisy as at one point you criticize US involvement in the Gulf and against other Communit nations, but now you are advocating that the hated US interfere within the interanl workings of another country and setup something that you like better.

Well, I am an open minded sort of chap, and I now realise that it is part of the American people's nature to interfere in another country's affairs. Ideally that would not be the case, but ideally rain wouldn't get me wet. What I am saying is simply, if you absolutely got to use your massive "defence" budget in order to justify it, use it on people who might need it.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" my dad always says. Iraq is an example of a country that is not broken. Zimbabwe is an example of a country that is. When Mugabe requested the return of British troops, we refused. Do you see the difference. Mugabe requested us, while Saudi requested that you leave!

There are many many ways to help the starving Africans, so why do we not try any of them out. People give aid and run telethons etc. but it does no good, it just wastes our funds. Aid is for instant use like in Earthquakes and other natural disastors, not for ongoing problems such as this. If we enforce just one of the many methods of long-term ending the hunger, the problem will be permanently sorted out, no more aid... cheaper, more effective. Brilliant.

US involvment in the gulf and Communist nations was not welcomed by the people you intended to "help", what I call "Forced Assitance", while other countries have expressly asked for you to help and you have ignored them. When Zimbabwe asked Britain to return, nothing stopped America stepping in and saying "we'll do it if you like", he could have told you where to get off or possibly accepted your kind offer. This is a completely different scenario to stating downright that you are going to overthrow a well-liked leader if he doesn't comply to a certain list of unreasonable requests, and then promising to invade anyway when he does comply.

Here we go again,

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Well, I am an open minded sort of chap

---

Yes, so much so that your brain fell out of your head.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
I now realise that it is part of the American people's nature to interfere in another country's affairs.

---

Just like it is part of your "nature" to say something stupid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
ideally rain wouldn't get me wet.

---

Case in point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" my dad always says.

---

Which applies to your brain, it is lost, not broken.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
while Saudi requested that you leave!

---

Nice "fact". Help me out, when did this occur?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
There are many many ways to help the starving Africans, so why do we not try any of them out. People give aid and run telethons etc. but it does no good, it just wastes our funds. Aid is for instant use like in Earthquakes and other natural disastors, not for ongoing problems such as this. If we enforce just one of the many methods of long-term ending the hunger, the problem will be permanently sorted out, no more aid... cheaper, more effective.

---

A collection of words that means nothing...your point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Brilliant.

---

Only when compared to the thought processes of tape worms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
When Zimbabwe asked Britain to return, nothing stopped America stepping in and saying "we'll do it if you like"

---

Hypocrite. A few sentences earlier you said this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
it is part of the American people's nature to interfere in another country's affairs. Ideally that would not be the case,

---

Now MORON, how is it supposed to be?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
you are going to overthrow a well-liked leader

---

*Nox falls on the floor laughing*

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
if he doesn't comply to a certain list of unreasonable requests, and then promising to invade anyway when he does comply.

---

False. Those are demands not requests. Those demands are what "Golden Boy" agreed to as part of a peace treaty. The last 10 words are pure crap (however, they are consistant with the rest of the post.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sisyphus on speed:
�Good, they're backwards religious zealots and the world is better off without them.
And, by your perspective, did they have the "right" to seize Afghanistan for their base of operations?�

-Not that I�m accusing you of being a Saudi apologist.
But does everyone see the hypocrisy in the US being so fucking friendly and chummy with Saudi Arabia here?

---

I think that's my quote. I was referring to the Taliban.

As far as your Saudi alliance comment; Where would YOU build bases in the region and not be a hypocrite? Why do people think that they should only ally themselves with those that act like them?

I would build bases in Turkey. A secular government run by Muslims.

quote:

---

Maybe in Zimbabwe the white farmers are being run out too, but I am also certain that it is happening in South Africa.

---

I doubt it. The murder rate for farmers is even higher than the murder rate in the rest of the country, but I think most of it is theft and pure spite rather than taking over the farms. In South Africa the criminals are criminals rather than Zimbabwe's govt sponsored mobs.

quote:

---

Origina;lly posted by ChuckStone:
When Mugabe requested the return of British troops, we refused. Do you see the difference.

---

When? I was under the impression that Mugabe utterly depised the British.

quote:

---

Turkey. A secular government run by Muslims.

---

Not a secular government any more, but the indications are that they have the sense to maintain good relations with the West.

----

The best thing for most African countries would be a return to colonialism, but they'd never accept that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NukeChild:
[B]
In the cases of South Africa, a lot of the white farmers who knew how to farm were attacked and driven out by the "locals." The locals however sucked at farming so production falled incredibly and people starved.

NukeChild, I hate to tell you this but you are spoiling what might even have been a decent post be being wrong. The white farmers in South Africa are doing fine, thank you (I am one of them) We, and I don't presume to speak for all white farmers, together with our black colleagues, are feeding our nation of 40 million people, exporting to most of the world, and making a good go of it on poor land,with regular droughts, natural disasters et al.(And feeding our incompetent neighbours)

You may be referring to Zimbabwe - that is another country entirely - the ignorance that some of these posts show on basic geography and history (I will resist the temptation to mention spelling and grammar)is appalling.

And that brings me back to the point where this thread started - The more virulent the attack on the United States, the less erudite the writer, and that goes for US and non US alike. The fact of the matter is that the United States is not perfect, it has a high number of pigs in its population, it does things wrong often. So what difference is there between that and the history of the UK, the former USSR or indeed the RSA?

The difference is that the other bits of America, which are allways ledt out of these slagging matches, are the successfull, dedicated, clever people who operate in an environment that allows them to achieve their best - the people and systems that have made the US a superpower, and a place where Fidel Castro would emigrate to if he could get a green card, in search of a better life.

Funny, when it comes to attacking America on the net, the louder the noise, the emptier the vessel. It would be really interesting to have a discussion with some of the thinking posters on this thread, without the static ....

As regards the statement about anti-Americanism and the lack of real argument, there seems to be a current running through most of the pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-third world, pro-poor, pro-EU, pro-Islam, pro-Cuba, pro-Africa posts that condemn America. Namely, that since America can do no right, her enemies can do no wrong.

Patently false and utterly stupid. The previous poster enumerated the simple fact that the US is powerful and dominant in the world because its system encourages education, debate, freedom of thought, scholarship, development, economic growth, and every other thing that sets the US above every other country in the world.

If I say that I'll drink Courvoisier, it's because that's what all the little lefties on this site think: that anyone who takes the realist route on foreign relations and the liberal route on international political economy (not the same as Liberal, with a capital "L") must be a rich, elitist, oppressive, imperialistic conquistador-type...or a Jew conspirator.

If you had a sense of irony, you'd understand that. But it doesn't take all those things to believe that everything bad in the world ISN'T America's fault; that in most cases, the finger can be pointed at those actually responsible.

Point in case: the Middle East. I could write (and have written) discourses on the reasons why the Middle East is in the economic, social, technological and philosophical void it is currently in, and a big part of it is their stupid refusal to accept responsibility for their own failures and to change their ways as a result.

The fact is, people in Islamic countries are only going to accept this argument from their despotic rulers for so long, even with the fundamentalist brainwashing that occurs throughout their lives. In Iran, nationwide, government-sponsored polls have shown the people's anger with their Islamofascist overlords, and they are taking to the streets to protest Tehran's policies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45677-2002Nov12?language=3Dpri=

And in Iraq, we have another failed attempt at "diplomacy" from a regime that has no concept of the practice, and no concerns for its own citizenry save its use as a shield against Saddam's demise. Iraq's letter to the UN is filled with babble and conditions, which make it clear it has no intentions of allowing weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and every intention of stonewalling UN efforts to promote peace.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49306-2002Nov13.html

War seems inevitable, but it isn't the US that's to blame.

If you asked to intervene, you aren't interfering, because interference is unwelcome.

And you may roll around laughing, but get this into your very thick skull Nox, just becasue you don't like Saddam Hussein, does not mean he is a bad person. Anyone can slander anyone else ("I saw him earlier and he was sucking his trousers, and laughing!") but it only works on idiots i.e. you! Bush doesn't like Saddam, okay granted, fair reason not to... but it is personal, so why is he bringing you lot into it....and WORSE, you're going along with it like a bunch of braindead sheep. Liberals might stand up and question War against Saddam, but you insult them? They are the clever ones... they are asking why they are being told to assist a man's vendetta.

And just a point... has anyone asked Turkey's opinion?

Yes, the white farmers in South Africa are coming under attack, if not directly by the government but the poor natives. There is a great threat to security and they have organized themselves in order to porvide comunal protection.

I agree with Vox on his post, another wonderfully elloquent piece of writing.

Chuck, the United States views Saddam to be a threat to their interests and naturally the government decided to "neutralize" the threat. Your concept of interference and requested intervention only works in areas of the world where the US has no clear interst, like most parts of Africa. If we randomly decided to fight in wars that were not in our interests, that would be interference. If we are asked to help, that is intervention. If an action is in our interests, it can only be expected that the US will act on it.

You can debate the virtue of Saddam as much as you want, but even though I know you will argue it, Saddam is a threat to the stability of the region. He has proven himself to be closed to debate and reason, he will get taken out.

Good post Vox, except for the assumptions near the end.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckStone:
get this into your very thick skull Nox, just becasue you don't like Saddam Hussein, does not mean he is a bad person.

---

You're about 12 right?

quote:

---

Bush doesn't like Saddam, okay granted, fair reason not to... but it is personal...

---

I thought you said it was business, repeatedly.

quote:

---

...so why is he bringing you lot into it

---

Because the US is a democracy, therefore he must sell his idea to the majority. You have a similar situation in your country, idiot.

quote:

---

braindead sheep.

---

How could they herd up? Sheep with healthy brains have to struggle at times to find their herd... I would think that any "braindead" ones could only lay around with their tongues hanging out. And the life support equipment would make it a real bitch to herd up. Tiny little casters jamming up on every pebble...

Oh for goodness sake Vox. Have you been hounded so much from idealistic, uninformed teenage anti establishment fools that you can't recognise a genuine line of inquiry from someone who wishes to learn more of your opinions? And would like to do so without the rhetoric of a CNNlike knee jerk verbal spanking?

Irony is a skill, and its a difficult one to use. Your previous post regarding the actions of an asshole (hundred dollar Jordans and the like) were in the context of you saying that great hegemons would fail when (among other things) the people who belong to them stop looking out for their own interests. Your statements following this I interpreted as meaning that it makes perfect sense for you to take these "asshole" actions because they are in your best interests. Which makes a great deal of practical sense.

It would have been unreasonable of me to assume you were speaking with irony about the mistaken impression "lefties" have of your self styled political realism. (Though you should be wary of quoting The Washington Post if you want to appear like you are making unbiased clinical descriptions of your political planet).

Your arguments to knock down your opponents will convince those people who support you already, but will not do so in my case. That is because you use a piece of verbal chicanary to make your case stronger and your opponents weaker.

Where oh where, is it stated or even implied by myself that the cause of the world's problems can be laid solely at America's doors? Haven't I already stated that I actually live a lifestyle very similar to your own? Doesn't this sound more like the words of someone who sees a genuine problem with his political world and is seeking a solution without laying judgement or blame with ANY SINGLE individual or institution?

Yes it is "patently false and utterly stupid" to hold America %100 responsible for the world's problems. But I never did. What is patently misleading and utterly reprehensible is your high handed argument construction.

Now if you'd like to continue this exchange I'd ask that we agree to give a little more respect to each other's points of view. Hence, it is obvious that I need to explain my last post; it may appear to have been a personal attack on your principles. I can assure you it is not.

You were developing the idea that the States needs to stick to it's guns in order for it to safeguard it's future. Fair play to you, I totally agree. The idea I am promoting is that for the people of the U.S. to do so will require a revolution of capitalism; for people such as yourselves to begin to realise that capitalism is totally separate from rampant material consumerism. Capitalism requires a goal, something that people will strive towards with every ounce of their work ethic. Currently this goal is (largely) the aquisition of material goods. The problem with this is that as religious values break down further the people of your country will interpret their goal of goods aquisition as being one of total self interest. Thus, the only rational lifestyle will be the one that promotes selfishness and co operation based solely on this premise.

This is not a formula for the long term health of your country.

What I suggest will become necessary is for (literally) a fashion of virtue to be developed. For people to become ethical and moral, not because a church or temple has indoctrinated a value system in them (or for that matter holding an athiestical concept of right and wrong which has originated from a church anyway) but to do so because EVERYONE ELSE IS. People would be good largely because they'll want to be keeping up with the Jones's.

Now, one side effect of this process will be that Americans will start taking more of a charitable interest in the affairs of the outside world. And when I say "Americans" I mean the average Joe Schmoe; the guy working for his 25k a year. I don't mean to say that your government or you is somehow ignorant of our political planet.

All of the above can also be layed fairly and squarely at the overburdened dinner table of the entire developed western world. I am in the same boat you are.

But whatever man, shouldn't we just do what makes us happy?

The guys that flew the planes into your buildings did so because they did not consider themselves happy enough in this world and went searching for fulfilment in the afterlife. I wonder if it is reasonable or practical for any of us to continue to ignore the unhappiness of most of the rest of the world?

What do you think?

1st off this is one of my 1st posts.I would like to point out that the USA is the biggest tyrant and is the cause of most problems of the world today, this is not just my view this is the view of more than two third's of the worlds population (asia, africa,and south America) They all blame the USA, but the government isnt the only one 2 blame it's the ppl's fault as well as they let it go this far, because the USA is made up of people that have been brainwashed by the propaganda of their media and their government (just like hitler did 2 Germany), bak then in hitlers time they thought jews were evil, now the USA think muslims r evil...
anyway a tiny fraction of the problems the usa has caused in the world :
1- Domination of the world's resources by using their tools of imperialism ,companies like macdonalds, and companies that steal valuabe resources like in Nigeria they steal oil and cause complete poverty.

2-placing oppressive, dictatorship regimes that act as their puppets 2 secure the USA's interest like safeguarding their oil , eg. Saudia Arabia and Turkey and Saddam(but saddam got pissed with them as they didnt give him kuwait).

3-They kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people , children , and civilians who only want peace by using economic means (sanctions in iraq has killed more than 1 million children -United Nations figure)And they kill also by using militay means and trying out ILLEGAL weapons on civilians (cluster bombs in Afghanistan, uranium weapons in Iraq)

SO, when u get bombed by binladen and otha groups that hate u , they have a reason 2 hate u , and if u dont like it well do somthing like changing ur governments policies by revolting or somthing- I have 2 give credit 2 the american people as they r realising wat is goin on they r protestin against their govt's actions(anti war on iraq demonstrations) but more is needed 2 be done to help the rest of the world to live in peace , the whole government has 2 be overthrown and u got 250+ million 2 do it with ....GOOD LUCK

good post blue-Rock
welcome to the board

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
1st off this is one of my 1st posts.

---

I noticed, welcome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
They all blame the USA,

---

Yes they do. Have you ever heard the phrase, "It's not my fault". As you point out, 2/3 of the world has. It so easy to blame someone else and accept no responsibility for anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
because the USA is made up of people that have been brainwashed by the propaganda of their media and their government

---

I am one of those 'people' you talk about. I am not brainwashed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
now the USA think muslims r evil...

---

False. This is the message UBL is trying to convince the world of and you are obviously a believer. Welcome to the UBL propoganda machine. And by the way, it's not UBL's fault (about anything) either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
1- Domination of the world's resources by using their tools of imperialism ,companies like macdonalds

---

You forgot Krispy Kreme Donuts. They are opening 20 stores in the UK soon. And yes, that evil McDonalds. Yes, the one that hires inexperienced kids, still in school, to begin to give them job skills and a work record. Yes evil McDonalds...Ronald et al. Have you considered getting a job? When you do decide, you might considered working for them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
companies that steal valuabe resources like in Nigeria they steal oil and cause complete poverty.

---

God knows I'm glad you did this one.

STEAL? Because you are new I will spare you this time and simply say, the oil is PRUCHASED. The Nigerian Government is responsible for the non-distribution of Nigerian oil money. However, you are already convinced that the US is at fault so I won't bother any further.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
2-placing oppressive, dictatorship regimes that act as their puppets 2 secure the USA's interest like safeguarding their oil , eg. Saudia Arabia and Turkey and Saddam(but saddam got pissed with them as they didnt give him kuwait).

---

Give me facts, not just unsubstantiated sentences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
3-They kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people , children , and civilians who only want peace by using economic means (sanctions in iraq has killed more than 1 million children -United Nations figure)And they kill also by using militay means and trying out ILLEGAL weapons on civilians (cluster bombs in Afghanistan, uranium weapons in Iraq)

---

See above.

By the way, start getting your facts straight lest you fall victim to some prime time flaming. A "uranium weapon" is precisely the "dirty bomb" which Iraq intends to use. The United States used depleted uranium shells fired from the GAU-8, 30mm cannons of the A-10 aircraft. These shells were designed to penetrate armored military vehicles and did a superb job of doing same. The half, no one-eight truth you told is also part of the UBL propaganda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
SO, when u get bombed by binladen and otha groups that hate u , they have a reason 2 hate u

---

Spoken like a true UBL apologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
the whole government has 2 be overthrown and u got 250+ million 2 do it with ....GOOD LUCK

---

Ain't gonna happen.

Nox

my friend im just pointing out facts i will get the evidence and put them on the forum.

Nox 1st of all i would like to ask wat moderator is ? is it ur job to make sure that the Usa is defended? i would like to know.

this is from an interview that shows that the usa has helped saddam many times and shows u why many midlle easterns oppose the govt of the USA...


"In a live interview with the Infinity CBS Radio, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confessed that his country assisted Saddam Hussein to prevent Iran's victory over the dictator of Baghdad during the eight years of Iran-Iraq war.

He also said that Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people.

What follows is an excerpt from his interview.

Kroft: Mr. secretary, back in the '80s, when you were a Middle East envoy for the Reagan administration you actually met Saddam Hussein on one or two occasions. You're probably one of the few Americans who have met him. What do you remember about that meeting, and has it influenced your response in dealing with him in this crisis? Rumsfeld: I remember the meeting well, but it hasn't influenced my response in this crisis at all. If you think back to that time, Iran and Iraq were in a war. Our friends in the Persian Gulf region were concerned about the possibility that Iran could win. And were deeply concerned that it could upset, and create an instability in the entire region. So I was asked to go over there, and I met with Tariq Aziz and with Saddam Hussein and talked to him about our interests. And the fact that -- it was one of the few countries from the Middle East war that we had not reestablished relationships with. So I was, I guess, the first senior American to go in there in some time. And we had a good discussion. He recognized his situation, and was interested in getting some assistance, so that he had better information. And I was Middle East envoy for about six months, right after 241 marines had been killed in Beirut, Lebanon, at the airport there. And it's my understanding that subsequent to my visit, the United States government did, in fact, provide some intelligence assistance to him, so that he -- the war ended up kind of at a standstill, or a stalemate, rather than either country being defeated.

Kroft: Do you remember anything about it, did he impress you one way or the other? Rumsfeld: Well, he's -- I suppose anyone who lives in a country that he's the head of, like Saddam Hussein is, and sees his picture in every room in every building, in every city of the country, begins to inhale and believe that he's different.

I suppose that could happen to most anybody. But, he is clearly a survivor, he is a brutal, repressive dictator; he has imposed enormous harm to his people. His determination to have weapons of mass destruction is so great that he's denied his people billions and billions, and billions of dollars of revenue they would have if he wanted to give up his weapons and have the sanctions lifted."

This shows that saddam has been helped by the USA many times with military and economic means to defend their interests, isnt this a puppet regime???
The ppl of Iraq seem to think so...

and about nigeria the same apply, in a recent BBC news report it was confirmed that billions of dollars have gone missing from the nigerian government and say that the money ha been STOLEN by the companies and the money ends up overseas.. You say that i believe in UBL/OBL propaganda but i can say the same about u u believe in zionist/American govt propaganda.

U say that i think Mcdonalds is evil, well i dont but i just think that it is a tool of imperialism, i worked there once but quit after gettin a betta job (im not an adult so im guessin im the inexperience kid that still goes to skool u were talkin about).

And by the way u wanted facts about puppet regimes so ill chuk som at u... Europe has not allowed turkey to enter so far into the EU because of the military dictatorship that rules over the government and this is a fact that comes from western propaganda tv stations like the bbc and cnn, if u opened ur eyes a bit and did a bit of travelling to oppressed nations u might understand wat im talking about, u should even experience gettin bombed by american planes coz i have for no reason, so for now i might excuse ur mistakes and ignorance and maybe u can lay down a proper arguement next time rather than try 2 spot mistakes in my writing( there werent any) .

laters

I will do the duty of Nox (insert sarcastic comment about bad spelling and grammer.)

No one denies that the US helped Saddam. No one denies that the US helped Osama drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. What you, and many like you, are failing to grasp is that history is dynamic, not static. In the past, Saddam and Osama were able to support US interests against a greater threat. Time has past, and they have broken course with the US and have decided to become our enemies. Right now we are using the Saudis in our war against terror, but only a fool would think that the Saudi's will forever be our allies. They are just as corrupt and evil as the rest of them and sooner or later they will have to either change or be destroyed.

It makes no sense to call corporations the tools of Imperialsim. The government does not own them and it is individuals who make all the decisions. Imperialsim was forced upon the "natives." No one forces you to eat at MacDonalds or buy clothes from the GAP. You vote with your feet and if you do not like the good or service, do not but it.

Open my eyes? Prove that yours are open.

HAHAHA
good post.
but not good enough Nuke child and i notice that u ARE a child.

SO R U SAYING THAT THE USA IS NOT EVIL????
that must be the funniest thing ive heard, the last time i checked the ARMY of the USA was the most unpopular army in the WORLD. I appreciate history more than u will ever do...

Laters

I laugh at you: hahaha.

You offer no real facts, opinions, or even tainted evidence. Just slander.

I laugh at you: hahaha.

Our army is hated. Boohoo. I could care less about what third world tyrants or the impotent europeans think. (sorry for the broad european reference) The US keeps order in the world acts as the stick of the UN.

I laugh at you: hahaha.

You "appreciate" history, but obviously you have learned nothing from it.

I laugh at you: hahaha.

anyway i cant be bothered arguing on this topic coz its dead.
If u want evidence then be specific about wat u want and if u want facts then read my posts carefully.

laters

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
I will do the duty of Nox (insert sarcastic comment about bad spelling and grammer.)

---

Thank you Nuke. If you have had a chance to read a post I made a little while ago answering this moron's drivel, you will know how much I greatly appreciate your effort. Now to the moron himself:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
anyway i cant be bothered arguing on this topic coz its dead.

---

True. You lost...shot right out of the saddle...as they say in the Old West.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
If u want evidence then be specific about wat u want

---

He has, I have: You can't comprehend.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
read my posts carefully.

---

We have. It is you who hasn't read/comprehended ours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
laters

---

I guess this means something. Does this mean you have the "vapors"?

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rocks:
the last time i checked the ARMY of the USA was the most unpopular army in the WORLD.

---

Good, because it wouldn't be much of a military otherwise, would it?

quote:

---

Blue-Rocks:
Europe has not allowed turkey to enter so far into the EU because of the military dictatorship that rules over the government

---

Correct me if I'm wrong (someone else, who actually knows, please), but isn't Turkey fairly democratic? The recent post-ELECTION shift in power notwithstanding.

quote:

---

Blue-Rocks:
u should even experience gettin bombed by american planes coz i have for no reason

---

No reason? probably not in your case, lol.

Besides, I don't believe you anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rocks:
the last time i checked the ARMY of the USA was the most unpopular army in the WORLD.

---

This is so fucking stupid, that I just had to take another run at it.

I'm sure that the US military does it's fair share of sand-bagging when it floods; food relief; etc, for which their beneficiaries love them. But, everyone else is an enemy right? How can an enemy military, especially one that almost always wins in battle, be "popular"? Should wolves be popular with the deer?

A basic understanding of life on Earth would suit you. So why don't you "check" again chuckie.

user X

Turkey is NOT a military dictatory state in disguise, or whatever it was that Blue-Rocks tried to say, but...

Turkey is far from a democracy as we know it, yet. They also have problems with human rights issues, because of their treatment of the Kurds. But they are, at the moment, doing all they can to become democratic "enough" to be able to join the EU. According to the EU there is a slow, but constant progress. And the newly elected, more Islamist/conservative government has promised the EU, as well as the turks, that they will continue to make Turkey a modern democracy.

FoxLeonard

�It is not in anyones best interest to continually screw others over for gain. Why? Eventually either no one will do business with you, you get ostracized�

Humph.
I agree.
The reason why I bring up competition to the extent I do is that, competition is supposedly the thing in our �nature� that would be the downfall of a society based on mutual aid. I never denied the existence on competition, however believe that in a society where we are rewarded for competition and for leap frogging one another. We are bound to compete.
I think that maybe its not in peoples best interests to screw each other over in a society where we are all fairly rewarded. However when you own a huge conglomerate and you have all the work and all the money. What�s to stop you fucking over the people who work for you?
They don�t like it you can get some more workers, and people WILL continue to work for you because they have very little choice.
You can�t give someone choices between shit or slightly better than shit where they make a huge profit for you and still claim to be morally justified unless you think justification comes from the profit you make. That makes you VERY selfish and means you�re screwing over others.
You can get away with this indefinitely cos the choices are so bad.


�It is not out of the benevolance of the butcher or the brewer that you get your meat and beer for supper.�
Nope.
Its because I give them the cash for my meat and beer. Which they then spend in order to buy their fruit and veg or whatever. By giving them the cash I�m passing them a small amount of the value that has been ascribed to my labour. (I�m not entirely sure that sentence made sense, but I�m sure you know what I�m on about, money being the medium by which value is placed on our labour etc).

In turn their labour is in the butchers shop, when I give them cash I�m swapping a bit of my labour for theirs.
I don�t think I ever tried to give the impression that the butcher somehow hands me my lump of lamb out of the goodness of his heart, if that were the case he�d very stupid, and I�d be very fat.
The butcher needs my cash to buy his food and to pay for the things that keep him a live, to a certain extent he also needs my cash to pay for his material desires. However these material desires are often for shit which frankly we don�t need.
Not only that but the butcher example is a very handy one.
In that usually butchers are self employed.

I work on the shop floor of a large supermarket. I work my arse off when I�m in work, my store makes a huge turnover every week, I and my co-workers only receive a tiny fraction of the profit that the store makes. The rest goes to the managers. This is exploitation. I have contributed huge amounts to the companies (and the directors) coffers but then only receive a small amount of the cash made back again.

This is because the chain I work for directors own property, they have power over me every day that I work, I rely on them to give me cash to buy my material stuff. Yet I created the cash they�re giving me back. Not only that but when I go out shopping I buy stuff that other people like me have created/stacked/etc. When I buy them only a tiny fraction of the labour hours spent goes to the people that actually did the work!
The rest goes to the owners of property, who through one way or another have managed to end up owning everything.
Now before you start telling me why its right these people own all this stuff and justifying it, is it right that the people at the bottom should do all this tedious shitwork but get such a small remuneration for their labours?

Apologies for typing such a huge amount of guff which I�m fairly sure you�ll know already, but its the only way to drag this point forward.

I don�t mind material gain, what I mind is having companies basically trying to brainwash me into buying huge amounts shit from them which they have ripped their workers off on in order to make profit. The products sold to me in the market place make large profits for those at the top who are working nowhere near as hard as the people making them at the bottom.
And that�s working both mentally and physically.

�Without the backings of technology and industrialisation, you would be busting your back in the fields.�
COs of course no one �busts their back� for shit wage in tertiary and secondary industries do they?
What job do you do, just out of interest?

�You have a static view of history. Times and people change and so does foreign policy towards those people and places.�
I don�t give a shit if foreign policy towards separate countries or organisations does change.
What I�m interested is whether or not your country is even moral justified in influencing events half way across the world or if your government is a hypocritical institution that right through its history has disregarded human rights, even including its own citizens.
For the sake of power, wealth and the state.
Foreign policy changes when the people who might be badly affected are the electorate of your country and yours alone. Your government only gives a toss about whether or not a state such as Afghanistan�s leadership is abusing human rights when it feels threatened or needs a war.

�No one denies that the US helped Saddam. No one denies that the US helped Osama drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. What you, and many like you, are failing to grasp is that history is dynamic, not static. In the past, Saddam and Osama were able to support US interests against a greater threat.�
(nukechild, is he like your cheeleader or something by the way?)
This says it all. In supporting your government you couldn�t give a toss about the rights of others. UBL was mujahdeen back when your gov funded him, he still believed in sharia, he was still an evil scumbag.
But back then you had bigger fish to fry and more exciting wars and enemies to worry about.


Therefore using another governments abuse of humans rights is obviously not really a motivator in your governments attack on them is it?
It�s just more BS
Your government is equally as bad as any other.

�I don't remember seeing guns put to the heads of any of the workers? If it is such shit then why work at the factory when instead they have the farm or scrap heaps to go to. Now you are not looking at it from their point of view, the factory is an improvement in their lives.�

A minuscule improvement.
But the improvement that the company is getting from being able to rip off its workers is huge.
Look at what the company is getting from its workers and what they are receiving in return.
There is no way in which you can deny this exploitation unless you endorse the workhouses of Victorian Britain, which the vast majority of people in this country were opposed to at the time.
I don� give a shit what you call it, ripping off the poorest of poor is wrong from my perspective.
I would also like to point out that there have been occasions where those working in sweatshops have tried to start unions. Admittedly it usually takes pretty severe circumstances to get people into union building (i.e. rampant sexual abuse by supervisors) but with a few (can�t remember the exact number about 2 or 3 though) exceptions those trying to start unions are branded troublemakers and chucked out.
NGO�s are almost always the only organisations who ever attempt to intervene in these circumstances.

�The government exists to enforce property rights�
The government and its police forces respect property rights seemingly above all else at times.

�Competition does not include theft, neither does selfishness�
The kind we live in today does.
Competition within capitalism is surely all about getting the best deal for yourself?
Surely every time you buy a product which another has suffered to make you are being selfish?
Everytime your (well, my) government sell arms to other governments and you do nothing you�re selfish?
Every time others suffer and you do nothing, that�s selfishness.
This system breeds it, we�re taught to shut up, keep our heads down, be glad its not us, not to care about others, just our own material gain.

My gripe has never been with people doing well for themselves, its been with people doing well for themselves at the HUGE expense of others.

My final comments on drugs are not faulty, in the UK a neo-liberal government under Margaret Thatcher shut the mines without adequate time for the employed to find new jobs or new skills. The pit villages have some of the highest unemployment and poverty levels over here now. Guess where the majority of the highest smack dependency areas in UK are?
I agree that people sometimes use drugs because they�re illegal, I also agree that they do them because they�re fun. Perhaps if they were legalised and we were given a proper education on drugs, one that gave us the all the facts and that showed the nature of addiction to hard stuff (and yes I do know what its like, I�ve viewed the effects of addiction on friends and parents of friends as well as working with homeless druggies).
If drugs education was balanced and not hysterical, if society treated addicts like people who�ve made a stupid mistake and fucked up but need a hand to get back up again. Instead of just ignoring 'em or locking them up with other users.
Then perhaps some of the problems of addiction and the selfish,competative attitude it breeds could be avoided.
�And I certainly don�t agree that full prisons means we should just build more, maybe we could actually look at what�s causing people to commit crime in the first place instead of just locking people away?
Believe it or not people with criminal records are in fact human.

Um, the only other thing was that I think Vox said something about competition between us and nature. I dunno if he expects me to deny that we compete with the rest of nature here or something.
Of course we compete with nature, but surely the issue here would be whether or not we need to compete amongst ourselves to the levels we do today?
Is co-operation and solidarity between our race or infighting and competition more likely to help us survive V nature?

No man(or womYn) is an island unto themself.

Right now we are destroying our planet and waging war against ourselves on an alarming scale, this simply can�t be good.
Blah,
I�m knackered.
I might respond to Vox�s post or the reply to this one at some point if I can be arsed and that.

All of this is sophism though anyways so�

p.s.
Turkey I think is improving. However until it treats the kurds like people instead of scum I�d hold me judgement.

if u look at the recent history of turkey u will see that they have overthrown many democratically elected governments and put their own govt in. aint that a dictatorship??
and anotha point on the kurds: they were banned from using their language and living in their culture until recently when turkey ttried 2 improve its human acts records.

"True. You lost...shot right out of the saddle...as they say in the Old West."
I didnt lose, i am here 2 learn and when u dont have anything useful 2 say then i dont need 2 bother myself , as i am 15 i would like 2 c different perspectives on things from supposedly "knowledgable" ppl like ur selves.

Your comment on it being Sophism is a big insult. Do not have the audacity to claim a moral monopoly.

The reason that you only get such a tiny portion of the profts is, well, becuase you are replacable. You are not an integral part of production. Your skill is not specialized. If you demanded $20 dollars and hour, I am sure that many people would jump up and say that they would either do it for the wage you are being paid now or for a moderate increase. Why should management pay exorbitant ammounts when there are people who are willing to work for much, much less?

If your skill is specialized or you offer a unique service, then you can command a higher wage. Pushing buttons or stocking shelves does not require a PHD and anybody can do it. This means that workers easily compete for these jobs becuase it is extremely easy to find a substitute for you.

The managers/owners also get paid more becuase it is their capital that was used to finance/run the business. Think of it in the terms of an investment. They invested thousands if not millions of dollars into capital goods and inventory. Your labor is a much smaller investment and you shouldn't be suprised when it earns a much smaller return.

The managers/owners are the one who accept the risk in a corporation. If the business tanks, you just loose your job and can begin looking for another one. They have lost their investment. They were the ones who shouldered the risk, their return is greater.

If wages increase faster than productivity, you have higher prices, inflation, and unemployment. The rich can stand inflation better than the poor can. If to remedy the exploitation problem you give a $10 hike to minimum wage, prices would increase and the poor would be in a worse position as their unskilled labor would be replaced by more cost effective machines and their purchasing power would be destroyed. Labor costs make up around 60% of the cost of a product.

Who is my cheerleader? If you are talking about Osama and Saddam, it is becuase those are the people that everyone is bitching about so they are good examples.

The victorian workhouses had two major problems, well more than that, but here is the diffence between them and factories. The first is that the poor were legislated to work in them. They had the gun to their head and since they had no choice about whether to work or not, they easily got exploited. Second, travel was restricted. When travel is restricted, people are limited to their local economies. They are unable to leave and pursue work else where. This is what allows them to be held in economic bondage.

Remember, that no one enters into a deal if they do not expect to benefit from it. As long as the parties are not coerced, then it is natural that people should look for the best deal. If I am not happy with the deal, i counter-propose or do not enter into it.

The poor are not being exploited. This is the best deal that they can get so they take it. The market determines wage and price.

My "busting your back comment" was meant to imply that if it was not for industry and technology, you would be in the fields with the fear of God in your heart and working like a madman. This is becuase your crops are your life and if they fail, you are
screwed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:


"True. You lost...shot right out of the saddle...as they say in the Old West."
I didnt lose, i am here 2 learn and when u dont have anything useful 2 say then i dont need 2 bother myself , as i am 15 i would like 2 c different perspectives on things from supposedly "knowledgable" ppl like ur selves.

---

*chuckle* He's got a point Nox... oh, and good post Sisyphus... owners of property are not earning proportionally more to labourers according to the value they have invested. They earn far more than that. But, frankly I don't see an easier solution to the problem of production and supply. I believe it's up to the private individual to help those less fortunate.

Remember, if all consumers were completely ethical, then all companies would be too. If everyone were a little more selfless then they would participate in the management of their country further...

People can be as generous or as stingy as they want. When the government mandates caring for your fellow man, virtue flies out the window as choice is gone. It is also important to realize that when government starts caring for the people, and does this through increased taxation, the temptation for many people is to say to hell with charity as they have allready given at the office. When the government takes care of others, people feel less responsible to take care of their neighbors. "Are their no prisons? Are their no workhouses? Are not welfare and medicare there for them? Do not my tax dollars save me from having to deal with them?"

The preceding was a bastardized reinterpretation of a quote by Ebenezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol."

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
*chuckle* He's got a point Nox...

---

No he doesn't. If the 15 going on 12-year-old wants to learn, the proper way is to ask a question. This moron is throwing out drivel and tripe without the slightest regard to accuracy of same, hoping the 'big kids' will educate him.

Message for Blue-Rock,

You're here to learn? Guess the lesson in trying to get you to use capital letters didn't work. Small wonder that the rest of the lessons had the same effect. Learn...hardly.

Take your 15-year-old sophomore behind to a newspaper and read. Switch channels from al-Jazeera and get some balance in your broadcast news. And lastly, you kid are the one who decided to run with the big dogs. You got stepped on and now you're yelping like a squat-to-pee whelp. Use that 15-year-old brain instead of using it for a support to hold your backwards facing baseball cap.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
No he doesn't. If the 15 going on 12-year-old wants to learn, the proper way is to ask a question. This moron is throwing out drivel and tripe without the slightest regard to accuracy of same, hoping the 'big kids' will educate him.
Nox

---

Well, why DON'T you educate him Nox?

Sometimes I feel exactly the same way you do, that the people I'm debating with are delivering up bollocks in buns for my consumption. Why should I help these ungrateful wretches?

I always find it more useful however, to really strive to keep in mind what I want to come of this exchange. What do you want to come of your exchange with Blue Rock?

Because it sounds like you want to score so many "points" against an acknowledged 15 year old that he will get up and leave. Is that what you want to accomplish? It's just for a 15 year old, he's doing pretty well to even take ANY notice of these issues and furthermore to at least look at providing some material to back his views.

He's doing better than I was at 15, I don't mind admitting. Although my grammar was a lot better, granted.

EVERYONE has something to teach you BUT the best lesson anyone will ever learn is the one they teach themselves. This means sermonising is only useful to the weak of mind. Your challenge is to bring about the fruition of your views inside someone else's head, do you think you have successfully accomplished this with Blue Rock? Because if you REALLY feel he doesn't deserve your time and patience (but frankly, I believe most people do) then by all means continue to insult the boy, but my opinion is that by holding to this attitude you will have a minimal influence on your world.

Where is your moderation?

Nukechild, are you aware of how ludicrously low private donations as a percentage of income is in your country? (It's probably the same in mine... dammit, sorry I can't find the article to back this up with).

Oh well, it's bloody low, but anyway, I WAS actually espousing that the private individual take responsibility for charity. That's a better solution than the govt forcing it on people (though through your tax dollars you do contribute to foreign "aid"...arguably a further tool of your foreign affairs department), only IF PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY MOTIVATED TO DO SO. And they're not. Given the current environment of rampant consumerism NO COUNTRY in the western world is.

i wanna know how old u ppl r?
i dont really care if u team up 2 kill my views but insulting me wont piss me off if u wanna really annoy me off just prove me wrong . And i will get somthing out of it in the process.

I was under the impression that the US donated more per-capita income than any other country. I am pretty sure that I got that source from the Economist, a UK magazine.

The general point is that I agree with you and the government should not mandate forced charity.

by the way i wanna point out that i dont have aljazeera, but bbc and cnn... so get ova the aljazeera joke. and dont talk 2 me about grammar nox i can use proper grammar but its faster this way.

NukeChild

You may be right, I can't this bloody article.. I read it 6 months ago, I believe it said that private donations were WELL under 1% of total income. I remember this because the writer (a Philosophy Professor) was espousing that people donate 1% of their income...

anyway, how do you think we can motivate people to do such a thing?

Blue Rock,

Your grammar is not faster for us to read, hence you are being somewhat selfish in your writing style... there are more of us than you.

I think people can be motivated by first taking away the "donated at the office mentality." This would be done through lower taxes and less social programs. Instead of turning to the governement, people would turn to their neighbors.

Another thing to do is have giving localized where people can actually see the benefit that their generosity is doing. When the people are local, the faces are ones that you might recognize, instead of numbers you are dealing with people.

In Toqueville's "Memoirs on Pauperism" he states that the organizations that were truly successful at helping the needed were either church or community organizes. The government was a blanket answer to poverty that gave funds to everyone, even those who didn't need it and should have been attempting to take care of themselves. The church and community giving was targeted and if a man was just taking the money and buying alcohol, it was extremely easy for the church group to tell him to shove off and stop wasting their time. For charity to be effective, it is important to have quality control. Effective quality control can only be achieved on a local level and is almost impossible on a national level.

It is much more effective to ask for charity face to face than try and justify giving to the faceless masses, many of whom you don't know and have no personal connection to. It is the connections between people that inspires charity.

You're a very intelligent writer 123Tool. I can be a little (okay, very) acidic in my postings, but that's just my style of writing. And yes, I am hounded by all the nazi punks on this site that can't spel or right good wurds 2 sound smart FUK AMERIKKKA. I write longer things usually that I try to make interesting to read; I like to write, I'm opinionated, and people here are the same way. I assume you read the commentary section of some newspaper, and that's the style I aim for...though not WashPost-polite. I am curious what sort of "chicanery" I use when I write, though I am sorry for being so quick to verbally lash out. I had a great argument/conversation with an Iraqi friend here in LA that set me in my place (although I was half a fifth of Jack Daniels deep and he was observing Ramadan, so the lucidity factor was in his favor).

My self-styled rhetoric is nothing yours or anyone else's isn't. My opinions are about as valuable as everyone else's too (which is to say worth very little to anyone but myself). I mention realism as a theoretical model, not as in "I'm being realistic not pessimistic."

I don't own any Jordans, and I don't like Courvoisier (although I do have a weakness for bourbon). I do not see where religious values come into play as the savior of American civilization; I think America does well partly because of a certain work ethic that is inherited from a time when Calvinistic religion was more prevalent and therefore more influential. Nowadays, though, I think the religion has been replaced, what with I'm not too sure...but whatever it is (shallow greed, materialistic slave masters on TV, etc), we still work long hours, take few vacations, and boast a large percentage of the earth's economic and military strength.

I don't know if this is a good thing necessarily. I have doubts when I see a sixty-year-old woman working full time because social security can't cover her medical bills. I have doubts when I watch my parents no closer to retirement than they were twenty years ago, and a major reason for me to push myself is so that I may support them when they can't work any more. I have doubts every time I watch the police do their jobs and feel cheated, every time a politician lies through his teeth but we re-elect him anyway, every time a CEO cuts himself options and pulls in $20 million while laying off a couple thousand minimum wagers.

I like the term you use...fashion of virtue. Is that one yours? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, although I get the drive of your statements. It would be nice if people could communicate the way they used to, pace to face, instead of email or by watching the mind-numbing television. So much wool over our eyes, and it is so hard to overcome...sometimes I guess it's easier to steel yourself and sharpen your claws for the state of nature than it is to be idealistic and try to effect a change. That is where I am right now...I will be going to law school next fall, with the goal of stabilizing myself financially while performing a vital service to society (stop laughing...lawyers do a job nobody else wants or knows how to do). I don't have much time for changing the world.

A agree with the sophism comment...but isn't that what abstract debate like this must be? We spend more time rebutting morons and their drivel (or tripe, as Nox likes to say) than we do teaching one another. I'm as guilty as the next guy, but I'll make an effort not to preach. Too much.

And I make no promises that I will refrain from verbal spankings in the future.

I had a rough weekend...sleeping in cars and driving. I can't think very well right now, so I'm out.

*does dealer hand slap motion and flashes palms up*

Vox populi, vox dei

edited some brain farts

[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 11-18-2002).]

Hi Vox, thanks for spending so much time on answering my post. I appreciate that you've really thought about these issues; and I can tell you I'm learning a great deal from you and from many others on this thread.

Yeah, I lived with an Iraqi dude for a summer and it definitely puts a different spin on things regarding the upcoming war. It doesn't hurt to remember the innocents involved in this situation does it? We're so desensitized to the wierd stuff that goes on in our world, it helps to meet it face to face sometimes...

I'll tell you what, the one thing I'm certain of is that I have seen and heard from enough talent on this site to know that the potential for change exists within our communities. I appreciate Nukechild's suggestions about keeping charitable work close to home; it might motivate more people to give more. I appreciate it because although it's not the solution I'm looking for, he at least is giving the problem some credible thought. And forcing me to think about these issues in a different light. So hats off.

Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone else feels that the USA is no tyrant, but that it is ourselves, revelling in unprecedented levels of comfort and priviledge unheard of at any stage of human history, who are the tyrants. Because what do we do with this bounty of spare time and resources? We blind ourselves with it. We allow the glamour of it to make fools of us. We (collectively Vox, not specifically) love our Jordans and our Courvoisier... for no other reason than because everybody else does. I shake my head in frustration. But then I begin to see that here lies the root of a solution.

I am as much to blame as anyone. More so. For I have come to be aware of the nature of our disgrace but I do not feel I do enough to rectify it. And I won't be trully happy until I do.

Vox, you said I am a very intelligent writer (thanks by the way, you're no moldy sponge yourself) but the way I look at that is that it is an attribute I did little to earn. I am one lucky sonofabitch, granted economic and social status unheard of in history and to do so at a time when 95% of my world's population do not share it. I have been brought up to believe that my education is a god given right and that my community has an obligation to look after me. I am from the middle class of New Zealand. These are the attributes of the society I have grown up in; and as I become more aware of my planet and my people they only serve to make me more conscious of how lacking they are in other parts of the world.

The exact coolness of my nation does not make me proud (well, it does, but I try not to let it), it makes me feel like I have the advantage, and I did nothing to earn it. My first instinct is not to selfishly gather that advantage to myself, but to help others... (as long as it doesn't inconvenience me TOO much).

The WHO recently reported that Depression would be the second leading health problem in the Western world, after heart disease, by 2020. Doesn't this shriek to anyone else that more and more people are no longer satisfied with a religious purpose, nor are they fulfilled with Jordans, McDonalds and Panasonic Television sets? To me this equation is obvious. People are becoming more and more aware of the foolishness of rampant consumerism. They are suffering the consequences of not understanding that it is the process which makes us happy, not the result.

So, I am trying to develop the concept of a fashion of virtue... for ourselves to PUBLICLY do virtuous acts, because PUBLICLY we all applaud these kinds of things. Of course, secretly we wonder about the rationality of such actions. Now the "we" I am using here are most of the posters at totse and like minded thinkers everywhere. Because it doesn't matter that "we" see the logical airknot that the rationalisation of these actions is built upon. Anymore than it matters that "we" see the logical airknot that the rationalisation of a passion for the fashion of Calvin Klein is built upon.

It doesn't matter, because we can bring about this fashion of virtue in the hearts and minds of the majority, without their knowledge, without their permission and we can do it ANY TIME WE WANT TO. We just have to REALLY want to.

And what we achieve along these lines WILL SERVE ONLY TO MAKE OUR POSITION IN THE WORLD STRONGER. Your president recently asked his citizens to donate considerable amounts of hours to charitable organisations. The problem is that's all he did, he just asked. You don't just ask people to do something like this. You convince them it's in their best interests. You make them WANT to do it. Keeping up with the Jones's. Doing it because everyone else is, because it's fashionable.

In summation, I'd really like it if everyone on this site rolled over now and totally agreed with everything I have just said. But I know that won't happen. That's ok, because this purpose gives me direction, and it therefore makes me happy. It is therefore valuable to me independant of other's damning criticisms.

However, I'd like to ask the question of whether this sounds like it could make you happy too?

[This message has been edited by 123Tool (edited 11-18-2002).]

�Your comment on it being Sophism is a big insult.�
That�s because you took it the wrong way.
�Do not have the audacity to claim a moral monopoly.�
I was claiming the opposite in actual fact.
I don�t have a moral monoply noir am I totally convinced of my own OR anyone else�s ideas.
All of this arguing is simply theory and pretty crap theory at that. I�ll never know whether a mutual-aid soceity can work cos I�ve never seen one that survived longer than a few short years before the outside world tore it apart.
That�s all.
I�ll respond to everything else when I can be arsed. I�ve been at work and then college and I�m very proud to announce that for once I have something better to do with my social life than spout sophism on the internet.


...By the way, do the creators of this board have a political slant at all?
And what is it??
I�m unused to coming across boards filled with right-wing libertarians especially ones who are viewing this from the other side of the atlantic. It�s a weird experience for me this one.

p.s.
�Your grammar is not faster for us to read, hence you are being somewhat selfish in your writing style... there are more of us than you.�
Ah but he�s gaining from it, therefore it must be justified.
Unadulterated competition is a wonderful thing.

People don't need self-esteem, they need self-respect. You get self-respect by busting your ass, you keep self-respect by busting your ass. It is nice to have the public laud your generosity, but that in and of itself is just a form of consumerism. Where instead of caring about the people you are giving money too, it is all about status. This leads to situations where hypocrisy can leak in. The quality of a man is not what he does in public, it is what he does in private.

I'm not sure about this, but I was pretty sure that religion was gaining popularity again. It was even going far enough to be considered another Great Awakening.

Sysiphus-
Just becuase he is typing fast and thinks he is benefiting does not mean that he is. He is sacrificing efficacy for efficiency. He is like a contractor who rushes through a building project cutting corners and the like. I mean, sure he's written something, but it looks horrible and some of the effect is lost as I have to "struggle" to make it flow smother in my mind.

Lets be fair here. This is a board entitled "Politics: Left, Right and Centre", not "Grammar". While it is no easier to read poor txters script such as that of Blue-Rock, it is much easier to type. A lot of you appear to have missed the point of what he has to say because you are too busy nit-picking his writing skills. This isn't a thesis, it's a topic board. However, Nox has known to insult a poster for the wrong reasons (race, grammar etc.) when he has been proven wrong, but must be seen to make a pithy comeback. It is very pathetic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sisyphus on speed:
I�m unused to coming across boards filled with right-wing libertarians especially ones who are viewing this from the other side of the atlantic. It�s a weird experience for me this one.

---

As I could - if not must - be one of those "right-wing libertarians...//...from the other side of the atlantic", it would be interesting if you elaborated a little on this; us from "the other side(s)", I mean.

I can�t see that totse, or its political community, is "filled" with right-wing libertarians, or even leaning towards the right at all.

Perhaps it is more common that political discussion boards are leaning towards the left, and even a lot in that direction. But is it therefore more natural?! As you seem to imply with calling totse "a weird experience".

quote:

---

p.s.
�Your grammar is not faster for us to read, hence you are being somewhat selfish in your writing style... there are more of us than you.�
Ah but he�s gaining from it, therefore it must be justified.

---

No, he�s not gaining from it. If he has an oppinion or a message of sorts, we miss it, or misunderstand it. If he has a question, same thing. If we reply, we give the wrong answer, or adress the wrong oppinion. We can always ignore it, and will likely do so in the long run. He ends up talking to himself. He is the loser from "simplyfing" his writing. And what could he be gaining at all?! Fast replies are seldom, if ever, an issue on this board.

FoxLeonard

123Tool

I mentioned a book in another thread that I think you would like...it's by Gerry Spence, a lawyer in the US that does a lot of pro bono work and represents people nobody else will bother with.

the book is called Give Me Liberty! and although he can be repetitive at times with his ideas, he makes some very good points that go along with much of what you and I are discussing.

Here's the first chapter:
http://www.gerryspence.com/givemeliberty_chapter.html

I recommend the book to anyone who doesn't feel right about American freedom, yet is uncomfortable with the idea of socialism or communism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Lets be fair here. This is a board entitled "Politics: Left, Right and Centre", not "Grammar".

---

True

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
While it is no easier to read poor txters script such as that of Blue-Rock, it is much easier to type.

---

The purpose of the typing is communication. I (for one) find it exceedingly difficult to interpret and read the "txters script". Since one of my duties as a mod is to read the information on my board, these people are purposefully making my job difficult.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
A lot of you appear to have missed the point of what he has to say because you are too busy nit-picking his writing skills. This isn't a thesis, it's a topic board.

---

There is such a thing as a typo. I do those sorts of things too frequently, however, I do not pick apart for a typo. Only gross violations of the English language.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
However, Nox has known to insult a poster for the wrong reasons (race, grammar etc.)

---

Now we come to the meat of my reply. NEVER, have I insulted ANYONE because of their race. ALWAYS will I insult someone for racism. If that qualifies as a "wrong reason"...so be it and I am proud for it. Grammar has been previously addressed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
when he has been proven wrong, but must be seen to make a pithy comeback.

---

I have asked you repeatedly for the items you have "proven [me] wrong". I still await a reply. Chucky, should it happen that you prove me wrong, I hope I remember to type my apology in all capital letters. Should I fail to do that, you have a freebe for round two.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
It is very pathetic.

---

No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Lets be fair here.

---

I have been.

Nox

No offence Nox, but go away. I don't really want you to pursue this personal vendetta. It gets a little tiring seeing a massive post which consists for the most part, you quoting me, then responding with one word answers, it's pointless. Await my reply, I'm sick of giving it to you by now, because you always rrespond the same way "I await your reply", it's quite painfull trying to reason with such a petulant human being as yourself.

Vox, thank you.

Fox, you're right about Blue Rock's grammar.

Sisyphus, I hope you had a good time (thats the only point to anything really)... the problem I have outlined will be waiting when you get back. Sooner or later its going to sneak up on you and bite you in the arse.

Nukechild, I'm talking about efficacy; and my whole point is a moral standard based in a "consumerism" model WILL be the most effective. Private virtue lacks efficacy; how can others look to your example if they don't know it's going on? I say we trumpet charity as loud as we can.

Religion has been on a decline for decades.

"When looking for signs of decline, don't come here to Trantor in all its glory, decay begins first at the edges, in the provinces and backwaters."

Paraphrasing Isaac Asimov

I'm not suggesting breakdown of religious values is necessarily a bad thing (I'm actually an athiest); just that New Zealand is one of the most secular countries on the planet. And it's about on the furthest possible edge of the western world you can imagine.

�As I could - if not must - be one of those "right-wing libertarians...//...from the other side of the atlantic", it would be interesting if you elaborated a little on this; us from "the other side(s)", I mean.�

I mean, I�m not used to arguing with large amounts of neo-liberals, I�m also unused to having arguments with people �from the other side of the atlantic� to me. Namely america cos I�m from the UK.
I mention your nationality because it seems to me that the american media (from the little I�ve experienced) is subtly different to the UK one your political system is also different, many things are different in the US.
I�m not suggesting that the land mass you live on and your socialisation you have somehow makes you superior or inferior to me.
But I d think that we see events in slightly different ways because of the way they are portrayed every day in our media.
good example of this was when I mentioned my gov selling arms to india/pakistan, it was big news over here yet Nox ain�t heard of it because its obviously not much of a story over there.
There�s also the fact that although I can�t stand my Gov either, at the moment I�m attacking the government that (like it or not of course) rules those of you �from the other side of the atlantic�.

�Perhaps it is more common that political discussion boards are leaning towards the left, and even a lot in that direction. But is it therefore more natural?! As you seem to imply with calling totse "a weird experience".�
I wouldn�t say �natural�.
I would say it�s the norm for me to end up posting on more left-leaning (not hugely though, don�t get the wrong impression here), this board so far seems to be made up of more libertarian posters which is a relatively new experience to me, and therefore �weird�. As in �abnormal� or �out of the norm� for what I usually experience.
I�m not suggesting that just cos there�s more opposition to my ideas here you�re all 3 headed bug eyed monsters or something??
To be perfectly honest I have no idea what �natural� behaviour is, care to elaborate?

�Sisyphus, I hope you had a good time (thats the only point to anything really)...�

Agreed, although I find it hard to have a good time constantly without the moral hangover of whose keeping me in such a (not so, actually)comfortable state.
(That�s not to suggest my life is some sort of guilt filled drudgery though)


I�ve no idea what point you outlined yet, that�s only cos at the very most I�ve skimmed your post, I�ll read it properly when I have time and reply to other stuff that I can, might not be till Friday or so though.

Sisyphus!

We seem to have a double misunderstanding here. At the moment of reading your last post I took you for a US American, as your totse "passport" says nothing at all. For me, the "other side of the atlantic" therefore came to indicate Europe (and perhaps Australia and New Zeeland as well).
I now remember various hints, and more, that you�re from the UK.

When reading your reply now, I get a feeling that you - somewhat understandably - include me among the US Americans, while I actually come from Sweden; the same "side" as you come from. Wich also means that I have made some of the same observations as you have, regarding differences in media etc. This might not seem so important, but...

I have come to understand that many who are critical to USA (US Americans and non-US Americans) take me for a US American, because I, to some extent, defend USA�s standpoints and actions. If it is believed to be close to impossible to defend USA without being a US American, it is even more important for me to stress the fact that I am not a US American, and that I do it from another perspective; European and Swedish (and personal, of course).

No, I do not know what "natural" behaviour is, in politics or in anything. And that was part of my point. A majority of so called intellectuals and political commentators believe that the "natural" platform for discussions about, and critique of, politics, must be leaning towards the left. I was curious if you "suffered" from that misconception. I now see you don�t.

I don�t know if you actually have included me among the neo-liberals. If you have, I can inform you that I�m more of a Libertine Anarchist Social Democrat...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
...the recent history of turkey u will see that they have overthrown many democratically elected governments and put their own govt in

---

The closest thing that I could find was this. I can see where some members of the EU would fear a government like this.

quote:

---

the kurds: they were banned from using their language and living in their culture until recently when turkey ttried 2 improve its human acts records.

---

Turkey's treatment of the Kurds isn't evidence that it's not democratic. Sometimes genocide is favored by the majority.

quote:

---

i am here 2 learn... as i am 15 i would like 2 c different perspectives on things from supposedly "knowledgable" ppl like ur selves.

---

You come across as trying to teach, instead of learning, and some of your posts are just stupid. That's why people come back at you this way.

Btw, shitty grammer IS lame, and substituting "ova" for "over" gives the impression that you're a ghetto nigger. If you have any confidence in what you believe and know, it isn't showing in your grammer. I think those that have made involuntary lifetime careers in the fast food industry, where the ones; that upon filling out their first job application, demonstrated a profound lack of communication skills. The highlight of said career; being the time you filled in as "Temporary Fryer Department Assistant Manager", while she was out taking delivery of her new home, at the trailer park.

"Grammer" should be spelled "grammar."

In addition, rampant use of the semi-colon only makes you look presumptuous to those who understand how it should be used. For future reference, only use it to separate two wholly independent thoughts that can be written separately and aren't fragments; for example, this sentence is two separate sentences that I have connected with a semi-colon, and linked with the use of the term "for example." When you use a semi-colon in this way, it may be followed by "therefore," "however," "nonetheless," or some other connector, but need not be.

You can also use the semicolon as what is known as a "supercomma." In other words, when listing things that can be divided into sub-groups, you can divide them with a semi-colon:

"I vacationed in three cities this summer: Flushing, New York; Wykoff, New Jersey; and Masturbation, Pennsylvania."

edit: Or we can just relax with the grammarian puritanism.

[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 11-20-2002).]

Harhar Vox...

pause as I feverishly reread my posts

...harhar, good one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
rampant use of the semi-colon

---

The finer points of grammer (and spelling) have always eluded me. I just finished Woe Is I by Pat O'Conner in an attempt to make an improvement. She advocates that the semi-colon is underused.

I have difficulty remembering to even check the completeness of my clauses, so I don't use it to separate them. I use it to separate items in a list when they have a comma (correctly I think, so feel free to point out an example if not.), but I use them mostly for the timing they bring; if considered a slightly longer pause than a comma (as you stated with "supercomma")

quote:

---

...only makes you look presumptuous to those who understand how it should be used.

---

Here? lol. Besides, my lack of skill doesn't make me presumptuous; it makes you arrogant. (Now, that was a proper application of the semi-colon, wasn't it?)

All in good fun. Ideally, we would be speaking face to face, and a comma would sound like a semicolon would sound like a colon would sound like a period would sound like a dash preceding parenthetical information...would sound like three periods in a row.

In spoken language, there really isn't any division between words as typified by a space. We actually speak in a chain that only those that speak the language can understand. To wit, if you listen to spoken Mandarin and do not understand it, it sounds like one continuous uninterrupted flow and you would be hard pressed to pick out individual words.

Have another bourbon.

I rarely drink, but if you insist... Jack/rocks it is. Cheers.

*pictures himself as the next Hemingway*

"At NATO's supreme council meetings, the Turkish chief of staff does not sit behind his defence minister, but at his side - clearly illustrating that he is not his subordinate but at least his equal. Unlike the other NATO armed forces the Turkish army does not give the impression of being in the nation's service; in a strange way it seems to govern it, almost dictating its will."

This is the evidence for me saying that turkey is a dictatorship from user x's link, sorry I didn't back up my arguments with evidence, i will next time.
And user x im not trying to be a "ghetto nigga" this is how we teens in nz chat and i will type stuff properly so you people can understand.

If Turkey is a dictatorship, why did the Fundamentalist parties do so well at the election?

Nuke child the fundimentalist party has denied all links to islamic politics before the turkish courts, this is why they finally accepted them, the leader of the party went to court when he was known to be leading in the polls for "creating religious hatred". Also, what more evidence do you need than NATO and the EU expressing their concerns about the turkish army plus the history of the turkish army overthrowing winners of past elections and placing their own governments?(this is a fact).
This is a link from the bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/904758.stm

Fox: Glad it was just a misunderstanding then.


Vox: Sorry for the size of the post, apologies if it gets heated also, I type as I think and as I would talk cos I do it quite fast.

�Happiness to me is working hard, earning a living,�
And after that? (not a point, a genuine interest as to what you do once you;ve got that �living�)

��and helping promote the society that has given me security, liberty, and opportunity.�
Yes but at whose expense?
I don�t care about just one state, I don�t care about just one segment of the worlds population as a portion of the whole. I care about all of it. Not just as some arrogant mother Theresa figure either. Because if its perfectly okay for others to be exploited today, then why not me tomorrow?

�.Happiness to me isn't smelling the roses and helping others selflessly� its not just a selfless act, the idea is not that you would somehow spend your entire life giving cash to your next door neighbour. The idea is that everybody spends their life co-operating and thinking about the success of the whole as well as the individual. Because if I worry about my neighbour and my neighbour worries about me, then its far easier to get things done. Not only that but I won�t need some beurocratic entity (with armed soldiers and riot police for when certain sections of the populace are judged to be �subversive elements�) to protect my �security, liberty, and opportunity.�.

I also think that if you are talking in terms of this argument, which is kinda confusing me now, you should replace �society� with �government�. And in doing so (shit! grammatical error� *ducks* ) I would like to know whether or not you think �liberty� is an inalienable right as of birth, or whether its something that an armed elite can give you?
In my own view freedom isn�t something to be given or granted, is it freedom from or freedom to?
And if its freedom from, then freedom from whom? (Or for that matter, freedom FOR whom?)
�Rouge� states or individuals?
And if its individuals, do you consider individuals a product of their socialisation?

�And there is a law of nature, regardless of what your sociology teacher told you about socialisation. Co-operative socialisation and altruistic behovior are exceptions, not the rule.�

I�d say that within current society co-operation has less influence than competition, I wouldn�t describe acts of co-operation as exceptions because I see them everywhere everyday. Maybe they happen less noticeably but they go on constantly.
Don�t you think that the fact we�re rewarded for competition and that its socialised into us from birth might have something to do with our ratio of co-operation to competition?

�Humans may cooperate with one another sometimes, but we certainly don't cooperate with the other life on this planet, we exploit it.�

Agreed.
But how might we be best placed to compete with and exploit nature to our own advantage?

(Come to think of it and unrelated, do you really think that the present greedy attitude corporations and those in charge take, over-fishing,over logging, using oil instead of researching sustainable is a bit of a stupid short term strategy that�s bad for all of us in the long run?)

Do you think that in-fighting and competition capitalism style where those who are on top of our species get profits grossly outweighing the work they�ve done is the best way of us to go about this competition with nature?
Do you think that millions starving while others grow steadily more obese is helping us to survive as a race?

�Would co-operation not be a better strategy on which to base our struggle for survival?

�like most other conscious humans, have learned throughout my life about myself and my country. And though my father is French and my mother Italian-American and I have dual citizenship, when the question is asked, I say I am American, with great pride. This pride wasn't pounded into my head by grade school teachers. It came because America is my home, represents my interests, and protects me from those who would harm me.�

And what about those who won�t harm you that is attacks?
Do you still hold your head high then?
One image that always sticks in my head when I think of government and power (and believe me, I tried to remove it cos it makes me biased) is that famous black and white photo of the Vietnamese girl running screaming past western journalists her back covered in napalm burns.
I couldn�t hold my head after that, I�d have serious doubts about putting nuclear weapons in to the hands of people who consider her agony �collateral damage� too�

�Of course there's inequality. That's because resources are finite, and so is the amount of talent, intellect, and ability. Either you have it, or you don't.�

�From each according to ability, to each according to need�
�Does the shit picker really do any less work or put in any less effort than the executive director of some huge conglomerate?
Or is he simply more humble, less greedy, more willing to accept his piece?

�In europe, because of lingering nobility, colonial guilt, and socialism, forced equality is the norm�
You have a bit of a weird view of my country.

�nobility�
The nobility are falling apart from inside following the British publics slow realisation that in actual fact they ain�t some unquestionable, god-ordained force, they�re just ordinary people who received privilege for their bloodline. As a result of this realisation the monarchy have become something like a cross between diplomats and celebrities. Unfortunately for them though, being the bastion of all that is CONSERVATIVE (as a pose to �socialist�) they�re expected to be a bunch of prudish bastards.
All these scandals that keep bobbing up like turds in the Mersey don�t fit that image and as a result people are questioning them in terms of their worth as "heritage" and a tourist attraction. The moment you do that you take away the magic and as a result they�re decaying.

�colonial guilt�
Personally I�d say we have a lot to feel guilty about. If however you�re insinuating that there�s some kind of reverse racism going and every white person hates themselves cos of their skin colour I�d say your views are a bit weird.
(major apologies I�m sure you don�t mean it like that, but I get that one a lot from BNP nuts when talking about racism)

�socialism�
Socialism in the UK is DEAD. Deader even than punk rock. The labour party has sold out, the socialist alliance is a fucking joke and generally speaking socialism is very, very dead. Blame what you want but as far as genuine socialist parties are concerned there�s nothing.
The political parties over here are pretty much all to the centre right.
Forced equality is also, bollocks, I dunno who told you that, personally I think it�d be nice to see a bit of equality though, what with the fact that being black is 7 times more likely to get you stop n� searched than being white. With Black and Asian incomes well below whites, etc, etc, et fuckin cetera..
�But also with such a HUGE gap between the rich and poor regardless of their race in the UK.
Forced equality sucks though, even if forced in-equality is worse.
(Having said that, is it the �better of two evils� nox?)

�(except for those fortunate enough to be in power---they are very free, and more equal than the rest)�
Agreed, maybe we should make them earn a living then and take away their power?

�high unemployment, massive unassimilating immigrant populations, rising crime, high taxes, ninety days vacation time a year and a six-hour work day...a real heaven.�

I get suspicious when people talk about �massive unassimilating immigrant populations� cos they�re usually one of the reasons why Asians in particular tend to end up so segregated in the first place. Who are these �immigrants� exactly?
If you�re basically talking about 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation Asian immigrants then its true that in places like Bradford there are seriously segregated populations based on skin colour. even to the extent that there are no go areas for both whites and Asians. However isn�t it OBVIOUS! that this is racism, fear and protective selfishness� fault?

Socialism holds that people are equal, or at least deserving of as equal treatment as is possible in a non-utopian wonderland. As a result socialism on its Billy Todd (as a pose to nationalist socialism) is simply a tide for equality and as such socialism is anti-racist.
The best remedy for people losing racism is for everyone to meet the people they are supposed to be prejudiced against and different from and see all the things we all have in common.
In a climate of fear, where nationalism runs rampant creating some idealised version of a population based on an outdated vision of what we look like things can only get more difficult.

�We don't mind supporting Israel despite its nuclear weapons because they are not a threat to use them on us (though they probably would use them to defend themselves if we threatened them, as they would without hesitation against their friendly neighbours)�

Would you care if they annihilated Syria?
Or for that matter they managed to use tactical nukes on the west bank?
Would it matter if million of Arabs were eradicated?
I don�t give a shit what nationality the victims are, if they�re humans then surely its wrong?
Your government is intervening in Iraq when at the most saddam poses a very tiny threat to the west, he poses far more of a threat to his neighbours who are only just now coming round to the idea of an invasion under pressure from the US.
Israel poses a far greater threat to the local region but your government supports it, that�s regardless of the worrying and spiralling state of affairs in Israel.

Your government has consistently tried to base its invasion plans on the grounds that saddam is an evil fuckwit and is abusing human rights and threating other nations. I�m not denying that he does and is all those but I think if you look closer to home you can see just how hypocritical that standpoint is.

If the Bush family wanted to get rid of saddam then maybe daddy dear could have supported the revolution rather than betraying it.


States have no respect for humans, human life or human rights.

(from my perspective though obviously )

"And after that? (not a point, a genuine interest as to what you do once you;ve got that �living�)"

There really is no after that. Eight hours of work, eight hours of sleep, eight hours of leisure, weekends off, a few weeks vacation a year. I am part of the elite, so I have no interest in changing the status quo. My practice will be law, so my pattern will be more like twelve hours work/eight hours sleep for a few years with increasing income, and then the hours of work will gradually drop to far fewer with much higher income, and partial retirement around fifty. After that...well, I can't say. How you or I may spend our leisure time is really a matter of choice. If I choose to travel or sit at home and write a novel, I see nothing wrong with either.

"Yes but at whose expense?"

This is irrelevant to me. I've admitted my position in the elite. I have no interest in giving what I hold to others. This is very selfish of me. I support the government (your word) that conserves this way of life at the expense of those who do not conform to it. While I do conform to the requirements of success within society, I do so consciously with the intent to selfishly promote my well being and that of my immediate family over others.

"The idea is that everybody spends their life co-operating and thinking about the success of the whole as well as the individual. Because if I worry about my neighbour and my neighbour worries about me, then its far easier to get things done."

I am of the opinion that competition, not cooperation, is what alows for effeciency and progress. Without competition there is no innovation, no research and development. Cooperation breeds complacency and "happiness." Some people enjoy this down-to-earth feeling of contentedness. All you need is your friends and a warm bed, right? I disagree. I need variety, scope, experience, and pleasure, and these come as a reward for labor.
If I spend so much time worrying about everybody else, or society as a whole, then those who do not will trump me and take what I could have had had I opted to act selfishly. This is the Prisoner's Dilemma, where the rational action is to cheat my partner; since the benefit of cheating, whether he cheats or not, is great---and the cost of cooperating while he cheats me is immense.

"I would like to know whether or not you think �liberty� is an inalienable right as of birth, or whether its something that an armed elite can give you?"

Libery is a given right at birth. It is the liberty to know your ability, realize your potential, and apply yourself within the bounds of what you cannot change to secure your future and that of your family. Equality of opportunity, where the best man wins. Of course, I would be foolish to say that I believe this to be the ultimate truth. Some people are born more equal than others, by benefit of what their progenitors have labored to produce (or just got lucky).

"In my own view freedom isn�t something to be given or granted, is it freedom from or freedom to?
And if its freedom from, then freedom from whom? (Or for that matter, freedom FOR whom?)"

I don't understand if this is a question or a statement of your beliefs. I apologize. I will answer what I think your question is.
Freedom TO. Freedom to do everything I listed above: gauge your talents, understand your system, use your ability to the fullest, and promote your INDIVIDUAL well being.
A very selfish (some would say rational) way to operate.

"Don�t you think that the fact we�re rewarded for competition and that its socialised into us from birth might have something to do with our ratio of co-operation to competition?"

No, I think that we are socialized to compete because it is part of our hereditary nature, as it is part of natural selection in the rest of the animal kingdom. I feel that despite our ability to reason, (wo)man is the same as the beasts; that is, (s)he acts rationally to survive and keep others from surviving. Animals measure themselves through their physical strength, and as you progress along the evolutionary scale, intelligence plays more a part in their competition, until you reach the pinnacle of intelligence, humans. We measure ourselves by our ability to exploit one another through wit and strength, translated into money and power.

"But how might we be best placed to compete with and exploit nature to our own advantage?"

I don't understand this question. Look around you, and you'll see how we exploit nature to our own advantage in everything you see.

"(Come to think of it and unrelated, do you really think that the present greedy attitude corporations and those in charge take, over-fishing,over logging, using oil instead of researching sustainable is a bit of a stupid short term strategy that�s bad for all of us in the long run?)"

In a word: maybe. I think that necessity will force us into developing alternates, and we will figure out a way to repair the damage. If we can't, then the earth will heal itself---by removing us.

"Do you think that in-fighting and competition capitalism style where those who are on top of our species get profits grossly outweighing the work they�ve done is the best way of us to go about this competition with nature?"

I made the reference to competing with nature as an example of how it's normal for people to compete with one another. I should have rephrased is thusly: we exploit the natural world, as we exploit one another.

"Do you think that millions starving while others grow steadily more obese is helping us to survive as a race?"

I don't know. Perhaps if people in certain countries would stop breeding like rabbits world food supplies would meet expectations. Again, we're dealing with an issue of intelligence. All humans are not mentally equal. Some see their lives as a string of experiences beginning with birth and ending with death, with very little useful activity and lots of procreation in between. I do not embrace a "feed the world" attitude, since I see no real benefit for the world in keeping people alive simply because they are people. Being human does not give a person the right to live, and all life is not sacred.

"Would co-operation not be a better strategy on which to base our struggle for survival?"

I will grant you, had I been born into another life, I would feel very differently about this. I might have been born stupid, or poor, or both, and understanding this theory of competition would be difficult for me. I would make excuses for my lot in life, blame others for my shortcomings, demand recompense for perceived injustices. This isn't hypocrisy; it's rational action. I know where I stand: in the minority. I know the rest of my fellows will, on the majority, not act to help me. They never have, and never will. I will lose out if I try to help them because they will act in this way. I think humans are fundamentally incapable of mass altruism reason this way based on my opinion that humans are just another kind of animal, with a really big brain.

"And what about those who won�t harm you that is attacks?
Do you still hold your head high then?
One image that always sticks in my head(...)is that famous black and white photo of the Vietnamese girl..."

Very sad. Pain and suffering is bad. Vietnam was a mistake. Americans have flagellated themselves constantly since, and probably always will. I wasn't alive then, as I wasn't alive during the Spanish-American War or the Civil War or when the first "negars" came to America with chains around their ankles.
I am not proud of mistakes that have been made by people who represented my best interests. I am proud of the good things that have come from my country, which are too numerous for me to list here. I do feel guilt for atrocities committed by my government, but I know that "collateral damage" is a part of war, which is a part of human nature along with cooperation.

"Does the shit picker really do any less work or put in any less effort than the executive director of some huge conglomerate?
Or is he simply more humble, less greedy, more willing to accept his piece?"

All of the above. He does less work, has less ability, is more humble, less greedy, and more willing to accept his place. His work can be done by anyone else and therefore is worth next to nothing. He most likely could be replaced by a machine. Again, people are not worth something simply by benefit of being human.
Yet I do not defend the CEO who mercilessly cuts workers to increase his bennies from $15 million to $20 million.

I should have said "feudalism" intead of "nobility." What I meant was there is a history of inherited elite status versus base worker status in Europe that is longer than that in the US by centuries.

"If however you�re insinuating that there�s some kind of reverse racism going and every white person hates themselves cos of their skin colour I�d say your views are a bit weird."

I do in fact feel there is much reverse racism, generated the West against itself, and a foul tendency in the ivory towers of our elites to feel guilty and to hypocritically condemn the very system that gives them the luxury to roll around in their cars and cavort with their mistresses.

"Socialism in the UK is DEAD...Blame what you want but as far as genuine socialist parties are concerned there�s nothing.
The political parties over here are pretty much all to the centre right."

Perhaps, but the rest of Europe is quite socially democratic, France and Germany especially. Despite trends toward right-wingers in much of Europe, the ruling classes have convinced the people that they are better off with massive taxation, even though this does little to keep them safe at night and ensure their prosperity. Witness rising crime statistics and unemployment.

"Forced equality is also, bollocks, I dunno who told you that, personally I think it�d be nice to see a bit of equality though, what with the fact that being black is 7 times more likely to get you stop n� searched than being white. With Black and Asian incomes well below whites, etc, etc, et fuckin cetera."

By forced equality I meant forced redistribution of wealth, not necessarily freedom from racial profiling by law enforcement (a topic for another thread but that I support wholeheartedly). In this country, black income is below average, but Asian, Indian, and Muslim is up to 20% higher than average, according to surveys done early this year by Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

"Who are these �immigrants� exactly?"

I'm speaking mostly about Muslims at this point. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30966-2002May4?language=printer

"Socialism holds that people are equal, or at least deserving of as equal treatment as is possible in a non-utopian wonderland."

I hold that people are not equal, but are given a level playing field upon which to compete with others. This only extends as far as your national borders, of course, since enforcing laws across them and into foreign cultures becomes difficult to say the least.

In a climate of fear, where nationalism runs rampant creating some idealised version of a population based on an outdated vision of what we look like things can only get more difficult.

"Would you care if they annihilated Syria?"

They will not. I can't argue with you if you are a person who argues that Jews are vicious, warmongering people who want to rule the world. If they had wanted to, they would have already, and used their secret network to keep their control of the dumb Americans nonetheless.

"Or for that matter they managed to use tactical nukes on the west bank?"

Ditto.

"Would it matter if million of Arabs were eradicated? I don�t give a shit what nationality the victims are, if they�re humans then surely its wrong?"

Nobody is eradicating anyone. And to take the heartless path, no, it doesn't matter just because they are humans. Let them build their own tactical mukes, if they can. Essentially, there are groups of people, civilizations to use Samuel Huntington's term, who share cultural norms and are competing with one another for the limited space and resources of this planet. Eventually there will be a boiling point, and something's going to snap. Some of these peoples will not exist thereafter. End of story.

"Your government is intervening in Iraq when at the most saddam poses a very tiny threat to the west, he poses far more of a threat to his neighbours who are only just now coming round to the idea of an invasion under pressure from the US."

Let's not pretend here: despite what my gov't may tell people during press conferences because it's what they want to hear, we are interested in Iraq because it is a serious threat to acquire WMD and use them either to help terrorists introduce them into the US, or to blackmail the US and the West for aid, power, and oil. Saddam has the "right" to protect his oil and seek to build his weapons, and we have the "right" to try and take his oil from him and block his acquisition of those weapons. This is pure power politics, exercised through the threat and use of force. Morality has nothing to do with it and never will.

"Your government has consistently tried to base its invasion plans on the grounds that saddam is an evil fuckwit and is abusing human rights and threating other nations. I�m not denying that he does and is all those but I think if you look closer to home you can see just how hypocritical that standpoint is."

Again, what the administration says in press conferences is very different from it's analysis and pursuit of its interests. Do you think public and international support is achievable if Bush went on TV and said what I have written in this post? Not fucking likely. People like to pretend they're acting in the best interests of humanity. This also answers the ever-present question of why the US doesn't intervene in other places human rights are violated, like Africa. Because there's no strategic reason to.

"If the Bush family wanted to get rid of saddam then maybe daddy dear could have supported the revolution rather than betraying it."

A poor decision on Bush's part for which he has been second guessed for a decade. I agree, he misjudged Saddam's ability to rebuild, although I'm sure he took into account fears that the coalition would collapse, Arab allies would desert, and the American people would begin to drop their support of him. As it was, he cut his losses (tiny as they were) and did what he set out to do: drive Iraq from Kuwait. Be sure the mistake will not be made aain.

"States have no respect for humans, human life or human rights."

That is the consensus of those who feel short-changed and you have the right to feel that way. You are right. States have no respect for certain humans, certain human lives, or certain humans' rights.

A caveat: I am really a nice guy. I would love to live in a world where people could benefit from eachother's services without payment, where we all lived like the wealthy and the state existed only to provide for a minimum of necessities and public goods. I just don't see this happening, no matter how loud we yell or how hard we try. The majority of people in this world are too stupid to understand this concept and too violent to work for it. Sharpen your claws and enter the fray or you will be raped, pillaged, and hung out to dry.

And thanks for the civil tone of this discussion, it's the reason I come here.

Cheers.

Vox.

�This is irrelevant to me. I've admitted my position in the elite. I have no interest in giving what I hold to others. This is very selfish of me. I support the government (your word) that conserves this way of life at the expense of those who do not conform to it. While I do conform to the requirements of success within society, I do so consciously with the intent to selfishly promote my well being and that of my immediate family over others.�

I�m not sure what ton argue on to be honest then.
This really brings the discussion to a grinding halt cos we�re at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Possibly I�m more self righteous ( ) now. But whatever, there�s not a lot I can say of that. It doesn�t prove or disprove human nature in that there are plenty of people who do give a toss about those outside of their immediate family.

�Libery is a given right at birth. It is the liberty to know your ability, realize your potential, and apply yourself within the bounds of what you cannot change to secure your future and that of your family. Equality of opportunity, where the best man win�

But if both men work equally hard, whether with their hands or with their brain, why should one man get all the power, all the wealth?
Not only that but under the present system as your paragraph before illustrates, those who cheat win. Basically those who are slyer and more greedy, have all the values that we are *supposedly* educated from birth are wrong will win.
That means all the scum float to the top.
Not only that but if human nature really is fucked up, then how does it make sense to let a select few of the greedy, nasty cunts control all the others?
And if we�re selfish why do we allow them to skim our labour?

�Some people are born more equal than others, by benefit of what their progenitors have laboured to produce (or just got lucky).�
Bastards.
They are however the minority, perhaps someday the majority will get mad but I don�t see it any time soon.


�All you need is your friends and a warm bed, right? I disagree. I need variety, scope, experience, and pleasure, and these come as a reward for labor.�

Whoever said that variety and scope,etc are provided for the vast majority in this society? I know we�re talking about you only here but I just thought I�d point it out.
also, whose to say a co-operative society cannot provide these things?
Variety would be far easier to achieve without huge corporations and even states achieving hegemony and monopolies and destroying their smaller rivals.

Experience doesn�t disappear without competition, you think I can�t go out and experience the world without my boss or something?

A co-operative society was never intended to be some bland, boring, USSR style society where everyone plays the drone and works then sleeps. In many cases that�s what happens in this society. Go to work, get ordered about, get paid just enough money to pay the bills, worry about the mortgage, etc.

�If I spend so much time worrying about everybody else, or society as a whole, then those who do not will trump me and take what I could have had had I opted to act selfishly�
The whole point here is a change of attitude, a different way of thinking new society with a new style of socialising. In this society if I work co-operatively I�m destroyed.

�promote your INDIVIDUAL well being.
A very selfish (some would say rational) way to operate.�

Rational in whose society?
You can�t define what�s logical to do in a different society by this society standards can you?
Rational in this society simply means how we work best to survive in this society. In a society based on competition, you compete like fuck and hope to scramble to the top of the heap, this is obviously rational behaviour, you don�t go against the grain cos it�s a waste of time. In a co-operative society you do the opposite.


�I don't know. Perhaps if people in certain countries would stop breeding like rabbits world food supplies would meet expectations�

I have no recent figures for this unfortunately. But not so long ago (think maybe a decade at the very most) we were dumping food into the sea while those �breeding like rabbits� starved.
Can this be justified?
(And I WILL look for figures on this, I doubt they�ll have changed much, might not reply again for a bit though)


�No, I think that we are socialized to compete because it is part of our hereditary nature, as it is part of natural selection in the rest of the animal kingdom. I feel that despite our ability to reason, (wo)man is the same as the beasts; that is, (s)he acts rationally to survive and keep others from surviving�

I disagree (obviously )
I think we certainly hold our survival high on the agenda because it is our nature as animals to survive. HOWEVER from then on I believe that it is up to us the choose how we feel it is best to survive as a species. Humans are no longer one big homogenous group of animals, all needing the same skills to survive. We NEED the shit shoveller, the director, the train drive to keep our society moving. natural selection weeding these out so that you end up with the most ruthless, hyper intelligent greedy fucks, but all of whom are used to sitting on their ass in an office eating donuts.
Ain�t too good for us, cos where do we get all the drain cleaners from?
And as far as I�m concerned if people are getting a raw deal then they do better.
Basically this entire argument is hinging on the fact that you�re �ruling class� and proud, it fits every stereotype known to the left part of the political spectrum about �them up top�.
Also, do you really believe that those reaching the top are the brightest of the bright?
Or the most hardworking?
I look around me and see kids able to talk metaphysics living on benefits cos the employers see them as risky individuals due to their political inclination.
People with a sense of decency and belief in the human race are dangerous in this society.


�I will grant you, had I been born into another life, I would feel very differently about this.�

Not a lot I can say again on this, unapologetic selfishness is hard to argue with, COs you see it as good, I see it as bad cos I see the misery I�m surrounded by and wonder how I�m supposed to be happy, when I can�t share it?


�All of the above. He does less work, has less ability, is more humble, less greedy, and more willing to accept his place�

The whole POINT! here is that he doesn�t do less work!
Would you rather shovel shit or sit in a large leather chair all day?
Just cos a jobs boring and crap doesn�t make it any less work, IMHO its quite the opposite.
And yes he�s more willing to accept his place because he�s not a greedy fuck, he�s everything people in this world supposedly consider �good�.
You can try and re-work ethics if you want but when �do unto others as you would have others do unto you� goes out of the window expect me round your house with a shotgun for your cash.
That�s true anarchy in its modern sense.

�Again, people are not worth something simply by benefit of being human.�
That is such a fundamentally different position that I�m going to stop now.
Neo-liberalism is wrong to me because it attempts to stick a price tag on everything.
What about the disabled? The retards? Do they deserve consideration? After all they can�t work, but if they don�t deserve solidarity and empathy as fellow humans then who does?
I mean fuck it, lets pull all the stops out and let loose nihilism?

What do you think of morals and ethics Vox�..?

"This really brings the discussion to a grinding halt cos we�re at opposite ends of the spectrum.
But whatever, there�s not a lot I can say of that. It doesn�t prove or disprove human nature in that there are plenty of people who do give a toss about those outside of their immediate family."

If so many people cared about the good of the world, do you think it would be the way it is?

Like most socialists, you label someone who puts in the effort to educate themselves and has the motivation and intelligence to exploit the system he lives in "scum" and a "cheater."

I don't advocate cheating to win, I gave you an example of a theoretical model for behavior that uses the term cheat to describe what you are doing if you are not cooperating. The person that choses to maximize his own benefit and minimize his cost (the definition of the term rational that I am using) will choose not to cooperate, as he knows the other person will also act raionally and not cooperate. This concept of game theory gets a little hazy when we get down to individuals but is still applicable.


Whoever said that variety and scope,etc are provided for the vast majority in this society?
also, whose to say a co-operative society cannot provide these things?

Nobody said these things are provided for the majority. They're there for those who earn it.
I'm saying that a cooperative society will not provide the wealth necessary to experience those things I want, as limited resources would be stretched too thin.

Experience doesn�t disappear without competition, you think I can�t go out and experience the world without my boss or something?

I don't know what you mean. See above.

"A co-operative society was never intended to be some bland, boring, USSR style society where everyone plays the drone and works then sleeps."

No, but that is the historical trend, for whatever reason (maybe because that's the way people are?...)

"The whole point here is a change of attitude, a different way of thinking new society with a new style of socialising. In this society if I work co-operatively I�m destroyed."

You realize of course that this sort of transition is extremely difficult...we get back to the dilemma. Why am I motivated to change when it will kill me?

We disagree obviously. I guess I am a selfish, ruthless fuck and you are a moral, ethical humanitarian. I like materialism and value it as part of my life, along with personal friendship and family ties. Global happiness is none of my concern, as my actions are quite insignificant. I understand that I matter to myself and those I am close to. My ethics do not extend beyond my personal sphere, and why should they?

I am an ethical person when I deal with others on a daily basis. I am honest, I don't steal or cheat, and I don't go out to hurt others. But I see a society where hard work and ability is rewarded with a full life and financial security. If you come to my house with a gun, be ready to get shot...I can protect myself in an anarchic world with both wit and strength and I am not worried.

Spend your life protesting and achieving nothing, or be a shit shoveler if you must. If you are intelligent, and I assume by your argumentative nature and your postings you are, use it to your advantage and claw your way to the top, and stop feeling so guilty and angry about everything you cannot change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
This is the evidence for me saying that turkey is a dictatorship from user x's link...

---

What are you talking about? I posted that link in reply to your claim that Turkey was a dictatorship. I even went so far as to say that the link showed me that Turkey was closer to a military dictatorship than I had known. Do you have some kind of chrono-dyslexia?

I don't know much about Turkey, and I think I'll brush up before the coming storm. History may repeat itself.

And peace on the grammer kid, lol. We just want your posts to be easy to read. This is a conceptual medium, not a visual one. (but I've heard that they make really cool pictures with text, down in Bitch And Moan.)