On the 8th October 1967, Ernesto Guevara was murdered in Bolivia by the CIA.

After fighting for 11 months (from the 7th November 1966) in a steaming jungle in a foreign land for the freedom of the Bolivian people, he was murdered by the CIA. The Bolivian Liberation Army was fighting a civil war against a despotic capitalist ruler. Strangely, the USA showed little interest in this war for several months until at the end of April when they found out just who was leading the revolution.

Guevara spoke of "two, three, many Vietnams to distract the great enemy of Mankind, the United States", His goal was to destroy imperialism. Che Guevara posed no threat to America, he only threatened the tin pot dictators of Latin America, Africa, and Asia. So why would America... the upholder of peace, stop him in this goal? the ruling clss of the USA were, and probably still are afraid of Socialism, because Socialism directly affects their way of life as money hoarding, ego-centric criminals. Thus followed a sweeping barrage of pro-Capitalist shite (for want of a more descriptive word), by the... Capitalists. Why should they be believed? They shouldn't But they were. Che Guevara was portrayed as an evil man, threatening freedom. But he was the epitomy of freedom fighters.

When Che was finally beaten, he fought until he was shot in the leg and counld no longer move, after which he fought until the barrel of his gun was completely destroyed and he could no longer physically fight. He was duly captured, interrogated, searched and robbed. Tortured, and then shot in the head. He was buried in an unmarked mass grave in Vallegrande after having both hands amputated and stored in formaldehyde.

The USA were cowards, and and claimed he was killed in combat and his corpse taken by his "missing" (also in the mass grave)comrades. And dared not admit to the real circumstances of his death. But why was he assasinated, and why did the USA interfere? Che was merely trying to secure the freedom that you all so love. But of course he is Argentinian not a White American so his people are not worthy of freedom.

LOL

Thankyou for so ably proving my point FOAD

"On the 8th October 1967, Ernesto Guevara was murdered in Bolivia by the CIA."

The title should read "most arrogant".
Sycophants are irritating no matter who they worship.

Che would hate you so much. He'd probably call you an indulgent capitalist pig and shoot you.

I implore you to find an example of Guevara being arrogant. Arrogant is definitely NOT a word I would use to describe him. Shows how much you know about him sisyphus. It is only his sycophants who potray him as good, he himself saw him for what he was...

Although he wouldn't shoot you, that is the behaviour of a Capitalist, he would simply strip you of your power. Numerous lies circulated about how he captured and tortured peasants in Bolivia. Yet, the truth is that on the rare occasion the Bolivian Liberation Army did capture a peasant for whatever reason they were fed, free to go within a few hourd and usually paid for their co-operation afterwards.

Surely you shit me. The reason people in the United States fear outright socialism - not just the "ruling class," but the vast majority of all people - is because it doesn't work. Name me any one efficiently-functioning socialist society on the face of the earth.

The type of socialism people like him advocated is a system based on theft. It works somewhat until the spoils run out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
LOL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Thankyou for so ably proving my point FOAD

---

Nox also Laughs Out Loud.

Guess that's two of us who "prove your point".

By the way, If your point was that Che was the "Bravest Man in History"....then...

Nox rolls on the floor laughing. Every "brave" man I've ever known always ran away when the going got tough. Here's a little something for you to think about: there is a little piece of bronze (from the cannons of the Crimean War) attached to a red ribbon that is normally presented to the real "Bravest" persons by someone called The King/Queen. If you want to read about real bravery and true selflessness, read a few of the Citations to accompany the award of the Victoria Cross. Those were some "REAL MEN" and can be classified among "The Bravest Men in History". Finish reading that and there are heros from other nations I'd gladly direct you to.

Nox

Are you accusing him of running away when the going got tough? Because the going was always tough, and he never once ran away. Che differs from the Vicky Cross guys because he was fighting for freedom.... and your friends were fighting another man's war for his own personal gains (not all of them, the WW2 people are freedom fighters too)

Cuba is efficiently running... but you'll probably believe the bullshit about oppression and Darth Castro and his pact with Satan etc. But that depends on your definition of efficient. USA is efficient as it's rich are very rich. The poor of the US are however very poor, in comparison with the average and all. Indonesia see, is VERY efficient, much more efficient than most countries, yet it's people live in squalor becasue all the efficiency ends up in the hands of the elite. you cannot tell a rich man without a poor man next to him. Look at history, Cuba may be poorer than say... France, but France has a wealth of resources and was rich even under a theocracy, Cuba however has NEVER been rich, due to it's diminutive size and total lack of resources, relatively however Cuba is at it's richest under Communism than ever before. Latin America is a country divided so that it's states cannot operate efficiently, yet if returned to it's rightful position as a single country, but this time free from oppression as Bolivar intended, then it would be efficient. It is in the interests of the USA to stop this from happening though because Latin America would then rivla it in terms of trade.

-----"The type of socialism people like him advocated is a system based on theft. It works somewhat until the spoils run out."-----

Can I play? America is ruled under an oligarhy headed by 10 foot tall shape-changing lizards who feed on babies. The Bush dynasty are such and so are the Winsors. yes it's bullshit. Just like that statement.

Che didn't torture peasants. He was honest and idealistic, and I don't have anything against him. I just think it's rediculous that you're calling him the "Bravest Man in History." There's a difference between bravery and fanatacism.

I'm very pro Castro, but I know how in inefficient Cuba is. Anyone that things Communist is working in Cuba right now is out of touch with reality.

Whether Castro is to blame for Cuba's inefficiency is a different question - I personally think that Cuban socialism is failing because of US sanctions, not because of socialism being an inferior system.

I thought this post would be about me, but in a way I'm relieved it is not. Its true though- if your not White you irrelevent. But thats the way it ought to be, and you don't hear ME whining about it. Thats life, Banana Man. Be a man and handle it.

Your total lack of economic sense staggers me. You are the most economically moronic person I've ever met, and let's keep in mind, I attend a public school.

"Efficiency" is not a commodity or unit of exchange. How "efficiency" could "end up in the hands of the elite" is beyond me. Efficiency is simply a measure of how well a system adheres to cost/benefit analysis. If lots of cost, in labor and capital, is spent to produce only a small benefit, the system is said to be inefficient. If just the opposite is true, the system is said to be efficient. There's more to it, but that's the basic idea.

I'm also not quite sure why you think Cuba is better than America. America's poor, according to most statistics, are almost equal to the middle class of most other nations. 98% of all lower class Americans possess a TV, microwave, and VCR, compared to about 95% of all middle class Europeans. Also, to date, nobody has rowed an inner tube ninety miles to get into Cuba.

Socialism is BULLSHIT. Plain and simple. It is based on the idea that a product is worth whatever labor is put into it. This is false - a product is only worth what somebody will actually pay for it, as established by the laws of supply and demand. For instance, I could put years and years of labor digging an enormous hole out in the middle of the Sahara desert. The fact that I worked really, really hard on it doesn't make it valuable, and certainly, nobody would want to buy it.

So please, in the future, put down your copy of Das Kapital and crack an economics textbook. You might even enjoy it. I sure do.

Very nice post chuckstone (the 1st one I mean), I applaud you...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
Your total lack of economic sense staggers me. You are the most economically moronic person I've ever met, and let's keep in mind, I attend a public school.

"Efficiency" is not a commodity or unit of exchange. How "efficiency" could "end up in the hands of the elite" is beyond me. Efficiency is simply a measure of how well a system adheres to cost/benefit analysis. If lots of cost, in labor and capital, is spent to produce only a small benefit, the system is said to be inefficient. If just the opposite is true, the system is said to be efficient. There's more to it, but that's the basic idea.

I'm also not quite sure why you think Cuba is better than America. America's poor, according to most statistics, are almost equal to the middle class of most other nations. 98% of all lower class Americans possess a TV, microwave, and VCR, compared to about 95% of all middle class Europeans. Also, to date, nobody has rowed an inner tube ninety miles to get into Cuba.

Socialism is BULLSHIT. Plain and simple. It is based on the idea that a product is worth whatever labor is put into it. This is false - a product is only worth what somebody will actually pay for it, as established by the laws of supply and demand. For instance, I could put years and years of labor digging an enormous hole out in the middle of the Sahara desert. The fact that I worked really, really hard on it doesn't make it valuable, and certainly, nobody would want to buy it.

So please, in the future, put down your copy of Das Kapital and crack an economics textbook. You might even enjoy it. I sure do.

---

Armed and angry you seem to be studying economics just like me, but what you lack it a bit of realism. I've been to the US and i've seen your poor, they piss on buildings and look for food in bins.

You say socialism is BS, but many products are based on how much labour are put into them not just the materials they are made out of eg. roce Royse cars ( i dont know how to spell it).

Socialism has failed in the past granted. But that is down to a wealth of problems

i)Some Communist leaders have been very despotic, namely Stalin, and possibly a few others (but not all of them as ignorant Amerricans would have us believe). It only takes one to tar all of them with the same brush. Without the trust, it can't succeed.

ii)Communism thrives in coutries with a large rich/poor divide, which ususally occurs in countries without much potential for wealth which is why there is so few rich people. So shared wealth would result in equality... but each man being equally poor.

iii)Certain influential nations such as USA and Britian have an inherent fear of the spread of Communism (Communism spreads due to it's benefits, not because of it's dangers) because the decision makers would be no longer able to line their own pockets. Therefore Socialist nations have been consistently hindered since the early 20th Century, which can't help.

There is no reason to assume that it can't work. And in some cases it has worked, you just have to look at the way Cuba, China and North Korea was before Communism to realise the potential of Socialism.

the dream of Che Guevara was a new kind of Socialist state based around superpowers such as South America, Africa and East Asia, rather than a series of piddling straggling nations that they are now. But the fundamental hting was that it involved not total equality, but the benefits (nice houses, better food) go to those who deserve it like teachers and doctors, rather than thiefs and cowards as is the norm today. A teacher in Britain earns between 14k and 25k dependant on experience, whereas a business man who has most likely crippled hundreds of people to achieve his place in society, and works very little can earn salaries in the millions. This is the problem with capitalism. The rewards are distributed according to how much a man can erase his rivals rather than how much effort he can put in. The world can live without Bill Gated and Richard Branson, but it would fall apart without builders and nurses.

Che Guevara's virtues lie not in his political views, which are a different matter, but in the way he was prepared to put his entire life on the line for them. He gave up his job in the Cuban Government and his Cuban citizenship to teh squalor of the jungle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Can I play? America is ruled under an oligarhy headed by 10 foot tall shape-changing lizards who feed on babies. The Bush dynasty are such and so are the Winsors. yes it's bullshit. Just like that statement.

---

That was great.
I am going to have to agree that che was a freedom fighter.
I am going to have to agree that communism is better than capitalism in Cuba. The only reason that cuba is having trouble is that the fucking americans refuse to trade w/Cuba. I hate us.

Homer

Stop telling me about Che, tell me about you...

1) What? "Some" communist leaders may have been very despotic? Try "most," or "almost all." Even the most benign of socialist regimes, like Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh and Nicaragua's Sandanistas, did rely on some very unpleasant methods of social control.

You seem to think that communism is seen as despotic simply because most communist leaders have been despots. This is true, but only to a point. The very nature of communism requires such a level of central planning that it's totally incompatible with a truly democratic political system. You cannot build a stable economy with somebody taking it in a different direction every four years. Free-market democracy avoids this by not planning the economy - rather, the economy is allowed to grow naturally, fulfilling demand where it appears.

2) Yes, Americans and Britons do fear communism. Not just the "Establishment" - although they aren't so hot about it either. This is because only about 12% of American would benefit at all from it, whereas the remainder would see a substantial decrease in the quality of life. Screwing 88% of the population to give that little 12% proletariat a tiny jump up the ladder doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. This is another reason communism and democracy are inimical. If you had everybody in America vote on what kind of system they wanted, 88% would take one look at communism and shout "Balls to that!"

3) Actually, there is a reason to "assume" communism doesn't work. It's based on absolutely ludicrous economics. I've said this before, but it bears repeating - the amount of labor put into a product has LITTLE OR NO BEARING on its value. It is a matter of SUPPLY and DEMAND.

Let me use a common example. Take, for instance, a Super Nintendo game system. When it came out, it cost $200. Now, you can get one for barely a tenth of that. What happened? It takes the same amount of labor today as it did to build a Super Nintendo twelve years ago. Same materials, too. So why is the system worth practically nothing today?

Answer: There's no demand for it. There are way better game systems out there, so nobody wants a Super Nintendo. When the game retailers realized that they couldn't get 200 for a Super Nintendo, they began lowering the price until people decided they would pay that much for what was becoming a more and more inferior game system. Less demand = lower value.

This is why communism doesn't work. It totally ignores the laws of supply and demand, and in doing so, ignores the majority of human behavior.

Communism and Socialism aren't the same thing. For example, although unsuccessful, most of Western Europe has held a Socialist candidate and partial Socialism has existed there for many years without ANY form of unpleasant social control. USA has equal social control, but it's more subtle than that. For example, when the Americans promote Atheism as a bad thing, they are giving the people the fear of God... the ultimate social control. The Americans are easier to control though, so violence is unneccessary. Communist countries proved that the people are difficult to control because in 9 out of 10 cases (give or take a mark) Communism was brought in by a revolution, which emplies that they were difficult to control in the first instance.

Supply and Demand is ludicrous concept. The fact that the SNES was $200 at release is testament to the fact that the workers were exploited. For each SNES created, how much percentage do you imagine the prole recieved. Two better ways would be to sell it at $20 as that pays for labour and would give the Capitalist a fair wedge. Or ideally sell it at $200 and give a slice to each worker. Why should it be that the member of the work team who does least work gets most money? That seems ludicrous to me. Also there is an asumption that he who is poorest (ie the one who would benefit most from Socialism) is poor for his own fault, which is sometimes true in which case he should be punished, but the most likely is there is some innate lack of ability - so why should he suffer due to bad luck?

I am not the bravest man in history (Che probably isn't but he is up there). so why do you want to know about me? What do you wanna know?

You think Supply and Demand is ludicrous?

I'm dying to here the justification for that statement...

The laws of economics can be changed around if the whole system changes, but the communist economic system is complete crap.

The soviet union tried it and they failed, They had a closed economy, and it was completely government controlled, which is bad as the government will look for it's own interests rather than the people's which basically is against the ideology of communism ( the people are supposed to be the ruling class and rule to benefit the people). But when most people get the power they care only about themselves and the communist ideology collapses, communism=NO REALISM.

It seems to me that you just arbitrarily declared supply & demand to be ludicrous without any justification, and then attempted to camouflage this fallacial thinking by going on and on about how workers are mistreated. In doing so, you totally and utterly ignored my statement. On the off chance that you simply missed it (as opposed to the more likely situation, that you ignored it because you couldn't refute it) I'll repeat myself.

The SNES was two hundred bucks when it came out because people were willing to pay that much. When people became less willing to pay high prices, the price declined to a more suitable level. This is why an SNES can be had for a piddling twenty dollars today. What any of that has to do with the workers, exploited or otherwise, is beyond me. Please answer THAT charge before you go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

And precisely who the hell do you mean by "The Americans?" There are 280 million of us - please be specific. I presume you mean the American government who, according to you, promotes religion to control people with the fear of God. How, exactly, does that work? And more importantly, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Even if the government did "promote" religion, that's hardly a form of social control, since you yourself have to accept the religion to be controlled. If you have to accept it, then there's no coercive act present, so I'm afraid I just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Worse, I don't think you know either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
[B]Supply and Demand is ludicrous concept. The fact that the SNES was $200 at release is testament to the fact that the workers were exploited. For each SNES created, how much percentage do you imagine the prole recieved. Two better ways would be to sell it at $20 as that pays for labour and would give the Capitalist a fair wedge. Or ideally sell it at $200 and give a slice to each worker. Why should it be that the member of the work team who does least work gets most money? That seems ludicrous to me. B]

---

You must've missed it first time around

And apparently, YOU missed THIS the first time: I'm talking about the GRADUAL DECREASE of the cost, and why SUPPLY & DEMAND eventually caused the SNES to be a mere twenty bucks. You are just repeating a bunch of crap about how evil the owners are. Perhaps you could refute my ORIGINAL STATEMENT before you run off on another dumbass tangent. For starters, you could tell me why the gradual decrease in price for the SNES was due to something other than supply and demand. Of course, you CAN'T refute the statement, so it might be simpler for you to just admit it, at which point we can move on and deal with your claims of worker abuses.

Isn't it wonderful how a solid base in economics can scuttle must political arguments!

I'll say again. If you can sell a SNES now for $20 than you should ALWAYS have sold it for that price. The $200 was extortion - The workers gain the same now as then and the owner probably still drives 8 porches. (I've so far steered clear of the fact that the $20 SNES will be 2nd hand and therefore no manufacturing cost at all. The machine should cost the amount required to make it (including material and labour + a little for the inventor) at all times. Supply and Demand is a case of the manufacturer sponging the customer for as much as it can get away with, but because there is no rival it can get away with quite a high price. If it gets $200, the guys who made it should get a fair wack of that, but they don't. It's only a "ludicrous" system becasue it's not the one your economics teacher told you was the right one!

1) Yes, Nukechild, it IS wonderful.

2) What you'e neglecting here is that supply & demand is an inherently democratic process. If the people deemed the SNES to be less valuable than $200, it would be sold for considerably less - because otherwise, nobody would buy it. If the consumer wishes to pay less, he need only not buy the system. If enough people don't buy it, the company realizes that it can't charge that much and the price declines drastically. I myself didn't buy an SNES until the price declined to about $75, which seemed quite reasonable. Any screwing of the customer is due to the customer's own wishes.

3) The workers give their services to the manufacturer of their own accord, and do so for a previously agreed upon level of compensation. If you don't like what you're getting paid, perhaps you shouldn't have agreed to it. CEO's and the like make so much money because their skills are in greater demand, and because there's a lower supply of them... there's that concept again. Employment is a contract - it takes two to tango.

4) That price for the SNES isn't second-hand. That's the new, in-box price down at my local Software Etc.

5) And according to GamePlayers Magazine, at the time of the SNES's release, Nintendo CEO Howard Lincoln drove a pickup truck, rather than eight porsches. This isn't really relevant, it's just my way of belittling you. Bitch.

I dont think that we can sit here and say that che che guvera is the bravest man ever.
i am sure that you did mean that. There are men and women that have to do the most extraordinary things in the most dangerous times. Che is not one of these people.

He was a ludicrous tosspot that slaughtered many people including 1500 people in the bay of pigs incident and colaborated with the USSR to try and extinguish a way of life, i am sorry but communism is a lovely idea on paper but not a real way for a country to be run.

Fuck Guvera and fuck all the kids that think that they are cool and rebellious to wear his face on a fucking shirt. I think that guvera will turn over in his mass grave if he saw his face as a tool for capitalism, irony for you there.

Finally if we dont even know how he died, then how do we know what he did, he could have been an idiot used as a tool, whilst there is simultaneously a strong hint of "backstairs intrigue*" in the ruling system.

*"backstairs intrigue" corruption in the power balance of a central government or dictator ship that centralises a public key figure that is no more than a puppet for polititions to use

quote:

---

Isn't it wonderful how a solid base in economics can scuttle must political arguments!

---

I think it says more about the ignorance of the people making the arguments. Supply and demand is really basic stuff.

/me tips hat to Piggarro

You bunch of suckers. Really got you under their thumb haven't they. I would've expected you to be a little less gullible.
-----THINK-----
Your government have a vested interest in keeping you all for Capitalism - I can't believe you are all suckered in by it!

"Slaughtered" 1500 at the Bay of Pigs. Yet When the Americans killed 4000 Vietnamese at LZ Xray it's hailed as a great triumph. How can you invade a country and complain when they kill the invaders?!

-----"Finally if we dont even know how he died, then how do we know what he did"----
After his death, The CIA took microfilm photostats of his diary found on his person and destroyed the original. The intention was to sell publishing rights to the highest bidder. There was a massive publishing battle between a German publisher and an American publisher offering 100s of thousands of dollars for the rights - when it was suddenly and unexpectedly published by Castro who said of the matter

quote:

---

Originally made by Fidel Castro
We cannot for the time being reveal how the diary fell into our hands: it is enough to say that we did not have to pay anyone anything for it

---

We do lnow how he died after a retired officer finally broke his silence on the matter and prompted a massive ssearch for his corpse. It was found in July 1997 and was reburied with full honours on 8 October 1997 (the 30th Anniversary of his death)

tip your hat all you like - but you are tipping it to a fool.

Why is it that pinkos like you think that when people support capitalism it has to be because they are manipulated by their government? People have repeatedly explained why capitalism is better and fairer than bullshit socialism: supply and demand, wages increase with the rarity of skill instead of intensity of labor, talent and ability are rewarded instead of taxed to provide for those without any, labor that is in demand is worth more whereas labor that is basically universal is given a worth commeasurate with its availability.

When you grow out of your idealistic reverie one day you'll understand how silly you sound.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
It was found in July 1997 and was reburied with full honours on 8 October 1997 (the 30th Anniversary of his death)

---

I need a little education here. A body is buried in a mass grave; exhumed and identified 29+ years later. Just exactly what were the means of identification used for this particular body?

Nox

Like a cornered animal, Chucky lashes out blindly at his assailants. Let's go ahead and put his argument to rest, shall we?

- The government has a vested interest in capitalism? Debatable. Sure, under the current system, they can use their high government positions to funnel money to their own interests - and for that matter, they do so regularly. But at the same time, under communism, they could just tax all of that money away from its rightful owners. No trickery required there; who needs trickery when you've got a massive internal security force bound by no laws save your own? To quote David Friedman, "Greedy capitalists get money by trade; good socialists steal it."

- If anyone has a "vested interest" in capitalism, it's the American people. Remember, more than 85% of our population enjoys a standard of living well above that of the average European. Why would they want to trade in their riches, along with the hard work and education it took to acquire them? So they could "liberate" a bunch of people who, in the majority of cases, didn't work nearly so hard or educate themselves nearly so much?

- Hold up there, Red. Who said that I was in favor of a genocidal conflict like the Vietnam War? I personally think that the only just war is one in defense of your liberty or property. Don't try to force me into a tough but nonexistent position just because you can't attack the real ones.

- Mighty gutsy of you - and by "gutsy" I mean "Christ, can't you hear yourself?" - to call Piggarro a fool. Especially considering the fact that, in the face of evidence and logic, you have offered nothing but poor rehashings of the communist manifesto. Do not call others fools when you yourself act in such a foolhardy manner.

Now, once and for all, let's talk frankly. You have been faced with numerous indictments against socialism, communism, and redistributive economics in general. If you can answer them with logic and reason, rather than emotional prattling and self-righteous posing, please do so. Otherwise, do shut up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:


"Slaughtered" 1500 at the Bay of Pigs. Yet When the Americans killed 4000 Vietnamese at LZ Xray it's hailed as a great triumph. How can you invade a country and complain when they kill the invaders?!

-----"Finally if we dont even know how he died, then how do we know what he did"----

tip your hat all you like - but you are tipping it to a fool.

---

If you actually looked to why the people were invading then you will realise that they were invading to get there lives back, america armed and sent back those that had been kicked off Cuba for being american.

So i think that fighting for your home and your way of life is justified. take into account that these people had kids that were more cuban than american now, that was their home, they were kicked off, and america double crossed them, using them as a tool to do there dirty work. That was trying to take out the cuban threat.

And what the fuck are you bringing up vietnam for, is it so you can have a breather from this losing battle that you brought up...

i think you can only imagine that you are in a field of one with your ideas of commerce, and che guveras dauntlessness, mock my opinions all you can (you probably will) but my opinion has exactly the same weight (IF NOT MORE) than any you can propose with such circumstantial and vague evidence that you have seen fit to use.

also i find the fact that you call me a fool for not agreeing with you makes you less of a decent interlectual.

if there was only one thing that you "DISAGREE" with that i said, which doesnt make what i said wrong, then it means that i am not a fool, but someone who brought up an opposing argument, and simply fobbing it off like that will get your deduction of che guvera NOWHERE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
Why is it that pinkos like you think that when people support capitalism it has to be because they are manipulated by their government?

---

Because nothing else makes any sense...Why else would you support a system which benefits such a small minority. Socialism benefiting 12% is a ridiculous figure...and wholly innaccurate. Basically anyone who is below average wealth will benefit and the lower you are the more you will benefit. Worldwide that means 95%, In the USA it is somewhere in the high 80s and in Britain it is somewhere in the 70% region. So basically one in seven would benefit and a good portion of that 7 would benefit substatially.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
People have repeatedly explained why capitalism is better and fairer than bullshit socialism: supply and demand, wages increase with the rarity of skill instead of intensity of labor, talent and ability are rewarded instead of taxed to provide for those without any, labor that is in demand is worth more whereas labor that is basically universal is given a worth commeasurate with its availability.

---

Apparently so, but most of these arguments are nonsense. They don't apply to Capitalism, for example... In America the richest people are those who can steal the most - and it is even encouraged as long as you don't steal from the rich. Plagiarism is rife and reaps huge rewards for very little effort. The Rewards do not, as you are implying, go to the people with the most skill, but they go to those who were born with the silverest spoon in his mouth (e.g Bush). They can afford to get richer, and the poor cannot... no matter how skillful they are. Doctors and Teachers and Nurses get a fraction of what is given to the capitalists who do a fraction of the work and have a fraction of the skill. Yet they have the immorality to exploit so they win.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
When you grow out of your idealistic reverie one day you'll understand how silly you sound.

---

I can just as easily lay the same to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
I need a little education here. A body is buried in a mass grave; exhumed and identified 29+ years later. Just exactly what were the means of identification used for this particular body?

---

Obviously, when they found the mass grave, they had some idea of who it was. So when they checked dental records, they would have very easily found out who it was. Plus soldiers wear identification (although it was probably confiscated). There are numerous ways to test a dead body, I guess they used one of them. The dude was a doctor, he'll have kept records DNA, Dental etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
The government has a vested interest in capitalism? Debatable. Sure, under the current system, they can use their high government positions to funnel money to their own interests .

---

Although that is true, my point was that the Government (especially in the USA) have to be rich to afford the massive election campaigns, and often as a result the richest wins (the people are pretty damn shallow). So by default, the Government is made up of the top 5%, the guys who will suffer most from Socialism. You may think Congress and the Senate are representative if they contain Blacks, Women or Gays, but I doubt any of them are from poor backgrounds...or even resasonably wealthy backgrounds... they are all the super-rich.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
If anyone has a "vested interest" in capitalism, it's the American people. Remember, more than 85% of our population enjoys a standard of living well above that of the average European. Why would they want to trade in their riches, along with the hard work and education it took to acquire them? So they could "liberate" a bunch of people who, in the majority of cases, didn't work nearly so hard or educate themselves nearly so much?

---

85% of them do enjoy the highest standard in the world. But, if that wealth was shared... 100% would have that standard of living. You can't educate a dougie... that's not their fault, so why should they suffer? And again... It's not the ones who work hard who would suffer, it's the ones who don't work at all - the elite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
I personally think that the only just war is one in defense of your liberty or property.

---

So you do support Che Guevara? Because that is exactly what he did... but he had to liberate his people from US backed dictators so he must be evil. I put it to you that you believe all of these US led inasions are in the interests of defending someone's liberty and property. And they are - but a huge minority. The Bay of Pigs was out of order. The invaders were selfish greedy little bastards who deserved all they got. They did not deserve Castros mercy in merely exiling them... they were subversives and should have been imprisoned or shot, so they should be grateful they only had to go home. Cuba was not their home...maybe their snotty nosed kids but not their's. When Che liberated Cuba from them - he was fighting for his liberty, his property and that of millions of his countrymen. The Bay of Pigs was a few thousand fighting for their own property (or rather, Cuba's property) totally selfishly. They had a significantly lesser right to live in Cuba than the millions of REAL cuban kids. And they made it a case of one or the other. The same goes for Vietnam. have you ever wondered why thousands of people gave up their lives to keep you away? They didn't get paid, they were fighting for their freedom and their liberty and so that McDonalds didn't get his greedy little M on it. The fact Che repelled the US backed invasion is a cause to herald him as a hero. And if he is so evil, why do the Cuban people commemorate "The Last Battle of the Heroic Guerilla" every 8th October. Even Darth Castro can't force mourning onto his people. And he wouldn't despite all your fucking bullshit about secret police and people "disappearing" in the night at Castros behest. Fuck those lies, and if you believe them and the sodding caricatures of him stealing a trillion dollar note, then you really are gullible.

You still claim I have been proven wrong? How? By that sack of shit? Fuck that! You could mash your fist on the keyboard and some ass licker would go "Good post, I applaud you" the fucking sycophants. And calling me names does not mean I have lost.

quote:

---

85% of them do enjoy the highest standard in the world. But, if that wealth was shared... 100% would have that standard of living.

---

No, if wealth was shared then 0% would have that standard of living.

so then chunk, apart from ranting on about shit in a moment of panic and anger, there really is not much worth while to read here, and calling che guvera "the bravest" is nothing short of negligent and offensive to people that are brave...

I personally think that you have made an argument that you really cant win, i am not going to call you any names even though i realise that this was about me
--------------------------------------------
You still claim I have been proven wrong? How? By that sack of shit? Fuck that! You could mash your fist on the keyboard and some ass licker would go "Good post, I applaud you" the fucking sycophants. And calling me names does not mean I have lost.
--------------------------------------------

and i fully agree, calling you names does not mean that you have lost, you talking rubbish means that you have lost... the sooner you realise this, the less pride you will have to eat, ok

The patient lingers...

1) I notice how you propose absolutely no justification of any kind for your numbers. My statistic of 12% is based on the nationally accepted poverty-line estimate (although it may have changed slightly since I last checked), quality-of-life studies, economic analysis, and a good foundation in Marxist theory (remember, I used to be a stupid pinko just like you). Please explain how you would distribute an ever-shrinking resource pool to an ever-growing population without drastically lowering the quality of life for the vast majority of the nation. Be specific, none of that ranting bullshit.

2) The richest are the ones who steal the most? And the "elite" don't work as hard? Have you ever even been to America? American society has its fair share of hucksters, but name one society that doesn't. Simply because of Enron and the accompanying corporate scandals, you seem to think that American culture is full of thievery. But these kinds of individuals exist within EVERY society. The fact that you don't hear about them as much outside America is a testament to the fact that we're better at catching them.

All of this hinges, of course, on the assumption that you're talking about actual coercive theft. If you've just decided to label the pursuit of profit as "stealing" because it neatly dismisses an activity that you cannot directly challenge with facts and logic, that's another can of scorpions entirely.

3) You claim that doctors and teachers are so very mistreated, while CEOs live pampered lives. If only it were so simple as that, eh?
I don't know why you seem to think doctors have it so bad. Most make hundreds of thousands a year, officially placing them in the "wealthiest" tax bracket. I happen to know a lot of doctors, living as close to the Mayo clinic as I do, and they all have sweet cars and big houses. Poor babies.And the reason teachers have it so bad is largely because of the kind of socialist policies you're touting. Remember, most education is public. That means that, rather than being paid a higher wage due to their value and rarity, teachers have their pay decided by a committee in the state capital that would rather use that money for other things. Imagine if we were a socialist nation, and a committee had the final say on EVERY economic decision?

The vast majority of CEOs are individuals who have pursued their goals through several levels of education and many years hustling for cred in the private sector. Contrary to popular belief, they don't end up at the top of the pyramid because they were born there. Bill Gates, for instance, was just some middle-class kid with a passion for computers and some good business sense. Today he's the richest man in the world. His daddy doesn't own the company; he went and started it himself.

4) Regardless of who pays for the campaigns in this country, it is THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who actually cast the ballots and decide who will be the next president. Big corporations do not "decide" who will be president. The point of giving donations is to ingratiate yourself with the candidate who is most likely to win. Christ, you can't even get your conspiracy theories right.

5) No, I don't support Che Guevara. You'd think that would be more than clear from the tone of my posts thus far, but I guess not.

If I was a Cuban, would I fight the U.S. invasion? Hell yeah! Nobody's got the right to come and impose himself on me. By that same logic, when Che and the gang came around to my place, hoping to confiscate my property in the name of "the People" (i.e. the Rulers), I'd give them something to think about, too. Why is aggression and theft okay when it's committed by a communist? Wrong is wrong.

6) How are the other people who see the illogical nature of your argument "sycophants?" And I agree that calling you names doesn't mean you've lost. The fact that you're utterly full of shit and unable to come out of your marxist dreamworld and consider logic is why you've lost. I just call you names because, well, because they're pretty accurate descriptions of your intellect.

Dumbass.

Let another round of collective ass-slaping begin!.

Great post!

I do not understand his claim that plagarism is rampant. Are you talking about school or is someone going around and ripping off entire books?

quote:

---

Doctors and Teachers and Nurses get a fraction of what is given to the capitalists who do a fraction of the work and have a fraction of the skill. Yet they have the immorality to exploit so they win.

---

Medicine and education are highly socialized. Looks like the very system you advocate is responsible for life being unfair. It is also funny, because you consider doctors and nurses valued because of their medical skill, yet you then go on to say that one should be paid for how hard they work. If the doctors truly wanted a good life, under your system, they should throw down their toung depressors and grab a shovel.

quote:

---

You can't educate a dougie... that's not their fault, so why should they suffer? And again... It's not the ones who work hard who would suffer, it's the ones who don't work at all - the elite.

---

If the dougie produces nothing, why should he drain society by recieving more than he produces?

Do you have any concept of financial systems or investment? The money of the rich fuels society. It is because of them that many people have jobs.

Your system doesn't work, it will never work. Communism is based upon coercion and power. Communism is not love. It is a drain upon society as a whole. Your claims of exploitation are largely groundless. You deny freedom of contract and the effects of competition. You are ass licker.

12% may be below the poverty line. But the poverty line is well well well poorer than the average wage. In fact the national average wage is nearly $78,000 (in 1997). Under Communism therefore, that figure would remain the same. But, the median salary (ie, if you were to put the people in ascending order from highest to lowest wage the median would be the guy in the dead centre) is $44,000 (approximately). So that means that 50% of the US population are under $44,000. And under Communism would earn $78,000, that's not counting the people who earn under 78,000 but over 44,000, who would also benefit. Estimate must be 75% would benefit and 25% would not. How can that not make sense?

Doctors work fucking hard, much harder than black-collar workers, so they should get more luxuries.

"If the dougie produces nothing, why should he drain society by recieving more than he produces?" Good point not so well made, but I think Jesus himself once said "If you have two coats and you see a man who has none... give him one of your coats" That's a hideous misquote but it's the the right sentiment, and your fucking bible bashing racist southern buddies ought to realise that.

"Your system doesn't work, it will never work. Communism is based upon coercion and power. Communism is not love. It is a drain upon society as a whole. Your claims of exploitation are largely groundless."

WHAT? WHAT? What the hell is that all about? Exploitation is fully grounded, when a guy does $100 dollars of work and gets 2p of it, that is exploitation. Or is it a case of the poor sucker merely accepting his role in your wierd society. "It's okay he's a chink".

"Collective ass-slapping" the collective idiocy can't actually string a single cohesive sentence between you but then I suppose you've had an American education, so what can you expect? (below the belt I know)

ChuckStone, all I have to say is this: bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. When the Che was captured, he was not tortured. His captors respected him so much that the soldier tasked with executing him couldn't even pull the trigger. Che just plainly said: "Go ahead, shoot."
He was not shot in the head, as they wanted to make his death look like it happened during a battle. Moreover, his body was not amputated; it was brought out to the public for an exhibition of their feared and determined enemy.
You might agree with Che's ideas, but you only sound stupid when you critize other political or social ideas just to prove a point. You probably haven't even had experience with those ideas yourself.
And about the so-called "freedom fighters", their cause has deteriorated to such a point that they don't care about the people they were supposed to liberate. Currently they only care about the money they make by holding innocent people hostage or raiding towns and killing all their inhabitants.
They only want to satisfy their personal greed. I know this first hand, as I've experienced such things in Latin America.
Try moving to a Latin American country engulfed by civil war and you'll see how quickly your senseless ideas change.

quote:

---

but I think Jesus himself once said "If you have two coats and you see a man who has none... give him one of your coats" That's a hideous misquote but it's the the right sentiment

---

You see though, there is a difference between the charity that Jesus talked about and the distribution by the gun that you are talking about. Charity is by choice. Taxation is by coercion. I am not a better man for paying my taxes so someone on welfare can have their "burden" relieved. I am a better man for donating to charitable causes. You want to institutionalize charity, enforce it with a gun, and justify if with some Robin Hood bullshit.

quote:

---

your fucking bible bashing racist southern buddies ought to realise that.

---

? What the hell?

quote:

---

Exploitation is fully grounded, when a guy does $100 dollars of work and gets 2p of it, that is exploitation. Or is it a case of the poor sucker merely accepting his role in your wierd society. "It's okay he's a chink".

---

All products are made of land, labor, and capital goods. This means that the price is composed of rent for the land, wages for the labor, and interest for the capital goods. The worker is not responsible for the finished product per se. The workers final take home wage is determined by the implicit cost of the raw materials he is working with and the interest he is paying for use of the capital goods. The worker could leave the corporation and work for himself, but he is losing the access he had to raw materials and his production suffers from the lack of quality capital goods. Capital goods are especially important becuase while all by himself the worker might produce 5 units of product x, with the proper capital goods, however, he produces 10 units of the product. Part of his wage is a deffered payment to the owners of the capital goods.

The point of this little example is that while labor assemblies the product, they are entirely dependent upon the owners to provide the materials and tools that they need to work productively. The owners bear the burden of having to finance the vast ammount of capital that is need to successfully operate the factory. Even if worker produces a product that sells for $100 dollars, if all he does is fold the flap down on a box, the why the hell shouldn't he be paid little. In and off himself, he is not an indespensible part and he is easily replacable, this is what determines his wage. The fact that he may be a chink is purely coincidence.

1) The point I was making with that 12% number is not that 12% live below the median (that would seem to contradict basic mathematical sense). My point was, only those 12% approach a quality of life prevalent around the world, including those nations that subsist primarily through a socialized economic system.

Your little mathematical jig is entertaining, but ultimately groundless. There's more at work here than simple median incomes and averages. Socialism, more than any other economic system, suffers from a chronic case of diminishing returns. Right after the revolution (or whatever), the citizens may receive something not unlike 78 grand a year. But the costs of maintaining a command economy ultimately takes its toll. There is absolutely no way in hell that a group of individuals, no matter how educated and dedicated they are, to accurately predict the factors within an entire market. Nobody ever has, and barring the introduction of computers well beyond the scope of current econometric technology, nobody will. Nobody.

Now, of course, you can make educated guesses. Lou Dobbs and the folks over at Moneyline do it everyday. But when people on TV make educated economic guesses, a lot of people don't listen, so if it's wrong (as it often is) an infinitesimally small portion of the economy is harmed. However, under a socialized system, you are FORCED to take the economic "advice" of the planners. When they're wrong, the ENTIRE ECONOMY can be severely effected. Witness Nikita Kruschev's "Guns & Butter" initiative. Nik decided that he could, through the shuffling of various economic assets, defeat the United States in production of both weaponry and food. Nikita shuffled wrong, and the USSR ended up with both starving citizens and a poorly equipped military force.

The trouble of predicting economic trends, combined with a massively bloated buearacracy and a declining work ethic means that the system takes in fewer and fewer resources, while becoming responsible for more and more people (through simple population growth). Ultimately, people starve to death and restore a temporary equilibrium, or the people throw the communists out on their asses.

If you'll go back and read my last post more closely, you'll see that I asked not how you would initially distribute resources, but how you would continue to maintain that level of prosperity in the face of a fundamentally unsound economy. The question remains unanswered.

2) Even in the midst of your stupid marxist dogma, you think in terms of supply & demand. Doctors do not work harder than a CEO. It's just that their work is more important to society. Importance = Value = DEMAND. The reasons doctors should get more is because they are more in demand. Even you see the wisdom of supply & demand, though you apparently don't realize it.

3) Now, if we quoted from the bible, you'd call us a bunch of bible-belt hicks. Oh wait, you already did. Never mind the fact that a) I live in Minnesota, b) I haven't been to church in three years, and c) I was a member of an extremely moderate denomination. As long as we're making baseless character assaults, I'll call you a child-raping gorilla. I don't have any evidence to back that up, but then, that doesn't seem to be a big concern to you.

4) I'm not real sure what you meant with that whole "exploitation" rant. It seems to me like your definition of "exploitation" is "a worker offering his skills voluntarily for a previously agreed upon price commensurate with the level of demand for his abilities." Because that's exactly what you described. At no point in the transaction is the worker forced to do anything. There is NO coercion present in the deal. Nobody is forced to do anything. Communism, on the other hand, forces every man, woman, and child in a society to act as cogs in a machine, lest the blessed Rulers miss a quota.

5) Your comment about American education is partibularly ironic, considering that is by far the most socialized portion of American society. The very system you tout as supposedly superior is responsible for producing the intellects that you decry as inferior. Either way, you're a dumbass.

Well, I won't take any more of your time, as I'm sure you've gotta lure more children into your cage and rape them. Gosh, these character assaults sure are fun. Thanks for the idea.

There's no reason why the economy should suffer as a result of Communism. Using the USSR model of Communism, the economy suffered masssively following the death of Lenin. But... in a predominately agricultural nation, Stalin's policy on farming was to blame for that. The kulaks who by definition are the most efficient farmers were executed... stupid thing to do really, execute all the good farmers (see modern Zimbabwe)

But on the China model, the economy did actually improve (although not immediately, a civil war can do a lot of damage to the economy) and the same goes for Cuba... despite the inherent massive defence budget required because of one paticular little bastard threatening to wage all out nuclear war purely on the basis of Communism. Some of the smaller Communist countries in SE Asia and the Eastern Bloc never really came out of the civil war phase, but they were militarily too weak to defend against you. Russia and China have the advantage of being well armed before you started threatening them on no basis whatsoever.

The people in the Communist country will work just as hard and produce just as much as under any other system, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it will de detrimentally affected. Some will be lost to corruption, but then that is also true of Capitalism. And some money will be lost to control, but what are management? It's just the same but different (I hope you notice the irony).

Perhaps the Communist system needs to be refined slightly, but Russia were the first. They fucked up big style. Yet despite your ignorant grunting otherwise, Cuba is a relatively prosperous, peaceful and happy place to live, just having 1950s Buicks does not mean they are oppressed.

[QUOTE]Even in the midst of your stupid marxist dogma, you think in terms of supply & demand. Doctors do not work harder than a CEO. It's just that their work is more important to society. Importance = Value = DEMAND. The reasons doctors should get more is because they are more in demand. Even you see the wisdom of supply & demand, though you apparently don't realize it. [QUOTE]
You are so very very right I hate to admit it but you are. Although we do lay down to much emphasis on the wrong things. We need medical staff, teachers and firemen. But how badly do we need reams and reams of management teams and CEOs and lawyers. America needs lawyers becasue part of it's wealth distribution system involves a rich guy suing a super rich guy. And then when the super rich guy get's just rich, he sues someone else.

Under Communism, we are all just cogs in a machine, but thatis the same for Capitalism, ands every other system bar Anarchy. You work because you have to, if you scrapped your job today you would lose wealth and respect. That is the coercion. You are forced into school at 7 where you are told the evils of Communism, the beauty of America,and the importance of getting a job... the only difference is that under Communism you know where you stand.

The educated are more socialist? What does that tell you?

The economy was devastated AFTER Lenin's death? People were starving for most of the time Lenin was in power, starting from the civil war. Conditions got so bad Lenin had to use his NEP which was somewhat capitalist.

That is true, but I would only say that the economy was damaged during Lenin's reign - but the people were still actually a lot better off than under the Tsar. Stalin managed to top his authoritarianism and uncompassion. Lenin was a revolutionary leader and by definition, was selected by the people in a democratic way (you can never win a revolution without the support of the nation, you might as well be elected, but in Tsarist Russia that was not possible). Stalin however won his position by corruption and and by decieving the people. Stalin is just yet another massive fuck up in the mould of Hitler and George W Bush.

How do you imagine Lenin's Russia would have fared in a peaceful Russia - the Russia envisaged by Lenin himself. The whole point of the Bolshevik revolution was to bring peace after all. Obviously we can't tell for sure but I guarantee that it would have prospered quite a bit.

1) Even as you talk of the stupidity of executing kulaks, you're still touting the very same thing - the punishing of the individuals possessing the most resources. In both cases the individuals produce far less (or nothing) because of the punishment. This is another difficulty in attaining a perpetually high income under communism.

I'm really not sure why you're convinced that managers don't do anything. Perhaps due to some info I haven't stumbled upon - I'm honestly just not getting it. CEOs get where they are by being the best at running a productive company. Under the current system, the guy who's best for the job ends up there. If he screws it up, either he gets fired, or the company tanks and its market share goes to a better company.

But, if you can't ever get one of those high-pay CEO positions, nobody tries. Prestige is nice and all, but when it gets down to it, our evolutionary tendency to acquire further resources wins. If the promise of greater riches for greater talent isn't present, there's no reason to deal with the greater responsibilities and headaches.

So you're punishing the CEOs by taking their money. Then, you're destroying any incentive to rise to a similar position. In doing so, you destroy any desire to learn the economic and organizational skills necessary to run a company/collective/whatever. So who the hell is gonna run the economy? There's more to being a manager than chilling with your hot secretary in the executive washroom. You need very unique skills, and without them the economy flounders.

2) America's "wealth distribution system involves a rich guy suing a super rich guy?" Wow, I thought our economy was based on the free exchange of goods and services, but apparently it's all people suing each other. Perhaps you could back this up with some hard numbers?

3) Expecting you to actually contribute something to society in return for your share of the wealth is not "coercion." At no point is physical force present in the employer-employee relationship. Nobody is forced to do anything.

The difference between communism and capitalism isn't that you "know where you stand." It's that, under capitalism, if you decide that your lifestyle isn't worth the pain of working, you can quit any time you like. Go ahead! Flee the hive; forego the honey as well as the sting.

Under communism, the same situation presents a hell of a conundrum. If somebody doesn't wanna work anymore, what do you do? If you just cut off his ration and let him starve, then you haven't in any way improved over capitalism. If you continue to feed him, you provide a massive incentive for others to quit their jobs and ride for free. With fewer and fewer people working, but the same or greater numbers of people requiring support, at some point your economy will sputter and die.

4) No, dumbass, I did not say that the educated are more socialist. I said that the educational establishment in this country is run through primarily socialist practices, and that it has failed because of this. Crappy though my American education may be, they did at least teach me to read. Look into it.

Chuck, one simple question:

When you make your statements about China, Cuba, or any other communist country and the people in it, stating how happy they are and how communism helped them, are you doing it from personal experience with those people, or from what your socialist teachers (wherever you learned your opinions from) told you?

I have never been to China or Cuba, so let's get that out on the table. But I have taken courses from Chinese and Cuban professors, read books by Chinese, Russian, and Cuban historians, and listened to stories told by emigres from Eastern Bloc fmr Soviets and China, and they never look on communism or even socialism favorably.

The history taught is not one of liberation and economic equality. It's invariably one of corruption, elitism, nepotism, murder, incarceration, and "reeducation."

I say you'll grow out of your ideas because you will. When you tell me that you could say the same about me, I wonder how old you think I am. The difference between you and me is that I've already gone through my socialist phase, where I thought forced redistribution was fair.

Here's the problem with everything you've ever said about socialism: it's built on a fantasy of how people actually work. Communism failed not because the US destroyed it (although it certainly did it's part to black its expansion), but because people did not want to live under such a failure of a system.

Russians shrugged off their communist parasites themselves, and as capitalism is still foreign to them they are experiencing problems adapting (though I predict improvement in the future, and I'm not alone in this). China is communist in theory only, being very much the capitalist nation. Its size and population make it an interesting country to watch transform from socialist to capitalist, as its octogenarian leadership begins to croak and we see reformers come into power (in the shape of Deng Xiaoping and hopefully others to come in the next decade). Cuba's socialism rests in its leadership...you might be surprised what happens after Fearless Leader Fidel goes to the big commune in the sky.

Communism is going through its final stages, those of ersatz government and shifting public support. Collapse is inevitable and imminent, whereupon we'll read about it only in our history books.

Lucky me, I had that whole socialism thing out of my system by the time I was fifteen (I started early, though).

And Vox makes an excellent point - very few people who have ever suffered the depredations of socialism would agree with you on the subject. How many people, pray tell, have paddled an inner tube ninety miles to get INTO Cuba?

A few hundred actually. Cuba made groundbreaking medical developements and invented treatements for terminal cancers that aren't available in the United States. Since there's a trade embargo that goes both ways, we have no access to these treatments, and Americans aren't legally allowed to go to Cuba to recieve them. Therefore, a few hundred people through the years illegally travelled to Cuba to recieve Cancer treatment.

Granted, many more people escaped Cuba and came here, but we're not the country being blockaded, they are. If we had no access to any resources we didn't produce ourselves, we'd be much worse of fthen Cuba.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
If we had no access to any resources we didn't produce ourselves, we'd be much worse off then Cuba.

---

I sincerely doubt that, considering research and development done on everything under the sun in the US...not to mention the abundant natural resources we have. Cuba might be screwed by an embargo, but the US puts tariffs and sanctions on imports all the time, and I think we would probably do rather well without any imports (things would just be more expensive).

And I'm curious what this cancer treatment is...it's one thing to embargo cigars and liquor, but I don't see how we could stop the flow of information. I've lost family members to cancer, I'm really curious to know, not trying to be sarcastic.

Its not that the information is not there, he is merely claiming that since the FDA prohibits certain types of Medical treatements, a country such as Cuba that has not such restrictions would obviously benefit from desperate patients seeking a restricted cure.

This is a strange notion that if you ask a CUban who is not in Cuba or Chinese who is not in China, then you get a hideously biased argument against the country that they clearly dislike enough to leave. It's not totally useless, but almost.

The reason people break their back to leave Cuba is becasue they are not allowed into their recieving nation. Cuba's immigration policy is very lenient. Anyone who wnats to live in Cuba is more than welcome provided they are allowed out of their home country, and anyone who doesn't like Cuba is told to leave. I refer you to the "Cuban Exiles" from 1959, who were prostitutes. They were told to either learn a trade and get cleaned up of STIs, and stop being a prossie... of fuck off. WHich many did, and went to live in the USA which has a large market for their particular wares.

I like this idea that so many Americans put forwrd that Casatro is evil, he forces his people to live under a reign of tyrranny in his Caribbean hell. Whil he himself lives a life of luxury by stealing from the people. It is of course bullshit and most Americans know jack shit about a country only 90 miles from their own which dominates a significant portion of their history.

I must remind you that USA is huge. It consists of desert, tundra, forest, urban, plains and basically every kind of environment in existence. More importantly it is sat on the location of some of the largest reserves of every ntural resource in the world. USA is 100% self-sufficient if neccessary. Cuba has 2 exports, sugar and tobbacco. Now how the fuck do you expect this tiny little island to flourish when comapared to the fat fuckers to the north?

Why would Cuba want to share it's information with a country who is trying it's hardest to make it poor.

quote:

---

The reason people break their back to leave Cuba is becasue they are not allowed into their recieving nation

---

I thought the US allowed Cuban exiles to stay in the country indefinitely.

Developements do ocur in the US, but I don't think they would ife didn't have any advanced technology for research, or money to fund it We have hundreds of billions of dollars to do our research and make advanced developements - Cuba has almost nothing. Try reversing the figures, and add a blockade so we have no access to goods or services. I bet alot more people would be fleeing this country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
I refer you to the "Cuban Exiles" from 1959, who were prostitutes. They were told to either learn a trade and get cleaned up of STIs, and stop being a prossie... of fuck off. WHich many did, and went to live in the USA which has a large market for their particular wares.

---

Chucky,

A piece of friendly advice: Make sure that you exercise this part of your freedom of speech in good old Sheffield, England and not in Miami, Florida. And one more thing, check the accuracy of your "facts". Yet again I have to hold back the barf reflex when I read your posts. Soon I will start editing the falsehoods from your posts. You have been warned.

Nox

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vox:
When you make your statements about China, Cuba, or any other communist country and the people in it, stating how happy they are and how communism helped them, are you doing it from personal experience with those people, or from what your socialist teachers (wherever you learned your opinions from) told you?[QUOTE]
Cuba, it has to be my own experience. And before that, I would've believed what you believe too. China I have to admit I have pieced together from accounts from my Grandmother and from my friends in the local Chinese restaurant... needless to say Sheffield does actually have a very small Chinese population.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Armed&Angry
Lucky me, I had that whole socialism thing out of my system by the time I was fifteen (I started early, though). [QUOTE]
And then the thought police got to you huh? Many more people have suffered at the hands of Capitalism. And you can't go to you local Sunshine State to see them because Indonesians can't afford inner tubes. Millions of people are starving and toiling to do it so that you can afford your McDonalds and your CocaCola. Remember that, for one man to be super rich, another has to pisspoor. Money is not infinite, we can't all be super rich, yet we can all be comfortably rich. It's because of the duper rich that millions of people are in extreme poverty and work 22hour days to pay for them. You are lucky, remember that. When you complain that you don't have enough money etc. and you have to live in a trailer in Arkansas you would consider yourslef poor, but most people would give their left leg to be in that position.

Are you SURE this topic isn't about ME?

Wjy should I bust my balls working or inovatiing when the best I can get is comfortable, and that level is achieved if I just show up and wank off? When you cap the achievable limits of success, you destroy the drive to work hard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
Cuba, it has to be my own experience. And before that, I would've believed what you believe too.

---

Just when and where in Cuba did you obtain "my own experience"? Methinks you confuse your local Cuban club with having been there. Mega difference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
China I have to admit I have pieced together from accounts from my Grandmother and from my friends in the local Chinese restaurant... needless to say Sheffield does actually have a very small Chinese population.

---

At least you are not trying to claim you've been there. However, second hand, biased opinions do not make for good objective facts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
And then the thought police got to you huh?

---

Who got to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
And you can't go to you local Sunshine State to see them because Indonesians can't afford inner tubes. Millions of people are starving and toiling to do it so that you can afford your McDonalds and your CocaCola. Remember that, for one man to be super rich, another has to pisspoor. Money is not infinite, we can't all be super rich, yet we can all be comfortably rich. It's because of the duper rich that millions of people are in extreme poverty and work 22hour days to pay for them. You are lucky, remember that. When you complain that you don't have enough money etc. and you have to live in a trailer in Arkansas you would consider yourslef poor, but most people would give their left leg to be in that position.

---

What does this mean? Your sense of Geography is off.

Nox

Chucky, the majority of the exhiles were millionaire investmers, land owners, or casino operators.

NukeChild, your critisism of socialism is the most common rationalization used to support capitalism. "In Communist countries, those who work hard get the same benefits as those who do nothing."

This is the same for capitalist countries. A working class American needs two jobs to have a roof over his head. The majority of Americans earn $25,000 a year, and work alot harder then the minority - the wealthy. Wealthy CEO's proffit off work done by others. Investment bankers and other generally high paying positions pour in the dollars for alot less effort then it takes to work three jobs to support your kids.

In socialism, everybody is forced to make a combined effort, because the more they produce, the more the people recieve as a whole. This is alot fairer then the flawed capitalist system that confines the majority of it's citizens to near poverty.

Chuck has outlined that near poverty in the US is something most people would give their left leg for.

As for the collective work argument in favor of socialism, we come back to the essential flaw within this line of reasoning: people have never and will never work in this sort of way. Humans are selfish (like every other animal in the world) and work for their own benefit. There is no motivation in the promise that my working harder will help improve the standard of living for someone I don't even know (who isn't certain to work harder himself).

When you work hard, buid your wealth, and have kids, do you want them to have to start from scratch, where you did? Fuck no, you want them to have it better than you did, and start from an advantageous position. Well, so do all the rich people in the world. Their kids have it better than most. So what? And their are plenty of children who come from poor, laboring families in the US that use their talent and the system they grow up in to learn, excel, and build their own wealth to higher than $25k. I promise you, they don't want to see their work cancelled out by socialism any more than the top 5% do.

Socialism fails because nobody wants it to succeed but those who cannot function in society and have nothing to provide but that which deserves a subsistence wage. In the US, that is a small minority of the country. The $25k figure is false, as the median household income in 2001 was $42,228. The closest thing to $24k is per capita income, which isn't bad considering 6 million householders reporting are between 15-24 yrs old, and there are 282 million total people reporting.

(http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-218.pdf page 10).

If you doubt this data do your own census.

By the way, the top 60% own 87% of the wealth, not a bad proportion if you ask me. If you would like to decry the fact that 5% own 22%, or the top 20% own 50%, be my guest. My advice to you is to break into the top 20%, if you can.

I promise you 60% of this country is not interested in giving back what they have earned.

edit:

Also, If you look a little further down the stats, you will see that this evil system of capitalism, which must be getting worse and worse, is actually improving things for people across the board. Over the last thirty-five years, more households are getting richer...but the poor are getting richer, too---rather remarkable when you look at population increases over that span.

Page 21 shows, in 2001 adjusted dollars, that over all races, households with less than $5000 have gone from 5.7-3.1% of the population; $5k-$10k, from 8.9%-5.9%; $10k-$15k, 7.7%-6.9%; $15k-$25k, 15.9-13.3; $25k-$35k, 16.9%-12.4%; $35k-$50k, 22.1%-15.4%. In fact, those making over $75,000 increased from 7.3% of the population to 24%.

In other words, in thirty-five years, we've reduced those making less than $25k by 33% and tripled the amount of households that rake in over $75k.

Now that's a good, fair redistribution of wealth.


[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 12-05-2002).]

Uncle, what is this "confined to near poverty" bullshit? Perhaps you could give me a number on how many people are confined to "near poverty?" Is it about 13%? That's the number I usually hear, according to federal statistics. And this begs the question, what is your definition of a "majority?"

Vox, nice research! Here's another interesting fact of which you might not be cognizant. As of January 2002, about half of all American workers (53%, if memory serves) own stock in a major corporation, often the corporation they work for. This means that the marxist dream of workers having a share of the decision-making is gradually coming true... THROUGH CAPITALISM!!! Delightful, is it not? How the fates play their games.

And Chuck, if your definition of thought police is "intellectuals with an actual grasp on economics, politics, philosophy, and human nature in general," then yes, I have indeed fallen to their machinations.

Armed, you kill me...I fell under the sway of those thought police and their decades of research as well, LOL...

I love how socialists ignore the fact that capitalism isn't a self-destructive system, like Marx claimed...it's very much a self perpetuating system that encourages growth and prosperity, that makes everyone richer as time goes by.

"love how socialists ignore the fact that capitalism isn't a self-destructive system, like Marx claimed...it's very much a self perpetuating system that encourages growth and prosperity, that makes everyone richer as time goes by."

Just a question... Where does all the wealth come from to make everyone richer? EVERYONE???????
That's impossible! There is a finite amount of wealth and it all belongs to someone. Communism is about evenly distributing this to those who need it most. Capitalism is about taking it from one set of people to give it straight to another set of people! For one man to get richer.... another must get poorer. THAT IS A FACT!!!!!!

Under Communism, the poor get richer but the rich get poorer. (Most of you seem to be a bit stupid here, that does NOT mean totally, but to an extent)

There is no way that Capitalism can make EVERYONE richer... in fact Id say it makes the majority involved substantially poorer. However, you are too self obsessed to realise you are causing great suffering to so many people to pay for your gross obesity.

I would estimate that maybe 0.5% actually earn what they should. The other 99.5% either gain less, or more than you actually earn. ANyone who is getting paid a fat wad to sit on their grotesquely large arses are getting that at the expense of the people who work their bollocks to the bone for shit all.

NukeChild's claim that he is busting his balls for the same benefits of wanking off is verry very very innacurate. The fact is, someone somewhere is busting his balls right now and will go home with enough to buy one bottle of White Cider and a baseball cap. While Mr. Fatbastard who owns Iexploitu Indudtries probably earns several million a year to sit on his huge arse and sack people. While John Doe is paying for that.

Nox! How the fuck can I write for Cuba Si! if I don'tt actually go to Cuba on a regular basis you moron?

quote:

---

Just a question... Where does all the wealth come from to make everyone richer? EVERYONE???????
That's impossible! There is a finite amount of wealth and it all belongs to someone.

---

Wrong. Resources are not finite. Wealth is a function of production and technology. Everyone is getting richer and this is seen not only in the rising income, but in an increase in the PPP, Purchasing Price Parity, which means they can buy more with their money.

quote:

---

There is no way that Capitalism can make EVERYONE richer... in fact Id say it makes the majority involved substantially poorer. However, you are too self obsessed to realise you are causing great suffering to so many people to pay for your gross obesity

---

Capitalism is based upon people freely contracting with each other. Unlike Communism, you are not forced to work and accept whatever you are given. This means that in Capitalism, people only contract when they feel that there will be mutual benefit. As for being unelighened, I could make the same claim of you.

quote:

---

I would estimate that maybe 0.5% actually earn what they should. The other 99.5% either gain less, or more than you actually earn. ANyone who is getting paid a fat wad to sit on their grotesquely large arses are getting that at the expense of the people who work their bollocks to the bone for shit all.

---

How do you know what people should earn? What gives you the enlightenment to determine what is a fair wage and what is not. Tell me o'Grand Central Planner, what is is that people should be paid?

quote:

---

NukeChild's claim that he is busting his balls for the same benefits of wanking off is verry very very innacurate.

---

No, its very accurate. If I cannot exceded my pay level, then why should I put in more effort than the very minimum required to get through the day. You also cannot exclude me from benefits and let me starve, as that would be no better than Capitalism, so I can just sit and wank it.

quote:

---

While Mr. Fatbastard who owns Iexploitu Indudtries probably earns several million a year to sit on his huge arse and sack people.

---

You have no idea how a business is run do you. People just show up, get exploited, and miraculously, there are products on the shelves. This is such a gross exageration of reality that it is insulting to even achknowledge it.

I take it back, I may be unelightened, but you are just fucking ignorant of how things work. Constant unsubstantiated class warfare proves nothing.

[This message has been edited by NukeChild (edited 12-07-2002).]

NukeChild, you really are an idiot.

quote:

---

Wrong. Resources are finite. Wealth is a function of production and technology. Everyone is getting richer and this is seen not only in the rising income, but in an increase in the PPP, Purchasing Price Parity, which means they can buy more with their money.

---

You are such an idiot! Americans might all be getting richer, but you can bet your bottom dollar (with which you can buy so much more with now...)that someone somewhere is working their bollocks off dor that to be possible. That is not an estimate, it is a fact! Anything else is a lie mate.

quote:

---

Capitalism is based upon people freely contracting with each other. Unlike Communism, you are not forced to work and accept whatever you are given. This means that in Capitalism, people only contract when they feel that there will be mutual benefit. As for being unelighened, I could make the same claim of you.

---

In case you haven't noticed... I am putting forward the idea of "Socialism", not pure Communism. The hard workers are rewarded more than the lazy fuckers, just in line with how hard they work. You can equate all work with a price (ie, the cost to the person doing the work), wages should be in line with that cost (maybe slightly more). And as I have said COUNTLESS times but you fucking idiot cannot seem to understand, the real problem is that CEOs and the like get paid vast amounts to do nothing, or at most very little. And it's completely unarguable that their job is vital to the running of the company either.

Think of this as a potential idea...
Every industry and commercial venture is owned by the state (ie owned by the people in it). Any person can go out and get a job in any industry but is paid by the government, which from the persons point of view is just the same as in a Capitalist system. All profits from these "businesses" go into the coffers of the state, and can go towards the smooth running of the country such as free health care (something I think should be a basic human right) and free education for all. Taxes could then be very very low and one could still gain the same benefits. If a particular industry suffers a temporary decline, the workers needn't suffer wage cuts, as other more successful industries would subsidise it. In this occaision we obliterate the need for CEOs and other big business owners (who are the enemy) and the entire country is ultimately run by the people. The country would produce just as much as previously, yet none of it ends up in the hands of the laziest bastard who does nothing. Thus everyone else ends up better off.

I don't know if it's Communism or Socialism or what it is, but how can this not sund like the better way of doing things.

Capitalism is an incredibly self destructive system. Look at how high the gaps between the rich and the poor are. Capitalist countries generate more welath then socialist contries, but the wealth doesn't benefit the majoriy of the people.

Socialism requires totalitarian control in order to redistribute the wealth. Otherwise the poor realise that their services aren't in demand (except for subsistence wages) so they don't get paid.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NukeChild, you really are an idiot.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Resources are finite. Wealth is a function of production and technology. Everyone is getting richer and this is seen not only in the rising income, but in an increase in the PPP, Purchasing Price Parity, which means they can buy more with their money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are such an idiot! Americans might all be getting richer, but you can bet your bottom dollar (with which you can buy so much more with now...)that someone somewhere is working their bollocks off dor that to be possible. That is not an estimate, it is a fact! Anything else is a lie mate.

---

You quote me but don't really respond to the heart of that quote about wealth increasing.

The entirety of the world is getting richer. Look at the developments of Korea, Japan, China, and India. All systems are capitalistics and none of them are America. I repeat again, trade would not exist if both parties did not benefit. The inherent competition of capitalism insures that only high quality goods are produced.

In Capitalism there is the incentive to work your bollocks off. This incentive applies to every level of management and all the workers on the assembly line. Management works hard? How? The answer is quite simple, they can not pay themselves those "exorbitant" wages from profits that don't exist. The incentive of management is to streamline the production process, build a unit of product more efficiently, build a more effective product, delivering the good to the consumer in the quickest most cost effective method possible, and expanding the productive assets of the business. Think of the hated ceo as your beloved Central Planner. The job description of the Central Planner is almost identical to that of the CEO, so don't give me crap about being paid to do nothing. Think of a business as a ship, the workers being the sailors. Sure, there are a bunch of hard working sailors on board, but without the direction and co-ordination of effort provided by the Captain, the CEO, then nothing gets done.

quote:

---

In case you haven't noticed... I am putting forward the idea of "Socialism", not pure Communism. The hard workers are rewarded more than the lazy fuckers, just in line with how hard they work. You can equate all work with a price (ie, the cost to the person doing the work), wages should be in line with that cost (maybe slightly more). And as I have said COUNTLESS times but you fucking idiot cannot seem to understand, the real problem is that CEOs and the like get paid vast amounts to do nothing, or at most very little. And it's completely unarguable that their job is vital to the running of the company either.

---

You can equate all work with a price, yes, but how do you determine that price? If you are Centrally Planning it, then it is an arbitrary value that does not reflect worth. If you use the market, then you are using the very system that you criticize. The point here is that it is very easy to determine the material cost of the resources used to make a good, but very difficult, unless you use the market, to determine the cost of labor.

I have all-ready argued for the CEOs.

quote:

---

Every industry and commercial venture is owned by the state (ie owned by the people in it).

---

The only problem with this is that competition is removed. This eliminates the need to produce either efficient or effective goods as you will have a monopoly on the market. People will be forced to accept whatever shit is produced as their is no alternative to buy.

There would also be amzingly fewer products. Take Peanut Butter. Why would there be chunky, smooth, fat free, or even the kind with the Jam allready in it. With no profit incentive, these types of goods would not exist and the consumers would have no choice. If the state runs it, then why would they invest their resources in redundancy? They would just mass produce one product type and you are stuck with that.

quote:

---

Any person can go out and get a job in any industry but is paid by the government, which from the persons point of view is just the same as in a Capitalist system.

---

Except in Capitalism you are not guranteed a job and you have to be compotent enough to get it and hold it.

quote:

---

All profits from these "businesses" go into the coffers of the state, and can go towards the smooth running of the country such as free health care (something I think should be a basic human right) and free education for all. Taxes could then be very very low and one could still gain the same benefits.

---

If history has taught us anything, it is that the state is incompotent and that the market has produced comparable goods that are cheaper and more effective. "Free Health Care" is not free at all. It paid by the government and in all situations, it is more expensive than if it were bought by the citizens themselves. Why? Because people will overuse the system, they will overconsume and this will drag the system down. There is no incentive to streamline or manage costs as the government is taking care of it. Health Care is not right, it is a comodity that has to be produced like everything else and has to be distributed like everythings else. Look at Canada and their "free system", i know its not truly free. Look how long it takes to get an operation done. You scream scarcity, but then destroy the most effective method of rationing, price. At zero cost to themselves, people will overconsume, the "product" will be used up, and you will have really fucking huge shortages.

quote:

---

If a particular industry suffers a temporary decline, the workers needn't suffer wage cuts, as other more successful industries would subsidise it. In this occaision we obliterate the need for CEOs and other big business owners (who are the enemy) and the entire country is ultimately run by the people.

---

So you subsidize failure? What is the incentive to do a good job if you have the safety net. What will be the incentive to fix it properly if you are still protected if you mess up again. A few industries will do bad and in the process the entire system will be burdened and eventually crash into a firery ruin.

quote:

---

The country would produce just as much as previously, yet none of it ends up in the hands of the laziest bastard who does nothing. Thus everyone else ends up better off.

---

You have the business as being centrally planned and expect a better result than what Russia got? The governmental beureucrats are disassociated from the populous and do not know their needs or wants. Becuase the state controls the resources, the state controls production and the state does not know what people want.

quote:

---

I don't know if it's Communism or Socialism or what it is, but how can this not sund like the better way of doing things.

---

Replace your concept of a wage with the phrase: "ration card" and I think it becomes obvious what you are advocating, Communism. Just by excluding the bad workers, you lose your claim that everyone deserves a living. You are punishing those who through no fault of their own were not as educated or properly motivated, they are recieving less and that is not right. Just by differntiating that some deserve more than others you are vindicating capitalism. How much more do some deserve? That is what is decided by the market.

To Uncle

quote:

---

Capitalism is an incredibly self destructive system. Look at how high the gaps between the rich and the poor are. Capitalist countries generate more welath then socialist contries, but the wealth doesn't benefit the majoriy of the people.

---

The system is not self-destructive for the many reasons that I listed in the above and have listed in prior posts.

The gap between the rich and the poor is not inherently bad. It should also be noted that both "classes" are increasing in prosperity, it is just the inherent nature of wealth that those who have more of it are able to grow it faster. This is seen through investments.

To create money, you must spend money. By producing the most, we are also spending the most in production. This means that we employ more workers and have a higher demand for technology and skilled labor. What this means is that in conjunction with the above paragraph, our superior production allows all people to benefit from it faster, although some benefit more quickly that others.

Lots of people would consider me brave. I admit I don't like dying, but who does?

quote:

---

Originally posted by SATURNROCKETX:
Lots of people would consider me brave.

---

Who?

Why do they?

Nox

I'd go ahead and rebut Chuck's latest round of self-delusion, but it'd only be redundant. Goddamn, Nukechild, way to lay down the logic. I can't wait to see what level of ridiculous bullshit he comes up with to respond to it. I mean, Christ, Chuck, not only are you totally unfamiliar with economics, you don't even seem to have a very good grasp of marxist rhetoric.

And Saturn, I'm sure many people consider you brave. The only problem is that they

1) Are also incredibly racist
2) Do not hold positions of authority
3) Are NOT Natalie Portman

HAHAHA
Natalie Portman
HAHAHA

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Che would hate you so much. He'd probably call you an indulgent capitalist pig and shoot you.

---

That line doesn't work on people that don't want to have a million of che's babies unc. I mean wheras a line like that would upset people like you and your campus chapter of the self hating liberal society, my guess is that the intended recipeint of your oh so clever barb wasn't cut to the quick by your razor sharp wit.

The person the clever barb was aimed at started this topic and probably does want to have a million of Che's babies.

"Also, to date, nobody has rowed an inner tube ninety miles to get into Cuba."

LOL!

to chuck stone i sent you some mails
all are returned with
failure delivery quota exceeded

To PriceCharmant... make sure to send emails to my AOL account, as my hotmail account is crud and wants me to give them money, they can shove it up their ass if it wasn't so tight!

To NukeChild, I merely cite America as an example of capitalism. And the number of successful Capitalism probably totalls 20 or 30, out of over 130. And I couldn't give a shit about peanut butter.

You realise that in the British "free" health care system, people do over indulge and over consume in the pretence that they will get fixed for nowt. But it is a rarely noticed fact that it is these people who pay for the NHS in the first place with Tobbacco tax and Alcohol tax and other taxes on overconsumation. So it is paid for by those who "need" it most, but it's there for the people who can't afford it, through no fault of their own.

Armed&Angry, you persistantly claim I have no grasp of economics, but that is merely becasue I have an unconformist view. That does not make me wrong, and I can't say that you are wrong either. There is no right or wrong... just popular opinion. So I AM guilty of disagreeing with popular opinion, but it's only popular becasue it's established.

Nobody HAS to ride an inner tube IN becasue they are allowed in with open arms. I remind you that they are sneaking IN to USA, not sneaking out of Cuba.

quote:

---

To NukeChild, I merely cite America as an example of capitalism. And the number of successful Capitalism probably totalls 20 or 30, out of over 130.

---

If you mean wealthy/rich, the tax bracket of over 100,000 dollars annually, then I might be inclined to agree with you. The point to be made, however, is that over time, Capitalism benefits everyone. This requires saving and frugality and if every pay check is pissed away on luxuries, then it should not be a shock that some people move up in the world, while others don't.

You really should care about Peanut Butter. I choose that product as an example of how in the system that you proposed, their would be little product differentiation. How many types of cereal or toothpaste do you think would be produced? Choice would be limited as the government would be reluctant to invest in new capital goods that would render old ones worthless. Any new factory that makes a new and improved product will be capturing the market share of existing factories which means that the old factories will not need to produce as much. This means that workers will be laid off and machinery and other capital goods will become useless. The workers can be reabsorbed in the new factory, but the machinery and other assets, such as the building itself are non-transferrable. From the governments view, this is a waste, as once producitve machinery is now sitting useless, and unless they can charge more for the new product. Remember, the government allready gets the profits from any sale, so why whould they split market share between the two companies, lose the ammount they had invested in machinery, just to maintain a simmilar profit margin? In Capitalism, the loss is between two indiviudals, under yours, the entire market is burdened by this loss.

quote:

---

But it is a rarely noticed fact that it is these people who pay for the NHS in the first place with Tobbacco tax and Alcohol tax and other taxes on overconsumation. So it is paid for by those who "need" it most, but it's there for the people who can't afford it, through no fault of their own.

---

Even with the Tobacco and Alcohol tax, it is still a subsidy and that encourages over-consumption. You cannot argue that by the time a smoker gets lung cancer, he has paid for his treatment with his tobacco taxes. If he has, and that is the case, then their is no difference between having the tax and not, as he has allready paid the full price of treatment. With no tax, however, the treatment costs less and he is still paying for it, just not as much. The implication is that I can effectively indulge in any health hazardous activity with the knowledge that even if I do get sick with some sort of cancer or liver problem I have paid much less in taxes than what the actual treatment costs. You are also burdening those who consume in moderation, as their thrift is punished as they are paying for benefits that as a result of their moderation, they will not receive.

When the taxes are raised on alcohol and tobacco, people consume less. This lowers the funding for your social programs. The best reform for the system would be to privatize it. This would reduce the over-consumption that leads to high prices. It would encourage competition that increases efficiency, efficacy, and productivity. All of which lower prices. With the removal of price floors, a profit incentive is created to become a doctor and a greater supply of doctors also reduces costs. A reform of the FDA to allow pharmaceutical companies easier access to markets. Part of the reason that drugs are so expensice is becuase of all the legal hoops and crap the FDA puts the drug companies through. This raises the cost of production and effectively makes it impossible to develop drugs that treat rare illnesses that afflict small parts of the population. Any profit is wiped out throught the hell of development.

quote:

---

There is no right or wrong... just popular opinion.

---

No. Whether or not you know the world, the world is the way it is. I am torn between screaming and calm explanation. I will end it quietly and simply as this, when my opinion is based upon obeservations of the world and the interaction between people and the business dealings of companies, all of which are benefit maximizing individuals, I feel that it is safe to say that my "opinion" is a fair description of reality and therefore it is based in truth, not sophism or rhetoric.

Nuke, I hope by now you've understood the futility of arguing with Chucky as he knows everything and is infallible, since he's allegedly been to Cuba.

I'm sure you also know how stupid we sound arguing with evidence and history, when all of it is manufactured by our slavemaster government anyway---and the absolute truth lies in the speculation, experience, and vast intellect of a teenager in the UK.

No offense to those who know it doesn't apply to them, but this website needs more scholarship and less internet research.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS THE BRAVEST OR A FANATIC, BUT I ADMIRE CHE, HE WASN'T THE ONLY ONE THOUGH AND YEA lATIN AMERICA MOST DEFINETELY DOES SUFFER FROM AMERICAN IMPERIALISM, EVEN IF IT ISN'T OBVIOS POLITICAL IMPERIALISM, AND THOSE WHO DISAGREE - GUATAMALA, I BELIEVE 195O- SUMTHING, ARBENZ WAS DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED AND OVERTHROWN, I BELIVE IF NOT THE ENTIRE CIA, BUT CERTAINLY MEMBERS OF IT, DID ADMIT TO THE OVERTHROW - AND I THINK IT SUMTHING HAD TO DO WITH THE UNITED FRUIT COMPANY.(IT WAS IN THE NY TIMES MANY YEARS AGO, SO ITS NO CONSPIRACY THEORY) AND I AM SURE TO PROTECT THAT CO. AND MANY OTHERS LIKE IT THAT ROB LATIN AMERICA OF ITS PLENTIFULL NATURAL RESOURCES WHICH COULD FEED ALL OF ITS HUNGRY AND POOR AND MANY TIMES OVER, THE US GOV'T DOES DO LOTS OF HORRID THINGS.
F'ING KISSINGER IN OFFICE AND NOT BEHIND BARS IS EVIDENCE OF THE SHIT THAT US HAS AND CONTINES TO PULL IN LATIN AMERICA.
I MUST SAY THOUGH WHILE I BELIVE THE CIA IS ALWAYS UP TO NO GOOD BUSH IS JUST PURE EVIL, HIS DAD IS FORMER CIA (AND I AM CONVINCED HIS' BOYS' PUPPET MASTER) AND NOW ALL THESE EVIL BASTARDS ARE OUT OF THE CLOSET AND RAISING HELL OUTRIGHT IN PPL'S FACES AND FREAKING GETTING AWAY WITH IT, W/THE CROWDS CHEERING 'EM ON, AND LUVING EM ALL THE MORE FOR IT!!!
SCARY AS SHIT.

Vox,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
Nuke, I hope by now you've understood the futility of arguing with Chucky as he knows everything and is infallible, since he's allegedly been to Cuba.

---

Don't forget that yesterday he claimed he'd been to the US, however, he still hasn't answered my question as to when or where.

farwah,

Stop shouting, you hurt my eyes.

Nox

ChuckStone, the reason I keep claiming that you have no knowledge of economics is not because you are "unconformist." And stop saying that, it's just a buzzword used to impress women. I know, I've used it before.

The reason I belittle your economic sense is because you are WRONG. Believe it or not, there are such things as right or wrong. Does 2 + 2 = 4? Isn't there a right and wrong answer to that question?

Look, these really aren't hard concepts to get. Try picking up a copy of "The Road Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek sometime. Or, for the quick and dirty route to economic common sense, try "The Ten Things You Can't Say In America" by Larry Elder - he's a bit abrasive, but he's got a good head on his shoulders.

Read some good economic books, or don't. But whatever you do, stop pretending there isn't a right answer. If there wasn't a right answer, we wouldn't be arguing.

"Uncomformist". Does that actually impress girls? I'dve thought that they'd probably be more impressed by "12 inches" or "Ferrari".
Does 2 + 2 = 4? WHat is 4? 4 is just a number made up sby some guy. 2 + 2 could just as easily equal 968. We are taught that 2 and 2 equals 4, and we believe it, that's just the way it is.

I have noticed that the America is very two faced. Because the people love it when their country blows random shit out of Iraq... which by the dictionary definition would constitute a war crime, yet when one man tries to fight for the freedom of his people and in the process kills a few American supported soldiers (who bear in mind are paid to die), he is condemned as evil by ignorant Americans who know NOTHING about him. Yes he was a Communist, and yes he was violent at times, but that is not what makes Che a great man. Che is great because he put his own life on the line for the freedom of a people who weren't even his. He was an Argentinian yet he fought fiercly and bravely for the freedom of the Cuban people. And as a Cuban national, he gave up all that to free the Bolivians from oppression.

You Americans are happy to sit in your clean flats eating McDonalds and say you are freedom loving. That's okay because you have freedom. Yet you support the very governments who deny that to hundreds of people worldwide. And when 100 men take on the entire Bolivian army to fight for freedom, you have the nerve to say they aren't brave? They fought for the very thing you apparently!

quote:

---

Does 2 + 2 = 4? WHat is 4? 4 is just a number made up sby some guy. 2 + 2 could just as easily equal 968. We are taught that 2 and 2 equals 4, and we believe it, that's just the way it is.

---

What a cop out. You are confusing words with meaning. What we call numbers is completely different from their implicit values and the concepts that they represent. This is just sophistry and an attempt at denying all terms and definitions.

quote:

---

Because the people love it when their country blows random shit out of Iraq... which by the dictionary definition would constitute a war crime,

---

What are you talking about? If you are reffering to the SAM sites and radar stations, it is becuase Saddam daily fires upon US warplanes patrolling the no fly zone.

Your statement right here is reason enough for the US not to be involved witht the International Criminal Court. Their are too many assholes in Europe who have nothing better to do than hate the US and try and turn every bomb dropped or bullet fired war crime. Its bad enough that we fight in your back yard, Yugoslavia, but to then expect our soldiers to be tried by you ingrates, I think not. Look at how polarized and nationalized your views are us vs America, how can we expect a fair trial?

Once again, you are imputing the same broad beliefs to over 280 million men, women, and children. For the record, there is a very large portion of people, myself included, who disagree with our treatment of Iraq. Stop creating cultural flaws just so you can attack them.

And what the hell is wrong with you? Chuck, I'm starting to think you're too dumb for me even to explain this shit to you. Regardless of what you call it, 4 is 4. You can call it quattro, vier, or hell, call it Beverly. It's still 4. Cut the crap or shut the hell up. Man am I glad you can't vote in MY country.

-----"What are you talking about? If you are reffering to the SAM sites and radar stations, it is becuase Saddam daily fires upon US warplanes patrolling the no fly zone."-----

And if you actually believe that bullshit then you are a fucking gullible fool. How come there never seems to be any military casualties? 50 raids in a year and it isn't even wartime. And I sya again, there have been more civilian casualties in thos raids than have EVER been killed by ANY WoMDs EVER!

-----"And what the hell is wrong with you? Chuck, I'm starting to think you're too dumb for me even to explain this shit to you. Regardless of what you call it, 4 is 4. You can call it quattro, vier, or hell, call it Beverly. It's still 4. Cut the crap or shut the hell up. Man am I glad you can't vote in MY country."-----

Open your mind for once mate. You are amazingly obstinate. You believe something because you find it easier to believe it than maybe another eqaually plausible explanation. I refer you to the Matrix, you cannot be sure of anything.... you certainly can't be sure of the reliability of US government reports concerning certain "enemies of freedom"... the very people trying to uphold it. OBL and Che alike, whilst I disagree with OBL's methods, his motives are sound... securing FREEDOM for Palestine. Surely that makes him an ally of the West if he is fighting for freedom?

i guess that i'm sending to your aol acount you wana say the contrary any way send me first from your new mail

Wow chuck. You, like so many others have run to the matrix. Well, what if people like us ran to the matrix, and made up 'its so obvious, i shouldn't need to explain' arguments. Or, maybe thats a sign of being boxed in and desperate. I would point to your country as an example of why socialism doesn't work. It's gun laws. In your country, only crimminals have gun laws, and (if not numerically, percentage wise) more crimes are commited in the UK w/ guns than the US. In the US 2 mil. crimes are prevented annually. But any autocratic gov. whether socialist, facist, etc.
And no, i don't think how the US is treating palestein or iraq is fair.
But back to the Matrix argument. For one thing its a bad analogy, a fallacy argument wise if i ever so one. As is the over generilization pointed out by Armed&Angry.
Oh, as for the matrix argument not being unable to prove, go read Descartes 'Discourses', esp. the part about the evil deciever/demon. and yes, i understand you're not saying this is the matrix. but i'm damn tired of that argument.

Jesus Christ, Chuck. Despite what you say, I'm not gullible enough to believe everything the government says. But, on the other hand, I'd have to be EXTREMELY gullible to listen to your unfounded bullshit.

I hate what my government is doing to Iraq - I've said this before, so stop trying to force me into defending it. Once again, let me remind you that this thread was about capitalism and socialism, not an endless bitch-and-moan about those darn Americans. I must ask, however, where the hell did you get that casualty estimate? You can't possibly expect me to simply take your word for it, so please, a reference.

I say again, your sophistry is astounding in its ridiculousness. 2 + 2 is 4. This is not the Matrix, or the Malicious Demon, or Plato's fucking cave. There are certain facts that are very easy to identify beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And your defense of OBL is hilarious in its obscenity. As evil as the West may seem, Osama bin Laden takes all those perceived evils - racism, sexism, the creation of a tiny ruling class, strict controls on social behavior - to a huge extreme. How can you hate America and love OBL?

If Osama does have a legitimate grievance, it is with the government of the United States. He opted instead to attack a huge CIVILIAN population center, with a comparatively small side assault on the Pentagon. Ideology is a secondary consideration. Murder is murder.

quote:

---

I would point to your country as an example of why socialism doesn't work. It's gun laws. In your country, only crimminals have gun laws, and (if not numerically, percentage wise) more crimes are commited in the UK w/ guns than the US

---

1) The UK is not socialist
2) Gun laws have little, or nothing to do with socialism, or ChuckStone's warped views.
3)I would like to see evidence of the higher gun crime in the UK, which I very much doubt you will be able to provide.

OBL doesn't give a shit about Palestine. He wants to destroy the western world. Please don't label AQ as humanitarians. They advocate killing everyone that isn't Muslim, and created a worldwide Islamic State where women get executed for taking off their veils.

The political views of your hero, Che, who happens to be someone I respect and admire, run completely in contrast to that of Radical Islamists. The fact that you equate them as freedom fighters shows how little you know about the world around you.

Jeez, Chuck, even the other left-wing folks are against you here.

I still believe this topic is secretly about me.

quote:

---

How come there never seems to be any military casualties? 50 raids in a year and it isn't even wartime. And I sya again, there have been more civilian casualties in thos raids than have EVER been killed by ANY WoMDs EVER!

---

120,000 people died at Hiroshima
90,000 people died at Nagasaki
210,000 people total died from US nukes
http://www.banthebomb.org/magazine/hiroshim.htm#deaths I got those numbers from here and it admits to being a conservative estamite.

12 years since the Gulf War ended and at 50 raids a year by your numbers means 600 raids total. If you do the math, that means 350 deaths per raid, thats a very high number and highly doubtful. The targets have been radar and missile installations that have target US warplanes. I would be interested to see where you get your death totals from.

And just to put it in perspective Iraq's invasion of Iran cost between 500,000 to 1,000,000 lives. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/arabs/iraniraq.html

The Japanese Invasion of Manchuria: somewhere between 3,000,000 and 10,000,000 million deaths. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
The point here is that very few people died from WMD in comparison to other wars that have been fought and its is a very small ammount considering the number of deaths in WW2.

quote:

---

Open your mind for once mate. You are amazingly obstinate. You believe something because you find it easier to believe it than maybe another eqaually plausible explanation.

---

Your explanations are not plausable, the fact that I can argue them proves it.

quote:

---

OBL and Che alike, whilst I disagree with OBL's methods, his motives are sound... securing FREEDOM for Palestine.

---

Many a statesmen has doned the white toga of idealism to mask their drive for power. His motives are not sound and they are as much BS as the US being truly concerned about the freedom of the Iraqi people.

quote:

---

Surely that makes him an ally of the West if he is fighting for freedom?

---

This is some of the stupidest drivel I have ever heard of. They are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting for power, their is a difference.




[This message has been edited by NukeChild (edited 12-10-2002).]

I know for a fact that the US has more gun crimes pecentage-wise than anywhere in the western world. I also know that in Britain, the Gun crimes are so rare that shootings get on National news. In fact the only figures I can find providing any support for your cliam is that in Britain and Canada, half of buglaries target occupied homes compared to 13% in USA. I imagine you made that fact up on the spot.

-----"And just to put it in perspective Iraq's invasion of Iran cost between 500,000 to 1,000,000 lives."-----
I didn't say conventional warfare killed less people did I? All I know is that there have been 50 raids this year. It's likely that there were more in earlier years...and US bombing raids are internationally renowned for their innacuracy.

-----"This is some of the stupidest drivel I have ever heard of. They are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting for power, their is a difference."-----
I'd like to know what they expect to do with that power if they went to "war" knowing that success would 100% guarantee their own death?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
I know for a fact that the US has more gun crimes pecentage-wise than anywhere in the western world.

---

How do you define "Western World". And be careful where you draw the line Chucky. Another thing to consider in your definitions, is the whole truth about gun ownership.

Nox

http://www.minjust.nl/b_organ/wodc/publicaties/rapporten/pubrapp/ob187.htm

Just an interesting bunch of hard data that refutes claims about crime rates in the EU being lower than those in the US.

The US stands out in 4 respects:
1) in seriousness of crime (homicide),
2) a steady decline in crime generallly since 1988, the first year of the
survey.
3) Americans also report the lowest levels of fear about crime, along with
Swedes.
4) Attitudes toward police performance.

Naturally, I don't expect lefty Eurotrash like Chucky to be aware of any of this. Why worry about disrupting your ideological prejudices with fact-finding comparative surveys?

US bombing raids internationally renowned for their inaccuracy? Only if you're counting bullshit claims by the Taliban that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed by American bombs, Iraqi lies about errant bombs, or some other exaggerated report. Let me remind you that Iraq actually TARGETS Israeli civilian centers with its missiles...with them, it's not an accident.

The truth is, I can count the times "stray" US bombs have killed innocents in the past ten years on my hands, and in all cases, the US has made reparations payments.

If enemy soldiers want to strap women and children to their tanks and hide them in obvious strategic targets (as Iraq was wont to do), then you cannot claim them as innocent victims any more than I can say I'm the King of France.

How old are you, Chuck? Just curious to know if you've finished grade school.

"I'd like to know what they expect to do with that power if they went to "war" knowing that success would 100% guarantee their own death?"

You are such an imbecile I can't even find words to rip you enough. I can't understand you or see your point. You make little sense and your "arguments" are getting less and less coherent as time goes on...frightening considering how disjointed they were when you started. Your saving grace is the fact that you seem to start threads that people love to answer for their sheer fallaciousness. But I don't expect you to know what that means anyhow, so here's something you might:

You is dumb.

quote:

---

I'd like to know what they expect to do with that power if they went to "war" knowing that success would 100% guarantee their own death?

---

If you are reffering to the suicide bombers, its because the religious leaders are filling their heads with nonsense about Allah, paradise, and Jewish evil. The leaders are using these frustrated, confused, and pathetic dolts as tools to gain power. The common man is cannon fodder to be used against the Israelis and bring power to their leaders.

Wow, I gotta post more often. You guys are kicking his ass before I can even get a word in.

Crime in general may be higher in Europe, but the post I addressed specifically referred to "gun crime"

"You are such an imbecile I can't even find words to rip you enough. I can't understand you or see your point. You make little sense and your "arguments" are getting less and less coherent as time goes on...frightening considering how disjointed they were when you started. Your saving grace is the fact that you seem to start threads that people love to answer for their sheer fallaciousness. But I don't expect you to know what that means anyhow, so here's something you might:"


Yes well done, but you haven't actually answered the question have you. Because you don't know the answer you retard.
If they are not knowingly fighting for power, then they are not fighting for power.

"If enemy soldiers want to strap women and children to their tanks and hide them in obvious strategic targets (as Iraq was wont to do)"

Good story mate, but it's a complete bullshit lie. It reminds me of the Middle Ages when people said that the Saracens were in league with the devil. You believe this?
Americans are stupis in that they cannot see in colours - only black and white. They grew up watching cowboys and indians, so in real life they think that there has to be a cowboy and there has to be an indian. America ALWAYS represents the goodie and the current enemy is always the baddie. Obviously, it would be difficult to see them as the "baddie" if you were told the truth (That Iraqi soldiers are just people), so this heap of bullshit arises about how evil the Iraqi soldiers are. If you had the slightest bit of common sense you would realise that that is BS of the first degree.

Once again, Chuck, you have made a broad generalization encompassing the feelings and motivations of hundreds of millions of people, all without a shred of evidence. Cowboy movies, what the fuck? I've never even seen a cowboy movie in my life, you stupid shithead. You say that WE (as in all 280 million of us) make stupid simplifications, and then turn around and make an even stupider one yourself. Brilliant.

As long as we're slandering other cultures, I'll lay into yours. Brush your teeth, Limey, it looks like somebody raped your mouth with a chainsaw. Isn't it time for tea, or are you busy murdering Zulus? Go ahead and charge those machine guns, it'll work eventually...

Chucky,

I warned you about your drivel.

Notice I left the post and deleted the crap.

The US of A (and all of North America) has a history dating back at least 15,000 years. A recent excavation in South America takes them back 25,000 years.

Grow up kid ... engage brain before engaging keyboard. Next time, I just delete.

Nox

[This message has been edited by Nox (edited 12-14-2002).]

Was that really necessary? What did the post originally say? It's not as if Chucky's posts get taken very seriously anyway.

Unfortunately yes ... only to make a point. In essence, Chucky claimed the US had no history. A cheap attempt at attention.

Nox

History my arse... 200 years is nothing mate NOTHING. Yes teh Americas have been populated by indeginous people for 25000 years or whatever, but your people killed them or if they were lucky imprisoned them in reservations.

You only edited me because I hit a raw nerve you little brat. In essence proving my point.

Is it perhaps possible that the reason you're suddenly attacking such a trivial thing as the length of America's history because - surprise, surprise - you've realized your position on Che Guevara and communism is utterly untenable?

Or it could be because the topic merely flowed that way. I am severely pissed off that I was modified by Nox the little shit.

The Communism thing isn't untenable. In fact to me it seems quite obvious which is the right way as opposed the wrong way. Obviously I understand that not everyone will agree with me but then I have what is called an "open mind" and have reached the stage in my cognitive-development where I am no longer 100% egocentric.

You have an open mind, therefore I shoulb bow down before your enlightenment and knowledge? Your open mind is useless as your only arguments for Communism are sensationaliic attacks on the rich and the plight "of the little man." Our closed minds, however, have provided more than enough counterpoints to your arguments to invalidate them. I guess your mind is not open, as if it were, you would see the logic and legitimacy of what we say instead of plugging your ears and going: "LA LA LA. I CAN"T HEAR YOU!" The concept of an open or closed mind is just a veiled attack on a person by saying that you are more enlightened or somehow greater for being less discerning of the crap ideas of the world. Open or closed, screw it, knowledge is better.

The result of his open-mindedness was that his mind became a vessel to carry bullshit.

Let that be a lesson to you all. Close your minds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
I am severely pissed off that I was modified by Nox the little shit.

---

I am not "little".

Nox

LOL. Whats worse, to be a little or a big shit?

But you don't deny being a shit?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
But you don't deny being a shit?

---

If that's your best shot at an insult at me Chucky, then I accept the title with pride. Pity, I thought your 16-year-old brain could do better than that, given the depth of literary experience you claim to have with "Cuba Si".

*Nox laughs at Chucky*

Nox

Cuba Si is not a gossip tabloid, and as such experince from it will not make me any better at insults.

che guvera is the bravest man ever:
No

communism Blah blah blah
No

Americans have not alot of history
No

Chuckstone should ever be allowed to post in politics again...
"work the answer out"

well i haven't read such a bunch of peurile dirge for ages.. in fact so much so i even registered!!..
just so that you know .. sheffield.. england is overrun by bogus middle class lefties.. and doo-gooders living in their socialist utopia.. with 30 grand a year jobs and what have you.. attending their meetings.. making their pamphlets..a consequence of the thatcher years.. remind you of anyone
for someone living *here* and not to know that the supergun was made in sheffield by forgemasters is proof you haven't got a clue mate..
also for us readers that may be interested.. its a good job we don't have guns here (uk) legally.. where i live (council estate .. what you americans would call the 'projects') there would be a blood bath

Unless, of course, you law-abiding citizens decided to arm yourself as well as the criminals. But of course, you can't do that. Good luck fending off that home invasion with little more than a cricket bat.

I'd rather live in the middle of a gang war fought with knives than with guns...

And regardless of how the gang members choose to kill each other, I'd rather have some means of defending myself from their superior numbers. Nothing says "crowd control" like 00 buck.

Nothing says "dead" better than a shot to the head. If I'm lucky, I can outrun an armed gang.

And yet you are forgetting that by virtue of their lawlessness, they will have no qualms about breaking the law to arm themselves with superior weapons. In other words, given the nature of an anti gun law, the criminals will continue to ignore the laws and the honest citizens will have their hands bound by it.

A kid with a gun is infinitely more likely to shoot someone than a kid without one. It creates a sense of arrogance that makes them much more likely to commit a crime (armed or otherwise) than if he had no access to guns. Hardcore criminals may have guns, but they would definetely have them in America when they can pop over to the friendly neighbourhood vet and get armed to the teeth for a days wage.

The cops don't have guns so the crims don't need guns. Armed robberies are almost unheard of in my area (they happen granted).

If kids are loitering outside some old guy's house he might call the police - an American oldguy would pepper their backsides with buckshot.

And when a bullied kid shoots half his classmates, when a British kid would just get on with it or maybe at worst kill himself...

---------------------------------------------
Gotta hand it to you Piggaro, you almost appear more mature than Blink 182 - almost. So what, I insulted Nox once or twice, in fact no... I merely criticised his methods and you suddenly turn into a childish monster?

quote:

---

A kid with a gun is infinitely more likely to shoot someone than a kid without one.

---

Yes, to shoot someone you need a gun, congradulations on that astute observation. Just because a gun is gone, it does not mean that violence is gone.

quote:

---

they can pop over to the friendly neighbourhood vet and get armed to the teeth for a days wage.

---

Cockboy, stupid cockboy.

quote:

---

The cops don't have guns so the crims don't need guns.

---

How does that make sense? If they cops were unarmed, I would be sure to be packing. Why? Because an unarmed man is despised. A robber has no reason to listen to an unarmed man, and if the criminal has the gun, he is the ones that is calling the shots.

quote:

---

If kids are loitering outside some old guy's house he might call the police - an American oldguy would pepper their backsides with buckshot.

---

Cockboy, stupid cockboy.

quote:

---

And when a bullied kid shoots half his classmates, when a British kid would just get on with it or maybe at worst kill himself...

---

Cockboy, stupid cockboy.

Guns are a lot harder to get hold of in the UK (except certain areas eg Manchester). Consequently, the vast majority of criminals in the UK don't carry firearms.

I think what Nukechild is saying (oh so eloquently, if I may say so) is that you're making a bunch of broad and groundless generalizations. Guns do not create "arrogance," unless you mean the self confidence inherent in being able to defend oneself. I know dozens of people who own guns, 90% of whom are decent people. The other 10% were assholes even before they started shooting. If you've got some super-secret psychological evidence you'd like to present to backup your pronouncements, feel free.

You can't "pop over" to a gun dealer's and pick up a gun on your lunch break, for Christ's sakes. Depending on which state you live in (we yanks have this delightful thing called "federalism") it can require a waiting period, an extensive background check, and no matter what, you will have to prove you're 18, or 21 if you wish to purchase a handgun. The point being, a criminal can't just go get a firearm here. Private sales of guns are still quite possible, but then, these are, by their very nature, beyond the reach of civil law.

Furthermore, even in our supposedly free-wheeling system, the majority of people who use guns are decent, law-abiding citizens. Guns are used for defensive purposes about 1.5 million times a year, while fewer than 1% of violent crimes are committed with a handgun. Don't you hate how statistics get in the way of a perfectly good emotional outburst?

And I'm getting tired of saying this: Stop with the gun-crazy, nutty Americans stereotype. An American guy would pepper the kids in his backyard with buckshot? I've lived here for all 17 years of my life, and never once have I heard of such a thing. I'll bet you haven't either. This is primarily because you just typed out the first thing that popped into your tiny brain, and then declared it to be evidence of America's eeeeeeevil gun laws being, well, eeeeeevil.

What people like you don't seem to realize is that a gun is a TOOL. Nothing more. Nothing less. It doesn't confer a sudden desire for evil upon a person, unless that desire existed already. Your fear of firearms is totally unwarranted. Gun control disarms nobody but the law-abiding.

The statistical truth is that guns are used much more by private citizens for protecting the innocent than guns are used in crime. This is true even for cases of self defense.

Guns also prevent crim ewhen in the hands of law abiding citizens. Say what you will, but it is absolutely proven in a study done by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard.

Some more interesting things, from the UN's International Crime Victims Survey:

1) The US is 13th among industrial countries in violent crime (mugging, assault, armed burglary, armed robbery, rape, homicide). Far behind Australia and Britain (1 and 2) and behind almost all of the EU. You are statistically 6 times more likely to be mugged on the streets of London than New York.

2) People in America are far less worried about becoming victims of violent crimes. In Japan and the EU people are far more worried.

3) The US and Canada ranked first in having confidence in the police.

I haven't brought up any "gun-toting American" stereotypes (I'll leave that kind of dogma to my fellow countrymen ). I haven't denied that a gun is a reasonable deterrent against petty crime. I'm not trying to persuade the American populace to hand over their guns either.

However, the fact remains that a gun is far more likely to be used against a family member or close friend than against a criminal. That's not a criticism of the American psyche, it's a reflection on the fact that even many decent, law-abiding citizens can make mistakes, and mistakes with a gun are very serious.

Applied to the gang war scenario we're talking about: a violent, scared teenager can do a lot more damage with a gun than with a knife. And knives rarely kill innocent bystanders.
Concealed weapons are an excellent deterrent against a casual mugger; useless against a bunch of criminals who desperately want to break into your home.

The "fact" you're alluding to is derived from a study done several years ago that claimed you were 47 times more likely to harm a family member with a gun than a criminal. Due to the shoddy nature of the study, that number was later pared down to, if memory serves, six times more likely. (correct me if I'm wrong, gang, I haven't seen the actual numbers for a couple years)

Here's the kicker, though. When you use a gun, you're six times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal. But when you use a knife, you're six times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal. When you use a dead snake suffering from rigor mortis to club somebody, you are six times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal. The bottom line is, this is a statisitical anomaly - you are six times more likely to kill a family member, period - that has been turned into an anti-gun statistic through the use of very selective context.

The honest truth is that Americans use their firearms safely 96% of the time. By comparison, law enforcement officers use their firearms safely 89% of the time. The overwhelming majority of shooters are EXCEEDINGLY WELL TRAINED in the use of their weapon, and know exactly what to do and how to stay safe in the event of a crime.

And I fail to see why the POSSIBILITY of a handgun would stop a mugger, while an ACTUAL handgun would not stop a group of untrained youths when waved in their face.

This reminds me of how most child abductions are commited by a family member or someone you know. Whether this should be the basis for hiding the kids from Grandma, I will leave to you.

If you illegalise guns, you can actually arrest someone just for having the potential to commit a gun crime. Whereas in America, you have to wait until after the event when some 3 year old might now be permanently 3 foot tall. If you illegalise the use of guns, most potential crims will instead obtain a legal weapon which may injure (most shootings in Britian take place with air rifles - and you have to be crackshot to even hospitalise someone with one.

But the figures speak for themselves, in Britain ONE person has died as a result of a carjacking ever. Whilst you are more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, you are very unlikely to die as a result of it. And it's a fair belief that people are less likely to mug a stranger if there's a possibility s/he is armed - not true, they are just going to use more hardware. And the idea that guns cannot fall into the hands of criminals is utter bunkum and as NukeChild would say "Cockboy, stupid cockboy" (I wouldn't, I find that childishly purile and pointless)if they are in circulation, they will fall into the wrong hands - antigun laws can stop them getting into circulation (or at least stop most of them).

Here's an example. In my town I can go to the other side of the park and visit one of 26 pubs and purchase alcohol, I could do it now because alcohol is legal. If however I needed blow it would take a lot more effort -though it would certainly be more than possible because it is in circulation. If now I needed a bit of crack, I'm up the creek because I don't know anyone who sells it and I can't find out because they don't advertise. Do you see. If I wanted a gun I'd have no chance and I'd have to cross the mountains into Manchester.

quote:

---

you can actually arrest someone just for having the potential to commit a gun crime.

---

So actuall actions and decisions mean nothing now, just potential intent? By your logic, someone could be arrested for being in possession of seditious material, just because now they are more likely to commit a crime against the government. DID WE LEARN NOTHING FROM MINORITY REPORT!!!

quote:

---

most potential crims will instead obtain a legal weapon which may injure

---

Why for the love of God why? It makes no sense but for a criminal to arm themselves with the most serious firepower available, why, because then they have intimidation rather than violence as their tool. You are not going to mess with a mugger with a gun, however, if he just has a knife, you are more willing to resist as the potential dammage to you is lessened.

quote:

---

Whilst you are more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, you are very unlikely to die as a result of it

---

So inother words, the criminal are emboldened because they know that the people cannot effectively fight back and therefore their are many more targets to steal from.

quote:

---

antigun laws can stop them getting into circulation

---

And we all know that it worked splendidly with drugs....

[quote]If however I needed blow it would take a lot more effort -though it would certainly be more than possible because it is in circulation. If now I needed a bit of crack, I'm up the creek because I don't know anyone who sells it and I can't find out because they don't advertise. Do you see. If I wanted a gun I'd have no chance and I'd have to cross the mountains into Manchester.
[/quote[ Your ignorance of the underworld shouls not be evidence against its existence.

Regardless of the actual number of guns we may have "in circulation" here in America, the fact remains that they are used almost exclusively for DEFENSIVE purposes. One and a half million times a year, to be exact. Compare this to the 1% of violent crimes committed with a gun. Even assuming that 1% of crimes is totally prevented by a simple lack of weaponry, total gun control would cause an increase of 1.5 million violent crimes per year.

And yet, however bizarre it may seem, the criminal fraternity in the UK generally do arm themselves with weapons other than illegal firearms. For most criminal purposes, firearms aren't necessary, and capture in possession of a handgun guarantees a harsher penalty.

Anti-gun laws in most parts of the UK are reasonably effective because there is little demand for guns, therefore little incentive to supply.

By this we can infer that the UK does have at least half of the equation right - severe penalties for those who would use firearms for illegal purposes. That's half of the battle right there.

However, this still doesn't explain why law-abiding Britons shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with a handgun. Regardless of what your attacker is carrying - gun, knife, a dead salmon, whatever - a firearm gives you a massive defensive advantage. And, statistically, the use of a firearms (often just brandishing it) is the safest way to react to an attempt to attack or rob you, including simple submission.

Punishing criminals severely? Great! Once a court of their peers decides they are indeed guilty, go ahead and string 'em up. But don't deny the citizen the right to defend themselves.

Detaining suspected criminals for "firearms offences" is one way of keeping them off the streets when there's no sound evidence against them because everyone's too afraid to testify.

The problem with guns for defence is that unless you have an easily defensible "base" or a bunch of armed friends with you, a law-abiding citizen has a significant disadvantage since the criminal is likely to fire first. Against a good shot you don't get a second chance. I'm sure you can provide plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise - all I'm saying is that the value of guns in a fight is overrated. A (poor) analogy would be nuclear weapons - useful to have as a deterrent but you'd stand a better chance fighting with conventional weapons. I'm not saying that a gun can never be useful in a fight, just that their value is overrated.

Hard though it may seem to believe, the vast majority of law-abiding Britons don't want firearms, or the right to own them; we don't lose sleep at night at the thought of armed intruders and our relatively high crime rate (the average Brit finds it just as hard to believe Americans can feel safe with all the guns around them and the higher murder rate).

I'm not saying that the law is perfect; I think generally police should have the ability to use their discretion to decide whether an illegal firearm is held for defensive purposes (which would result in a confiscation) or criminal purposes (which would result in prosecution). But the freedom to own a firearm is something I (and the best part of 59 million other Brits) can live without.

I'm sorry, but your claim that guns aren't useful for defense is simply baseless. And yes, I could provide plenty of anecdotal evidence to back that up, along with lots of statistics and whatnot. Most criminals don't fire first, because they use the gun (or whatever they have) as a simple threat to coerce the victim.

However, I suppose it is pointless to belabor the concept further. If you and other Briton's don't want one, that's fine with me. Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree and get back to communism, eh?

No "law abiding" person can be guaranteed to remain so. So no amount of screening can avoid the fact that when a law-abiding citizen goes off the rails and is armed he is dangerous to the whole of society. And just how do you know who are law-abiding... surely law abiding just means "not discovered yet" Sod that innocent till proven guilty shit, that's fair but trust nobody.

Hey! Lets arm cashiers! That would be a good idea. No, but that's roughly your point.


"The political views of your hero, Che, who happens to be someone I respect and admire, run completely in contrast to that of Radical Islamists. The fact that you equate them as freedom fighters shows how little you know about the world around you." (the most recent ON-topic post)

Political views aside, they are both similar in the freeodm fighting aspect. And they both happen to be fighting AMerica. there are scores of similar people worldwide and very few of them share Che's political opinion. The reason you admire Che, I expect, is less connected to his Communist ideals - which were hardly his idea (they don't call it Marxist-Guevaraism do they?), and more to do with his will to fight for those ideals and throw away a well paid career and a cushy lifestyle for it. Which is a virtue you can level at the AQ members -despite the fact that I believe that their ideals are wrong.

Chuck, your view of all citizens being dangerous until proven otherwise is extremely telling. So what are you saying? Even the most well-adjusted and peace-loving people could snap at any time, so we better disarm them just in case? That's quite a claim you're making there, especially considering it runs counter to two hundred years of psychological research. You can't trust people with a shotgun, or with an economy. No sir, they've got to get all their orders from a group of government hacks who apparently know better than everybody else. What a delightfully freedom-loving thought.

I also noticed that you didn't explain WHY cashier shouldn't be armed. Does it occur to you that this would be a massive deterrent to hold-ups of all sorts? That's not "roughly" my point, it's EXACTLY my point. You just don't seem to get it. Why shouldn't people be allowed to simply defend themselves?

And you still sing the praises of the "freedom-fighting" Al-Qaeda. You sure do have a funny idea of freedom, Chuck. The freedom to:

- Oppress women?
- Destroy other religions?
- Live your life at the government's whim?

Here in America, Chuck, we have a different word for that - Tyranny.

I can't see how Chucky can support "freedom fighters" and strict gun control. Uless it's becaise because, instead of joining the revolutionary cause, an armed general public would fight back against the "freedom fighters".

Excellent point.

"- Oppress women?
- Destroy other religions?
- Live your life at the government's whim?"

Who are we to decide how women should be treated? Just playing devil's advocate here for a moment. There's only really Western civilization that doesn't oppress women, and even then it's hardly equal. "Whoever is without sin should throw the first stone" - look around, how many women do the washing up, clean the clothes, cook the dinner and look after the children - and what does the man do?

- Destroy other religions? Have you been to the mall recently? It's full of people who don't want to be there, buying things nobody wants for people they don't like with money they haven't got. BUT IT'S CHRISTMAS

Fuck Christianity, maybe Islam's better. (but don't slaughter goats in my garden)

- Live your life at the government's whim? "The best argument
against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

And I must add that my hatred of guns is in no way related to my hatred of you (*snip* Capitalists)

Chuckstone.

that smell is kidney.
why do you smell kidneys?
Thats how far your head is up your own arse.

I will never post in this thread again, all he wants is a big post count and a big topic with his name.

You have changed the subject more than ten times just to get people to go "hmm i will speak a bit more here"

Dont post here, or the ego will be placated!

[This message has been edited by piggarro99 (edited 12-24-2002).]

LOL, just noticed all the mistakes in my last post. And someone thought I had a point?