[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. [Archive] - Page 6

Narrew

May 13th, 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
narrew it is not about peoples feelings towards bush.I disagree, at least in the States most people that are against action in Iraq are Bush haters, partisan politics if you will. The same thing happened with the Clinton haters. Outside the USA, I cant say since I am biased http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Some of the things it is about is

here is my SPIN http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

International law-- Yep, Saddam broke it for over 12 years, and time might well tell that France, Germany and Russia broke International law by selling prohibited items to Iraq. Oh, and dont forget the UNs involvement (or lack there of).

deceit-- Yep, Saddam deceived us for many years, but more importantly he deceived his own people by refusing them food and other things. We can add deceit from the above countries and the UN, time will tell on that (of course people will believe that the US had it planted) maybe that is a reason why they were against the Coalition for fear what they would find that would incriminate them.

War-- Yep, people forgot Saddam started it first, you all do remember Kuwait, and there was never an end to that, Saddam had to follow the rules which he never did.

Incompetence-- Yes the UN was Incompetent, and we will find more of what they refused to see (or deal with). I am not anti UN, but think they need to follow through with the resolutions they pass, and I am not talking about just Iraq situation. Of course if the UN did their job, the US wouldn't have to be the bad guy.

WMD-- ok, ok I still say we need to wait. But I am sure the trailers of chemical processing plants we for something other than what we in the US think it is. Maybe they were actually roving baby milk factories.

International alliances-- See the above comment about the UN. Did anyone notice that the leaders of the former Soviet Union countries supported the Coalition (the ones that were recently admitted to the UN). I think those leaders know exactly what it was like to live in a country where the people have no power/life. Don't tell me they were coerced to give lip service to the US, they would have benefited more by not getting the EU mad at them.

As I finish this, I realize that many people have different views on this situation. Will we all agree, no way, if we did, everyone would love us Americans. The nice thing is we don't seem to get into name calling ect... Heck, I even cut slack for them French Canadians that don't agree with us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif J/K

Ok, now all lets have a group hug!!!

Cyrien

May 13th, 2003, 05:40 PM

*group hug* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

tbontob

May 13th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Narrew, some of the stuff you have talked about, I agree with and some I don't.

But why is the U.N. incompetent?

IMO, it is basically because of the veto power wielded by certain nations...won't say who they are because we know who they are. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Give it a secure tax base with every nation having a right to vote on a democratic basis according to its population, then issues will be decided and you will have an organization with the capacity to act.

This is not strange to us, because our governments are organized this way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And China will probably agree to it. But I can see the U.S. government doing everything in its power to prevent it from happening.

Anybody care to guess why?

geoschmo

May 13th, 2003, 06:37 PM

Tbontob, that idea is just ludicrous. If every nation in the UN had a representative form of government, perhaps. But why would I as a citizen of a free and democratic (Sorry Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) soceity give control over myself and my affairs to a hand full of dictators under the auspices of UN authority? They aren't held accountable to their own populations, how could they be to me?

Geoschmo

tbontob

May 13th, 2003, 06:50 PM

When the thirteen colonies rebelled you had much the same discussion going on. Why exchange one dictator (the King of England) for another dictator (a central government)?

As it happened, the central government idea prevailed, a stable tax system secured, representative government installed and you have the U.S. of A. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The same thing can happen here if we have the foresight.

But O.K. for the sake of the discussion, let's exclude dictatorial governments. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Why would the U.S. government do everything in its power to prevent a "U.N. of Democracies" with a stable tax base and vote by representation?

Fyron

May 13th, 2003, 07:01 PM

One unified world government would not be a good idea at all. If there are no external enemies (not necessarily in open conflict or anything like that) for the government to concentrate on, it turns on its own people. This is an inescapable fact of life on earth.

[ May 13, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

geoschmo

May 13th, 2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
But O.K. for the sake of the discussion, let's exclude dictatorial governments. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Why would the U.S. government do everything in its power to prevent a "U.N. of Democracies" with a stable tax base and vote by representation?Well, for one thing, why do you make the U.S. out to be the lone country in opposition to this idea? Isn't the American Hegemony, or "Pax Americana" the big thing everyone, even our allies, are worried about these days? How is this different? Instead of the American hegemony it's the UN hegemony. I seriously doubt you would get a single nation, even democratic ones to agree to this idea. It's that bad of an idea Tbontob. So since it's your idea, why don't you tell me why Canada would be opposed to it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif And if all the Democratic nations on earth became one "super country", wouldn't the non-democratic countries be that much more afraid of it?

Geoschmo

tbontob

May 13th, 2003, 07:17 PM

All it takes is a visionary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If the U.S. didn't have it's visionaries you wouldn't have the U.S. of A. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yes, there would be serious discussion about it in Canada, both pro and con, but I don't believe that Canada would be as determined in it's opposition to it's creation.

Care to guess the reason why?

geoschmo

May 13th, 2003, 07:20 PM

No, why don't you just tell us why Tbontob?

tbontob

May 13th, 2003, 07:25 PM

I'll just wait for other opinions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There is no rush to conclude this discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am sure there are a lot of people out there who know why.

So far it has just been you and me. Others should have the opportunity to participate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Loser

May 13th, 2003, 07:27 PM

As I understand the Canadian Legislature, you have a greater house where representatives, Senators I believe, come from districts and districts are formed based on population. From this, the larger centers of population basically control this body: more people means more representatives, means more votes. If I recall correctly, your second legislative body is a rubber-stamp institution, whose members are chosen by government from the government.

Tbontob, you seem to live in 'Western Canada'. Last I heard, most folks in the under populated West were generally displeased with this imbalance of power. Not to say they don't like being Canadians, but I've not heard once say they like the "yahoos in the East" making all their decisions for them.

Maybe this isn't the case anymore. Maybe you aren't that into national politics. Maybe I'm just dead wrong.

But in the U.S., both bodies of legislature have power, neither plays the rubber stamp because they tend to have different priorities, even if they are held by the same party.

Members of the Senate, Senators, do not represent specific amounts of the population, they are more creatures of geography: each State gets two, even Wyoming. Additionally, Senators serve a term of six years, giving them greater time to accomplish their goals and more leverage than a member of the lower house. This allows local interests to carry weight, to some degree, on a national level.

Members of the House of Representatives, called Representatives in another great show of creativity, are elected by specific quantities of the population: more people means more Representatives. For this reason Wyoming has only one, while California has something like fifty-three.

Both houses must agree on a bill before it can be passed into law.

This sort of balance between population and geography is one of the things that makes the U.S. the unstable wreck of a government that it is and this balance is not, if I recall correctly, duplicated anywhere else in the world. You're not going to get another country to pick up this model, and you're not going to get the Americans to give it up. The differences in our governments are just one of the reasons the vaste majority of Americans don't strongly favor international administrative bodies.

Next week, we can cover the peculiarities of the American Judicial System.

P.S. Any Canadians or Americans who feel that I do not understand their government are invited to educate me, in this thread or a PM. I will be attentive.

[Edi: Necessary quotes added to indicate a quotation. Thanks, Narrew.]

[ May 13, 2003, 18:47: Message edited by: Loser ]

Fyron

May 13th, 2003, 07:29 PM

Tbontob, you giving an answer does not end the discussion, it helps continue it.

And I think you guys missed my post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Loser

May 13th, 2003, 07:32 PM

Quick note on populations.

Canada has approximately thirty-three million people.

The U.S. has approximately two hundred eighty-five million people.

The State of California has more people in it than all of Canada. I hope, for Canada's sake, that this new world government does not lean heavily on population (like a democracy would), to make it's decisions.

Fyron

May 13th, 2003, 07:34 PM

This sort of balance between population and geography is one of the things that makes the U.S. the unstable wreck of a government that it is and this balance is not, if I recall correctly, duplicated anywhere else in the world. This is precisely why the government was set up that way. The longer it takes and the harder it is to get anything done, the less likely a tyranny will be able to take over the government.

[ May 13, 2003, 18:34: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Narrew

May 13th, 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
Care to guess the reason why?That is the second time you said that, dont keep us in supense http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif , unless you really dont know the answer to your question, but I think your stringing us along, your such a tease http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I will tell you later about my UN thoughts, have to go do some things, so hold on for a bit.

Ohh, I got a chuckle when I noticed that your from WESTERN Canada http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Narrew

May 13th, 2003, 07:40 PM

hey Loser, them "yahoos in the East" you mentioned are actually French nationalists trying to get a foothold back on this part of the world http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Group HUG

tbontob

May 13th, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Tbontob, you giving an answer does not end the discussion, it helps continue it.

And I think you guys missed my post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

That's one of the reasons, I must confess. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The other reason was as stipulated...to give others the time and opportunity to state their opinions.

And if someone gets it right on the money, all I have to say is "Bingo"! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Just so I will not be deluged with abuse, I am using "Bingo" in the sense that it is my opinion too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

EDIT: Fyron I may have misinterpreted your statement and assumed that you omitted to put an extra "not" in it.

[ May 13, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Narrew

May 13th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
And I think you guys missed my post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I didnt, I need to run, but I will amke a quick comment. If we became a one world goverment, then it wouldnt be illegal to get the mexicans up here to mow my lawn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif (I am just freaking kidding folks, I like stirring the pot, cant help it, I was born this way).

Ok, this would take it more off topic, but I think we could agree if for some reason WE (someone in the world) decided to make space eXploration/eXploitation/eXpansion, what would be better a 1 world goverment or multi-nationals racing out there? I dont think we would turn on each other if we had something to keep us busy out there.

Grr, I have to go

Fyron

May 13th, 2003, 07:54 PM

EDIT: Fyron I may have misinterpreted your statement and assumed that you omitted to put an extra "not" in it.
I had an extra be in it because I changed the wording mid-sentence and forgot to remove it, but that is all.

The only thing that would make a good unified world government feasible would be great threat from alien lifeforms. But since it is impossible for stellar empires to expand beyond a single star system, that isn't a concern in reality. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 13, 2003, 18:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

kalthalior

May 13th, 2003, 08:15 PM

To Rex, regarding the President:

Regarding the "Bush was AWOL", from National Guard Magazine
"the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." The review was done by Georgemag.com, the Online Version of the magazine founded by the late John F. Kennedy Jr. Guardsmen say Bush's service record is not unusual."

I'll note as a veteran myself that nobody I ever heard of that went AWOL got an honorable discharge.

Regarding he "lied about drunken driving", from Robert A. George
of the New York Post, 11/3/00:

"There is no evidence yet that Bush has lied about this incident. And, of course, for the boomer media, the actions matter little; the chief question is, Did the individual lie or dissemble? In truth, it seems that Bush was pretty aboveboard in his handling of it. In this post-Clinton moment, the principal lesson we are asked to accept is that Dubya was "straightforward" about his past. This columnist would have preferred hearing about this incident a year ago � and coming from the Republican candidate himself."

It appears you are 0-2 so far about the President lying, and it gets better:

he "lied about Harken", from columnist Byron York:

"In June 1990, Bush sold two-thirds of his stake � 212,000 shares � at $4 for a total price of $848,000. At the time of the sale, Harken was moving into a period of financial difficulties. In the months following Bush's sale, the company announced a quarterly loss and the stock price went into a long, slow decline; by the end of 1990, it was $1.25 a share."

However, York goes on to state:

"Bush denies any wrongdoing and has often said he was unaware of the difficulties within Harken. "He thought he was selling into good news," spokeswoman Karen Hughes told The American Spectator, adding that if Bush had waited to sell the stock he could have earned considerably more than he got. That would, however, have required his waiting at least a year; it was not until June 1991 that Harken got back up to $4 a share. By September 1991 it briefly hit $8 a share.
In 1991 the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the sale and took no action against Bush or anyone else. "I don't remember a lot about it, other than there wasn't a lot about it," says William McLucas, who was the SEC enforcement chief at the time. "The facts just didn't support any judgment that this was something that would result in a serious enforcement proceeding." "

So he sold in June '90 for $4, it went as low as $1.25 in Dec. '90, but by Sep. '91 it was over $8.
I fail to see a problem here, unless it was that he sold too early. Also note the statement from the SEC.

Perhaps you should investigate things a little more closely before repeating things to find out if they're really true.

geoschmo

May 13th, 2003, 08:16 PM

We Americans struggle constantly with the balance between a cetralized and decentralized government. We even fought a civil war at least partly because of it. Very few people that don't live in Washington D.C. really honestly believe that the government in Washington has our best interests as their main priority. The Fedeal government for the most part is something we tolerate. It's a nessecary evil because only a strong central government is able to do the things that individual towns/cities/states can't do, like defend us from invasion by the Canadians. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I can't imagine we would ever peacefully hand over the reigns to some world body. We have a hard enough time trusting our own federal government.

tbontob

May 13th, 2003, 09:08 PM

Yep Geoschmo, we Canadians are nasty. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Been a long time since I was in grade school, but IIRC, we (terrible, awful, disgusting <====pick your adjective) Canadians burnt your White House.

War of 1812 or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Loser

May 13th, 2003, 09:25 PM

You'd likely do better, tbontob, by pointing out that you took part of Maine, then Massachusetts, and never gave it back.

But back then you weren't even Canadians: you were just Loyalists. And I seem to remember that most of the 'Canadian' contingent in that conflict were exiled loyalists from the thirteen colonies.

But enough history. Geo was not Canadian-bashing. If anyone was it was me. No one has pointed out if I am mistaken about how your government works, so this makes it even less likely anyone was attacking Canada.

(And I wasn't bashing Canada, I was only trying to illustrate a point.)
[Edit:And that point was not that the U.S. government was better, just that it was very different.]

[ May 13, 2003, 20:29: Message edited by: Loser ]

tbontob

May 13th, 2003, 09:38 PM

Loser, I never felt Geoschmo was bashing Canada in the Last post. If anything, I felt it was an attempt to ease the tension a bit. That enabled me to joke about us Canadians in return. Us terrible psuedo-Vikings to the north. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And yes you did have inaccuracies in your post about Canada. And I could have posted corrections, but felt it was much better if others got involved. And if the inaccuracies were not corrected, so what? It would not be the end of the world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Loser

May 13th, 2003, 09:50 PM

Terribly sorry that I misread you.

If you would correct me in a PM, if not in this thread, I would appreciate it.

Fyron

May 13th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Tbontob, deliberately withholding information is not a good way to hold a discussion. Most people do not want to get involved in this thread, and you aren't going to convince them to do so.

tbontob

May 13th, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Terribly sorry that I misread you.

If you would correct me in a PM, if not in this thread, I would appreciate it.Ooops, my sincere apologies.

When I posted, I did not realize I would be embarrassing you. I was just trying to correct what I perceived to be an irroneous impression.

Sometimes I have to think longer before I yak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ruatha

May 13th, 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
Loser, I never felt Geoschmo was bashing Canada in the Last post. If anything, I felt it was an attempt to ease the tension a bit. That enabled me to joke about us Canadians in return. Us terrible psuedo-Vikings to the north. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And yes you did have inaccuracies in your post about Canada. And I could have posted corrections, but felt it was much better if others got involved. And if the inaccuracies were not corrected, so what? It would not be the end of the world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Well, Tbontob, you succeded and got me involved
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Pseudo-vikings?
If IRC the vikings left Canada and abandonded their colony there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

tbontob

May 13th, 2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tbontob:
Loser, I never felt Geoschmo was bashing Canada in the Last post. If anything, I felt it was an attempt to ease the tension a bit. That enabled me to joke about us Canadians in return. Us terrible psuedo-Vikings to the north. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And yes you did have inaccuracies in your post about Canada. And I could have posted corrections, but felt it was much better if others got involved. And if the inaccuracies were not corrected, so what? It would not be the end of the world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Well, Tbontob, you succeded and got me involved
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Pseudo-vikings?
If IRC the vikings left Canada and abandonded their colony there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif <hr /></blockquote>Heh heh. Not the kind of involvement I was hoping for, but OK.

Yes, they did. In Newfoundland or was it Labrador?

There is evidence of other Viking settlements but not as conclusive yet.

Anyways, let's put what I thought was funny into some sort of perspective.

In the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, the Vikings terrorized most of Europe. They were mostly, peoples from Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Usually, they struck hard and quickly, creating mayhem, taking slaves/hostages, booty and often destroying much of what they didn't take.

They were the bane of Europe and parents would often frighten their children into good behaviour by saying the Vikings would take them if they were not good. Kind of the modern day boogey-man.

Now Geoschmo spoke of an invasion from the Canadians. The Canadians live in the North. The Vikings also lived in the north.

The Vikings often burnt what they didn't take. The Canadians burnt the white house.

To even think that the Canadians are as determined, dedicated, strong, combative, rapine destroyers of peoples and hearth and home as the Vikings is so ludicrous that it is hilarious. At least it is to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So, that's the joke. Us pretentious Canadians thinking the Americans are quivering in their boots and ready to panic at the slightest hint we may invade their soveriegn territory like the Vikings did to the Britain, France and many other countries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Aloofi

May 13th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Is it me or this thread have become so politically correct that even the jokes have to be explained to avoid missunderstandings?

Come on, we should always assume the best from any post.
If is only me, then don't pay attention to this post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Alpha Kodiak

May 13th, 2003, 11:50 PM

tbontob: Perhaps I could volunteer my services as the Canadian Minister of Information.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Narrew

May 13th, 2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Is it me or this thread have become so politically correct that even the jokes have to be explained to avoid missunderstandings?
I only said that I was joking cause I was in a hurry, and fairly new here that perhaps not everyone knows my sense of humor. Also here in the US, politically correctness has went so far the we never know when we will be sued for saying something that will offend someone.

Narrew

May 13th, 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
tbontob: Perhaps I could volunteer my services as the Canadian Minister of Information.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I think Bagdad Bob got that job http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

May 14th, 2003, 01:47 AM

Ok, all this talk is making me want to go to the video store and rent Canadian Bacon again. That movie was hilarious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:
Terribly sorry that I misread you.

If you would correct me in a PM, if not in this thread, I would appreciate it.Ooops, my sincere apologies.

When I posted, I did not realize I would be embarrassing you. I was just trying to correct what I perceived to be an irroneous impression.

Sometimes I have to think longer before I yak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>That's not the way i meant that. I am not embarrassed. I just wanted to know how the Canadian legislative system works, if I got it wrong. If you were not going to correct my description of it in this thread, I still wanted to know.

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 02:35 PM

Quick question to all those who don't think too highly of Bush: do you have anything to say about John McCain?

geoschmo

May 14th, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html
http://www.awolbush.com/
link about his great military career.Ok, here's the problem with this anti-Bush stuff all over the web. This guy with the talion site is a perfect example. His very first "example" of Bush lying was this quote:

Date: 08/19/88 Houston Chronicle article by R. G. Ratliffe
When running for governor, George W. Bush portrayed himself to voters as a great fighter pilot. "Asked how he got into the Air National Guard, Bush said, ‘They could sense I was going to be one of the great pilots of all time.’”

I mean, come on. This is so obviously intended as as self-depreciating humor by Bush. Whether you believe his personality is genuine, or it's all contrived showmanship to win the folksy hearts and minds, it's obvious to anyone with a brain when someone is poking fun with a reporter and when someone is making a serious statement that he intends to be taken seriously.

The fact that this web site author chose this quote with out any sort of attempt at putting it in context makes his intentions and lack of judgment crystal clear. By doing so he colors his entire site and tends to make someone viewing it with a skeptical attidude take it that much less seriously.

He has a lot of raw information here, but much of it requires an understanding of standard military procedures to be able to anylze it and weigh it correctly. He wants the uninformed reader to trust his analysis of that information, yet he leads off with what can only be termed as either a historic level of cluelessness, or outright dishonesty on his part. Not very smart IMHO, but unfortunatly very typical.

Geoschmo

[ May 14, 2003, 15:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 04:42 PM

There is a quote, and I don't remember who it's by or the exact wording, but it goes something like this. Someone said
Universal literacy has not led to an increase in the quality of literature as much as it has led to an increase in the quantity of poor literature. I fear the same could be said of journalism and the internet. It could be said
The internet has not led to an increase in the quality of journalism as much as it has led to an increase in the quantity of poor journalism.And just like all the crappy novels and non-fiction works out there, people do read it, buy into it, and ceaselessly talk about it.

This is a general response to Geo's more detailed analysis. I did not even read that site. This is not about that specific site, or about any specific situation, just a nice, broad, open generalization. (just so you know, if you cared)

[edit: Just wanted to make it clear I didn't mean this about any one person.]

[ May 14, 2003, 16:22: Message edited by: Loser ]

geoschmo

May 14th, 2003, 05:08 PM

The problem won't get any better. It's too easy for people, and I mean no offense to Tesco by this cause people on both sides of the debate do it, to throw those links out there in a discussion like this. It can be carefully qualified with "I don't know how accurate this is, but he brings up some interesting points doesn't he?". Who cares if the information is unverified, out of context, incomplete, or outright fabrication. It's interesting, and it seems to support my preconceived notions, so I am going ot use it. I can't be held accountable to it because, after all, I didn't write it. Hell, I didn't even read most of it. I merely posted a link to it.

Ruatha

May 14th, 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Quick question to all those who don't think too highly of Bush: do you have anything to say about John McCain?Never heard of....

(Or was it the lead character in the Die hard trilogy?)

[ May 14, 2003, 16:35: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

geoschmo

May 14th, 2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:
Quick question to all those who don't think too highly of Bush: do you have anything to say about John McCain?Never heard of....

(Or was it the lead character in the Die hard trilogy?)<hr /></blockquote>No no no, that's McClane. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
And you have to say that with a suitable Alan Rickman vague Eurosomething-accent.

Geoschmo

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:
Quick question to all those who don't think too highly of Bush: do you have anything to say about John McCain?Never heard of....

(Or was it the lead character in the Die hard trilogy?)<hr /></blockquote>That's kind of nice. At least non-U.S.-residents aren't all aware of all the details of the U.S. political scene.

It often surprises me that you all are aware of the names of some of our states. I don't know that I could even name a city in Sweden, but Ruatha mostly like knows a thing or two about Texas, California, and maybe even Utah.

Wait.. I might have one... Is Helsinki in Sweden?

dogscoff

May 14th, 2003, 06:02 PM

It often surprises me that you all are aware of the names of some of our states.
Well, we've all been brought up on US TV, US films, US values... this is why there is such a strong anti-american sentiment out there. People feel their own cultures and ways of life are being drowned under a flood of US imports.

Ruatha

May 14th, 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Loser:

Wait.. I might have one... Is Helsinki in Sweden?Nope, but not so bad after all though.
It was in Sweden until 1809 IIRC, then we lost it to Russia in one of our Last wars, now it's Finlands capital!
(The Last one we fought was 1814)

My big sister was a Donny Osmond fan so I know some of Utah. I've seen Dallas, a soap from Texas. And one of the Die hard movies was in california right?

Se I know aaaaaalll about the US, and it's all based on fact!

[ May 14, 2003, 17:15: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
People feel their own cultures and ways of life are being drowned under a flood of US imports.Yeah... Just not sure why anyone in the U.S. should feel responsible for the importing habits of people in other parts of the world.

Those other people like the U.S. stuff, the U.S. likes (really, really likes) selling its stuff. This is win-win.

There's a big gap in understanding here, so I'd guess that I'm missing something. If you could help me out here, I'd much appreciate it.

tbontob

May 14th, 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:
Terribly sorry that I misread you.

If you would correct me in a PM, if not in this thread, I would appreciate it.Ooops, my sincere apologies.

When I posted, I did not realize I would be embarrassing you. I was just trying to correct what I perceived to be an irroneous impression.

Sometimes I have to think longer before I yak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>That's not the way i meant that. I am not embarrassed. I just wanted to know how the Canadian legislative system works, if I got it wrong. If you were not going to correct my description of it in this thread, I still wanted to know.<hr /></blockquote>Loser http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

When I read this, I was really confused.

Like you are not embarrassed by want a private message?

Upon reflection, I am guessing you were trying to give me an option. At least I hope it is because if not there is a serious communication gap here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Well, you would be right to say I am not into national politics.

Probably the best the place to start is to have some idea of our history.

It�s been a while since I�ve learned this stuff, so I may be a bit vague in some areas.

Prior to the American Revolution, our country was defeated by the British on the Plains of Abraham just outside of Quebec, Quebec. (Forget the date).

At the time it was totally French, although the Hudson�s Bay Company operated out of the Hudson Bay under a British Royal Charter of 1671. They owned Rupertsland which was an enormous area as it encompassed all the lands within which the rivers drained into the Hudsons Bay.

When the Americans revolted, a large number of loyalists came and settled in what was then Upper Canada (Ontario), Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

As a result, there were resentments and conflicts between the French and the loyalists. The reasons were many, but basically,
1) Different language
2) Different customs.
3) Different religions
4) Different laws - Quebec had civil law which is derived from Napoleonic Law which I understand has it�s basis in Roman Law. In contrast the rest of Canada, like the U.S. had common law which had its origins in British common law which in turn is based on precedent.

Understandably, the French speaking Canadians did not want their culture to be submerged within the culture of the loyalists.

Various acts were passed by the British Parliament which attempted to deal with the issue, none of them really effective.

Finally, on July 1,1867 (Canada�s official birthday), the British North America Act was passed by Britain which officially created Canada and
1) Gave the right to Canadians to govern themselves internally. Foreign relations/policy was retained by Britain.
2) Created a Federal Government.
3) Specifically stated the rights, powers and privileges of the provinces and the Federal Government.
4) Basically enshrined the right to enact laws governing language, customs, laws and religion to the provinces.

The original four signatories were Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Somewhat like your 13 colonies. : )

In 1931, Britain passed the statute of Westminster by which Canada and the other dominions obtained the right to make its own laws regarding its foreign relations such as making treaties etc.

Numerous other statutes had been passed, but those are the main ones. As compared to the U.S. Canada�s growth to maturity has been slow and gradual and accounts for some of the differences between our systems.

From here on, I will limit myself to the Federal government, although the provincial governments generally have an equivalent structure.

Federally, Canada has three branches of Government:
1) Executive Branch comprised of the Prime minister, his Cabinet and the public service.
2) Legislative Branch comprised of the Governor General, the House of Commons and the Senate.
3) Judicial Branch

Canada can be described as a constitutional monarchy, a federation and a democracy all rolled into one.

Even though Canada is completely sovereign from Britain, the Queen is our head of state. But as the Queen is above politics, she does not tell us what to do.

But saying that, technically, all the rights and powers and privileges of the three branches of Canadian government flow from the Crown.

As the Queen cannot be here in person, she is represented by the Governor General to whom she has delegated her powers. These powers are largely symbolic and ceremonial but do play a part in the functioning of our government.

The Governor General is the Head of State (as opposed to the head of government which is the Prime Minster). The Prime Minister selects the Governor General and submits his selection to the Queen who formally makes the appointment, usually for 5 years.

In the 19th century, the Governor Generals tended to be Britains. This changed in the Last century when most if not all Governor Generals were Canadians.

The prime minister and his cabinet basically propose new laws and amendments to existing ones. These then go to the House of Commons where it is extensively debated and if passed, goes to the Senate.

The prime minister has the right to appoint members to the Senate. In theory, the Senate is supposed to be a part of the checks and balances to ensure the government will not act improperly. If it feels a bill would be extremely offensive, it has the right to send it back to the House of Commons for further reconsideration. IIRC, it can only do this three times at which time it will pass into law.

It is well know that the prime minister will often reward a political friend by appointing him to the senate. It is a lifetime appointment although it expires when the senator reaches age 75.

At times, the senate has become a topic of great controversy. There is the general perception, that it serves little real purpose. While it may be politically aligned to the government, which has been in power the longest, the only real power it has IMO is to send a bill back to the House of Commons three times�a power it has seldom exercised.

It should be noted however, that on the few occasions, the Senate did send a bill back to the House of Commons for reconsideration; the country did sit up and take notice.

Bills to abolish the Senate or amend it have not gone anywhere and the Senate is perceived by many Canadians to be a form of pension or retirement home. : )

The House of Commons is comprised of elected representatives and are aligned according to political Groups. Currently we have 10 registered political parties of which 5 have members (MP�s) in parliament

The party which has the most representatives elected in an election gets to form the next government. If it has less than 50% of the members, it will be called a �minority government� and is unlikely to remain in power long as a successful �no-confidence� vote or the failure of a vote on a major bill will bring it down. Even a government with a bare majority can be brought down as members don�t always vote as they �should� and some members have been known to cross party lines. A government with a solid �majority� can normally expect to remain in power until it decides to call the next election which must be within 5 years.

I do not have a lot of knowledge about electoral districts, so I could be wrong about a point or two.

House of Commons representatives (Members of Parliament or MP�s) are elected from districts. Currently I believe we have just over 300. Districts may created, destroyed or modified after each census. There is a complicated formula, which is partly defined by the BNA Act, but basically, as I understand it, the aim is to have districts of the same population size. So, you will not get something like one district having 10,000 voters and another having 100,000.

Some districts may be small geographically like metropolitan Toronto, and large if it is a dispersed farming community. But whatever their physical size, the aim is to have districts of equal populations within their boundaries.

Since most of Canada�s population lives in urban populations, most of the MP�s come from the cities and large towns.

About western dissatisfaction, the reasons are numerous and diverse. I don�t claim to know them all but will mention a few.

Alberta in particular was unhappy for economic reasons because the Federal government imposed a special tax on gas and oil when prices were high. At the time Alberta was the only major producer of oil and gas in the country. The effect was to substantially reduce its revenues.

The Federal government also redistributed the wealth from the richer provinces to the poorer one. British Columbia and Alberta being richer provinces were somewhat unhappy about it but IMO their objections were somewhat subdued because there was a politically correct element about it all. Understandably this was not an issue with Saskatchewan or Manitoba as they were recipients of these payments.

All four western provinces felt that the Federal government was not listening to their complaints. In part, Ottawa was focused upon Quebec and it�s bid for seccession. So, I suspect they took a page out of Quebec�s book and started talking seccession too. It did get Ottawa�s attention and cause it to pay more attention to them and not just assume they would go along with whatever Ottawa decides.

I don�t feel seccession was really a major issue in Western Canada, but it could have become one if Ottawa didn�t listen to the issues they felt were important. To its credit, Ottawa realized this and did pay more attention to the western provinces.

Also, any change to the constitution requires the agreement of all the provinces.

Having very upset western provinces means no changes to the constitution.

Hope this helps you and is what you want.

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
a whole lot of thingsThank you.

Narrew

May 14th, 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Well, we've all been brought up on US TV, US films, US values... this is why there is such a strong anti-american sentiment out there. People feel their own cultures and ways of life are being drowned under a flood of US imports.I was raised on Benny Hill and Absoluty Fabulous http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif No wonder I am messed up.

Ok, seriously. Whos fault is it for the imports? Its not like we are dropping propaganda from our bombers to smother you in our way of life. We are a capitalist country, if you dont buy, you aint going to get this stuff for free! The argument that the US is smothering other countries is absurd. An example I can think of is Japan. They eat up western movies and other items, but are still respectfull of their society (even if they are wearing blue jeans).

I respectfully disagree.

Ruatha

May 14th, 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Narrew:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dogscoff:
Well, we've all been brought up on US TV, US films, US values... this is why there is such a strong anti-american sentiment out there. People feel their own cultures and ways of life are being drowned under a flood of US imports.I was raised on Benny Hill and Absoluty Fabulous http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif No wonder I am messed up.

Ok, seriously. Whos fault is it for the imports? Its not like we are dropping propaganda from our bombers to smother you in our way of life. We are a capitalist country, if you dont buy, you aint going to get this stuff for free! The argument that the US is smothering other countries is absurd. An example I can think of is Japan. They eat up western movies and other items, but are still respectfull of their society (even if they are wearing blue jeans).

I respectfully disagree.<hr /></blockquote>Disagree all you want but DS has a valid point there.
No matter the reasons many feel that the anglo-american influence is too strong.
The US capitalistic system produces too much to cheap.

So, please raise your prices, cut production and reduce the quality, then we can all get along nicely!

geoschmo

May 14th, 2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Disagree all you want but DS has a valid point there.
No matter the reasons many feel that the anglo-american influence is too strong.
The US capitalistic system produces too much to cheap.

So, please raise your prices, cut production and reduce the quality, then we can all get along nicely!But that won't work. Becasue now that we have you addicted to American culture you can't help yourself. Oh yes, we will raise prices and cut production, but your demand will not go down. And we will reduce quality to raise our profits, but it won't matter. You will buy it anyway. MUHU-MUHUHU-MUHUHUHUHAHAHAHAHAHAA. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Wardad

May 14th, 2003, 08:46 PM

WHAT????

The USA has a serious trade deficit because we import too many consumer goods from other countries.

Fortunitly we export some essentials: Food, Weapons, Cotton, and Entertainment.

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Wardad:
The USA has a serious trade deficit because we import too many consumer goods from other countries.That's what I thought...

But I don't have any documentation to back that up. Do you, WD?

geoschmo

May 14th, 2003, 09:09 PM

Right now there is a trade deficit in consumer goods. Those things are cyclical. They depend on the value of the dollar compared to other nations currency more then anything else.

But we are still a net exporter in culture. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 09:10 PM

When was the cycle Last 'up'?

How far 'down' is it?

Aloofi

May 14th, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
When was the cycle Last 'up'?The Clinton Era?

How far 'down' is it? [/QUOTE]

Maybe the 1930's recession?

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by lots of people about exports, magnitudes, and timing:
Words, words, wordsDocumentation?

I haven't gotten anyone to yet cite a source on this issue.

Raw data, or something close to it, please. No editorials or commentaries otherwise without their own documentation will do.

[edited for clarity and formatted to fit your screen]

[ May 14, 2003, 20:37: Message edited by: Loser ]

geoschmo

May 14th, 2003, 09:40 PM

No, the US ran a trade deficit all through the Clinton years. The current deficit is the largest we have ever had, but it's the continuation of a trend that began in 1992 with the end of the Last recession.

The thing is the trade deficit isn't really a good indicator of the health of the country's economy. More often than not our trade deficit goes up in strong economic years because a strong economy means we have more money to buys stuff. However, the TD can go down in good years and up in bad. Our economy can be bad and still be better than our trading partners, and vice versa.

The Last year we had a surplus in trade was 1975.

Raw Data: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

One thing I do think is interesting in looking at the chart is how the balance of trade in goods and and the balance of trade in services have moved in opposite directions. It's a good example of the trend of our nation from a production to a service economy. That's a trend that has been going on since the 60s.

Geoschmo

"I'm not an economist, but I play one in the forum." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 14, 2003, 20:45: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Loser

May 14th, 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
The Last year we had a surplus in trade was 1975.

Raw Data: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

...
GeoschmoYou rock, old man.

TerranC

May 15th, 2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
But that won't work. Becasue now that we have you addicted to American culture you can't help yourself. Oh yes, we will raise prices and cut production, but your demand will not go down. And we will reduce quality to raise our profits, but it won't matter. You will buy it anyway. MUHU-MUHUHU-MUHUHUHUHAHAHAHAHAHAA. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Well, if that ever happens, we (the rest of the world) can always turn to Japan or the EU. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tesco samoa

May 15th, 2003, 01:59 AM

http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html
http://www.awolbush.com/
link about his great military career.

dogscoff

May 15th, 2003, 11:20 AM

Becasue now that we have you addicted to American culture you can't help yourself.
Well quite. It has now reached the point in the UK (and I'm sure in plenty of other countries as well) where the majority of people can't tell where US culture begins and ours ends.

And yes, we did buy into it. No-one forced us, although I'd disagree with the statement that no propaganda was used. IMHO the whole cold war was little more than a propaganda war, with the US exporting images of big cars, drive-thru movies, shiny white teeth and apparent wealth throughout the 50s and early 60s. The so-called American Dream.

But anyway, now that we have bought into (or in the case of younger generations- inherited) the American Dream, a lot of us want out. We spent thousands of years developping our own cultures and so we kind of resent having them sanitised, branded, assimilated into US culture and then sold back to us in a happy meal.

Aloofi

May 15th, 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
. Hopefully more and more people will do the same and eventually things will change.I doubt it will change peacefully. Behind consumism are all those mega corporations, and they have a vested interest in consumism. They are not gonna let it go without a fight, they have the money and power to control most of our politicians, so..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

geoschmo

May 15th, 2003, 02:22 PM

Aloofi, what you are describing ceases to become consumerism and instead becomes coersion. That's a big step to take, even for an evil capitalist corporation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

D, what I still don't understand is your resentment of Americans for suplying you with what you want to buy. It's not propaganda, it's called advertising. And you and your countrymen are free to turn it off any time you wish.

I guess I understand though. When you look at your own country and see problems it's much easier and feels better if you can put the blame for it on someone else. Nobody likes being held responsible for our own flaws. Of course maybe that's all part of the American culture you have been infected with. Cause I certainly see that trait among many people on this side of the pond as well.

Geoschmo

Ruatha

May 15th, 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:

D, what I still don't understand is your resentment of Americans for suplying you with what you want to buy. It's not propaganda, it's called advertising. And you and your countrymen are free to turn it off any time you wish.
I don't think it's too hard to understand.
A drug addict can be upset at the dealers selling the drugs yet still buying them...

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I doubt it will change peacefully. Behind consumism are all those mega corporations, and they have a vested interest in consumism. They are not gonna let it go without a fight, they have the money and power to control most of our politicians, so..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Cooperations are run by people, most of them ordinary people with families and kids.
Many of them feel that we are consuming to much themselfs. There are coperation owners that are decent people..

(Hard to see me writing these things as I used to be a member in the Swedish communist party's youth club, now the "Left Party", whom I still vote on though.)
(And no let's not start a commie bashing thread I know all about the atrocities commited by them and the downfalls of the theory!)

[ May 15, 2003, 13:32: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

geoschmo

May 15th, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
I don't think it's too hard to understand.
A drug addict can be upset at the dealers selling the drugs yet still buying them...Well, that's kind of offensive equating legal products and services with the drug trade. But it's a prefect example of my point. Many people and shortsighted politicians in my country get up in arms about the drug trade. They want to blame the countries supplying the drugs like Columbia when in fact the problem is our demand for the drugs in the first place. We criticize those countries for being unable to stop the supply, when it is our money funding the cartels and corrupting and coercing the legal system in those countries to the point where the bad guys basically run the show down there. Although from what I hear it's getting some better in recent years, but a lot of innocent Columbians died in the process.

Look in a mirror. The consumer is king folks. You want it, if Americans didn't supply it, someone else would.

Geoschmo

Ruatha

May 15th, 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Well, that's kind of offensive equating legal products and services with the drug trade.Offensive is another of my middle names... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Cyrien

May 15th, 2003, 04:21 PM

Here is the problem with some of what has been said.

The minimalist lifestyle is good. But what happens when lots of people adopt it? A drop in demand, resulting in a drop in supply. If no one buys it the companies stop producing it. If they aren't producing it they fire the people making it so they don't lose money while demand is low. So what happens to the fired people?

Currently the consumerism is so strongly embedded in most modernized and even developing countries to an extent that if significant numbers of people went against it it would lead to almost total economic collapse. Why? Because that is the system we have and all of our national services and organizations are based on those fundamental ideas. Before you can replace it you have to have an alternative. Cottage industries maybe? As much as I think it sounds good I don't think it is going to happen.

tbontob

May 15th, 2003, 05:16 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ruatha:
Cooperations are run by people, most of them ordinary people with families and kids.
Many of them feel that we are consuming to much themselfs. There are coperation owners that are decent people..

(Hard to see me writing these things as I used to be a member in the Swedish communist party's youth club, now the "Left Party", whom I still vote on though.)
(And no let's not start a commie bashing thread I know all about the atrocities commited by them and the downfalls of the theory!)[/QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A communist! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

We have a communist in our midst! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Batten down the hatches! Get the women and children into shelters! Go onto stage 3 alert! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Yes, there is a huge difference between theoretical communism and "Communism", an experiment gone bad.

Theoretical commmunism emphasizes the importance of the working man

In contrast, Communism de-emphasized the importance of the proletariat. An example is of the untold millions who died of mass starvation in the 30's when Stalin converted the farms into collectives.

Complain and you won a free trip to a government sponsored resort whereby you had the opportunity to experience a new lifestyle.

In a society where everyone was supposed to be equal, gross inequalities flourished.

The elite were insulated from the worst abuses of power. While there were purges, they did not reach the magnitude of the untold millions who died helplessly at the hands of the regime.

Government officials had summer resorts in addition to large homes, the common man felt himself blessed to share a 3 room apartment with only one other family.

Government officials had the right to shop in government stores which had a wide selection of products. The common man had the right to wait in line for hours in anticipation of buying a product which may not be available when he reached the head of the line. He could then look forward to waiting in another line for another product he needed in order to survive.

Just a few examples of the good life in Russia.

Like it or not, we are all basically the same. We may have been blessed with a greater intelligence, more money, more goods, but IMO none of those makes a person a better person than another.

Ruatha, I totally agree with you that people in corporations are ordinary people who have family and kids. To tar and feather everyone who belongs in a certain class because of the actions of a few is not right.

Hate is extremely corrosive. It has severe consequences to both the person expressing it and the target.

Even criminals deserve respect as people. What they have done is not to be condoned or accepted. And they need to pay the price. But they are still people.

People who hate, often learn this lesson the hard way when a relative is incarcerated.

I think it was Nietzche who said that the health of a nation can be inferred from how it treats its criminals.

Aloofi

May 15th, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Cooperations are run by people, most of them ordinary people with families and kids.
Many of them feel that we are consuming to much themselfs. There are coperation owners that are decent people..

Descent people?
Like who?
Dick Cheney? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

About the anti-Americanism, I wouldn't worry about that, there is absolutely nothing that the US can do to be loved, because all ruling empires have been hated through history. You can be sure that those people blindly anti-american would be the same wether the US did something wrong or not.
Of course, there are other people out there, like me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif , that don't hate the US, but "strongly" dislike the current administration. So all anti-americanism is not anti-Bush, and all anti-Bush is not anti-americanism.

.

geoschmo

May 15th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Tbontob, there is no way to have a "theoretical communist" government. Marxism in practice will naturally flow towards either anarchy or Stalinism, because the theory of Marxism is inherantly flawed. It's flaw is that it fails to account for the fact that it must be administered by human beings, and human beings are inherantly flawed. We are greedy by our nature.

A system such as capitalism assumes this truth and uses the inherrant nature of the species as a check and balance agaisnt it's baser tendancies. Yes of course there are plenty of examples of corruption but they are the exception rather then the rule in a truely free capitlaist economy. They result from fallible humans attempting to control market forces, which goes against the capitalist principle, instead of "letting it be". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Hunkpapa

May 15th, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
Even criminals deserve respect as people. What they have done is not to be condoned or accepted. And they need to pay the price. But they are still people.
[/QB](ducking)

I disagree to an extent, when you show you cannot live in harmony with the rest of society and obey their laws (habitual criminals) you become nothing more than an animal and should be treated as such.

I like the 3 strike law. Hey you screw up once it may have been a mistake, but you make the mistake 2 more times, it's over.

Death row should be empty.

Terrorists should be tortured for information (they are cowards and will sing like a jay-bird)and then killed.

I am tired of my tax money supporting criminals who have rights when they have no respect for mine.

(ducks some more)

Sorry had to vent, have strong feelings on this subject...I realize it is alittle off topic. But this posting keeps going off on tangents.

CEO TROLL

May 15th, 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Geo- yes, it is rampant consumerism that I object to...YOU WILL BE ASSIMULATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Aloofi

May 15th, 2003, 05:46 PM

Aloofi

May 15th, 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Hunkpapa:

I disagree to an extent, when you show you cannot live in harmony with the rest of society and obey their laws (habitual criminals) you become nothing more than an animal and should be treated as such.

I like the 3 strike law. Hey you screw up once it may have been a mistake, but you make the mistake 2 more times, it's over.

.I agree with you to some extent. Criminal behaivor should not be tolerated by any society, most because a criminal is stealing or killing his own poeple!!
He is not fighting defending his country, oh no, he is killing for money, the lowest of all excuses.
So yeah, I support the death penalty, as long as the crimminal have been proven guilty beyond doubt.

geoschmo

May 15th, 2003, 05:54 PM

By Stalinism I don't mean strict idealogical Stalinism, but any sort of totalitarianism. Force and coersion of some kind is neccesary to maintain the system in spite of it's flaws. Those that believe in Marxism often dismiss the fact that every communist state in history has turned into a totalitarian regime and pine for true Marxism to be given "a fair try". But they are deluding themselves. It's not outside influences, but the inherant flaws in the communist theory that cause it.

tbontob

May 15th, 2003, 06:11 PM

Geoschmo, I never said there was a way 'to have a "theoretical communist" government.' http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Just as there is no way to have a "theoretical capitalist" government.

A much purer form of capitalism flourished a couple of centuries ago. Because of the abuses, the government had to step in and we have a...what would you call it? Socialized capitalism? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I am using a different term because our so-called "capitalism" of today is very different from the capitalism of two centuries ago. And calling them by the same name blurs the issues.

IMO, the inherent difficulty with communism (small c) is in its conflict to treat people the same and inability to effectively reward initiative. Fundamentally it has a problem of determining the mechanism by which the person is to be rewarded.

We use the market mechanism to reward people. And basically it is self-regulating. Create something people want and you will be rewarded. Create something people do not want, and not only will you not be rewarded, a lot of money will have been lost in the process.

IMO, Communism tried to avoid it because they perceived the market mechanism to be a characteristic of capitalism.

Our societies were flexible enough to move from pure capitalism towards communism, only we called it socialism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Heaven forbid that we cannot admit that our society is a hybrid of capitalism and communism (small c). So, we invent the word socialism. That makes us feel more comfortable.

Now, just so you do not jump all over me, I am not implying the U.S. government is a socialist government. But the U.S. does have socialist programs, a lot of them.

Communism (large C) could have moved towards capitalism and we could have ended up having similiar societies. Maybe if they invented a word which would allow them to move towards capitalism without openly admitting it, they could have done so.

But I doubt it would have happened because Soviet Communism was a totalitarian regime and as power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ruatha

May 15th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:

They result from fallible humans attempting to control market forces, which goes against the capitalist principle, instead of "letting it be". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif GeoschmoThere must be some control even in a capitalistic life-style.
The US has some of the strongest anti-trust laws in the world, atleast I think so (!)
We in europe are catching up but we don't have as much regulations concerning the cooperations yet as the US has.

(Edit:Tbontob beat me to it!)

[ May 15, 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Ruatha

May 15th, 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:

Communism (large C) could have moved towards capitalism and we could have ended up having similiar societies.
I belive that there is something like that occuring in vietnam today, it moves more and more towards an individual based society insted of a collective.
(And that is good, in my opinion)

The true greatness of western civilization is the emergance of human rights!

[ May 15, 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Narrew

May 15th, 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
Now, just so you do not jump all over me, I am not implying the U.S. government is a socialist government. But the U.S. does have socialist programs, a lot of them.
Hey!!! Don't you go all aplogetic on us http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I agree with you. Unless the general public wakes up (the people that dont vote because they think their vote don't count) we will become a socialist goverment. We have been going down that road for a long time. I am not saying anything against any Country that is Socialist, I just dont think it is the best for the U.S.

Another thing I see happening that way down the road, maybe 100 years from now, is that we "the people of earth" will become a blend of one nation where each country will be just a state within it. And I don't think the U.S. will be in the driver seat. Will that be good/bad I don't know. The only thing that I see that might change that is China. It will be very interesting how China reacts with the NK situation.

teal

May 15th, 2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Tbontob, there is no way to have a "theoretical communist" government. Marxism in practice will naturally flow towards either anarchy or Stalinism, because the theory of Marxism is inherantly flawed. It's flaw is that it fails to account for the fact that it must be administered by human beings, and human beings are inherantly flawed. We are greedy by our nature.

A system such as capitalism assumes this truth and uses the inherrant nature of the species as a check and balance agaisnt it's baser tendancies. Yes of course there are plenty of examples of corruption but they are the exception rather then the rule in a truely free capitlaist economy. They result from fallible humans attempting to control market forces, which goes against the capitalist principle, instead of "letting it be". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
hmmmm. I seem to detect a possible double standard here. Please correct me if I'm wrong here Geoschmo because in order to say anything I have to make several assumptions. The biggest assumption that I am making and the source of my post is that you are advocating laisez fair capitalism with as little government or other influence as humanly possible (i.e. the type of capitalism championed by Ayn Rand and the Libertarian party of the United States). I make this assumption based on your comments about a "truly free" capitalistic system and "letting it be".

You point out, correctly, that "utopian" communism is inherently flawed because it fails to account for human nature (i.e. it is unrealizable). I would further add that IMO laisez fair capitalism is equally as flawed for exactly the same reason. The language in your own post helps to support my point of view when you are forced to say a "truly free" capitalistic society has little corruption. You are, of course, forced to use the words "truly free" because no such society exists and never will. People are greedy not only for money, but for power as well and in a laisez fair economy whatever powers benefit from the random fluctiations in power levels to gain power will quickly change the rules away from "truly free" to "whatever benefits us" and you will no longer have a "truly free" economy anymore. I keep putting "truly free" in quotes because IMO there is no such thing, even in theory, since the economic game has to be played by some rules and those rules will always benefit some players over others. What this leads to in my observance of the real world, is exactly as you said, when you try and implement a "truly free" capatilistic economy what you inevitably end up with is large levels of corruption.

A very good book on this topic is "The Mystery of Capitalism" by Hernando DeSoto. To summarize: DeSoto asks the question, "given that Capitalism has worked so incredibly well in the western world and undeniably led to great wealth and prosperity for most (if not quite all, certainly better than any other system in historical record), how come recent experiments with implementing capitalistic economies in third world countries and former communist countries has been such an abject failure?" He goes on to display good documentation that in fact, these third world countries (and in particular the poor people in these countries) have incredible resources and "capital" for investment which is for some reason locked up in their economies and not being unleashed to create more wealth. The reason for this, in DeSoto's opinion, is that these countries laws do not reflect the situation that these poor people find themselves in. The systems for exchanging wealth in these countries are entirely based around those who are already in the system and does not allow poor people to readily convert and move their capital around. For example, many poor people "own" houses (in the sense that they made them with their bare hands), but do not have title to those houses and thus can not obtain a loan to start a small business (for example) by using their house as collatoral. Furthemore to obtain such a title would require something like 100 hours of waiting in line and filling out forms (he actually sent research assistants to stand in line and timed them) a procedure which is considerably expedited for those who already own property and/or have the resources to hire people to do their paperwork for them. Of particular interest was DeSoto's revisiting of U.S. history in which he showed that the famous Homesteading act was in fact a law introduced after the fact to allow people who had worked hard improving land they did not own to benefit from the capital they produced and thus generate more capital. DeSoto argues that these third world countries need similar acts to help them in their situation and they really need strong and fair laws which allow them to utilize their already existing capital. In short, what is needed is a Strong, but Fair, Government. Thus Government, far from being the bane of a prosperous economy, is something which is *essential* to allowing the greatest number of people to play at this economic game and thereby freeing up even more capital for investment and productive use. Obviously too much Government is bad (that 100 hours of waiting in line), but not enough Government is equally bad. The question (and an extremely tricky one at that) is how to decide these laws and how to best implement them, what level of police power is needed, etc. It is here that the idea of checks in balances is, to my mind, the best one, but it is very important to remember that the unchecked free market must also be checked.

To summarize: both capitalism (read little government, dog eat dog competition) and communism (read strong central government, dog shoots competing dog in back of head so their will be no competition) are straw men and their followers (Libertarians on the one hand, and communists on the other) are rightly relegated to minority status in any body politic. Let's try to keep the straw manning down to a dull roar rather than the knee jerk response it typically is... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

May 15th, 2003, 08:16 PM

Teal, you seem to gone off on a tangent from a few words in Geo's post and missed the meaning of it entirely... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Capitalism is not a government. It does not require any specific form of government to be in practice. Democracies, monarchies, oligarchies, etc. can all have capitalistic governments. Capitalism does not require "real little government", no more than "real strong central government" requires or creates "communism". Economic and government theory are not that simplistic.

teal

May 15th, 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Teal, you seem to gone off on a tangent from a few words in Geo's post and missed the meaning of it entirely... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Capitalism is not a government. It does not require any specific form of government to be in practice. Democracies, monarchies, oligarchies, etc. can all have capitalistic governments. Capitalism does not require "real little government", no more than "real strong central government" requires or creates "communism". Economic and government theory are not that simplistic.Laisez fair capitalism (as championed by Ayn Rand) *is* a form of Government or to be more precise a form of society which defines all the laws and norms which the people in that society will practice and adhere to.

Topic of discussion was "communism vs. capitalism". I fail to see how my post was a tangent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Capitalism *does* require certain types of governments in order to be effective. That's the whole point. Its not a magic bullet you can just pull out of your hat and say its the best and that's how you create wealth and help people. You need strong and fair government in order to realize the benefits of capitialism. Question should be not how do we instill free market capitalism on as many countries and places in the earth as possible, but how do we help people obtain fair and strong Governments which can make good laws and have the power to enforce them? A much harder question.

Certainly you can run capitalism under many forms of government, but it will be most effective under that type of Government which allows everyone to play the game and has enough power to enforce its laws. Once again, how you set up such a Government is an extremely complex question.

Cheers!

geoschmo

May 15th, 2003, 08:45 PM

teal, you make some very valid points. As with Pure Marxism, pure capitalism is an unatainable goal as long as soceity is composed of falible human beings. However, because capitalistic theory assumes and makes use of the falibility of man instead of ignoring or rejecting it as comunnism does, even an imperfect capitalistic system can result in a stable, prosperous nation. While the imperfect communist system will trend towards totalitarianism as the government strives to maintain growth and order in the absence of personal incentive.

The rule of law is required for a stable society regardless of economic system. Most laws have nothing to do with the produciton and distribution of goods and services. Those that do should strive to use as light of a touch as possible, to allow the "Unseen hand" unfettered movement.

Social programs are not by definition anti-capitalist, and neither is government as a whole. But either can be done to an excess that becomes anti-capitalist.

Government with a light touch that encourages entrepreneurship and competition can be most decidedly pro-capitalist.

Social programs that act as safety nets for the truely unfortunate members of a soceity can also be pro-capitalist as it can help prevent the spread of crime and disease which are bad for the wealth of the nation. Pro-capitalist social programs must be designed with incentives for the receipients that encourages their own personal entrepreneurship. To provide them the means and opportunity to better themselves. Not to simply provide their needs and wants indefinetly. Or they are no longer part of the market. They become non-productive.

Government is also neccesary for the common good. To do the things that individuals can't, and business shouldn't do. Infrastructure, defense, keeping the peace, enforcing the rule of law. But they need to be accountable to the public, and strive to be as efficent as possible. As Smith said these duties may be noble, but they are by their nature unproductive. Government cannot be productive, but it should strive to keep it's level of non-productiveness to an absolute minimum that is still sufficent to maintain the general welfare of the population.

Jeez, this is turning into a manifesto here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

P.S. And Tbontob, Anti-Trust laws are not anti-capitalist, because capitalism needs competition between providers of goods and services. Monopolies are anti-capitalist.

[ May 15, 2003, 19:49: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

geoschmo

May 15th, 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by teal:
Capitalism *does* require certain types of governments in order to be effective. That's the whole point.You are quite correct on this point. Although the Chinese are currently running an interesting soceitetal expirement in which they are attempting to bring in aspects of a capitalist economic system, while maintaining the totalitarian hold of the government. It is showing some benefits as their eceonomy is currently booming, growing faster than anywhere else in the world I believe.

I think the idea is ultimately doomed to failure as it is difficult for a person to accept "a little bit" of freedom. They can tolerate none, and they will flourish with a lot. But give them just a little and they will be the most miserable. Case in point, Soviet Union/Eastern Europe.

You pointed them out as examples of the failure of western capitalism, but it's still way to early to be making those sorts of judgements. Most of the problems they are having have to do with half steps towards free and open markets, rather then moving too fast. The corrupt governments trying to stay corrupt. Hard to do while simultaneously giving the population the freedom to better themselves.

Geoschmo

[ May 15, 2003, 20:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

tbontob

May 15th, 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
P.S. And Tbontob, Anti-Trust laws are not anti-capitalist, because capitalism needs competition between providers of goods and services. Monopolies are anti-capitalist.I think this comment would be more appropriately addressed to Ruatha since he was the one who made it.

But I do agree with it. [Edit: Ruatha's remark]

And IMO Teal has it right.

Two centuries ago, capitalism was based on a "let the market mechanism determine what happens and the government should not be involved."

"Lassez-faire" was the term used to both describe and promote the doctrine of minimal government interference in capitalism.

The latin phrase "Caveat emptor" (Let the buyer beware) was also used extensively for the same purpose by implying that the buyer had no one to blame but himself since he should have been more careful in making his decision.

And since the responsibility lay with the buyer, the government should not become involved.

Now if you want to redefine capitalism to include extensive government laws and regulations, well ok. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But it is the same as telling me a mule is a horse. However much they share similiarities, and have the same parentage, IMO a mule and a horse are not the same animal.

Similarly, capitalism in the 18th century is fundamentally different from the capitalism you are proposing.

Further my Websters Collegiate Dictionary defines capitalism as:

"An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decisions rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

Seems to me that when governments pass laws which affect the market place, it changes the private decisions of investors, and interferes with free market competition.

And each law that is passed which affects the market place, takes the country one step further away from capitalism.

[ May 15, 2003, 20:49: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Ruatha

May 15th, 2003, 09:38 PM

Yes to write off Russia as a failure is plain gross.
Ukraine hasn't fared very well, it's still totalitarian. But conditions in Russia is improving all the time, it is aswell one of the growing markets in the world and it starts to show for the common people there aswell.
Most of the other central-european countries are soon to join the European Union and conditions are improving there aswell. But in some of these countries (Read Polen (What's the english name for the country where Polish people live? Is it Polen? Will have to google it later!)) where there is a large ineffecient agricultural sector things can still get worse before it turns..

EDIT:
It's somewhat irritating when people (read Tbontob http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) writes Posts when I'm doing it and then Posts before I've finished my Posts.
Thereby making me miss their post as I (wrongly) assume that I've read all that is before my post.
Will have to write faster in the future! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ May 15, 2003, 21:02: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Fyron

May 15th, 2003, 09:41 PM

Laisse-faire is one type of capitalism. It was never at any point in history the only form of capitalism. Noone redefined capitalism when the US (and other countries) began to have the government get more involved in breaking up trusts (defintiely anti-capitalistic entities) and such.

The country is Poland, for "Pole land".

[ May 15, 2003, 20:43: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tesco samoa

May 15th, 2003, 09:44 PM

You are quite correct on this point. Although the Chinese are currently running an interesting soceitetal expirement in which they are attempting to bring in aspects of a capitalist economic system, while maintaining the totalitarian hold of the government.

Geo... I think you ment to say the Canadians are currently running an interesting soceitetal expirement in which they are attempting to bring in aspects of a capitalist economic system, while maintaining the totalitarian hold of the government.

geoschmo

May 15th, 2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
[QUOTE]I think this comment would be more appropriately addressed to Ruatha since he was the one who made it.NARF! Sorry about that, to both of you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Originally posted by tbontob:
[QUOTE]Similarly, capitalism in the 18th century is fundamentally different from the capitalism you are proposing.
No, it's not fundamentally different. It's fundamentally the same, although their may be some differences of degrees and in execution. But the needs for those differenaces are based on a realistic understanding of the changes in world between the 18th centruy and today.

200 years ago you could get by with a mule and the sweat of your brow. You could eeke out a living of bare sustenance working your own piece of land. And if you wanted to improve your station you developed a skill and marketed it freely. Competition, supply and demand all worked on a local scale. Government wasn't needed to get involved in those things.

In our modern industrial world technological advances have improved our lives immesurably, but it has also made us dependant on those technologies. Water, electricity, phones, gasoline, these are all fundamental needs for a person to exsist in todays modern soceity. Specialization has made production more efficent, but the same time made the role of the individual producer or craftsman smaller.

In my mind this doesn't change the basic advantage of capitalism of any other sort of economic system we have devised, but it does need to evolve somewhat to remain relevant.

Originally posted by tbontob:
[QUOTE]

Seems to me that when governments pass laws which affect the market place, it changes the private decisions of investors, and interferes with free market competition.

And each law that is passed which affects the market place, takes the country one step further away from capitalism.I think you are wrong here. Laws can be written in such a way as they encourage entrepreneurship and competition, without interfering in the natural flow of the market.

I don't see it as stepping away from capitalism. Capitalism is evolving as soceity evolves. It may not be capitalism in it's pure 18th centruy theoretical form. I have conceeded that. But that doesn't mean it's something entierly different.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

May 15th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Geo... I think you ment to say the Canadians are currently running an interesting soceitetal expirement in which they are attempting to bring in aspects of a capitalist economic system, while maintaining the totalitarian hold of the government.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif No, the Candians are attempting to bring aspects of their socialist totalitarian regime into America and undermine our system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Narrew

May 15th, 2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
No, the Candians are attempting to bring aspects of their socialist totalitarian regime into America and undermine our system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ACK!!! Are you saying there is some other goverment (other than the US) that is attempting to subvert the way of life in another country? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

For shame, I thought we had a monopoly on that.

tbontob

May 16th, 2003, 12:12 AM

Well, we did think of burning the White House again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But our feasibility study seemed to show it wouldn't succeed.

So we decided on alternate means to undermine your system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Those damned pseudo-Vikings to the North, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Alpha Kodiak

May 16th, 2003, 12:13 AM

It can be argued that the U.S. has moved away from capitalism toward socialism in a number of areas. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing makes for a significant debate. I do know that in a number of industries (such as healthcare billing, where I am working right now) small companies are struggling to deal with tons of government red tape (strangely in the guise of "Administrative Simplification") that threaten to choke them out.

While government regulation can be a good thing as it protects consumers from large corporations whose only goal is to make money at anyone's expense, it can also choke out small companies that would otherwise provide competition to the larger companies that can afford to deal with the red tape. There is a fine line between too much and too little regulation, and it is a line that we struggle with, missing on both sides of the line from time to time.

geoschmo

May 16th, 2003, 01:04 AM

D, seriously though, what you don't get is that that is not culture. It's not American culture that is infecting you. It's simply a rampant consumerism. It's one of the unfortunate side effect that come from living in a succesful capitalist economy where your needs are satisfied to the point where your baser desires start coming out to the forefront.

There is nothing inherantly American about it, and it's not culture. Many people in America object to it as much as you do. They attempt to remove as much of that junk from their life and live in a simpler, more "natural" way.

I believe it's called "minimalism". Although you know what that is don't you? It's in your web page banner. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[ May 15, 2003, 12:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

dogscoff

May 16th, 2003, 01:41 AM

Geo- yes, it is rampant consumerism that I object to, but you have to admit that the US is the champion of market-forces-worship, unchecked capitalism and rampant consumerism. Sure, us Europeans invented modern capitalism, but I'd say you Americans were the ones to first take it to the dangerous extremes we see today. The US are the ones who have ridden the capitalist wave most effectively over the Last half-century and that's why there is a McDonalds in every town on the planet rather than a Dog & Duck pub. (Not that I'd want there to be.)

As for your minimalist lifestyle- although I would name it differently- yes, my gf and I try to live our lives as much like that as we can. It's not easy, but we try to minimise packaging and waste, conserve energy, purchase responsibly and we recycle just about everything (metal, pLastic, paper, glass, compost).

I see it as the most effective (legal) way of opposing rampant consumerism that we can possibly fit into our lifestyle. Hopefully more and more people will do the same and eventually things will change.

[ May 15, 2003, 12:44: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

teal

May 16th, 2003, 09:12 AM

Regarding the statements made by several people that "18th century capitalism was somehow more pure and the free sort of capitalism".

This is an anti-historical myth in my opinion. There never was such a time (although references to this time before FDR came and screwed everything up with the New Deal run rife in the current right wing story about the history of the United States). For starters it was not a free capitalistic society because many parts of it relied on slavery. You could argue that this ideal society existed in the western parts of the United States where "man lived by the sweat of his brow alone". But, as I mentioned very briefly earlier, DeSoto showed that this was not actually the case. Man lived on this land, yes, and improved it. But he was not legally allowed to benefit from that land until *after* a very large number of people had already homesteaded. The first homesteaders were breaking the law and were quite lucky that government didn't invalidate their claims. It could easily have gone the other way.

Geo: It sounds like we agree on quite a bit. My apologies for making an unfair assumption at the beginning of the discussion, but I kind of had to in order to get the ball rolling.

Regarding Totalitarianism and Capitalism: IMO the best modern example of this is not China, but Singapore (an extremely successful country by almost any measure you care to make, yet you can get caned for chewing gum on the subway). Although I hope, as you folks do, that these societies will eventually collapse, the historical record is not so encouraging in places. Totalitarianism has a way of sticking around even when people are given a little bit of freedom.

An interesting, although slightly tangential, point is that made by Robert Fogel in his work which won him the 1993 Nobel Prize in economics. He argued that, contrary to what most people are taught in school, the slave economy of the Negro south was in fact very very effecieint and perhaps the most effecient in the world. Sobering news indeed for those who believe that the be all and end all of economics, and by extension society, is to make things as effecient as humanly possible.

Cheers!

Teal

Edit: Fogel's work is contreversial to say the least. Make up your own mind about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 16, 2003, 19:17: Message edited by: teal ]

Unknown_Enemy

May 16th, 2003, 10:38 AM

(What's the english name for the country where Polish people live? Is it Polen? Will have to google it later!)) Poland.

dogscoff

May 16th, 2003, 11:31 AM

We are greedy by our nature.

A system such as capitalism assumes this truth and uses the inherrant nature of the species as a check and balance agaisnt it's baser tendancies.
This is an argument I have heard many times before in favour of capitalism and I don't like it. It's cynical. You're saying that there is something inherently selfish and greedy about humankind. You acknowledge that this a bad thing, but then say "oh well, there's nothing we can do about it, so we might as well give in to it." If humanity was inherently biased toward rape and murder, would you back a system which encouraged and exploited it?
Now I'm not saying we should ignore our flaws, but I don't like the idea of pandering to them. Surely we should be striving to eliminate such defects, to better ourselves. We can never do that as long as we are holding them up for worship.

Just my thoughts.

18th century capitalism was somehow
...
There never was such a time
There was never such a time as the 18th Century? That explains a lot...

Sobering news indeed for those who believe that the be all and end all of economics, and by extension society,
I think the belief that what is good for the economy is necessarily good for society is the cause of many of today's problems.

geoschmo

May 16th, 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:

This is an argument I have heard many times before in favour of capitalism and I don't like it. It's cynical. You're saying that there is something inherently selfish and greedy about humankind. You acknowledge that this a bad thing, but then say "oh well, there's nothing we can do about it, so we might as well give in to it." If humanity was inherently biased toward rape and murder, would you back a system which encouraged and exploited it?Cynical? Perhaps a little, but mostly just realistic. I won't go as far as Gordon Gecko and say "Greed is good.", but it's not always a bad thing either. It can be a powerful force for good is channeled into productive endeavors. It's what motivates us to provide for ourselves and our families. It's what pushes us to better ourselves.

You don't have to pander to your basest instincts, but you can't fight a basic component of human nature. If people don't have the opportunity to benefit from their labors, then they are going to do the mimimum amount necceseary to get by. That's just how it is D. Admitting it may be cynical, but trying to change it is naieve.

And as far as your other point, I believe man IS inherantly biased towards rape and murder. But that is more of a philisophical discussion then an economic one. We have to fight against those tendancies as individuals and as a soceity because they are counter productive. You can't channel those instincts towards individual fulfillment and the greater good the way you can with an emotion like greed. That's why we need laws and governments to begin with. To protect us form those members of the species who cannot control those aspects within themselves.

Geoschmo

[ May 16, 2003, 14:03: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Krsqk

May 16th, 2003, 04:12 PM

I think there's a (sometimes fine) line between greed and desire for improvement. There is nothing wrong with working to better your financial condition. When you put finances ahead of family, the law, etc., you've crossed the line into greed.

Actually, some would argue that most, if not all, bad traits are merely corruptions of good traits. I don't agree 100%, but it's an interesting idea.

dogscoff

May 16th, 2003, 04:27 PM

I'm with krsqk on this one. Greed channeled into a force for good is not greed. I don't know what the word is but it has a different name.

However capitalism does operate on a foundation of greed- of acquisition for the sake of acquisition, both at the individual level (hey kids, buy this! You don't need it, you don't want it, but you have to have it) and at the corporate level. (companies expanding for no reason other than to expand- who are they doing it for? Companies laying people off even though they are in profit- just not as much profit as Last year)

geoschmo

May 16th, 2003, 04:42 PM

Is self-interest the term you are looking for? You can find a different term for it other then greed if it makes you more comfortable. But's it's not really a different instinct, just a difference of degree.

It's not accquisition for the sake of accquisition. You always are accquiring things for some purpose. It may be just basic needs like food, shelter and clothing. It might be for wants, luxury items. Nobody really needs a fancy sports car. And for some accquisition may be simply for the power and status it gives you relative to your neighbor. Look how many zeros I have. But the accquisition is always a means to an end, never the end in and of itself. Even if the person is unaware of that conciously.

Geoschmo

Krsqk

May 16th, 2003, 04:55 PM

I would argue that capitalism isn't necessarily motivated by greed, though it is an easy vehicle for greed to use. I believe that societal morality is thoroughly intermingled into economics. A free economic system, like a free political system, presupposes that its participants understand and accept the responsibility that accompanies freedom--the responsibility to do right with their freedom (basically the Golden Rule). Because some take advantage of their freedom to wrong others, we have had to restrict those freedoms to some extent. That is one of the legitimate purposes of government--to protect its people, whether from outsiders or each other. IMO, this is still capitalism in a reasonably "pure" form (I put utopian capitalism in the same Category as utopian communism--utopian dreams rather than actual politico-economic systems). It is when government attempts to shape the economic direction and structure that it oversteps its bounds and moves away from capitalism.

Erax

May 16th, 2003, 05:13 PM

And that is the secret of advertising, make the customer need something even if he doesn't know what it's for.

Modern advertising exploits our subconscious reproductive circuits way too much, just take a look at how many ads there are with beautiful women, happy families or babies (at least that's what our advertising is like). I suspect all this consumerism came about because people were having less children - for those of us in our 30s, no children is becoming the standard - and had to compensate for it in some way.

Cyrien

May 16th, 2003, 05:47 PM

I can't let the Fogel slide. Yes he has a nobel prize. But he is still an idiot. Having looked over his works and having given the math figures he uses to an accountant and asking the accountant what he thinks of this and having the accountant say if anyone ran their house this way they would be bankrupt... I can say that the slave system was not efficient despite what Fogel may say.

Fogel makes several key mistakes. First he uses only limited case samples of the very best top of the line self sufficient slave plantations in the south. This makes up less than about 1% of all of them. If I were to survey the top 1% in the United States and then draw conclusions on how efficient our modern economic system is I can assure you that it would be absolutly amazing. Ever met the man? If you attack his figures he doesn't defend them. He attacks you. One of the professors here at a seminar with Fogel where he was presenting his findings on the efficiencies of slavery questioned him on the use of the figures he used for the costs of operating the slave plantation. What did Fogel say? He called him a racist. The professor rightly got up and walked out as did several others. If you legitametly call someone on something in their research that seems to be in error and they can't defend themself except to call you a racist then their is something wrong.

I will admit to biase on my part against Fogel but that is all due to what I have seen of the slopiness or willfull blindness of his work and impressions on him himself. This is not a man I like and his work is slop, nobel prize or no.

You might say that his work is accepted in economic and historic circles, but that is certainly not the case. This is a case of someone who is good at self promotion and not the actual work. Several of his best known works have been heavily critisized by his peers and even discredited.

For me and many others any work that Fogel does is automatically tainted.

Oh yes... and those top 1% efficient slave works had a, according to Fogel, rate of profit just below that of the north at the same time. If you modify the figures based on historicaly proven data you get returns half that. For me the issue isn't what Fogels stance on how efficient slavery was. For me the issue is his methods and numbers. They just aren't credible.

[ May 16, 2003, 16:50: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

teal

May 16th, 2003, 08:16 PM

Ok. Fogel is probably an idiot. I wasn't that familiar with his work and was merely trotting it out as an interesting aside. That said, he is not necessarily wrong. Just because one is an idiot and/or an ******* does not make them wrong on every issue.

The south had significantly less to work with than the north did. Thus anything even approaching parity would be a remarkable display of effeciency on their part. The argument (as explained to me by others) was not really that the south was actually an economic powerhouse, but that given what they had, they did remarkably well and probably better than if they had not adopted slavery. That said, I'm way out of my depth here... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cheers!

Cyrien

May 16th, 2003, 08:59 PM

The south worked on credit. If you look at the figures the south (later just before the civil war) imported large portions of their food from the north and manufactured goods.

To use a modern term the south was a bannana republic. They produced and sold cotton as an agriculture product and exported it to foreign markets. Most of it was sent to be processed into fabrics etc either in the north or most of it in England.

The economic collapse of the south was largely due not to the north or the loss of slavery but to the production of high quality cottons in Egypt and India by the British Empire which had been the largest buyer of southern cotton.

Regardless of the civil war or slavery etc the southern economy was on the very edge of collapse anyways, the above two just hastened it. In fact you can track the cost of cotton globally for the time period and see it decline as the English began production of it in their colonial holdings. They filled their own majority demand and that of many others at lower costs.

The southern economy was as efficient as any modern nation that specializes in a single export cash crop. The advantage the south had over todays modern nations was the fact that they weren't a nation specializing in it but rather half of a nation specializing while the other half was diversified (until the Civil War, then you can look at how efficient their single line economy was against the diversified economy of the north despite the south having the better military tradition and military commanders.)

Sinapus

May 16th, 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I'm with krsqk on this one. Greed channeled into a force for good is not greed. I don't know what the word is but it has a different name.
Enlightened self-interest?

Krsqk

May 16th, 2003, 11:34 PM

Or, socially responsible self-interest?

tbontob

May 18th, 2003, 04:49 AM

Hmmmm.....

Maybe the difference is covetousnes.

I want a car. Two choices:
a) Take your car.
b) Earn the money to buy the car.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tesco samoa

May 18th, 2003, 05:02 AM

c) lease the car. You never own it. your paying someone to borrow it.

Erax

May 18th, 2003, 02:55 PM

d) Get into excessive debt to buy the car.

Loser

May 19th, 2003, 02:41 AM

e) embrace an ascetic life-style and understand that there is no car.

Fyron

May 19th, 2003, 03:33 AM

Greed is greed. Trying to paint it differently with a prettier name does not change the fact that humans are primarily motivated by greed (self-interest is greed). They have always been this way, and will always be this way.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Greed is greed. Trying to paint it differently with a prettier name does not change the fact that humans are primarily motivated by greed (self-interest is greed). They have always been this way, and will always be this way.Nah, I don't have any greed for nothing even remotely related with economy or money.
If I'm that way, then i'm pretty sure there must be many others like me out there.
Any form of acumulation of wealth by an individual or group of individuals for personal profit is evil by itself.
Rich people are not nationalists, they don't give a **** about their countries. If something goes wrong, they just invest in another country. The middle class and the poor are the ones doomed to live or die with their countries, because they depend of jobs, they can't afford to lose a paycheck.
.

Loser

May 19th, 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
A whole bunch of classist rhetoric.So, rich people only want money, and therefore have no loyalty to their countries?

This is a great thing to say if you want to get the 'poor' people behind you, but it's just not rational.

That's about all I can say about that without getting unkind.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Loser:

That's about all I can say about that without getting unkind.Thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Rich people don't fight unless drafted, and even then, they try to serve in the National guard Air force.
Can you tell me one single case of a rich guy that didn't flee his country at the time of need?

Oh yeah, I know some, but they are few and far in between.

geoschmo

May 19th, 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Rich people don't fight unless drafted, and even then, they try to serve in the National guard Air force.
Can you tell me one single case of a rich guy that didn't flee his country at the time of need?

Oh yeah, I know some, but they are few and far in between.It would be useless to try to give you examples, your mind is made up of course. But a lot depends on how you define "rich people".

First of all, most rich people are older, or they wouldn't have had time to get rich. I am assuming you are complaining about the kids of rich people as I for one would prefer not to have the military made up of a bunch of middle aged and older Mister Magoo's and Thurston Howell's. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And you are going to see fewer son's of rich people in the service then you will son's of non-rich people if for no other fact then there are more non-rich people then rich people.

So the question is are rich people's sons represented proptionally to the overall population. I don't know if they are or not. I don't have any stats on that. It wouldn't suprise me though if they weren't. Typically rich people have higher levels of education, and I have seen statistics that show non-college educated are more proportionally represented in the armed services. Although that may not be true anymore, at least in the US. Probably still is though, and it very likely is true in other countries.

But your comment is pretty ridiculous cause their have been numerous examples of sons and daughters of rich people in every war ever fought.

Geoschmo

[ May 19, 2003, 16:28: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
But your comment is pretty ridiculous cause their have been numerous examples of sons and daughters of rich people in every war ever fought.

GeoschmoYeah, I don't doubt it, but as you said, the thing is if they are represented proportionally.

Besides, my point is that they flee if the country crumbles, because their only loyalty is to their money.
And by the way, I see that in every country, not just in Israel and the US, but especially in 3rd world countries.

Its not a secret that the world richest have many interests in the US, but now that the US economy is fked they have moved on their money to Europe and some Asian countries, and have changed the dollars into Euros.
The same happened in Israel when the 2nd Intifada started, with far worst consecuences.
And I bet you are not gonna find any Argentinian rich in Argentine, nor a Venezuelan, or a [insert any nationality with economic problems]

And this is in a relative peace.

Narrew

May 19th, 2003, 06:16 PM

UGH!!! Here I am, just woke up, barely finished my first cup of coffee and I read Aloofi's comment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I had to read it 3 times to get it through the cobwebs.

Aloofi, I can't help but think your just stirring the pot. Do your truely believe what you wrote?

And Fyron, you say self-interest is greed. In that sense, wouldn't greed be a neutral term? When I think of greed, I think of it as a negative/evil term. But if a person strives to earn a living so that his family lives comfortably (subjective) and that he will be able to retire without depending on the goverment, I don't see how that would be a negative form of greed.

Ok, off to get another cup of coffee

Krsqk

May 19th, 2003, 06:24 PM

And by the way, I see that in every country, not just in Israel and the US, but especially in 3rd world countries.Two questions and a point. First, what percentage of "rich" people are more loyal to their money than to their country? Second, is there an immoral quality to protecting your assets from avoidable loss, such as reinvesting them elsewhere? Third, most of the "rich" in third world countries are orders of magnitude richer than their average countrymen with no intervening classes--that is, there are the rich, and there are the impoverished, with no middle class--and many of those grew rich via corruption and crime, by the help of corrupt governments, and/or at the expense of their employees. I would think that already puts them into a different class of "rich" than a decent businessman.

[ May 19, 2003, 17:27: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Jack Simth

May 19th, 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Yeah, I don't doubt it, but as you said, the thing is if they are represented proportionally.In times of non-draft, they won't be because there is no need for a larger army and so the main reason for going into the armed forces is to get an income - which, pretty much by definition, the rich already have, and the poorer Groups don't. In times of draft, the rich will be under-represented at least partially because the government needs them to stay at home and help make guns, tanks, ships, uniforms, MREs, ammo, fuel, et cetera. In either case, it may be partially because the rich tend to live much softer lives and become much softer people as a result; thus becoming much less likely to make it through boot camp than one who has had a harder life.

Besides, how do you know there aren't any truly patriotic rich people? Many people cease to be patriotic when the chips are down; it's just that most can't do anything about it. However, it doesn't mean that there aren't any patriots in the ranks, it just means they are harder to come by when the chips are down.

Ruatha

May 19th, 2003, 06:34 PM

In sweden we have a conscript army. Everyone (males so far) go through the draft procedure, to check health, physics and mental tests.
So far those who have optioned not to participate go to prision, unless they do so out of religous or moral reasons, in wich case they have to serve in hospitals or kidnergartens etc with the same economic benefits as those in the military (Pretty lousy pay) or go to prison.
For women it's volountary to draft for the military but all able persons in the age 18-65 have a total-defence duty and if called into some branch must participate (civil defence etc).

So far it has worked well, but now we don't need such a big army, it costs to much and we can't see any enemies around us. So fewer and fewer are picked for military service.
The result of this seems to be that there are more "rich" and well educated that are picked as the military is changing to a high tech operation, needing computer programmers, engineers etc.
The prince and the crown-princess has done their military service too.

There is talk of switching to a regular salary based military.

[ May 19, 2003, 17:38: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
[QUOTE]
First, what percentage of "rich" people are more loyal to their money than to their country?.All of them?
They are loyal to their country as long as this loyalty doesn't conflict with their loyalty to their money.
Some of them even manage to make money while being patriot. Wait and see what happens when that changes.

Originally posted by Krsqk:
[QUOTE]
Second, is there an immoral quality to protecting your assets from avoidable loss, such as reinvesting them elsewhere? .This is exactly my point. Their future is not tied to their countries. If their country goes down the drain, they will move over to somewhere else, and business will continue as usual.

So yes, there is an immoral quality to protect your assets if that protection means moving your assets to another country.

To give you an idea of how deep this is, consider the fact that most of you would think to be stupid to NOT take the money out of the country.

So the moment a person become rich, automaticly stops being inconditionally loyal to his country, and his loyalty exist as long as he doens't risk losing his wealth.

Think about it.

.

geoschmo

May 19th, 2003, 07:04 PM

Aloofi, what you are describing isn't patritoism or non-patriotism, it's simple self-preservaation. It has nothing to do with your financial level. How many times have we seen populations of refugees fleeing across national borders during a war? You telling me all these people are rich and are just following their money they transfered to the new country before the fighting started?

Being poor doesn't mean you are patriotic. It might mean you don't have the resources to go anywhere else when the crap hits the fan. But it doesn't mean you wouldn't want to. And if things get bad enough you hoof it.

Being rich doesn't mean you care more about your money then your country. You might, but you might not. A rich person might be even more patriotic as they have more of a vested interest in maintaining the exsisting political and economic systems that enabled them to become rich.

Geoschmo

[ May 19, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Alpha Kodiak

May 19th, 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:

That's about all I can say about that without getting unkind.Thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Rich people don't fight unless drafted, and even then, they try to serve in the National guard Air force.
Can you tell me one single case of a rich guy that didn't flee his country at the time of need?

Oh yeah, I know some, but they are few and far in between.<hr /></blockquote>Here are a few off the top of my head (and certainly not an exhaustive list). I'm not sure of all of their financial situations at the time they entered service, but I know at least some were quite well off (apologies for any misspellings).

James Stewart
John F. Kennedy
Joe Foss
Lyndon Johnson
John McCain
Jimmy Doolittle
George Bush, Sr.
Ted Williams
Collin Powell
John Kerry
Theodore Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower
George Patton
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Robert E. Lee
Andrew Jackson
George Washington (yes, it goes back to the beginning.)

Note that they come from both sides of the aisle politically, and most, if not all, entered service voluntarily.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:

The result of this seems to be that there are more "rich" and well educated that are picked as the military is changing to a high tech operation, needing computer programmers, engineers etc.No no, I'm not talking of progammers or engineers. I'm not talking of employees.
I was talking of employers, people that owns wealth, people that owns business and stocks.
I know that compared to a 3rd world country I'm rich, but I'm an employee, I depend of a paycheck, doesn't matter how big or small it is, I can't take my job with me if the country takes a dive, while rich people can sale their business, or trade their stocks, and even though they might lose some money, they will save most of their wealth.
Besides, rich people are rarely surprised by disasters. They usualy plan ahead.

Originally posted by Ruatha:

The prince and the crown-princess has done their military service too.

That's pretty good. The royalty should always be first in doing the right thing, and the first in defense of their country.
You see, the royalty have something to lose that other rich people doens't risk to lose, and that is their crown.
So you have found a kind of rich that will probably fight to the bitter end.

.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

Note that they come from both sides of the aisle politically, and most, if not all, entered service voluntarily.Can you also come up with the name sof the ones that didn't? Their names are not recorded, aren't they?

Some of them are loyal indeed.
But few of them fought for a losing cause.
My example is when the country seem to be lost, when there is little hope of winning, so the Founding Fathers do deserve our admiration.

Of course there are good people in the rich population group, but as I said before, they are few and far in between.

.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
How many times have we seen populations of refugees fleeing across national borders during a war? You telling me all these people are rich and are just following their money they transfered to the new country before the fighting started?

GeoschmoWell, I'm evolving my rich people theory as you post, so thanks for your inputs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ok, I agree that being poor doesn't make you a patriot.

Still, that doesn't make invalid the point that rich people are unpatriotic by default, and the ones that are patriotic should be considered the exection and not the rule.
The extent of a rich people's loyalty can only be tested when and if his country's economy takes the silver bullet. A war is not test enough, especially not a war on foreign territory.

.

Krsqk

May 19th, 2003, 08:05 PM

I think you should revise your statement to something like, "It's impossible to determine anyone's loyalty to their country until it's tested." Especially since you just acknowledged that poor people are not necessarily any more patriotic than rich people. One might even argue that most poor people (at least in the US) are unpatriotic, since they demand that the government (meaning all the other taxpayers) care for them, when most are able-bodied and capable of contributing to the country. Ergo,
 Poor people who take government assistance are unpatriotic unless proven to be otherwise.

It's the same logic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
I think you should revise your statement to something like, "It's impossible to determine anyone's loyalty to their country until it's tested." Especially since you just acknowledged that poor people are not necessarily any more patriotic than rich people. Well, then we end up with the conclusion that the Middle class is the one the have to stick with the nation.
Poor people in the west would be non-professionals making minimum wage or/and living on welfare.
So, since these people doesn't have a good job to lose , or a house, or any of those "hard to sell in an emergency" kind of properties that the middle class have, then these poor people don't feel as attached to a country like the middle class do, and thus are less loyal to their country.

In conclusion:
1- Rich people transfer their money, undersale their propertires or in any case can affort to lose some property, but they will make it out.

2- Poor people don't have nothing to lose, nor property to sell. So they make it out probably as refugee crossing the borders.

3- Middle class, depend of a job, have small properties like houses to sell, which they can't afford to undersale, depend on employment that is avaliable if the national economy is doing well, have invested in mutal funds that will not cross the borders, and on 401k, national bonds, have checking and saving accounts in national banks that in case of recession will declare bankruptcy, etc.

So basicly, the middle class is the only one that by nature is patriotic.

Of course, there are exceptions in all cases.

Ruatha

May 19th, 2003, 08:46 PM

So if we eradicate the middle class there will be no more wars?
Are those who serve in the attacking force also doing that out of patriotism?

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
So if we eradicate the middle class there will be no more wars?
Patriotism is a double edged sword, that can and have been manipulated by skilled politicians unnumerable times, and my point was more along the line of loyalty to a country, economic loyalty if you will.

No, eradicating the middle class will not end wars because the middle class doesn't start the wars.

Now, do the rich class start the wars?

Are those who serve in the attacking force also doing that out of patriotism? It depends of the attacking forces, I guess, and of the motive for war.

.

Krsqk

May 19th, 2003, 10:34 PM

Well, now we're putting loyalty and/or patriotism into the same Category as greed--it's all self-serving. If there is an option (the rich can relocate their assets; the poor have nothing to lose by fleeing), people ditch their "loyalty." If there is not an option (middle class has too much to leave behind and not enough to reinvest), people may as well support their country. I'm not saying that I believe this (it's all too cynical for me); I'm just trying to feel out the implications of your philosophy.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 11:02 PM

Too cynical or too radical?
I just want to know how things work.
And the truth might not be pretty.

Aloofi

May 20th, 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Erax:
For my part, I have no loyalty towards a piece of land, I am loyal to people and values. If the society I live in loses its values I will seriously consider moving elsewhere (I consider myself to be middle class, if it helps any).Ok, what you are doing is giving up your country instead of making it better. Countries are not a piece of land, but a group of people with a national identity living on a piece of land.

Now, if you feel that your country is losing its values, then you have the moral debt to yourself of fighting to making it better.
Find out what's going wrong, and try to make it right. There are many ways in the west to oppouse a giving policy.
Keep in my mind that by fighting i don't mean war, cause nothing is more despicable than a civil war in which brother fights brother, and I truly belive that you should consider your fellow citizens to be your brothers, especially if they are not rich. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

.

dogscoff

May 20th, 2003, 04:14 PM

I truly belive that you should consider your fellow citizens to be your brothers
The world would be a much happier place if people considered their fellow humans to be their brothers instead of just their countrymen. IMHO love of one's nation is a very dangerous thing. It's too easy to use it to generate hatred, and it's ridiculous when you consider the arbitrary nature of nationality anyway (I love my country and hate yours because I happened to be born here.)

What I'm abut to say may sound like a contradiction but it's not: I love my country.

I love my country because it contains my lifestyle, my family, my friends and a great many wonderful places. I don't think any other country could ever be home to me in quite the same way.
I would go to war if I thought my country were genuinely threatened, and I do what I can day by day to make it better. Not for patriotism though, but for the sake of the human beings who live here and the continuation of my way of life.

Nonetheless, I would give my country up in an instant if it turned foul or if peace/ humanity as a whole was better served that way. For this reason I remain open-minded about greater European integration and things like that whereas others oppose it simply because they think it means "the end of great britain".

The line I'm trying to draw is very hard to define, and I'm struggling, but it's basically the difference between loving a country as a place (which I do) and loving it as an entity (which I don't).

When you think about it, a nation is an abstract anyway. The borders on the map are just lines on paper, it's only in our heads and in our books that nations actually exist. I think that to cling to one nation for the sake of "patriotism" is absurd. To kill and die for it is terrible.

Mind you, as an atheist I think it's just as absurd killing and dying for "God", but we'd better not get into that.

Aloofi

May 20th, 2003, 04:32 PM

The world would be a much happier place if people considered their fellow humans to be their brothers instead of just their countrymen. IMHO love of one's nation is a very dangerous thing. It's too easy to use it to generate hatred, and it's ridiculous when you consider the arbitrary nature of nationality anyway (I love my country and hate yours because I happened to be born here.)
Oh, come on Dogscoff, you know that loving your country doesn't mean hating somebody elses countries.
And you also know that universal brotherly love is an utopia at the moment, because you can't love who hate you. At best you may not hate them back, but you can't love somebody that wants to kill your family and destroy your way of life.
Besides, I don't see an unbridgable gap between national love and international love.
People that profit from our divisions promote the idea of international brothehood as opouse to national brotherhood because they know that international brotherhood is impossible, and at the same time they take away from us our national brotherhood.

Ruatha

May 20th, 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The world would be a much happier place if people considered their fellow humans to be their brothers instead of just their countrymen. IMHO love of one's nation is a very dangerous thing. It's too easy to use it to generate hatred, and it's ridiculous when you consider the arbitrary nature of nationality anyway (I love my country and hate yours because I happened to be born here.)
Oh, come on Dogscoff, you know that loving your country doesn't mean hating somebody elses countries.
And you also know that universal brotherly love is an utopia at the moment, because you can't love who hate you. At best you may not hate them back, but you can't love somebody that wants to kill your family and destroy your way of life.
Besides, I don't see an unbridgable gap between national love and international love.
People that profit from our divisions promote the idea of international brothehood as opouse to national brotherhood because they know that international brotherhood is impossible, and at the same time they take away from us our national brotherhood.<hr /></blockquote>So, are there not one on the other side who doesn't want to kill you and your family?
I don't think it's all that black and white, but then I'm not in the middle of it.
Why hate an entire people (Nation or psudonation) when there are some there who want's to kill you but some who don't, why not try to differentiate?

Erax

May 20th, 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Ok, what you are doing is giving up your country instead of making it better. Countries are not a piece of land, but a group of people with a national identity living on a piece of land.

Now, if you feel that your country is losing its values, then you have the moral debt to yourself of fighting to making it better. Find out what's going wrong, and try to make it right. There are many ways in the west to oppouse a giving policy.I was thinking of an extreme case, that's why I said 'society' and not 'government'. Bad politicians come and go and you can always try to convince people not to vote for them again. But if the government starts to take on 'emergency powers', and most of the people genuinely support this move (think Palpatine in Ep II), I will definitely consider leaving the country as one of the options.

This is all hypothetical, BTW. I don't think any of that could happen here in the near future.

My views are quite similar to Dogscoff's. Scoff, tell your countrymen that Wales, England and Scotland have not ceased to exist after becoming Great Britain, so why should GB disappear after it integrates into Europe ?

tesco samoa

May 20th, 2003, 05:52 PM

Dogscoff..

I believe that Nationism is the root of all evil. Even more than Women.

I think I feel that way due to my upbringing. Irish in Ontario.

I see how it works in Northern Ireland and I see how it works in Quebec vs Canada and I see how it works with Canada vs USA.

Fyron

May 20th, 2003, 07:06 PM

Loving one's country does not mean you have to hate other countries. Love and hate are not opposites of each other. Apathy is the opposite to love, and apathy is the opposite to hatred. Love can exist without hatred, hatred can exist without love.

Alpha Kodiak

May 21st, 2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

Note that they come from both sides of the aisle politically, and most, if not all, entered service voluntarily.Can you also come up with the name sof the ones that didn't? Their names are not recorded, aren't they?

Some of them are loyal indeed.
But few of them fought for a losing cause.
My example is when the country seem to be lost, when there is little hope of winning, so the Founding Fathers do deserve our admiration.

Of course there are good people in the rich population group, but as I said before, they are few and far in between.

.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I could come up with a list, with a little looking. Again, I believe they would come from both sides of the aisle politically. My point was that level of wealth and level of patriotism do not really correlate. I have met strong patriots at all income levels.

As far as serving in a losing cause, remember that for at least until June of 1942 it looked like the U.S. would lose to the Japanese in WWII. The issue could even have been considered in doubt well into 1943. Further, men like John Kennedy and George Bush, Sr. nearly died in combat. Fast forwarding to Vietnam, John McCain's service and imprisonment can hardly be considered a cake walk.

Don't get me wrong, there have been some real bad apples in the upper income brackets lately. Those who are convicted of criminal activity should be severely punished, regardless of politics. However, catagorizing a person as unpatriotic based on income level is as invalid as categorizing them based on race or religion.

Erax

May 21st, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:

So yes, there is an immoral quality to protect your assets if that protection means moving your assets to another country.

Do you consider it immoral to move to any other country ? Even if it's a country where the system and values are similar to your original country ? I believe you would consider it immoral if someone moved their investments, say, from the US to Pakistan. But would moving them to Canada or the UK be just as immoral, according to your theory ?

For my part, I have no loyalty towards a piece of land, I am loyal to people and values. If the society I live in loses its values I will seriously consider moving elsewhere (I consider myself to be middle class, if it helps any).

TerranC

May 21st, 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
People that profit from our divisions promote the idea of international brothehood as opouse to national brotherhood because they know that international brotherhood is impossible, and at the same time they take away from us our national brotherhood.That made no sense at all. Clarify please.

Aloofi

May 21st, 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Loving one's country does not mean you have to hate other countries. Love and hate are not opposites of each other. Apathy is the opposite to love, and apathy is the opposite to hatred. Love can exist without hatred, hatred can exist without love.Wow Fyron, at Last we agree on something. I knew there was some good left in you.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Aloofi

May 21st, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by TerranC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Aloofi:
People that profit from our divisions promote the idea of international brothehood as opouse to national brotherhood because they know that international brotherhood is impossible, and at the same time they take away from us our national brotherhood.That made no sense at all. Clarify please.<hr /></blockquote>What I meant is that some people use humanism (love the whole human race) to disqualify nationalism.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm aware of how evil nationalism can be. But this evil nationalism is not truly nationalism, but usualy a racist-oportunist dictactorial ideology that takes cover behind nationalism.
Nationalism in its purest concept move people to work towards the commum goal of national prosperity, it eliminates crime, because nobody steals from his brother, it eliminates all kind of social problems, and it doesn't tolerates the exploitation of the poorest sector of the society.
Nationalism is not racist, because a nation involve all the etnic Groups that forms it, national identity is defined by all of its members.

Now, back to international humanism as opouse to Nationalism, you have to see that only a determined society can impouse on itself the values of brotherhood, no nation can impouse that to the world, but a nation can impouse that on itself.
Universal Brotherly love is doomed at this period in history because we are a divide planet, a divide race if you will, since the term race can only be aplied to the whole of human race and not to an individual etnic group. So we first need to create an Political/economic unity, cause is unrealistic to expect hungry man in afrika to feel love for you.
So Nationalism is the only viable option right now.
Besides, nationalistic love doesn't opouse universal love. You do love your parents, your brothers, your wife and your kids if you have them. All these are diferent kinds of love, but you don't have to chose between them, so why should I chose between nationalism and universalism?

In my opinion, those people that promote universalism as opouse to nationalism are promoting something that they know doesn't work and at the same time eliminating one that works. They are perpetuating crime, etnic hate, poverty.
They are dividing us, so they can exploit us better.

Aloofi

May 21st, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
So, are there not one on the other side who doesn't want to kill you and your family?
I don't think it's all that black and white, but then I'm not in the middle of it.
Why hate an entire people (Nation or psudonation) when there are some there who want's to kill you but some who don't, why not try to differentiate?Oh come on, I was being hypotetical, I don't know everybody, and was not talking of an especific "other side".
Are you taking cheap shots on me? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Loser

May 21st, 2003, 03:19 PM

What I meant is that some people use humanism (love the whole human race) to disqualify nationalism.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm aware of how evil nationalism can be. But this evil nationalism is not truly nationalism, but usualy a racist-oportunist dictactorial ideology that takes cover behind nationalism.
Nationalism in its purest concept move people to work towards the commum goal of national prosperity, it eliminates crime, because nobody steals from his brother, it eliminates all kind of social problems, and it doesn't tolerates the exploitation of the poorest sector of the society.
Nationalism is not racist, because a nation involve all the etnic Groups that forms it, national identity is defined by all of its members.[/QB]I'd like you to cite an example of Nationalism that worked like that.

Because, in the end, Nationalism works off the human desire to belong to something larger, to conform. A very important, in fact essential, part of belonging is excluding others. Tragically, the bonds of a group are directly proportional to how strongly they exclude others from their group.

You can see this facet of human nature in the way a group, when it has no opposition, will turn on itself. This occurred when the Democratic Republican Party drove the Whigs out of the U.S. political system. If you want to make a group strong and coherent, you must give them something to oppose or they will fight among themselves.

This is also a problem with inter-departmental cooperation in large bureaucracies such as corporations or government. The separate departments will have more trouble working together when they do not have something to work against, to oppose, together. Make a friendly, loving, we don't need to compete with anyone environment and you will have a divisive, cliquish, and back-stabbing hoard. Give people something to hate and they will stick together like glue.

(Better still, give your people something to hate and put them through some common hardship. I have never felt so close to my coworkers as I did while we were working an innovative, insane, abusive, stressful, and ultimately doomed program called "Customer Conferencing" (one technician 'helped' four or five at-home end-Users with vaguely similar problems, at once, in a conference call, for ten hours a day).)

True 'nationalism' or even 'patriotism' cannot exist without something to oppose. And it cannot be strong, cannot be powerful without something very real to hate. This power comes at a price, as hate brings with it a whole host of darker things. While there is a time for this sort of thing it is at best a necessary evil, to be used with caution and certainly not to be glorified. Nationalism requires hate. Hate is never, ever just a tool, it is a weapon and must be handled carefully and with respect for the destruction is causes in both its user and its target.

Aloofi

May 21st, 2003, 03:29 PM

I got this on an email, isn't it scary? :

Subject: SOCIAL SECURITY

(Who said life was fair??)

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

And the worst part about it is, people believe it!

Pass it on please!

2004 Election Issue
This must be an issue in "04". Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election
years. Our Senators and Congress men & women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the Last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada.
Zilch.
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds-our tax dollars at work!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal
Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us . then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

Aloofi

May 21st, 2003, 03:31 PM

Now they start to dig up anything that could help to keep the ChickenHawk brigade in the WhiteHouse.

tesco samoa

May 21st, 2003, 06:25 PM

whats wrong with helping retired immigrants ? I see nothing wrong with that. And I am glad that some of my tax dollars go to helping them pay for their lives. ( In Canada that is how it is, I cannot answer for the States )

tesco samoa

May 21st, 2003, 06:35 PM

Saw this at /. Just liked it... So posted it.
THE FIFTY STEPS TO WORLD WAR & FASCISM
( an adaptation of Author Thom Hartman"s "When Democracy Failed,

1. THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVED WARNINGS OF AN IMMINENT ATTACK.
2. THE WARNINGS WERE IGNORED.
3. THE NATION'S LEADER WAS ILLEGITIMATE, ELECTED BY A MINORITY.
4. HE WAS A SIMPLETON WHO SAW THINGS IN BLACK AND WHITE ONLY.
5. HIS LANGUAGE WAS COARSE AND OFFENSIVE.
6. AS A YOUNG MAN, HE JOINED A SECRET SOCIETY WHOSE RITUALS
INCLUDED SKULL AND BONES.
7. HE KNEW THE TERRORIST WHO WAS GOING TO STRIKE.
8. HE STOOD ON THE RUBBLE OF THE BUILDING ATTACKED.
9. HE DECLARED ALL-OUT WAR AGAINST EVIL.
10. A DETENTION CENTER FOR TERRORISTS WAS SOON BUILT.
11. LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED BANNING FREE SPEECH, PRIVACY AND HABEAS CORPUS.
12. SUSPECTED TERRORISTS COULD BE IMPRISONED WITHOUT ACCESS TO LAWYERS.
13. A PATRIOTIC "DECREE" WAS PASSED WITH A 4 YEAR SUNSET PROVISION.
14. LEGISLATORS DID NOT HAVE TIME TO READ IT.
15. SUSPICIOUS PERSONS WERE ARRESTED WITHOUT ACCESS TO LAWYERS OR THE COURTS.
16. THOSE OBJECTING WERE IGNORED BY A MAINSTREAM PRESS.
17. PROTESTING CITIZENS WERE FENCED OFF IN ZONES.
18. THE COUNTRY WAS REFERRED TO AS THE "HOMELAND".
19. IT WAS OUR HOMELAND VS. ALL OTHERS.
20. THE LEADER DECLARED THAT AN INTERNATIONAL BODY WHICH DID NOT ACT FIRST IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION WAS IRRELEVANT.
21. HE WITHDREW FROM THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
22. HE CLAIMED HIS MOTIVATIONS WERE ROOTED IN CHRISTIANITY.
23. HE FELT THAT THE VARIOUS AGENCIES WERE NOT COORDINATED TO DEAL WITH THE TERRORIST THREAT.
24. HE PROPOSED A SINGLE AGENCY TO PROTECT THE HOMELAND.
25. HE APPOINTED ONE OF HIS TRUSTED ASSOCIATES TO LEAD THIS NEW AGENCY.
26. THE RADIO AND PRESS WERE AT HIS DISPOSAL.
27. PEOPLE WERE ENCOURAGED TO PHONE IN TIPS ABOUT SUSPICIOUS NEIGHBORS.
28. OPPOSITION LEADERS AND CELEBRITIES WHO SPOKE OUT WERE
DENOUNCED.
29. THE LEADER CONSOLIDATED HIS POWER AND BROUGHT CORPORATE
LEADERS INTO HIGH GOVERNMENT POSITIONS.
30. A FLOOD OF GOVERNMENT MONEY POURED INTO CORPORATE COFFERS.
31. THE LEADER ENCOURAGED LARGE CORPORATIONS TO ACQUIRE MEDIA OUTLETS AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS ACROSS THE NATION,
PARTICULARLY THOSE OWNED BY SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE OF MIDDLE EASTERN
ANCESTRY.
32. HE BUILT POWERFUL ALLIANCES WITH INDUSTRY.
33. DISSENT AROSE WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE GOVT. LEADERS OF OTHER NATIONS SPOKE OUT AGAINST HIS BELLICOSE RHETORIC.
34. THE LEADER NEEDED A DIVERSION TO DIRECT PEOPLE AWAY FROM CORPORATE CRONYISM.
35. HE BEGAN A CAMPAIGN TO MANIPULATE THE MEDIA TO HYPE A LIMITED WAR.
36. A NATION WHICH HARBORED SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE AND HAD A TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TERRORIST WHO HAD SET AFIRE THE NATIONS MOST IMORTANT BUILDING, HAD THE RESOURCES HE NEEDED.
37. THE LEADER PUBLICLY DELIVERED AN ULTIMATUM.
38. HE CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE IN SELF-DEFENSE.
39. AFTER MILITARY ACTION BEGAN, THE BRITISH PM DECLARED THAT IT WOULD BRING PEACE IN OUR TIME.
40. THE LEADER DECLARED THAT THOSE HE CONQUERED LOVED HIM.
41. THE PRESS BEGAN TO EQUATE HIS POLICIES WITH PATRIOTISM AND THE NATION ITSELF.
42. THE MEDIA SAID NATIONAL UNITY WAS ESSENTIAL.
43. THOSE QUESTIONING THE LEADER WERE CALLED TRAITORS.
44. DISSENT WAS STIFLED AS INTELLECTUALS AND LIBERALS WERE
THRASHED.
45. VOICES OF OPPOSITION WERE RAISED AFTER THE LIMITED WAR.
46. THE DAILY PROPAGANDA DID NOT TOTALLY SUPPRESS DISSENT.
47. A FULL WAR WAS NECESSARY TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM GROWING OPPOSITION.
48. ONE YEAR LATER, WORLD WAR II BEGAN.
49. THE BLITZKRIEG OR LIGHTNING WAR "SHOCKED AND AWED" EUROPE.
50. "FASCISM SHOULD MORE PROPERLY BE CALLED CORPORATISM, SINCE

IT IS THE MERGER OF STATE AND CORPORATE POWER." - BENITO MUSSOLINE

FASCISM-
"A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT EXERCISES DICTATORSHIP BY THE EXTREME RIGHT TYPICALLY THROUGH THE MERGING OF STATE AND
CORPORATE POWER, TOGETHER WITH BELLIGERENT NATIONALISM"

Alpha Kodiak

May 21st, 2003, 06:38 PM

Aloofi: what is scary about that email? That message has been floating around for quite some time in both email and snail mail. Much of what it says is true, some is definitely hype. It is standard political campaign fare. Why is this one scary, and the gazillion other ones out there not?

Jack Simth

May 21st, 2003, 06:44 PM

I've often wondered how exactly it is determined whether an orginization is on the political left or right; Tesco - one of the quotes in your post refers to the extreme right - perhaps you could enlighten me.

dogscoff

May 21st, 2003, 07:03 PM

Apparently, dividing politics into left/ right is too simplistic. Take the political compass test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) and see where you are on the up/ down scale.

EDIT: I've just taken the test (hadn't taken it for a few years) and it explains a lot. -7.88, -8.10: That puts me about as far on the chart from george dubbya as I possibly could be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I also appear to be further left and further south than Ghandi, the Dalai Lama or Nelson Mandela.

*dogscoff goes off to cook dinner, whistling a happy tune.

[ May 21, 2003, 18:27: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

geoschmo

May 21st, 2003, 07:56 PM

That's interesting Dogscoff. I took the test. I was actually suprised at how close to the center I am. I would have pegged myself as someone farther right on the left/right scale but close to the line on the up/down scale. I guess I can't make up my mind on anything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's funny cause while I was taking the test there were a few questions that I was wishing had a choice between agree and disagree. I guess that's further confirmation of my wishy-washiness. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Alpha Kodiak

May 21st, 2003, 08:12 PM

Dogscoff: Cool site/test. Guess I fit the old right wing/left wing scale, though as I wound up 4 notches to the right of center and almost on the line between authoritarian and libertarian. Oh well, I always have been old fashioned.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

tesco samoa

May 21st, 2003, 09:40 PM

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.59

Now what influenced these scores ??

Aloofi

May 21st, 2003, 10:38 PM

It says that I'm Left/Authoritarian http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 2.15

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/xy_centre_cross.gif

None of the personalities in the sample are close to where the table put me. I guess I would be close to Ben Gurion.

.
.
.

[ May 21, 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Aloofi

May 21st, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
It's funny cause while I was taking the test there were a few questions that I was wishing had a choice between agree and disagree. Yes, in some questions I would have chosen "neutral" or no opinion.

dogscoff

May 21st, 2003, 10:49 PM

if you read the faq on that site it explains why there is no neutral option.

geoschmo

May 21st, 2003, 11:15 PM

Oh, I didn't post my numbers did I?

The one was 0.12 and the other was 0.20. The graph showed me dead on the center point. Can't get more non-comittal on any issue than that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

dogscoff

May 21st, 2003, 11:33 PM

that's not non-commital Geo, it just shows that you feel a balance of extremes is the best way forward.

Of course you're wrong; you should come and join me down in the bottom-left corner.

*dogscoff makes up a "join my anarcho-syndicalist party- free beer and organic carrots" banner and sits expectantly underneath it in the bottom-left corner.

EDIT: That site never fails to amaze. Take a look at the iconochasms page. There is some really amazing material there.

[ May 21, 2003, 22:39: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Erax

May 21st, 2003, 11:44 PM

Economic Left / Right : -3.38 (me), -4.62 (my wife)
Authoritarian / Libertarian : -2.31 (me), -4.05 (my wife)

IE, I'm along the same axis as Gandhi but halfway between him and center (I define myself as a social democrat, which fits). My wife is between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.

[ May 21, 2003, 23:04: Message edited by: Erax ]

geoschmo

May 22nd, 2003, 12:04 AM

Hmmm, beer, carrots, and hot anarcho-syndacilist women with loose morals....

Geo dons his Groucho Mark glasses/big nose costume and slips in the back door of D's party for a few minutes of drunken debauchery http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Liberals do throw the best parties. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

dogscoff

May 22nd, 2003, 12:13 AM

Check out the new addition to my sig http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Phoenix-D

May 22nd, 2003, 12:21 AM

Get a different answer every time I take that test, heh. Current: -.25, -2

TerranC

May 22nd, 2003, 02:53 AM

Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.15

I'm Jean Chretien. Or close to him.

*TC starts to fold his lips and talk with a heavy Quebecois accent*

Krsqk

May 22nd, 2003, 06:47 AM

Hmmm. I tested at 4.25/1.85, almost dead on with Tony Blair. Somehow I think the late hour had some effect on that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Kamog

May 22nd, 2003, 07:25 AM

Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.67

Taera

May 22nd, 2003, 07:31 AM

same answer twice, -0.75, -0.82
almost neutral. the key word is almost tho http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

EDIT: im almost same as Jean Chretien http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[ May 22, 2003, 06:32: Message edited by: Taera ]

Some1

May 22nd, 2003, 12:41 PM

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.26

Hmmm, on par with Mandela & Gandhi...
ANyway, i think this test also depends a lot on where you come from. In my country im on the left side of the spectrum... ON a world view im almost extreme left http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Questions like :"Marijuana should be legalised" is already a fact here...
I think that people who are right-winged in my country (the Netherlands) are considered left winged on this scale.

R.

[ May 22, 2003, 11:50: Message edited by: Some1 ]

Erax

May 22nd, 2003, 03:29 PM

Sepultura, etc. should be called 'expatriate Brazilian rock', there is NO space for their kind of music here (studios and radios want to sell other stuff). That being said, it's not my favorite kind of music but my wife likes them a lot.

Aloofi

May 22nd, 2003, 03:56 PM

Do you mean that the Brazilian radio stations don't play Speed or Death Metal?

That's commun everywhere. Most radio stations only play the more "radio-friendly" alternative rock.
The Heaviest we get is usually Metallica and the sort, with bands like Puddle of Mud, Paparoach or Green Day getting most of the air time.

Aloofi

May 22nd, 2003, 05:02 PM

Please, somebody tell me that these calculations are wrong or that the numbers in which these calculations are based are wrong.

The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers collapsed in 10 - 15 seconds, close to free fall. Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only a second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause � and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is strong evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.

.
.
.

[ May 22, 2003, 16:12: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Erax

May 22nd, 2003, 05:31 PM

You would have to ask a civil engineer, but I get the feeling that the time required for the weight of the collapsing upper stories to crush the supports of each floor beneath them (which is pretty much a simultaneous process, not sequential as the text implies) would be very short.

Jack Simth

May 22nd, 2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Please, somebody tell me that these calculations are wrong or that the numbers in which these calculations are based are wrong.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers collapsed in 10 - 15 seconds, close to free fall. Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only a second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause � and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is strong evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.

.
.
.<hr /></blockquote>It is his assumptions about each floor taking a full second to shatter that is tripping him up, not the rest of the math. The Twin Towers were designed to be structurally effecient, which means there was very little structural redunancy, and no extra support. The floors were supported basically just at the outer edge, with a small amount in the center around the elavator shafts. Each floor consisted of lots of steel, several inches of concrete, and numerous other things.

The kenetic energy of an object falling from a height h and starting from rest (again, in a vacum, like the guy assumed) is m * g * h (mass times gravity times height). Those floors were all very, very heavy. Once they had fallen the height of a single floor they had sufficint kinetic energy to break every remaining floor of the building, even had gravity been cut off at that point. As gravity didn't go away, after two or three floors get crashed the delay due to the rest is negligable.

Edit: Oh, and the upper end of his estimate for the collapse of the towers (15 seconds) is about 1.67 times his calculation for gravity in a vacum, hardly close.

[ May 22, 2003, 16:45: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

geoschmo

May 22nd, 2003, 06:17 PM

The guy is wrong. He doesn't understand how the building was designed and what sort of stresses were involved.

Modern structures can't be efficently built to withstand stress in every possible direction. Skyscrapers are designed to withstand downward stress from the weight of the building and occupants, and lateral stress from wind and earthquakes. The structure is carefully designed so that each component does it's share and all the pieces support each other.

Basically all the weight of the floors on those buildings was supported by the steel tubing that ran vertically up the outside. All those individual tubes were tied together in effect forming one giant square cylinder. All the floors were mounted to the inside of that cylinder.

As the floors fell there was a force downard of kinetic energy and gravity, but there is also a force outward against those tubes from debris and the explosive outrush of air. The hardware mounting the floors to the tubes wasn't designed to resist that kind of stress pushing outwards. In effect the mass of debris falling down inside this tube was pushing the walls outward and breaking loose several floors at a time.

So, basically he is right that the floors weren't coming loose one at a time, but he is wrong when he says explosives would have been needed to cause that.

Geoschmo

Erax

May 23rd, 2003, 01:31 AM

Same here, some of the questions are too geared towards American issues.

To give two examples, 99% of all Brazilians would not support our government if it was wrong. Every political party in Brazil supports social reform, even if only outwardly. All of this tends to shift us towards the bottom left corner because some of the questions are not the 'right' ones for us.

Loser

May 23rd, 2003, 01:40 AM

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.90

Aloofi

May 23rd, 2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Erax:
To give two examples, 99% of all Brazilians would not support our government if it was wrong. .Hey, are you from Brazil?!
Brazilian Metal rocks!!
I love Sepultura, Portrait, Imago mortis, Rebaelliun and Leroy !!!

.

Aloofi

May 23rd, 2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Check out the new addition to my sig http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Lol.

If you make a search on anarchist ideology you gonna find that there is a lot more to anarchy than what the name sugest.
It seems that most anarchist movements today are striving for local goverments as oppouse to national goverments.
I've heard that Spain and France have the strongest anarchist movements today.

geoschmo

May 23rd, 2003, 02:13 PM

A self destruct device for a skyscraper? ROFL! That is too much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Anybody with the skill to have setup something like that would have known it was useless to try.

Seriously, what that guy doesn't understand is that contrary to popular misconception buildings don't fall over, they fall down. It's not a coincidence or a conspiracy that the collapse of the towers looked very much like a controlled demolition. It's simple physics and engineering. That is the only way they can fall.

The highly skilled demolitions experts you see blowing up stadiums and office buildings have things down to a level of sophistication that they can take them down and not damage a building on the other side of a narrow street. Didn't the WTC collapse take out like 5 or 6 other buildings and damage another dozen? That was pretty much a worst case scenario in action. Not really anyway it could have done any worse damage to the surounding area. If a demo company did that poor of a job they'd be looking at criminal negligence charges.

Here's a good article that explains it in plain terms. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

I think the key point in the article is this: NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.Geoschmo

Phoenix-D

May 23rd, 2003, 09:47 PM

I think the only way to knock them over would have been taking out, say, the left side of the first five floors (so all the weight is on the right side).

Hitting from way to heck up there? Nah. Notice how the jets hit and the building barely even moved at first..puts the relative size in perspective.

Aloofi

May 24th, 2003, 01:39 AM

Yeah, a cousin of mine that is an arquitec said exactly the same.

Now i wonder how many people have fallen for this "theory".

Check out what else they say:

A self-destruct mechanism might not have been designed into the Twin Towers originally, but it might have been added later, especially after the 1993 bombing of the WTC alerted all of America (an in particular, the people working in the surrounding office buildings) to the possibility that there might be another attack on the WTC which would succeed in destroying the towers. It would not be particularly difficult to engineer this possibility. One simply has to engage the services of a controlled demolition company (such as Controlled Demolition Inc. to set things up. (This is the company that hauled away the rubble from the Murrah Building in Okalahoma City after its demolition and provided a detailed plan to do the same for the WTC eleven days after September 11th.) Naturally they would be told (if they wondered at the purpose) that this was a "fail-safe" mechanism, not intended to be used except to minimize damage in the event of an attack.

So such a company specializing in controlled demolition of large buildings could study the problem and, with the approval of the owners (the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey prior to July 2001), place explosives at just those points which would destroy the structural integrity of the building (if and when detonated) so as to bring the Twin Towers down precisely in the way the world witnessed on CNN on September 11th.

It has even been suggested that such a self-destruct mechanism was required in order to prevent companies with offices in the buildings in the vicinity of the Twin Towers from moving out (fearing for the safety of their premises and their employees), and was also required to persuade new companies to rent office space in Lower Manhattan. It has been suggested that the company directors of large companies with, or considering buying or renting, office space in the financial district would not agree to keep or to obtain that office space unless they could be given an assurance that in the event of a major attack on the WTC, sufficient to destroy the Twin Towers, their offices would not be damaged significantly and their employees would not be put in mortal danger. Whether this is true or not is known only by a few, including the past and present owners of the WTC (and some of their employees) and the directors of large companies with offices in Lower Manhattan.

This guy is missing the point that nobody would rent space in a building with explosives permanently installed in it!!!

dogscoff

May 24th, 2003, 01:45 AM

This guy is missing the point that nobody would rent space in a building with explosives permanently installed in it
Or that by telling all these neighbouring businesses about the explosives they make it impossible to keep the whole thing a secret.

I'm all for anti-gov/ anti-biz propaganda (us anarcho-syndicalists are like that) but this one just hasn't been thought through. It's this kind of junk that gives conspiracy theorists a bad name! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Unknown_Enemy

May 26th, 2003, 03:07 PM

I recently watched the "Booling for Columbine" movie. I found it quite intersting, but I wonder about US advices about it.

So what do you think guys ? Comments ?

geoschmo

May 26th, 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I think the only way to knock them over would have been taking out, say, the left side of the first five floors (so all the weight is on the right side).That's the point Phoenix, even that would not have caused the building to fall over, only down. Taking out one side of the bottom five floors and would have definetly changed the center of gravity enough to tip the building. But before it could reach the point where it could fall over, all the internal weight bearing structures would have collapsed and brought it basically straight down. Very similer to what we saw happen. Perhaps the pile would have been a bit more spread out. Maybe those buildings around it that fell a few hours later would have come down right away. But it wouldn't have landed on wall street or anything.

Geoschmo

Loser

May 27th, 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Notice how the jets hit and the building barely even moved at first...Notice also that the damage from the jet (someone please do the math, because I'm pretty sure that's a <bleep>-load of kinetic energy) did not bring the building down. It was only the burning fuel that damage the structure enough to cause it to colapse. Now that's engineering.

To bad the new one they're going to build will be so much smaller.

tbontob

May 27th, 2003, 08:39 AM

Until recently, the most current hypothesis was that the insulation on the floor girders burned off allowing them to soften and thereby loose their ridgidity with the result that the buildings lost their integrity and ridgidity.

About a month or so ago, a TV program (I think it may have been on Discovery) said the above has fallen out of favour and the real reason was that the core around which the elevators were housed weakened to such an extent that it collapsed, which in turn resulted in the collapse of the buildings.

Aloofi

May 27th, 2003, 03:06 PM

Article:

"Recruiting Jews For Self-Sacrifice"

"I cannot help but feel that there is something in our Jewish DNA which makes a certain Category of Jews rush to line up for 'suicide' missions. Unlike the Arabs who simply strap on an explosive's belt, the Jews chose to die, preceded by an intellectual rationale.

For example, with the failure of Oslo there was a large contingent of Left-liberal Jews desperate for self-sacrifice left with nothing to do. But, then came the slogan of the Arabist State Department "Road Map" which was pushed through the mouth of the American President by Colin Powell. The gaggle of Jews from all corners, Leftists, Breira, New Jewish Agenda, Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, 'et al', all had a new lease on life before death.

Nothing that preceded the failure of Oslo made any impression. The years of Arab attacks, the build-up of Arab armies, the pledge that Islam would not tolerate a Jewish State, the terror which turned to suicide/homicide bombers - none of this made any impression on these Jews in their delusional state.

In no particular order of importance, we find a column in the New York times speaking to the efforts of the Israel Policy Forum, a decidedly Left-liberal organization, to use Jewish donors to influence Democratic Congressmen to support the so-called "Road Map." Their timing was extraordinary as Islamists blow up buildings in Saudi Arabia that house many Americans.

As the same time, waves of Terrorist attacks were launched across Israel with homicide bombings on buses, checkpoints and other vulnerable civilian locations. Now, this is the stuff that made up the days of Oslo and the day-to-day killing of Jews by the Arab/Muslim Palestinians who comprise Arafat's various Terrorist Groups.

All through that period since the signing of Oslo September 1993, the Osloids, backed (or controlled) by the Arabist U.S. State Department, invariably dribbled a statement of condemnation but, always with the expression: "This will not stop the Peace Process." Indeed, it couldn't stop that which never started.

After I read that Jewish Democratic donors had been recruited for rescuing the already leaded "Road Map" plan, I could smell the stench of the Leftists working the crowd.

With a little looking, I found that the Jewish Federations in America had been quietly recruited to pick up the same mantra "Save the Road Map". That recruitment would have two centers of operations. One would be in the belly of the beast Arabist State Department and the other coming out of the Prime Minister's Office in Israel. Recall it was Sharon was prepared to establish another Arab Palestinian State with "all the pain" it would bring "him" - and, of course, the Israeli people.

In the Last few days, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has caved, saying that he would accept the Bush "Road Map" with the Bush promise that the would have the Palestinians carry out their commitments. Where have we heard that before?

The main theme to persuade the Jews was NOT that the "Road Map" was a good plan but, rather that Bush will be angry with the Jews for NOT supporting the "Road Map". I recall, in similar times that, when the Jews were too fearful to confront President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the anti-Jewish State Department over their policy NOT to rescue the Jews of Europe lest Roosevelt be insulted and so, the Jews died - 6 million of them were murdered including 1� million children. Our American Jewish leadership has this unenviable record from the 'Judenrat', through Oslo and now the "Road Map-ists".

Earlier I had heard about Assistant Secretary of State William Burns in Israel, speaking 'confidentially - in secret' with the Ultra-Left of the Left, urging them to not only support the "Road Map" but castigate those Jews in Israel and America who said it was a "Trojan Horse". The stench of perfidy and betrayal was evident even then.

Recently, we heard former Ambassador from America to Israel, Martin Indyk, viewed by many as a spoiler and Left-liberal 'par excellence', doing the Sunday talk shows. He was telling everyone how desperate it was for all Jews and everyone else to support the plan even to force concessions from Israel.

Well, that's not too surprising, given that he was doing that even while he was Ambassador to Israel. Presumably, it is now Daniel Kurtzer of the infamous (former Secretary of State) James Baker's team of Jews who is taking the same line as Indyk when he was Ambassador to Israel.

There is a big push on to legitimize the "Road Map" even as the Palestinians, Muslims, Islamists are blowing up Jews in Israel or anywhere in the world they, the radical Muslims can target. Recruiting aberrant Jews with what must be a defective gene, which calls to them to make for the ultimate sacrifice, is not all that difficult.

Recruitment is almost unnecessary as our self-sacrificers dash about, looking for an opportunity to claim honor for putting the Jewish nation at risk. This is not the first time fearful Jewish leadership has failed the Jewish people;

Watch closely the gaggle of Hollywood Jews who have spent their lives and all their waking moments studying themselves, suddenly break out in support of the peaceful Arab Palestinians and hostility towards the Jewish State of Israel.

These Hollywood type Jews, most of whom barely made it through school and rarely read detailed intelligence on the Middle East suddenly want to be more than inconsequential stars of entertainment but, suddenly, wish to be viewed as informed 'intellectuals' on the grand scale. They, like some Jewish businessmen who sign letters to Congressmen, wish to be seen as more than they are or ever could be.

How they need that adulation, that pat on the head for their chest-pounding 'mea culpa'. Then again, I observe most of the Jews who make up the Boards of Jewish Federations, who also look for a chance to show their readiness to sacrifice Israel in a show of intellectual martyrdom. If they were faced with a real fire fight, as confront the Jews of Israel, our Hollywood poster heroes or Federation talkers would likely wet their pants (or worse) as they scrambled out of harm's way. But, the Federations have been told that Bush will be angry with American Jews if they do not offer a show of support for the Bush "Road Map". Even AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) is showing its soft underbelly as it reverses itself from its initial assessment of the "Road Map" as a bad document to softening their objections.

The Jewish businessmen who were recruited for the letter to Congress want to see themselves as heroes. They mistake doing lunch at Sardis and cutting a deal on real estate with solving Global Terror. They yearn for the day when, like those of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they are invited to the State Department where they are asked for their vaunted opinions on complex Middle East matters. They hold forth, are given lunch and patted on their broad behinds to be then ushered out - not knowing that whatever they said would be ignored and even laughed at. They were suckered - again and again.

They, like all other Jews of the self-created establishment. have been duly massaged for whatever influence they may have on Jewish public opinion at large and for whatever political campaign contributions they can pour forth. After all, President Bush is going into the 2004 elections and needs the image of a foreign policy that is working - even if it fails and kills Jews. For Bush and family, losing Israel will be merely an "Oops!".

None of them understand that the so-called "Road Map" is merely an old collection of disastrous timelines to which Israel must adhere. None of it solves the real problem of stopping the on-going 'Jihad' (Holy War) Terror, War, the smuggling in of weapons, the teaching Muslim Arab children that their destiny is to hate and kill infidels *(both Jews and Christians) and to establish the ultimate World of Islam, dominating the whole world, as said in many Fatwas and public speeches.

But, they, (the Left-liberal Jews) will tell you there are words in the heretofore secret contract that calls for all that. They do not understand that Israel is expected to fulfill the contract and the Muslim Arabs only obligation is to sign the contract and to try 100% to stop Terror. There is nothing that demands that they succeed in preventing future murderous Terror attacks.

A self-sacrificing Left-Liberal Jew cannot grasp this mode of agreement so common to the Arab Muslim world. All the Arab Muslims have to do is 'talk the talk' but, the Jews must give up tangible territory - homes, factories, farms, vineyards, industries, schools, infrastructure - and to allow millions of Arab Palestinians into Israel because they claim to descend from the 450,000 Arabs who left Israel for safe havens elsewhere when the 7 Arab nations attacked the new born State in 1948.

These gullible Jews do not understand that the 'double standard' is not the exception to the rule when applied to Jews and the Jewish State. Even as President Bush calls for Israel to close her checkpoints, open her borders to so-called Palestinian Arabs, Bush elevates the American Terror Alert to Orange, increases security at American checkpoints in airports and on borders, simply because they have heard increased hostile Muslim 'chatter' in their intelligence listening Posts. Israel is not threatened with chatter. She is being hit with real homicide bombs and rockets but, nevertheless, there is a big push to accept the Quartet's unsafe "Road Map", explosions and all. It will help Bush at the election booths in 2004 - whatever the cost to Israel.

These same Jews who supported the failed Oslo Accords and subsequent agreement which Israel signed and fulfilled, fell silent for a time as the body counts mounted. They now wish to shed their guilt and are preparing to dig a new graveyard for the failure of "Road Map" as inevitably measured by the numbers of dead Jews. The "Road Map" is even a worse solution than Oslo was because a hostile Arab Muslim Palestinian people pledge never to accept a Jewish State in their midst and expect to acquire all that the Jews have built in the past 55 years.

The pacifist general, now Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking at a press conference of the G8 was asked about the "Road Map". He basically said that he would listen to Israel's reservations about the "Road Map" but the "Road Map" document would NOT be changed(!) Sharon is to bring this absurd document to his Cabinet for a vote, pressured to make a suicide pact for the nation so Bush could claim a political victory for his foreign policy as he begins his 2004 re-election campaign. Clearly, the Israeli Cabinet must vote NO! and give Sharon the backbone he discarded when he became a politician.

There is not much more to say about these gullible Jews except to identify them and then ignore their counsel.

Contact your Federation and AIPAC. Demand that they cease supporting the "Road Map" and the weak new Palestinian PM Abu Mazen, an unreconstructed Terror leader along with Yassir Arafat. Contact your Congressmen and let him and her know how you feel. Let them know that the Jewish Federation self-appointed leaders, seeking only safety and comfort for their wealth, do not speak for you or the Jewish State of Israel's safety and sovereignty."

Unknown_Enemy

May 27th, 2003, 03:42 PM

Stratfor's point of view.

Israel: Bombings To Force Palestinian Crackdown May 19, 2003

Summary

A recent bombing spate in Israel will force new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to redirect his energy toward policing the Palestinians.

Analysis

Five suicide bombings in Israel between May 17 and May 19 killed at least 21 people and wounded scores of others. The al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) all have claimed responsibility for the attacks. Hamas claimed responsibility for the first four attacks -- including a suicide bombing May 17 that killed two settlers in Hebron and two bombings in Jerusalem on May 18, one of which left six Israelis and a Palestinian dead. Hamas also claimed a May 19 attack in the Gaza Strip that killed three Israel Defense Forces members, and both the PIJ and al Aqsa claimed responsibility for a May 19 suicide attack in which three people were killed in the northern Israeli town of Afula.

In effect, the bombings also have killed the U.S.-backed "road map" for peace. The failure of the Palestinian government's new leader, Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, to prevent Hamas, the PIJ or even al Aqsa -- backed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat -- from launching suicide attacks, lets Washington off the hook and will throw the Palestinians into an internecine confrontation in the coming weeks.

The United States, as part of a deal with Saudi Arabia, supported the plan to push forward a peace deal in Israel. An Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, however, requires that all of the Palestinian factions agree to halt suicide attacks. The recent spate of bombings makes clear two things: First, neither Hamas, the PIJ, nor al Aqsa back the peace talks. And second, Abbas can't bring them to the negotiating table or keep them in check.

The Palestinians are divided into three camps. One camp is willing to accept a partial return of the land seized in 1967 in exchange for recognizing Israel's right to exist. A second camp might accept these terms for negotiation but will continue to fight even with a peace deal on the table, and a third camp will refuse outright to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Hamas and the PIJ fit into the third Category, but the stance of al Aqsa, which has been closely tied to Arafat's Fatah Party and is known to conduct joint operations with Hamas and the PIJ, is unclear.

From Israel's standpoint, it cannot negotiate peace as long as there is a Palestinian faction that opposes it. The ability of Hamas, the PIJ, al Aqsa or any other group to continue to launch suicide strikes and the Palestinian National Authority's inability to halt those strikes limits the desire of Israeli leaders to cut a deal.

From Washington's standpoint, it has tried to make peace, and the Palestinians are rejecting it. That means the United States acted in good faith in its agreement with Saudi Arabia, and it can now back off and let the Israelis do what they need to do.

The losers in the end are Arab states that hoped to tie up the United States in Israel by getting Washington bogged down in peace negotiations. These Arab governments -- like Saudi Arabia -- also wanted to show their domestic constituencies that they could influence U.S. policy and that cooperation with the U.S. military in Iraq could result in something positive. A flare-up in Israel translates into an aggravation of an already angry Arab population, large segments of which see the governments as weak and corrupt. Domestic backlash will fuel militancy in countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

Inside the territories, Abbas has been proven a paper tiger. Until the new prime minister can prove that he can contain Hamas and other factions that oppose peace negotiations with Israel, he has no legitimacy.

Both Israel and the United States have said in response to the bombings that peace talks will continue. The problem is that no substantive deals will be reached: Israel cannot trust that Abbas, regardless of his intentions, can ensure security.

Abbas, knowing this, now has a decision to make. He seems isolated inside the Palestinian political landscape. If al Aqsa participated in the latest spate of suicide bombings, then logic suggests that Arafat does not back the peace talks either. Already the two have clashed repeatedly over the construction of Abbas' Cabinet. Israel and the United States hope to use Abbas to sideline the aging Palestinian guerrilla leader.

The bombings will return Abbas to the underlying issue that so far has defined his short tenure as prime minister: the inter-Palestinian dynamic. Hamas' goal is not just to derail these particular peace talks, but all peace talks. It denies that Israel has a right to exist, and this principle is what gives Hamas its power. Its followers are willing to die in suicide bombings, because they believe in the goal: a Palestinian state after the destruction of the Jewish one. This stance cannot be moderated if Hamas hopes to retain its current support base, and therefore Hamas cannot participate in the peace process and cannot be open to negotiations.

Because of this, Abbas will have no choice but to find a means of cracking down or containing the militant group and other Palestinian factions blocking peace efforts. In effect, this is much of the Palestinian political spectrum. Given Hamas' prominence both politically and in its claims of responsibility for suicide bombings, Abbas likely will turn his attention to the Gaza Strip. With former Palestinian Security Chief Col. Mohammed Dahlan now acting as Abbas' security minister, the prime minister has an advantage in Gaza that he lacks in the West Bank. Now the test will be how he uses that advantage. In a first reaction, officials with Abbas' government said May 19 that he would shake up the Palestinian security apparatus. What he does with that security force, once it's reshuffled to his liking, will be the decisive factor. If he takes the hard line, a bloodbath inside Gaza -- between Dahlan's men and Hamas -- is almost a certainty.

Alpha Kodiak

May 27th, 2003, 06:12 PM

Aloofi: I have been a strong supporter of Israel since I have been old enough to have an opinion on the subject (at least 30 years). This is an honest question, not an argument. What do you think is the best solution for Israel? Surely, continuing in the current path is not good. Too many people on both sides keep dying with no end in sight. Israel can't go to war with all of its neighbors and hope to secure itself that way. There has to be some path to peace. I am not saying the current road map is the best way, but I am not hearing any better plans from anywhere.

Narrew

May 27th, 2003, 07:40 PM

I would be interested in hearing what Aloofi has to say also.

I have thought as long as Arafat is around, any kind of peace wont happen. Unless the new PM can wrench control from Arafat (which I doubt), any hope will be short lived. If there was a way to get rid of Arafat that wouldn't make him a martar, well I wouldn't be sad to see him gone. I saw something this weekend where they were showing 11 year olds that feel being suicide bombers is great and that Arafat was proud of the children that have died. I mean, as long as this is "their" norm, how can anything get done? But, that does not mean to give up.

The "Road-map" might not be the ideal solution, but if the U.S. policy in the Middle East is to clamp down on countries like Iraq, and now Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Maybe some things will be better. Those bombings in Saudi Arabia was a slap against the arabs that have turned the other eye in the past. But in the end, Arafat needs to be out of the picture, period.

[ May 27, 2003, 18:42: Message edited by: Narrew ]

Phoenix-D

May 27th, 2003, 08:20 PM

"I recently watched the "Booling for Columbine" movie. I found it quite intersting, but I wonder about US advices about it."

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Lets just say he does a really good job of editing. (At one point he cuts and pastes part of different speeches together)

Loser

May 27th, 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Lets just say he does a really good job of editing. (At one point he cuts and pastes part of different speeches together) (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)Thank you. That's great.

tesco samoa

May 27th, 2003, 09:43 PM

OT--- http://www.thememoryhole.org/phoenix/

This popped by on the Declan maillist today... Some should find it interesting....... Vietnam War... Stuff

Aloofi

May 28th, 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

This is an honest question, not an argument. What do you think is the best solution for Israel? Surely, continuing in the current path is not good. Too many people on both sides keep dying with no end in sight. Yes, of course I agree that a solution must be found. But the truth is that I don't have any real hope for a peaceful solution, at least with the current generation. So that's mean that I don't have an answer. We are in a big deep hole and I don't see a way out. And I'm telling you, is not just pessimism, is the reality i see on the field.
I was serving in southern Lebanon when Barak order us out of there and to dismantle our outPosts. At the time I thought it was a good idea, that the Arabs and the world would see that we were willing to compromise. But the Arabs, instead of seing this as a goodwilling effort and an step towards peace, like any Western country would, saw in this weakness, and claimed a victory over Israel, and the ranks of fundamentalist Groups grew up with new recruits, believing that they were closer to a military victory over us.
You have to understand that Arab mentality is very diferent to Western mentality, I suppose this is because Islam have failed to modernize the way christianism have, incorporing into itself human rights, freedom of choice and tolerance for other religions or sects. Even christian fundamentalism is less fundamentalist than moderate Islam (Turkey).
I have no doubt in my mind, that if the Palestinians had chosen the path of Ghandi, they would have had whatever they wanted long ago.
But they have chosen violence, they teach their children in their schools to hate us, their media, stablished by Israel as part of Oslo, brainwash their youth with Jihadis dreams and anti-semitism. They don't even call us Israelis, they call us Jews, with all the discriminating implications that that word have in Arab.
In their minds, they can't understand how the jews, who were always second class citizens in the Arab countries, that had to pay extra taxes and were deprived of legal rights, that had to bow any time a muslim would pass near, that were prohibited to ride horses, they can't understand how these same jews have defeated them so many times on the battlefield. "It must be because the Jews serve the devil", they say, "and because of Jewish scheming and western support", when in reality western aid only came after 1973, and in the independence war in 1948 we had 4 cannons, while they had a couple hundred of tanks, outdated, but we didn't have any.
My believe is that there will never be peace, because it takes one bullet to break a cease fire, and one killing to break a peace, and there are many Palestinian Groups with thousands and thousands of members that wants the total destruction of Israel.
The way it is today, if the Palestinians would stop fighting, there would be peace, if Israel stops fighting, there would be no more Israel.

Its a vicious circle. If we make concensions to achieve peace, they see it as a weakness and redouble their attacks. If we don't, we still get the attacks, but at least we retain our strategy depth and territorial integrity.

There is no peace in the horizon, that's for sure.
.
.

teal

May 28th, 2003, 05:16 PM

Thanks for your post Aloofi. Its very interesting to hear an Isreali point of view on this issue.

I must disagree with your statement that "if the Palestenians stopped fighting their would be peace". If the Palestenians stopped fighting their would be no Palestein (in that sense there would be peace, but that's not what you meant). The Economist published a map of the Isreali settlements in the occupied territories about a year ago. Its very hard, looking at that map, to reach any other conlusion than that Isreal has adopted the strategy of placing settlements to make it a fait accompli that the occupied territories are Isreali and belong to Isreal. If the Palestenians do nothing then they will loose their homeland to the steady march of time and an expanding Isreal. Madeline Albright has suggested in a speech that both sides know that the Isrealis must give up the settlements and the Palestenians must give up the right of return. Both sides seem to want more people to die before they reach that conclusion. I agree with you that if the Palesteniens adopted non-violent methods ala Ghandi that their case would be a thousand times stronger and they would probably have achieved much of their goals. That seems to me to be the best path for them. I have no idea what Isreal should do as I also agree that giving concessions has not worked in the past. We need genius level diplomats that can find a way for both sides to back down without loss of face (i.e. to back down while simultaneously showing strength). Sadly, diplomacy seems to be a lost art these days...

Teal

tesco samoa

May 28th, 2003, 05:59 PM

Aloofi

what is your connection with israel ??

Loser

May 28th, 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Aloofi

what is your connection with israel ??I believe he has said that he served in the IDF. If he has not said directly that he was a resident and citizen it would still be a pretty safe assumption.

Narrew

May 28th, 2003, 07:34 PM

I agree with you Aloofi. It is hard to see a positive resolution. How do you negotiate with someone that thinks dieing for a cause is the fast track to Allah http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

You were right on about how they view us (weak or strong). I wish the U.S. would have backed the rebels against Saddam in the first gulf war. We let millions of Arabs down and it will take much longer to bring them back around. That is one thing many western pacifists just don't get. What we did against Saddam may not be popular, but I think it will be effective down the road, I mean the surrounding Countries that support terrorism have to think now "are we next", and if they dont want to be next, they better crack down on the 1% of wackos.

Aloofi

May 28th, 2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Aloofi

what is your connection with israel ??I was born in Israel, 1979/5739, in a Sephardic family like 40% of Israel, went to school, served in the IDF, married an American-Jewish girl, moved to the US, where I make twice the money than in Israel doing the same job, we go to college at night, we will graduate in 2 years, then back to Eretz Yisrael, we'll probably buy a house in Haifa, where my family lives, but lately I've been thinking of Elat, in the south.
.
.

Erax

May 28th, 2003, 09:14 PM

Allofi, this is a story I've been meaning to tell you for a long time. When my wife was a kid (sometime in the early 70's), her parents went to visit another young couple that lived in the same building and took her along. This other couple had no kids, they were very nice people, everyone knew they were foreigners but no one knew exactly where they were from.

Anyway, at some point my wife repeated something she had heard an adult say (you know how kids are like) about this being a terrible country to live in. The foreign couple was shocked by this and they told her "Don't ever say that. This is a wonderful country. We should know, we're Jews." My wife asked them, "What's a Jew ?" And they told her parents, "This is why we love your country. Where we come from, a child her age would already have been taught to hate Jews."

Too bad she never found out where they were from, but from your post I think we can guess.

Aloofi

May 28th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by teal:

1- I must disagree with your statement that "if the Palestenians stopped fighting their would be peace". If the Palestenians stopped fighting their would be no Palestein (in that sense there would be peace, but that's not what you meant).

2- The Economist published a map of the Isreali settlements in the occupied territories about a year ago. Its very hard, looking at that map, to reach any other conlusion than that Isreal has adopted the strategy of placing settlements to make it a fait accompli that the occupied territories are Isreali and belong to Isreal.

3- If the Palestenians do nothing then they will loose their homeland to the steady march of time and an expanding Isreal.

4- Madeline Albright has suggested in a speech that both sides know that the Isrealis must give up the settlements and the Palestenians must give up the right of return.

TealWell, I don't have the time now to get into an in-deep discussion, but here's what I see.

1- If the Palestinians stop fighting there would be peace, and they would get all that they want, because even under fire there is a very strong peace movement in Israel. If they had chosen Ghandi's path the peaceniks would have the mayority of Israel behind them. Israel is a Democracy, you know, and Democracies have a hard time not doing what their people wants.
Now, where's the Palestinian peace movement? I don't see an equivalent to Gush Shalom on the other side of the green line.

2- The economist? Please.
I bet they didn't mention that in 1948 Jordan occupied the West Bank and built twice as many settlements as Israel have built till this day, and Jordan brought in Arabs from everywhere in the Arab world to settle. Many Palestinians are either Arab foreigners are sons of foreigners, and the UN gave the status of refugees to people that have lived in the area less than 2 years in some cases! I thought a refugee is somebody uprooted from his native land, didn't you?
I'm also sure that they didn't mention the 850 000 Sefaradi Jews expelled from Arabs countries, including Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, who's properties were confiscated. But Israel asimilated them, while the Arabs didn't asimilate the 420 000 Arabs that left Israel by orders of their own leaders. Did they mention the Jews of Gaza?
One other question, why are still "refugee camps" in the territory controled by the Palestinian Authority?

3- Lose their homeland? When the Brittish took 75% of the Palestinian Mandate, ordered by the League of Nations to be the Jewish Home, and created the Kingdom of Jordan, they created the Palestinian homeland. Very smart of them to not call it Kingdom of Palestine, so they can claim the other side of the Jordan river also.

4- Madelaine Allbright is not all bright, or maybe she is, depending of what she really wants.
So, we give a real tangible thing, we give land, and they give a promise? A promise that they can break after they get the land? With the Palestinian record of keeping promises?
You gotta be kidding.

.
Oh well, that was my rant. Not that it matters, since there is nothing that can be done.

tesco samoa

May 28th, 2003, 09:37 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965319,00.html

WMD have been found !!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Aloofi...

I could not remember if you were an immigrant to North America like me or you were currently living across the pond and down the straight away.

Narrew

May 28th, 2003, 09:50 PM

HEY!!! thats NOT funny http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

well it is, until you think about it, I mean how the hell do you forget something like that? scary

Aloofi

May 28th, 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Chief Engineer Erax:
Allofi, this is a story I've been meaning to tell you for a long time.

.That was a nice story. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Yeah, I complain a lot about Bush and the American corporations and Hollywood, but America is a great country indeed, especialy for the poor. It's not perfect, and it certainly can be better, but its people is definitively not the bad people that the anti-american propaganda paint.
.

Aloofi

May 28th, 2003, 10:02 PM

Man, these discussions about Israel makes me look like a frigging fundamentalist. I guess the self-defense mechanism kicks in.
.

Erax

May 28th, 2003, 10:13 PM

OK, here's my thoughts on WMDs and Iraq : It is clear to me that Bush expected to find WMDs after Saddam was overthrown. The very fact that none have been found are a proof of this. Why ? Because if he had known that Iraq had no WMDs (or had already destroyed them), he would have prepared some for the US military to 'find' after the war. The fact that this possibility was never covered suggests everyone on his team was certain that they would find those WMDs.

Therefore (if you're still with me), we can assume that when Bush said that Saddam had WMDs, he believed it himself.

Now it becomes tricky. Did Saddam destroy all of his WMDs before the invasion, knowing it would drive Bush crazy ? Or did he destroy them before the inspections because he didn't want to run the risk of being found out ? Did he even have WMDs ? Your guess is as good as mine.

Erax

May 28th, 2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
[QUOTE]I complain a lot about Bush and the American corporations and Hollywood, but America is a great country indeed, especialy for the poor. It's not perfect, and it certainly can be better, but its people is definitively not the bad people that the anti-american propaganda paint.Actually, this story happened here in Brazil (I should have made that clear), but it could also have happened in the US, or just somewhere in the New World.

Now for a question - how did Israel win the 1948 war with all of the odds against them ? Can you point me to any good historical articles ?

Aloofi

May 28th, 2003, 10:35 PM

Bush Quotes:

"Do you have blacks too?" - Bush ignorantly asked Brazil's President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Reported by the reputable German publication Der Spiegel. Rumor has it, Condoleza Rice interupted the president and explained in brief the African history in Brazil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"{waves hello}"- G.W. Bush waves to the blind musician, Stevie Wonder, as reported by the Washington Post, March 6th, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods." -George W Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2000

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Are these quotes real?

Aloofi

May 28th, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Chief Engineer Erax:
Actually, this story happened here in Brazil (I should have made that clear), but it could also have happened in the US, or just somewhere in the New World.

Now for a question - how did Israel win the 1948 war with all of the odds against them ? Can you point me to any good historical articles ?[/QB]Oops http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif , I should have read your location.

The Independence War was our worst. We lost 1% of our population at the time.
Here's a link: http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00us0

Loser

May 29th, 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Are these quotes real?At times like these, I really, really wish I had someone else for which to vote. No matter how much I might be able to admire the man for other qualities, the inability to consistantly express himself in a professional manner is quite disturbing.

I continue to hold a grudge against Gore for the Clipper Chip (http://www.cpsr.org/program/clipper/clipper.html) (in fact I registered as a Democrat so I could vote agaisnt him twice), and I dislike his populist ways, and I cannot see the value in voting for a sure-to-lose third-party-type, no matter how much I admine their work or their policies. (Though I guess I would have voted Perot, if I had been older and if he hadn't looked like such a nut there at the end.)

Suicide Junkie

May 29th, 2003, 05:09 AM

and I cannot see the value in voting for a sure-to-lose third-party-type, no matter how much I admine their work or their policies. Hey, self-fulfilling prophesy... If both the main choices are crap, why shouldn't you vote for someone else?

You really need to get your country out of that "two party system" mindset.

Andr�s

May 29th, 2003, 05:28 AM

If it is a sure-to-lose it's because people think like that.

dogscoff

May 29th, 2003, 10:34 AM

Yeah, we've been stuck with just two main parties for centuries - as far as I know we have *never* had an elected government that wasn't either labour (left) or tory (right).

But I think this time it might change. We had more than a decade of tory rule in which they proved themselves again and again to be greasy, corrupt, inept hypocrites. So we voted Blair in who has dominated his party and the country's political scene so completely that half the population don't even know the name of the leader of the opposition. Blair revolutionised British politics and pushed it into the 21st century, just as the tories were dragging their party kicking and screaming out of the 19th. The opposition are laughably outdated, mistrusted, disorganised and utterly unelectable.

But now Blair's position is starting to look shaky. The war hasn't done anything to improve his popularity, and he had certain weaknesses anyway. For one thing he has drifted so far right that he might as well *be* the conservative party. All the socialists, communists and various other left-of-centre ists think he has sold out completely. For another, he and his party have had been exposed in sleazy, corrupt scandals (conflict of interests, backhanders etc) just like the tories- one of their main selling points when they were elected was that they weren't as sleazy.

With this loss in confidence in the two major parties, I think Britain is heading for a >2 party system. All the minority parties (greens, nazis, single issue parties, votes-for-chickens parties, save-our-local-pub parties, independent candidates) are doing better and better with every local election and I think the liberals (our third "central" party, now finding itself further left than the right-drifting new-labour "socialists") might even get into downing street one of these days.

And that will be a good thing. It will shake up British politics enormously, and probably herald a more european-style multi-party system (which may not be such a good thing). Hoefully though, the liberals will be so new to government that for a while they'll actually think they're there to represent and work for the electorate rather than line their own pockets with our money. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Alpha Kodiak

May 29th, 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Man, these discussions about Israel makes me look like a frigging fundamentalist. I guess the self-defense mechanism kicks in.
.I know the feeling. When I read some of my comments about the US, I sound like I believe that the government is perfect and I love every aspect of it. In reality, I complain all the time about dumb things going on in this country. It's just that statements made against the US government are so overblown or just downright false that I take a hard-line stance in defense of the US.

Alpha Kodiak

May 29th, 2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Yes, of course I agree that a solution must be found. But the truth is that I don't have any real hope for a peaceful solution, at least with the current generation. So that's mean that I don't have an answer. We are in a big deep hole and I don't see a way out. And I'm telling you, is not just pessimism, is the reality i see on the field.I fear that you may be right in this. This is a conflict that is rooted in the history of both Arab and Israeli, all the way back to Isaac and Ishmael. I find it hugely frustrating that every time a movement towards peace begins, the Palestinians pick up their bombing campaign. Clearly, their leadership does not want peace. Then, Israel responds to the attacks, sometimes even-handedly, sometimes in (in my mind) understandable overreaction, and Israel gets blamed for being too violent. I just don't get it.

On a side note, I found this link (http://www.neravt.com/left/contributors/jacobs48.html) and thought it was funny that, as much as you don't like Bush and think he is taking a pro-Arab stance, this author doesn't like Bush and thinks he is taking a pro-Israeli stance. (Note that I do NOT agree with what he says, I just find it amusing that both sides feel that Bush is on the other side.)

Aloofi

May 29th, 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

On a side note, I found this link (http://www.neravt.com/left/contributors/jacobs48.html) and thought it was funny that, as much as you don't like Bush and think he is taking a pro-Arab stance, this author doesn't like Bush and thinks he is taking a pro-Israeli stance. (Note that I do NOT agree with what he says, I just find it amusing that both sides feel that Bush is on the other side.)That link is full of crap. We don't get 5 billion a year, but only 1.2, which is still a lot, but is less than the 2 billions Egypt gets. Of course, proportionaly we get more because Israel have 5.8 million population and Egypt have about 100 millions or so.

I'll tell you why. A couple of minutes ago I was sent a photograph from the Reuters News Agency that showed a seven-year-old boy laying dead on the ground. The caption read, in part: "A neighbor watching 20 meters away on his balcony told Reuters that an Israeli tank crewman had beckoned a group of children to approach his vehicle, and Mahmoud was then gunned down by four bullets of the tank's machine gun when the party came near." This is pure Palestinian propaganda. You probably remember when they claim 5000 masacred in Jenin, and they consider part of their war to desacredit Israel with any lies that they can get away with, and justify that saying that Israel have tanks and planes and they don't. Basicly, I don't believe one single word that comes from the Palestinians. For them lying is a weapon.
Check out this link: Mohammed al-Dura (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_dura.php)

Then, one day as I sat at a table for a radical group in front of the University of Maryland Student Union, some rather menacing college students came up and asked me why I had literature supporting the Palestinians on my table. I began to explain that the Palestinians deserved a hearing when suddenly I was struck in the chest by one of the students. It turned out that these guys were members of the Jewish Defense League. The Jewish Defense League's party in Israel was declared illegal by the Israeli goverment, and their HQ in the US were taken over by the FBI.
Still, this guy story looks to me like inventing something using an already bad name, so everybody will believe it, but since this guy have already said several lies, and hidden several truths, I don't belive this story, though it could have happened, I'm not gonna tell you is impossible that it happened. Using the the JDL to show how bad Israel is, its like using the KKK to show how bad the US is.

.

[ May 29, 2003, 14:08: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

teal

May 29th, 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
At least Bush doesn't claim to have created the Internet.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. I can't find the article which went case by case on all of Gore's so called lies from the Love Canal one to the Love Story one and showed conclusively that he was misquoted and taken out of context in every single one. Exactly what you claim to be against in your post. Let's keep the hypocrosy down to a dull roar shall we... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Alpha Kodiak

May 29th, 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by teal:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
At least Bush doesn't claim to have created the Internet.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. I can't find the article which went case by case on all of Gore's so called lies from the Love Canal one to the Love Story one and showed conclusively that he was misquoted and taken out of context in every single one. Exactly what you claim to be against in your post. Let's keep the hypocrosy down to a dull roar shall we... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>That was my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

teal

May 29th, 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by teal:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
At least Bush doesn't claim to have created the Internet.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. I can't find the article which went case by case on all of Gore's so called lies from the Love Canal one to the Love Story one and showed conclusively that he was misquoted and taken out of context in every single one. Exactly what you claim to be against in your post. Let's keep the hypocrosy down to a dull roar shall we... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>That was my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>My apologies then... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Loser

May 29th, 2003, 04:38 PM

If you can find that article, or other similar sources, I'd love to read them. My beef with Gore has little to do with his verbal blunders.

[edited to remove moot point]

[ May 29, 2003, 15:39: Message edited by: Loser ]

Aloofi

May 29th, 2003, 05:04 PM

http://palestinefacts.org/images/bias_cartoon.gif

teal

May 29th, 2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
If you can find that article, or other similar sources, I'd love to read them. My beef with Gore has little to do with his verbal blunders.

[edited to remove moot point]I can't remember where it was. Salon, The New Republic, *maybe* The Nation although then I would have probably been predisposed against it more... (all these are somewhat left leaning publications to varying degrees (possible exception of The New Republic in recent years), but then you would hardly expect a right wing publication to publish a defense of Gore...).

I tried doing a Google search, but that was a nightmare!

dogscoff

May 29th, 2003, 05:47 PM

Just to remind anyone who hasn't looked at it in a while or who has never seen it: The blog from Baghdad (http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com). It's been infrequent lately, but really interesting.

geoschmo

May 29th, 2003, 07:43 PM

What Gore said: (click the quote to read the entire interview with Blitzer)
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/)

Alpha Kodiak

May 29th, 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Just to remind anyone who hasn't looked at it in a while or who has never seen it: The blog from Baghdad (http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com). It's been infrequent lately, but really interesting.I really enjoy it. The most interesting thing to me is the understandable dichotomy in what he says between his frustration in the way things are/aren't being done by the Americans and the fact that Saddam's regime is gone.

I liked one quote of his:

It is difficult, a two sided coin. On one side they are the US Army, invader/liberator � choose what you like, big guns, strange sounds coming out of their mouths. The other side has a person on it that in many cases is younger than I am in a country he wouldn�t put on his choice of destinations. But he has this uniform on, the big gun and those darkdark sunglasses which make it impossible to see his eyes. Difficult.That puts a spin on things that is sometimes easy to forget. All of the people involved are just that, people. People who are going through a broad range of emotions. Iraqi civilians who are happy that Saddam is gone, but want their old lives back. American soldiers who are glad that they succeeded in their mission, but who really want to go home, tired of being away from friends and family for so long. Lots of other people with different agendas all trying to put their mark on the future, for good or ill, or just trying to survive. It is going to be a long time before we really begin to understand the ramifications of what has happened over the Last few months.

Loser

May 29th, 2003, 09:36 PM

I like this one. I specially like the Pentagon Show, him with the distracting facial expressions and her with her loud costumes.That's a fresh perspective.

Erax

May 30th, 2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Hopefully though, the liberals will be so new to government that for a while they'll actually think they're there to represent and work for the electorate rather than line their own pockets with our money. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Heh, heh. That's sort of what's happening in Brazil right now.

I have some advice for the Americans here (take it from someone who has already been there) : if you must choose between two candidates and you hate both of them, you must still choose one. You should choose between a terrible candidate and a worse one, in the hope that next time around you can choose between a terrible candidate and one who is merely bad, and so on until somewhere down the road there will be someone you can vote for and not feel ashamed.

Aloofi : I don't recall Bush's comment on blacks. I do remember Reagan's comment, as soon as he got off the plane that brought him to Brazil : "It's nice to be here in Bolivia." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

jimbob

May 30th, 2003, 01:41 AM

Suicide Junkie said:
Hey, self-fulfilling prophesy... If both the main choices are crap, why shouldn't you vote for someone else?

You really need to get your country out of that "two party system" mindset. Hehe, you mean that maybe they should switch over to a "one party system" like we have here in Canada? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I've ceased referencing our political system as a democracy, more of a dictocracy in my opinion (that is to say, we elect our absolut dictator every 4 years).

Alpha Kodiak

May 30th, 2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Bush Quotes:

"Do you have blacks too?" - Bush ignorantly asked Brazil's President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Reported by the reputable German publication Der Spiegel. Rumor has it, Condoleza Rice interupted the president and explained in brief the African history in Brazil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"{waves hello}"- G.W. Bush waves to the blind musician, Stevie Wonder, as reported by the Washington Post, March 6th, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods." -George W Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2000

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Are these quotes real?It is very easy to take an out of context quote and make anyone sound stupid. At least Bush doesn't claim to have created the Internet.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

teal

May 30th, 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
What Gore said: (click the quote to read the entire interview with Blitzer)
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/)The whole paragraph is...

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the Last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.So its clear from context (i.e. the next senctence where he continues to use the word initiative but now you can see that he means initiative in the sense of introducing legislation) that he means that he took the initiave in introducing *legislation* and *funding* for helping to build (i.e. another sense of the word *create*) the internet and did not claim to have invented the internet single handedly which is what the quote taken out of context implies. Admittedly I do not know if he did introduce such legislation and/or take an important roll in moving it forward, but I am willing to bet that he did.

Thanks for including the reference to the whole quote. Its quite easy to discuss these things that way. The "story" of the 2000 elections was that Gore was a liar and a bore and Bush was stupid. Niether are true. I actually think that Gore being a bore cost him more votes than the liar thing and anyone can tell you that stupidity is not a factor in American politics so I don't think that cost Bush any votes at all.

Cheers!

Teal

geoschmo

May 30th, 2003, 02:14 PM

You have the party line down pretty straight as well Teal. It's just as obvious you do like Gore and so don't hesitate to excuse or attempt to explain away his inconsistancies. Personally I don't care enough about him to continue this topic. I was merely trying to provide some facts to the discussion since very few on either side of the issue when it came up every even heard or read what he actually said. They were merely parroting one or the other camps spin, as you have pretty faithfully done here.

Aloofi

May 30th, 2003, 02:22 PM

I didn't vote in 2000, but if I had, my vote would have been for Al Gore.
I don't think Al Gore would have given that priority to the interests of the Oil Oligarchy in his agenda.......
And I would have done ANYTHING to have Dick Cheney out of the WhiteHouse.

geoschmo

May 30th, 2003, 02:22 PM

Although I do need to say one thing about your analogy. I am someone who has been more than a little responsible for encouraging the popularity of Space Empires IV, the "Space Empires Phenomenon" as you so eloquenly put it, through my work with PBW. I believe I have a right to feel some pride in my accomplishments. However if I were to sit down with a reporter and state unequivically "During my service with PBW, I took the initiative in creating Space Empires." people would have every right to take me to task for it.

Geoschmo

teal

May 30th, 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
You have the party line down pretty straight as well Teal. It's just as obvious you do like Gore and so don't hesitate to excuse or attempt to explain away his inconsistancies. Personally I don't care enough about him to continue this topic. I was merely trying to provide some facts to the discussion since very few on either side of the issue when it came up every even heard or read what he actually said. They were merely parroting one or the other camps spin, as you have pretty faithfully done here.Point of fact I don't like Gore much at all (think he is much preferable to Bush yes, like him no). I am just willing to provide him the benefit of the doubt just as I am willing to provide Bush the benefit of the doubt when his numerous so called verbal gaffes get circled around the office. In those cases I am much less willing to do hard work to try and defend him true, but there are others who will do that. I content myself with not joining on the bandwagon.

Calling my point of view "the party line" I find somewhat offensive. It should be everyone's "party line" that until given overwhelming evidence to the contrary (of the "I hold in my hand the names of X communists at the state department" or "I have not had sexual relations with that woman" variety) that a willfull deception has indeed occured it is always the default position that someone was being smeared for political gain by their enemies. To rephrase that somewhat awkward sentence: the burden of proof that a politician is lying lays squarely at the feet of the accuser and it should be a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof otherwise one should believe the person being accused. The case against Gore wouldn't even be admitted to court, much less achieve the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. To be fair the case that Bush is stupid is equally dumb.

teal

May 30th, 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Although I do need to say one thing about your analogy. I am someone who has been more than a little responsible for encouraging the popularity of Space Empires IV, the "Space Empires Phenomenon" as you so eloquenly put it, through my work with PBW. I believe I have a right to feel some pride in my accomplishments. However if I were to sit down with a reporter and state unequivically "During my service with PBW, I took the initiative in creating Space Empires." people would have every right to take me to task for it.

GeoschmoThat's why I phrased it carefully to be the Space Empires phenomena obviously only Aaron can claim to have created Space Empires itself. And I would not take you to task for that statement, but rather say that you deserved to utter it for your hard work.

I agree that this discussion has probably gone far enough. I like my default position that politicians are mostly truthful until shown beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not. You are of course welcome to believe whatever you want about certain politicians.

geoschmo

May 30th, 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by teal:
That's why I phrased it carefully to be the Space Empires phenomena obviously only Aaron can claim to have created Space Empires itself.
That was my point though. You are making a distinction there that Gore did not. He didn't claim to have encourage the growth of the Internet, a claim by many accounts he had the right to make. He didn't claim to have taken the initiative in creating the Internet "Phenomenon", a claim which would probably be a bit excessively boastful but perhaps a case could be made to support it. He stated he had a hand in the creation of the internet. That's why I maintain it must be defined as a fairly serious mistatement of fact, whether intentional or not, rather then mere braggadocio.

Geoschmo

teal

May 30th, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by teal:
That's why I phrased it carefully to be the Space Empires phenomena obviously only Aaron can claim to have created Space Empires itself.
That was my point though. You are making a distinction there that Gore did not. He didn't claim to have encourage the growth of the Internet, a claim by many accounts he had the right to make. He didn't claim to have taken the initiative in creating the Internet "Phenomenon", a claim which would probably be a bit excessively boastful but perhaps a case could be made to support it. He stated he had a hand in the creation of the internet. That's why I maintain it must be defined as a fairly serious mistatement of fact, whether intentional or not, rather then mere braggadocio.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>Oh come on. Only in certain republican dominated alternate realities does the term internet mean only strictly the physical connection of one computer to another in a network. I would be willing to bet that the word is probably more often used to represent the entire phenomena of web surfing, e-mail, Online shopping, data transfer and organization by companies, on time inventory control, etc. It is clearly in that sense that Gore meant the word and only if you were out to hang him and not to give him the reasonable benefit of the doubt would you define the internet in your fashion. Once again the burden of proof is in your court. You must *prove* that Gore was a liar, not wave some words around and make it look like maybe, if cats were only the kind of animals that people have in their houses and not also creatures that live in the wild and behave quite differently from the domestic variety, then the statement was factually incorrect. Language is horribly imprecise, there are many different definitions for each word. Default position for any sentence is that you take the definitions and meanings that make the sentence make sense, not deliberately choose those meanings which make the sentence look bad. Misquoting and misrepresentation are the true evil culprits here. They should be hanged equally when applied to Gore as when applied to Bush.