Starfighter08 Posted November 16, 2002 Report Share Posted November 16, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: This is a huge problem that has to be addressed. Since the people who call the shots can't seem to choose the hard right over the easy wrong another force has to intervene. And Ill tell you if it takes the commies to save the planet.it would be ironic.Internalization of external effects is definitely the task of gov'ts. Unfortunately people do indeed choose the easy wrong. A few years ago there was a public vote to introduce a CO2-tax here in Switzerland. Unfortunately some 60% said no because we would hurt our export industry. The if-they-don't-do-it-then-I-wont-either-excuse is quite a strong barrier against such measures. It would be ironic, since the commies were/are among the worst polluters. The forests in Siberia were decimated and the steel foundries emitted quite some smoke. It seems that Western European countries have some of the strictest environment protection laws that you can find. quote: A belief that technology is cure all for the environment is ultimately a gamble....that's the bottom line....and I don't believe faith is a responsible position given the current climate of super greed and all around poor ethics that infest business and all its wonderful analytical establishments.Technology isn't a cure and much less a faith. Higher productivity and cleaner production methods allow to maintain our current level of wealth or even increase it (I think you too deem it important since you don't seem to like poverty very much), while at the same time reduce the impact procution and consumption have on the ecosystem. quote: I question the current economic format when crossing the lines of personal and state sovereignty is just "doing business" I further question this idea when it has controlling interest in systems of thought and de facto media monopoly.IMO the problem is that the economy works on a global scale while lawmaking and enforcement still work on national level. This allows companies to evade strict rules on environment for example. Organisations like the UN, the WTO etc. can make rules and even condemn countries who break them but they cannot enforce them. I think sooner or later we will need a democratic worldfederation or something like that. quote: In America corporations are seeking to fill every aspect of our society if it hasn't done so already and I don't believe this is healthy. Parents, communities, schools...reality...is taken over by business....and those people are defiantly not elected....Agree. Some large corporations have larger turnovers than some countries' GDP. They definitely have nearly the same amount of power that gov'ts usually enjoy. That's actually my problem with Libertarians. They want to keep gov't small and in check since you cannot trust people with power (I agree here), but if the same bunch of people calls itself a corporation then they should be free to do whatever they want. Regardless of the fact that they might wield a greater power than the gov't of some small country. And like you said, these people are usually not elected by the people they affect with their actions. quote: Would you say an accurate description of the Soviet Union's economy as being a form of state controlled capitalism?Now that's an interesting question. Don't know how much you know about Marx's surplus theory but anyway he wanted to give that surplus back to the workers while capitalists kept it for themselfs and invested it into new factories. If you look at Stalin's way of industrializing the country, you can see that he did exactly the same. People had a low standard of living and most of the fruits of their labour was used by the gov't to build new factories, railways or weapons. In a way state controlled capitalism as a description for the SU's economy has some merits, even though there were no real markets, no competition and no private property. On top of that the soviet system was quite a far cry from what Marx had envisioned. quote: How about forcing them further into poverty?Education means high productivity and high productivity means wealth. That's why education is so important. I think poor people should be granted access to education to give them a fair chance, but what they do with it or if they even want it remains their choice. It's "make your choice, pay the price" IMO. quote: Well here in the US of A we are all about the former.....as long as it isn't politics, mass media, or mass transit....Yup. I just can't stop wondering how people can fight for free speech, gun ownership etc. while not realizing that their choices become fewer and fewer. The problem with the mass media happens here too. The last few years saw a concentration process of concentration of regional newspapers. And since we don't have any private TV stations worth mentioning (the market is just too small) we rely on those of our neighbour countries and the three gov't owned ones (one for every major language in Switzerland). The lacking diversity of information channels is indeed quite worrying. quote: I know but if we got people really thinking hard along those lines I believe it would ultimately save lives, money, and time....but this is the land of guns, guts, and god....not really...most people don't want a war but they can't help being scared with a government of deceit and a media selling tales of good vs evil....hero's and villains....thats when they aren't telling stories of a snake attack in some small town and why you should be concerned.... I am forced to ask who this system favors and why.Remember that those who withold knowledge from you, do it because they want to be your masters. Wow, that sounds dramatic, doesn't it? quote: ...they are fully prepared to lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want....moving democracy away from the people and eroding a culture formed on higher ideals...Of course they do. Well who doesn't? Wouldn't you agree that I have a point with the whole risky investment thing? quote: I don't bash the idea of a free market...just the joke of the one we got today.The pseudo free market we have today indeed deserves some bashing. quote: I think the market could be a great thing if it weren't run by losers who shape the market reality into what they think is acceptable without consulting anyone but their peers.Those who preach free markets are usually the last ones who really want it. They try to avoid competition at any costs. I think it's rather revealing that if you finish school/study your abilities are closely scrutinized and sometimes you're even confronted with unreasonable demands, but where this would really matter, namely in leadership positions, the only thing you need are connections. It just makes me sick... quote: Come on. When the entire market (goods, services, media) is dominated by multi nationals that have outsourced most going on all production to a third world sh*t hole...pay the people crap...piss on the environment because they played lets make a deal with a dictator....and I'm left buying a shirt made in Guam by women who are treaded like cattle....shoes made by children that works more hours then I do, and a car that is a collection of parts made god knows where with an American brand name stuck on it as some kind of joke.I dont see the persuasion I see the reality.The reality is that these people are uneducated and unproductive. The only jobs they can do are those you described. It was the same thing in the west when the industrial revolution started. In the process societies became richer and more educated and people began to ask for freedom/political participation and later cleaner environment. Look for example at China. Over the past decades wealth has increased in urban regions. People who live there no longer just care about survival alone but also about freedom, and once they will be even better off, a cleaner environment will also play a greater role in their value system. How did that happen? It is the result of foreign investment in China and certainly not thanks to the state owned industries. They are still as unproductive as they have always been. quote: I think your talking ideal setup not reality....everything is being filtered into the system so in effect my "choice" has been incorporated and I'm left with no real options...oh wait....there are multiple type of toilet paper..and diet cherry coke is truly an amazing concoction.... Sorry I can't help the sarcasm its not directed at you personally. You seem to be very knowledgeable and I think yours to the best feedback Ive gotten on this subject...it just isn't adding up.I know that your sarcasm isn't directed at me but at the situation. Actually I like this sort of discussion because it makes me rethink my own values/convictions and compare them with other people's. It doesn't add up because I start out with theory (long term growth, market efficiency, public sector etc.) and then compare it with what we have in reality. That way I see where reality differs from theory and how the problems could be adressed. Perfect competition, complete rationality are models/assumptions. We cannot expect to fully implement them but we can try to get the real situation closer to that in the models. This increases efficiency and since the pie grows larger as a result, poverty can decrease, depending on how it is divided. I considered joining a free market/competition oriented political party but several events in the last few months showed that the party doesn't live up to what it stood for when it was founded more than 150 years ago. Maybe a degree in economics will increase my credibility but it wont certainly decrease the rampant nepotism we have in this country. One can still try however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted November 16, 2002 Report Share Posted November 16, 2002 quote: The if-they-don't-do-it-then-I-wont-either-excuse is quite a strong barrier against such measures I agree...I think the Kyoto Accord is a good example of this...I don't know the particulars but I believe when the flag ship of the free market acts the druken fool and withdraws from an idea that is working to address a growing crisis it adds to this mentality...and really sets a good idea back several steps.... quote: It would be ironic, since the commies were/are among the worst polluters. The forests in Siberia were decimated and the steel foundries emitted quite some smoke. It seems that Western European countries have some of the strictest environment protection laws that you can find. It remains to be seen who can do the most damage. It seems compaines are falling over themselves to find places they can take over and deregulate. I think Western Europe leads the way in a number of area's.... quote: Technology isn't a cure and much less a faith. Higher productivity and cleaner production methods allow to maintain our current level of wealth or even increase it (I think you too deem it important since you don't seem to like poverty very much), while at the same time reduce the impact procution and consumption have on the ecosystem Well this seems sporatic and when regulation becomes too strict the capital will migrate to unprotected area's for some good ol' slash and burn. quote: IMO the problem is that the economy works on a global scale while lawmaking and enforcement still work on national level. This allows companies to evade strict rules on environment for example. Organisations like the UN, the WTO etc. can make rules and even condemn countries who break them but they cannot enforce them. I think sooner or later we will need a democratic worldfederation or something like that. That's what I advocate. People here are scared that these organizations are going to take away their rights when really the objective would be to secure them..... I plan on studing the WTO extensivly....so far they have been maruding across the planet unchecked with sometimes violent results. quote: Agree. Some large corporations have larger turnovers than some countries' GDP. They definitely have nearly the same amount of power that gov'ts usually enjoy. That's actually my problem with Libertarians. They want to keep gov't small and in check since you cannot trust people with power (I agree here), but if the same bunch of people calls itself a corporation then they should be free to do whatever they want. Regardless of the fact that they might wield a greater power than the gov't of some small country. And like you said, these people are usually not elected by the people they affect with their actions. I have a love hate relationship with the Liberatians for exactly this reason...I think their ideoligy has been infiltrated by con men who really don't understand current realities or who aren't really working for liberty. quote: On top of that the soviet system was quite a far cry from what Marx had envisioned. Yup....I am not familiar enough with Marx to throw my support behind the idea. But I do know that my country has been brainwashed into looking at the Soviet Union as "Communism" when really it was an oppressive hybrid of various ideologies much like the current free market. But that's how this country thinks...all or nothing. quote: Education means high productivity and high productivity means wealth. That's why education is so important. I think poor people should be granted access to education to give them a fair chance, but what they do with it or if they even want it remains their choice. It's "make your choice, pay the price" IMO. The funny thing about education is it grows on you and I believe that most citizens in this country never had a need for it....but education is now being pushed and I think it will be interesting to see what happens. But yeah if they don't want to use it then so be it. And if they really don't want to do anything then there is a problem. quote: The lacking diversity of information channels is indeed quite worrying. Your telling me...I don't know if you get to see what passes for "media" in this country but really it is just a corporate soap box spewing fear, economists of the status quo, nationalism, a "progressive" social view because they hire a few other ethnicities...bla bla bla... I'm not scared of the world but I am terrified of what these people represent. quote: Remember that those who withold knowledge from you, do it because they want to be your masters. Wow, that sounds dramatic, doesn't it? Yes...and it's what lies under the happy face of the "free press". quote: Of course they do. Well who doesn't? Wouldn't you agree that I have a point with the whole risky investment thing? Yesin theory. quote: The pseudo free market we have today indeed deserves some bashing. Well in these parts you're un-American if you don't fall in and goose step along with the happy face into the glorious "New World Order" quote: It just makes me sick... It makes me angry... quote: The reality is that these people are uneducated and unproductive. The only jobs they can do are those you described. It was the same thing in the west when the industrial revolution started. In the process societies became richer and more educated and people began to ask for freedom/political participation and later cleaner environment. Do you think it is right for companies to treat the indigenous personal like cattle? Is it ok to keep them from unionizing by coercion, intimidation, and sometimes violence? quote: It doesn't add up because I start out with theory (long term growth, market efficiency, public sector etc.) and then compare it with what we have in reality. That way I see where reality differs from theory and how the problems could be addressed. Perfect competition, complete rationality are models/assumptions. We cannot expect to fully implement them but we can try to get the real situation closer to that in the models. This increases efficiency and since the pie grows larger as a result, poverty can decrease, depending on how it is divided. I considered joining a free market/competition oriented political party but several events in the last few months showed that the party doesn't live up to what it stood for when it was founded more than 150 years ago. Maybe a degree in economics will increase my credibility but it wont certainly decrease the rampant nepotism we have in this country. One can still try however. A person is forced to try if they are moral and care about people....this planet is all we got...the stakes are global. I think we already are seeing the emergence of global organizations that are trying to fix things.around these parts all weve got is the Green party (this is quite an accomplishment considering the monopoly of American politics).so I joined. If something better comes along I may have to go that wayso far the people Ive met are highly intelligent and well spoken. They recognize the growing threat of this free market to sovereignty and ecological realities and are dedicated to promoting a healthy globalization [ 11-16-2002, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2002 Report Share Posted November 17, 2002 Sorry Lotharr, I have looked at these so called environmental studies, and to say that they are bogus is an understatement. Global warming, no it's cooling, no, it's warming, no, it's cooling. God what a fricking joke. The Kyoto treaty would have done 2 things, created a massive UN beauracracy, and shifted wealth from 1st world countries to third world countries in the form of pollution credits. World socialism is what it's all about!! Say it with me now, World socialism is what it's all about!! THat is what the Kyoto treaty is and was. Thank god that we have a president with common sense and who looks at REAL science. Otherwise we would be seeing a huge decrease in national GNP in the next 5-10 years. We are NOT even close to using up the resources of this planet. We were gonna run out of oil in 1975, remember that? then it was 1990, then it 2010, now most REAL scientists are saying that we haven't found 25% of the oil and gas reserves that there are in the world, and those that we have found will last at least another 100 years. Now what have we got, envirowheenies screaming about how we will screw up the environment if we drill for it. Yeah, maybe 40 years ago we would have, but with the technology we have now, we spill nary a drop when we pump. Environamentalists are the cover of the most left wing communists and socialists in the world. No wonder you joined the green party!! ROFLMAO!! Look at REAL facts and not that propaganda the left feeds you, and you might actually learn something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfighter08 Posted November 17, 2002 Report Share Posted November 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: It remains to be seen who can do the most damage. It seems compaines are falling over themselves to find places they can take over and deregulate.I'll restate the notion that this is part of the development of a pre-industrial society to a information age society. They relocate operations to poor countries, these countries countries gain wealth, the people now value other things too and ask for conservation laws. That happened in the west and it's also on it's way in several former third world countries like Taiwan, Mexico etc. You can argue that poor countries shouldn't have to take the short way and implement the same laws we have but that would significantly hurt their growth. Since a large part of a poor country's population can't even read, they have to start their development with "dirty" industries like we did in the 19th century. That's were the Kyoto treaty could have helped, since it would have 1st world countries invest into ecology-friendly technologies in the 3rd world. quote: I think Western Europe leads the way in a number of area's....And in others it doesn't. Don't know if you've heard it but Germany is in quite serious financial troubles. Part of the blame has to be placed with all the social programs which decrease productivity/enterpreneurship and just the simple will to work. quote: Well this seems sporatic and when regulation becomes too strict the capital will migrate to unprotected area's for some good ol' slash and burn.See above. quote: That's what I advocate. People here are scared that these organizations are going to take away their rights when really the objective would be to secure them.....I have to add however that many countries don't live up to our notion of democracy and having those people decide about our freedoms/rights is indeed quite scaring. quote: I have a love hate relationship with the Liberatians for exactly this reason...I think their ideoligy has been infiltrated by con men who really don't understand current realities or who aren't really working for liberty.That's exactly why I didn't join. Our Libertarians are more of a businessmen's club than anything else. What they advocate looks more like corporatism than anything else and we all know that countries who adopted corporatism had long times of stagnation (Italy, Portugal, Argentina...) quote: Yup....I am not familiar enough with Marx to throw my support behind the idea. But I do know that my country has been brainwashed into looking at the Soviet Union as "Communism" when really it was an oppressive hybrid of various ideologies much like the current free market. But that's how this country thinks...all or nothing.Yeah, but here we have a lot of SU/communism apologists which doesn't help either. quote: The funny thing about education is it grows on you and I believe that most citizens in this country never had a need for it....but education is now being pushed and I think it will be interesting to see what happens.First, I'm not speaking about college level education here but basics like reading etc. which most of the worlds people just can't do. Second, yes people didn't need education so much when heavy industry was still en vogue. But now with technological progress being so fast the basic requirements for getting a decent job are also increasing. If people don't keep up with development they end up having a too low qualification for anything other than fast food. quote: But yeah if they don't want to use it then so be it. And if they really don't want to do anything then there is a problem.That's a problem that IMO too many social programs help to aggravate. People know that they will be taken care of if they don't find jobs and thus don't put much effort in it. quote: Yesin theory.In reality too. Starting with textile industry in early 19th century up to the computer and biotechnology of late 20th century it's always people who can spare a few bucks who start such things and everybody (who can pay for the products that is) can reap the benefits of these new technologies. quote: Well in these parts you're un-American if you don't fall in and goose step along with the happy face into the glorious "New World Order"LOL. That reminds me of Akerlof's problem to get his "market of lemons theory" published back in the 70s because it basicly says that with asymmetrical information it is quite possible that a market fails to be established because of adverse selection. And how could that be, a market failing? No way. Last year he got the nobel prize for exactly that theory. quote: Do you think it is right for companies to treat the indigenous personal like cattle? Is it ok to keep them from unionizing by coercion, intimidation, and sometimes violence?Would these people be better off if no company invested in their region? Would they have jobs/income or would they be treated in a better way? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that I agree with their poor treatment. quote: A person is forced to try if they are moral and care about people....this planet is all we got...the stakes are global. I think we already are seeing the emergence of global organizations that are trying to fix things.around these parts all weve got is the Green party (this is quite an accomplishment considering the monopoly of American politics).so I joined. If something better comes along I may have to go that wayso far the people Ive met are highly intelligent and well spoken. They recognize the growing threat of this free market to sovereignty and ecological realities and are dedicated to promoting a healthy globalizationYour posts show that you feel quite strongly about these subjects. I'm glad to have a discussion with somebody who actually tries to make a difference. Guess I'll get off my a.. and go voting now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallion Posted November 17, 2002 Report Share Posted November 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: ... From now on, I'm only responding to criticisms of the FAQ that actually address points made in the FAQ (like Dredd's post).Pure bovine excrement and a bogus way to run a debate Menchise. That FAQ is pure refuse. All those "... according to polls ..." references set off alarms IMO regarding the validity of the FAQ itself. Polls are bogus. The pollsters can skew the questions so that no matter what answer is given, it will support the ultimate premise behind the poll. And if they (the pollsters) don't like how the poll is shaping up, they just increase the percentage of error factor. Anything from the Clinton News Network must be taken with a grain of salt that has been diluted in Lake Superior. Their credibility is none existent. It is not a matter if we're going to Iraq, but when. TTFN and check six [ 11-17-2002, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Gallion ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted November 17, 2002 Report Share Posted November 17, 2002 I'm still not sold on the whole Iraq idea, but my feelings are - if we have to go, let's at least do it RIGHT this time. Rush has taken to calling CNN the Centrist News Network, which he terms as Centrist = Moderate = Liberal. The left is reinventing itself in the method of Al Gore. 3/4 of every argument is whining about Oh the poor /children/workers/environment letting you know that they really CARE about everything, while sputtered throughout is the Socialist diatribe of STEALING wealth and 'redistributing' it. They call it 'RE' distributing it as if it were distributed in the first place. It was earned, they STEAL to give to those who did not earn the wealth. There is plenty to go around in the United States for it's citizens - it's just being appropriated and stolen by the Federal Government in the form of taxes and littered over those most likely to vote for the socialist agenda. If the government lays off on the taxing, and gives tax breaks to the wealthy - they won't hoard the money. Their money is made through risking it through enterprise - which if they didn't they would LOSE money anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted November 18, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2002 quote:Pure bovine excrement and a bogus way to run a debate Menchise.That was not the way that I debated eventually, and what was bogus was how most people were responding to the FAQ, calling it rubbish without any substantial argument for why it is so (your description below is an example). I merely demanded a substantial argument, rather than saying that it's 'pacifist leftist trash' and expecting everyone to simply accept that and continue ignoring everything that it says. Then, when everyone started providing all of their pro-war arguments without reading the FAQ, guess what happened? Instead of ignoring those posts (which I initially said I would), I kept referencing sections of the FAQ. Why? Because nearly ALL of the arguments that everyone was putting forward were already countered in the FAQ. Only a few posts responded to the counter-arguments, while others ignored them and repeated the same assertions like a broken record. Other people in the thread also quoted their own sources which I regarded as trash. Did I ignore them or dismiss them as trash? No! I responded to every single point with substantial counter-arguments. I was not even remotely bogus in this debate. I wish I could say the same for everyone else. quote:That FAQ is pure refuse. All those "... according to polls ..." references set off alarms IMO regarding the validity of the FAQ itself. Polls are bogus. The pollsters can skew the questions so that no matter what answer is given, it will support the ultimate premise behind the poll. And if they (the pollsters) don't like how the poll is shaping up, they just increase the percentage of error factor.Out of the 45 subsections in the FAQ, only one referred to a poll. Your response is bogus. quote:Anything from the Clinton News Network must be taken with a grain of salt that has been diluted in Lake Superior. Their credibility is none existent.Once again, your response is bogus. If you had read the FAQ, you would know that it also criticized the Clinton Administration. Here is a direct quote from FAQ A2: "...Thus, if one asks what the Clinton administration's motives were in Kosovo, the claim that it was driven by concern for the rights and self-determination of ethnic minorities is hardly credible given that the same Clinton administration was backing Turkey's much worse oppression of its Kurdish minority..." quote:It is not a matter if we're going to Iraq, but when.I agree, which is why it's much more important to oppose the war now, and not just the war, but the subsequent occupation too. quote:I'm still not sold on the whole Iraq idea, but my feelings are - if we have to go, let's at least do it RIGHT this time.What is the "right" way in your opinion, and what makes you think that it will be done "right this time"? quote:The left is reinventing itself in the method of Al Gore.Al Gore is right-wing. quote:3/4 of every argument is whining about Oh the poor /children/workers/ environment letting you know that they really CARE about everything, while sputtered throughout is the Socialist diatribe of STEALING wealth and 'redistributing' it. They call it 'RE' distributing it as if it were distributed in the first place.There were other arguments in the FAQ that you didn't mention. For example, my argument (written in my previous post) is a formulation of some of the other points made in the FAQ, to which you didn't respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted November 18, 2002 Report Share Posted November 18, 2002 quote: Environamentalists are the cover of the most left wing communists and socialists in the world. No wonder you joined the green party!! Ahhh that famous insight I've come to admire...yes Jag all the scientists were wrong or lying until we were saved by the always objective corporate scientists who rushed in to set them straight.... quote: I have looked at these so called environmental studies, and to say that they are bogus is an understatement. Thank the lord we have PhD's.... Not that we shouldn't run to take the word of corporate propaganda....like those telling people they are watching "fair and balanced" news somehow makes that true (not to mention the inherent questions raised by even having to make that statement in the first place)....some folks must think people are pretty stupid....but that's ok...as the people wake up and identify the manipulation for what it is they'll find a growing community who recognize this fraud and are move to oppose it. Just like the idea that the center is left....that is the goofiest thing I've ever heard....the duopoly of politics espousing corporate economics are the only views being represented in our current political and mass media strangle hold....that statement would be funny but people actually believe it....so it's just sad. As media, corporations, and wealth continue to consolidate their positionrebellion will increase...we are already seeing this and it will continue to grow. With the consolidation of information, expanding wealth gaps, destruction of the biosphere, threat of capital flight (real and inherent), and erosion of respected democratic institutions become harder to hide people of all walks of life will join together and fight back....perhaps these interests will self regulate and strike a inclusive positive balance....but I doubt it. When the destructive heart of current corporate ethos becomes impossible to deny, the victims and passive consenters will begin to question the rhetoric. They will begin to question the validity of dehumanizing themselves and their peers in order for a small group of haves to further separate themselves from the have-nots. A person can believe in free enterprise, meritocracy, and sustainability while recognizing the growing threats to the sovereignty of self and state. Seeing a clever euphemism for what it really is doesn't make a person a commie or a socialist....it makes them aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2002 Report Share Posted November 18, 2002 To Lotharr's statement above. ROFLMAO!!! That was so funny. Clueless, you are totally clueless how this economy actually works, or you would not say some of the silly things that I see you say. ROFLMAO!! That's all that statement deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted November 18, 2002 Report Share Posted November 18, 2002 Lotharr darling, even assuming that your view of our economy is remotely accurate, a point I'm not willing to concede, your assumption that people will somehow become away of what's going on is laughable. Despite the communist ranting to the contrary, people don't just figure things out like this, and as a whole they are rather stupid. The average person is complacent, bovine, and, lacking an inspiring leader, they will take just about anything lying down. And I have no fear that some inspired leader is going to convince the people that they should cast off our current system in favor of god only knows what, we have been hearing this type of communist garbage for years, and had wonderful examples of what happens to countries where people actually listen to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted November 19, 2002 Report Share Posted November 19, 2002 quote: people don't just figure things out like this, and as a whole they are rather stupid. The average person is complacent, bovine, and, lacking an inspiring leader, they will take just about anything lying down. yes ... a saddening truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted November 19, 2002 Report Share Posted November 19, 2002 I'd have to disagree EP...I see the opposite happening all over... quote: your assumption that people will somehow become away of what's going on is laughable. quote: ROFLMAO!! How much time do you spend on the floor anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted November 19, 2002 Report Share Posted November 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: yes ... a saddening truth.Sad but true. Just as the statement "that for some have to be rich others have to be poor" is true so is the statement "that for some people to be considered smart others are not so smart". There are always going to be rich people and poor people. There are always going to be smart people and average people with a few going to the extreme at either end of the spectrum. There are always going to be selfless people and greedy people. Dragonlady, callous though she may seem, is correct. I've worked in retail. I know how stupid people are. quote:Menchise What is the "right" way in your opinion, and what makes you think that it will be done "right this time"?I'll grab this one if $iLk don't mind too much. The "right" way to do this (military action against Iraq) is much of what has already transpired. Bush should get (and got) congressional approval before going to war. Toppling a regime IS going to war. Then again, they have used the flimsiest of excuses to allow themselves (the US) to do it; but, they are dead set on doing it. However, the Bush administration has now backpedaled on that by saying "if he gives up all his weapons and plays nice that would signal a regime change". That now gives them an "out" if they don't find anything. The second thing that must be done is going before the UN, presenting the case and letting them vote. Did that won the T-shirt. Unanimous vote even. The third thing that needs to be done is that we must let the inspectors do their work. This has yet to happen and it is the tricky part. The US should not use the smallest complaint of the inspectors to be a green flag for war. We'll see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted November 19, 2002 Report Share Posted November 19, 2002 Inspector comment : "The bathroom wasn't clean" US-G : "Let's go to war!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted November 19, 2002 Report Share Posted November 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: Inspector comment : "The bathroom wasn't clean" US-G : "Let's go to war!" Hehehehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2002 Report Share Posted November 20, 2002 Remember when I said that Kyoto was a socialist scheme to get money from 1st world countries to third world countries? Remember how I said that Global warming was a joke and bad science. Here's just one article with this point of view, and looky here, they have FACTS to back them up. What a concept, FACTS!! quote: Climate change is natural The Globe and Mail | 11/19/2002 | SALLIE BALIUNAS, TIM PATTERSON AND ALLAN MACRAE Posted on 11/19/2002 2:55 PM PST by Utah Girl Believe the science, not the rhetoric: We aren't causing global warming, say scientists The Kyoto Protocol assumes humankind causes global warming, but climate has always changed. For two million years, the Earth has been in an ice age marked by more than 30 glaciations, during which ice sheets covered most of North America to a depth of several kilometres. In the past 800,000 years, the pattern has been 100,000 years of extensive glaciation, interspersed with brief, warmer interglacials of 15,000 years. The next glaciation is less than 5,000 years ahead. Greenhouse gases, clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere do trap some of the solar radiation reflected from the Earth's surface, causing a natural greenhouse effect that warms the Earth and makes it habitable. Those gases comprise less than 0.1 per cent of the air. They include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and the most important one, water vapour. Water vapour, comprising 99 per cent of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, provides most of the greenhouse effect, followed by water in all its phases in clouds. During the past 300 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from 275 parts per million to around 360 parts per million, a 30-per-cent increase. Most of the increase has been recent, caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Contrary to pro-Kyoto rhetoric, however, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide content, while clearly linked to postwar industrialization, is not a significant driver of global warming. The proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has varied significantly over geologic time. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was more than 1,000 per cent higher than today's value during the Ordovician glaciation, around 440 million years ago. Over the past 150,000 years, carbon dioxide levels have closely paralleled temperatures. However, detailed analysis indicates that CO2 levels often rose and peaked several hundred years after temperature did, meaning climate change drives major changes in CO2, not the reverse. Carbon dioxide is only a minor contributor in the many factors that influence global climate. Climate has been warmer and colder in the past, before significant fossil fuel use. From about 900 to 1300 AD, the climate was warmer than it is today. A 500-year cooling followed, then a warming trend. By the 20th century, the global average surface temperature had risen about 0.6 degrees Celsius. The 20th-century temperature record shows three trends: first, a warming trend of about 0.5 degrees Celsius that began in the late 19th century and peaked around 1940. Next, temperature decreased from 1940 until the late 1970s. Then a warming trend occurred. Because about 80 per cent of the carbon dioxide from human activities was added to the air after 1940, the early 20th-century warming and the mid-century cooling trends were largely natural, not CO2-driven. Computer simulations of human-made global warming predict significant warming not only near the surface but also in the lower troposphere, from two to eight kilometres up. But this doesn't seem to be the case. Records from NASA's Microwave Sounder Units aboard satellites extend back 22 years and cover most of the globe. They are validated by other measures. The records show that the temperature of the lower troposphere does vary as a result of natural factors. The strong el Nino warming pulse of 1997-1998 is an obvious example. However, no meaningful human-caused warming trend, as forecast by the computer simulations, can be found. When compared to the observed response of the climate system, the computer simulations all have forecast warming trends much steeper over the past several decades than was measured. The forecasts exaggerate somewhat the warming at the surface, and profoundly in the lower troposphere. A middle-range forecast of future warming, based on expected growth in fossil fuel use without any curbs, as compiled by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, forecasts a 1 degree Celsius increase between now and 2050. Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would reduce that increase by an insignificant 0.06 degrees. Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their 100-year forecasts are suspect. These models speculate that the air's increased carbon dioxide concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, by way of amplification processes. Without these speculative processes, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical surface warming of only approximately 1 degree. Most of the 20th-century surface warming is inconsistent with a human-made enhanced greenhouse effect. However, temperatures over the past 250 years do show a strong correlation to the energy output of the sun (see chart). The sun's shorter magnetic cycles are more intense, suggesting periods of a brighter sun, then a fainter sun during longer cycles. Data since 1986 is consistent with these trends. Based on analysis of ancient and recent temperature and atmospheric data, increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are not a cause of significant global warming, contrary to forecasts by computer simulations. The magnitude of human-caused warming is especially constrained by the observed temperature trends of the lower troposphere. There is strong evidence that variation in the sun's energy output is a much more significant driver of surface temperature than human-made greenhouse gases. When it to comes to climate change, humans aren't the culprits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted November 20, 2002 Report Share Posted November 20, 2002 Everybody thank Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. They sure cleared that up..... We are down to twenty corporations that own and operate the media.thats books, magazines, TV, cable, satellite, and obviously fair and balanced news outlets. So we have an astronomer, a geologist, and a get thisan "investment banker / environmentalist"... conducting this research....truly groundbreaking.... Thanks Globemedia Inc!! You have demonstrated the truly frightening reality of corporate dominance in matters of science and information..... Wow...this clears it all up....all those scientists domestic and abroad who consider the assault on the environment a real threat must be smoking crack and have nothing else to do.....or maybe they arent on the payroll yet. Do you get a commission to spread this crap? Here's a link to an American representative...yes he's left (independent)...but listen to what he has to say about the media.... I realize that in this war on the mind we are barraged by the slick package and patriotic imagery but truly we have to ask who the real patriots are.. http://www.americanfreepress.net/08_08_02/...ams_media_.html [ 11-19-2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted November 20, 2002 Report Share Posted November 20, 2002 [rant] Yea, TV... Trashvision... I never watch that filth anyway. I have no objection to large corporations owning TV stations, or even newspapers and the likes, for them to do otherwise would be illogical, but complaining about TV is the worst. I could go on and on about how dreadful trashvision is, but the truth is that I haven't even had one in quite a while (I watch DVDs on my computer, it has a big enough monitor after all). And I'm not just talking about news that is tailored for viewers with increasingly short attention spans and rather limited intellect, that's bad enough, but the so called entertainment programming is even worse. Well, ok, maybe worse isn't the term to use; maybe I should describe it as the most degenerate form of entertainment widely available. It seam to consist either of stupid people acting stupidly, repeatedly, or of a bunch of losers getting up in front of the camera and going on about there problems, or even worse, action shows that are amusing only because they are so terribly clich├® it's hilarious. Don't take me wrong, I love good film, especially old film, but this is different, this is just a repeated broadcasting of progressively more degenerate programming. As for cable and satellite, well, you most certainly can have too much of a bad thing. [/rant] [ 11-20-2002, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderJohnson Posted November 20, 2002 Report Share Posted November 20, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: We are down to twenty corporations that own and operate the media.thats books, magazines, TV, cable, satellite, and obviously fair and balanced news outlets. Frankly, i'm sick and tired of this constant "coroporations bad" rhetoric. The whole reason corporations have formed and SURVIVED is because *the people* which your so fond of saying will "rise up" SUPPORT THE CORPORATIONS. A few people didn't suddenly say "lets get a lot of money so we have influence over everything". What happened was there were simple people, with good ideas and good businesses, who had THE PEOPLE buy their products or services. They made a lot of money off of it. When they overstepped their bounds, anti-trust legislation happened. Monopolies of the were broken up and people STILL SUPPORTED these companies/corporations. The corporations have a lot of money, gained from THE PEOPLE supporting them. So they use that money to make more money, by using their wealth to buy air-time on TV and support networks so that THEIR CORPORATION/COMPANY is portrayed in a good, money-making light. And guess what? It's the PEOPLE who made it this way, and are keeping it this way through their monetary support, not some evil entity called "the corporation". Then you look at Iraq, since this is what the topic should be focused around. I have yet to see a CAUSAL LINK between "the war on Iraq" and "the interests of big corporations". And i'm not asking for a correlation, which everyone is so fond of pointing out, i'm asking for CAUSATION. I want someone, who is so fond of blaming the corporations for EVERYTHING, to explain: 1. How, EXACTLY (how it should be/how it is now), is the media being manipulated from the truth in order to support a war? 1b. How you think it SHOULD be portrayed is any LESS BIASED than the "corporation biased news"? 2. Why does a war on Iraq UNIQUELY benefit CORPORATIONS? (explain why a war on IRAQ as opposed to one on Iran or North Korea BENEFITS corporations...there are plenty of "GOOD" reasons a war on Iraq is best) 3. How EXACTLY do you propose the system should be changed so that there is no "evil manipulation"? Unless someone is going to prove me wrong, it seems that this argument is really simple. The people with the radical leftist/anti-war/anti-corporations views are mad because the amount of monetary support for them and their groups PALES IN COMPARISON to the monetary support to the major US political parties, and major US businesses/corporations. They don't like the amount of air time and support they are getting from THE PEOPLE so they attack the opposition. It all comes down to popular support, and the leftist view is in the vast minority. Yelling that your right won't change minds.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfighter08 Posted November 20, 2002 Report Share Posted November 20, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: ... your assumption that people will somehow become away of what's going on is laughable.Just a sidenote. In the evening of July 13, 1789 king Louis XVI wrote following word into his diary: "rien" (nothing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fractux Posted November 20, 2002 Report Share Posted November 20, 2002 Boy, this is one thing I've missed about these boards.. such lively discussions. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted November 20, 2002 Report Share Posted November 20, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Starfighter08: quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: ... your assumption that people will somehow become away of what's going on is laughable.Just a sidenote. In the evening of July 13, 1789 king Louis XVI wrote following word into his diary: "rien" (nothing) Can you tell the context .. so I can understand it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fractux Posted November 21, 2002 Report Share Posted November 21, 2002 Well, the Storming of the Bastille in Paris happened on July 14, 1789. That's what he's commenting on. Being directed at the above comment: quote: Lotharr darling, even assuming that your view of our economy is remotely accurate, a point I'm not willing to concede, your assumption that people will somehow become away of what's going on is laughable. Despite the communist ranting to the contrary, people don't just figure things out like this, and as a whole they are rather stupid. The average person is complacent, bovine, and, lacking an inspiring leader, they will take just about anything lying down. He's refering to the French Revolution. Hope that clears thing up for you. Cheers! [ 11-20-2002, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Fractux ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 21, 2002 Report Share Posted November 21, 2002 quote: Wow...this clears it all up....all those scientists domestic and abroad who consider the assault on the environment a real threat must be smoking crack and have nothing else to do.....or maybe they aren’t on the payroll yet…. What is that? LOL Facts are a pain in the arse, aren't they Lotharr? The boogey man has no clothes, environmentally, we have done local damage, but not even close to global damage. Fact of the matter is, that I am an environamentalist, make sure that EVERYTHING is privately owned and it WILL be taken care of. private citizens have a far bigger stake then if they don't own it. I own 5 acres in Buckley, it was recently deforested for the wood therein, I have made darn sure that it has been replanted with the same trees that were removed. If I own property, I will be damn sure that it is kept clean for those following in my footsteps. My 40 acres in Puyallup, is well forested and is about to be developed, it's not actually ALL mine, it is family owned. The fact is that it has been left alone, but now it will be developed in such a fashion that less then 50% of the trees will be removed for that developement. Over 200 homes. Every time, and I mean EVERY time that the government steps in, things get screwed up. Look at the old Soviet Union, yes, your dream country. It is still an ecological disaster. In Africa, there is a park, they have a HUGE herd of elephants, Sorry, I cannot remember the name off the top of my head, but they sell license to the HIGHEST bidder every year, for 300 elephants. They make a HUGE amount of money, and the oldest of the herd are removed, but the fact of the matter is, the herds are growing by over 10% a year, and the licenses help keep the park running WITHOUT any government assistance. The park in the country next door? It is TOTALLY illegal to hunt the elephants, guess what? They don't have any left. THe poachers have taken them ALL. Private or government, hmm, I know which I choose. Privately owned and the free enterprise system, it is seklf correcting, if the government doesn't step in and screw it up. We don't need more government, we need more capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted November 21, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2002 Ritter speaks about Weapons Inspections and UN Resolution 1441 The first question in the Q&A period of the speech addresses the so-called "Iraqi Deal" story, which has been used to attack Ritter's credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now