Soback

You dissagree? That's your whole argument? Try again Aperson. Let me teach you. Give reasons and use FACTS and logic to back up those reasons with. Emotions won't argue your points here for you. That only works on political arena in front of an ignorant audience. And no, I didn't. I told you what I picture when I read a reply directed at me as an insult. It doesn't apply only to Nomad, it applied to ANYONE who argues facts with insults. As for me missing your point. What was your point then? You said that I broke my rules. What would that be?

quote:Originally posted by Aperson: But, to be honest, some of your argument hinges on the communist-style socialism while others were just weird, some did make a bit of sence fortunatly. Oh, and for a person who bashed nomad on his insults you certainly don't mind breaking your own rule. First, there's no difference between a little socialism and a lot of socialism. Is there a difference if you are enslaved 50% or 100%? You are still enslaved, and it is still wrong. Just because they take 50% from you instead of taking it all, and give it to another, doesn't make it ok. What's the difference? What if they were to pass a law in Canada? You don't get to keep ANY money from your paycheck. You have a job, any job, work 8 hours a day, 5 days a wee, and based on whatever criteria, you get monthly allotment from the government. So you are taken care of, you get to eat, you get a roof over your head, you get health care, and you get retirement. It doesn't matter if you work or not, you still get all those things, the ONLY difference would be, is how much your monthly allotment would be, a little more if you work, a little less if you don't. You think that's ok? What you have now is not that much different. You are ALLOWED, instead of ENTITLED, to keep about 50% of what you make. The rest of your labor, goes towards providing a living for someone else, YOU therefore by DEFENITION and LITERALLY are a slave of that whom you are FORCED TO SUPPORT, without your concent, with your labor. And your retirement will be only marginally better than the other person whom you supported all your life. You ended up paying for the roof over their head, for their food, for their clothes, for their healthcare, and for their retirement. All of that came at the expense of a better car for yourself, a better house for yourself, a better life for your kids, a better education for your kids, more/better vacations for you and your wife, and at the expense of your OWN retirement. Now does that sound good to you if you are a self sufficient human being? Of course not. Does that sound good to you if you are the leech? Of course it does. The ONLY people who support liberalism/socialism are the leeches themselfs, those who benefit from the labor of another person by obtaining the products of his labor through socialism (looting), the slave drivers themselfs (politicians, judges, ect...the people who keep the system in place), and thouse who have nothing to offer but want to be provided for in return. Otherwise, if you are none of the above and still support socialism, you might be an ultra rich person (like Kennedys) that has their money sheltered from the effects of socialism and the advocation of such system is their ticket to maintaining power, OR you are sick in your head and a person who has a low self esteem or self worth that is willing to hurt himself or his family by helping another, which is a recognized mental dissorder. Second. How did you put it? Me bashing Nomad on his insults? So you saying he insulted me first and I bashed him back? Lets see, first of all, if he insulted me first and I were to bash him back, I would be FULLY justified in replying to his insult with any retort I want, however, seeing as I do not care about Nomads opinion about me, his insults mean zilch to me, I usually don't even reply to them. So, in light of all this, why don't you go ahead and QUOTE me where I steped in and insulted Nomad first. I doubt you will. I however, can with absolute 100% certainty quote you Nomads posts insulting me outright. You know what my reply is? I laugh, because in instances like that, I picture a grown man with an under-developed sence or reasoning and the best reply that man can come up with to counter facts brought up in a disscussion he has an opposing view in, is insult thrown towards a man presenting him those facts. ROFL, guess whos position is strenghtened in that situation. [ 12-13-2005, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Yeah Aperson, good reasoning there, great intellectual and factual response about how socialism is different from slavery. Both systems take the products of labor, be it physical or mental, by force, and give/spend it for benefits of those who haven't worked for it. Good come back to three long posts with easy to read explanations that appeal to your REASONING sence, with statements that are FACTUAL. Too much for you to read maybe? Next time, try replying with a coherent, reasoning statement, backed up by facts.

Your statement Nomad, has a huge, enormous, gaping flaw in it. All the places you mentioned ARE NOT CAPITALISTIC. Capitalism doesn't go hand in hand with lack of social law as you proclaim. Capitalism is based on laws of FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, and would survive only as long as those three basic laws are upheld. NONE of them are upheld in Panama, nor ANY of the places you mentioned. So nice try, but like I said, your statement is fundamentaly flawed. As for those things that I have quoted, they are not theories, they are facts. It's a fact that I work for my money, it's also a fact that the government takes the products of my labor in tax/fee form and GIVES it to those who haven't earned it. If you have read my posts above, then go ahead and make a coherent argument how government taking my money away by force and using it on things that DO NOT BENEFIT ME is not making a slave out of me to the poorest, sickest, and dumbest in our society. If all you can come up with is examples of how things are run in third world countries, where laws that guarantees your personal freedoms and rights to live your life without upression from others does not exist, then I would say you are doing quite poorly to argue your points. I however, will point to the Greatest achievements of Capitalistic societies in the history of man kind. I will point you to the rise and creation of Rome, where only tax payin, property owning citizens that CONTRIBUTED to the government could vote. And then the fall of Rome after it was corrupted by leeches, it's parlament infested by liberal socialist scum. I will point you to United States of America. A country that was born, fought and earned it's freedom, build by the labor of free man, inventors, capitalists, ALL were FREE to work or not for compensation recieved. And the decline of USA as it also got oppulent and was infected by the cancer of socialism and a mental desease of liberalism. Know your history Nomad. There's also good books around, that detail how socialism develops at the hight of the countrys development, when it's strong and oppulent, and then ALWAYS follows the decline and fall of it, to be repeated by the survival of the strong, Monarchy, and some form of Republic/Capitalist system all over again.

If you compare economic freedom, and the ability to make money to slavery over others, then you have failed to read my next post after the question. Which DISCUSSES economic freedom and compares it to government regulation. It shows how economic freedom is NOT slavery as you are free to make money or to be a beach bum. Second, LOL, learn history. Europe expelled their criminals to Australia, NOT America.

"It has been said that the older somebody gets the more conservative they become. Conservatism is the result of knowledge AND wisdom. The reason that so many college professors are liberal is that they only have knowledge. Wisdom means knowing something about people, like they won't work if their labor does not directly affect the quality of their life. This is why Communism failed, it was total socialism, people were economically helpless, i.e. working hard didn't pay. So they stopped working and Russia had to buy grain from us so that they would not starve to death. All government run socialism is slavery, the more socialism you have the less people work and the problems socialism was supposed to solve (poverty) gets worse. In Russia, their solution to the supposed problem of the "haves and have nots" was to make everybody a "have not", they achieved equality but the price for that, as always, was to sacrifice excellence. In China, their condition improves to the extent that people are given enough freedom so that it pays to work, i.e. their effort can make a noticeable difference in the quality of their own life. Conclusion, less socialism = better quality of life for all, no socialism = best possible quality of life for all. Warning: people who live fear based lives will not like this conclusion. " -------> LOL, man that's a lot of stuff. Go ahead Nomad. What do you have to say about all that? All those things are commons sence. And Aperson, Volio, what have you to say about socialism now? " You will know them by their fear based reasons for rejecting it which will start with something like "What about somebody who . . . ?" Also, not liking the conclusion does not change the accuracy of the conclusion, because the conclusion is based on the truth of what human nature is. The majority of people will not work unless they have a reason to go to work, Democrats take away those reasons when they make things available without having to work, such as food, medicine, housing etc. This causes less work to get done and therefore, shortages of goods and services, such as food, medicine, housing etc. Don't forget that this country survived quite nicely before Democrats became vote buying socialists, because people in need have the private charity option, an option which does a much better job of keeping people, who receive help, honest. Too bad conservatives didn't know how to articulate what was wrong with government socialism (slavery) back then. Socialism is slavery, slavery is evil and anything based on evil will have bad side effects just as we have seen with government run social programs. The people who have enough time and energy to protest the removal of these slavery programs are the perfect candidates to be the people who organize and run prescription drug, medical and food charities etc. " "I have seen old people who are still liberal. How does a liberal stay liberal? I have noticed that most die hard liberals, engaged in political discussion, end up doing one of 2 things when logic inevitably shows liberalism to be flawed. They either start criticizing the person who showed them the flaw (name calling), or they decide that it is time to stop talking about it, anything to change the subject. " --------------> ROFL, Hey Nomad. The above paragraph is 100% about you. LOL. You either try to insult me when I post FACTS that contradict and destroy your posts, or you dissapear, only to reapear as if previuos discussions has never taken place. "Staunch liberals don't make decisions based on logic, they make decisions based on emotion, so don't confuse liberals with the facts. The Democrats, the liberal party, has passed many government programs based on emotion, that is why the failure of a program like welfare is irrelevant to them, the program was passed to make them feel better, and they don't want to hear that it failed because that won't make them feel better. Since liberals refuse to listen to evidence which proves them wrong, you can conclude with confidence that they don't know what they are talking about. Liberals make emotion based government policy with good intentions. Policy which is emotion based rather than logic based is unreliable. It is how wars are started. Liberals are in charge of most of our public schools. Have you noticed that the rash of school shootings has occurred at public schools not private schools? This is not a coincidence, it is the reality of how the road to hell is paved with emotion based good intentions. If liberals started using their head for something other than a hat rack, they would gain wisdom and turn into a conservative. The quick fix for our public schools is a voucher system. If the public schools are as worthy of dollars as the Democrats would have us believe, they won't lose one student even with a voucher system. But what are vouchers? They are a form of freedom and it is typical for Democrats to oppose your freedom. "

"The 13th amendment reads as follows - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the Unites States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Notice that voluntary servitude is legal so you can Volunteer your time and labor if you want to (charity). When we go to work each day and get paid for the time and labor, that pay is our labor in a stored format. If we will just make our legally honest case that all government wealth transfer programs are involuntary servitude, we will have solved this hideous problem once and for all. Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that anything (any law) in the (state) Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary (to this Constitution) notwithstanding (has no legal standing). It means that even though the legislators have passed documents that look like laws (which is how every government program is created), they are in fact not law (which means that you legally don't have to do it and can't be taxed for it) and there have been many Supreme Court cases which hold this standard, Marberry v. Madison being the oldest and longest standing. To put it another way, any government program which violates the Constitution is illegal, and has been even if it has been done for 100's of years. All it takes is for the people, who are being damaged by them, to stand up and claim their rights." "It doesn't matter if the whole country votes for it and you don't, if it is unconstitutional, they can't make you go along with it unless they change the Constitution first. For example; if every non-black person in the U.S. (88% of the population) voted to put the 12% of blacks back into slavery, only one black person would have to stand up and say no, and he would have the power of the Constitution on his side to tell the rest of us we are not allowed to vote that way, which is how it should be. This is how our founding fathers designed our Constitutional Republic so that it would not be capable of the evil a Democracy is capable of, where all it takes is a majority vote to reign tyranny on the minority. Like me, you probably have felt that you were being put upon by the welfare system but didn't know how to express it. The key is realizing that all wealth is labor in a stored format. For instance, a house is labor in a stored format, and that is why money, which is labor in a stored format, can be traded for it. When somebody wins the lottery they are winning stored labor, that is why they are able to quit their job and still buy a house which is full of the labor from the people who built it. People who built the house traded their labor for the money they earned so they could possibly buy a car which is full of the stored labor of the people who built the car and who built and maintained the machines which helped build the car and so on and so on. Even if you found a gold nugget on the ground with virtually no labor, that nugget still represents the effort it would take to replace it. In other words, try doing it again with virtually no labor on your part, you would find out just how much that nugget was worth. Which government programs are involuntary servitude and which aren't? For any government program the tax payer should ask the question "is this government program primarily designed to benefit me with side effects that benefit others, or does this program primarily benefit others with only a side effect of benefiting me?" Remember that anyone who receives more money back from the government than they paid in taxes is not a tax payer but is effectively one of the people which the tax payer serves. The above question is only for taxpayers to ask which excludes all government employees and welfare recipients. " "EXAMPLES: Federal judges are to maintain law and order for the protection of your rights and property, a direct benefit to you the taxpayer which happens to benefit non-tax payers. The military prevents other countries from coming in and burning the Constitution so that you may continue to enjoy the freedom the our founding fathers died for, a direct benefit to you that also benefits non-tax payers. The U.S. mail system would be a borderline subject, but is specifically provided for in the Constitution which makes it constitutional, and it financially supports itself which makes it a slavery non-issue. Public schools are supposed to be a program that taxpayers pay for so that children learn our system of government in order to keep this country free by teaching the Constitution and their rights. This would maintain order and freedom, at direct benefit to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, since Democrats are in charge of many of the school systems, many children are taught the Democrat mind set which leads to voting for Democrats and their slavery programs, a subsequent loss of freedom. This makes the tax payer involuntarily serve the Democrats by helping the Democrats gain young voters. Many high school graduates do not know what the Bill of Rights is, even if they did learn to read. Many students are taught that the Constitution is a living document which can be reinterpreted to suit Democrats whenever they choose. This makes many public school systems part of the slavery system. Welfare is a government program which primarily benefits somebody other than the taxpayer and any benefit to the taxpayer would be a theoretical side effect, this puts the taxpayer in a definite position of servitude and since taxes are thought of as mandatory, it is involuntary servitude, a violation of the 13th amendment to the Constitution. I have heard experts say that wealth transfer programs make up over half of the Federal budget. It doesn't matter where the taxes are collected from, income tax, sales tax etc., all taxes come from the tax payer and are part of a sacred public trust which is being abused at this time and has been since president F.D.R. " "One person should be able to claim his right and argue this all the way to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court once ruled that black slavery was legal, so the Supreme Court doesn't always get it right. A slow transition where no new welfare cases were allowed could be done if the general public was clarified on this subject and voting took care of it. Informing many people would also create the possibility of a class action law suite, after all, taxpayers are currently not getting equal protection under the law. We can get out of this mess just like we got into it, one welfare case at a time. A new law could state that nobody new would be allowed on welfare and everybody currently on welfare would be investigated to see if they actually needed it. That should drop the numbers to less than half within 3 months, the rest would be dropped as they became disqualified or could move to private charities more quickly on their own. To anybody who would use the argument "If we stop welfare there will be riots", I say, as our founding fathers did, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!!" Which means, don't use money to pay off trouble makers, use it to defend ourselves against such people. So pass this on. Let's return this country back to "The land of the free." Do it for your children's sake. " "1) A politician who agrees with confiscating peoples labor/money in order to make them involuntarily serve someone else. They use this unconstitutional position to buy votes from certain people by promising to take the stored labor of other persons. This politician is leveraging the labor of the hard working people of society for his own political campaign. This is the worst form of campaign contribution abuse. These politicians are usually Democrats. This is just the kind of thing that the Constitution was supposed to protect each and every American from. Somehow Democrats have succeeded at convincing people that they are for "the working man" when they are actually for the non-working man since their biggest political agenda is to come up with endless ways of giving away the labor of people who work. In the old slavery model, this person would have been the plantation owner because these are the people running the slavery system. 2) A person who agrees with confiscating peoples labor/money in order to make them involuntarily serve him. This person uses the government to steal money that they might not otherwise be able to get with permission, probably because he doesn't actually need it. This person doesn't care about taxes because they get more money back from the government than they pay. They are therefore, not a tax payer. This is just the kind of person that the Constitution was supposed to protect each and every American from. They think they are coming out ahead even though the whole country is poorer, including them, due to lack of incentive to work. In the old slavery model, this person would have been a hired hand because they are basically being paid by the Democrat politician for their vote, via government handout, and their vote keeps the slavery going. 6) A person who disagrees with confiscating peoples labor/money in order to make them involuntarily serve others. This person is a true "Don't Tread On Me" American. This person intuitively knows or actually understands that any government run socialism is a form of involuntary servitude and that the same social functions are better served by private organizations because it keeps politics and government waste out of the social picture. He probably understands that he could immediately quit giving to any privately run socialism (charity) which becomes corrupt literally without an act of Congress and without sour grapes people, ambitious politicians or non-thoughtful people giving him permission. This person would most likely give to private charities. Even if he didn't, the lack of corruption because of the checks and balances inherent in private charity, and the wealth he created, by spending or investing the money, would enable other people to give more than enough needed to satisfy social need. Opportunity in such a society would make giving much less necessary. In such a prosperous society a "have not" person would be much more a function of choice unlike our present greedy government fear based system. In the old slavery model, this person was a abolitionist. Someone who wanted to end slavery.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2755 Socialism: Slavery vs. Freedom (1 of 4) by Ludwig Von Mises (May 15, 2003) Summary: In a market economy, the individual has the freedom to choose whatever career he wishes to pursue, to choose his own way of integrating himself into society. But in a socialist system, that is not so: his career is decided by decree of the government. [www.CapMag.com] I am here in Buenos Aires as a guest of the Centro de Difusi├│n Econom├¡a Libre. What is econom├¡a libre? What does this system of economic freedom mean? The answer is simple: it is the market economy, it is the system in which the cooperation of individuals in the social division of labor is achieved by the market. This market is not a place; it is a process, it is the way in which, by selling and buying, by producing and consuming, the individuals contribute to the total workings of society. In dealing with this system of economic organization--the market economy--we employ the term "economic freedom." Very often, people misunderstand what it means, believing that economic freedom is something quite apart from other freedoms, and that these other freedoms--which they hold to be more important--can be preserved even in the absence of economic freedom. The meaning of economic freedom is this: that the individual is in a position to choose the way in which he wants to integrate himself into the totality of society. The individual is able to choose his career, he is free to do what he wants to do. This is of course not meant in any sense which so many people attach to the word freedom today; it is meant rather in the sense that, through economic freedom, man is freed from natural conditions. In nature, there is nothing that can be termed freedom, there is only the regularity of the laws of nature, which man must obey if he wants to attain something. In using the term freedom as applied to human beings, we think only of freedom within society. Yet, today, social freedoms are considered by many people to be independent of one another. Those who call themselves "liberals" today are asking for policies which are precisely the opposite of those policies which the liberals of the nineteenth century advocated in their liberal programs. The so-called liberals of today have the very popular idea that freedom of speech, of thought of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from imprisonment without trial--that all these freedoms can be preserved in the absence of what is called economic freedom. They do not realize that, in a system where there is no market, where the government directs everything, all those other freedoms are illusory, even if they are made into laws and written up in constitutions. Let us take one freedom, the freedom of the press. If the government owns all the printing presses, it will determine what is to be printed and what is not to be printed. And if the government owns all the printing presses and determines what shall or shall not be printed, then the possibility of printing any kind of op┬¡posing arguments against the ideas of the government becomes practically nonexistent. Freedom of the press disappears. And it is the same with all the other freedoms. In a market economy, the individual has the freedom to choose whatever career he wishes to pursue, to choose his own way of integrating himself into society. But in a socialist system, that is not so: his career is decided by decree of the government. The government can order people whom it dislikes, whom it does not want to live in certain regions, to move into other regions and to other places. And the government is always in a position to justify and to explain such procedure by declaring that the governmental plan requires the presence of this eminent citizen five thousand miles away from the place in which he could be disagreeable to those in power. It is true that the freedom a man may have in a market economy is not a perfect freedom from the metaphysical point of view. But there is no such thing as perfect freedom. Freedom means something only within the framework of society. The eighteenth-century authors of "natural law"--above all, Jean Jacques Rousseau--believed that once, in the remote past, men enjoyed something called "natural" freedom. But in that remote age, individuals were not free, they were at the mercy of everyone who was stronger than they were. The famous words of Rousseau: "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" may sound good, but man is in fact not born free. Man is born a very weak suckling. Without the protection of his parents, without the protection given to his parents by society, he would not be able to preserve his life. Freedom in society means that a man depends as much upon other people as other people depend upon him. Society under the market economy, under the conditions of "econom├¡a libre," means a state of affairs in which everybody serves his fellow citizens and is served by them in return. People believe that there are in the market economy bosses who are independent of the good will and support of other people. They believe that the captains of industry, the businessmen, the entrepreneurs are the real bosses in the economic system. But this is an illusion. The real bosses in the economic system are the consumers. And if the consumers stop patronizing a branch of business, these businessmen are either forced to abandon their eminent position in the eco┬¡nomic system or to adjust their actions to the wishes and to the orders of the consumers. One of the best-known propagators of communism was Lady Passfield, under her maiden name Beatrice Potter, and well-known also through her husband Sidney Webb. This lady was the daughter of a wealthy businessman and, when she was a young adult, she served as her father's secretary. In her memoirs she writes: "In the business of my father everybody had to obey the orders issued by my father, the boss. He alone had to give orders, but to him nobody gave any orders." This is a very short-sighted view. Orders were given to her father by the consumers, by the buyers. Unfortunately, she could not see these orders; she could not see what goes on in a market economy, because she was interested only in the orders given within her father's office or his factory. In all economic problems, we must bear in mind the words of the great French economist Fr├®d├®ric Bastiat, who titled one of his brilliant essays: "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" ("That which is seen and that which is not seen"). In order to comprehend the operation of an economic system, we must deal not only with the things that can be seen, but we also have to give our attention to the things which cannot be perceived directly. For instance, an order issued by a boss to an office boy can be heard by everybody who is present in the room. What cannot be heard are the orders given to the boss by his customers. The fact is that, under the capitalistic system, the ultimate bosses are the consumers. The sovereign is not the state, it is the people. And the proof that they are the sovereign is borne out by the fact that they have the right to be foolish. This is the privilege of the sovereign. He has the right to make mistakes, no one can prevent him from making them, but of course he has to pay for his mistakes. If we say the consumer is supreme or that the consumer is sovereign, we do not say that the consumer is free from faults, that the consumer is a man who always knows what would be best for him. The consumers very often buy things or consume things they ought not to buy or ought not to consume. But the notion that a capitalist form of government can prevent people from hurting themselves by controlling their consumption is false. The idea of government as a paternal authority, as a guardian for everybody, is the idea of those who favor socialism. In the United States some years ago, the government tried what was called "a noble experiment." This noble experiment was a law making it illegal to buy or sell intoxicating bever┬¡ages. It is certainly true that many people drink too much brandy and whiskey, and that they may hurt themselves by doing so. Some authorities in the United States are even opposed to smoking. Certainly there are many people who smoke too much and who smoke in spite of the fact that it would be better for them not to smoke. This raises a question which goes far beyond economic discussion: it shows what freedom really means. Granted, that it is good to keep people from hurting themselves by drinking or smoking too much. But once you have admitted this, other people will say: Is the body everything? Is not the mind of man much more important? Is not the mind of man the real human endowment, the real human quality? If you give the government the right to determine the consumption of the human body, to determine whether one should smoke or not smoke, drink or not drink, there is no good reply you can give to people who say: "More important than the body is the mind and the soul, and man hurts himself much more by reading bad books, by listening to bad music and looking at bad movies. Therefore it is the duty of the government to prevent people from committing these faults." And, as you know, for many hundreds of years governments and authorities believed that this really was their duty. Nor did this happen in far distant ages only; not long ago, there was a government in Germany that considered it a governmental duty to distinguish be┬¡tween good and bad paintings-which of course meant good and bad from the point of view of a man who, in his youth, had failed the entrance examination at the Academy of Art in Vienna; good and bad from the point of view of a picture-postcard painter, Adolf Hitler. And it became illegal for people to utter other views about art and paintings than his, the Supreme F├╝hrer's. Once you begin to admit that it is the duty of the government to control your consumption of alcohol, what can you reply to those who say the control of books and ideas is much more important? Freedom really means the freedom to make mistakes. This we have to realize. We may be highly critical with regard to the way in which our fellow citizens are spending their money and living their lives. We may believe that what they are doing is absolutely foolish and bad, but in a free society, there are many ways for people to air their opinions on how their fellow citizens should change their ways of life. They can write books; they can write articles; they can make speeches; they can even preach at street corners if they want--and they do this in many countries. But they must not try to police other people in order to prevent them from doing certain things simply because they themselves do not want these other people to have the freedom to do it. This is the difference between slavery and freedom. The slave must do what his superior orders him to do, but the free citizen--and this is what freedom means--is in a position to choose his own way of life. Certainly this capitalistic system can be abused, and is abused, by some people. It is certainly possible to do things which ought not to be done. But if these things are approved by a majority of the people, a disapproving person always has a way to attempt to change the minds of his fellow citizens. He can try to persuade them, to convince them, but he may not try to force them by the use of power, of governmental police power. This article is serialized from Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow, a book based on six lectures delivered in Buenos Aires in 1959 on Capitalism, Socialism, Interventionism, Inflation, Foreign Investment, and Politics and Ideas by the great 20th century economist who was too good to receive a Noble Prize: Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973). Copyright © 1995 by Bettina Bien Greaves. All rights reserved ------------------------------ All of the above was just to show you the psychological difference between communism and socialism, government regulation vs. market freedoms. Below is something I just dug up by typing in Socialism and slavery into the search engine. Enjoy. http://antislavery.freeservers.com/#1 Summary - A Quick Look At The Main Idea This is also a Constitutional Argument All wealth is labor in a stored format. The money you earn is your labor in a stored format. Your earnings have been called 'income', but earned money is actually compensation for your time and mental and or physical labor. When the government taxes your money/labor, then distributes your money/labor to people via government hand out programs (welfare), the government is making you work for those people who are receiving the handouts. This is servitude. Virtually all government money comes from taxation. All government handout programs, such as Food Stamps or Medicare, require tax money in order to operate. Government handouts are government run socialism. All government social programs are taxpayer servitude. If you don't like being forced to work for people via government handouts, then government hand out programs are putting you into involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is illegal in the U.S.A. and is specifically forbidden by the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the long standing Supreme Court case Boyd v. United States Volume 116 U.S. Reports page 616 February 1, 1886, the Court noted that "constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." At p. 635. The court went on to say that what may not be done directly, may not be done indirectly through legislative fiat. In other words, something which cannot be done directly like involuntary servitude, cannot be done indirectly by creating government programs (legislative fiat) which make people involuntarily serve. Charities, that only get money from donations, are voluntarily servitude because the labor/money is voluntarily given. Charity is only charity when it is given voluntarily. Over half of the Federal budget is socialism. Income taxes are only about 50% of the money the Federal government takes in each year, therefore; all of your income taxes can be considered involuntary servitude. You can get a feel for how much of your labor is involuntary servitude by looking at the amount of income taxes you pay. The Supreme Court will only rule on cases which are brought before the court. This case must be argued to the Supreme Court in order rectify the situation, which has existed since the year 1933. If nobody stands up and formally complains about being an involuntary servant, then the government can assume we are serving voluntarily. The only thing that can stop us from freeing ourselves, is saying it can't be done and then failing to act. We owe it to our children to pass on the freedom that so many have died for. The definition of Taxpayer Slavery cannot yet be found in the dictionary because it is a new and revolutionary, as well as accurate, way of describing government run socialism. Taxpayer Slavery is defined in the preface section of this web page.

Oh, and by the way, that optimal intersection you are talking about. It's different for everyone. One person will be happy by creating and building his own bussiness empire while having little time to spend fishing, sailing and other recreational activities, while the other one could be a beach bum, serf all day, and be happy with living on $300 a week. However, the problem comes in when you FORCE someone to PAY for another persons substinance or happiness. In capitalism that does not happen, as your life is in your hands, to make whatever you want of it. In socialism, it happens ALL the time, as the whole system is build on it. Socialism is a system of nothing but legalized slavery. We had slavery once, it was rulled un-ethical and illegal because it's illegal to forcibly take the property/earnings of a person away from him, and also to keep someone from conducting their life as they see fit to seek their happiness. So people like you, and other socialists found a way to MAKE it legal, under the banner "for the benefit of the society". Socialism takes away the products of ones labor away from them (just like slavery) and gives it to those who haven't earned it, it precludes people from disposing of their lives as they see fit (perfect example is China, but you can throw Europe, Canada into it too, as they FORCE you to live and work for the benefit of another, proclaiming that you are NOT entitled to keep what you make and have to share it *sharing would be voluntary, but they use the word share because they don't even have the guts to tell you they are looting you, as that would invite a balk/fight back reaction, and loose the guilt trap effect of "you are selfigh, egocentric" would be lost*, LOL, HOWEVER, if it's selfish to have and honorable to give, aren't the others that TAKE and use what doesn't belong to them being selfisth then, or does it only apply to haves and not the have nots?) So in light of all this I am going to ask you a question. How is socialism any different from slavery? [ 12-12-2005, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

LOL, I see that you failed to understand all the posts I've made in this thread, as is judged by your statment that money is what matters the most to me, and your conclusion that I don't have much. On the contrary, what matters to me, is KEEPING WHAT I MAKE. It would be the same if I were to make $100,000 a year, or $10,000 a year. What I get because I spend my time doing work with the skills and knowledge I accuired, is for MY benefit, and is NOT to be forcefully taken away to feed, clothe, and be spend on someone else. I am NOT to be a slave of all the leeches, all the poor, all the sick, and all the "dispriveleged". You obviously failed to understand that, as you proclaim that you seen people of all walks of life happy. That has ZERO relevance on what I am talking about. A slave can be happy too when he is thrown a bone (that was HIS in the first place) once in a while (aka a tax return). So can a person that is ignorant of his surroundings, and are used to having the products of their labor taken from them and given to someone else. When that happens from the moment they were born, and when it's drilled into their heads that it's for the best, if they never get exposed to anything else, few of them ever make it out of that state of mind and grow to learn and undertand the injustice and servitude they were born into. Hence the situation in China. THAT IS WHY the information distribution is controlled there so TIGHTLY, with tv, newspapers, websites being monitored and filtered for ANY kind of information that talks about socialism in a negative way. Knowledge is power, and when you keep the population ignorant, you can control them. However, since we live in an information age, a lot of people in China DO start to understand and realize what sick horrible monster of a country they live in, but once they realize there's pretty much nothing they can do about it, they can't just go back to being ignorant, it's impossible, and every day they work, they realize that it's all for nothing. Their only choices become non-compliance/death sentence or suicide/cyber caffes.

quote:Originally posted by nomad: Soback: NONE of the people I knew in these countries have emigrated when free travel was finally allowed thanks democracy. So I guess they weren't so traumatised. Something you fail to realize, is that Russia and Bielorussia were extremely dictatorial systems, yet you take these systems and rubberstamp them on everything who was in that club at the time. Wrong. But again, I bet you and me did'n move in the same circles... Bojemoy P.S. I like your definition of "MOST reprehensible". Some of the examples were democratically elected governments, and other ones were socialist. But it doesen't matter. Every functioning brain who consults history knows what all this was about... Question: do you consider that the fact that the population of a given country chooses a socialist system makes them eligible as legitime target from a US perspective ? No, we didn't move in the same circles. We did know some factory owners. And they had things that normal people didn't have, those things were considered VERY luxorious. How did they get those things? Through barter and deals, off the top of their factory production lines. Then we also were friends with some people that worked as citys government officials, they were given a larger appartment, with bigger rooms, and higher ceilings. REASON, because they could offer something to the people that were in charge of assigning living appartments. Then we also knew some "bussinessman". Those bussiness people did conduct bussiness, but like I said, to do so, they had to pay off the government officials, and also the thugs. So, while we did know those people (my mother and I), my family (her sisters/brothers, my grandfather) didn't engage in the same lifestyle that those people did. We had to actually work, and pay for every scum bag, every sick, every wellfare recepient in the country.

quote:Originally posted by nomad: Soback: I can explain the suicide rate in China. Mainly related to farmers loosing their land due to corruption of local authorities who abusively expropriate in favor of new industrial implantations. You have maybe followed what happened a few days ago in China, were a whole village rebelled. Well, in the last years, there are 70'000 occurrences (yes, 70'000 !) of land-related conflicts due to farmers expelled from their land. I know you will dismiss this, because it is the direct consquence of introducing wild capitalism in a corrupted environment whose population is absolutely not prepared to cope with such novelty. Actuall NO, Nomad, you are ABSOLUTLY WRONG there. It is NOT a consequence of introducing "wild capitalism", as EXACTLY the same thing happened in Russia to my grand grandfather, when he was 4 to 8 years old. Socialists came, and at first confiscated the farms supplies/materials (my grand grandfather was a child of an aristocratic family, that owned a lot of land, and ran a huge farm. They called them boojuya *spelling*.), then eventually as time went by, they took the land too. In capitalism, it's called bussiness, you give something in RETURN for something. In socialism, it's called, "for the good of the people". It's happening now in America, NOT because of capitalism, but because of kreeping infestation of SOCIALISM, that's why we have our constitution being ignored and laws passed that allow for the government to appropriate PRIVATE LAND, under Capitalism, this was UNTHINKABLE, and people barely stand for it now as it's slowly starting to change as socialists call the land ownership "unfair use of land, unfair use of resources, ect...and it should belong to the people, or at the very least to a shopping mall that everyone can use". So no Nomad. It's not because of capitalism, because the system simply doesn't allow appropriation, it only allows the conduct of bussiness, not LOOTING. Socialism however, is the system of LOOTING, and that's why those appropriations happen in China, all 70,000 of them, just like in Russia. quote:Originally posted by nomad: It's sad that you speak so much about communists systems without never having enjoyed the opportunity to interact in those systems as an adult. Maybe then you could remember what happened in Russia when wild capitalism irrupted in the country. You see, the difference between you and me, is that I was already an adult making business in WAPA countries BEFORE the fall of the USSR, and I continued AFTER. You are kidding right. LOL, what a joke. NOBODY, could do bussiness in Russia the honest way. Anyone who had some integrity, or refused to pay off the officials, or the maffia and the thugs was promptly denied, harrased, threatened, ect...ROFL, even NOW doing bussiness in Russia is a thing of corruption, back scratching deals and pay offs, just look at the oil tycoon being jailed when he spoke out against the president and his handling of the country and politics, jailed with claims of "back taxes" and his property APPROPRIATED and Nationalized. [ 12-12-2005, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Hey, Nomad, ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those examples you provided, is US conducting operations against the MOST reprehensible governments on this Earth. LOL, Good examples. What else you got. Vietnam, fighting against the Soviet political expansion and indoctrination, to stop the spread of socialistic cancer throughout the world. The rest, are countries from South America. Where people live horrible lives, no justice, no security, nothing but corruption of the highest level. And Aperson. In US, people usually commit suicide either after they had a lot and lost it all, or realize half their life went by and they threw it away without accomplishing anything. In China (socialism), people commit suicide because they tried, and realize that they CAN NOT accomplish anything because the more they make and the harder they try, the more is taken away from them and the more they are watched over and opressed. Once they realize that they can not change their own country, as any negative thing they say is monitored, then they are labeled an enemy of the people and dissapear, their only choice being emmigrating (not always possible), living a life of slavery (not a choice for a human mind that knows freedom and it's own potential, servitude is a choice for ignorants, hence the saying, ignorance is bliss), that's why some choose to change their country against all ods and end up being tortured and dying in some prison, and some take their own life. By the way. Russia developed high un-employment rate too, after about 40 years (sounds similar to Europe?), and then once the cancer ate away at the country, it completly collapsed 40 years later. All it took is 4 generations (20 or so years each). Europe right now is on the end of it's second, beggining of third generation. And since you seem to be ignorant of history, and can not compare and paralel what happened in Russia and what is happening in other "young" socialistic countries, it's not surprising that you are cheerfull and resentful of anyone or anything that critisizes the system you live under.

Hey Nomad, you sacrastically say 450million Europeans are blind and lobotomized, how many millions of Russians were blind and lobotomized since the Communist revolution, just to wake up and understand what has happened to them by the end of 20th century. Once they understood that their lives and the lives of their parents and grand parents have been spent in servitude or rather slavery, under the calling "for the good of the people", and they got literally NOTHING for it. Answer me that one. Then, answer how many Chinese have been lobotomized, and NOW that they are waking up, their government (or rather top people in control, people that in US would be Al Gore, Kerry, Clintons, Kennedys) are so terrified of losing control that they monitor text messages sent from phones, and e-mails (don't you remember the Yahoo bashing thread you posted, claiming how terrible it is that Yahoo complied with SOCIALISTS government laws and handed over the information that allowed them to arrest a man that was claimed to be "criminal against society", ROFL, meaning he was a danger to socialism), not to mention when people realize that that socialism is rooted so deep in their system that there's literally no hope beyond spending their life in servitude to the system "for the good of the people" they commit suicide, hence China has the HIGHEST suicide rate in the world. Explain that Nomad. I thought socialism is good, WHY would they then be so afraid that people might not like it, and revolt against it, going so far as to FORCE people to obey and live under the system, if it was good, wouldn't they willingly do so? Then explain why China has the highest suicide RATE in the world, and people that live there try to escape from reality any way they can, hence the cyber caffees and stories of 20+ hours behind games, and do I even need to mention how seriously they take their games, after all, some are willing to KILL for equipment or items that are in the game, which means the REAL world and their REAL life is not even worth half as much, wonder WHY. Socialism and liberalism is a cancerous mental disorder that infects people who do not value their own lifes, their labors, their time on Earth, their skills, who do not value themselfs and have a mental disorder (the disease actually has a name, I don't remember what it's medical term is) that has them give away everything even if it means suffering for themselfs. It's fine if they don't want to get treatment for it, and live that life on their own, BUT once they proclaim that ANOTHER person has to live the same way, and NOT value his life, his labors, ect...and be "kind" as to give it away, they HAVE to be put down like rabbid dogs that have attacked your family, because that's what they literally become at that point, and that's what they are literally doing, is attacking you, in hopes of enslaving you.

Great. Welcome back. How do you like Alaska? Every year I go through a phase of picking up and moving up there to fly.

" FROM: Pauline Lewis, Human Resources Director TO: All Employees DATE: 4th November 2004 RE: Christmas Party I'm happy to inform you that the company Christmas Party will take place on December 23rd, starting at noon in the private function room at the Grill House. There will be a cash bar and plenty of drinks! We'll have a small band playing traditional carols...please feel free to sing along. And don't be surprised if the MD shows up dressed as Santa Claus! A Christmas tree will be lit at 1.00p.m.. Exchange of gifts among employees can be done at that time, however, no gift should be over $10.00 to make the giving of gifts easy for everyone's pockets. This gathering is only for employees! The MD will make a special announcement at the Party. Merry Christmas to you and your Family. Pauline FROM: Pauline Lewis, Human Resources Director TO: All Employees DATE: 5th November 2004 RE: Holiday Party In no way was yesterday's memo intended to exclude our Jewish employees. We recognise that Chanukah is an important holiday,which often coincides with Christmas, though unfortunately not this year. However, from now on we're calling it our 'Holiday Party'.. The same policy applies to any other employees who are not Christians. There will be no Christmas tree or Christmas carols sung. We will have other types of music for your enjoyment. Happy now? Happy Holidays to you and your family, Pauline. FROM; Pauline Lewis, Human Resources Director TO: All Employees DATE: 6th November 2004 RE: Holiday Party Regarding the note I received from a member of Alcoholics Anonymous requesting a non-drinking table...you didn't sign your name. I'm happy to accommodate this request, but if I put a sign on a table that reads, "AA Only", you wouldn't be anonymous anymore!!!!How am I supposed to handle this? Somebody? Forget about the gift exchange, no gift exchange allowed now since the Union Officials feel that $10.00 is too much money and Management believe $10.00 is a little cheap. NO GIFT EXCHANGE WILL BE ALLOWED. Pauline. FROM: Pauline Lewis, Human Resources Director TO: All Employees DATE: 7th November 2004 RE: Holiday Part What a diverse group we are! I had no idea that December 20th begins the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which forbids eating and drinking during daylight hours. There goes the party! Seriously, we can appreciate how a luncheon at this time of year does not accommodate our Muslim employees' beliefs, perhaps the Grill House can hold off on serving your meal until the end of the party - or else package everything up for you to take home in a little foil doggy bag. Will that work? Meanwhile, I've arranged for members of Weight Watchers to sit farthest from the dessert buffet and pregnant women will get the table closest to the toilets, Gays are allowed to sit with each other, Lesbians do not have to sit with gay men, each will have their own table. Yes,there will be flower arrangements for the gay men's table too. To the person asking permission to cross dress - no cross dressing allowed. We will have booster seats for short people. Low fat food will be available for those on a diet. We cannot control the salt used in the food we suggest those people with high blood pressure taste the food first.. There will be fresh fruits as dessert for Diabetics, the restaurant cannot supply "No Sugar" desserts.Sorry! Did I miss anything?!?!?!?!?! Pauline. FROM: Pauline Lewis, Human Resources Director TO: All F****** Employees DATE: 8 November 2004 RE: The ******** Holiday Party. Vegetarian pricks I've had it with you people !!! We're going to keep this party at the Grill House whether you like it or not,so you can sit quietly at the table furthest from the "grill of death", as you so quaintly put it, you'll get your f****** salad bar, including organic tomatoes, But you know tomatoes have feeling too, They scream when you slice them. I've heard them scream. I'm hearing the scream right NOW!! I hope you all have a rotten holiday, drink drive and die. The ***** from HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FROM: John Bishop - Acting Human Resources Director DATE: 9th November 2004 RE: Pauline Lewis and Holiday Party I'm sure I speak for all of us in wishing Pauline Lewis a speedy recovery, and I'll continue to forward your cards to her. In the meantime, the Management has decided to cancel our Holiday Party and instead, give everyone the afternoon of the 23rd December off with full pay.

ROFL, UN, what a joke. As far as I am concerned, US should kick them off of our soil and withdraw from that joke of a group. Resons, MANY, however, I can give you a great one. Iran is the head of human rights office in UN, however the countrys president made a speech for anihilating Israel, killing all the Jews, commiting genocide. Considering that UN has made no comments and there were no repricussions, and Iran is still the head of human rights office at UN, it speaks volumes about UN and the countries (mainly European) that support Iran (mind you, Bush is the one that Named Iran as one of the three axis of evil years back, and it showed itself 3 months ago when Iran called for genocide of Jews and destroying Israel). US should step up, and at least make an ultimatum of either Iran is out of UN, or UN gets off of US soil and US withdraws from UN.

TSA (transportation security administration), is the one that compiles and puts out the no fly list. The organization is nothing more than a huge government beurocracy full of incompetent people. I had to deal with them (as I am a pilot), and it is literally ten times worse than a DMV, while having 100 times more power than a DMV, so you can imagine the outcome.

ROFL, oh no, this is BEYOND funny.

21 Bucks, what a rip off. How is it that they are not undercut by some fat guy with a tent down the block. Unless the government now regulates how fluffy Santas beard should be and how many inches around the waist, I don't see ANY reason why there shouldn't be pictures with Santas for $5. On another note. Those people were just idiots. It's the syndrome of people who give you this at casheirs check out when you are trying to buy something for $1.99 and it they can't find the price "I can't do anything, I am not allowed to take that $5, and sell you this" Makes you want to smack them and say "USE YOUR BRAINS". It's just some minions that get paid minimum wage, they are like robots, who stand there and were told to sell pictures with Santa, so when a child just wants to sit on the lap, their brains just can't make the decission to over-ride or take the initiative to say, "Hey, no problem". The same ones that have to run to the manager for every little question. There's a reason why they get paid minimum wage. Any normal person would just let her go sit on the lap and disregard "When the child sits, take a picture" from the company elf rule book. And if the manager didn't like you doing that, you should be smart enough to explain to him that $21 is not worth the publicity and the ruckus of refusing the child a Santa visit, and if the manager is still an a...., well guess what, you go to his manager, and you just got yourself a raise and a higher position. What a bunch of morons, maybe they are just better off on wellfare out of everyones way, then at least I won't have to put up with them at the check out registers, and children won't be finding them at the end of "sit on Santas lap" lines.

Or, more likely when the people have had enough and decide it's time to throw off such an opressive government. As is stated in our own Declaration of Independence. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. " That is the reason for laws to dissarm the population of the country. To make it impotent to counter any opression the government devices against it's population. And to make said population more dependant on such government for protection against the common thugs and criminals. That completes the circle of: Unable to defend yourself against the criminals, therefore we need the government, no matter how opressive to give us at least some form of comfort, in return for ever increasing regulations, infringement on your freedoms, destruction of you unalienable rights, and financial enslavement in form of ever increasing taxation or otherwise the penalty for non compliance is jail.

Yeah, way to debate Nomad. After you read this, why don't you actually try to debate by reason rather than spewing insults. Oh, that reminds me, go debate with reason in the scientific section, you forgot to post your replies to the numerious facts people used to oppose your posts. Also, don't forget, it's been over a month, and you yet to use your reasoning sence + facts to back up your statements that France is not a socialist country. ROFL. Lets put my posts through a true/false test. 1. If the people who dislike or disagree with Kerry voted with their money and stoped buying Heinz products, Kerry would take a huge financial hit. = True. 2. Nabisco is a European company = True 3. Nabisco is a popular brang in US, and if US stoped buying Nabiscos products, that said European company would take a huge hits in it's revenues, and therefore Europe would take a hit in taxes collected from Nabisco = True 4. Europe required US opearted international routes between Europe and US to be flown in European build planes. (They would not allow US build aircraft to be operated in and out of Europe, even if the route is serviced by a US airline). = True 5. Europes over-regulates it's bussinesses and makes it nearly impossible to do any kind of commerce as the laws and regulations are putting a strangle hold on any international upstarts (to clarify, it fiercly opposes any bussinesses that are based overseas and would move their profits from European sales to it's home country) = True 6. Europe taxes it's bussinesses at rates far higher than US. = True 7. If Heinz would lose at least half it's commercial base in US and would try to increase it's European exports, it would have a hard time matching the profits made in US. = True And as pointed out by Nomad himself 8. Judging by the figures, Europe is more monetarily dependant on it's exports to US, than US by it's exports to Europe. = True 9. Every dollar that leaves US and goes overseas to Europe due to European exports purchased on US soil just helps socialism. = True 10. If US would lessen it's regualtion, beurocracy on bussinesses, and impose higher tarrifs on products imported from overseas, it would promote internal production and distribution of it's home made products. = True So Nomad. In light of all the statements in my posts being TRUE. Which part is exactly nonsence? I live in US. And for my own best interest I am advocating cutting the ambilical cord that carries our money, to Europe. I advocate people stop supporting the politicians they disagree with by buying products of companies that those said politicians are affiliated with (that alone should send a crisp clear message). PS. to Race Bannon. Originally posted by Race Bannon: "As far as people refusing to buy products based on the politics of some of its shareholders..Better hope we on the Left dont do it, you people run a lot more businesses than we do." ---Seeing how you made a general statement. I'll make a general response. Even you agree that the right runs more bussinesses than the left. Which leads to a conclusion that a group that runs more bussinesses conributes more. Therefore it shows which group has more leeches and which group has more producers. Thank you for pointing out how the right runs more bussinesses. Makes me wonder how your life would be without the right and the products that are produced by, as you clearly state in your own post, our more industrious group.

Works for me. It would be just like Nabisco brand, company based in Europe while racking in the profits from US hand over fist. In that case Kerry better hope Europeans would like his Heinz products, although knowing EU business regulations, which wouldn't allow United and other US based ariline companies to operate international flights in and out of Europe unless they used European planes, Kerry and his wife would need to jump through some pretty small hoops, and lick some beurocrats boots to even get permission to sell in Europe. Talk about a free market economy. You only hear free market economy from Europe and third world countries when they want to sell products in US, you hear monopoly, domination, and other badmouthing when US tries to export products to them. There's nothing free about the market when you impose rules and regulations at home on your own home based company, thus driving up the price, and do not impose tarrifs on crap from China that is manufactured without any rules or regualtions. US airlines should've plain out boycotted European international routes, and told them that if they are not allowed to operate the routes with their own aircraft then fine, however, if you want to fly to US, you are obligated to buy and operate Boing planes on any route crossing US borders. Our socialist politicians on the other hand were co-ercing United and other airlines to abide by European regulations, buy European planes and operate even if un-profitable. Subsidizing it with our tax dollars, and getting deals from European beurocrats. What a shame. Like I said. Too bad the regual Joe doesn't have the conviction of character to have his money follow his vote. Especially considering how easy it is to do with the multitude of choices in products available in the US.

Heinz. Ketchup. When you go to any fast food place, restaurant, ect...I never even touch the stuff, at fast food places I ask for ranch dressing (tasted better that ketchup too), at restaurants I take anything else, like steak sauce. I deliberatly DO NOT BUY Heinz products. Hey, it starts with one, and considering how many alternatives you have (THANK YOU AMERICA), it's not hard, at all. ROFL. May the Heinz rot in their own ketchup. ROFL. If only all republicans, conservatives, and the rest of the people who dislike or disagree with Kerry had the conviction of character and the willpower to actually go through with the concept of VOTING with you voice and your money. The dumb politician comes out, has a company that can go bankrupt if the people stop patronizing it, and we as Americans literally hold the power in our wallets, it's mind boggling how many people just do not care and still give him their money, even though they voted against him, dissagree with his views and hate his guts. Can you imagine what would happen if 50% of Americans that voted for Bush stop consuming Heinz products? Too bad they lack the conviction of character to do so.

Really? Give homosexuals the same status as married heterosexual couples? I just told you that gay is nothing more than a lifestyle choice that is a biological and evolotionary dead end, a man and a woman on the other hand, being united in marriage, are NOT an evolutionary or a biologial dead end. And since a child needs both a mother and a father, the santctity of marriage therefore is to be between a man and a woman. Giving gays the same sanctity of marriage on the grounds of "we love each other" is ludicrous and here's why: I do believe that a guy and another guy can trully love each other. Scientists have already identified the hormone that gets released to cause the feelings we call love towards another. So yes, it's very possible that two men or two women can experience those feelings towards one another. However, so can a guy towards his dog, and so can a guy towards his sheep. If you grant the santctity of marriage to gays on the premise of thier love, who are you to argue in that case that a guy that loves his sheep can't get married to it? Now do you see why the marriage is to be between man and woman, it's a binding contract that makes them as one, in hopes that they can stay one and have kids, raising those kids as a father AND a mother, and building/expanding the evolutionary and biological diversity of this world. Marriage is NOT to be a binding contract between a two same sex people, or a human and his pet, or 5 same sex people, to be based solely on their feelings. Marriage has certain purposes, and it's purposes are not to be based solely on love alone, but also to the purpose of natural procreation, binding contract that will ensure that said man and woman stay together to raise their child/ren, ect... As a matter of fact, marriage is a RELIGIOUS concept. Draw your own conclusions from that....