Soback

Now, lets say you want to update your Universal Combat. You go and download a patch for it from one of the site (remember, it's a value added tax, and game patches add value to the game, the reason they can't do it right now is explained below). Since EU right now can't enforce it, they can't collect that update tax which adds value to your Universal Combat game. "In order to even achieve it, you would have to try to track down people as to what their location is, what their private business is in order to force people beyond their jurisdictions to collect and remit taxes. And that's bad policy. " http://news.com.com/2008-1082-800866.html?legacy=cnet So, they keep wanting more control over traffic flow. If they get that control, or build their own servers. Then they can log and monitor the data transfer. When someone downloads a patch from 3000ad. EU will track it to SC, and will want to collect a tax. Now since here in US patches are free, how is SC going to pay them? Is he to make two different sites? Or is it his obligation to monitor where the request for download is coming from and charge any european downloading the patch? So, once EU gets what they want, they can come after induvidual companies in US, that don't follow throught with VAT collection BS. Remember, it's cutting into OUR companies profits, to monitor and maintain a separate downloading service for europeans. EU can't enforce that VAT right now on every single download, but, they have already started doing it with more prominent companies like Garmin, because it's a huge corporation, it stands out, and every GPS has a serial number and it can be easily identified the place of use when you download an update for it. That's why the VAT tax on their updates is already enforced. So, when and if EU gets their servers, or their control over traffic flow, and start identifying where the patches for the games come from (it can be any download, but I am using games, just for the sake of argument, because we are on a game forum) Here's what they will do. "The second choice is for companies not to set up a physical presence in Europe but pay the tax rate for the country where the customer lives, which ranges from 15 percent in Luxembourg to 25 percent in Sweden. This option is complicated because it requires companies to collect information about each customer and to comply with many tax jurisdictions. European companies, by contrast, only charge the tax rate of the country where they are located. " ---AND if a company doesn't DO what is stated above Back up link for my comentary posted below: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment...erugy090303.asp "The third option is for non-EU companies to ignore the new regulation. The cost of noncompliance could be steep because, according to the EU, it would force companies to pay back taxes and added fines of 100 to 200 percent of the back taxes, among other penalties. " --- EU can't DO that right now, because it doesn't have the enforcment capability. With their own servers, or them controlling traffic flow, they can. Do you really want them coming after US companies? Do you really want us, US citizens having to pick up the costs of our companies collecting information about each customer and to comply with many tax jurisdictions in EU. And just like it says in the quote above "European companies, by contrast, only charge the tax rate of the country where they are located. " while US companies would not only have to charge the tax, but also pay for the extra work required in collectin, processing and storing EU customer information, adminestering and maintaining and all the beurocratic BS that would be imposed on them by EU, with, like I said, the costs picked up by me and you and other consumers. -----Do you see the ugly head of EU? And what's really at stake. "And this is where the EU's scheme becomes clear. It's all about creating more sources of revenue for the EU by allowing governments to tax income earned outside of their national borders. If the EU's pro-tax forces manage to enforce this new scheme, the French government would be able to collect taxes from the Washington-based Amazon.com. The company being taxed, of course, has no voice in the tax-and-spending decisions made by the French government. Nor does it benefit from the public services France provides with those tax dollars. "

Certainly Grizzle. http://shop.garmin.com/aviation/databases/...0&PN=GPSMAP+295 And you are completly right, when you found: "VAT New European Union (EU) regulations regarding the collection of value-added taxes (VAT) on electronic commerce required Garmin to begin to collect VAT on purchases by customers residing in the EU with effect from July 1, 2003. As orders from customers residing in the EU are concluded with Garmin's U.K. subsidiary, Garmin Europe, VAT at the U.K. standard rate will be collected." That page above, is for purchase of an aviation database update. I am a pilot. Those updates come out every 28 days. Most of the time, all that changes are a few fixes, or a frequency you would use to comunicate with air traffic controllers. It's effectivly a patch that updates your GPS with more recent information. That's all it is. You are not buying a new program, you are updating a pre-existing one. The program (aviation database) is already installed in your GPS at the time of purchase. But EU has decided that an update, adds value (obviously), and therefore the name "value added tax". One can tax patches for games (don't those patches add value to the game, such as not only more recent corrections and bug fixes, but new maps, or items?) Also, the point is, people have been saying that it would happen, and it did happen. Nomad is saying that those "hypothesis are old". The point of him saying that illudes me, because those very same hypothesis are a REALITY now, that as he himself pointed out, has BECOME LAW. He goes on to say, critique the law, not what people have been saying. Again, what he misses is, the whole nonsence COULD have been stoped back between 1998 and 2002, by DENYING EU a say in what happens on the internet. However, some people believed in the "fairness doctrine" and believed EU when they said that they will NOT regulate internet, but will seek more relaxed regulation and try to make it flourish. And those same people are TODAY, completly ignoring the fact that EU has blatantly LIED about their assurances from 1998. As soon as they got the control they were requesting, they have began instituting taxes, tougher regulations and imposing more government conrol. Now that they want to take it a step farther, the whole thing is repeating itself, as a wise man once said, those who do not know history, are made to repeat it's mistakes. Let me know if you have any other questions. [ 10-01-2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

quote:Originally posted by nomad: Consult the taxation law, and critizice the law, not 3 years old gossip... Again, alone in your corner, you emit your own personal assumptions without consulting any data related to the subject you are disgressing on. Do you fail to read what I am saying on purpose? I will say it again. Not for your sake, but for the sake of whomever will end up reading this thread. So that they can see that you are blatantly ignoring the FACTS, and the trends that took place between 1998 and today, that I have posted above in my posts, again, and again. 1. In 1998 EU wanted more conrol over the internet. EU said (LIED) it WOULD NOT interfere, regulate, or impede the progress in any way. They said that on the contrary, they wanted to make it easier, to have internet flourish. 2. People, were saying, that if EU will be given more say over internet regulations, they will use it for their ever increasing taxes. They are going to over regulate it, to beurocratically impede progress, and impose fees on it's use. 3. In 2002, IT HAPPENED. 4. EU has imposed what is called a VAT tax. They tax ANY kind of software that is downloaded over the internet. A GREAT example of it being something as simple as an update to a GPS database, a PATCH. 5. EU now, is DEMANDING, even more control, it's own servers, ect.... 6. People are saying, EU will impose a tax on even something as simple as traffic flow through their servers (why not, they are already taxing software patches from US companies that are downloaded in Europe), EU will collect private information, and whenever there's control over something by the government, there's huge corruption, privacy violations, abuse, taxation...ect.. 7. EU has set a presidence for such steps. 8. You are ignoring ALL THESE FACTS, even by YOUR OWN ADMISSION, Posted by Nomad: "Half your sources are obsolete, because these were mainly commentaries emitted in 2002 about EU taxation projects, projects who are now legally enforced as law with a scope and a form who doesen't leave any space to hypotheses. " ---THOSE "HYPOTHESIS" WHEN PEOPLE WERE SAYING EU WILL ABUSE THE POWER IF GIVEN CONTROL HAVE CAME TRUE, YOU YOURSELF ARE SAYING THAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE NOW LEGALLY ENFORCED AS LAWS. Posted by Nomad: "Consult the taxation law, and critizice the law, not 3 years old gossip..." --- AND HERE YOU ARE SAYING, THAT YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE 3 YEAR OLD GOSSIP, WHEN 3 YEARS AGO, PEOPLE WERE WARNING THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN. NOW YOU SAY, CRITICIZE THE LAW, that same law that was institued against the wishes of the people, FORCED on them. All because the US government caved in, and allowed EU a say in internet regulations, even when people were warning against it. Why would I criticize the law? I can tell you exactly where it went wrong, it went wrong in 1998, when EU got what they wanted, and when people were "hypothesising" what would happen. 9. I still haven't forgoten. WHERE, I ASK AGAIN, IS YOUR BACK UP ON THE ACCUSATION YOU HAVE MADE AGAINST ME, SAYING THAT I QUOTE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT.

quote:Originally posted by nomad: You are going to great lengths, picking up bits where you can, conveniently taking them out of context, mixing many subjects who have nothing in common going from factually unsupported opinions, supposed anti-american conspiracies up to the access to medical records, you don't follow any structure, and finally refer to sources like freerepublic or nationalreview (exquisite examples of apolitical and neutral sources btw). Well, my answer is simple: Half your sources are obsolete, because these were mainly commentaries emitted in 2002 about EU taxation projects, projects who are now legally enforced as law with a scope and a form who doesen't leave any space to hypotheses. It never crossed your mind that what counts is not what people think but the actual legislation ? Taxed are online transactions. If I buy a game online outside the EU and I donwload it, it's not the download that is taxed as such but the transaction, because I am importing a good. Is this so difficult to understand ? 1. Show me WHER HAVE I TAKEN ANYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT? Back up your statement when you make an ACUSATION. 2. The reason I posted articles FROM 1998 To 2003, is to show a TREND. To show how EU LIED when it said it wanted lax control. Then in 2002 it said it wanted to TAX downloads. And those downloads are not just transaction taxes. I showed you a GARMING GPS website. WHERE IN PLAIN TEXT, THEY SAY THAT ANY EUROPEAN DOWNLOADING AN UPDATE (A SOFTWARE UPDATE), THEY HAVE TO PAY A TAX. What's wrong with you? You can't understand, that it's A SOFTWARE UPDATE? Now again, they are saying (like in 1998), that there's NOTHING to worry about. Everything will be fine. While trying to worm their way through for more control. To what END? So, LIKE I SAID. When you say: POSTED BY NOMAD - "Half your sources are obsolete, because these were mainly commentaries emitted in 2002 about EU taxation projects, projects who are now legally enforced as law with a scope and a form who doesen't leave any space to hypotheses. " THATS PRECISELLY my point. It was hypothised before the 2002, that EU will tax downloads and internet usage, and that's why they wanted more control. THEIR HYPOTHESIS CAME TRUE. EU was LYING, saying it just wanted to regulate a little, to make internet flourish. AND NOW, THOSE TAXATION PROJECTS ARE LEGALLY ENFORCED, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. DRAW A paralel (something you can't do maybe?). Now, EU wants YET MORE control. People are saying, if they get it, there will be more regulation, more taxes, and invasion of privace. You telling me it won't happen? Just like it didn't happen in 2002? LIAR. Posted by Nomad: "Second, would you once in your life follow actual news instead of spending your time by consulting only material who suits your opinions, you would know that last week, the european parliament has rejected the project to massively record internet's users online activity. " ---They saw the BILL, and how prohibitevly EXPENSIVE it will be. That's WHY they backed down for now, AND, That's WHY they want control. Because if they did those studies RIGHT NOW, the costs would be incurred by European ISP users. If they get CONTROL of the traffic flow. They will SPREAD THE COSTS among ALL the ISP providers using THEIR EUROPEAN SERVERS. Too complicated? Because I think even a layman can understand what this means. Stop blowing smoke in peoples faces Nomad.

The EU has set a presidence. When it lied back in 1998, saying that the reason it wanted more say, is to make internet flourish. Then, it slapped a TAX on DOWNLOADS. Now, it's saying, it wants yet more control. For what other reason, than mentioned in my posts above? 1. EU lied before. 2. It set a presidence by taxing internet goods. 3. It went farther, and started taxing DOWNLOADS. Updates for crying out loud. NOW, tell me. Do you think EU will stop here? That EU just wants more control for... and....giggles? Or do you think that the reason they are collecting all the traffic flow data, and want more control, because they want to tax that traffic flow, and then farther down the line, to screen that information, collecting and storing data on pretty much everything. "By their own statements, UN members want access to medical records. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being taught in the schools, from elementary grades through college. They want to keep abreast of all scientific advancements. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being mailed, whatÔÇÖs being exhibited in museums and whatÔÇÖs being discussed in town hall meetings."

This is so good, I want to make sure everyone GETS THIS "By their own statements, UN members want access to medical records. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being taught in the schools, from elementary grades through college. They want to keep abreast of all scientific advancements. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being mailed, whatÔÇÖs being exhibited in museums and whatÔÇÖs being discussed in town hall meetings. They plan to achieve these objectives by 2015. Once realized, our free-market system will surely crumble. Not only does the United Nations call for sharing technology with disadvantaged and possibly even HOSTILE states, but this body will also be in position to impose whatever ACCESS and USAGE FEES deemed necessary for the GOOD OF ALL (ROFL), regulate business, and OVERSEE all content placed on the Internet for PUBLIC (Something EU doesn't seem to understand, or maybe they understand it a little too well, their defenition of public = free loot) access."

Here's a little info about internet downloads taxation: http://old.law.columbia.edu/CPC/archive/ta...T-nonsense.html Here's more: http://news.com.com/2008-1082-800866.html?legacy=cnet "The European Union is moving toward requiring companies located outside of its borders, especially those in the United States, to collect taxes on digital downloads. What do you think about that? Is that something that the U.S. government should try to block? This is very draconian. It is tamping down commerce. It raises the specter of Internet sellers across the rest of the world being discriminated against and not having the opportunity to take advantage of their own national philosophy and system of government. And I certainly hope that the European Union doesn't go that way. In order to even achieve it, you would have to try to track down people as to what their location is, what their private business is in order to force people beyond their jurisdictions to collect and remit taxes. And that's bad policy. " ---Hmmm. interesting. THEY WOULD HAVE TO TRACK DOWN PEOPLE AS TO WHAT THEIR LOCATION IS, TO FORCE PEOPLE BEYOND THEIR JURISDICTIONS TO COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES....ect... what easier way to do it, than to CONTROL THE TRAFFIC, and have possesions of the servers. Here's something interesting: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/jan/1105466.htm ""It would be nothing less than a hidden tax on Internet users who will be obliged to pay for the costs of government snooping," said Malcolm Hutty, regulation officer with LINX. The European Council of Ministers is currently considering legislation which would force ISPs to collect and retain a wide variety of data about the traffic which they handle. It is intended that this data would be made available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies." "The cost implications are huge. As we do not know what data we might be collecting, it is impossible to estimate what the costs will actually be. The sky is the limit. "At the end of the day, the only source of money to finance this will be Internet users. ISPs will have to put up charges in order to finance data collection and retention for the government." ---- I wonder why they need to collect data on traffic flow. Maybe to CALCULATE HOW MUCH POSSIBLE TAX REVENUES CAN BE COLLECTED. Interesting as to when the costs become higher and higher, what other way to offset them, then to institute TRAFFIC FLOW TAXES. Here's an article from 1998 WHERE EUROPEANS BLATANTLY LIE SAYING: "The Commission's future role in the regulation of the Internet will be to regulate less, de Bruine explained. Instead, it will attempt to provide a vision, create conditions in which new technologies can flourish and liberalize the infrastructures involved in disseminating Internet content. " http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9807/24/euronet.idg/ ---So, I guess NOW in 2005, the TAX on the internet downloads is creating a condition in which new technologies can flourish, on ONE point they are right, they sure did liberalize the infrastructures involved in disseminating Internet content. It means THEY STARTED TAXING IT, that's the liberal way. ROFL Here's another great article: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007798.html "The UN rears its ugly head again as an international political spat is brewing over whether the United Nations will seize control of the heart of the Internet. By ugly I mean those members of the UN whose rule at home has nothing to recommend them such as Syria, China or Ghana. They claim that the U.S. government has undue influence over how things run online. Now they want to be the ones in charge. One of the things at issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming. But this is the bit that opens the knife in my pocket. Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, "consumer protection," and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access." I could go on, and on. So Nomad. Want more? https://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment...erugy090303.asp "It's not hard to imagine why the EU wants this plan. Thanks to the Internet, highly taxed Europeans can purchase tax-free goods from non-EU nations. With the cost of shipping in constant decline, buying goods from non-EU online sellers is often a no-brainer for bargain-hunters. The number of EU customers buying from non-EU companies over the Internet has increased dramatically." "The EU hopes to steal the golden eggs without killing the goose. The size of the market is now big enough that the new tax probably won't kill it completely and the EU can expect a load of money to enter its coffers at the expense of non-EU companies. " "And this is where the EU's scheme becomes clear. It's all about creating more sources of revenue for the EU by allowing governments to tax income earned outside of their national borders. If the EU's pro-tax forces manage to enforce this new scheme, the French government would be able to collect taxes from the Washington-based Amazon.com. The company being taxed, of course, has no voice in the tax-and-spending decisions made by the French government. Nor does it benefit from the public services France provides with those tax dollars." "Countries, as sovereign entities, should have control over their tax policy. Companies with no physical presence in Europe should not be forced to collect taxes for the European Union. If this plan goes through, European taxpayers will lose, big time, and freedom and economic growth will be permanently damaged." ---THIS one is GREAT: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1124384/posts "The members of the United Nations, primarily anti-American in ideology and deed, are not. So when United Nations leader Kofi Annan announces publicly a ÔÇ£common interestÔÇØ in providing Internet access to ÔÇ£all the worldÔÇÖs people,ÔÇØ suspicion should be the prevailing feeling among all those who claim reverence for the right of the individual and for free market dogma. This is not an idle pronouncement, an off-the-cuff expression of a personal dream or childlike desire for all in the world to have equal rights and access to this technology. Rather, AnnanÔÇÖs formal statements come on the tail end of a UN meeting on ÔÇ£telecommunicationsÔÇØ regulation that was planned in December 2003, the same month the global body solidified its Declaration of Principles and its Plan of Action for actually achieving control of the Internet. " -------READ THIS QUOTE------- "So what does this mean to you, an American citizen with constitutionally guaranteed individual rights, freedoms, privacies and free-market abilities? Well, thereÔÇÖs that niggling ÔÇ£equality for allÔÇØ philosophy again, the socialists' dream of achieving absolute uniformity among those of dissimilar abilities and resources that runs completely contrary to our constitutional system of capitalism. This is how the plot for global control will unfold. In its Plan of Action, the United Nations lists ten goals, most aimed at linking various Internet users and records to one, single, master global system. Planned connections include ÔÇ£villages, universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools, scientific and research centers, public libraries, cultural centers, museums, post offices and archives, health centers and hospitals (and) all local and central government departments.ÔÇØ Also planned is adapting ÔÇ£all primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges of the Information Society,ÔÇØ ensuring world-wide access to television and radio and encouraging ÔÇ£conditions in order to facilitate the presence and use of all world languages on the Internet.ÔÇØ This is UN language; in simpler terms, the principles and actions outline the goals and means for taking charge of the Internet at the international level. By their own statements, UN members want access to medical records. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being taught in the schools, from elementary grades through college. They want to keep abreast of all scientific advancements. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being mailed, whatÔÇÖs being exhibited in museums and whatÔÇÖs being discussed in town hall meetings. They plan to achieve these objectives by 2015. Once realized, our free-market system will surely crumble. Not only does the United Nations call for sharing technology with disadvantaged and possibly even hostile states, but this body will also be in position to impose whatever access and usage fees deemed necessary for the good of all, regulate business, and oversee all content placed on the Internet for public access. [ 10-01-2005, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

The EU has what is called a VAT or Value added tax. They tax DOWNLOADS that update programs. They tax GPS updates for one. How would you like to pay for patches to a game you purchased because it adds value to it? How would you like to pay the VAT tax for windows updates? The EU wants their finger in the WORLD NET and wants the ability to control traffic flow, because they want to tax all flow of traffic. Which means BROWSING would be taxed too. They just NEED more money because their socialist system is running at a defficit. Bussinesses are already being taxed pretty much to the limit. Personal taxes are insanely high. So they need new ways to tax anything they can. Who knows, in a decade they might tax you on the ammount of kids you have, and the ammount of breaths you take. Air is a worlds resource too. And here's a pre-existing thread. If anyone missed the discussion there. It's a good read. Now we can discuss the politics of socialism as it relates to internet, and where it leads. http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u...c;f=36;t=000463

I never have understood vegetarians. Humans, have grinding teeth, as well as teeth for bitting, ripping, and cutting flesh. So obviously we were made to eat meat as well as fruits and vegies. I for one, can't tolerate fruits and vegetables. I have an apple once every six months, and maybe a banana every 3 or so. All I eat is steaks, burgers, hot dogs, chicken, eggs and sometimes fish. Well, with potatoes, or rice thrown in. Salads, fruits, vegetables or just greens by themselfs, can't eat it, first of all, it never satisfies my hunger, second - I feel physically weak and tired if I don't eat meat. That's why I never understood vegetarians. All I know is, if me and a vegetarian get stranded on an empty island with no fish or mamals to hunt, I am eating him. LOL, seriously.

And that's why people need to study history, and previous empires, societies, their laws and forms of governments. We need that same accountability today. We would get rid of corrupt politicians within a year. As far as voting for republicans just so that they win. I say forget it. Either vote for whomever you agree with, or better yet, it doesn't look like the reform we need will happen, vote Democrat, let them loot and completly destroy the country. Then, once everything is gone, start fresh. Look at it this way, as long as conservatives are in office, they are just doing repairs to this country, patching it up, and trying to have the country hold out another decade or so, it just creates resources for the liberals to leech off of. Instead destroy the body completly, the desiase will die, and the strong ones that survive can start anew.

Palestinians loot Gazas greenhouses. The same ones that have been donated to them by liberal Jews from US (who never seem to learn) for the rebuilding of Gaza's economy. ROFL

Your cousin should pursue this further, and NOT let up. She should talk to a public prosecutor, newspapers...ect... and argue that the law applied to that evacuee just like it applies to her or anyone else. When you have people who trash their OWN surroundings, and have no respect for themselfs, how can you even expect them to care about anyone elses property or respect others. For them, it's the fertile new ground to plunder, wreck, and @$%t on. I was thinking once, why do liberals keep complaining about how the poor neighborhoods are disprivelleged, dirty and dangerous, and the rich or middle class neighborhoods are unfairly clean and safe to live in. What I came up with, is this: If you take all the people out of the run down, noisy, loud music blasting through car windows, dirty, crime ridden, corner drug selling, neighborhoods. And swap them with the people in the white fences, neighbors respecting each others space, clean (they value their houses and therefore don't trash the streets), quiet (they value their peace), neighborhoods. Within 3 months (if that), that middle class neighborhood will turn into the gheto, and the previous ghetto will be cleaned up and become the middle class. You see, it's NOT how much money you have, it's the quality of person you are. There's a reason why pigs are left in the pig pen, if you bring them home, they will mess up the floor. Also, think about you cousing getting a gun, and learning how to use it. If she doesn't have one already.

Don't deal with them period. Don't take a penny of their looted money. I have 5 inventions which will never see the light of day. I simply do not want the humanity, and the looters of today to enjoy the benefits those inventions provide. But maybe someday, I will pass down my leatherbound notebook...

All great societies get crushed by the cancer that starts growing within. Like I said. Study history. Rome, Egypt, Greeks, Russia. When you learn their political, economical systems, and how they evolved over centuries, you might learn to draw a paralel and liken it to the way things are today. People who don't know history, repeat it's mistakes. After Rome fell, humanity fell into centuries of darkness. Rome was worn down and looted from within first, that's what allowed the barbarians who failed for decades to even approach the walls of the empire, to finally plunder Rome completly. So is our society today, plundering what was once the great United States, country that MADE it's own wealth, now is being looted by the bums/scum from within, and the barbarians are just biding their time, when US will be so weak that it won't be able to protect itself. PS. Also like I said. A private company will ALWAYS run things MORE effeciently, and with less corruption that government. It will also invent things, because there's PROFIT in invention. The latest example to back up my statment. The private space flight. Took less time, took MUCH less money, THAT DIDN'T COME FROM THE TAXPAYERS POCKETS, and is much MORE reliable. Don't you see the simple fact that private companies CAN NOT afford to waste money, therefore they strive to lessen waste, can't you also see that they can not afford corruption, by the same token stiving to curb it too. As far as your statement about how they don't strive for quality goes, here's something to DEBASE that argument completly, would you buy a Honda for $17,000 or would you buy a Ford for $15,000? Would you buy made in China, or would you buy made in Japan?

I am still wondering why THIS www.bushclintonkatrinafund.org has ANYTHING to do with Clinton. I mean COME ON, what ex President has hung around so much. It's at the point where not only is it embarassing to even look at Bush, but Clinton is just a freak now. Bush has NO backbone. If he was a real man, he should have told Clinton to get out of his sight, and have NOTHING to do with him after taking office. Run things HIS way. Seriously, WHY is clinton still involved in federal government, WHAT IS THIS? I don't know why Republicans even bother voting for Bush. As far as I am concerned, the above link just proves that it's a one party country now. Third party that refuses to be bought, Buchanan was it that refused to join either party during the nominees, is the ONLY viable option for 2008.

Aperson, I can see that you haven't studied history much. Let me fill you in on some details on the falacy of a government run operations. Here's a nice simple story. The HEAVIEST electrical generators in the world, were produced in Russia. Here's why. A factory where generators were build, had quotas to meet. Just like any bussiness, however, just like anything in communism, that factory was government run. The quotas were in weight, NOT quality, NOT even quantity, but just simple weight. So some corrupt official figured out, that if they slap on extra metal to a generator, make it twice as heavy, well then they only need to build half the ammount, and if they make it 10 times heavier, well then, they can work 5 days, and kick back the rest of the month. Guess what happened. ROFL, it's a true story. They started building generators, that had the weight of a truck. Quotas easily met. What a waste, and what corruption. Factory manager getting his private ranch for meeting and exceeding quotas, and some corrupt politician getting a nice gift, and a bonus too. Who was accountable. Well, you see, like anything in government, NOBODY. They DID fill the quota, so you can't blame them, and they DID produce generators, so you can't blame them either. ROFL. WOULD THAT SAME EXAMPLE EVER HAPPEN IN A PRIVATE COMPANY. The answer is NO WAY, NEVER. If company A, puts out 1 generator weighing 10 tons, and company B puts out 10 generators weighin 1 ton. Which company would prosper and which would go out of bussiness. Natural evolution, Aperson. It applies to capitalism, as much as anything else. That's why Europe will either change, or fail. That's why Canada will either change or fail. That's why US will either go back to it's roots, or exhaust it's wealth that was accumulated by Capitalism, but then, over time, people had so much that they started giving hand outs to Europe, Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the world, and if we continue on this path, we will either change, or again, FAIL. Study some hitory, Aperson, especially the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, and the Russians. It will give you an interesting insight into the cycles of government, the cycles of economy, and the cycles of empires. You will see, the people who on one side, are trying to save the country with their ideas, morals, stands, and you will then see the people who are trying to destroy a country with their ideas, morals, and stands, without even realizing it, because the never studied history, and WHY others before them failed, like Rome, or most recently Russia. They never learned the mistakes of others, and think that their ideas are the greatest thing since sliced bread, failing to LEARN that those VERY SAME ideas, morals, and stands are the same ones that destroyed prosperous countries from hundreds of years ago, to the ones as recent as last century. [ 09-20-2005, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

ROFL, Are you actually serious? Government financing exploration for oil, drilling, and developing? ROFL. It would be more efficient and would cut down on waste and corruption? First of all, by government using your tax dollars to look for oil, develop and then sell that oil. Who would profit? Mmmmm. lets see, that would be the politicians, profiting for free, from the money they literally loot from you. And if they fail to find any oil, oh well, it's YOUR loss, not theirs, the famous line is "WHOS TO BLAME". Talk about waste, and corruption. You do know about the bridge in Alaska being build, leading to an island with 3 homes on it. Who do you think profits from that? The public, or you think it was a backscratcher deal? Waste - yes, corruption - yes. No private company would EVER do that. You do know about the freeways that end NOWHERE. Waste, corruption? Private companies can't afford this kind of waste, and that kind of corruption, that's why it simply would not happen. Mistakes cost them money, money costs them equipment, investors, and ultimatly their jobs. While in the government, no matter how badly you mess up, you still keep your job, because all that was wasted, is just some tax payers money, and they can always tax you more. ROFL. Take a look at Russia from 1920's to pretty much 2000 for an example of a government run economy. Oh man, how efficient and uncorrupt. When government officials have their own ranches outside the cities, get to drive personal cars while the rest of population takes PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION and lives in a packed 5 to 9 story tiny appartment buildings, in units of 4 people to every 2 bedrooms. The holly socialist system, coming to Canada near you. ROFL, just wait 20 more years, if that. In private industry. There's economic incentives to do better, to be the best, to be first. Just like in sports, if it didn't matter which team won, why would you bother to push harder, to sweat, to win. Like I said, that's why the private industry would NOT build oil wells if it means wasting money, be it of corruption (pollution credits, enviro-mentals lawsuits, government pay offs), or waste (meaning would cost more money to develop that oil field than you could get out of it) which ties in, AGAIN, into that same wacko, coming on the oil company property, seeing a dead "endangered" fly, and shutting down the whole operation. Would the government do it, hell yea, they would do it, JUST TO LAUNDER YOUR TAX MONEY from a government run oil operation, to the pockets of their friends, who would be doing the suing, the building, and prospecting. Ever thought that a government official can hire his buddy to be the prospector for an oil field, paying him $100,000 a year, and sending him to look for oil in the Carribean, staying at the resort hotel, and when a year goes by and he doesn't find any oil, oh well, it's a failed operation write off, and he is off looking for oil in Hawaii. ROFL, would that ever happen in a private company? As far as inventions go. Government institutes goals, not hard coded standards, because no matter how hard they scream and yell, they can't get 150 mi out of an SUV, you can't close your eyes, wish it, and have it come through. If they come out and forbid the manufacture of any car that gets less than 100mpg after 2006, guess what. The only cars you'll be seeing on the market, are small, tiny, hybrids. That's all. [ 09-20-2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Chavik ]

$ilk, I can't believe you are posting this BS here. I was disgusted with Bush's speech when he was saying "We will rebuild New Orleans, we are making it easier to obtain government help as we speak". I was thinking, you bastard, was New Orleans build with taxes in the first place? If a piece of the freeway, or highway was damaged, or a government building like a post office, that were build with taxes in the first place, you rebuild that with taxes, whatever wasn't build with taxes, you let the citizens and bussinesses handle that. You don't spend my taxes on hand outs, on private government contractors and all this BS. You let them re-build themselfs. Let the capitalistic system do it's job, oh, I forgot, this whole government has gutted our system, we are socialists now, nevermind. Anyhow, you blaming Bush for 3,000 Americans dead. Would that be the 9/11? Would that be right after Clintons administration? Would that be when Clintons lawyers said that it was illegal to hand over highjackers names to the FBI for investigation? Would that be FBI trying to investigate BEFORE those hijackers commited those acts? So wouldn't Clintons policies be to blame? Therefore CLINTON. You blaming Bush for New Orleans. You blaming him for the levies and poor evacuation? How about the government that was diverting money FROM the levies to their gambling infrastructure. How about the government that REFUSED to declare an emergency after Bush told them to. How about the goverment that didn't utilize those BUSES that they were SUPPOSED to. White house shouldn't have been involved in that dissaster at all. Period. Does the 81st airborne come to Florida everytime there's a hurricane? Do we see billions in federal aid heading to Florida after a hurricane? Now, Bush has even said that he is looking into an army playing a bigger role in domestic operations. I almost threw the TV out the window when he said that. That would be a blatant violation of our constitution. Nobody cares however, and these sheeple have stoped carring a long time ago. So as much as I hated what Bush was saying for the last 2 weeks. Still, stop spreading lies, because the only thing you will get out of it, is more disasters like New Orleans, but you will get them in San Francisco, Richmond, and Oakland, CA after an earthquake. Those cities mayors, CA liberal politicians and people living in those cities are just as inept and used to wellfare as the ones in New Orleans. So stop spreading lies, and start finding more problem spots (like I have listed above), and take a look at what government is governing those problem spots. Maybe then it will become clearer to you what breeds dependence, inaptitude, and INCOMPETENCE.

quote:Originally posted by nomad: I think that the parameters used in this thread are incorrect. In my opinion, these are the relevant facts: 1) A very minoritary segment of world's population (mainly USA, EU, Japan) uses +70% of energetic ressources. 2) Fossile energy consumption generates poluution. 3) Fossile energy is finite, and despites figures on untapped reserves, these fossiles reserves are increasingly difficult to exploit and to refine. 4) It doesen't matter how much oil you may extract if the refining capacity is static. Now there is so much difference between oil types that refineries only may process exactly the kind of oil they were meant to. That's why Venezuela's threats against the US are pure BS. The only refineries that are specifically tuned to process the particular venezuelan oil are located in the US... 5) Emergent economies requirements (China, India) have begun to strain a market that is already near production limit. Now the big question is: for how long will western countries be able to sustain unefficient consumption when India and China populations slowly raise their own consumption ? Would'n it be better to prevent the problem by gradually promoting efficiency ? 1. Yeah, we use the most oil, because we are the most developed. What is your point? So if combined with EU, Japan we use 70% of energy resources, that's because it TAKES THAT MUCH to run a developed country. You want to allocate resources based on the number of countries on the globe? Split it up? ROFL, we'll all be third world countries then, EQUAL however. Your statement made no sence. 2. Yeah, so? It generates pollution. That's a fact. Till you envent cold fusion, don't complain about it. Otherwise turn off your computer and start saving us some resources. 3. There's plenty of resources left. When we run a danger of shutting down completly, we will have no choice but to invent something new, or go back to plowing the fields with mules. Either way, no reason to start mule plowing now. 4. True about Venezuella. True about refineries. So I suggest lifting the pollution restrictions bs, and start behaving like an industrious, civilized, advanced country. 5. It it's near production limit. Then lets go develop some more oil wells. California and Alaska would be a great start. I bet there's some fields near Europe too. You CAN NOT force efficiency, just like you CAN NOT force someone to sit down and invent something. Inventions come from need, the greater the need, the greater the invention. When we really start running out of resources, then something new will either come out on the market, or like I said, we will all start plowing the lands. PS. Grizzle, when it costs you 3 million to do an "environmental study" about an impact on some fly because you want to drill a new well. Another 50 million to get the permit to build, and another 100 million to pay off the politicans for pollution credits. 1 billion to prospect, construct and develop a well. AND After all that, some enviro-mental can walk onto your property, see that "endangered" fly dead in the mud puddle, start crying, and shut the whole operatino down. Guess what, those new wells, NOT gonna happen. Kinda reminds me how I went fishing this weekend. Drive up to the lake and see a $2 dog fee placard at the entrance. So I ask, "Hey, that $2 dog fee, does that mean we don't have to pick up our dogs poop? I mean what kind of special maintenance do you guys need to do for dogs?" Here's why the fee was introduced. When other people get scared of dogs, they have to call the cops, file a complaing...ect... it was happening so often, that the cops started charging the reserve for the drive out there (aren't they already on the payroll however? I guess actually doing their work was interfeering with cruising around, patrolling, and chewing donuts), and therefore the $2 dog fee. Kinda ranting, but what I am trying to say is. When all you invest in that well, can be taken away at the moments notice by enviro-mentals filing a paper in court. It's just not worth the trouble. And you end up paying the price. Next time someone tell you bussineses are evil, profeteering, and polluting, think who makes those oreos you are chewing on, the toothpaste you use every morning (with that hot, clean water by the way), and the coffee you drink. [ 09-20-2005, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

When there was a shortage of living space in China. The peolpe poor, packed into tiny appartments, living in hovels, cities overpopulated, well the government found it's scapegoat and imposed it's tyranical rule, that nobody is to have more than 1 child (because there wasn't a private building industry for homes, the government is responsible for housing construction, water workds, waste managment, ect...it simply didn't have the resources, money, materials, and just like any beurocracy it is p.poor at managing it, even more so under communism, so it was simply impossible for people to dynamically expand a city *something that happens in US, with private building companies* as population flocked to them during their industrial revolution). It was considered a waste of resources, and it was argued that a family did NOT NEED more than 1 child to be happy. It was all done for the benefit of the society, or so was said. It didn't matter if you were poor and couldn't support more than 1 kid, or you were middle class and could support 3. You were only allowed 1, any more than that, and you were punished, taxed, and the extra child killed. I can run more paralels. But you see where it's going... That's why we should tell the government to get out of our daily lives, to cut it's hold on us. To go back to CONSITUTIONAL roots of this country. To get our REPUBLIC back. To get our CAPITALISM back. Have you noticed how once the country got polluted with all this beurocarcy, violating our individual rights, it's growth has subsided? Do you see why a free market is a better dictator of fuel prices and what people drive as opposed to price controls, special taxes, inscentives, dis-insentives, ect....

You see, that's where you are wrong. It's not about society accepting it. It's about society agreeing with something that is irrational and absurd, because they are angry with fuel prices, and need a scapegoat to blame and take their anger out on. So who is better, than a guy driving an SUV? Therefore you go, tell the rest of the society that that SOB is partly to blame for the problem, because he uses more fuel, creates more pollution, ect...and him spending $60 to fill up, is an FU to the rest of us, shoving in our faces that he can afford it. People get mad, because they simply don't use their rational side of the brain to follow through, come up with a way to punish that said individual, and IMPOSE it on him by majority rule. That's all, it's that simple. Instead of bettering themselfs, and rising up in this world, to go and achieve the things they want and the greatness they seek. They bring down those more fortunate then they are to their level, instead of actually rising UP to the level of those whom they seek to punish. You mentioned society won't tollerate right now imposing a tax on fatty foods, ect...It's because they simply don't care, you can't get them riled up about it. No sane individual that drives an SUV or a "gas guzzler" would support the idea of a dis-insentive tax just for THEM. However, when the society finds it's scapegoat, society punishes him regardles. You do know that that's what happened during WWII in Germany. Society was suffering from lack of jobs, unemployment, people were poor. Well, who was to blame? First it was the enterpenuers, the bussinesses, the rich people (or anyone who had more money than their neigbor did), and then it went completly beserk and it was the Jews. It ALSO happened in Russia, during the communist revolution, the scapegoat for the peoples suffering was the czar and the royal family, then the boyars, then the aristocrats (my grand grandfather had a huge farming land, with stocks of animals, fields, workers, who do you think took it all in the name of the people, under the same banner, that he didn't NEED it all, that it was wastefull to be owned by one individual, and therefore should be used for the benefit of all, nevermind that he PROVIDED JOBS for dozens, and fed the whole village), then it also ended up being the Jews and the muslims (Chechens, Afghans, ect...). So you see Grizzle. A guy making $100,000 a year, living on a 2 acre property, witha 2 car garrage and 5 bedroom house. Would be wasting resources, just like the guy driving an SUV. Nevermind that he payed dearly for that property, house, heating, conditioning bills. That he created a job for his gardener to come by twice a week. That he pays more property taxes than you do. He still wastes resources that he DOES NOT NEED. He doesn't need that 2 acres with a big home. It's only one guy. A family having 4 kids, is the same thing. So is a person owning an older home with poor insulation. So is a person having a bigger tv, an older fridge, and washing/drying machine, so is a guy liking his house to be lit up at night. What you are saying, is that society would not tolerate that kind of TYRANY right now, because unlike gasoline, there isn't big enough shortage of electricity, water, food, ect....however, if food were ever to become a commodity, you watch those fat people, you better believe they will be harrased, and not by people joking, but by people saying "hey fatty, you watch that pork chop, it can feed my family for a week". It's TYRANY by MAJORITY Grizzle. That's all.

You two STILL haven't explained WHY, by the same type of thinking, you can't impose a dis-instenitive tax on people with bigger homes, or on people with more than 2 kids, or on people using more energy, or on people using more water, or on people who have poor insulation and use more heating and air conditioning. They all waste more resources, and put stress on the rest of the society, driving up prices by using more that you do, or what you consider average. Why not? You haven't said a single word about it. Why are you only SINGLING out the cars. Go ahead, the stage is yours, explain. Explain why only the cars? Don't you know that heating in the winter requires burning oil, gas or coal? You know, those same finite, poluting resources. Don't you know that dirty water requires processing, or is thrown out as polluted. So, go ahead, EXPLAIN WHY ONLY CARS, and why not apply the same argument uniformly. I mean it MAKES SENSE right, if you use more than other people, you pollute more than other people, you drive up the price. So WHY have a dis-insentive for cars and not the rest? I will be waiting for you rational explanation Grizzle and Aperson. PS, Grizzle, you may use however many words you would like on this one.

quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: Sigh. You too Matchoo? The concept of a guzzler tax is to discourage waste, it's not about fairness or numerical equality. What happens when supplies get low? That's right, it costs EVERYONE more money. Why should I pay a higher price to accommodate someone elses careless attitude and consume more than they need? We hit polluting companies because we want them to stop polluting!. We credit those that reduce it to give them reason to continue to do so. Stop thinking with your calculator. ROFL, THANK YOU. I thought Democrats PRIDEDED themselfs on FAIRNESS, and EQUALITY. Like I said, to discourage waste, why don't we go by the same way of thinking, and impose a dis-insentive tax on families with more than 2 kids, on people who have bigger houses (hey in Russia, you were given a place to live, based on the ammount of people in your family, because it was WASTEFULL, to have more space than a person "needed") we will base it on anyone who has more than 200sq ft per person pays a space dis-insentive tax, because it takes more fuel to heat, more electricity to light. Should I go on? You still don't understand that a person USING MORE, PAYS MORE? Oh, hold on, that's fair and equal, nevermind. INSUARANCE, when a car gets into an accident, doesn't that raise insurance costs for EVERYONE? Why don't we just say that after 2 accidents, you're NOT allowed to drive anymore, period. Why should you pay a higher premium from ten years ago, even when you haven't had any claims? By the way, WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHEN SOMEONE CONSUMES MORE THAN THEY NEED? How do you know how much they need? Are you the ultimate being, all knowing? Go to Russia, you would have LOVED it there 25 years ago, it was GREAT. Everyone knew EXACTLY how much their neighbor "needed". You don't need a car, or so your neighbor would say, so you didn't have one. You don't need a two bedroom appartment, or so your neighbor decided, and you wouldn't have one. You don't need $100 more a month, or so your neighbor decided, and you didn't get that pay. You don't need that big steak for 3 people, it's wastefull, just because you can afford it, there has to be enough for the rest of us, so you can only have half of it, otherwise there's not enough to go around and we all end up paying more, so go and share half of that steak and each can have a bite. I can go on, and on and on, about this too Grizzle. You would've fitted right in in Russia when the communists overthrew the Czar. I can't believe people in US don't see what's starring them right in their faces. It's scary. Posted by Grizzle: "We hit polluting companies because we want them to stop polluting!. We credit those that reduce it to give them reason to continue to do so. " --Yeah, that's why we have ELECTRICITY "shortage", when there's DOZENS of plants standing idle, because they have exhausted their "credits" for pollution. Who picks up the bill? Of course, WE do. I wonder who gets the cut from those higher electricity prices, which politicians pocket it goes into. Follow the trail on those polution credits and you'll find out. Posted by Grizzle: "Stop thinking with your calculator. " Rofl, stop thinking with your brains, and start thinking with...? LOL. Don't you just hate it when rationality comes over and BITES you. When you can't produce a valid argument anymore, your defense is STOP THINKING WITH YOUR CALCULATOR. Why don't we just STOP THINKING period. LOL.

LOL, their arguments fall appart under logic. When they say, hav a car that uses more gas than mine does - impose a special tax, and we say, OK, use more water (have a swimming pool? a large family, more laundry, more showers ect..) - impose a tax, use more electricity (more appliances, bigger, ect...) - impose a tax, maybe we should even tax a family that has more than 2 kids, after all, they use more resources and produce more WASTE, FOR THE REST OF THE SOCIETY. All these socialists want to do is tax, without UNDERSTANDING that whoever USES more, ALREADY pays more. When you make a point that under their logic, there's no END. They start saying, no no, just cars, just cars, which MEANS that it's just their own personal opinion that they want to force on the rest of population, because WHY just cars, like I, and Matchoo said, use more water = more pullution, use more electricity = more pollution, buy more THINGS (hey BUYING LIMIT AND A TAX WHEN YOU GO OVER IT) = more pollution, more waste taken to the dump. A decade goes by, and they will start looking at their neighbors bigger house, and yelling how he uses more resources, which puts out more pollution, and should have a big house dis-instentive tax. SOCIALISMT Grizzle, that's what your post means. I will call it by what it is, go to Europe or Canada, they already have it there. Oooops I forgot, Canada wouldn't LET you immigrate because all they take is proffessionals that can make $80,000 or more, because their social system can't handle any more regular workers and leeches, so they need more TAXABLE people. And Europe, go and try finding a JOB there, but then again, you wouldn't have to, those idiots (politicians, so I don't ruffle anyones feather here) will support anyone because they don't have the military bill to foot, as US handles that for them, and they are STILL coming up short, ROFL. Tuesday, I will be posting an article about smoking bans, and how the socialists screamed and yelled that it will only be in restaurants. Then a little later it was bars, then a little later it was even outside within 20 feet of a door, then a little later they started proposing banning it in YOUR OWN car. WOW. The article will be comparing their argument that if smoking is harmfull to those around you and therefore should be banned, then we should also ban alcohol, as a drunk is harmfull to those around him, especially in a car, we should also ban cold medicine, because it impairs your brain, and the list goes on with REGULARLY AVAILABLE EVERYDAY USE ITEMS that you can get at the store, with the same argument that was presented to ban smoking applied to them. Leave us normal people be, I am telling you, it's not a joke, because as you encroach on our liberties, push us into the corner, and leach off of us, it's just a matter of time till we will stop supporting you, kick you out of our space, our lives, our homes, and take back what is ours. You see, the reason it's happening now, is because socialists are just that, a social animal, they have a group mentality and are followers. Individualists however, preffer to live their lives, without interfeering with lives of others, and therefore are NOT a loud social group, but instead keeps letting themselfs be looted, time and time again, just to buy themselfs a little more time and peace, from a horde. When those individuals however, will be pushed by the horde so far as to them being unable to live a normal life anymore, when there will be nothing more to loot, they will start coming together, to take back their liberties and freedoms that socialists have looted from them. It will take time, and arguments like Grizzles, prove not only the irrational thinking, but that when that type of irrational thinking is made inot law and enforced on rationaly thinking people, it simply can't stand, and will not last.

(Bismarck) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes!!!! (Bismarck) France is going to house the new nuclear fusion reactor! (Bismarck) If it suceeds, cheap long term energy. If it fails, BAM! France is gone! (Bismarck) It's win win!