Raven

Actually it would be incorrect to apply a law in a manner in which it clearly is neither meant to be applied nor applicable. You will also note that among the list of charges was mention ÔÇ£attempted destruction of an aircraftÔÇØ and thus considering an aircraft a vehicle would result in two charges for basically the same thing. This second point is, however, rather unnecessary because according to the definition of vehicle used by congress when they drafted the law did not include aircrafts we must assume that if they desired for the law to cover aircrafts they would have mentioned them.

quote: They needed something different than dogs for their yearly calendar There is only one true type of calendar, a cat calendar.

quote: ood idea Dragon Lady..that would really cut down on extremist recruitment.... And who would they recruit, the dead? Corpses dont usually have it in them to be zealots or terrorists. quote: The US probably needs to rethink foreign policy in general. We have this nasty habit of laying down the law because we have a big stick. However, we all have to live together. Forcing our will on others never leaves good feelings. It works though. If you hadnt noticed I'm a big fan of expediency and practicality. Anyway, I'm not talking about the US intervening, thats entirely unnecessary. Israel is fully capable of dealing with the Palestinian threat on their own, the US would at most shelter them from diplomatic consequences. quote: I do believe this country needs to take an active role in world affairs. I just think we need to tone down the rhetoric and build coalitions to work it out. Some things dont take well to being worked out. Should the Israelis try to talk to the terrorists (something that hasnt worked so far) while more of there citizens are being murdered by crazed yahoos? quote: It means that if we do use the military we keep the end goal in mind and we act with devastating effectiveness until that goal is achieved. Yep, and when dealing with an opponent that will not reason military intervention provides the only real solution. Mass executions and ethnic cleansing as you put it are the only real response that will make any difference there. quote: And keep in mind the goal has to be obtainable.I dont think anyone would or could slaughter innocent people. As a soldier I do not have to follow the order to shoot an unarmed woman. While you may not be willing to, there are soldiers who would be. More to the point, there are no doubt soldiers in the Israeli army that would be delighted to execute Palestinians on a massive scale, and they would be the ones doing it. quote: Military action is effective only when it is used in the proper diplomatic context. Since we have so much power we find that using a military solution is an easier and more expedient method then grinding it out. One very important sub component of solving the problems in the middle east will be armed missions. Not to round up and slaughter innocent people but to get those people who have become so blinded with hate they have lost all perspective. And if this includes the Israelis then so be it. Terrorists have to be eliminated. However if we do not focus on the source and take a hard look in the mirror we aren't going to accomplish anything. Massive executions, its really the only way. Not necessarily everyone, but enough that there simply is no population base to recruit terrorists from. quote: Now we just caught some freak in DC trying to build a dirty nuke device. This guy does not represent the feelings of the majority of followers of the Muslim faith. However our very color sensitive decision making process will probably ignore this fact....and I think we'd all agree that he is just one of many who will attempt this. The odds of success increase with every attempt. True, but its not America that Im talking about, it would be ridiculous for anyone to expect us to stick our neck out to deal with the Palestinian problem, that is the Israelis job. Oh, and one thing I would like to point out, the only kind of foreign policy that would prevent yahoos from trying to bomb us would be a passive one, and that would have far more dire consequences. quote: The decisions that are being made now, remind me of a Roman type policy that always fails in the end. Rome fell apart from internal conflict, its foreign policy was quit effective.

IÔÇÖll respond to all of this tomorrow, itÔÇÖs to late tonight. Oh, and DreddÔÇÖs right, letÔÇÖs hear it.

quote: Meeting violence with more violence never really solves anything unless you can stomach ethnic cleansing as a viable answer. Actually thatÔÇÖs a good idea. While I doubt it would win the Israeli any popularity contests it would eliminate the suicide bombings. It wouldnÔÇÖt have to be a total cleansing either, simply round up and shoot 100 Palestinians for every Israeli killed and suicide bombing would be really unpopular. If that didnÔÇÖt work then something more drastic, but the fact of the matter is that it would make things safe for the Israeli inhabitants. America would probably have to support it as well because they get so much oil for Israel, it would be an economic necessity.

What do you think someone is going to complain about the bandwidth needed to serve that pic to everyone

The one thing I thought was missing was a hard copy of the appendixes.

LMAO WeÔÇÖll get him anyway

quote: I don't see that trend, when civilians are targeted they are aiming indiscriminately. Civilians are pretty much always targeted, and I have to agree with Soback, they do target women and children. ItÔÇÖs not a lack of discrimination, or stupidity, or even bad vision, killing women and children tends to cause a bigger commotion, thus more terror and all that rot. ItÔÇÖs rather the point of being a terrorist. quote: You people are so self-righteous, Don't you think someones morals might degrade a bit after 30 years of occupation? It is very easy to stand there at the other end of the world being protected by the greatest army telling other peoples how to conduct their struggle for independence. As a matter of fact it is, but that has nothing to do with it. Their morals havenÔÇÖt degraded because of occupation, but rather because of their yahoo religion and the crap that is dumped over their media. Furthermore, what there fighting for isnÔÇÖt independence so much as it is the extermination of the Jews.

Stickdeath production? WhatÔÇÖs that?

Oh dear, this sounds fun. You will have to count me in when MP comes out.

As a matter of fact they did, and it turned whoever wore it a rather pretty shade of blue.

Biblical times? Are you kidding me, itÔÇÖs been like that way before biblical times. As far as why people fight over a lousy piece of land, itÔÇÖs better then a lot of things people find to fight over.

If my memory serves me Antarctica was set aside for scientific purposes.

quote: Heh, saw this a few months ago. Best score I got was 7 dead, 3 wounded. Beat that punks. Way too much time on your hands! The best I have gotten so far is 6 dead no wounded

Aye

They should keep the cows, might be rather amusing

quote: The process for determining this 'ratio' - if there is one - depends on the type of socialism, but in general, and strictly within the context of this hypothetical scenario, when the worker satisfies the demand for cloth to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for a car is satisfied. In return, when the other worker satisfies the demand for cars to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for cloth is satisfied. Your scenario will fall apart if ever actually applied because everyone would demand a car, and an apartment (or house, depending on where they live), and food, and nice clothing, and fancy electronics (boom box, large TV, etc.), and a good computer, and a zillion other things. The demand would far outstrip the supply on a grand scale and no one could ever complete the demand for a product to the extent that it is required of him. Never. It would be a disaster.

This is a blast! My best score was 5 deaths and 3 wounded.

quote: The reasons for their failures make or break the issue, as well as the vast majority of socialist frameworks that remain untested in practice. I would like to point out that, while there may be many reasons that socialism failed, it is pretty much well understood that socialist production methods, while good for industry, do poorly with high tech applications. As for the socialist frameworks that remain untested, there are a lot of ideas that go untested, nothing special about socialism.

That never made any difference to me, but I can understand your position. Actually a lot of the site is pretty tasteless, but there are some really funny dead baby jokes

Nah, anyone who uses less then a 56k deserves exactly what they get, a bloody pathetic internet connection. They should not be catered too though, that would be preposterous.

This is bloody funny, if twisted.

Welcome Back quote: RE: Menchisean Socialism No such thing. I have not invented a socialism nor do I have any intention of inventing one. I do not have a base to argue from because I have not currently adopted a particular socialism yet, although I find ParEcon the most appealing so far. I was not so much saying that you had invented a form of socialism as I was referring to your personal take on socialism. Clearly you have an idea of what socialism looks like, but as you have claimed no other system I simply referred to it as Menchisean for simplicity, and as a bit of a joke. quote: There have been a few statements in this thread about intellectuals that are, quite plainly, irrational. Some posts label socialism as a wonderland created by intellectuals, thus it has no foundation in the real world. What these posters ignore is that capitalism was also invented by intellectuals, namely John Locke and Adam Smith among many others. Therefore, these statements are just plain irrational and not worthy of further discussion, thus I will not reply to them if they're regurgitated in the future. True, the fact that socialism was thought up by intellectuals does not necessitate it being a ÔÇ£wonderland.ÔÇØ This is a status that it achieves on its own. quote: Many anti-socialist posters continue to claim that history is on their side because of their interpretation of history, and I have been accused of ignoring history simply because my interpretation is not the same as theirs. What really annoys me is the claim that history proves socialism in every form does not work when historical fact indicates that only two forms have been implemented (Reformist and Marxist-Leninist), and in most cases were implemented in an unsuitable environment. Therefore, history does not prove socialism wrong. So you claim that we ignore history because your interpretation is different then ours? Wonderful logic. As far as the validity of socialism from a historical point of view, I'm not saying that it was an unmitigated disaster or that it fails in every example, simply that the vast majority have failed for whatever reason and that those still around havenÔÇÖt been around long enough to prove anything. quote: All working people have the common interest of supporting themselves through their labour, thus there is a solidarity between workers that capitalism invariably divides and atomizes through its competitive mode of production. The collaborative nature of socialist production supports this solidarity, thus it is within the individual interests of working people to work together, and working together is within the collective interests of socialism. Actually, most working people are interested in advancing themselves, many do so at the expense of others. It is not sufficient that aiding the society aids the individual, but rather that aiding the society is the singly most advantageous thing that an individual may do for themselves. This simply isnÔÇÖt the case as aiding the society at large sufficiently to be noticed by individuals takes a lot of work, but advancing ones own interests (though often still difficult) takes both less work and aids the individual more. Perhaps it would be better for everyone (that is, everyone poor, rich people donÔÇÖt count) if everyone worked to better the society and themselves at the same time, but most people will prefer to work directly to aid themselves. quote: What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power? It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer. You will note that as most laborers are paid more then bare subsistence they are selling there labor-power for more then its production cost. It would be wrong to denounce capitalists for similarly selling products for more then they require to make. quote: The 12 hours' work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. This is, of course, first of all assuming that the individual has no interest vested in there job, I donÔÇÖt know what the norm was 150 years ago, but a lot of people these days actually (gasp) enjoy there work, or at least donÔÇÖt dislike it. Perhaps menial jobs such as those Marx mentions are simply unenjoyable, but for the majority of people their work is at least bearable. What about the rest of those people? Nothing, itÔÇÖs irrelevant whether someone likes there job or not in the long rung (I simply pointed it out as another out of date idea). The fact of the mater is that even if people were producing their own goods (and hermits and subsistence farmers are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head that come close) they would still have to invest a large portion of there lives into staying alive, in fact (judging from my knowledge of such activities) it would take a lot more time then most modern workers spend working. Furthermore, workers in socialism still work, and (for the most part) the same jobs still have to be done, but the only difference is that they (as I understand things) get paid more (there are no social elites getting more then ÔÇ£their fair shareÔÇØ of money) and there they work for the government rather then private enterprises. People would still give up part of their lives, only in socialism they donÔÇÖt even have the choice of who to give it up too. quote: One example of how this manifests in human behaviour is the perception of work as alien from one's life (e.g. "I work all day, I have no life"). That is an erroneous use of the idiom ÔÇ£I have no lifeÔÇØ as it is an abbreviated version of ÔÇ£I have no social life.ÔÇØ If I were to describe someone who plays EverQuest in every moment of their spare time as having no life would you think that there life activity was being deprived of them. I should hope not.

This is too much, I love it.