Kevin Trotter Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 I think I have a fair idea of how the economy works and your implication that disagreement with you is tantamount to being wrong is the very reason it has become pointless to expect any intelligent discourse out of people of your ilk and why I personally will no longer include my self in it. Do you seriously suggest your oversimplification of a complex subject like the economy is the only reasonable point of view? Are you suggesting that every economist who disagrees with you is wrong? Because many do at least as many as agree with you. Regarding your fake Adam Smith free market rant, that too is an oversimplification. The success of free markets is supported by Democracy and Peaceful dipolomatic relationships in foreign policy. This is an important triad that collapes when one leg is removed. It is clear to anyone with half a brain this administration does not practice or support diplomacy at any level above saber rattling. But since your mind is forever made up and your eyes blinded by the false light of self righteousness you will probably never see beyond your own limited and intransigent parochial point of view. Post Script. It is a shame that one with so many answers is limited to spewing them venomously somewhere they will never see the light of day. You should run for office if you feel that strongly
Guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: The founding fathers never wanted this. They wanted the best in a person to bring success...not the worst...personal property and wealth to insure personal freedom and growth.not governmentally enforced aristocracy.. You DO know what the founding fathers actually wanted for this country, I am impressed, and you are absolutely correct. And no, things aren't adding up in the land of OZ, but this is what we have right now, and I am afraid that it's the best we are going to have at this point in time. BUT, if we do not destroy that which is out to destroy us, there won't be anything left to fix. That is why I support Bush in the war on terrorism and Iraq, because when we have won those battles, then maybe we can finalyl work on getting our government uder the proper constitutional restraints they should be under. We agree mostly on what is wrong, it is just matter of how to fix it. quote:The success of free markets is supported by Democracy and Peaceful dipolomatic relationships in foreign policy. We have excellent diplomatic relations with those that we trade with, Russia is one, Israel is another, Britain is another, etc etc ad nauseum. We fight because we have been attacked. we saber rattle because that is the ONLY thing that dictators and terrorists respect. Crawling into a hole with your tail between your legs gets you attacked again and again and again. They are like carnivores, any sign of weakness and they will punch right through you. And yes, it is an oversimplification of a very complicated economy, but if Bush SR. and Clinton had left well enough alone, our economy would still be booming, instead of going down the tubes in overtaxation and regulation. Why did the CEO's feel that they could get away with the stuff they did? BECAUSE CLINTON DID!! If Clinton had been impeached like he should have been, and if laws had been enforced equally and fairly, as they should have been, we would all be rolling in it today. But because they weren't, we aren't!!
Guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 I found this fascinating. This was taken off a political website by a member fo that forum. Again, I agree with just about all of it. quote: Seven Questions That I Am Afraid I Will Never Hear A Republican Ask It's election season again, and once again Republicans all over the country are busy snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I've been watching the campaign ads, both regional and national -- I couldn't avoid 'em if I wanted to -- and listening to the debates, and time and time again I hear Republican candidates making the same fundamental mistakes. Dammit, people, we are not the Discount Democrats! We are not here to promise the voters "everything the Democrats can give you, but at a lower price!" We will never win by presenting ourselves as the WalMart of American politics! Instead, just once, I'd love to see a Republican candidate muster the testicular fortitude to throw these questions in the face of his or her Democratic opponent. #1: On Education "Thanks to the teachers unions, the Democratic Party has been in complete control of our public education system for the last 50 years. In that time the per-pupil cost of public education has skyrocketed, the test scores and graduation rates have plunged, our schools have become combat zones, and every two years you come back and tell us that the problem is that the schools need more tax money. "Isn't it obvious? What your party has been doing for the past fifty years is bad for our children and doesn't work! Isn't it time to try something else?" #2: On Poverty "Forty years ago Lyndon Johnson led the Democratic Party to declare war on poverty. The time has come to admit that the war is over; poverty has won. Today there are more poor Americans than ever before; more out-of-wedlock births and single-parent familes than ever before; more people dependent on government handouts than ever before; and an enormous social service bureaucracy that seems to be more interested in keeping people dependent than in helping them to become self-sufficient. "Isn't it obvious? What your party has been doing for the past forty years is bad for poor people and doesn't work! Isn't it time to try something else?" #3: On Social Security "Look, let's be honest: the Social Security system is a Ponzi Scheme. It's a con game, and if it were being run by a private party instead of the Federal government the people in charge would be arrested and thrown in prison. The Social Security system will not remain solvent -- by design it cannot remain solvent -- and the true wonder is that for 70 years you've managed to keep the con game going by forcing an ever larger number of people to join the system. But the time has come to admit that this system is designed to go bankrupt sooner or later, and it's time to start letting people escape from it while they still have something to save. "Isn't it obvious? What your party has been doing for the past seventy years is bad for retirees and doesn't work! Isn't it time to try something else?" #4: On Prescription Drugs "Let's try an analogy that even you can understand. It costs your friends in Hollywood $200 million dollars to make a major movie. But a lot of people can't afford $8.50 a ticket for a first-run show, so Congress enacts a law setting ticket prices at $2 apiece and mandating free video cassettes for the poor. Just how long do you think your friends in Hollywood will keep making new movies for the American market if there's no way they can make a profit doing it? "Isn't it obvious? What your party wants to do will be bad for the pharmaceutical companies and really bad for the people who depend on new medicines. Can we afford to even try this experiment? Shouldn't we come up with a different plan now?" #5: On Corruption "Enron, Enron, Enron: every time you say Enron, I'll say Teamsters Union. How many United Mine Workers officials have done hard time for corruption and witness intimidation? How many non-union workers have been beaten for trying to cross a picket line? Where is Jimmy Hoffa buried? "For more that sixty years the Democratic Party has not just turned a blind eye to union corruption, violence, and mob connections; you have actively benefitted from these things. Your party has stood by, winking and smiling, while corrupt union officials have looted pension funds, rigged union elections, and threatened the families of witnesses in corruption probes. "You like to say that my party is in bed with the pharmaceutical companies. I say this beats being in bed with unions with proven mob connections. At least pharmaceutical companies don't intentionally kill people! "Isn't it obvious? What your party has been doing for the past sixty years is bad for union workers but works way too well for you! Don't union workers deserve honest leadership and political representation?" #6: On Defense "Thirty years ago the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party began neutering the American military and Intelligence agencies. Since then Islamic fundamentalists has taken over most of the Middle East, homicidal warlords have taken over most of Africa, and narco-terrorists have gained major ground in South and Central America. We had a brief respite during the Reagan administration when we updated the Navy and modernized the Air Force -- and confronted Soviet Communism head-on, and watched it collapse from its own internal problems -- but immediately afterwards the Democrats squandered the so-called "Peace Dividend" and wasted our inventory of cruise missiles blowing up aspirin factories in the Sudan. "Now, today, North Korea has the atomic bomb, China has nuclear missiles that can hit any city in the U.S., and Islamic terrorists around the globe are gleefully killing American citizens. At the same time the families of American servicemen and women are living on food stamps, airplanes and helicopters are grounded because they don't have spare parts, and there are Army units that can't train because they don't have ammunition. "Isn't it obvious? What your party has been doing for the past thirty years is bad for the country and puts American citizens at risk! Isn't it time to try something else?" #7: On Government and Change "In 1923 H.L. Mencken wrote, 'The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.' "These 'kitchen table' issues you like to talk about -- education, poverty, social security, prescription drugs -- don't they look just a little hobgoblin-ish to you? The education crisis, the poverty crisis, the social security crisis, the prescription drug crisis: weren't all of these all local issues until the Democratic Party discovered a national crisis? And hasn't your party spent more than half a century telling us that these enormous national, not local, problems can only be solved with equally enormous national programs and obscenely large amounts of taxpayer money? "And haven't you continued to insist that these problems can only be addressed through ever larger and more expensive government programs, even though all objective evidence seems to indicate that your programs are not working? "The first and hardest step in addiction recovery is admitting that you have a problem. Isn't it time for you in the Democratic Party to admit that you have an uncontrollable and irrational addiction to big government? "Isn't it obvious? Time and time again, for more than half a century, your party's solutions have only made the problems you claim to be addressing worse! "ISN'T IT TIME TO TRY SOMETHING ELSE?"
Lotharr Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote:Silly me, I thought we were on the brink of destroying the world for decades to prevent the spread of socialist ideas Not socialist....communist....we only used the CIA to depose a bunch of socialist regimes because we knew they would do business with the Soviets or worse. A lot of the Nato states are socialist...even we are to some extent....but it's backwards....taxes go into corporate welfare schemes and the politicians and generals end up as business men. quote: How many Americans died in Korea and Viet Nam fighting communism? This is how I understand it currently: Those weren't communist states....those were totalitarian regimes that centrally controlled the whole of the nations wealth....that is not a communism under Marx....Marx believed in democracy of the workers.classlessness. More equal then others stuff came about because those "revolutions" were hijacked or corrupted before they could follow through....but by then the world was at war and the more exploitive system prevailed...... quote: I imagine most people would be worried about the spread of marxist ideals in the USA. You would be surprised what people start thinking when they realize they did all this fighting and dying for a bunch of people who: 1) Never actually fought for anything. 2) Abuse the systems of freedom they were supposed to be fighting for. 3) Destroy the environment of the people who have to live there and call it progress. 4) Live far in excess of what is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. 5) Start destroying the standard of living of the fighting/working class...that is very dangerous. I would submit that our current system is not sustainable and in fact takes more then it gives. Military action that is meant to keep the hogs living high will never be easily accepted by the rest of the world. Any system that seeks to exploit the resources of a nation or the world without considering that nations growth, people, or ecology is not moral. Further it destroys those resources that may be needed in the future and so should be resisted with necessary force. Maximizing profits conflicts with sustainable, ecological, and human rights concerns.and for good reason. Humanity has weapons that can destroy the world but has not figured out how to live peacefully. These weapons will always put everyone at risk until we get rid of them or learn to live together.and you do not live together by the biggest and strongest bashing the smaller one for eyeballing you.and then you sure dont take his wallet..I know some of you out there think that is a marvelous idea darling.until you get bashed but we can't think that far ahead I guess. It is an enormous task but it has to be addressed.and running around playing cowboy is not going to build the international support necessary for this international threat. And lastly as these international corporations that are amassing more and more wealth and power.but not the responsibility to govern.grow less and less answerable to legitimate authority..we could very well see a new conflict arise..well I take that back we already are.. [ 10-18-2002, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
AWells Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote:Not socialist....communist....we only used the CIA to depose a bunch of socialist regimes because we knew they would do business with the Soviets or worse.Socialism is the road to true communism according to Marxist theory, and is almost as bad. Basically encouraging people to be lazy and unproductive and generally useless to society. quote:Those weren't communist states....those were totalitarian regimes that centrally controlled the whole of the nations wealthCommunism according to Merriam-Webster Online: quote: theory advocating elimination of private propertya system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed [*]capitalizeda doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of productiona final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitablycommunist systems collectively
Raven Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: A lot of the Nato states are socialist...even we are to some extent....but it's backwards....taxes go into corporate welfare schemes and the politicians and generals end up as business men. Ok darling, youve lost me, why is it bad for politicians and generals to end up business men? Seams perfectly reasonable to me, but go figure. This is how I understand it currently: Those weren't communist states....those were totalitarian regimes that centrally controlled the whole of the nations wealth....that is not a communism under Marx....Marx believed in democracy of the workers.classlessness. More equal then others stuff came about because those "revolutions" were hijacked or corrupted before they could follow through....but by then the world was at war and the more exploitive system prevailed...... They were doomed to be hijacked, Im sorry, but its the truth. That kind of system is simply begging for corruption and similar nonsense. quote: You would be surprised what people start thinking when they realize they did all this fighting and dying for a bunch of people who: 1) Never actually fought for anything. In a military sense perhaps, but if only military counts then most people have never fought for anything. quote: 2) Abuse the systems of freedom they were supposed to be fighting for. Are these the same people who werent fighting to begin with? quote: 3) Destroy the environment of the people who have to live there and call it progress. The destruction of the environment is an unfortunate result of progress, though more and more it is progress that allows us to minimize the damage to the environment. quote: 4) Live far in excess of what is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. Reasonable being decided by who darling? You? Well ok, it may not be reasonable by your stretch of the imagination, but werent you criticizing me and Litvyak for coming up with arbitrary standards a while ago? quote: 5) Start destroying the standard of living of the fighting/working class...that is very dangerous. Are the generals who become businessmen doing this or having it done to them? Anyway, socialism is demonstrably proven to be dreadful for the economy, and pretending that its going to help anything is utter nonsense. quote: I would submit that our current system is not sustainable and in fact takes more then it gives. Ok, our system being what? You like to talk in vagaries, so I can only guess what youre trying to say. quote: Military action that is meant to keep the hogs living high will never be easily accepted by the rest of the world. I dont know darling, thats been one of the main purposes of military action since, well, the dawn of military action. quote: Any system that seeks to exploit the resources of a nation or the world without considering that nations growth, people, or ecology is not moral. Further it destroys those resources that may be needed in the future and so should be resisted with necessary force. Which is why we go to so much difficulty to get oil out of Iraqi quote: Maximizing profits conflicts with sustainable, ecological, and human rights concerns.and for good reason. This good reason being? quote: Humanity has weapons that can destroy the world but has not figured out how to live peacefully. These weapons will always put everyone at risk until we get rid of them or learn to live together. Or develop an adequate defense against them, sure, but that doesnt mean that your ultimate goal of a everyone getting along is realistic (or even interesting, I would hate to live in a world where even most people got along, yuck!). quote: and you do not live together by the biggest and strongest bashing the smaller one for eyeballing you.and then you sure dont take his wallet..I know some of you out there think that is a marvelous idea darling.until you get bashed but we can't think that far ahead I guess. Marvelous idea darling, truly, and a hell of a lot more interesting then lets all get along. And about getting bashed, well, sure, but the idea is to bash back, harder and repeatedly. Has always worked for me in one form or another. quote: It is an enormous task but it has to be addressed.and running around playing cowboy is not going to build the international support necessary for this international threat. I cant argue one way or the other on this one; I dont really watch this stuff all that closely to know. quote: And lastly as these international corporations that are amassing more and more wealth and power.but not the responsibility to govern.grow less and less answerable to legitimate authority..we could very well see a new conflict arise..well I take that back we already are.. You should write the intro for RTS games, truly darling, you would be perfect at it.
AWells Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote:You should write the intro for RTS games, truly darling, you would be perfect at it.Bah... what do you mean intro? He should write the whole game... a RTS game by Lotharr would be uniquely different than anything on the market... I can just picture it... 'I am sorry, you can not build any military units. All resources are being consumed by welfare programs.' 'I am sorry, you can not cut welfare programs.' 'I am sorry, you can not mine more resources. Mining hurts the environment.' 'I am sorry, you can not develop new technology. Corporations to handle research are bad.' 'Your enemies are building nuclear weapons.' 'I am sorry, you can not attack. Violence is wrong. You have no proof that your enemies really want to attack you.' 'You have been nuked.' 'Game Over. Please play again.' [ 10-18-2002, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]
Raven Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 Yea, and if it has good graphics it would probably sell too
Guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 quote: It is a shame that one with so many answers is limited to spewing them venomously somewhere they will never see the light of day. You should run for office if you feel that strongly well, I just say it as I sees it, if it hurts, OH WELL!! and as far as running for office is concerned, I wouldn't want to take the pay cut. Besides which, they'd have me arrested and thrown in the pokey in a matter of weeks, because I would call most of those politicans exactly what they are, a bunch of parasites and criminals. Who wouldn't know the constitution if it came up and bit them in the ass. I wouldn't be very popular either, I would vote no on just about everything, because just about everything that they vote on at the federal level now is unconstitutional in one way or another.
Lotharr Posted October 18, 2002 Report Posted October 18, 2002 Wow....the peanut gallery really got me...heh heh...not...emoticons make such a case...
Lotharr Posted October 19, 2002 Report Posted October 19, 2002 If anyone is curious go to a search engine and type anti globalization or anti corporation....good luck there were thousands of responses..... So I ask the esteemed Ms. Rand wanna be. fantasy or unreported reality? I am not a socialist nor am I stupid....the free market is a live fire zone....but corporate media won't talk about it much....unless you watch the business shows and see how much they discuss the oil in Iraq and various other things.....
AWells Posted October 19, 2002 Report Posted October 19, 2002 quote: I am not a socialist Yeah... and I'm not right wing
Raven Posted October 19, 2002 Report Posted October 19, 2002 Thank you darling for adequately responding to the single joke in my post while ignoring the rest of it, your interest in a though out debate is inspiring to us all. quote: If anyone is curious go to a search engine and type anti globalization or anti corporation....good luck there were thousands of responses..... Did. Very interesting, but Im not sure if a see a problem (above and beyond the environment, which is moderately important). Everyone seams to be going on about human rights violations in foreign countries, but how is this a problem? Its not like we have to worry about rights violations in the US, we have already been through that stage of economic development, and if some third world countries are being exploited, well, thats hardly my problem (besides, there is something to be said for low cost consumer goods). quote: So I ask the esteemed Ms. Rand wanna be. fantasy or unreported reality? Well darling, Im not sure that I get the Ms. Rand reference (though Im assuming that its a compliment intended as an insult, like so many of your comments about me are), and Im not sure what youre asking (is what fantasy or unreported reality?). quote: I am not a socialist nor am I stupid....the free market is a live fire zone....but corporate media won't talk about it much....unless you watch the business shows and see how much they discuss the oil in Iraq and various other things..... I knew you werent stupid darling, and I know the free market is risky, but Im not sure if I get your point. Your writing style is so very disjointed (and often vague) that I often find myself having to puzzle out what youre talking about, or what your point is. Not a good writing strategy.
Lotharr Posted October 19, 2002 Report Posted October 19, 2002 quote: Yeah... and I'm not right wing Sorry i don't fit into a nice little box for you. If CNN and company presents a big money, pro huge military budget, pro war, person as a democrat and that is supposed to represent the left then I suppose I am off the chart. However, if you believe that the Democrats are now mostly the center (like I do) then I am left... but not a socialist. A person can believe in capitalism and envision a sustainable market without being a socialist..... But I believe in success through hard work, dedication, and innovation....not a system where a persons success is predetermined by birth....and not insured by exploiting and promoting poor ethics while equating profitability at the expense of environmental common sense.. I reject the idea of wealth indicating success. I further acknowledge a world outside of the corporate one presented to the American people.... I think it would be remarkable to know what Americans would want if they weren't being crushed by taxes for programs of corporate welfare and ever more elaborate weapons systems.....or if they weren't in poverty or considered working poor...or just trying to keep the boat steady so their kids might have a shot at doing better....I think it would be interesting indeed..... quote: (though Im assuming that its a compliment intended as an insult, like so many of your comments about me are Every time you speak with the self proclaimed authority of being semi learned, on the people you have never met, and the ideals you have never tried to live, you speak ignorantly and offensively...to me anyway.....so we can call it even. Some people would agree with your positions of people and their inherent worthbut I think most of them are busy being dictators or playing master of the universe in between holding executive positionscheers darling.. [ 10-19-2002, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Guest $iLk Posted October 19, 2002 Report Posted October 19, 2002 Lotharr you act as if every person who makes more money than someone else is gaining that money through trickery and exploitation, not the fact that the person making less may be a drug addict and a high school dropout. Success in life is determined by what choices we make. Arnold Swartznegger or however you spell it came to the USA in poverty, look at him now. Just because he talks funny and lifts weights? Or because he tried to be a success? It wasn't because he jumped on some poor people and stole their wallets and screamed "BWAHAHAHA EXPLOITATION!!!" You are seeing things in B&W from a left point of view, while others see in B&W from a right point of view. Extremism in either side isn't good, there has to be some leg room, and while there are corporations that are filthy, there are 10 more for each of them that are straight. Facts of life.
AWells Posted October 19, 2002 Report Posted October 19, 2002 quote:A person can believe in capitalism and envision a sustainable market without being a socialist.....I would imagine so, since it's quite difficult for capitalizism to exist in a totally socialist society. quote:But I believe in success through hard work, dedication, and innovation....not a system where a persons success is predetermined by birth....and not insured by exploiting and promoting poor ethics while equating profitability at the expense of environmental common sense..How many people are going to work hard when their tax dollars are going to support the people too lazy to work? It's bad enough we have the welfare programs we already do, really the only way to improve the situation is to spend tax dollars on firing squads to get rid of the leeches. As for ethics, they're a subjective thing. I think it's safe to assume that what myself or DL might consider perfectly fine you'd probably find completely unethical. I for one find the notion of using tax dollars to take care of those who refuse to fend for themselves to be completely unethical... after all, we just let darwinism run it's course. quote:I reject the idea of wealth indicating success. I further acknowledge a world outside of the corporate one presented to the American people....Oh... so you really don't believe in capitalism? So, what would you rather have indicating success? Oh... that's right hard work, but not wealth. And what you prefer over the corporate world, maybe a state run world without those pesky privately owned corporations? quote:I think it would be remarkable to know what Americans would want if they weren't being crushed by taxes for programs of corporate welfare and ever more elaborate weapons systems.....I'd want more elaborate weapons systems and more programs to help the motivated people that work hard to be successful in the corporations that drive our economy.
Raven Posted October 20, 2002 Report Posted October 20, 2002 quote: However, if you believe that the Democrats are now mostly the center (like I do) then I am left... but not a socialist. Both parties, as I understand it, are fairly centrist these days. quote: But I believe in success through hard work, dedication, and innovation....not a system where a persons success is predetermined by birth....and not insured by exploiting and promoting poor ethics while equating profitability at the expense of environmental common sense.. Success through hard work is fine darling, but success to most people means earning lots of money, and for some people to be earning more money, some have to be earning less (in fact, for a few people to be rich, there has to be a lot of poor people). Seeing as these already rich people want to stay rich, it only makes sense that it would be difficult for the poor to raise up (after all, for someone to get richer, other people have to get poorer). Socialism (and no darling, Im not saying youre a socialist, but you do appear to support some socialist ideas) makes succeeding harder simply because your margin for error is being taxed away to pay some fool who isnt even bothering. Sure, it bites if youre rich and have to put up with that kind of taxes, but it bites even more if youre trying to get rich with those kinds of limitations. As for the environment, I agree that to some degree protection of the environment is essential, but hardly to the extent that a lot of people make it seem. Im not an outdoors-fresh-air-and-sunshine type of girl, but even I dont want to live in an industrial wasteland, and neither would anyone with any sense. quote: I reject the idea of wealth indicating success. I further acknowledge a world outside of the corporate one presented to the American people.... Ok darling, youve got me, what is your idea of success? quote: I think it would be remarkable to know what Americans would want if they weren't being crushed by taxes for programs of corporate welfare and ever more elaborate weapons systems..... Crushed by taxes for corporate welfare eh? Darling, as I understand it most poor people pay very little in the way of taxes, getting income tax returns and similar nonsense. Furthermore, Im not a big war freak, but newer and better weapons are necessary for retaining our position as a super power, not to mention enforcing our will around the world. quote: or if they weren't in poverty or considered working poor...or just trying to keep the boat steady so their kids might have a shot at doing better....I think it would be interesting indeed..... Well darling, for them to have more money, others would have to have less money (it doesnt equate perfectly, but the truth is still there), and if that isnt socialist I dont know what is. Besides, I happen to like things just as they are (well, ok, I could always use more money, but Im working on that, not just sitting around expecting handouts). quote: Every time you speak with the self proclaimed authority of being semi learned, on the people you have never met, and the ideals you have never tried to live, you speak ignorantly and offensively...to me anyway.....so we can call it even. What can I say darling? I dont mean to offend you, but I shant go out of my way to tiptoe around you either. Oh, and by the way, you still havent explained the Ms. Rand reference, and Im rather curious. Oh, and I would hardly consider the way I speak (and think, for that matter) ignorant, though callous would sum it up nicely. quote: Some people would agree with your positions of people and their inherent worthbut I think most of them are busy being dictators or playing master of the universe in between holding executive positionscheers darling.. Dictators and masters of the universe eh? What happened to evil overlords? And again darling, thank you for your excellent response to my arguments, it truly is genius that you responded only to a point that was in parenthesis, fur surly that is where I would place my main ideas.
Lotharr Posted October 20, 2002 Report Posted October 20, 2002 I'll post more later. If anyone is curious about what one Walter Cronkite thinks about the current administration listen to when this Marine infantry soldier who fought in Vietnam calls in to the show...set the time to 46:00 to hear. http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2002/10...1018_a_main.asp This is a good interview all around.
Guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Posted October 22, 2002 Sorry Lotharr, I couldn't care less what that old snake/socialist thinks. He is a socialist to the core and an elitist, an old gas bag!! Now, let's have some fun. Dragonlady, YOU WILL LOVE THIS PAGE, I think it's you, and believe it or not, I have a lot in common with it as well. I think that I will start the autonomists party!! an Autonomist's notebook Too good, I like it!! I LIKE IT A LOT!!!
CommanderJohnson Posted October 22, 2002 Report Posted October 22, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: quote:It's directed at anyone who can answer it, and so far, no one has.Because your points are bogus. Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them Cuba, China, lots of other nations. Why Iraq? Why now? 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements So? It's the UN's problem. Of which we are part. 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons So? 4. Anti-America Lamest one. So is Iran and most of Islam though the some of the governments are officially our allies. 5. A totalitarian dictator Castro 6. Irrational in terms of international actions Dunno this one pretty lame too. 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons So? 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) This is tougher. I don't think his rewards started as incentives but now that everyone knows about them yes it is now an incentive. I'll answer the rest of these posts soon, but i'm getting tired. But just to keep it rolling, let me repeat what I think I already said earlier. Just because some of the points apply to other countries, it doesn't prove we shouldn't attack Iraq. Saying an argument is "bogus" provides no warrants, analysis, or argumentation, and finding any other country except Iraq that ALL of my points is probably impossible. So, again, if your going to answer em, answer em well: quote: Your also failing to recognize he is oppressing his own people. Regardless of the *PERCIEVED* intent of the attack, a few facts remain that justify an attack: Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons 4. Anti-America 5. A totalitarian dictator 6. Irrational in terms of international actions 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) Saddam is probably: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.
Guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Posted October 22, 2002 quote: MYTH: Oil main reason for Iraq War UK Telegraph ^ | 10/22/2002 | David Frum OK then: perhaps fighting "for oil" means "for an oil market unmenaced by Saddam", or "for an oil market in which suppliers do not use their wealth to acquire weapons of mass destruction"? That would be true. But that is not a fight "for oil" - it is a fight against a dictator who wants to use oil wealth to threaten the peace of the world and the safety of America and its allies. It is the weapons and ambitions of the regimes and terror groups which make up the axis of evil that fuel American policy in the Middle East today. Not the price of petrol. ---------- A plausible delusion can sweep through London like the Dutch blight through a close-packed forest of elms - and one such delusion is that the West's war in the Middle East is a "war for oil". One Labour MP, Alan Simpson, phrased the accusation pungently in the Commons during the debate after Tony Blair presented the Government's dossier against Iraq. Saddam Hussein's "real crime", Mr Simpson said, "is his threat to negotiate oil contracts with Russia and France, not America". President George W Bush was like a drunk "who needs to satisfy his thirst for power and oil", and it was Mr Blair's duty "not to pass the bottle". For a visitor from Washington, this was all a bit dizzying, for three reasons. 1) Wasn't it just yesterday that America was being scolded for not buying oil from Iraq and thereby causing (as it was wrongly but loudly alleged) the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? 2) Isn't it odd for people who oppose "wars for oil" to rally to the defence of a dictator who launched two of them - one to conquer the oil fields of Iran, the second to annex neighbouring Kuwait? 3) Although it is apparently wrong for hawks to be swayed by oil, it seems to be perfectly OK for doves. Here, for example, is a leader from the anti-war Guardian: "Would Saddam launch missiles against Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields? Would an attack on Baghdad foment strife in Riyadh? To different degrees, both would be a shock to oil supplies . . . [During the Iranian revolution,] Iranian oil production fell from six million barrels a day to three million and never recovered. If the same happened in Saudi Arabia, the world would see oil prices spurt upwards. The consequences would be rising inflation and consumers deprived of spending power." So, while war for oil is condemned, appeasement for oil is quite all right. Oil is important. America imports half its oil, and its friends and allies import much more. Although America's own imports mostly come from secure sources in the Western hemisphere and Africa, the shock to the world economy from a crisis in the Middle East would not spare it. And so, ever since 1973, the security of Middle Eastern oil has become one of the top priorities of American foreign policy - as it is for most of America's European allies. The remarkable thing about America's post-September 11 Middle Eastern policy is that, for the first time in a generation, oil has been bumped to second place in the country's concerns. Think for a minute about the logic of the claim that America wants to fight for oil. Does that mean "for access to oil"? America can already freely purchase all the oil it wants. There has not been a credible threat to access to oil supplies since the Arab embargo of 1973-74 and there is no credible threat to access today. Saddam wants to sell more oil, not less. And if conquest and occupation were necessary to obtain oil, why wouldn't America attack an easier target than Iraq - Angola, for example? So does "for oil" mean "for cheaper oil"? Is it suggested that America will invade Iraq, occupy its oilfields, and then sell oil for, say, $12-$15 a barrel, rather than the $25-$30 barrel it fetches today? Even though a $12-$15 price would close down the larger part of America's domestic production and drive the country's dependence on oil imports up from 50 per cent toward the two thirds or three quarters mark? Even though America winked when its close allies Mexico, Norway, and Oman co-operated with Opec in 1998-99 to drive the price of oil back up from $10 to $30? Even though Mr Bush's own father publicly worried in 1986 about the dangers of an excessively low oil price - at a time when oil prices adjusted for inflation were only slightly lower than today? If Alan Simpson is right, fighting "for oil" means "for oil contracts". Last year, for example, Saddam offered Russian companies multi-year contracts that supposedly totalled $40 billion. Perhaps America covets those deals? But why would any government - and especially one as cynical as Mr Simpson believes America's to be - fight a war widely expected to cost $100 billion to gain contracts worth $40 billion? And does Mr Simpson understand how small a sum $40 billion really is compared to the US economy? It is, for example, only a little more than half the gross state product of Arkansas. Does he really imagine that any president, no matter how inebriated, would risk the lives of American soldiers - and his own political future - for that? OK then: perhaps fighting "for oil" means "for an oil market unmenaced by Saddam", or "for an oil market in which suppliers do not use their wealth to acquire weapons of mass destruction"? That would be true. But that is not a fight "for oil" - it is a fight against a dictator who wants to use oil wealth to threaten the peace of the world and the safety of America and its allies. If Saddam were spending his oil wealth on palaces and roads, America would not worry about him. It is the use he is making of his oil that worries Americans - and should worry the world. Those who mistrust America's good faith in the Middle East can accurately point to the country's long willingness to tolerate local despots, so long as they kept quiet and kept pumping. Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran was by no means the worst, although he was bad enough. Perhaps America was wrong then; perhaps it was making the best of a difficult situation not originally of its own making. Either way, the despots of today are much more dangerous than those of 30 years ago. Who seriously believes that Saddam and the mullahs of Iran will keep quiet and keep pumping once they have the nuclear weapons they seek? Surely not even the editorial executives of the Guardian could convince themselves of that. It is the weapons and ambitions of the regimes and terror groups which make up the axis of evil that fuel American policy in the Middle East today. Not the price of petrol.
Charles Lindsey Posted October 22, 2002 Report Posted October 22, 2002 Dragon Lady, may I play in your parenthesis too? quote:(after all, for someone to get richer, other people have to get poorer). Said just that way I can agree with that statement. In the capitalism thread(s) you always seemed to say "off the backs" of others which to me implies cheating, stealing, and exploitation. The way you just said it is a truism I beleive. quote:Crushed by taxes for corporate welfare eh? This has turned into quite an issue in my state. To attract business and jobs and all the taxes that go with it corporations are often given tax breaks. I.E, corporate welfare. Now one politician is running on the platform of making corps pay their fair share of taxes. Sounds good don't it? Sure it does. Until you stop to think. What is this corporation going to do with all the lost revenue the newly applied taxes cause? They are going to raise prices. Joe average is screwed however you look at it. I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you Dragon Lady but you often have the most quotable quotes. I know the thread has turned and no one seems to mind but just as an attempt to stay on topic I will add that the US will try to use Diplomacy with North Korea concerning its nuclear arms program. And Jaguar; I liked the crime and punishment section of that article. Fits George W Bush to a Tee. I disagree with the Christianty section though.
Guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Posted October 22, 2002 That comment about in order for some to get richer, others have to get poorer is the biggest load of crap that I have ever heard. What? you think that the economy is stagnant? that there is this amount of money and no more? The economy is a pie and some have a bigger slice then others? Go back to school folks, because you AIN'T got a clue!!
AWells Posted October 22, 2002 Report Posted October 22, 2002 quote:That comment about in order for some to get richer, others have to get poorer is the biggest load of crap that I have ever heard. If everybody was to get rich, nobody would be rich... you can't be rich unless others are poor. The poorer everybody else is, the richer you become. Being rich isn't about how much money you have, but how much money you have in relation to how much everybody else has.
Charles Lindsey Posted October 22, 2002 Report Posted October 22, 2002 Been wondering where you got off to Dredd. quote:Saying an argument is "bogus" provides no warrants, analysis, or argumentation, and finding any other country except Iraq that ALL of my points is probably impossible. So, again, if your going to answer em, answer em well:But I did. I called your points bogus then explained each and every one. Now it's your turn. Not to mention $iLk found a very good article that matched our argument almost point for point. Why are we thinking about negotiating with a member of the axis of evil and not making plans to take them out as well? Hmmmm? Maybe because they have no oil. What is the worst case scenario if Saddam takes over the region? He can control the oil. This war is not about oil.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now