PDA

View Full Version : Britain may have to seek IMF rescue



85_Ciera_Rebuild
03-28-2009, 09:41 PM
Britain may have to go to the IMF for a huge financial bailout, the
influential investor George Soros warns today. (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5989746.ece)

The man who made $1 billion on Black Wednesday in 1992 told The Times
that Britain was particularly vulnerable to the economic crisis.

Mr Soros – speaking days after an auction of government bonds failed for the first time in 14 years, ringing alarm bells about Britain’s ability to fund its growing debts – said that Gordon Brown might have to go begging for billions of pounds in international aid. He also warned that next week’s G20 summit in London was the last chance to avert a full-scale depression that could prove worse than that in the 1930s.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
03-28-2009, 09:42 PM
Rachel Maddow Show: Somebody Saw It Coming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_hbezbsJ8s)

mickstan_VR
03-29-2009, 07:54 PM
Good find Ciera.

BignastyGS
03-29-2009, 08:08 PM
Byron Dorgan for president...At least there is 1 intelligent politician...

85_Ciera_Rebuild
03-29-2009, 08:21 PM
Good find

This is the kicker of this whole matter:


Pension Losses Could Whack 2009 Corporate Profits (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1871258,00.html)


Last year, pension plans of America's 1,500 largest companies lost
more than $400 billion, mainly because of the collapse of the equities
market in which the bulk of those plans are invested, according to a
new report from Mercer, a financial-consulting firm. Pension plans are
also being hit on the other side of the balance sheet, as shrinking
yields on Treasury bonds expand the scope of their pension fund
liabilities. Taken together, the double dose of bad news means
companies will have to pony up as much as $70 billion in pension
contributions in 2009 — up from $10 billion in 2008 — a development
that will surely crimp many companies' earnings

Tuddi
03-29-2009, 08:37 PM
Well... we all know that the only way for capitalism to survive, is if socialism finances it.... and furthermore, capitalism can only survive if it is protected from itself through socialist control.

Quite absurd, but that's how it is.

LordDurock
03-29-2009, 08:53 PM
Well... we all know that the only way for capitalism to survive, is if socialism finances it.... and furthermore, capitalism can only survive if it is protected from itself through socialist control.

Quite absurd, but that's how it is.

shouldn't be more like this

Well... we all know that the only way for socialism to survive, is if capitalism finances it.... and furthermore, capitalism can only survive if it is protected from itself through socialist control.

either i agree with the last part, but the idea if stated like i did above it not absurd but high logical as it is a compromise between two radical ideas

Tuddi
03-29-2009, 09:08 PM
Not quite :)

We can see how the "bailouts" (socialist funds .... taxpayers money) is stolen from the people, to finance the big enterprises that can't make ends meet. So it is not a theoretical scenario I mention, but absolutely documented facts.

If I run a business and my greed results in there being no money to pay for daily expenses to run the company, the most logical result would be to close it down. But that would be a declaration of capitalism not working according to the fairytales... so of course the capitalist government would HAVE TO give me some billions to prove that "capitalism works".

As to socialism not working without capitalism financing it.... that's simply based on opinion. No proof available.

On the other hand: If socialism was to survive, the whole world would need to work under the same system. If not, it would be like being fish in a fishtank trying to make things work, while living side by side with a hungry crocodile. The croc would eat the fish whenever it felt like it, and that's how it is in the world of capitalism.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
03-29-2009, 11:48 PM
Well... for capitalism to survive, is if socialism finances it...

Capitalism and greed are discrete concepts....the origins of today's economic blow-down can be traced back to US Congress and Wall-Streeters in 1999....and going forward thru Bush era, which looked the other way, and even encourage this mess. Others were aware of the future mess this poker game would create, but the greedy ones (congress & wall streeters) have no future sense.

Capitalism and socialism are concepts, but its the idiots in control which pervert these forms of government.

There has been no such thing as a pure capitalist country, or a socialist country.

Tuddi
03-30-2009, 12:58 AM
There has been no such thing as a pure capitalist country, or a socialist country.

I fully agree.

But the main difference between the two, is that capitalism is based on the few to get fat on account of the many who starve. Someone has to suffer for others to have it good. If I want to make money on making bread, someone else has to pay for my profits... In the first link it may not seem to be a problem, because the person buying my bread had the money, but everything is connected, and further down the line there are many who will be suffering. Imagine capitalism as a balloon that has to expand (growth). At one point it WILL explode, because it can not grow indefinitely. That is why the housing bubble burst, the stockmarket, the big companies etc. Even if they were less greedy and had more regulations to make sure they didn't spin out of control, there would be need for others to suffer, so that the few could be rich. Which is the situation of today. When 3rd world countries are kept poor, while their natural resources are stripped off them, only a few people are getting rich from it locally, while western countries (who predominantly are responsible for such exploitation) are making the most out of the "deals".

Socialism on the other hand is based on the concept of equality, where no one should suffer anything.

When the world is dominated by capitalistic policies, socialism can never pull through in the way it is intended. And capitalism can not survive either, without the protections and regulations ... and financing... of socialistic nature.

The world won't change overnight... nor will it change over time, simply because greed is so deeply manifested in people. Wanting "more" has become normal and acceptable in everyone's minds. Having more than one needs, such as 3 TV's, 2 cars, 6 computers, a bar with 100 bottles, etc. etc. etc. (this is only the tip of MY iceberg)

At the same time, when looking at the world at large, there are 6000 children who die from starvation EVERY DAY. They can not get more than they need... they can't even get what they need. Billions of people have problems with plain surviving.... and then there are the fat-cats who have enough to feed millions... but won't ever make that move mentally or physically.

As a species, we are all too willing to exterminate ourselves.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
03-30-2009, 02:45 AM
...capitalism is based on the few to get fat on account of the many who starve.

Before industrialization, that statement would not have much relevancy...since the rulers were raking in the "money" via serfs, vassals, villeins, and.or peasants.

Capitalism has allowed individuals to become fat cats and/or live decent/comfortable lives, so there is an economic incentive to come up with a product/service/skill/etc. And via this process, there will be those who can not achieve this status level....and there will be those who fall back into poverty.

But, in today's capitalist countries, there is a blending of capitalist/socialist methodization. There are more social nets for those in poverty today than in say 1920s.


Someone has to suffer for others to have it good.

Relative to what living standard? In the Amish religion, they still do it the old fashion way over here:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/01/18/Amish_narrowweb__300x393,0.jpg

No TV, No Cars, etc....

Tuddi
03-30-2009, 04:14 AM
The Amish have a very deeply rooted social system in their lives. They work together, they build together, they share their lives with each other... and are therefore a living example of how things can be done, where cooperation is the key, and not competition.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
03-30-2009, 11:31 PM
Just another article (http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx?googleid=242468), that points out how Senator Phil Gramm profited.

June 24, 2008 - 04:12 PM
...
...
In 1999, former Senator Phil Gramm (who is, incidentally, Senator John McCain's economic adviser and cochairs his presidential campaign) set out to completely gut the Glass-Steagall Act, and did so successfully, replacing most of its components with the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: allowing commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers to merge (which would have violated antitrust laws under Glass-Steagall). Sen. Gramm was the driving force behind the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as he had received over $4.6 million from the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate donations) over the previous decade, and once the Act passed, an influx of "megamergers" took place among banks and insurance and securities companies, as if they had been eagerly awaiting the passage of Gramm's Act.
...
...
The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between $900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

Prospeeder
03-31-2009, 02:38 AM
Before industrialization, that statement would not have much relevancy...since the rulers were raking in the "money" via serfs, vassals, villeins, and.or peasants.

Capitalism has allowed individuals to become fat cats and/or live decent/comfortable lives, so there is an economic incentive to come up with a product/service/skill/etc. And via this process, there will be those who can not achieve this status level....and there will be those who fall back into poverty.

But, in today's capitalist countries, there is a blending of capitalist/socialist methodization. There are more social nets for those in poverty today than in say 1920s.



Relative to what living standard? In the Amish religion, they still do it the old fashion way over here:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/01/18/Amish_narrowweb__300x393,0.jpg

No TV, No Cars, etc....

im agreein with you, if there were no rich people, what would there be to look forward to?

85_Ciera_Rebuild
03-31-2009, 03:26 AM
Posted by Cory Doctorow, March 30, 2009 12:03 PM | permalink (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/30/americas-bankers-are.html)



Writing in the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice), Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the IMF, takes a hard look at the econopocalypse and decides that the root of America's (and Europe's) economic woes is the cozy relationship between super-powerful bankers and government -- oligarchy. So, he says, we cannot fix the economy until we break up the banks, curb executive compensation in the finance sector, and turn it into "just another industry."

Tuddi
03-31-2009, 03:45 AM
im agreein with you, if there were no rich people, what would there be to look forward to?

:lol:

That's the essence of the problem. We westerners have mostly lost the connection to life itself. The real values of life... while we have no problem putting a value on everything else.

The first time I went to the Amazon jungle and was amongst the natives and in small communities, I was struck by something I simply didn't understand. There was "something" there that was so "out of place". The second time I went (a year later), it came to me: The people were GENUINELY happy and content with their lives. They didn't have any of the things we are used to. No pots and pans or electricity or other such things. They only had themselves, their friends and family. To go about one's day, was based on fishing, hunting, gathering herbs and fruits and veggies... while being with one another, the rest of the day was spent in harmony, playing with their children, resting, relaxing, communicating... preparing food and LIVING. Never had I experienced ANYWHERE in western culture, such happiness and kindness between people. They didn't "have anything" of what we crave for, nor did they have any dreams or ambitions of getting anything of the kind. They know very well of what there is in the "civilized world", but they don't want it, because they have seen how it corrupts people's lives.

Speaking of this is moot. One really has to LIVE IT to understand it... and even then, it may not be understood... as it was with me... it took me a year to put my finger on it.

We have our comforts and gadgets and dreams of this and that... but it's just a crap in a barrel, once it's compared to real life in the jungle.

My own mind is polluted by the industrialized world... so when I play around with my dreams, I envision a fully functional house in the jungle, with electricity, internet connection, flushing toilet etc.... while I have been completely happy sleeping on the ground (ok, not ON it, but elevated some 25 inches over it), with the natives.

Comparing our lives with theirs, I have no problem declaring that THEY know how to LIVE life, while we are very good at messing up life and we only exist in an endless spiral of self-inflicted problems.

I was in the jungle again now in March, along with my parents. They both loved it and are seriously thinking about getting land there.

Once hooked up on LIFE, it's difficult to settle for less. A few years back, there was a world-wide survey, and it found that the more advertising and things and services people are bombarded with, the less happy they are. But those of us who have been born into the western culture, will probably never be able to un-root us completely from that kind of lifestyle. I have been debt-free for the past 8+ years, simply because I didn't want to get back on track with the kind of life one is SUPPOSED to have. Take a loan to buy a house, take a loan to buy a car, take a loan to buy a freezer, take a loan to buy a washing machine, take a loan to travel, take a loan to move to another place to live etc. The western culture is based on having people locked up in debts for life. Buying a house is supposed to take 20-30 years, buying a car is to take 6 or so years... it's pure madness. So when I buy something, it's bought cash, and no one can knock my door, demanding a payment for something that's overdue. I have learned my lesson on that front. It's been hard from time to time, but absolutely worth it. When I left Denmark (after living there for 12 years), I simply closed the door on my house and left the country. I had paid around 200.000 dollars into the house over the years it was "mine"... and I could have gotten that money back, plus a hundred more as profit if I had sold it. But I wanted to LIVE my life, and not hang around in a country I despised, waiting for someone who wanted to buy my house... which could have taken months... or years... so I just left it behind and haven't regretted it at all. Would have been fine to have all that money in the pocket, but I have managed without it.

Too many people are afraid of leaving their physical items... too afraid of changing their lives to something they know in their hearts to be the right choice... because the fear of the unknown is too strong. Prisoners of their own minds.

Being free, also means being free from the propaganda and mind-numbing "life-style" ads that are present everywhere.

Of course it would be great to have a chopper parked in one's own hanger, side by side with the Gulfstream private jet, close to the super yacht and one's 10.000 acre home.... but only on the surface would it be great. If one really has that kind of life, it becomes hollow and empty and extremely boring, offering only stress and fear of losing it all.

Back in 1984 I lived a life of luxury. Every night I'd go to the best restaurants with my brother and a couple of girls (girls would change from day to day), order the best and most expensive food available, and a couple of bottles of red wine, that in today's prices would cost between $1.500 and $2.000. A single week of my life back then was worth around $50.000 at least. After 2 months I was so sick and tired of this kind of life, that it wouldn't have mattered much to me if I had been killed. I was bored to death. Uprooted myself, left the country, started a new life. Done that a few times since.

Life is to be lived, not to be suffered. It can be difficult to find the right recipe, but once you've found the first seed, you will be able to move further on.

Here a shot from the jungle during my last stay:

http://flashificator.com/1/Diverse/SnakeTrausti2.jpg

Yes, life CAN squeeze the life out of us in more than one way.

Here I'm staring at a potential nose-operation:

http://flashificator.com/1/Diverse/CrocodileTrausti.jpg

And here a picture of a girl 5-6 years old, whom I saved from drowning a few minutes later.

http://flashificator.com/1/Diverse/SavedGirl.jpg

Her boat filled with water when she entered the Amazon river, she was about to be dragged down due to the clothes and fear of drowning. I heard her whining (sorry to say, but she sounded like a pig in distress... nasal squealing sounds)... I was fishing for Piranha in a boat close to land, and after a few seconds hearing these squeals, I turned around and saw her face sticking out of the water. Threw off my hat, tore off my t-shirt and was in the water, swimming as hard as I have never ever done before. Got to the girl and brought her to safety. No Piranha attacks or Cayman adventures during that swim.... fortunately. A touch of life when it's less than pleasant. My whole body suffered for a long time after the swim, due to acid building up in my muscles (not used to giving my all and everything physically over a relatively long period of time).... but this turned out well, I got the girl out of danger, and I recovered (was actually on my birthday.... and last year's birthday I saved a 2-3 year old girl from being run over by a car, after she ran out into traffic).

Life is not, and should not be about who's having the biggest TV or the biggest boat or the most powerful car. There is so much more to real life than that.

Just my inflated rant... but it's got nothing but truth in it.

Prospeeder
03-31-2009, 05:26 PM
iv herd that piranha dont actully attack like people think they do

Tuddi
03-31-2009, 06:52 PM
If there is an open wound, or a wound with dissolving blood, there is good chance of them going for the "food". If they are hungry, they will not hesitate at all.

When we were fishing for them, we used raw meat as bait. These little bastards are clever, and they'd consistently eat the bait, and avoid the hooks (over 100 pieces of bait). Only 2 were caught by hooking them in the eyes...

Of course the Piranhas are not using Hollywood manuscripts as the basis for their behavioural patterns... even though many people think they do.

At that time, I had already gotten hundreds of mosquito bites... so there was bound to be some blood smell from me in the water.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-01-2009, 07:31 AM
westerners have mostly lost the connection to life itself.


.....Wasn't this explained in Monty Python's THE MEANING OF LIFE?

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-01-2009, 07:36 AM
Life is to be lived, not to be suffered.


People are always blaming circumstances for what they are.
I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on
in this world are the people who get up and look for the
circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them,
make them.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Tuddi
04-01-2009, 07:37 AM
.....Wasn't this explained in Monty Python's THE MEANING OF LIFE?

Well... I did my best to explain it to John Cleese... but you know how things can go.....

Tuddi
04-01-2009, 07:39 AM
People are always blaming circumstances for what they are.
I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on
in this world are the people who get up and look for the
circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them,
make them.
-- George Bernard Shaw

GBS... a man of many words...

My philosophy: Do more: Talk less :)

The Dark Side of Will
04-01-2009, 01:01 PM
Not quite :)
If I run a business and my greed results in there being no money to pay for daily expenses to run the company, the most logical result would be to close it down.

And that's exactly the way capitalism *should* work. The whole idea of "too big to fail" is absurd.


But that would be a declaration of capitalism not working according to the fairytales... so of course the capitalist government would HAVE TO give me some billions to prove that "capitalism works".

This logic is backwards. The bailouts are socialistic efforts that PREVENT capitalism from working correctly.


As to socialism not working without capitalism financing it.... that's simply based on opinion. No proof available.

There's no "proof" available for any of this speculation.

If you want an example of a thoroughly socialist state, check out the former Soviet Union. That worked out well.

Tuddi
04-01-2009, 05:19 PM
If you want an example of a thoroughly socialist state, check out the former Soviet Union. That worked out well.

:lol:

If you knew anything about socialism/communism, you would never ever dare saying the above.

I forgive you for your ignorance on the subject, which is not your fault, but rather based on the propaganda machine thats been running on overtime for several decades.

It's funny to read about the Republicans now begging for nationalization of banks and car companies.... those same people were going crazy when Chavez in Venezuela nationalized a few companies.... You know... the pot calling the kettle black and all that.

I have gone on vacation, worked and lived in socialist and "communist" countries. I have had the same connections with capitalist countries, so my personal experience/opinions is not based on hateful propaganda, but rather based on real life experience. There are many differences in the ideologies, but the biggest difference is found in the way the people from those very different ideologies are. One is very egoistic, while the other has open arms and minds, always ready to assist, regardless of the "cost" involved. In general terms; The "less" a person has, the more human it is, and the more it is willing to give.

It may sound weird to those who haven't experienced it, and I know that for the most part, it is all but impossible to let Americans understand that the capitalistic model is a complete failure. The world's best propaganda machine has done a great job... at least I acknowledge that much. :)

As it is, the world is predominantly capitalistic, and as such, it is impossible for socialism to work properly.... certainly it is impossible on a personal level when living inside a capitalistic bubble as we all do. We need to feed our families, and for that we need money, since the merchants want money for their food and services. My personal dream is to move into the jungle, away from the "civilized" society, and live life as it should be lived... but it looks as if the dream is too far out of reach, due to my own choice of life.

As to the Soviet Union failing: It failed because the people in charge were greedy bastards, more interested in their own fat asses, than the well being of their people, plus; the arms race with the US. A socialist/communist economy can NOT afford to be involved in an arms race that costs unknown billions... if not trillions over time. So it failed. Not because of the basic ideology, but because of the intent to keep up with the US on the military front, not to mention their Afghanistan adventure which was lost the moment they decided to go in there... just as it is with Afghanistan and Iraq and the US today. It's not possible to win such wars, and the only thing it results in (apart from destruction of the countries and loss of lives), is the sky-high monetary cost. If the money put into the war of terror over the past 7 years had been put into the US infrastructure, education and health care, the US would not find itself in economical recession, but rather be blooming as never before. But when we live in voluntary dicatorships, we can't expect things to be done correctly, or done for the benefit of the populations. Sad but true.

End of this rant. Don't take any of this like a personal attack or as an ideological attack... these are just my thoughts out on print, based on my own life experience and knowledge gained over time. I am too much of a free spirit to shut up about something most people would... because "one can not say this - or that" ... :ugh2: I say it all, but without bad intent. I understand and respect people who don't see things my way... so worry not.

The Dark Side of Will
04-01-2009, 06:02 PM
As to the Soviet Union failing: It failed because the people in charge were greedy bastards, more interested in their own fat asses, than the well being of their people

So youre logic is: Capitalism doesn't work because people are greedy, but Socialism would work if people weren't greedy. :wave:

Seems there's a common factor here...

As for the nature of people everywhere, I'll say there's a lot more to culture than the political system.

I'll let you know about Afghanistan when I get back. The popular perception that we're doing nothing is a product of the propaganda machine.

Tuddi
04-01-2009, 06:27 PM
No, my logic is not


Capitalism doesn't work because people are greedy, but Socialism would work if people weren't greedy.

Capitalism IS based on greed. Gaining money out of thin air (profit) that exceeds the effort and work put into the product/service sold.

Without greed, there would be no capitalism. Greed is the cornerstone of the whole concept.

Socialism on the other hand (left hand I might add), has it's own cornerstone, but that one is equality. Greedy people within socialism... are capitalists taking advantage of the system they rule over. Don't blame socialism for the evil doings of greedy capitalists :)

Afghanistan... well... it's not a part of the US, therefore the US has no business being there with military forces. Quite simple. Just like the US is not a part of China, therefore China does not have military forces within the borders of the US... nor should they.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-02-2009, 03:46 AM
....capitalism is based on
....Socialism on the other hand


Do recall that capitalism replaced feudalism...and Marx was generalizing about changes in political entities over time.

But, in Marx's day (1818–1883), there was still a lot of suffering...even in U.S.A., there was an "Auctioning Off the Poor in Old America (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-agin/how-it-was-auctioning-off_b_173945.html)."

Further, in that era, life was basic, and technology was not complex, nor extremely expensive.

Hence, Marx's viewpoint was biased in terms of not knowing future events. For instances, in that day, business tended to be controlled via small number of people. Or, today's social safety nets would have been unthinkable back then. Or even changes in technology.

Today, under capitalism, when compared to say 1850s time frame, it is literally a different ballgame since millions and millions of people live/work on higher status levels, worldwide. Yes, in developed nations, there is still "poverty," but poverty would have been much higher in Marx's day than now.

The concept of "greed" is too abstract. There is a large spectrum of capitalists, all the way from small shop owners to large corporations, but all are not greedy....making a living from your services/products does not make one greedy. Where greed tends to shine the most these days can be found in US's current economic condition, or even past behavior of some oil companies.

The Dark Side of Will
04-02-2009, 04:17 PM
Capitalism IS based on greed. Gaining money out of thin air (profit) that exceeds the effort and work put into the product/service sold.

Without greed, there would be no capitalism. Greed is the cornerstone of the whole concept.

Socialism on the other hand (left hand I might add), has it's own cornerstone, but that one is equality. Greedy people within socialism... are capitalists taking advantage of the system they rule over. Don't blame socialism for the evil doings of greedy capitalists :)

Afghanistan... well... it's not a part of the US, therefore the US has no business being there with military forces. Quite simple. Just like the US is not a part of China, therefore China does not have military forces within the borders of the US... nor should they.

Greed is pernicious wherever it's manifested. Functioning capitalism is based on the desire for results when you labor toward a goal.

Many people call from their side of the fence against the extremes of what happens on the other side. The reality of what works is somewhere in the middle. A pure socialistic system doesn't work because the industrious people support the lazy and resent it. A purely capitalistic system doesn't work because it neglects those who won't or can't care for themselves. A system that works is somewhere in between... allowing the industrious and ingenuitive to reap the fruits of their labor, while caring for those who aren't able to make the most of their circumstances.

The capitalism/socialism debate is just the labor/management debate on a different scale... and it's not really a debate because neither is acceptable without the other.

It's just as easy to point to the current condition and say that capitalism doesn't work as it is to point to the former Soviet Union and say that socialism doesn't work. Our reasoning is parallel, but on opposite sides of that particular fence.

I'd rather fight in Afghanistan than New York, Philly or DC.

Tuddi
04-02-2009, 05:11 PM
A pure socialistic system doesn't work because the industrious people support the lazy and resent it.

The people who do not want to work and contribute to the overall good in a socialist system, are the capitalists who want it all for nothing. They are the cancer of the system, but still... there should be place for them in the system.


Our reasoning is parallel, but on opposite sides of that particular fence.

I can't argue against that :)


I'd rather fight in Afghanistan than New York, Philly or DC.

Then you have no objections to people from different parts of the world, dropping bombs or missiles or planes or other murderous things, on US targets on US ground?

After all, the US has been bombing most of the world for the past decades, both openly, through covert operations and remotely through different dictatorships and oppressive regimes it has (and does) support. The populations of those countries who have been (are) targets of US bombings, surely have the right to be heard and give their answers in similar ways?

Of course they would be called for "terrorists", even when they are fighting a foreign enemy that invaded their lands, they are labeled as "terrorists" by the invading party. Only goes to show how twisted the world is. If the US was invaded (impossible scenario in today's reality), one should equally call US citizens who'd actively fight the invaders, for terrorists... It doesn't make any sense at all. The right term is of course "Patriots"... and yet the patriots of Iraq are to be called terrorists by those who are killing the people of Iraq by the thousands.

World gone crazy.

If the US wants peace in the world, it could actually start by calling back all it's military forces from everywhere in the world, close down the CIA and other agencies that interfere in foreign countries affairs, stop financing dictators and rogue regimes around the world... and in general terms behave like a country that genuinly wants the world at peace.

.... ain't going to happen of course, but that would be the correct path to go.

If one pokes a pointy object at a grizzly bear or a lion, one should understand that at one point, the bear or grizzly WILL react violently... but that's only natural. One can hardly blame the lion for getting pissed at being hurt all the time.

Over the past 60 years, the US has been actively involved in 180 wars... ranging from influencing, financing, training and active combats. That doesn't sound like a nation seeking peace... equally, it has military bases in more than 120 countries world wide.

Makes one wonder if the words of peaceful intent uttered are only propaganda, said in order to justify continued financing of the industrial military complex.... which is sure as heck stuffing their pockets with billions while the blood flows from children, hit by their weapons in other parts of the world.

Another thing to wonder about, is that out of the 5 permanent UNSC members (US, UK, France, Russia, China) those 5 are the world's biggest weapons producers/exporters. All the conflicts in the world are fought with weapons from those 5.... yet they all say that peace and prosperity and democracy is their divine goal. :kekeke: Yes, I think it's wiser to look at what's done, rather than listening to what is said.

Arrrggghhh... :rant: how rants can take on a life of their own...

The Dark Side of Will
04-06-2009, 09:11 PM
The people who do not want to work and contribute to the overall good in a socialist system, are the capitalists who want it all for nothing. They are the cancer of the system, but still... there should be place for them in the system.

You've got a filter on that says "capitalism = greed". You blame failures of both socialism and capitalism on greed. This is not logical.

Capitalism = honest day's work for honest day's pay

Socialism = everyone throws in for the common good

Greed is what wrecks both. Greed is a condition of individual people, not societies or our idealized economies.


and yet the patriots of Iraq are to be called terrorists by those who are killing the people of Iraq by the thousands.


I believe you said something earlier about the propaganda machine?

Tuddi
04-06-2009, 09:42 PM
Without greed, there would be no capitalism.
Without profit, there would be no private companies. Profit has to come from somewhere, and it does come from those who have less.
Greed is indeed the driving force for capitalism.
Capitalists exist in socialist systems ... and vice versa. Those are the one's that cause things to fail.

Propaganda machine?

You are serious?

Who invaded Iraq?
The US did.

That's not propaganda, that's simply the truth.

The US has killed the people of Iraq by the hundreds of thousands, the invasion resulting in millions fleeing the country as refugees.

That's not propaganda, that's simply the truth.

I don't know if you are getting your info from FOX... but if you do, then I better understand your stance.

There is a lot of propaganda, mostly coming from the US media, that is taking their orders from the US government, and people who are bombarded with the same crap over and over and over again, WILL come to believe the crap they are fed with.

Example would be Iraq and WMD's... which was as pure a propaganda as any. Over 70% of the US public fell for it. Only around 20% of the rest of the industrialized world's populations bought into it.

Propaganda is the primary tool of every war. The US starts wars, preparing the ground with propaganda massively. That's just the nature of the beast.

I have dealt with people in the past, who have been spreading articles made by people who in return were paid by the CIA to write their filth... and the people who were spreading the articles, could not understand how they could be accused of spreading propaganda...

Of course they can't... because that's the only "info" they were willing to receive.

During all of Saddam's years as a ruler of Iraq, an estimated 400-600.000 people were killed violently.

Since the US invasion, an estimated 1.2 million have been killed violently in Iraq... so it sure as heck looks as if the PEOPLE of Iraq were much better off having that evil dictator, than having the evil empire ruling over them.

And we shouldn't forget that Saddy was helped into office by the US, and received massive military help from the US during his rule... even when the Kurdish town was gassed, and around 5000 civilians there were murdered, the US proclaimed it was an attack from Iran.... only to change the course when it was decided to turn Saddam into an enemy.

Why did the US go into Kuwait? Well, because the propaganda machine went on full spin, and people swallowed the whole thing raw.

The story went on tv: A crying Kuwaiti nurse from a hospital in Kuwait city described how Iraqi soldiers threw babies from incubators out of the windows of the hospital, then stole all the equipment. A very emotional account from that poor nurse... and Bush Sr. used this as the MAIN reason to go to war.

But as it is with truth... it always pops up: This "nurse" was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, and she had never been a nurse, nor had she ever lived in Kuwait. The whole story was brewed up by a PR company in the US, hired by the Kuwait royal family, and supported by the US government.

When the truth came out, no one was accused of breaking the law, vilifying the public or causing war. Nope. Simply because the propaganda was beneficial for the US.

Propaganda is very much alive, and doing incredibly well. Not only on the US front, but sure as heck from everywhere else as well. It just becomes difficult to sift through the trash when we live in it.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-06-2009, 10:56 PM
Propaganda is very much alive, and doing incredibly well. Not only on the US front, but sure as heck from everywhere else as well.

Propaganda has been used by all governments I am aware of, and by individual politicians, in all countries, when it comes to saving their skins.

As Winston Churchill said: “In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

Maybe the real crux of failures in Capitalism/Socialism is the Type A personalities "in charge."

Type A individuals can be described as impatient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_personality), excessively time-conscious, insecure about their status, highly competitive, hostile and aggressive, and incapable of relaxation.[1] They are often high achieving workaholics who multi-task, drive themselves with deadlines, and are unhappy about the smallest of delays. Because of these characteristics, Type A individuals are often described as "stress junkies."

a1veedubber
04-07-2009, 01:01 AM
Propaganda is very much alive, and doing incredibly well. Not only on the US front, but sure as heck from everywhere else as well. It just becomes difficult to sift through the trash when we live in it.


There is sooooo much I disagree with you on, but this statement is 110% correct!

Tuddi
04-07-2009, 01:47 AM
I'm actually more interested in the points you disagree with me on... than the points you agree with me on.

... you know... the basis for a discussion is found in opposing views :)

The Dark Side of Will
04-07-2009, 02:39 AM
Without greed, there would be no capitalism.
Without profit, there would be no private companies. Profit has to come from somewhere, and it does come from those who have less.
Greed is indeed the driving force for capitalism.
Capitalists exist in socialist systems ... and vice versa. Those are the one's that cause things to fail.

There's obviously no room for discussion here. You're unwilling to decouple destructive greed from constructive profit; you can only see the evil wrought by misguided individuals and refuse to acknowledge that the right people make ANY system work and the wrong people will wreck ANY system. "Wrong" is NOT a synonym for capitalist, btw.

Even Jesus told parables about servants turning profits when entrusted with their masters' property.



Propaganda machine?

You are serious?

Yes, I am actually. You want to blame the US for every death that has occured in Iraq for the last 20 years. The reality is that Salafist extremists are responsible for far more Iraqi deaths than the US military. BTW, those extremists are killing their own countrymen out of religious zealotry. When asked about civilian casualties in suicide bomb attacks, planners usually respond "They should be glad they're martyrs".

Yes, these are exactly the people we want to leave in charge someplace... Ignoring this sort of cancer is what allowed it to grow strong enough to mount the attacks on September 11th. I would much rather go hunt Salafists in the mountains of Afghanistan than hear about the Empire State Building being bombed, or the Sears Tower, or poison gas released in the Washington Metro.

Salafists are religious fundamentalists. Islamic law forbids the charging of compound interest. Almost our entire financial system has compound interest at its roots. Our prosperity is a sin to them. Our freedom is a vile thing. They don't hate us for what we do or have done. They hate us for what we ARE.

It is the height of naivete to think that they would not attack us if we just left them alone. Read some Sun Tzu: Know your enemy and know yourself.


As Winston Churchill said: “In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”


Another of Churchill's quotes that I like that's applicable here is "There's no sin in turning a profit. The sin only comes from sustaining a loss".

Prospeeder
04-07-2009, 02:51 AM
^^^ heh im likin this guy, couldnt have said it better myself

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-07-2009, 04:18 AM
Capitalism = honest day's work for honest day's pay
Socialism = everyone throws in for the common good


1. In time of war - Capitalists become Socialists via becoming soldiers.

2. Economic Downturns - Capitalists think like Socialists and want to "socialize their losses."

3. Health Insurance - For those with it, "lottery" socialism at its core

4. City Water/Sewer - Socialized pay schedules...not based upon actual cost to your house/etc....from water/sewer plants.

5. Vehicle Insurance - Lottery Socialism....

6. Public Schooling - Taxpayer Socialism

7. Utilities (Gas/Electric) - Socialized pay schedules...

Capitalism is intertwined with socialist practices.

Tuddi
04-07-2009, 04:42 AM
Even Jesus told...

That's interesting... considering that there never was any Jesus.

What about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus? What did they say about profits?


You want to blame the US for every death that has occurred in Iraq for the last 20 years.

No, that's your claim. I never said that the US was to blame for every death in Iraq over the past 20 years. If you read the above posts, you will quickly find out that the claim is entirely yours. Not mine. If you want to argue this claim, then you have to take it up with yourself... not me.

As to the deaths in Iraq since the latest invasion of that country, the US IS responsible for it's actions. Since the invasion, 1.2 million people have been killed in violent ways.... as I stated earlier. Never did I say that every single death was carried out by the US. But. And there is a "but" here. The US opened this can of worms, while it should have left it closed and contained. Iraq was never involved in terrorism, never involved in any attacks on US ground or involved in plans to carry out attacks on US ground. So there was no legal (or otherwise) justification for the invasion. If the US had NOT invaded, violent deaths in Iraq could have been expected to be at the same level as the years before the invasion.... which would mean at least one million more people alive today. So BECAUSE of the invasion, BECAUSE of American disregard for international law, at least one million more people are dead in Iraq than there would have been otherwise. And then there are the millions who have fled the country due to the complete insecurity within it's borders.... which was not a factor prior to the invasion.

No, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Saddam was some kind of a saint. I am merely saying that he was a better option for the country, than the American invasion and occupation.

If the Iraqi people really wanted to overthrow him, they would have done so. And it would have been their right to do so, contrary to the US' "right" to do so.

You say that it's better to attack the people of Afghanistan, than leaving them alone, "because they would attack you".

Now... that's really twisted reasoning. Don't worry... it doesn't come from you directly. I have heard and read similar many times in the past from "prominent" people like Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush and others. Now... WHY would the people of Afghanistan (no matter how radical they may be) attack the US... if the US hasn't done them any harm? It makes no sense. Really! Why would I attack my neighbors, if they have done me or mine no harm?

The US attacks people and nations who have done no harm to the US... so maybe it's normal over there... but I assure you that in the rest of the world, people do not attack others out of fear that those whom they attack, "might" carry out an attack later on... so better be on the safe side and kill them here and now. That's just insane "logic", yet it's the very essence of US foreign policy over several decades.


It is the height of naivete to think that they would not attack us if we just left them alone.

You should think about this statement a little more, cause there isn't any sense in it at all. No matter how often it's been used as a justification for hostile action, it's just completely nonsensical.

If your neighbor attacks another neighbor of yours (let's just assume these are from 2 different political and religious backgrounds)... and the murdering neighbor claims that he had to do this in order to protect his own family from possible murderous attacks from the murdered neighbor.... even when all the evidence available proved there being NO hostile intentions or plans of such by the dead neighbor. Would you support the murdering neighbor? Would you accept his claims? Would you feel safe living next door to him, assuming he'd be freed of all charges?

I think not. Yet that example is based on your words:


It is the height of naivete to think that they would not attack us if we just left them alone.

Let me thank you for this opportunity to talk about something outside the realm of A-bodies. There should always be space for differing opinions and open discussions of subjects such as this one. IF I sound aggressive or mean or intolerant on a personal level, then I would like to say here and now that it has not been my intent in any way. I just like a good argument on issues that I feel are of importance. Always good to hear opposing views... for as long as things don't boil over.

As to capitalism being fueled by greed. It's clear as sunlight. If someone wants "more"... then it is based on greed. Capitalism is surely not about having less? Or not to make a profit? So... it's about getting MORE. That's greed.

I'm just as guilty of such thinking as others around here. I run my business, based on getting more sales, more paying customers, more work for the future.... but even when I am without competition in my field here in Peru, I keep my pricing at extremely reasonable levels. I don't feel good about charging too much. For instance, the computer program I have had in development for the past 16 months, has cost me much more than what I have gained from it until now, but I don't feel bad about that in any way or form. I use the program for my own day-job, and that was the driving force for having it started in the first place. Anything additional that comes in, is of course good, and maybe one day it will cut even. On the other hand, it does enable me to do my day-job faster, better and thereby it enables me to get more clients, offer even better prices and give me more free time.

So money isn't everything, even though it's important in this world of ours. Out of all the cars I have bought, I haven't sold a single one. Only given them away when I didn't need them any more. The house I bought in Denmark, I simply closed and left behind when I left Denmark in back in 2000.... not caring one bit about the ca. $200.000 I had put into the house over time. I value LIVING more than I value money. For most people it's the other way around. If someone has invested in a home, they will not just leave it and lose their investment... just because they have a nice idea about a new life in a new place. The inventory of my house I gave away to friends. Everything I had gathered over years... and left with my guitar, one sailors bag stuffed with clothes and other personal items. My friends offered to buy the stuff with monthly payments, but I rejected. The stuff had served me well, and I had no need for it any longer. Why should I get money for it? Not logical for me then, nor is it now. Over the past 8 years, me and my wife have bought around 2000 DVD's... what we have now, is a small collection of around 150 or so DVD's. The rest we gave to 2 poor people who set up their own DVD rentals, and they are able to live from their businesses now. Sounds as if I'm wading in money, and don't need too much of it? Well, as of right now, all the money I own, comes to around 120 dollars. Tomorrow I will have payment for a job, so we'll be good to the end of the month, on the 15th I will have payment for the software sales, which will ensure the survival of my family until the same time next month guaranteed, my wife get's her payment at the end of the month... so ends do meet for us, but there is no wild luxury ... in terms of western luxury. I will take a week's vacation to the amazon jungle at the beginning of next month, with my Danish friend that's coming again to visit... so I also have time to enjoy my life, and not only worry about making more than I need.

I don't have any debts... and that is the key to being able to live life free from stress and problems.

I'd rather have my life on that level, than wasting my life on trying to get this or that much money, so that I could have a yacht, plane, castle, chopper etc.

The best paying job I ever had, was around 25 years ago. It paid what would amount to around $25.000 per month in today's money, yet it was very unfulfillable life to have at the time. Life was only work, stress, and no time for anything enjoyable. I have known presidents, prime ministers and a whole lot of other high positioned people... including mafia bosses from Sicily... (that was fun!) ... I have been offered jobs that would have changed my whole life... and fortunately I declined the offers.

The bottom line is: I love the life I have, and would not do anything different even if I was offered a trip back in time, by some insane time-traveling scientist. All my errors have had a finger in landing me where I am today, therefore those "errors" are an essential ingredient in my happiness today.

Now you know a little bit more about this crazy Icelander in Peru... not your usual cup of coffee... am I? :dunno:

Tuddi
04-07-2009, 04:48 AM
1. In time of war - Capitalists become Socialists via becoming soldiers.

2. Economic Downturns - Capitalists think like Socialists and want to "socialize their losses."

3. Health Insurance - For those with it, "lottery" socialism at its core

4. City Water/Sewer - Socialized pay schedules...not based upon actual cost to your house/etc....from water/sewer plants.

5. Vehicle Insurance - Lottery Socialism....

6. Public Schooling - Taxpayer Socialism

7. Utilities (Gas/Electric) - Socialized pay schedules...

Capitalism is intertwined with socialist practices.

Quite so. :) and one should not forget that the US would never have landed a man on the moon, or had a man out into space... or even had a space program (NASA) if it wasn't for socialist practices (but it's never said out loud in the land of the free).

Also... as you touched on in point 1: The US military is financed through socialist funds... (taxpayers money).

So it is clear that capitalism can't and won't stand strong, without socialism financing it.

People can try and imagine some private enterprise starting a space program like NASA... it's all about costs, and no income to cover the costs (of course there are patents and such, but it would never cover the costs of running the operation)... so no private enterprise (capitalistic concept) would ever get into such a venture.

As to socialism having the same problem... no. It is BASED on socialism, and the only thing that can tear it apart, is capitalism, or actions based on capitalist ideals.

Tuddi
04-07-2009, 06:00 PM
Going back to Afghanistan. Here is a little snippet on the head of the Afghan armed forces: General Abdul Rashid Dostrum:

http://www.hraunfjord.org/1/stills/Dostrum_US_Lovechild.jpg

Mind you, this is from an internal US military document, and Dostrum is a very good friend of the US, working hand in hand with the US against the Taliban.

Want to know more about the real deal of Afghanistan? It's not about oil, but rather about heroine. Big bucks. Good profits. Every capitalists dream :)

Read it and weep: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469983/Britain-protecting-biggest-heroin-crop-time.html

One can almost hear Bushco's voices: "Hell no, we'll have to git' 'em Talibans dead, they are ruining our drug profits by eliminating the opium crops!"

With the direct help of the US, opium production in Afghanistan has gone from literally zero, to be the biggest producer in the world. Tanker ships with chemicals are protected by the US military, the transports over land are aided by the US military, now the Afghans are producing not only raw opium, but high grade heroine... all under the protection of the US (and UK and the other members of the drug-trade-coalition).

As always, it doesn't matter what the politicians SAY... but it matters what the TRUTH of the matter is. What is DONE is what counts. They provide protection of the drug trade, enabling it to flourish, even transporting it on military supply trains out of Afghanistan, through Russia and to Europe.

Propaganda? No, those are just the facts on the ground.

a1veedubber
04-07-2009, 06:44 PM
You are now touching on one of my hot-button subjects.

While a war overseas can be justifiable in some instances, the US F's it up almost every time by supporting a corrupt regime. It was one of the first of many mistakes made in Vietnam. Or Central America. Or the Middle East. Hell, pick the continent and we have probably done it there! Our government has done this FAR too much.

We espouse the great things about our country far and wide, and then negate them with this practice. How can we expect anyone to take us seriously if we do not live what we preach??

I truly believe the US is a great place, but there are many problems that need fixing, and they will NOT get fixed with our current set of politicians. There needs to be a serious paradigm shift amongst the peoples in this country or there will be no change. I can see the beginnings of this shift, but I still do not think it will occur within my lifetime unfortunately.

As to the whole Capitalism VS. Socialism thing, I think that both have their good points. Neither of them alone will work though due to the same reason. Greed. A quick perusal of Upton Sinclair's "the Jungle" will give good insight as to why pure Capitalism will not work. Pure Socialism will not work either, and for the same reason. Although it may get started for the "right reasons", it always turns out bad. Too many rights are given up by the populace, and the Govt. invariably turns into something like out of 1930's Germany (without the whole "Kill all the Jews" thing of course). Seriously. Now, Socialism can work on a very small scale, as long as everyone is a willing participant, and there is no small group of people collecting & distributing the $$.

That gets me to my stance on our Govt. I personally think we need to go back to a small Federal govt with larger & more powerful state governments. People tend to forget that the "States" part of the United States actually means "Countries". You want a pure Socialist government?? Fine, form one in your state. That is how I think it should be in the good ol' USA.

a1veedubber
04-07-2009, 06:49 PM
Oh, and I remember that Dailymail story on the Heroin trade. It pissed me off then & it still pisses me off. It got all of 3 seconds of coverage here, on FOX IIRC. Almost nobody touched it. Many dismissed it as pure propaganda & BS, but the fellow writing it was surely in a position to know.
As long as the NFL & Nascar are on every weekend, and there is some crappy Budweiser in the fridge, many people just don't care. That is something ELSE that pisses me off. It is possible that we are not so far off in our beliefs after all, although we approach the same subjects from vastly different angles!

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-07-2009, 07:35 PM
As to the whole Capitalism VS. Socialism thing,


Remember, only practicing Socialists go to Heaven, whereas many Capitalists earn the right to go to Hell.

a1veedubber
04-07-2009, 07:59 PM
Remember, only practicing Socialists go to Heaven, whereas many Capitalists earn the right to go to Hell.

Most real Socialists I know don't believe in heaven!

Tuddi
04-07-2009, 09:56 PM
Thanks for the input. Yes, we are bound to address these issues from different angles, simply because of our different backgrounds... and because of my anarchistic tendencies :)

Indeed it is the government that plays the cards, and it seems that it's always (without exceptions) based on their wish to get good deals, rather than bringing peace, freedoms, liberty, democracy etc. they always rant about.

I don't remember if I have made my "standard rant" about democracy here in the forums, but it is one that holds more truth than most people like to know of. Here comes the short version:

A "democracy" (as we know it) is built as a pyramide. On top of it we have the

president/prime minister/other head of state
Then: Congress/Parliament
Then: The population

This is a well known structure, and no one contents it being this way.

The top of the pyramid has ONE person with more rights and power than anyone else, then the congress/parliament has more power than anyone below them, and the population has to do what they are told to do, and accept things as they are.

The other pyramid for comparison, is Dictatorship:

Dictator
Then: Generals
Then: The population

Exactly like the democratic model, the the top of the pyramid has ONE person with more rights and power than anyone else, then come the generals with more power than anyone below them, and the population has to do what they are told to do, and accept things as they are.

Same structure, and a slightly different way these people come to power.

In my view, the "democracy" would be correctly named "VOLUNTARY DICTATORSHIP". Simply because the people vote in their dictators.

A real democracy would have the people in power, and the politicians would NOT be above the law, or have more privileges than anyone from the population, and sure as heck the president (or it's equivalent) should not have any veto right or the right to declare wars or national emergencies or create new laws.

Unfortunately, the world does not have real democracy in place... the Icelandic one has been under scrutiny in the past years, latest clash between the people and the politicians took a few months, before the politicians finally accepted that they were not welcome in office, and did not represent anyone any more.... so the people won their legal right by ousting them. The President of Iceland is still completely powerless, and is not even permitted to be affiliated with a political party, or interfere or comment on political moves. That's because the president is a representative of ALL the people, and not primarily the head of some political party, then the population. That is a good system, but I fear it will disappear within my lifetime.

Ultimately, no matter where in the world, or what system in the world we look at... if a government does something the population objects to, it is the DUTY of the people, to rise up and stop their government from continuing it's evil ways. When populations do nothing, they are complicit in the crimes/abuses being done in the name of their governments. Most people are afraid to get hurt or have problems... so they don't do anything, even when they know they should... and that is the main problem the world has to deal with. If people realized that their combined power could shake even the most determined blood sucking political leeches, off their hairy butts, by simply joining hands and work together, there would be no abuses, no genocides, no corruption... and the world would be a much better place. For as long as people don't realize their own strength in numbers... nothing will change for the better.

A few years back I was talking to the top people of a jungle town, while enjoying beers and other native drinks. They told me how badly their community was treated by the oil companies that passed through their region with materials, workforce and such... without leaving anything behind. No taxes, no benefits. Just increased traffic of people, resulting in more crimes and problems. I asked if there had been negotiations with the national government and the oil companies. They confirmed such talks, but that nothing had come from it except clear cut "NO". So I told my honest opinion: "If you want to deal with people like those, you have to speak a language they understand. Take up arms. Threaten to use the arms. Close down the river (only traffic route available in the area) and let them know that you are willing to fight to the death if need be, but do not initiate any shooting. Just make sure they know that you are intent on staying your course".

I returned to the capital, and a couple of weeks later my wife was watching news on TV, yelled for me to come and watch... On the screen was the mayor of the town, one of the people whom I had given my good advice. He said that this was a revolution by the people for the people. The river had been closed, patrolled by armed supporters of the revolution, and they would not allow any traffic to pass, until the oil companies would sit down and make a deal, equal to the deals they had in neighboring regions. It took a couple of days, and that revolution was called off. They got their demands, and the plan worked perfectly without a single shot being fired.

That was "my" first revolution, and proved that my ideas were valid, and could be carried out successfully.

Probably it's my first and only involvement in a revolution, but it was interesting and served the people of the area well.

If people join, things can happen.
-
As an example of how non-democratic the US system is (I know... it's not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic... but still, the example speaks volumes of the need for more democracy):

Voter turnout in the US ranges from 37% - 60% over the past 48 years (1960-2008). If we take a voter turnout of 50% as an average, then we look at the primaries, where in the case of Obama, he won 52% over clinton, and in the election he won 52% over McCain. This means that he only had support of HALF of his backland (primaries) and when people were forced to make the choice between him and McCain, it was again only HALF of the votes. This means effectively that he only had around 25% support in votes, but only around 12.5% real support from the people. So 12.5% of the voting public decided for the other 87.5% of the public. Not exactly democracy in action.... When things are this bad in reality, and people ACCEPT it as their only choice, no change can be expected to come from the people.... and the rulers (politicians and their backers) have no interest in changing the rules of the game.

If more people knew how things were, the bigger the chance of changes.

Ain't going to happen.

That's the sad reality of today's world.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-07-2009, 10:44 PM
Most real Socialists I know don't believe in heaven!

Socialist - noun. An advocate of or believer in socialism; an adherent or supporter of socialism. Also, a member of a socialist political party. E19.
Christian Socialist: see CHRISTIAN adjective. National Socialist: see NATIONAL adjective. [SOED]

Christian Socialism: a form of socialism, embracing Christianity, arising from an attempt to apply Christian precepts in everyday life. [SOED]

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-07-2009, 11:00 PM
A "democracy" (as we know it) is built as a pyramide. On top of it we have the

president/prime minister/other head of state
Then: Congress/Parliament
Then: The population



US Courts.....Bush on the Constitution (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml): 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-08-2009, 12:04 AM
Another of Churchill's quotes



It is a socialist idea that making profits is a vice. I consider the real vice is making losses. — Sir Winston Leonard Spenser Churchill

Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. — Sir Winston Churchill

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. — Sir Winston Churchill

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 12:52 AM
US Courts.....Bush on the Constitution (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml): 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

Yes, I remember that outburst of his. The same day I came across it, I explored the possibilities of having toilet paper made, with impressions of the US constitution: We the people... on every piece... I could have had it done here, but it would probably have cost too much once it would hit the main market (US). But the idea was good... and in place.

How Bush could say this, and NOT be impeached for disregarding the very fundament of the country. Something he of all people should adhere to and respect... its incredible.

As to Winston Churchill. Let me bring a few quotes from him as well. I loath him in every way possible, and with good reasons:


I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the red indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly wise race -to put it that way- has come in and taken their place.


"I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between communism and nazism, I would choose communism"
- Speaking in the House of Commons, 1937.


"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes"
- Writing as president of the Air Council.


"I do not admit...that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia...by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race...has come in and taken its place"
- Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937.


"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate...I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed"
- Churchill to Asquith, 1910.


"One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievements.
If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations"
- From 'Great Contemporaries', 1937.


"This movement among the Jews is not new...this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire"
- Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, 1920.

And here from an article... missing the link to the original print.


As Sir Winston himself declared: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

This is precisely why so few of us ever discuss Churchill as a war criminal or racist. In 1910, in the capacity of Home Secretary, he put forth a proposal to sterilize roughly 100,000 "mental degenerates" and dispatch several thousand others to state-run labor camps. These actions were to take place in the name of saving the British race from inevitable decline as its inferior members bred.

History has forgiven Churchill for his role in the Allied invasion of the Soviet Union in 1917. England's Minister for War and Air during the time, Churchill described the mission as seeking to "strangle at its birth" the Bolshevik state. In 1929, he wrote: "Were [the Allies] at war with Soviet Russia? Certainly not; but they shot Soviet Russians at sight. They stood as invaders on Russian soil. They armed the enemies of the Soviet Government. They blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed its downfall."

Two years later, Churchill was secretary of state at the war office when the Royal Air Force asked him for permission to use chemical weapons against "recalcitrant Arabs" as an experiment. Winston promptly consented (Yes, Churchill's gassing of Kurds pre-dated Hussein's by nearly 70 years).

"I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes," he explained, a policy he espoused yet again in July 1944 when he asked his chiefs of staff to consider using poison gas on the Germans "or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using." Unlike in 1919, his proposal was denied...not that history would not have forgiven him anyway.

In language later appropriated by the Israelis, Winston Churchill had this to say about the Palestinians in 1937: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

When not scheming a Bolshevik downfall, gassing the uncivilized, or comparing Palestinians to dogs, Churchill found time to write soulmate Benito Mussolini. In January 1927, Sir Winston gushed to Il Duce, "if I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism." Even after the advent of WWII, Churchill found room in his heart for the Italian dictator, explaining to Parliament in 1940:"I do not deny that he is a very great man but he became a criminal when he attacked England."

Mussolini's criminality aside, Churchill certainly took note of Axis tactics...cavalierly observing that "everyone" was bombing civilians. "It's simply a question of fashion," he explained, "similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in."

Sir Winston must have been a slave to fashion because he soon ordered a fire-bombing raid on Hamburg in July 1943 that killed at least 48,000 civilians, after which he enlisted the aid of British scientists to cook up "a new kind of weather" for larger German city.

In his wartime memoirs, Winston Churchill forgave himself for the countless civilians slaughtered in Dresden. "We made a heavy raid in the latter month on Dresden," he wrote benignly, "then a centre of communication of Germany's Eastern Front."

Not quite the glorified Churchill we have been brainwashed into "knowing". No. This is the real Churchill... a war criminal, racist, and even a nazi supporter (before the beginning of WWII at least... ).

Truly a disgusting person in every possible way.

Someone I don't use for quotes, in order to get a point through.

Anyone here ever know this true face of Churchill? You can search and find that this is all too true... yet this is not tought in our schools or in history books or on documentaries. The propaganda machine covers this kind of filth up with silence, and rather illustrates Churchill as a hero, a saint, a brilliant man... then he got his nobels prize... and everyone (almost) fall for the fabrications. The truth may be ugly... but it's the truth, and should be held high.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-08-2009, 01:20 AM
As to Winston Churchill.


These quotes come from a different time & place, and were spiced for those audiences of that day.

Spoken words of 100 or so years ago will have that generation's prejudices/etc.

For instance, in that era, Charles Lindbergh, "...was a eugenicist with fascistic leanings. He believed the world was split into superior and inferior beings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7420026.stm), and hoped that science would allow the superior - which included himself and Lindbergh, of course - to dominate and eventually weed out the inferiors."

In short, another Type A personality full of himself....

People's thinking in those days were short sighted, and based upon current thinkings.

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 01:56 AM
Quite so... but that doesn't excuse the continued cover-up of the way people were.

Eugenics ... pure racial crap was actually adapted by Germany from ... the US. Many prominent people in the US were all for forced sterilizations of poor people, which they thought were inferior... stupid by nature and should therefore not be allowed to reproduce. Thousands of Americans were sterilized against their will... a little known fact of rather recent history.

Those were indeed different times, different mindsets. But our generations have the obligation to let the truth be known. If we don't, then we may be helping similarly disgusting things to take place in our own time, and in times to come... because people can claim that they "didn't know".

Just like Hitler, Göreing, Himmler, Eichmann, Mendele and a bunch of other wackos, they lived in a different time with different mindset... but that does not, and did not free them from responsibility from their actions. Yet... Churchill, and others (just on the opposite side of the table) are glorified in every possible way, and history books don't tell the true history about them and their crimes.

It is as it is said: The winners of wars, get the right to write history in the way they want it to look.

History is one thing... reality is quite different, and mostly hidden from view.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-08-2009, 03:44 AM
Quite so... but that doesn't excuse the continued cover-up of the way people were.

I rather suspect all societies tend to accentuate the positive....

DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER (http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/3/messages/520.html)-- From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman:

"Don't shoot the messenger. Don't blame the person who brings bad news. This idea was expressed by Sophocles as far back as 442 B.C. and much later by Shakespeare in 'Henry IV, Part II' (1598) and in 'Antony and Cleopatra' (1606-07) The word kill may be used as a substitute for 'shoot.'"

Related saying: "Don't shoot the piano-player; he's doing the best he can. Don't hurt innocent people. Originated in the United States in the Wild West, around 1860. During his 1883 tour of the United States, Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) saw this saying on a notice in a Leadville, Colorado, saloon. It is sometimes attributed to Mark Twain, but neither Wilde nor Twain has ever claimed authority."



Eugenics ... pure ...crap....Those were indeed different times, different mindsets.

DON'T JUDGE A MAN UNTIL YOU HAVE WALKED A MILE IN HIS BOOTS (http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/740.html) - "Don't criticize another person's work until you've tried to do it yourself; don't judge another person's life until you've been forced to live it.

The word 'criticize' may be used instead of 'judge' and 'shoes' instead of 'boots.' The main entry is one of the 101 most frequently used American proverbs, according to lexicographer Harris Collis." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).


When you consider someone back in time, there are different factors that affect a person's thinking...factors like summation of their knowledge, their peers, and current attitudes. Needless to say, if someone is a politician, their words may be addressed to "cheering" the crowd.

Gestalt.....the whole is different from the sum of its parts.

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 04:41 AM
I rather suspect all societies tend to accentuate the positive....

I don't think that societies as such cover up the truth and put spotlight on the positive aspects. Only when people are not given access, or educated about the cons AND the pros, will they be land-locked with the one and only official version they are aware of.


"Don't criticize another person's work until you've tried to do it yourself; don't judge another person's life until you've been forced to live it.

I don't know in which context you were thinking when you chose the above phrase... but to me it doesn't fit in here. One doesn't need to be a torturer or a rapist or a murderer in order to be critical of people who truly are in those fields of "work".

I know this saying... but obviously I don't agree with it in the current context.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-08-2009, 05:46 AM
I don't know in which context you were thinking when you chose the above phrase

In analogous terms:

The Saying: WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS DO. (http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-when-in-rome-do-as-the-romans-do.htm)

My point is that people's expressions and behavior, of long ago, can be biased by different factors....I would not condone Hitler's behavior, but to understand such a person, one would have to examine his past influences, and within the cultural influences.

When you consider Samuel Taylor Coleridge's words in The Friend (1828),

"The dwarf (academic scholar) sees farther than the giant, when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on."

this suggest that overtime when we re-examine past thoughts/ideas/etc, we may come to different conclusion(s) on a given topic.

Imho, one has to put a person in that perspective, before passing judgment; bad dogs are bad dogs, but being a transient bad dog is not the same as being a bad dog.

Bertrand Russell makes a point,


The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/bertrand_russell.html)

those who are cocksure, imho, tend to create more problems for society.

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 06:31 AM
Yes, yes, yes... but even back then, eugenics, carpet bombings, gassing etc, were considered inhumane, vile and vicious actions.... if the enemy did it. If those had been accepted actions, no one would have had a bone to pick with the Germans, Russians or others. Societies at large from at least the 20's and onwards, did not condone such things. Back in WWI, when mustard gas was used on the battlefield (1914-1918) it was considered barbaric and inhumane. When the Germans adopted the US eugenics program, it was little known amongst the populations of the world, and ONLY when the US and UK demonized the Germans for having Eugenics programs, did the populations of the world (generally) know of those programs, and instantly there was complete disgust... which probably explains why the origins of those programs were hidden from view, and very few people, even today, know of their existence. What was done, was wrong, but with the help of propaganda, people were made believe that it was only the enemy that had come up with these evil plans and carried them out.... while the truth of the matter was that it was home-grown in the US.

Thanks to propaganda, the truth about most things of importance, is buried deep underground, or owned to some enemies. As you can see from my posts in this thread (and other threads as well), I am completely open and honest about my opinions and my life. Probably there are people here that disagree with me completely, and think that I am a whack-job, based on my general world view that opposes theirs in every way possible. Maybe I am... but at least I am true to my own conviction and won't go on a compromise just to "keep the politically correct line". Whatever I am, I am, and I have lived with that all my life without ever regretting it.

So I say to those whom disagree with me: You should appreciate my honesty and openness... you are not being lied to or obfuscated in the view I offer. What I bring you in this thread, can easily be verified (quotes) and my personal opinions and views, can also be verified, if common sense is applied :)

If torture of prisoners of war is a war-crime (which it absolutely is, according to international law... to which the US is a signatory), then Bush, Cheney, ****y, Rumsfeld and hundreds of other high ranking US military officers and politicians should have been arrested and either hung or locked away for the rest of their miserable lives.

That was what the Nuremberg trials were supposed to mean. That no war crimes were ever to be accepted by ANYONE ever again.... yet we have such things happening in our times... and nothing happens to the guilty overheads.... nor do bad things happen to the people who carry out the torture or murders.... because the US doesn't consider itself as a possible criminal. So convenient to let the criminal pass judgment on himself...

The world is fucked.... and only when the people wake up and stop the abuses, can we expect change to happen. It's not enough for the abused people of Iraq and Afghanistan to stand up and fight for what is right... the rest of the world's populations need to do the same. Any minority can be quashed by a large majority... and that's where the whole population of the planet has to come in and make a difference.

LordDurock
04-08-2009, 06:47 AM
^i say if they want to peach that im a dog and i can be sold/ beat ect because i don't believe in there gof. if that can say death to America on there public tv, or scream "bomb bomb UK, UK you will pay" in Londons streets. if seven years olds a scream death to the west i dont want to see what they grow up to be. much like hittler and his rain. stuff doesnt happen over night i takes time (a few generations maybe) but time none the less to twist a society in to what eve you want. i think we are seeing that start millent Islamic society. so fuck um, bomb um and wait for the peace full leaders to over though the corrupt radical reglius biggits

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 07:17 AM
so fuck um, bomb um and wait for the peace full leaders to over though the corrupt radical reglius biggits

But the biggest part of that problem IS that you (US+UK) HAVE been bombing them, ARE bombing them... do you really think they should just accept having their loved ones killed at wedding parties, have their children bombed in bed... and still just "love America" ?

They HAVE their reasons to hate America.... and other nations who have been abusing them. Why should they just shut up and be bombed into oblivion?

Shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves?

If you don't know the history of American abuse of the world, you should dig into it. Then you will come to understand that the abusers, the terrorists, are NOT those whom you are spoon-fed through the US media, but America itself.

Seriously.

The Muslims didn't just wake up one day with hatred towards America. They had been bombed, robbed, cheated, raped, abused, tortured etc. for a long time ... then they understood that they had to rise up and fight back... only to discover that they were called "Terrorists" for doing so.

Lordurock. How much do you know about the US' involvement in getting Saddam to power in Iraq? How much do you know about the US involvement in the genocide in East Timor (through support for Suharto)? How much do you know about US direct military support for Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan... a disgusting dictator, who STILL receives hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid?

What do you know about the REAL world, in which the US is a player, playing with other people's lives (mostly killing them)?

Of course you are offended when some mullah's and extremists scream out that Americans should be killed.... you feel yourself as a target... having done nothing against them. But can you put yourself in their shoes... look over THEIR shoulders, seeing THEIR children murdered by US bombs, for NO GOOD REASON... and try and understand WHY they are agitated?

Try it. Then ask yourself: What is MY responsibility in all of this? As an individual, as a citizen of this country?

Try that. Then maybe you won't call for the death of people whom you do not know, but whom your countrymen have been bombing for a long long time, for no reason at all (except greed).

You DO call for bombs to be dropped on them. Next time you see pictures of children blown up by US bombs... you should remember that it was exactly what you were calling for. Can you live with that? Why? How? Could you go over there and behead their children with your hunting knife, or would you rather have some bomb, dropped by some anonymous pilot to do the job for you?

What is the difference between you calling for their deaths, while your fellow countrymen's tax money HAS been killing them for a long time, and them calling for American deaths, in retaliation for the deaths caused to them and their families/friends/countrymen?

I see a clear difference. Probably you don't... unless you know more about the basics. You are young, and have a lot of time to learn more. I'm getting old, and my knowledge stinks... but it's real.

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 07:24 AM
Ps.

Islam is just another wacky religious cult... right alongside Christianity, Moonies, Scientology and all the rest... so don't take it as if I am defending them because of their religion, cause I am not. I defend them because they are human beings, being abused, and in need of help.

LordDurock
04-08-2009, 01:21 PM
Ps.

Islam is just another wacky religious cult... right alongside Christianity, Moonies, Scientology and all the rest... so don't take it as if I am defending them because of their religion, cause I am not. I defend them because they are human beings, being abused, and in need of help.

i know this much every one is playing with every one, many times issmalic countrys have abused other countrys.

it seems that every country will fail pray to volince and every country will fall pray ot beign human and trying to exserize it will on others.

ferther more im sick of seeing people saying things like this "I defend them because they are human beings, being abused, and in need of help." but never wanting to stand up for something. people are dieing everyday from being abused by there own government help thouse guys, if a country is man enough to "test" its wepons in the hands of others then there ready to rock n roll with the big boys

dr king said freedom for me people and pull out of nam, yet we know nothern diccators setup burtal dictorships kill thousands..wares there dream and freedom dr king

the middle east funds armys the use funds armys the uk funds armys, china funds armys, (thies armys dont have to be there own) soo guys what every other country is as much to blamn in all this shit as the other. one country i know (and it dead) that tryed to do thing wright was the sovern indain nations over run and Jackson (president) yea noughting to be proud of there thats for sure.

the world (the people in it) have so many faces it not even funny.

on i side though i should gather people form every race. put them in a safe place and start sending up nukes. this should give humanity a fresh start

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 06:08 PM
yet we know nothern diccators setup burtal dictorships kill thousands

That's true, but comparing those thousands to the millions killed in Nam and Cambodia by the US... really begs the question: Who was the real terrorist?

The answer is way too obvious.

Humans are gullible, and will jump over a cliff to their certain death, if they are convinced it's the right thing to do. Those who give the orders to jump, are the real criminals, but people still have a responsibility to do what they KNOW is right, even if it includes getting rid of their "leaders"... and yes, even if they may get broken fingernails.

In my personal opinion, the biggest problem in the world is found in religion. Why? Well, if we look at the Middle East (hotspot of today), it's all about their religious beliefs clashing with western religious beliefs. Westerners don't understand or respect the muslims and vice versa. Religion is deeply seated in people... since it's been hard-coded into people from childhood (brainwashing) and most people are not able to accept that there is no god, that it's only a fairy-tale. Logic does not affect their beliefs. So when religions clash, there will be hatred and intolerance from both sides, which is the situation of today.

If some mad scientist would come up with a "weapon" that would remove religious thoughts from people without causing any physical or mental damage, I would be all for declaring war on the whole world, using that weapon... and the world would become a better and more peaceful place.

... but that's not going to happen... yet.

So in the meantime, the US should withdraw it's military from every country it is located in, and stop dictating others how they should behave in their own homes. It only creates more hatred when people are forced by outsiders to live by the rules of the outsiders. Their freedoms are removed, and that's not something they want or need.... yet that's the very essence of every occupation... and then the occupiers ask: "Why do these people hate us?" ... after they have been bombing the crap out of women and children.

Quite laughable.

LordDurock
04-08-2009, 06:18 PM
yea every one is a terroest dont fucking matter how many you kill. just the fact that did it ;)

"most people are not able to accept that there is no god, that it's only a fairy-tale. Logic does not affect their beliefs"

logic says that that if you cant prove there is a god that all you can say you CANT prove there is one but that is it you cant prove there is a god either. there for if people (like my self) are crazy fofr believing in god then you and the like are just as crazy for not believe as we cant prove one anoughter wrong or right ;).

every country in the world get invoild with other countrys. much like humans interact. the laughable fact is that mearly by intreacting with each other you give up freedom.........there should be a world code of counduct.which there isnt. if there is who going to inforce it.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-08-2009, 06:28 PM
That was what the Nuremberg trials were supposed to mean.....no war crimes were ever to be accepted by ANYONE ever again.......nothing happens to the guilty overheads....

Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/europe/29spain.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig)
LONDON — A Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, an official close to the case said.

The case, against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, was sent to the prosecutor’s office for review by Baltasar Garzón, the crusading investigative judge who ordered the arrest of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was “highly probable” that the case would go forward and that it could lead to arrest warrants.


The world is fucked....

It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
Bertrand Russell

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
Bertrand Russell

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-08-2009, 06:39 PM
... really begs the question: Who was (are) the real terrorist?


Investment bankers...why, of course...

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler) nicknamed "The Fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye", was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.
...
,..
...
In his 1935 book, War Is a Racket, Butler presented an exposé and trenchant condemnation of the profit motive behind warfare. His views on the subject are well summarized in the following passage from a 1935 issue of "the non-Marxist, socialist" magazine, Common Sense – one of Butler's most widely quoted statements:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."[32]

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 07:20 PM
if people (like my self) are crazy fofr believing in god then you and the like are just as crazy for not believe as we cant prove one anoughter wrong or right ;).

Well... If I claim that it is true that the Tooth Fairy is the one and only true god that built the universe... it would surely be up to ME to bring some proof to the table?

How could you, or anyone else bring proof to the table, of something that doesn't exist? That's simply not possible.

If I, or anyone else claim something, it is up to me/other claimants, to provide the proof.

Claiming something without any proof, and then demanding of others to bring proof to the table, is idiotic... at best :)

If I am crazy because I don't believe in something that doesn't exist, then I am quite happy about being crazy :)


there should be a world code of counduct.which there isnt. if there is who going to inforce it.

Actually there is: Geneva convention.... US doesn't respect it, yet it is a signatory... and the US demands of it's self declared enemies to adhere to it when US soldiers are in captivity.
UN treaties... which the US doesn't respect, regardless that it is a signatory to those as well. Invading other countries is illegal according to international law.
Human Rights convention... but that's something the US never signed on to. The really idiotic thing is that the US is the one country in the world demanding of everyone else to respect human rights... and to this day it refuses to sign the human rights convention.

How about we let Saudi Arabia construct a world-wide set of rules, and the Talibans enforce it?

No? Well, I understand that you wouldn't want that. Equally for other people around the world, they don't want American values forced over their heads.

That's why it is so convenient to have SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT states and countries, where people can practice their own customs and live their lives in THEIR own way.

You wouldn't want anyone coming into your house and tell you that you have to pray to the almighty Spaghetti Monster 10 times a day. It goes both ways.

Here a good listening experience:


http://www.h-files.hraunfjord.org/chrse/xtcdeargod.mp3

Dear god, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image
See them starving on their feet
'Cause they don't get enough to eat from god
I can't believe in you

Dear god, sorry to disturb you, but...
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image
See them fighting in the street
'Cause they can't make opinions meet about god
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease
And the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind
After we made you?
And the devil too!
Dear god, don't know if you noticed, but...
Your name is on a lot of quotes in this book
And us crazy humans wrote it
You should take a look
And all the people that you made in your image
Still believing that junk is true
Well I know it ain't, and so do you
Dear god
I can't believe in
I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners, no devil as well
No pearly gates, no thorny crown
You're always letting us humans down
The wars you bring
The babes you drown
Those lost at sea and never found
And it's the same the whole world 'round
The hurt I see helps to compound
That Father, Son and Holy Ghost
Is just somebody's unholy hoax
And if you're up there you'd perceive
That my heart's here upon my sleeve
If there's one thing I don't believe in

It's you....

Dear god

LordDurock
04-08-2009, 08:36 PM
if we cant prove who is right or wrong and faith is crazy then then werre all crazy logicaly.

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 10:30 PM
:) we probably are.... but at least people that don't claim to hear voices in their heads (talking to god) may be less dangerously crazy. Normally, people that have voices in their heads, are locked up in institutions for the safety of themselves and society at large.

:)

... in a way, churches, mosques, synagogs etc, are institutions... so ... :lol:

LordDurock
04-08-2009, 10:35 PM
fair enough but few people accutly claim to hear the voice of god, the just see his actions...either way i just wanted to make the point that we can prove god, or disprove god so making g as agruments are pointless

Tuddi
04-08-2009, 10:59 PM
No, not many claim to hear the voice of god, but never the less a whole bunch of people claim to be speaking to god... others claim to see gods work (which could just as well be the work of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or Peter Pan or Tom and Jerry or the Road Runner... you see? One can come with whatever claim, and not having to provide any proof for the claims to be reasonable or true).

And the fact still remains: It is not possible to bring any physical proof of something that does not exist. Therefore it must be up to those who claim the non-existing entity to exist, to bring the proof of it's existence.

When there is proof on the table, the skeptics could start working on bringing proof to the contrary.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-09-2009, 12:40 AM
...not possible to bring any physical proof of something that does not exist....

Physically, something exists....and can be seen/experienced....but, is it an undiscovered phenomena (of our human physiology) via science, or is it another dimension of our existence, as religious sages suggest.

There is a basis for The Tibetan Book of the Dead.

I firmly believe Thich Quang Duc was a Buddhist monk (http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/vietnam/figure/003-htQuangduc.htm), and this event happened.


The Self-Immolation of Thich Quang Duc

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Burningmonk.jpg/300px-Burningmonk.jpg

The monk, seventy-three-year-old Thich Quang Duc, sat at a busy downtown intersection and had gasoline poured over him by two fellow monks. As a large crowd of Buddhists and reporters watched, he lit a match and, over the course of a few moments, burned to death while he remained seated in the lotus position.

LordDurock
04-09-2009, 03:42 AM
"Therefore it must be up to those who claim the non-existing entity to exist, to bring the proof of it's existence." this provides a biased basis.

since is just a crazy as god, and is limited to what it can prove at the time.
you forget in the old days they used to brain peoples blood, which leaces becuase "black bile" was causing the melodically......that crazy and fucked up. science has this limitation. that is prove or disprove what is sees at the time. DNA could not be proved that is exsited tell we had the ablity to see it. but there were thouse who saw it something had to link off spring to partents. as off spring had parents traits. you see the problem

the extream postion of saying something isnt true or isnt real becuase it cant be proved at the time is not rastonal becuase you may not have the evedince to prove )or disprove something at the time. the rastion aproch is lets gather more data/eveince extra......yea so God topic closed tell either on of use can bring forth something worth while to the table.

Tuddi
04-09-2009, 04:27 AM
:lol:

I take today's science more seriously than I do some grandma-tales from some goat-herders who supposedly lived some 2000 years ago.

No one was claiming DNA existing 100 years ago. It was discovered scientifically. Goat herders claimed there was a god, 1000 years ago... without providing any research results or scientific tests. It was all in their heads.... and we all know what kind of crazy stories people can come up with. Right? Like the story of Jewsus... hundreds of millions of people... probably over a billion people... believe those stories to be true. Which is nothing short of a miracle... because there was nothing written about this guy for 300 years after he supposedly was born. There were no records of anything to base the stories on. 300 years is a long time, where historical facts can get lost forever, if these are not written down... but people want and need a crutch to get through life... so they don't question the logic of anything. If someone points out the fallacies, their minds go into "standby" mode... where no information enters their heads.

300 years pass... but that's not a problem, because faith doesn't need to be built on logic or facts... actually anything BUT those ingredients. Can you tell us something about your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather? What his full name was, who his parents were, when he started school, where he was born, what his profession was, what he would say to people ... Anything? I mean... he should have been born around 300 years ago... and surely he has been a significant member of your family, or you wouldn't have been born :) ... so there must be some stories that go mouth to ear from generation to generation to generation etc. ?

No?

Well, but then we have Jewsus, and he just pops into history 300 years after he supposedly lived... and everyone embraces that as the truth. Disregarding history, logic and facts.

I love religion... it's one of my favorite things to toy around with :) So simple and ... well... simple. That goes for all religion by the way.

I also know that it can easily push buttons within people's minds... so I "should" leave it alone... but I am a rotten bastard that never does as one is "supposed to"... but I'm sure you know that already, and even though you and I may disagree on many issues, we can still be buddies and keep our peace... after all we both have found common ground in A-bodies :)

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-09-2009, 04:39 AM
I take today's science more seriously than I do some grandma-tales...No one was claiming DNA existing 100 years ago. It was discovered scientifically.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha

Tuddi
04-09-2009, 04:41 AM
Believe nothing.
Know everything.

Trausti

:)

LordDurock
04-09-2009, 06:13 AM
tuddi you miss the logic of my arguments what you need to know is there. start thinking about.science need to prove logicaly with out a dought that god does not exsist for god not to exsist. so far it has faild simple as that. the jurrys is still out on this on im a afriad start digging and start knowing and i will do the same. but me gut tells me it will always be this way

LordDurock
04-09-2009, 06:22 AM
fether more i make this argument. we both agree (more or less) that science is a way of knowing something. sniece can not be nature give light in to moral or ethical topics. science tells us what is. what aught to be is a merely a fact of belief and restion.

Tuddi
04-09-2009, 06:31 AM
what you need to know is there

Exactly. There is nothing there, yet people say there is... without being able to produce any evidence at all.

"Hey, god is everywhere!" (they say)... and I ask: "Where? Show it to me!" ... and they can't.

It is quite simple: One can not show something that doesn't exist.

Some people say that god is almighty and all loving and all caring... 6000 kids die of hunger every day... doesn't look as this imaginary god is interested in the well being of innocent children... Well... that's a bit harsh... I shouldn't point fingers at god for that... should I? After all it doesn't exist, and it's not fair to blame something on nothingness. Shit happens... people starve and die. No god involved.

The least one can ask for, when someone claims something, is proof... billions of people have asked for proof for thousands of years... and no proof has ever been provided. It's all in the heads of people. That's why it is so important for believers to brainwash their children with "god exists, god exists, god exists" etc... because children normally can't and won't question their elders... especially not when they are infants being fed with brainwash. So when they grow up, they have the belief system hard-coded in their mind, and can't question their beliefs, because those are an essential part of their being.

In my opinion, people that brainwash their kids with religion, are conducting child abuse. Of course it should be forbidden, but it's not... and the world continues to be breeding grounds for hatred based on religion, wars influenced by religion, morality murders based on religion etc. All in the name of some imaginary gods.

It's sad.

LordDurock
04-09-2009, 01:32 PM
ware you evdince he doesnt exsist. good evdince please.

LordDurock
04-09-2009, 01:48 PM
tuddi you argumt in the last it not a god exsites argument, but a agrumnt of the nature and chariter of god. to prove or disprove god nature ad chartiter god must exsitet.

dont waste time in this area, you need to prove that god exsitest or not, wither he is all knowing, powerfull, doesnt care, loves up, hates us. must be proven after you prove he/ she is here

LordDurock
04-09-2009, 01:50 PM
tuddi will dig up this 80's video title but " it all brain washing the only question is who gets to do it"

on the subject of ethics and moratly. god can be taken out of the picture as all you have to do is prove that what he claimed ot say is moral, though logic and restion

Tuddi
04-09-2009, 05:48 PM
ware you evdince he doesnt exsist. good evdince please.

Right there... between your eyes and the monitor!

You see it?

No god.

That's proof.

Now look behind you... no god.

Look under your bed... no god.

Maybe it's a very limited test, but when you go about your whole life, and see no god, and 6.5 billion other people do the same... then it's quite clear that there is nothing there.

I can show you a WHOLE LOT of nothing (as in "no god there") and that's living proof of there being no god.

If you... or anyone else who believes there is a god... want to show me your god, then all you have to do, is ... well... show it to me. It is said to be everywhere, so it shouldn't be that hard?

But there is no god here or there or anywhere.

I have shown you my evidence... now show me yours :)

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-09-2009, 06:18 PM
Eugenics ... pure racial crap




20-year-old Nikolas Evans died Sunday (http://www.momlogic.com/2009/04/mom_wants_dead_sons_sperm.php), as a result of a bar fight. His mom got a court order to extract his sperm, so she can have a grandchild through a surrogate mother. Is this okay?

LordDurock
04-09-2009, 06:20 PM
i've told you i cant prove god exsites.
but note all you have shown is that god does not exsite ware your looking. that is very far from showing that god is not real.

but using you ideas people claim to see god may do wicans, musiolms, ect. we can say that you may not be looking right. so by giveing that argumnt of seeing is giveing mixed data it can be conlumed that this test is not accutert. and a noughter test is need to give a clear result
tell such a test is used either side lacks good data to prove there stance making wiether god is real or not just a belife. becuase i can say ther the number of acounts claim that there is a god (not the nature or charter of god) that people are seeing god, they are just unclear on gods nature

and that is what im going to say on this topic

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-09-2009, 06:33 PM
I have shown you my evidence...

One must tread the path....to determine how one's "evidence" is lacking.



• Is Buddhism Scientific? (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm)

Science is knowledge which can be made into a system, which depends upon seeing and testing facts and stating general natural laws. The core of Buddhism fit into this definition, because the Four Noble truths (see below) can be tested and proven by anyone in fact the Buddha himself asked his followers to test the teaching rather than accept his word as true. Buddhism depends more on understanding than faith.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-12-2009, 03:07 AM
Eugenics ... pure racial crap was actually adapted


The practice of one human being or group of human beings better than others is quite old....and still goes on today.

Trivial here:

1848: 'An Experiment in Free Love' (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/the-history-of-the-world-without-the-boring-bits-464437.html)

The utopian Oneida Community was established in New York State. The community practised "complex marriage", in effect free love, and the women on average had "interviews" with three different partners every week. To avoid unwanted pregnancies and the "waste" of seed, the men aimed to avoid ejaculation during coitus, which could last for up to an hour. Pubescent boys trained to achieve this degree of control by engaging in intercourse with women who had just passed the menopause. Those who wished to bear children had to appear before a committee, which would determine their spiritual and moral fitness for breeding. All children were raised communally. The community's founder, John Humphrey Noyes, was obliged to flee to Canada in 1879 when he was warned that he was about to be charged with statutory rape. He wrote to advise his followers to abandon complex marriage, and within a year many community members had contracted conventional marriages.

Tuddi
04-12-2009, 03:53 AM
i've told you i cant prove god exsites..... and that is what im going to say on this topic

I guess that I'll have to wait for it to appear on CNN then.

It does however make me wonder why you believe in something that is invisible, has no track-record, has not been videographed, has not been photographed, has not been proven to exist etc.

I for one would never put blind faith into something I didn't have some evidence for. Of course you are granted the right to belive that Tom & Jerry are the sole creators of the universe(s)... and you should have that right, regardless of my stubborn mind.


Buddha himself asked his followers to test the teaching rather than accept his word as true. Buddhism depends more on understanding than faith.

My (limited) understanding of Buddhism is that it's a way of life, rather than a religion... but I may very well be wrong about that.

What I have read of Buddha's words, sounds wise... and not in any way or form like something to brainwash people. Mostly logic.


Those who wished to bear children had to appear before a committee, which would determine their spiritual and moral fitness for breeding.

Well... we are actually there... and have been for a long time.

A couple that wants to adopt children have to go through an insane process, to get to the point where they can actually apply for a child to adopt.

Funnily, one of the MAIN concerns of the "responsible" authorities, is that the couple has a large income, are married, are without drug and booze problems, are mentally stable, are in stable jobs etc.

If only these very same conditions were required to be in order from natural birth parents... we'd have no humans on the earth in 120 years from now.

One of my brothers and his wife have been trying to get a child adopted for several years, without success.... even though they fulfill every single requirement.

When people want to have children, it should be NO DAMN BUSINESS of any authorities or private companies. When a 3rd party get's involved, it's nothing short of human trafficking... which happens to be internationally forbidden.

As I have said before: The world is fucked.

... and it still holds true.

Tuddi
04-12-2009, 03:57 AM
On a side note: If any of you have time to watch a prime time propaganda, then you can see it here:

Part 1 (http://www.zshare.net/video/58250939f7cfcc09/)

Part 2 (http://www.zshare.net/video/58250990c2636bd9/)

This is one side of a religious lunacy. Just try to spot the opposite side, and report back. It's worth it.

LordDurock
04-12-2009, 05:27 AM
tubbi as i said you have to soikd proof either so you just a crazy as i am. and the the god topic put ot a tee. no proof of either claim.

85_Ciera_Rebuild
04-12-2009, 05:32 AM
The world is fucked.... and it still holds true.

Only about "0.5 per cent of the global male population."

1227
'The Extensive Progeny of Genghis Khan' (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/the-history-of-the-world-without-the-boring-bits-464437.html)

18 August – The death of Genghis Khan. His philosophy, as attributed to him, is summed up thus: the greatest joy a man can have is victory; to conquer one's enemy's armies, to pursue them, to deprive them of their possessions, to reduce their families to tears, to ride on their horses, and to make love to their wives and daughters. Research published in 2003 based on analysis of Y-chromosomes suggests that 8 per cent of men across a large area of Asia (about 0.5 per cent of the global male population) are descended from Genghis Khan.