Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
I've gotta tell ya, this thread is pretty funny. The very same people who *****ed and moaned 20+ years ago about the crappy service they got from the ATT (government established) monopoly are now claiming that a world with near limitless options on phone services, with prices that are WAY below what ATT charged (both real and nominally), has lead to what was it... "worse quality and higher prices."

I'm French, thank you and france Telecom was a very high-end company in the time of the State monopoly. Except for international communications (which were indeed horredously expansive), I have never experienced any problem with France Telecom.

As per Deutsche Telekom: I migrated twice to Germany. Once before the competition was open to the general public, and once after competition had been opened to the general public. I think I have an experience much more thorough than yours to compare the two eras.
And believe me, Deutsche Telekom has ran outrageously downhill in the short time between my two migrations

[Oncle Boris]

Quote:

I was kinda... mocking you...

Poorly.

Hmmmm... I was using the exact same sophism as you were... so let me guess: we are both poor mockers.

Wait, such a free market supporter must be rich?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Marx would roll over in his grave if France was considered a socialist country. And btw, Social Democracy isn't socialism.

So, do you Yanks constantly say it just so that Marx rolls over in his grave?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, do you Yanks constantly say it just so that Marx rolls over in his grave?

Spiffor, you know that I don't really think highly of most of my fellow countrymen's intelligence. As do you with the French citizenry .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Spiffor, you know that I don't really think highly of most of my fellow countrymen's intelligence.

So do I

As do you with the French citizenry .

Nah, you got me wrong, it is the Yanks' intelligence I don't think highly of

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Winston
In other words, pure speculation on your part. Which was to be expected.

Yes. It is pure speculation to presume that a coup that was blatantly and obviously favorable to American interests had nothing to do with any segment of the US government.

American diplomacy just sits there, waiting for followers to flock en masse.

I also guess the 400 billions military budget is maintained for defensive goals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nah, you got me wrong, it is the Yanks' intelligence I don't think highly of

I actually think that Yanks' intelligence on average is greater than French intelligence .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I actually think that Yanks' intelligence on average is greater than French intelligence

If 'inteligent' Yanks like you think THAT, it sure shows how low your country has fallen

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Classified reports say so... that's hilarious.

Why do you think they are classified? Probably because they revealed a detailed plan about a program to fund elementary schools construction?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... Spiffor... I actually spelled it correctly .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do you think they are classified?

Because they may contain intelligence about the country that are not for public consumption? You know the CIA does gather intelligence which is considered classified information. Mainly to protect sources.

Really, everything is a conspiracy to you .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... Spiffor... I actually spelled it correctly .

Gah, I just knew you'd have me on that. Consider yourself a winner this time, I going to bed

[JohnT]

What other national telecom companies are there in Germany/France?

[Winston]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yes. It is pure speculation to presume that a coup that was blatantly and obviously favorable to American interests had nothing to do with any segment of the US government.

American diplomacy just sits there, waiting for followers to flock en masse.

I also guess the 400 billions military budget is maintained for defensive goals.

You're missing the point entirely. It's utterly ridiculous to make a claim and then, when asked to back it up, refer to reports that will remain classified for 50 years.

As for your numerous assumptions about the evil intentions of the US administration, US diplomacy, US military and the entire free world in general, they are just that, assumptions. They're quite entertaining to a certain point but also a bit sad when you think about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I just knew you'd have me on that. Consider yourself a winner this time, I going to bed

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Winston


You're missing the point entirely. It's utterly ridiculous to make a claim and then, when asked to back it up, refer to reports that will remain classified for 50 years.

As for your numerous assumptions about the evil intentions of the US administration, US diplomacy, US military and the entire free world in general, they are just that, assumptions. They're quite entertaining to a certain point but also a bit sad when you think about it.

Well I think that was me making that 'claim' as you state. No, what exactly is wrong with passing on what numerous journalists, the entire Venezuelan regime, and even a US. congressman are suspicious of?

Now I suspect you to say that they are all liars, paranoid and so on. However I have not heard one single person DISPROVE that the US was involved in the coup. Instead you Wintton, and many others try to defame people.

I know that tactic, and you have probably learned it form the Danish People's party whom you are probably an avid supporter of. It would fit with your agenda to support a republican pro-zionist, semi-racist, anti-european fundamentalist Christian American administration.

Well if you do support that Party then you are a traitor. You can take me to court over that, but as you know it is legal to call supporters of that Party traitors.

But here is chance to publicly state that you are in fact not the traitor I suspect you to be.

[Oerdin]

I don't know whither to laugh or cry so I will do both.

[Oncle Boris]

Oh, and Imran,

You seem to base all of your reasoning on the principle that man is always free. Seriously, I used to think that.

It was Rousseau's works that helped me, and then Marx, and then Hobbes.

Basically, a human is an animal that needs food, sleep and shelter. Democratic states also requires them to have a solid education if they are to work.

If he is to be free, a man has to be sure that he'll get medications, shelter and food, whatever it is that he does. If not, he will be in a vulnerable, surviving state in which he will accept about anything for basic commodities (just think of prostitution). Starvation has been known to be stronger than the tip of a gun in many instances throughout history.

A man in surviving state is a blessing for an employer. This is the kind of workforce everyone dreams to have. They can only submit to their condition. No one would be working in a sweatshop unless forced to. Either by the SS or by famine. Or both, as seen in Auschwitz.

Do the following experiment: put 1000 persons in different cells. Each day, the only way they can get some food is if they agree to drink a bowl of piss. How many of them will starve rather than drink the bowl? Not much.

Now, you see where I am heading: SD is the counterpart of Corporation power. It is the insurance to every member of a society that the necessities of life will never force them to submit their freedom to an enterprise.

Therefore, SD is any corporation's worst enemy. And this is the agenda of every large company in the world: reduce SD to its minimum. They will only stop when they reach Anarcho-Capitalism, a point where we will live in a "Corporocracy".

[of course, the anarcho-capitalism described here is a false one. true anarchy can only start from the point where no one hasn't got anything. As Rousseau said, the powerful ones of this world used the Social Contract to legitimate the property they had acquired through war. When they don't need that social contract anymore, they will break it].

Logics tells us that SD is bad for Corporate profit.
History shows us that it is driven by an unending quest for power (i.e. money).
Therefore, we can expect Corporations to do everything against SD.

I believe Marx is right when he says that capitalism will destroy itself. Corporocracies will mark the end of Capitalism as we know it and bring another era. Of course, Marx tought that it would be the plebes who were going to do that; I don't.

[Winston]

I don't have to account for my party affiliations to you Tripledoc.

And I think you'll be well advised to adjust your hysterical tone down a notch or two.

[JohnT]

You can take me to court over that, but as you know it is legal to call supporters of that Party traitors.

Uh, just what does this mean? Are there people you can't call traitors?

[JohnT]

However I have not heard one single person DISPROVE that the US was involved in the coup.

Is it possible to prove a negative?

[Mazarin]

Originally posted by JohnT
What other national telecom companies are there in Germany/France?

For Germany:
There is very high competition in the mobile phone sector that hasn't had a monopoly from the beginning, Deutsche Telekom used to be number two for quite a while behind Mannesmann who have also been their strongest competitor on the normal market. After Vodafone's hostile takeover of Mannesmann, Deutsche Telekom has taken the lead in the mobile sector.

(what's the English expression for all the "normal" phone services?)...anyway, there is no single competitor that would even come close to DeutscheTelekom's customer numbers, that's why they need to be regulated today. Several hundreds of smaller companies
have been founded to compete (e.g. MobilCom/Teldafax) here and have gained a part of the market. We'll now need to wait for a consolidation process and see which of these companies will be able to compete with DT in the longer term.

I don't share Spiffor's opinion, btw: prices for inter-city calls fell dramatically after the market was opened - on the low side: there is less money to invest in the infrastructure...it's still very good compared to most other countries', but we'll have to see whether this quality will remain over the years/decades.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

However I have not heard one single person DISPROVE that the US was involved in the coup.

Is it possible to prove a negative?

Yes. it is called falsification. It is the basis of all modern science.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

You can take me to court over that, but as you know it is legal to call supporters of that Party traitors.

Uh, just what does this mean? Are there people you can't call traitors?

Well, apparently that Party thought so. They take evryone to court who say a peep.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You seem to base all of your reasoning on the principle that man is always free.

And when did I say that? Man has free will, but does have constraints put upon him and always has.

Therefore, SD is any corporation's worst enemy. And this is the agenda of every large company in the world: reduce SD to its minimum.

Bull. Most lefties have no idea at the thought of corporations and you are counted among them. Corporations WANT people to have more money. After all, who would buy the products? It is the height of ignorance to state that corporations want everyone in poverty so they can all submit to the corporation's conditions. Without people buying goods, the owners of the corporation become just as poor as everyone else.

Corporations usually do not mind SD, if they get some of the benefits. They love being the favored company and SD governments like to give monopoly power to their favorites. They also like the fact that the poor get enough money to eat, shelter, and some left over, so they can spend their cash on the company's products.

To say that corporations want everyone impoverished is an utterly silly prouncement and too much made by the left.

Logics tells us that SD is bad for Corporate profit.

You must be using a different logic than I. Corporate profit is highest when people have the money to buy goods. They don't benefit from crushing poverty. Therefore SD is preferable to a system where people cannot buy goods.

Why do you think Ford paid his workers so well? Part of it may have been moral, but mostly it was so they could purchase the cars they made.

I believe Marx is right when he says that capitalism will destroy itself.

Yes, yes... since Marx wrote capitalism has only grown in power and importance and brought the world many riches and has NOT lead to the crushing of the working class.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Winston


You're missing the point entirely. It's utterly ridiculous to make a claim and then, when asked to back it up, refer to reports that will remain classified for 50 years.

As for your numerous assumptions about the evil intentions of the US administration, US diplomacy, US military and the entire free world in general, they are just that, assumptions. They're quite entertaining to a certain point but also a bit sad when you think about it.

The fact is, you have not brought any proof of the US good intents neither. These are pure assumptions.

There is a major difference between yours and mine, however.
1. History teaches us that all societies were cemented around certain values. The population of said societies always thought their values to be the "true" ones. China in the 19th century believed England to be a barbaric and uncivilized nation. So did England. Rome called any tribe not submitted to their rule "barbarian". In the 20th century, US legislation used such terms as "inferior races" or "uncivilized races" to describe Black or Chinese.
Fundamental Muslims are cemented around Allah, and believe anyone who doesn't do so will rot in Hell.
All of this seems so obviously archaic right now that it's ridiculous.

Today, the US is cemented around "free market". In a few hundred years, historians will be laughing off their ass about this funny and inventive term, in the same way we can only laugh at pseudo-Democrat Georges Washington who owned slaves, or Muslims who think they'll get 72 chicks if they blow themselves up.
Revolution is when the basic value of a society is replaced by another one, whether by force (most of the time) or peacefully (mainly in the 20th century).

2. Now, if you look at the US today, nothing detracts from this pattern. Sure, we don't get access to all documents. That's because some very powerful people have absolutely no interest in you doing so.

Still, some people like independant journalists manage to gather some evidence from time to time. So far, none of this gathered evidence has lead anyone to think that the US has followed another path, and that it has been any more altruistic in its foreign policies than anyone throughout history.

US will end up in the junk, just like Pharonic Egypt, Assyria, Ottoman Empire, Mongol Empire, Moghol Empire, Austria-Hungary and USSR did. We just don't know when.

Now, are there many instances of people hiding information beneficial to their reputation? Not much. That's why you'll see much more of Saddam's trial than dismembered Iraqi children. That's why I give myself the right to extrapolate that 99.9999% of classified information is detrimental to the US.

I'm not a zealot. I'm just examining the situation and using some of my brains (the other part for beer and weed).

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

However I have not heard one single person DISPROVE that the US was involved in the coup.

Is it possible to prove a negative?

I think aliens were involved in the coup. Prove me wrong.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

I'm not a zealot.

I'm afraid you'll have to use even more of your brain for "examining the situation" if you want that statement to sound convincing.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I think aliens were involved in the coup. Prove me wrong.

Can you be specific as to which race of aliens you are talking about?

No, first you build up the case by gathering evidence. Then each individual piece of evidence is weighed and put to the test. If one part is falsifiable, then that piece is discarded. If enough pieces, or a single central piece, are discarded, then one has to ask if there is not another theory which will better explai the occurance.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Winston


I'm afraid you'll have to use even more of your brain for "examining the situation" if you want that statement to sound convincing.

All right. What's wrong with what I said? Prove me wrong.

Ok, I may sound like I'm being mocking you but I'm not. If you prove me wrong, that'll mean I was being pessimistic for no reason. And trust me, pessimism is not a nice feeling. I envy so much those who are naive (not that I'm claiming you are, just using this as a general statement).