President Bush Jr's Scorecard

[Grrr]

I totally agree with Sava. The capitolistic system is quite simply flawed from top to bottom ... those with money have power, and those with money make more money. More money = more power. That is one hell of a nasty cycle.

I think that America is acting as though they are all high and mighty, and feel as though it is not their fault the world is going to ruin. What a load of ****. The Corperations of America are amoung the worst polluters in the world. But they have the money and the power to shut the people up. Put a bit of propoganda into the rounds on how cleanliness in inefficient, and the people will stand by you.

As Sava says a hell of a lot of jobs could be created by going clean. It would also set a hell of an example.

The American economy is kept running by distrust and deciept. How do you create jobs? Create a war! How do you create jobs ... make people sick increase inefficiency with illness. How do you create money ... use interest to take money off the poor to give to the rich.

It is a nasty viscious cycle. America could do better for itself than by shitting in it's own nest!

[Grrr]

Capitolism = Interest taking money off the poor and distributing it to the rich.

Socialism = Taxes taking money off the rich and distributing it to the poor.

So which do you think is better?

[Shi Huangdi]

Before people get too worried, I think you will find the actions the Bush administration has taken pale compare to restrictions of civil liberties in past wars. Presently, people are allowed to whine about the war on terrorism all they want. If you were to whine about the civil war back in the day you'd be locked up as a copperhead. Also to date, most of the actions that have been taken have only affected terrorism suspects and not political opponents.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Grrr
Capitolism = Interest taking money off the poor and distributing it to the rich.

Socialism = Taxes taking money off the rich and distributing it to the poor.

So which do you think is better?

Capitalism = Using money to create more jobs and helping the economy so society as a whole improves. To help provide one of the highest standards of living possible for the most people.

Socialism = Taking money out of the system, cutting back on jobs, and teaching people to depend on hand outs to survive instead of teaching them how to help themselves...

So which do you think is better

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Again with the attack against industry. Look at the consumer if you want meaningful pollution reduduction. OTOH, you want to drive industry away, thats your choice. Check out EPA stats and you'll see the contribution to pollution by sector. Fig 8-3 36% is industry of all flavors contriuting to greenhouse gasses. Fully 49% is contributed to by the public at large in the form of residential use and transportation. 15% remains as pollution caused via commercial enterprises.

Target the evil corps at all costs Sava, b/c afterall they're the ones who actually provide any meaningful employment (and no not low paying jobs). Clinton was absolutely wrong in signing the Kyoto accord. He overstepped his bounds without Senate ratification. He willingly signed up for something he knew he could blame onthe next guy when the consequences came due.

If it were Gore, we would have lived by the accord most likely and thank God we didn't have to. For the first time ever the Joe public would have been asked to bear the consequences of enviro regulation (of which Joe public is the largest polluters). But what I can guarantee is that the public outcry would have been "Why should I as a single entity have to do xyz to deal with pollution. Its the big industry thats to blame. Shut them down if need be." And guess what you shut down all industry and you still haven't made a dent.

So... now you've got a polluted planet and a bunch of out of work folk.

Target the right areas PLEASE and get off industry's case. Consumers continue to be the largest single cause of pollution.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
The problem is that Bush is turning America into Texas, the anus of America (in terms of pollution ). While Bush was in office in Texas, the state became the worst polluter. Now, Bush is easing restrictions on automakers to improve effiency. He's loosening restrictions on polluting energy industries and loggin industries. You know what, I would favor killing jobs in order to get rid of polluting industries. And the nature of capitalism will help my cause because the demand for clean energy will produce jobs.

Being against the Kyoto protocol and other enviro bills isn't about jobs, its about letting wealthy, polluting companies continue to rape the earth without accountability.

Why of course! Bush is all for increasing corporate profits so that the greedy, polluting despoilers of mother earth can hire more workers and increase their stock prices. This is craven, and must be stopped. It would be disaster for America that jobs and stock prices expand at the expense of people like Sava, who have no need of employment and only wish to shut corporate America down to return America to that idealized pre-industrial age that uncomfortably supported upwards of twenty million people on this continent. Any thought of a balance between nature and economy must be pushed forcefully asided. Extremism in the defense of mother earth is no vice!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Capitalism = USA
Socialism = USSR

Which do you think is better .

And no, France and Sweden aren't Socialist states. States were the economy is still market based cannot be characterized as socialist.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Capitalism = USA
Socialism = USSR

Which do you think is better .

And no, France and Sweden aren't Socialist states. States were the economy is still market based cannot be characterized as socialist.

USSR

[Ned]

Grrr, I can see it all now. Your idealized woman is the rotund peasant commune worker, dressed in drab grey with no adorments whatsoever. No makup. No perfume. No manners.

Such a woman is fit to bear numbers of strong communist youth even while she herself pulls the plow and pitches hay so that her menfolk can join the glorious red army to intimidate the capitalist, pig countries of the world.

Ah, the "beauties" of communisim.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Sava


I also don't understand why people think its a bad thing to pay like 60 percent taxes. Most people now can't afford health care, education, and housing. THAT MEANS THAT MORE THAN 100% OF THEIR INCOME IS NEEDED TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS. People look at taxes as being bad, but if say 60% of your income is going towards health care, education, public transportation, etc... YOU HAVE 40 PERCENT TO SPEND ON WHATEVER YOU WANT. How many people (aside from the richest 1%) can say they can spend 40 percent of their income on consumer goods/luxuries, or save it? Hmmm?

I'm hardly a right-wing capitalist, but I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out how awful this math is, not to mention the logic. First off, I'm not sure where you get the idea that MOST people cannot afford these things, assuming you are talking about the US. If you can find some stats that show that over 50% of the US population cannot afford to have health care, housing and an education, please let the rest of us know.

Second, if people can't currently afford this, it certainly does not mean that they need more than 100% of their income (although, granted, some do). How many people get to spend 100% of what they nominally make? I know I pay taxes, and that greatly cuts into my spending cash. I also seem to remember that part of those taxes I pay does cover education, since neither I nor my parents had to pay out of pocket for grades 1-12, and my undergraduate degree was greatly subsidized.

Finally, if you could show a way that the government could collect enough money by taxing everyone at 60% to pay for everyone's health care, education, transportation and especially housing, you must be using some fantastic math or assuming we should all be living in cardboard shacks, never travelling more than a few blocks and barely literate.

[Ned]

Kontiki, If Sava would have his way, money would grow on trees and goods and services would be produced by anonomous corporate machines that required no human labor, consumed no resources and produced no waste.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Apolyton has a wide range of smilies avaible and are routinely inserted into posts in order to alter the tone of the message.

I was just making sure. Smilies can mean a lot of things, and yours were pretty difficult to interpret. Sava, meanwhile, has clearly not read a damn thing I've said.

[Ming]

Both systems have their faults... I'll be the first to admit that Capitalism could use a few tweaks...

On the other hand, I can only laugh at "some" people who are so blind that they can only see the faults of one system while ignoring its benefits , and not see the faults of the system they would like to put in it's place.

A more well rounded education of economic theory and world history would be quite helpful for some.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Sava
Yeah, the classic... "only the lazy are poor" excuse... its old, and proven to be wrong... NEXT!

I never said that. If you wanted to sum up what I said, you could say "Only the people who can't function in a free market are poor." Not being able to function in a free market means that you don't provide anything that anybody is willing to pay for. If your labor, or skills, or talent, or products are not worth enough to somebody for them to keep you alive, you will not function in a market economy. Otherwise, you'll be fine.

[Lars-E]

14. Unwilling to let American war criminals be tried for an international court just like us mere mortals (non-Americans).

Did I skim too fast thru this thread or is this not important enuff????

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Ned
Grrr, I can see it all now. Your idealized woman is the rotund peasant commune worker, dressed in drab grey with no adorments whatsoever. No makup. No perfume. No manners.

Of course not. Note the smilie at the bottom of my post. But then again ... the other extreme:

uke:

The idealised woman ... dumb, dressed with no real style, overadorned with to much makeup to hide here true self. No interesting life.

I'd rather go out with a fat interesting peasant to be honest.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Lars-E
14. Unwilling to let American war criminals be tried for an international court just like us mere mortals (non-Americans).

Did I skim too fast thru this thread or is this not important enuff????

Not important enuff

[Ming]

Originally posted by Grrr
I'd rather go out with a fat interesting peasant to be honest.

I'd rather go out with the interesting babe

It's funny how you "ASSUME" that Americas entry into the miss world contest has no life... isn't interesting... hides her true self... yet you don't even know her. You are making your assumptions based solely on a picture. How shallow can you get I'm sure if she saw a picture of you, she would probably not think so bad of you based just on a picture

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's commies for you... super shallow .

[Felch]

That picture really does look bad. I hope she doesn't look as photoshopped in real life, otherwise I know a rack of girls that would be better candidates, just in my hometown and college.

[Odin]

The argument that you will not be poor if you work hard is BS. My parents have worked hard all thier lives but we still live from paycheck to paycheck, classic working class. To become rich you need to be born to a rich family, or be lucky. (Lottery, Pro sports, Acting, Music,etc.) Also, You are limited (generally) by your education and most poor people don't have the money to go to college (Community colleges and tech schools don't count, I feel, as real secondary education)

[Imran Siddiqui]

To become rich you need to be born to a rich family, or be lucky.

Bullshit! My dad came over from Pakistan with hardly anything. He had to go to the University of Wyoming to get accredited in the US in engineering and my parents, when me and my bro were kids were so poor they didn't even own a dining table (we ate on the breakfast bar in the kitchen).

NOW, he's Head of Engineering at the Country Utilities Authority and makes close to $100,000.

My g/f's parents were poor when they were married. They had little money. Now her dad is head of Merck's Credit Union and makes good money.

So don't tell me you can't make it good with hard work. I've witnessed it!!

Also, You are limited (generally) by your education and most poor people don't have the money to go to college (Community colleges and tech schools don't count, I feel, as real secondary education)

Again, bullshit! There are plenty of loans. One of my good friends in college had to go to community college and then transfered into Rutgers. Graduated with finance and now works at Accenture making a pretty good salary (around $50,000 per annum).

[Drake Tungsten]

The argument that you will not be poor if you work hard is BS. My parents have worked hard all thier lives but we still live from paycheck to paycheck, classic working class. To become rich you need to be born to a rich family, or be lucky. (Lottery, Pro sports, Acting, Music,etc.)

My parents grew up poor in rural Nebraska and managed to make it into the upper-middle class tax bracket through hard work. My dad started out working in packing houses (about the worst job you can get) and is now a successful small business owner. My mom grew up on a tiny farm in western Nebraska and is doing quite well for herself as a public school teacher. So, obviously, your argument is BS. If you work hard, you won't be poor.

Of course, my anecdotes don't really prove anything, but they carry just as much weight as your's do. Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to back up your point?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Odin
To become rich you need to be born to a rich family, or be lucky. (Lottery, Pro sports, Acting, Music,etc.)

Tell that to all the people that come to this country with no money in their pockets, don't even speak english, and succeed wonderfully... And tell that to the kids from the poor part of town that work hard, stay out of the gangs, go to college on scholarships and make a successful life for themselves...

Sure, it is hard... but it is done all the time... by people who started off as worse as your parents did.

They just made different choices in their lives... and obviously... better choices. They understood the system, and used it, instead of letting the system use them.

My father's dad died when he was seven. He had to start working when he was really young to help support his family. You can't get much poorer than he was.

He joined the Navy so that he could get a college scholarship, got his degree... and then went into business. He retired before age 50 a very wealthy man. There wasn't a bit of LUCK involved!

[Drake Tungsten]

I see I'm not the only one breaking out the anecdotes...

[Ned]

I believe Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton all were born into poor or modestly poor circumstances. Yet they all succeeded, to say the least.

There is no aristocracy in the United States in the sense that you suggest there is, Odin. Anyone with enough talent and brains can become a billionaire or president of the United States, or marry the prettiest girl on the block. And those that are born rich can lose it all through bad luck, but more often due to stupidity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Drake, Ming:

The American Dream still lives, eh?

Ned: Nixon, especially, was dirt poor. Clinton wasn't much better off. Carter wasn't rich by any measure.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The American Dream still lives, eh?

Yes... the American Dream isn't just "dream", it's a reality for those who are willing to work and willing to understand the system. I do feel for those that have to work hard all their lives and get very little back in return.

But I also think they didn't live up to their potential. My favorite example is a this guy in our high school graduation class. He came from a poor family and was voted most likely to fail in life, or end of in jail... I don't remember which. He was never the smartest guy in the world, and never went on to college.

He went into the landscaping business.. and is now probably in the top one percent of US in terms of wealth... He was never "smart"... but he sure understood the system.

[Odin]

Ming: those are the exceptions, not the rule.

Imran: Your friend then left comunity college and went to rutgers, so that is irrelavent. Community colleges and tech schools are only 2-year as far as I know, and an associates degree is only slightly better than high school.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ming: those are the exceptions, not the rule.

We have three people on our side. You have one. So who's the exception here?