Re: Bush proves he is a wanker once again:

Part Deux.

In article <lAEVe.7615$Kk3.5488@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Dustbin <dustbin_address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> mark_sobolewski@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[part I clipped out]
> > Hmmm, a system that produces wealth appears to me to be
> > more solid and less likely to die off than a system that
> > relies upon the "fair redistribution" of other people's
> > money.
> You are assuming who's money it is. Maybe some
> of us think that it is the worker's money in the
> first place and the capitalist should not have
> taken what was not theirs to take.

Dustbin, why do I hear the acoustics of a beer hall? :-)

Unless the capitalist is engaging in illegal activity of
some kind or even highly immoral conduct, it is
"their" money.

You keep arguing that you're not an extremist commie but
this is straight out of Bolshevik literature. Do you
think the proletariats should have their families rounded
up and shot in the basement?

> >>Capitalism simply makes money faster by
> >>exploiting and abusing people.
> >
> >
> > You missed the point: Capitalism makes money,
> > period, while socialism does not. That's why
> > socialism requires taxation to raise funds.
> So does capitalism. Or do you think that all
> taxes are about redistribution?

What "taxes" is capitalism collecting? Do you
know what taxes are?

> >>If the
> >>capitalists were subjected to restraints against
> >>their anti-social behaviour - as the working
> >>class are restrained from their anti-social
> >>behaviour - then capitalists would not be nearly
> >>so profitable.
> >
> >
> > You still don't get it:
> >
> > To the left, "working" class people _are_ capitalists.
> > It's people who _don't_ work who are the primary
> > beneficiaries of socialism.
> Not at all. You are again making assumptions
> about the system. For me socialism is about
> justice; and that is primarily justice for the
> workers. You are assuming thaty it is about
> supporting none workers. That is not the case.
> But it does lead to one problem.
>
> My problem with a civilsed way of organising
> society is that a better life leads to people
> making babies and thus population increase. Buty
> population increase cannot help but lead to
> unemployment (more people than jobs). But
> enforced birth control is both repugnant to most
> of us in the west and is difficult to enforce.
> And now it has been tried a couple of times, has
> failed miserably. Only self-chosen birth control
> is any good but that cannot be guranteed. But
> there it is. I still have not found really
> satisfactory solution to this problem.

You may not know a solution, but population experts
agree that westernized countries largely have a
stable population outside of events such as immigration
or feminism (which counter each other nicely in
the states.)

The problem isn't simple population control one way
or the other.

> >>>>>>The rest of the money was spent keeping the
> >>>>>>dirty unwashed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>criminal element "content" on gummint freebies so they'd vote Democrat
> >>>>>>>on Election Day.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Well, somebody's got vote for them socialistic
> >>>>>>types or you wouldn't have a democracy at all
> >>>>>>would you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Hint: democracy existed long before socialism.
> >>>>
> >>>>That is very questionable. Humans lived in
> >>>>socialistic ways way back in the hunter gatherer
> >>>>days - they had to. Democracy is only about
> >>>>2,500 years old. And we will return to it shortly.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Indeed! Are you talking then about the judeo-christianity
> >>>traditions that established the concepts of charity, chivalry,
> >>>and other western social mores?
> >>
> >>I would be careful about making any bold claims
> >>for the civility of the judeo-christian
> >>tradition. One look at the barbaric bahaviour of
> >>the capitlaists should be enough to bring into
> >>question the social mores of the West.
> >
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> > So if you think that life would be so much more enlightened
> > if you moved to Saudi Arabia or Central America, feel
> > free to try it out. :-)
> No! That their are barbarians worse than our own
> barbarians does diminish the barbarity of our
> own barbarians.

Let's discuss barbarianism:

Union of Soviet SOCIALISTIC Republic: 80 million dead
China: About the same by some estimates, maybe less
Cambodia: 10 million or so.
Nazional Socialistish: 6 to 12 million (note Adolf's the
baddie of history because western socialists don't like to
talk about the other monsters because they weren't "national"
socialists.)

For some reason, it's difficult for you to make capitalists
look bad because they generate (ok, "steal" wealth) and
don't share it fast enough.

> > Oh, and I should have called you on your claim that primitive
> > hunter gather societies were "socialist". This is because
> > "capitalism" as we think of it requires such things as
> > a monetary system and a system of contracts to protect
> > investments.
> I might suggest that it was because they very
> genuinely depended upon each other to survive.

If that sounds like a way of living to emulate, you're free
to go with some other tree huggers and live off the land
with honey and berrys rather than live in this evil capitalistic
world with computers and electricity.

(You know, electricity invented by those evil capitalists
such as Tesla or Edison. Oh, they stole that too!)

> > Once again, if you want to live at the
> > standard of living as a hunter-gatherer, you don't
> > have to look far in many third world nations. Is this
> > something modern western nations should emulate?
> They soon will - when the resources run out.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

This has been predicted repeatedly since the 1960's
(back when they said the world was freezing :-)

> >>>The difference between J.C. social mores and modern
> >>>leftist socialist ideology is that J.C. social mores WORKS.
> >>
> >>As I said: I would be careful...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>The remaining 5% of the city is the hard workers who built small
> >>>>>>>businesses that catered to the tourist trade which was New Orleans
> >>>>>>>only real productive business and the dirty unwashed have finished off
> >>>>>>>what the flood water didn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>How did a city develop where there ther is
> >>>>>>little or no trade. From London to Samakand it
> >>>>>>is trade that has (usually) built cities around
> >>>>>>the world.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It is always the same; the buck has to be truned
> >>>>>>>>now; we have to look after the economy; and
> >>>>>>>>looking after the economy (stupid) always means
> >>>>>>>>the rich making a profit - not financing massive
> >>>>>>>>engineering projects such as reinforcing the levees.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>You don't know what you are talking about. This issue is over your
> >>>>>>>head but your bleeding heart liberalism is noted. It is just that
> >>>>>>>sort of Democrat Socialist policy that kept the dirty unwashed so
> >>>>>>>dirty and unwashed for so many years to the point that even
> >>>>>>>individuals were unable to think for themselves.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That is what governments like: people who can't
> >>>>>>think. And boy have the amerikan government got
> >>>>>>it made.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You're a fine evidence of exactly that.
> >>>>
> >>>>Rasberry.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>All they could do
> >>>>>>>was wait for the next truck load of gummint cheese to arrive and now
> >>>>>>>that it isn't coming fast enough they are completely lost like little
> >>>>>>>children.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>If they had cars they could have driven out of
> >>>>>>the area like the rich did. And does all this
> >>>>>>apply to the disabled who could not move; and
> >>>>>>the hospitalised who could not move?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>People had years in which to move but decided to take a chance.
> >>>>
> >>>>That is an interesting point. What would have
> >>>>happend if a very large proportion of the
> >>>>population had got up and left - justy moved to
> >>>>another town? I must confess it is not obvious
> >>>>what the system would have done about it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Note that it's a failure of the "socialist" democratic
> >>>N.O. mayor to use school buses to get these people out
> >>>of dodge and to ask for such resources from neighboring, safe
> >>>cities. He was too busy divvying up the tax money
> >>>with his fellow "socialist" cronies.
> >>
> >>One of teh interesting things that arises out of
> >>your suggestion that all these sopcialists have
> >>been looking after themselves and each other is
> >>your apparent inability to understand that once
> >>they gain power they strt to behave like
> >>capitalists - even if they are hiding behind
> >>socialist credentials.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, they're "behaving" like capitalists by investing
> > their money into creating jobs and economic opportunities
> > for their cities. Oh, wait, they didn't do that either!
> NO! When they gain power they start to be
> GREEDY. The haves love capitalism the have nots
> like socialism - a much more accurate way of
> putting it.

Gee, this must explain all these wealthy leftists such
as Spielburg and Soren.

Actually, in the states, "capitalists" are people who
generally have a H.S. degree or Bachelors and you know,
"steal" money by doing things such as plumbing, driving
taxis, building homes, etc. while it's the special
interest poor who rely upon handouts who vote leftist
OR the extremely well educated who face getting fired
if they dare to express their opinion openly in
front of the faculty.

> >>i could write at some length about the failings
> >>in teh run up to Katrina striking the gulf
> >>coast; all I would say is that there appear to
> >>have been glaring errors at City; State and
> >>Federal levels.
> >
> >
> > The investigation of FEMA, at the federal level, is starting
> > to show that they're actually doing an outstanding job:
> > response in about 3 days despite a collapse of infrastructure
> > support. The issue is that many people are under the
> > assumption that FEMA in the states is supposed to manage
> > ALL major disasters (even local) and this isn't necessarily
> > the case.
> WHAT! The establishment investigating the
> establishment. Yeah! And Oswald was the lone
> gunman - did you hear that!

I think the last 911 report was actually very illuminating
even if they did wuss out in their conclusions.

That said, what makes you think that the same monster
you distrust should be given absolute authority over
your life for the common good? You still haven't answered
that very well.

> > Nope: The main problem is with the mayor and governor both
> > of whom are pointing fingers at what they consider to
> > be an easy target. Hopefully, they'll be hung out to dry
> > in the next election cycle.
> It appears to me, though from a distance; that
> every level of social administration must bear
> some of the blame for this. I think that bush is
> top of the pile because the enrmity of the
> devstation demanded substantial action from the
> top - the only place from which the required
> scale of action could come.

Yeah, GW had to give the signal before those school busses
parked and managed by N.O. could be deployed.

In the states, we have something known as states rights.
(You may be familiar with these in the form of your
country, formally known as the UK, about to be absorbed
by Brussells.)

It's not GW's fault that the mayor of N.O. is an ineffectual
whiner. 3 days it took for FEMA to get stuff there.
Not the best result but faster than previous cases.

> Who else could order large numbers of troops
> into Texas in readiness together with medical
> supplies; food packs; transport etc. If I
> understand american social administration
> correctly the City mayor cannot do this; even
> the State governor cannot do this - the
> President can give these oprders and require
> they be obeyed.

Wrongo!

The governor commands the national guard and also county
forces which she is free to deploy (and no, not all
of them were in Iraq).

Remember 911? Guiliani, who was criticized by the left
for his police heavy handedness in cleaning up NYC,
kept things under control amazingly well. People had to
walk out of the city, but despite having his control center
literally under the twin towers, he had a backup center
up and running almost immediately.

> >>>>>>>>And would reinforcing the levees have saved this
> >>>>>>>>situation? The largest levees would not stop
> >>>>>>>>water that is picked up by a hurricane a dumped
> >>>>>>>>the other side of the levee.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>IMPROVING and BUILDING BETTER levee's would indeed have helped. In
> >>>>>>>Holland they have a system of levee's that requires 3 levee's be put
> >>>>>>>in place, one after the other, lest one of them fails.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yeah! But that is socialist crap about looking
> >>>>>>after people isn't it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's actually about getting more land for the naughty capitalists
> >>>>>to exploit.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Dutch do a lot of land reclamation. Amerika
> >>>>already has a much lower population density so I
> >>>>am not sure the economics would work out the
> >>>>same as for a densely populated country like
> >>>>Holland. Holland is not as capitalist as
> >>>>americka. They actually do do socialist things.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ironically, the nutty green socialist environmentalists probably
> >>>would have fought such development because of some bug
> >>>or minor species maybe being harmed. After all, N.O.
> >>>is a reclaimed wetland to begin with.
> >>
> >>Such things simply have to be weighed. That
> >>greens would argue on behalf of the environment
> >>does not make the argument wrong; merely a part
> >>of the total input to the decision-making process.
> >
> >
> > I largely agree except that the environmentalists often have taken
> > things to an extreme in the states.
> Yes, I would agree. They sometime miss the ball
> altogether because they focus on fairly trivial
> issues. It is like the point made earlier that
> re-inforcing the levees would have been opposed
> by groups protecting some never before heard of
> species. Sometimes these people really miss the
> point.
>
> Noe of that chnages the fact that the
> environment is chnaging because of human
> behaviour and guess who it is won't face up to that.

The socialists who are welcoming new illegal immigrants
for future votes and pushing law abiding people out into
the suburbs to work 10 hour days to pay taxes?

Oh wait, that's not the answer you wanted.

> >>>>>>And do you think three levees each one hundred
> >>>>>>feet high and one hundred feet thick would have
> >>>>>>stopped this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Since the river will continue to rise relative to the
> >>>>>land, only temporarily.
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't understand your reference to the river
> >>>>rising. Is this a reference to the silt build up
> >>>>in the estuary and not dredging it? If so that
> >>>>is a threat from the landside not from a
> >>>>hurricane. Even in UK we have cost analysis
> >>>>problems: is it worth the capital investment to
> >>>>protect a certain town from flooding? This is
> >>>>especially so when the event might only occur
> >>>>very rarely.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Actually, I would agree with you there. Certain areas
> >>>are getting hit over and over again especially as more
> >>>people move in and it's questionable as to whether
> >>>it's practical for a large urban population.
> >>
> >>I thought someone had insisted that the
> >>meteorologists were saying that the average
> >>weather conditions are no worse than normal.
> >>
> >>Secondly, building below sea level when the sea
> >>is only a few hundred feet way might be
> >>questioned at any time. But isn't New Orleans
> >>one of US's oldest cities? They've been there a
> >>long time.
> >
> >
> > Agreed. Much of this is due to the nature (pardon
> > the pun) of the situation.
>
> A few weks ago we had a tornado; about three
> miles from me. It was nothing by comparison to
> Katrina; it cut a swathe about 500 YARDS wide
> and seven miles long through the city. But I am
> about 100 miles from sea and about 700 feet
> above sea level.
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>They've had
> >>>>>>>this system for 100's of years and its worked well although they do
> >>>>>>>not have hurricanes. That New Orleans knows they are subject to
> >>>>>>>hurricanes is all the reason more for them to have had some foresight
> >>>>>>>to reinforce, improve, and rebuild their levee's.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Certainly, given the regularity of
> >>>>>>hurricanes/tornadoes in that part of the world
> >>>>>>this was predictable. The economic problem is
> >>>>>>whether it is worth all the cost of much
> >>>>>>imp[roved defences verses the losses when
> >>>>>>disaster strikes. You might find that
> >>>>>>economically it is better to take the shit when
> >>>>>>it comes than to pay a massive price for highly
> >>>>>>engineered defences that then have to be
> >>>>>>maintaned at substantial cost year after year
> >>>>>>after year - when the vast majority of
> >>>>>>hurricanes/tornadoes will not strike just there.
> >>>>>>After all this is the first major disaster of
> >>>>>>this kind in 200 years; even though
> >>>>>>hurricanes/tornadoes career through the region
> >>>>>>several times per year.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>A major diaster such as this was 100% expected and
> >>>>>predicted.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes. But not when. That is apart of the problem.
> >>>>To pay ouyt for the strong defences is also to
> >>>>commit to the maintenance costs. If the defence
> >>>>is built just before it is needed that is fine;
> >>>>but the when cannot be predicted, therefore, the
> >>>>cost of maintenance is unknown and simple goes
> >>>>on and on and on.
> >>>>
> >>>>Also, the new build that had been proposed would
> >>>>not have handled this hurricane. I understand
> >>>>the new defences would have been sufficient to
> >>>>sustain a level 3 storm - not a level 5
> >>>>hurricane like this one. So, had the new build
> >>>>been done in recent years, it would still have
> >>>>had limited value.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>It is up to THEM to
> >>>>>>>do this as the levee's are in THEIR backyard protecting THEIR
> >>>>>>>families, homes, and goods. But the mayor whines today like you that
> >>>>>>>it is *everyone else's fault.*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I did not say it was everybody else's fault.
> >>>>>>Yeah - I could certrainly blame those ass'ole
> >>>>>>capitalists in the north filling the air with
> >>>>>>shit and chnaging the weather for some of it;
> >>>>>>but since the industrial revelution started just
> >>>>>>down the road from me; I would be a terrible
> >>>>>>hypocrite to make to much of that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Since hurricane experts claim that the hurricane
> >>>>>pattern is completely normal, don't let that stop you.
> >>>>
> >>>>Are they? Back here many pundits are pointing
> >>>>the finger of guilt at polution and global
> >>>>warming. One of the problems about this whole
> >>>>thing is that hurricanes through that part of
> >>>>the world are not so unsusual. It is simply that
> >>>>they usually don't hit major historical towns
> >>>>like NO.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Agreed. Have you read about the Russian scientists making
> >>>a bet that the average world temperature should _cool_
> >>>over the next decade?
> >>
> >>No. But I have been hearing a few things that
> >>contradict the traditional argumants of the last
> >>few years.
> >>
> >>It occurs to me that the badly damaged parts of
> >>NO might be built up; above sea level. I know
> >>this is a non-trivial issue for several tens of
> >>square miles but I have seen it done on flood
> >>plains here where the area would flood regularly
> >>with a high river. However, I have only seen it
> >>done over an area of about 10,000 sq metres. In
> >>principle it could be done over the larger area.
> >>The army might be used to ship rubble from the
> >>many quarries around the US mainland. After all
> >>the army is being paid-for any way - you might
> >>as well use them for something constructive.
> >
> >
> > This assumes that armies are just sitting around eating
> > bon bons even between deployments.
> I know that about half the US miltary is
> currently deployed on active duties Iraq being
> tha most abvious vbut there are a number of
> others including the Bosnia region and those
> that on tour at foreign bases such a Diego
> Garcia who cannot be easily recalled. But a very
> large proportion of that miltary is based in the
> continental US and could be moved across the
> counrt in a few days. Isn't there about 500,000
> troops in the US at present?

I thought you were talking about using the army for
construction projects ala Hadrian.

> > Reservists aren't paid to just move rubble around
> > or clean the streets: They're supposed to be training
> > and improving their own combat effectiveness.
> > Not only that, soldiers aren't qualified to be
> > construction workers who require their own set
> > of skills.
> What about the corps of engineers? And secondly
> I would suggest that the tax payers are paying
> for these people therefore they can be used to
> do something constructive.

Yeah, nothing like asking these blokes to not only
put their lives on the line for the grand sum
of 2K per month but ALSO do heavy menial work
between deployment in leau of training and downtime.

So then, do you manage your boss's garden on your
vacation?

regards,
Mark Sobolewski
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush proves he is a wanker once again:
    ... Have you ever been to New Orleans? ... The place was flush with tourist money and there was a 10% tax ... I point the finger of guilt at capitalism. ... and modern socialism: modern capitalism is capable of making money. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Bush proves he is a wanker once again:
    ... >> billions in taxes to pay for a free education. ... Capitalism is all about motivation: ... Socialism usually empowers the worst capitalists ... can't cash ourselves AND honest enough to share the money with us. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Chuck Moore news
    ... Capitalism, while not perfect (no economic system is) is far superior to ... other systems like socialism which has never worked but is where the US ... wish to work hard and excel, and yes, make money while doing so. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: The Nazis Were Marxists
    ... But it's true nevertheless that Big Money has mostly funded fascism. ... roots in socialism but become dazzled by wealth and power ... You could easily describe fascism as 'socialists playing capitalism' ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: OT to the extreme [Was Re: Im working on yet another license]
    ... At least German companies now have most of their shareholders, their employees, and their earnings outside Germany, so for instance that means that Germany has to build its own new economy without those big fish. ... The second choice is just further pseudo-reforms that we are seeing for decades now and that don't lead anywhere (well, towards Socialism, but that can't help in a global economy that IS based on trade (i.e. capitalism), even for China). ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)