War-Hawk Republicans Use Nazi Tactics
Paul
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the
people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Hermann Goring, once a
leading member of
the Nazi Party
James Arthur
Umm, who got us into that war, and what was his party affiliation?
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
And what about...
World War I?
Viet Nam? Who started it? Who ended it?
Korea?
The aborted invasion of Cuba?
The Cold War? Who started it? Who ended it?
And Monica's War, of course.
John
Tony Weber
Tojo.
Guitar Joe
"Paul" <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0cf095b6-9aaa-4021...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Geezer
"Corbomite Carrie" <Corb...@maneuver.org> wrote in message
news:4jlad4phe3ni2fsu6...@4ax.com...
> nothing fucktards!
>
> Leave s.e.d OUT of your retarded cross-post list.
>
> You have no clue what national security is. The Quiller retard has an
> IQ of about 20.
>
> Now FUCK OFF AND DIE... IN YOUR GROUPS, FUCKTARDS.
VERY intelligent response!
I'm impressed that you did so well without outside help.
Geezer
James Arthur
And, a) deserved or not, who and what provoked Tojo to such action?
b) Which "neutral" nation dispatched supply ships in support of
Hilter's enemies (rightly, I might add), ensuring their attack? And
who invoked Göring's method (above) when the inevitable attacks came?
c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
Republicans ;-)
Cheers,
James Arthur
Mike Brown
If you believe that the name represented their policies, you are ill
informed.
MJRB
James Arthur
> James Arthur wrote:
> > c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
> > Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
> > German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
> > Republicans ;-)
>
> > Cheers,
> > James Arthur
>
> If you believe that the name represented their policies, you are ill
> informed.
>
> MJRB
The problem is that people conflate socialism and totalitarianism.
Understandable, since they so often travel together.
Nazism certainly preached envy, and fanned division and discontent
amongst the classes ("class warfare," I call it), familiar "liberal"
refrains today.[1] The organizing theory for both being that "someone
else has what should be yours," and the promise of fixing this.
Current example: the idea of lowering 95% of a nation's load, while
increasing it for the remaining 5%. A popular, and populist idea
common to both ideologies. ("The government that robs Peter to pay
Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- G.B. Shaw)
It's hard to tell what the Nazis' actual economic policy was, since
neither they nor their philosophy ever really generated any economic
activity besides war.
Cheers,
James Arthur
~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic
economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with
its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being
according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and
performance.” --Adolph Hitler, 1927
James Arthur
Speaking of Monica, when are we pulling our troops out of Bosnia? Or
Germany, for that matter? Were those failures?
Cheers,
James Arthur
Richard Eich
> On Sep 20, 6:13 pm, Mike Brown <rocko...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
> > James Arthur wrote:
>
> > > c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
> > > Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
> > > German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
> > > Republicans ;-)
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > James Arthur
> >
> > If you believe that the name represented their policies, you are ill
> > informed.
> >
> > MJRB
>
>
> The problem is that people conflate socialism and totalitarianism.
> Understandable, since they so often travel together.
>
> Nazism certainly preached envy, and fanned division and discontent
> amongst the classes ("class warfare," I call it), familiar "liberal"
> refrains today.[1] The organizing theory for both being that "someone
> else has what should be yours," and the promise of fixing this.
Mmm, no. Class warfare is what happened to Marie Antoinette. <Chop>
Rhetoric is merely rhetoric.
> Current example: the idea of lowering 95% of a nation's load, while
> increasing it for the remaining 5%. A popular, and populist idea
> common to both ideologies. ("The government that robs Peter to pay
> Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- G.B. Shaw)
From 1972 to 2001, the income of the 99.99th percentile rose 437%.
Given that taxes are a royalty paid on the benefit one obtains from
the socioeconomic system we all share, it seems appropriate that the
taxation is most properly biased towards the top.
"Those who derive the benefit must bear the burden." -- common law
maxim.
> It's hard to tell what the Nazis' actual economic policy was, since
> neither they nor their philosophy ever really generated any economic
> activity besides war.
Well then, without a peek at their economic policies one can't really
refer to them as economic "socialists" can one? I mean, really.
--
One nation, under surveillance.
"President Obama" -- say it every chance you can.
Tony Weber
> On Sep 20, 1:40 pm, Tony Weber wrote:
>> James Arthur wrote:
>>> On Sep 19, 4:49 pm, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
>>>> nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is
>>>> understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
>>>> determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
>>>> people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
>>>> Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the
>>>> people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
>>>> easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
>>>> denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
>>>> to danger. It works the same way in any country."
>>>> - Hermann Goring, once a leading member of the Nazi Party
>>> Umm, who got us into that war, and what was his party affiliation?
>>> Cheers,
>>> James Arthur
>> Tojo.
>
> And, a) deserved or not, who and what provoked Tojo to such action?
>
> b) Which "neutral" nation dispatched supply ships in support of
> Hilter's enemies (rightly, I might add), ensuring their attack? And
> who invoked Göring's method (above) when the inevitable attacks came?
Don't know much about history, do you. Lend-Lease shipments to Britian
and later the Soviet Union had nothing to do with Japan's decision to
initiate war with the United States. If they were such close allies of
Germany, why didn't they attack the USSR? No, the decision was based on
a desire to gain direct control of the natural resources of SE Asia; in
particular the oilfields of Dutch East Asia (later Indonesia). They
hoped to present the US with an acomplished fact, while also taking
advantage of Britians involvement i the European war. Thus, they hoped
that the US/BE would decide that it would be too expensive to dislodge
them, and would leave them to their "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere" of influence.
>
> c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
> Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
> German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
> Republicans ;-)
Which statement shows your total ignorance of the tenets of Nazism,
Fascism, Socialism Totalitarianism or Communism. I'll bet you even
think that Capitalism has something to do with free markets, don't you?
James Arthur
> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
On Sep 20, 7:45 pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
> > On Sep 20, 6:13 pm, Mike Brown <rocko...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
> > > James Arthur wrote:
> > > > c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
> > > > Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
> > > > German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
> > > > Republicans ;-)
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > James Arthur
> > > If you believe that the name represented their policies, you are ill
> > > informed.
> > > MJRB
> > The problem is that people conflate socialism and totalitarianism.
> > Understandable, since they so often travel together.
> > Nazism certainly preached envy, and fanned division and discontent
> > amongst the classes ("class warfare," I call it), familiar "liberal"
> > refrains today.[1] The organizing theory for both being that "someone
> > else has what should be yours," and the promise of fixing this.
> Mmm, no. Class warfare is what happened to Marie Antoinette. <Chop>
> Rhetoric is merely rhetoric.
Whatever one calls it, it's divisive and unhelpful. Far better to
teach people how to lift themselves up than incite them to envy
others who already have. The latter is unproductive.
> > Current example: the idea of lowering 95% of a nation's load, while
> > increasing it for the remaining 5%. A popular, and populist idea
> > common to both ideologies. ("The government that robs Peter to pay
> > Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- G.B. Shaw)
> From 1972 to 2001, the income of the 99.99th percentile rose 437%.
> Given that taxes are a royalty paid on the benefit one obtains from
> the socioeconomic system we all share, it seems appropriate that the
> taxation is most properly biased towards the top.
FWIW, that's just 5.2% compounded annually for 29 years.
But I don't agree that taxes are a royalty, or that they reflect one's
share of benefit from society.
And the idea that the elite should pay for everyone else's benefits--
which is the actual effect--would mean only the elite would have all
the influence and power. Surely that isn't and couldn't be good.
> "Those who derive the benefit must bear the burden." -- common law
> maxim.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
--Karl Marx
> > It's hard to tell what the Nazis' actual economic policy was, since
> > neither they nor their philosophy ever really generated any economic
> > activity besides war.
> Well then, without a peek at their economic policies one can't really
> refer to them as economic "socialists" can one? I mean, really.
The Nazis' professed policy was socialism. And they pointed fingers
at people they thought were too rich and took it from them. So, if not
Socialism(tm), a flavor of socialism anyhow.
Back to the original troll's contention, Republicans are not Nazis,
and the comparison doesn't prove it. It was silly.
Cheers,
James Arthur
James Arthur
You've misunderstood me. The original poster wanted to suggest that
Republicans are Nazis, since they supposedly use a Nazi tactic.
Disagreeing, I pointed out that Roosevelt used the same tactic.
Lend-lease shipments to Britain incited Hitler to sink our ships,
obviously, thus setting us at odds with Hitler. Roosevelt wanted into
the war, but the American people did not; this was Roosevelt's way of
drawing us in against our will. IOW, a direct example of a Democrat
employing the tactic the OP intended to indict and use to identify
Republicans with Nazism.
I did mean to imply, with less authority, that Japan's decision to
attack us was in part a response to certain policies of ours--
Roosevelt's--affecting their perceived energy security. Our two
countries were at loggerheads for some time leading up to and
culminating in Japan's preemptive attack. IOW, another possible
example of a Democratic president provoking an attack as a pretext for
entering an unpopular war.
<snip>
> > c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
> > Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
> > German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
> > Republicans ;-)
>
> Which statement shows your total ignorance of the tenets of Nazism,
> Fascism, Socialism Totalitarianism or Communism.
I personally experienced totalitarian socialism at the point of a
machine gun, if that matters. That part was clear. But none of these
vague, ill-conceived ideologies are carved in stone; I expect nailing
down their exact tenets would be quite a chore. They're ephemeral,
mercurial; relative; adapted to the moment.
And not especially interesting.
> I'll bet you even think that Capitalism has something to do with free markets, don't you?
No, not really. But like peanut butter and chocolate, they're good
together.
Cheers,
James Arthur
Fan
> Not hawks. Chickenhawks!
Not Nazis. Zionazis!
> "Paul" <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > the Nazi Party-
Mike Brown
> which is the actual effect--would mean only the elite would have all
> the influence and power. Surely that isn't and couldn't be good.
>
That's the way it would (should in my opinion) be if the "elite" (not
really an appropriate title IMHO) didn't have so many ways of avoiding
the various forms of taxation.
MJRB
Zeke Skarland
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's always intersting to me that rather than deny an obvious truth
(that Bush and co. used EXACTLY the same tactics as the ones Goering
is quoted as describing), Bushco. apoligists distract the discussion.
Why can't you just admit that Bush used these tactics to drag the
country into an unwarranted, wasteful and unproductive war? That's
not so hard. I'm finding that right wing extremists are so locked into
"my party right or wrong" that they can't admit any mistakes by their
leaders.
So what if the democrats in the past made similar mistakes - that
doesn't at all detract from the current facts. Why can't you admit it?
George's ProSound Company
It's hard to tell what the Nazis' actual economic policy was, since
neither they nor their philosophy ever really generated any economic
activity besides war.
So the Bush administration had a role model after all!!!
George
Richard Eich
> On Sep 20, 7:45 pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 6:13 pm, Mike Brown <rocko...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
> > > > James Arthur wrote:
> >
> > > > > c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
> > > > > Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
> > > > > German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
> > > > > Republicans ;-)
> >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > James Arthur
> >
> > > > If you believe that the name represented their policies, you are ill
> > > > informed.
> >
> > > > MJRB
> >
> > > The problem is that people conflate socialism and totalitarianism.
> > > Understandable, since they so often travel together.
> >
> > > Nazism certainly preached envy, and fanned division and discontent
> > > amongst the classes ("class warfare," I call it), familiar "liberal"
> > > refrains today.[1] The organizing theory for both being that "someone
> > > else has what should be yours," and the promise of fixing this.
> >
> > Mmm, no. Class warfare is what happened to Marie Antoinette. <Chop>
> >
> > Rhetoric is merely rhetoric.
>
So you called it class warfare and equated it with Nazism, but your
actual point was just that it's divisive and unhelpful? LMAO.
Hyperbole ruins your credibility with those call you on it.
> Far better to
> teach people how to lift themselves up than to incite them to envy
> others who already have.
Yeah, but envy is a predictable side-effect of a pop culture of
celebrity worship and 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous', E!, etc.
-- where the great disparity between those randomly born into extreme
wealth and extreme disadvantage is laid bare. Even Ayn Rand noted
that her support of inheritable wealth and pure meritocracy created a
fatal contradiction in her philosophy, by allowing a way for the
meritocracy to be bypassed and wealth to be held by those who didn't
themselves directly earn it (and whom would be unable to earn it, if
left to the forces of meritocracy).
So you can hardly blame some of those on the shit end of that stick
for rightfully resenting the game being rigged by luck of birth; it's
a valid emotional response. It motivates different people in
different ways.
Even so, it isn't the Democratic Party that is inciting anyone to
envy. It's the giants of the entertainment industry.
> The latter is unproductive.
Before you can drop proclimations, you first have to show your work.
What are your metrics for measuring unproductivity?
> > > Current example: the idea of lowering 95% of a nation's load, while
> > > increasing it for the remaining 5%. A popular, and populist idea
> > > common to both ideologies. ("The government that robs Peter to pay
> > > Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- G.B. Shaw)
> >
> > From 1972 to 2001, the income of the 99.99th percentile rose 437%.
> > Given that taxes are a royalty paid on the benefit one obtains from
> > the socioeconomic system we all share, it seems appropriate that the
> > taxation is most properly biased towards the top.
>
> FWIW, that's just 5.2% compounded annually for 29 years.
Non-sequitur. Anyway, I just re-checked my numbers; it was 497%.
The 99th percentile's income in the same period rose 87%. Below that
percentile, income growth is negative over the same period.
> But I don't agree that taxes are a royalty, or that they reflect one's
> share of benefit from society.
No, you probably equate taxes with class warfare and Nazism...even
though you've changed my words and created a strawman. I said the
socio-economic system we call share, not simply "society" which is a
cultural artifact not an economic one. Stop with the fallacies, eh?
Nonetheless, taxes sustain the social stability that we all use and
benefit from to greater or lesser degree. The quantification of that
benefit is income and net worth. It's pretty easy to see who is
benefitting, in an unambiguous way. The benefit would not be able to
be obtained without the socio-economic struture.
> And the idea that the elite should pay for everyone else's benefits--
Another strawman. We all pay, in proportion to our benefit.
> which is the actual effect--would mean only the elite would have all
> the influence and power. Surely that isn't and couldn't be good.
>
> > "Those who derive the benefit must bear the burden." -- common law
> > maxim.
>
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
> --Karl Marx
These two quotes are expressing widely different thoughts, dude.
> > > It's hard to tell what the Nazis' actual economic policy was, since
> > > neither they nor their philosophy ever really generated any economic
> > > activity besides war.
> >
> > Well then, without a peek at their economic policies one can't really
> > refer to them as economic "socialists" can one? I mean, really.
>
> The Nazis' professed policy was socialism. And they pointed fingers
> at people they thought were too rich and took it from them. So, if not
> Socialism(tm), a flavor of socialism anyhow.
This is a distortion of history.
> Back to the original troll's contention, Republicans are not Nazis,
> and the comparison doesn't prove it. It was silly.
There's an element of the Republican Party that has facist
tendencies, however. That's not silly.
> Cheers,
> James Arthur
Paul
No, that would be taking some of their money and
then using it for the good of the whole, or the public at
large, instead of waiting til they die before they decide
to give it away to charity. That's taking power away from
them. Don't hold your breath to wait for rich CEOs to
give away their money: Notice they only do this if it
puts them into a lower tax bracket!
Look at the disparity of the CEOs salaries
compared to the common workers wages. They
keep getting bigger and bigger. What's the difference
if a guy has 9 mansions instead of 10? Do they
really need that much extra money? Surely, they
are already extremely comfortable.
> > "Those who derive the benefit must bear the burden." -- common law
> > maxim.
>
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
> --Karl Marx
>
> > > It's hard to tell what the Nazis' actual economic policy was, since
> > > neither they nor their philosophy ever really generated any economic
> > > activity besides war.
> > Well then, without a peek at their economic policies one can't really
> > refer to them as economic "socialists" can one? �I mean, really.
>
> The Nazis' professed policy was socialism. �And they pointed fingers
> at people they thought were too rich and took it from them. So, if not
> Socialism(tm), a flavor of socialism anyhow.
>
> Back to the original troll's contention, Republicans are not Nazis,
> and the comparison doesn't prove it. �It was silly.
>
> Cheers,
> James Arthur- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey dumb-shit: I didn't say Republicans are
Nazis, but that they use this particular technique to
justify Oil wars. Invade and plunder other countries
with us, or you are Un-American.
And certainly the Republicans are doing what
the Nazis wanted to do, which is dominating the
world in a general sense through puppet governments, etc.
kaennorsing
It's the Federal Reserve, the bankers that pull the strings;
Falling Dollar Caused by Federal Reserve
(Part 1/5)
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=W8XFA9hIL00
(Part 2/5)
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=A4zrWUwXWz0
(Part 3/5)
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=AIaLPL_D0Rk
(Part 4/5)
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=7RSK-BVfqR8
(Part 5/5)
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=Li4NEy6U8ss
James Arthur
> Hey dumb-shit: I didn't say Republicans are
> Nazis, but that they use this particular technique to
> justify Oil wars. Invade and plunder other countries
> with us, or you are Un-American.
>
> And certainly the Republicans are doing what
> the Nazis wanted to do, which is dominating the
> world in a general sense through puppet governments, etc.
You were comparing Republicans to Nazis. You've just done it again.
As I've pointed out, the comparison is inept. Why not point out that
they both made speeches, or both used telephones and pencils? Did
Republicans and Nazis both use toilet paper too?
It's perfectly fair to criticize the Republicans' policies--I think
they've waaayy overspent--but the attempt to equate Republicans and
Nazism is bogus.
And sorry about the troll comment. I usually assume that someone who
posts an inflammatory, off-topic comment to several unrelated groups,
then disappears, is automatically a troll. But you're back, and I was
wrong. So sorry.
Cheers,
James Arthur
hans
Richard, very well stated post. Thanks.
In fact the comment about J. Arthur's suggestion about Nazism being
socialism and how wrong that is deserves some eleboartion, I think.
Just because the name for Nazi party included the word socialism does
not make them any more socialist than the Bush/Cheney/Rove fascists
propaganda about compassionate conservativism making it true. There is
no compassion in the neocon platform of discrimination against non-
Christians, those within the admin. who don;t carry the party line
(there are many examples of people who have been fired or passed over
when deserved in favor of friends/chronies - think Brownie - or the
firing of the Justice lawyers), against special needs kids in schools
whose programs have been pilloried in favor of the No Childs Behind Is
Left program, the fascist reading of public school library computer
contents by private citizens, etc, etc, etc.
The Nazis did not express and develop socialism as it could have been.
Therefore the US thinks socialism is terrible without understanding
the basic tenets.
Unregulated private enterprise has been the economic policy of
Reaganomics and maybe you neocons have noticed the result. Therefore,
under the socialism-is-bad-policy association, you would put private
enterprise on the list of to -be-avoided policies. Prob not.
hans
James Arthur
> > And the idea that the elite should pay for everyone else's benefits--
> > which is the actual effect--would mean only the elite would have all
> > the influence and power. Surely that isn't and couldn't be good.
>
> No, that would be taking some of their money and
> then using it for the good of the whole, or the public at
> large, instead of waiting til they die before they decide
> to give it away to charity. That's taking power away from
> them.
If someone else is paying your bills, /they've/ got the power. And you
gave it to them!
If you want to be free, don't depend on others to pay for the things
you want. When they do, /they/ call the shots.
> Don't hold your breath to wait for rich CEOs to
> give away their money: Notice they only do this if it
> puts them into a lower tax bracket!
>
> Look at the disparity of the CEOs salaries
> compared to the common workers wages. They
> keep getting bigger and bigger. What's the difference
> if a guy has 9 mansions instead of 10? Do they
> really need that much extra money? Surely, they
> are already extremely comfortable.
Oh the whole CEO thing is a strawman. Sure their pay is appalling and
it shouldn't be, but as a percentage of everything it's insignificant.
They're just an excuse; a bogus, ill-formed justification for taking
from the few to give to the many.
Taxes are already very lopsided. Here are a few of the facts (kindly
ignore the opinions) in a handy format:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302484020165482
Cheers,
James Arthur
Tim Williams
> c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
> Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
> German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
> Republicans ;-)
Just because they were leftist doesn't mean they weren't rightist. Is
this so hard for you all? Politics covers two, maybe three
dimensions, at least. Calling it on one dimension of right vs. left
is utterly absurd and fallacious. There are two political reasons
Hitler gained power: 1. he promised to defend the country against its
enemies (which were *indeed* all around; "enemy" is a relative thing
you know), and 2. he promised comfortable social programs to his
citizens, who were devestated by losing a war and getting fucked in
the ass by it (reparations, superinflation, etc.). Toss in a little
heavy-handed power struggle and you've got a powerful, popular
dictatorship.
Tim
P.S. What idiot troll came up with this crossposting? I'm posting to
S.E.D. here...
James Arthur
Of course.
My purpose wasn't to show that Democrats were Nazis. The thread was
meant to associate Republicans with Nazism based on ... on nothing
actually. Nothing more than superficial parallels, applied with a
broad brush.
We're supposed to nod and go "Yup", as if the argument made sense.
Except it doesn't. That was my point: the parallels don't compute.
Which has been abundantly illustrated upthread.
"Four legs good, two legs bad" would've been better.
> P.S. What idiot troll came up with this crossposting? I'm posting to
> S.E.D. here...
Dunno. Paul, the OP?
James Arthur (also posting from S.E.D.)
Jim Thompson
(1) Show headers
(2) Count number of googlegroups/gmail posters ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The next time the Democrat Jerks whine that new drilling will
take 10 years, remind them of the Chinese proverb:
"Every journey starts with a first step"
Kevin Aylward
>>
>> But I don't agree that taxes are a royalty, or that they reflect
>> one's share of benefit from society.
>>
>> And the idea that the elite should pay for everyone else's benefits--
>> which is the actual effect--would mean only the elite would have all
>> the influence and power. Surely that isn't and couldn't be good.
>>
>
>
> No, that would be taking some of their money and
> then using it for the good of the whole, or the public at
> large, instead of waiting til they die before they decide
> to give it away to charity. That's taking power away from
> them. Don't hold your breath to wait for rich CEOs to
> give away their money: Notice they only do this if it
> puts them into a lower tax bracket!
I don't see that rich people actually have the money. Its a closed system.
If someone has say, notionally, $1B in the bank, well.. they don't, it has
been already lent out to other people that don't have the money themselves.
Wealth is sort of an illusion. If all the people that thought they had
money, tried to get it, it wouldn't be there. In reality, their money is
already being used by someone else.
>
> Look at the disparity of the CEOs salaries
> compared to the common workers wages. They
> keep getting bigger and bigger. What's the difference
> if a guy has 9 mansions instead of 10?
Who built the houses: Who cleans them? So a few people have a few extra
houses, I don't see that that makes much odds in the big scheme of things.
For wealth to mean anything, it must be spent, in doing so, the person who
the money is spent on gains the benefit of that wealth.
If a rich dude pays $400 for an oxygen free power cord, where does that
money go? What does the person that receives the $400 do with it? Or the
person that he in turn gives in purchase of something else. Waste would be
paying someone to dig a hole, then fill it in again. Other than that, it all
comes out in the wash. Some particular person might be getting ripped off in
paying $400 for a Ł2 power cord, but the final result don't change for the
wealth of the population. No work credits (money) are actully lost.
Do they
> really need that much extra money? Surely, they
> are already extremely comfortable.
If a rich dude with $1B gave it all away to say, each American, then they
would get $4 each. Like so what.. What could those millions do with the $4?
The dude with the notional full amount could at least, in principle, build a
factory and so forth.
Kevin Aylward
www.blonddee.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
John Larkin
I belong to no political party. In fact, I belong to no organizations
at all, except for AARP and holding a library card. I was once a
member of the San Francisco Beekeepers' Association, but we had to get
rid of our hive and I let that lapse.
I follow nobody and report to nobody and worship nobody, so I have no
"leaders."
Pbbbhhhttt.
>
>So what if the democrats in the past made similar mistakes - that
>doesn't at all detract from the current facts. Why can't you admit it?
Hadn't the US actually been attacked? Or were those airplane crashes
faked? Hadn't Iran and Kuwait been attcked? Wasn't Sadamm directly
sponsoring suicide bombers? And didn't Congress and the UN authorize
the Prez's actions? I don't recall Goring getting such legal backup.
Bush and his crew probably felt that, longterm, planting a democracy
in the heart of the Middle East was a historical necessity. Iraq was
the best candidate, and the WMD thing was the working excuse. If you
want to debate whether this was a moral imperative on the path to
world democracy, or meddling with a soverign country owned and run by
a sadistic madman, let's discuss that. Comparing the USA with Nazi
Germany, or Bush with Goring, is just silly.
John
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Sep 20, 9:29?pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 7:45?pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
>> > > On Sep 20, 6:13?pm, Mike Brown <rocko...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
>> > > > James Arthur wrote:
>>
>> > > > > ? ?c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
>> > > > > Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
>> > > > > German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
>> > > > > Republicans ;-)
>>
>> > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > James Arthur
>>
>> > > > If you believe that the name represented their policies, you are ill
>> > > > informed.
>>
>> > > > MJRB
>>
>> > > The problem is that people conflate socialism and totalitarianism.
>> > > Understandable, since they so often travel together.
>>
>> > > Nazism certainly preached envy, and fanned division and discontent
>> > > amongst the classes ("class warfare," I call it), familiar "liberal"
>> > > refrains today.[1] The organizing theory for both being that "someone
>> > > else has what should be yours," and the promise of fixing this.
>>
>> > Mmm, no. ?Class warfare is what happened to Marie Antoinette. ?<Chop>
>>
>> > Rhetoric is merely rhetoric.
>>
>> > > Current example: the idea of lowering 95% of a nation's load, while
>> > > increasing it for the remaining 5%. A popular, and populist idea
>> > > common to both ideologies. ?("The government that robs Peter to pay
>> > > Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- G.B. Shaw)
>>
>> > From 1972 to 2001, the income of the 99.99th percentile rose 437%. ?
>> > Given that taxes are a royalty paid on the benefit one obtains from
>> > the socioeconomic system we all share, it seems appropriate that the
>> > taxation is most properly biased towards the top.
>>
>> > "Those who derive the benefit must bear the burden." -- common law
>> > maxim.
>>
>> > > It's hard to tell what the Nazis' actual economic policy was, since
>> > > neither they nor their philosophy ever really generated any economic
>> > > activity besides war.
>>
>> > Well then, without a peek at their economic policies one can't really
>> > refer to them as economic "socialists" can one? ?I mean, really.
>>
>> > --
>> > One nation, under surveillance.
>>
>> > "President Obama" -- say it every chance you can.
>>
>> On Sep 20, 7:45 pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
>> > > On Sep 20, 6:13 pm, Mike Brown <rocko...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
>> > > > James Arthur wrote:
>> > > > > ? ?c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
>> > > > > Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
>> > > > > German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
>> > > > > Republicans ;-)
>> > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > James Arthur
>> > > > If you believe that the name represented their policies, you are ill
>> > > > informed.
>> > > > MJRB
>> > > The problem is that people conflate socialism and totalitarianism.
>> > > Understandable, since they so often travel together.
>> > > Nazism certainly preached envy, and fanned division and discontent
>> > > amongst the classes ("class warfare," I call it), familiar "liberal"
>> > > refrains today.[1] The organizing theory for both being that "someone
>> > > else has what should be yours," and the promise of fixing this.
>> > Mmm, no. ?Class warfare is what happened to Marie Antoinette. ?<Chop>
>> > Rhetoric is merely rhetoric.
>>
>> Whatever one calls it, it's divisive and unhelpful. Far better to
>> teach people how to lift themselves up than incite them to envy
>> others who already have. The latter is unproductive.
>>
>> > > Current example: the idea of lowering 95% of a nation's load, while
>> > > increasing it for the remaining 5%. A popular, and populist idea
>> > > common to both ideologies. ?("The government that robs Peter to pay
>> > > Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- G.B. Shaw)
>> > From 1972 to 2001, the income of the 99.99th percentile rose 437%.
>> > Given that taxes are a royalty paid on the benefit one obtains from
>> > the socioeconomic system we all share, it seems appropriate that the
>> > taxation is most properly biased towards the top.
>>
>> FWIW, that's just 5.2% compounded annually for 29 years.
>>
>> But I don't agree that taxes are a royalty, or that they reflect one's
>> share of benefit from society.
>>
>> And the idea that the elite should pay for everyone else's benefits--
>> which is the actual effect--would mean only the elite would have all
>> the influence and power. Surely that isn't and couldn't be good.
>>
>
>
> No, that would be taking some of their money and
>then using it for the good of the whole, or the public at
>large, instead of waiting til they die before they decide
>to give it away to charity. That's taking power away from
>them. Don't hold your breath to wait for rich CEOs to
>give away their money: Notice they only do this if it
>puts them into a lower tax bracket!
>
> Look at the disparity of the CEOs salaries
>compared to the common workers wages. They
>keep getting bigger and bigger. What's the difference
>if a guy has 9 mansions instead of 10? Do they
>really need that much extra money? Surely, they
>are already extremely comfortable.
The truly rich, the billionaires, consume a far smaller fraction of
their incomes than the average citizen does; they just can't. So the
rest is invested. Indeed, most of the really rich don't have "money",
they have stock shares. Bill Gates may have $60 billion worth of
Microsoft stock, but there's no way he could ever convert that to cash
even if he wanted to.
In the sense that the wealthy defer consumption in favor of
investment, they are performing a huge social good, because most
nobody else invests (except pension funds) and we need to defer some
consumption in favor of investment or we crash in the long term.
If we tax the wealthy enough, they'll leave the USA for friendlier
climes, and take their investment wealth with them. We need *more*
wealth in the USA, not less.
Quit basing economic policy on envy, and start doing what actually
makes everyone better off: Tax consumption and fix a lot of problems.
John
John Larkin
Governments don't generate economic activity, except to collect
resources, waste some fraction in the ballpark of 60%, and return
what's left to people who will waste some more of that.
John
Tim Williams
> Taxes are already very lopsided. Here are a few of the facts (kindly
> ignore the opinions) in a handy format:http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302484020165482
I don't like these statistics. And here's why. Precisely because
taxes are so lopsided, you can cook up whatever statistics you want.
For example, "50% of the population pays 3% of the taxes" -- doesn't
sound like much, right? Well the first fallacy is reducing a trillion
dollars (actually $2.5T) to an innocent "3%". That's still $75B. And
50% of the taxpayers is what, 69 million, and 75/0.069 = $1087/head.
And these are supposed to be middle to low income taxpayers, right?
So out of $10-20k/yr, that's actually 5-10% (Federal rate only, I
presume). Not nearly 3%, more like three times that to some people.
But still on the whole not a very significant number. So what the
hell is so bad about that, and what does the President think he can
change about it? The Federal rate is already pretty low, and he can't
do anything about the state taxes levied on top of that, besides
asking them please if they would reduce taxing the low income bracket.
And the other question is, if 50% of the population pays 3% of the
taxes -- why not 0%? 3% is nearly negligible, after all. Just drop
taxation to zero below, say, $20k/yr. Or even $50k, not missing out
on much that way.
Tim
John Larkin
Lower-income Americans often qualify for a negative tax rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit
John
hans
You talk of silliness and then give the Bush/Cheney/Rove criminals a
pass for the fantasy of planting a democracy in the middle of
Arabland???? Are you fucking kidding?? It was insane and we can see
the effects. The pass that the B/C/R criminals got from the US and the
UN was based on lies that they knew and created and the handwaving
over the shock of 9/11/01. The airplanes were most certainly real and
horrible but they did not amount to a declaration of war, as the B/C/R
criminals boasted. 20 people attack and it's a war?? Harder to prove
the negative that there are no real WMD or no Al Quaida in Iraq so the
B/C/R crimnals prevailed in the court of boastful speech.
Incidently, one of the presidential candidates was not hoodwinked and
swam upstream against the propaganda voting against the criminals who
outed CIA agents that failed to goosestep to the admin policy.
But the notion that the US can establish a democracy in a land of a
thousand tribes was so stupid and history has borne out the insanity
of the current fascist administrators. BTW, the administration
criminals spoke for the people in that country assuming but not
knowing if they really wanted a democracy. "All people must want a
democracy" they said. All people must live free as they said they do
in the US. Imposing political systems on other societies.... a form of
fascism. And you talk of silliness in this thread.
(shaking his head)
hans
John Larkin
It ain't over til it's over.
John
krw
9b6e8e...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, tmor...@gmail.com
says...
> On Sep 21, 10:10 am, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Taxes are already very lopsided. Here are a few of the facts (kindly
> > ignore the opinions) in a handy format:http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302484020165482
>
> I don't like these statistics. And here's why. Precisely because
> taxes are so lopsided, you can cook up whatever statistics you want.
> For example, "50% of the population pays 3% of the taxes" -- doesn't
> sound like much, right? Well the first fallacy is reducing a trillion
> dollars (actually $2.5T) to an innocent "3%". That's still $75B. And
> 50% of the taxpayers is what, 69 million, and 75/0.069 = $1087/head.
You make a strong argument for cutting the size of the federal
government, say, 50%.
> And these are supposed to be middle to low income taxpayers, right?
> So out of $10-20k/yr, that's actually 5-10% (Federal rate only, I
> presume).
Look up the statistics again. That 50% doesn't make $10K/year. The
numbers are readily available. You don't need to create a fantasy
to make a point (i.e. your point *is* a fantasy).
> Not nearly 3%, more like three times that to some people.
> But still on the whole not a very significant number. So what the
> hell is so bad about that, and what does the President think he can
> change about it? The Federal rate is already pretty low, and he can't
> do anything about the state taxes levied on top of that, besides
> asking them please if they would reduce taxing the low income bracket.
I don't think anyone is asking the president to do anything about
state governments. If the federal government would do it
constitutionally mandated business, and no more, things would be a
*lot* better. Let the states and local governments take care of the
rest. The states can do it far cheaper and better without
interference from Washington.
> And the other question is, if 50% of the population pays 3% of the
> taxes -- why not 0%? 3% is nearly negligible, after all. Just drop
> taxation to zero below, say, $20k/yr. Or even $50k, not missing out
> on much that way.
People who have no "skin" in the game can easily vote themselves a
raise. They don't care about anything but what the government can do
for #1. CHeck the numbers again (if you ever did). The bottom 20%
already has a negative effective tax rate.
--
Keith
John Larkin
<Zarat...@thusspoke.org> wrote:
> Close.
>
> Looks like I may have to start giving you some credit after all.
Of course, some of that stuff, like defense and some social
protections, are necessary, so we just lump the inefficiency. The main
function of defense is to be so good that you never have to use it, so
it's paradoxically a bargain when it's 0% efficient.
But taxing people for, say, public works or education money, and
pouring it Washington, and then doling it back out to the states, is a
formula for waste. The closer the coupling of expenditures to the
people paying for things, the more they will care about value.
John
Paul
> On Sep 21, 9:13�am, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 9:29 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Back to the original troll's contention, Republicans are not Nazis,
> > > and the comparison doesn't prove it. It was silly.
>
> > � � � �Hey dumb-shit: �I didn't say Republicans are
> > Nazis, but that they use this particular technique to
> > justify Oil wars. � Invade and plunder other countries
> > with us, or you are Un-American.
>
> > � � � �And certainly the Republicans are doing what
> > the Nazis wanted to do, which is dominating the
> > world in a general sense through puppet governments, etc.
>
> You were comparing Republicans to Nazis. �You've just done it again.
>
> As I've pointed out, the comparison is inept. �Why not point out that
> they both made speeches, or both used telephones and pencils? Did
> Republicans and Nazis both use toilet paper too?
>
Then can you explain why an oil war wasn't needed
in the Clinton years?
Easy: Bush came from a oil family, and made his
whole cabinet oil barons.
Expect more oil wars from McSame.
The parties DO have differences...
> It's perfectly fair to criticize the Republicans' policies--I think
> they've waaayy overspent--but the attempt to equate Republicans and
> Nazism is bogus.
>
> And sorry about the troll comment. �I usually assume that someone who
> posts an inflammatory, off-topic comment to several unrelated groups,
> then disappears, is automatically a troll. �But you're back, and I was
> wrong. So sorry.
>
> Cheers,
> James Arthur
I like starting discussions, not necessarily
ending them!
Paul
> On Sep 21, 9:13 am, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 9:29 pm, James Arthur wrote:
> > > And the idea that the elite should pay for everyone else's benefits--
> > > which is the actual effect--would mean only the elite would have all
> > > the influence and power. Surely that isn't and couldn't be good.
>
> > � � � � � No, that would be taking some of their money and
> > then using it for the good of the whole, or the public at
> > large, instead of waiting til they die before they decide
> > to give it away to charity. �That's taking power away from
> > them.
>
> If someone else is paying your bills, /they've/ got the power. And you
> gave it to them!
>
> If you want to be free, don't depend on others to pay for the things
> you want. When they do, /they/ call the shots.
>
So the only truly free people are the independently
wealthy, which most people are not.
I'm gonna assume you work for someone else too.
Even huge corporations depend on the buying
habits of the average consumer, so by your definition,
they are slaves too.
And your argument is bullshit: if i take your
money away through taxes, and then decide how
to spend it, I'm the one in control, not you.
The Government needed to break-up Standard
Oil, and investigate Microsoft too. Anti-monopoly
laws are important.
> > �Don't hold your breath to wait for rich CEOs to
> > give away their money: �Notice they only do this if it
> > puts them into a lower tax bracket!
>
> > � � � � � � Look at the disparity of the CEOs salaries
> > compared to the common workers wages. �They
> > keep getting bigger and bigger. �What's the difference
> > if a guy has 9 mansions instead of 10? � Do they
> > really need that much extra money? �Surely, they
> > are already extremely comfortable.
>
> Oh the whole CEO thing is a strawman. �Sure their pay is appalling and
> it shouldn't be, but as a percentage of everything it's insignificant.
>
> They're just an excuse; a bogus, ill-formed justification for taking
> from the few to give to the many.
>
> Taxes are already very lopsided. �Here are a few of the facts (kindly
> ignore the opinions) in a handy format:http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302484020165482
>
> Cheers,
> James Arthur
It's CEO salaries that are lopsided:
James Arthur
> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
> > On Sep 20, 7:45 pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
> > > > On Sep 20, 6:13 pm, Mike Brown <rocko...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > James Arthur wrote:
>
> > > > > > c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
> > > > > > Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
> > > > > > German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
> > > > > > Republicans ;-)
>
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > James Arthur
>
> > > > > If you believe that the name represented their policies, you are ill
> > > > > informed.
>
> > > > > MJRB
> > > > Nazism certainly preached envy, and fanned division and discontent
> > > > amongst the classes ("class warfare," I call it), familiar "liberal"
> > > > refrains today.[1] The organizing theory for both being that "someone
> > > > else has what should be yours," and the promise of fixing this.
>
> > > Mmm, no. Class warfare is what happened to Marie Antoinette. <Chop>
>
> > > Rhetoric is merely rhetoric.
>
> > Whatever one calls it, it's divisive and unhelpful.
>
> So you called it class warfare and equated it with Nazism, but your
> actual point was just that it's divisive and unhelpful? LMAO.
No, I still call it class warfare; it's powerful, corrosive, and
dastardly, pitting class against class; divide and rule, as Caesar put
it. Your scenario describes civil war. That's different.
Socialism is so much more civil than civil war though--you'd just have
the government do that which you could not do yourself: take someone
else's money, and give it to you.
> Hyperbole ruins your credibility with those call you on it.
I used a conventional term in the conventional way. That's how
language works--we give words and phrases meanings, then use them to
communicate. Sorry. Google it.
Meanwhile, you underestimate the power and destructiveness of envy. It
makes even monkeys give up, toss away their earnings in despair.
http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/wire/2003/09/17/fairness/index.html
People too. Needlessly.
> > Far better to
> > teach people how to lift themselves up than to incite them to envy
> > others who already have.
>
> Yeah, but envy is a predictable side-effect of a pop culture of
> celebrity worship
Envy is not a side-effect, it's a base, animal emotion. It's primal,
which is why it's so powerful. And ripe for exploitation. The tool of
demagogues.
> and 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous', E!, etc.
> -- where the great disparity between those randomly born into extreme
> wealth and extreme disadvantage is laid bare. Even Ayn Rand noted
> that her support of inheritable wealth and pure meritocracy created a
> fatal contradiction in her philosophy, by allowing a way for the
> meritocracy to be bypassed and wealth to be held by those who didn't
> themselves directly earn it (and whom would be unable to earn it, if
> left to the forces of meritocracy).
>
> So you can hardly blame some of those on the shit end of that stick
> for rightfully resenting the game being rigged by luck of birth; it's
> a valid emotional response. It motivates different people in
> different ways.
But the premise is false. Only a small fraction of the wealthy
inherited their wealth. In the U.S, anyhow. And the list of top
income earners changes from year-to-year; they aren't some static,
privileged group.
> Even so, it isn't the Democratic Party that is inciting anyone to
> envy.
Listen to their speeches. Oh, excuse me, they're just rhetoric.
> It's the giants of the entertainment industry.
>
> > The latter is unproductive.
>
> Before you can drop proclimations, you first have to show your work.
> What are your metrics for measuring unproductivity?
Just this: What useful thing does it produce?
<snip>
Cheers,
James Arthur
Richard Eich
I'm reminded of an interview Warren Buffett did on CNBC circa the
Bush '43 tax cuts. Buffett said he'd net about $250 million, which
he (1) didn't need and (2) was just going to stick in the bank.
The interviewer, trying to correct Buffett, insisted that Buffett
would invest that $250 million and create jobs / stimulate the
economy. Buffett gave the guy the fish-eye and said, no, that $250
million is going to sit in the bank.
The interviewer tried three more times to get Buffett to say that the
$250 million was going to be invested in job-creating activities, and
each time Buffett was having none of it.
Buffett doesn't drink the Kool-Aid.
> If we tax the wealthy enough, they'll leave the USA for friendlier
> climes, and take their investment wealth with them.
NO. The correct response to that is "Don't let the door hit your ass
on the way out."
> We need *more*
> wealth in the USA, not less.
>
> Quit basing economic policy on envy, and start doing what actually
> makes everyone better off:
Quit taking Ayn Rand seriously: Hers are works of fiction.
> Tax consumption and fix a lot of problems.
Consumption drives what percentage of the GNP, again?
Richard Eich
We can compare Bush 43 to Hussein, though. Bush 43 has killed a
boatload more Iraqis in the past five years than Hussein would have.
John Larkin
SH killed several million people in 20 years or thereabouts, many in
most unpleasant ways.
John
Paul
wrote:
Unless that mansion is basically empty for most
of the year, and only used seasonally. Then it's just
equity sitting there, like money in the bank.
Face it, trickle-down economics doesn't
work, because the rich don't always re-invest in
new businesses. Often they just keep the money
in a bank.
> If a rich dude pays $400 for an oxygen free power cord, where does that
> money go? What does the person that receives the $400 do with it? Or the
> person that he in turn gives in purchase of something else. Waste would be
> paying someone to dig a hole, then fill it in again. Other than that, it all
> comes out in the wash. Some particular person might be getting ripped off in
> paying $400 for a �2 power cord, but the final result don't change for the
> wealth of the population. No work credits (money) are actully lost.
>
> Do they
>
> > really need that much extra money? �Surely, they
> > are already extremely comfortable.
>
> If a rich dude with $1B gave it all away to say, each American, then they
> would get $4 each. Like so what.. What could those millions do with the $4?
> The dude with the notional full amount could at least, in principle, build a
> factory and so forth.
>
> Kevin Aylwardwww.blonddee.co.ukwww.anasoft.co.uk- Hide quoted text -
Richard Eich
Your sources are pulling that number out of their ass. Nobody knows
for sure. The people who want to pump the number up typically add in
war casualty estimates from the Iran-Iraq war and in the invasion of
Kuwait.
But my point is that it is deeply unlikely that Hussein would have
killed more innocent Iraqis than the Bush 43 2003 invasion has.
"When fighting monsters, take care that you do not become one."
(Frederick Nietzsche)
If the goal of the 2003 Iraq War was to depose Hussein and remove his
regime, we've sure done a sloppy and expensive job of it.
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Sep 21, 9:28?am, "Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractT...@kevinaylward.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>> >> But I don't agree that taxes are a royalty, or that they reflect
>> >> one's share of benefit from society.
>>
>> >> And the idea that the elite should pay for everyone else's benefits--
>> >> which is the actual effect--would mean only the elite would have all
>> >> the influence and power. Surely that isn't and couldn't be good.
>>
>> > ? ? ? ? ? No, that would be taking some of their money and
>> > then using it for the good of the whole, or the public at
>> > large, instead of waiting til they die before they decide
>> > to give it away to charity. ?That's taking power away from
>> > them. ?Don't hold your breath to wait for rich CEOs to
>> > give away their money: ?Notice they only do this if it
>> > puts them into a lower tax bracket!
>>
>> I don't see that rich people actually have the money. Its a closed system.
>> If someone has say, notionally, $1B in the bank, well.. they don't, it has
>> been already lent out to other people that don't have the money themselves.
>> Wealth is sort of an illusion. If all the people that thought they had
>> money, tried to get it, it wouldn't be there. In reality, their money is
>> already being used by someone else.
>>
>>
>>
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? Look at the disparity of the CEOs salaries
>> > compared to the common workers wages. ?They
>> > keep getting bigger and bigger. ?What's the difference
>> > if a guy has 9 mansions instead of 10?
>>
>> Who built the houses: Who cleans them? So a few people have a few extra
>> houses, I don't see that that makes much odds in the big scheme of things.
>> For wealth to mean anything, it must be spent, in doing so, the person who
>> the money is spent on gains the benefit of that wealth.
>>
>
> Unless that mansion is basically empty for most
>of the year, and only used seasonally. Then it's just
>equity sitting there, like money in the bank.
>
> Face it, trickle-down economics doesn't
>work, because the rich don't always re-invest in
>new businesses. Often they just keep the money
>in a bank.
>
>
And what do the banks do with that money?
John
Richard Swaby
Why the hell does the US believe that it has the right to plant
anything, anywhere in the rest of the world?
BTW the correct spelling is GOERING.
Richard
>John
>
Paul
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:22:06 -0700 (PDT), Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lend it to people who can't pay it back.....
Paul
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:15:49 GMT, Richard Eich
>
>
>
>
>
> >jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com wrote...
I agree with the other poster that you pulled this
"several million" out of your ass....
Also, Saddam was supported by Reagan, if you
remember.....
Mike Brown
Nothing that they don't think that they can make an easy profit out of,
and they've been stuffing that up pretty well lately.
MJRB
Fan
>
> > SH killed several million people in 20 years or thereabouts, many in
> > most unpleasant ways.
>
> > John
>
> "several million" out of your ass....
>
> Also, Saddam was supported by Reagan, if you
> remember.....
There may be some truth to Saddam murdering several million but he did
most if not all of his murdering while he was our very good friend. WE
defended Saddam before the UN when others tried to censor him for
gassing the Kurds and Iranians. We found nothing wrong with any of
that until he fell out of favor. Not one word was introduced as
evidence against him about the millions of people he murdered because
his defense would have implicated the leaders of United States. We
would not want that, would we? We went after Saddam when Israel and
the Jew lobby wanted us to get rid of him. He gave some money to help
the families of Palestinian suicide bombers whose homes were
demolished by Israel. That was his downfall. We are blameless because
we were and still are just carrying out our orders from Nazi Israel :)
Richard Eich
Civil war between classes...class warfare...some of us need for there
to be some actual WAR going on before we invoke the term warfare!
Talk is simply that: Talk.
> Socialism is so much more civil than civil war though--you'd just have
> the government do that which you could not do yourself: take someone
> else's money, and give it to you.
Oh, you just sound like one of those silly, melodramatic libertarians
when you talk this way. The government takes SOME OF (quit leaving
out the "some of" please) my money and uses it to provide services
used by all to some degree. That isn't "giving" it to somebody else
any more than discussing the effects and impact of socio-economic
stratification is "class warfare".
The alternative is extreme privatization -- you know, where (for
example) you get directly billed by the police and fire departments
and if for some reason you're 30 days past due and your house catches
fire, the fire department doesn't show up and your house burns down.
Most of us rightly recognize that is stupidity.
I need to get to my business. I'll take a look at the rest of your
post later on.
James Arthur
> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
> > No, I still call it class warfare; it's powerful, corrosive, and
> > dastardly, pitting class against class; divide and rule, as Caesar put
> > it. Your scenario describes civil war. That's different.
>
> Civil war between classes...class warfare...some of us need for there
> to be some actual WAR going on before we invoke the term warfare!
I didn't design the language, I just use it.
> Talk is simply that: Talk.
Talk inspires action, excites emotion. The talk, the pandering in
question--that others have more than you, others have what should be
yours, others have gotten theirs unfairly--makes people unhappy,
discontent; makes them suspicious of others, of the government, of
society. Makes them despair, lose hope. Wrongly. Unnecessarily.
And it diverts people from recognizing, acknowledging, and correcting
their real problems. It keeps them down.
Is that just "talk"?
How can you escape poverty if you don't understand how to get out of
it? How can you play the game of life successfully if you're upset,
misinformed, & consumed with conspiracy theories?
<snip>
> I need to get to my business. I'll take a look at the rest of your
> post later on.
Understood.
Best wishes,
James Arthur
Greg Thomas
>
> Face it, trickle-down economics doesn't
> work, because the rich don't always re-invest in
> new businesses. Often they just keep the money
> in a bank.
>
Or under their mattress.
John Larkin
<Turnag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 22, 10:34 am, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 7:19 pm, John Larkin
><snip>
>>
>> > SH killed several million people in 20 years or thereabouts, many in
>> > most unpleasant ways.
>>
>> > John
>>
>> I agree with the other poster that you pulled this
>> "several million" out of your ass....
Well, research it and post a more accurate number. Several M is the
ballpark of those he killed in the Iran war, the gassing and such of
Kurds, the Kuwait war, the diversion of food-for-oil money to the
military, and smaller-scale nastiness.
John
Tim Williams
> Look up the statistics again. That 50% doesn't make $10K/year.
Yep, so my number, which was intentionally an underestimate, is even
less impressive in real terms.
> The
> numbers are readily available. You don't need to create a fantasy
> to make a point (i.e. your point *is* a fantasy).
Is it?
"In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00
according to the Census Bureau.[3]" - Wikipedia
Median = 50% point. So half the earning population (which I assume is
the same bottom 50% that gets taxed by the IRS, not an absurd
assumption, as income and taxes correspond more or less in a one-to-
one fashion -- ooh, a math functions term shows up in economics) is
below that, so the average of that set might be $25k, if linear, but
we know it's bottom-heavy, so $20k can't be that far off for an
average. And my point was to compare an average tax rate to lower-
income people, where 420k/yr is an overestimate and the resulting 10%
tax rate may be an overestimate (a gross overestimate in the case of
those "earning" taxes!). So there, Federal taxes aren't much.
Tim
John Larkin
I think that to a large extent the USA is beyond money. We are
productive enough that there is plenty enough stuff to go around, for
citizens and millions of immigrants, with leftovers for helping people
in other countries. The problem is that skilled people make heaps of
money and spend a lot of it on crap, and others haven't the skills or
temperament to be valuable in a hi-tech society. Political
redistribution of money doesn't actually help much, for the reasons
you state. More sensible public policy would encourage the creation of
service jobs that would help the productive be more productive and
that would make the less valued feel good about themselves, even in
cases where their work is barely, or not even, justified by what they
are paid.
John
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Sep 21, 9:12?pm, John Larkin
>> > ? ? ? Unless that mansion is basically empty for most
>> >of the year, and only used seasonally. ?Then it's just
>> >equity sitting there, like money in the bank.
>>
>> > ? ? ? ?Face it, trickle-down economics doesn't
>> >work, because the rich don't always re-invest in
>> >new businesses. ?Often they just keep the money
>> >in a bank.
>>
>> And what do the banks do with that money?
>>
>> John- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Lend it to people who can't pay it back.....
Cool. But then why do banks pay interest?
John
John Larkin
wrote:
You prefer some other economic model, like Zimbabwe or North Korea?
John
Fan
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 02:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Fan
>
I did not make that statement. That is what happens when you
carelessly snip from a post :)
Paul
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com>
They don't if they collapse!
Paul
True. Or they can put either cash or gold into
a safe deposit box, where it can do nobody any good.
Ask John McCain how many people live in his
multiple homes. I'll bet most of them are empty most
of the time.....
Rich people do NOT spend all their income
re-investing in new factories and businesses, or
creating jobs somehow. Human greed and selfishness
knows no bounds, and they often stash this extra money
away.
John Larkin
<res...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>Why the hell does the US believe that it has the right to plant
>anything, anywhere in the rest of the world?
That's a subject that deserves serious consideration. If one has the
power to save lives, or to promote freedom, is it a sin of omission to
do nothing? Do we respect the national soverignty of a country ruled
by an un-elected genocidal thug?
Planting democracy sure beats expanding Russian or Chinese empires.
And it worked pretty well in Germany, Austria, Italy, and Japan.
>
>BTW the correct spelling is GOERING.
Post your email address and I'll send you a complaint form.
John
John Larkin
How do you keep $30 billion under a matress?
John
hank alrich
> I think that to a large extent the USA is beyond money.
You really think so? Witness:
-----
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 22 Sep 2008 at 07:05:46 PM GMT is:
$ 9 , 6 7 1 , 7 9 0 , 2 9 3 , 0 7 7 . 6 2
The estimated population of the United States is 304,775,541
so each citizen's share of this debt is $31,734.14.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.84 billion per day since September 28, 2007!
-----
If were beyhond money, why do we need to borrow so much money?
Note also that we manufacture not much compared to what we did in the
fairly recent past, and that leads to a tremendous imbalance in our
national trade.
-----
http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html
-----
We're down about 230 billion $.
--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
George's ProSound Company
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:epqfd4phjdfdub0fl...@4ax.com...
George
Bill Chandler
and served it to the group:
<snip>
>Hadn't the US actually been attacked?
Not by Iraq.
>Or were those airplane crashes
>faked?
Nope--but they didn't involve Iraq. Why didn't the US attack Saudi
Arabia? Most of the hijackers were from there.
Oh--right. They're our FRIENDS. With friends like that, well...
>Hadn't Iran and Kuwait been attcked?
Over a decade ago. Gulf War 1 was fought on Kuwait's behalf.
And since when was Iran our ally?
>Wasn't Sadamm directly
>sponsoring suicide bombers?
Not against the US.
>And didn't Congress and the UN authorize
>the Prez's actions? I don't recall Goring getting such legal backup.
Given the fact that those authorizations were based on
now-well-documented lies, that doesn't really mean much.
>Bush and his crew probably felt that, longterm, planting a democracy
>in the heart of the Middle East was a historical necessity. Iraq was
>the best candidate, and the WMD thing was the working excuse. If you
>want to debate whether this was a moral imperative on the path to
>world democracy, or meddling with a soverign country owned and run by
>a sadistic madman, let's discuss that.
It is not the United States' place to dictate to other countries what
their form of government will be. Ultimately, Iraq will find its own
path--which probably won't make whatever regime is running Washington
DC at that point happy. So it goes.
Saddam Hussein was a genocidal lowlife son-of-a-bitch. Sadly, that
particular category is still quite well-populated. In the words of
Tom Lehrer, "who's next?"
The US has plenty of problems right here at home--we have no business
telling everyone else how to run their countries.
>Comparing the USA with Nazi
>Germany, or Bush with Goring, is just silly.
No, it is really quite revealing.
How would you feel if some other country decided that the US needed
"regime change" and chose to implement same by force? That's pretty
much what happened in a large portion of Europe in the late 1930's.
As Dylan put it, they were sure they had God on their side.
Just like Bush.
--------
Far away there in the sunshine are my highest aspirations. I may not reach them, but I can look up and see their beauty, believe in them, and try to follow where they lead. - Alcott, Louisa May
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
the real one is bc9424 AT gmailspamTHIS! D0T com (if you remove spamTHIS!)
...please check out my music at http://www.soundclick.com/billchandler some time...
Bill Chandler
...bc...
hans
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:37:54 -0700, John Larkin
Well said, Bill.
That Dylan song is the one I find most haunting of them all. It
precisely states the war-causing belief in every case. Passify the
masses and send them to the front...... cuz we've got God on our side.
hans
John Larkin
<dr...@yourown.risk.com> wrote:
>
>>Bush and his crew probably felt that, longterm, planting a democracy
>>in the heart of the Middle East was a historical necessity. Iraq was
>>the best candidate, and the WMD thing was the working excuse. If you
>>want to debate whether this was a moral imperative on the path to
>>world democracy, or meddling with a soverign country owned and run by
>>a sadistic madman, let's discuss that.
>
>It is not the United States' place to dictate to other countries what
>their form of government will be.
It worked in Germany, Austria, Italy, and Japan. Should we have
respected their sovereignty? Let Europeans be Europeans?
John
John Larkin
wrote:
The US per-capita public debt is lower than a lot of European
countries, and well below Japan's.
And governments never pay back national debts anyhow.
John
George's ProSound Company
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
so fucking what? do you think I care that the guy next door has 20,000$ in
auto loans, no I care about what I owe
>
> And governments never pay back national debts anyhow.
>
Of course they don't Government don't have any money
the TAXPAYERS have all the money and if a debt is going to be repaid guess
who pocket the money comes from
that's right, mine and yours.
and if we spend money on wars we don't have those dollars to spend doing
something useful
George
John Larkin
Government have mints. They can print all the money they care to.
>the TAXPAYERS have all the money and if a debt is going to be repaid guess
>who pocket the money comes from
>that's right, mine and yours.
So invest in stuff that's inflation-proof.
John
George's ProSound Company
>
> Government have mints. They can print all the money they care to.
this is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read
Mints stop issueing money along time ago
now they issue IOU's that people , in good times, accept as money, in tough
times they head for the GOLD
but the USA does not back it's IOU's with gold, haven't done so in decades,
in effect the "money" is only as good as the taxpayers willingness to send
thier taxes in for redistribution by thier government
george
Richard Eich
> On Sep 22, 5:34 am, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
>
> > > No, I still call it class warfare; it's powerful, corrosive, and
> > > dastardly, pitting class against class; divide and rule, as Caesar put
> > > it. Your scenario describes civil war. That's different.
> >
> > Civil war between classes...class warfare...some of us need for there
> > to be some actual WAR going on before we invoke the term warfare!
>
> I didn't design the language, I just use it.
Well, that's what we're talking about. Your use of language, and in
particular how you use it to construct a very specious argument.
Where's the war?
> > Talk is simply that: Talk.
>
> Talk inspires action, excites emotion. The talk, the pandering in
> question--that others have more than you, others have what should be
> yours, others have gotten theirs unfairly--makes people unhappy,
> discontent; makes them suspicious of others, of the government, of
> society. Makes them despair, lose hope. Wrongly. Unnecessarily.
Like your use of 'warfare' to describe socio-economic stratification?
> And it diverts people from recognizing, acknowledging, and correcting
> their real problems. It keeps them down.
I thought you said a couple of posts ago that this 'envy' response
was primitive and innate. If that's true, how would you suggest
keeping them from feeling that way? That's like saying you can stop
someone from feeling hungry when they don't have enough food.
> Is that just "talk"?
Yes, that's exactly what it is. Talk. Words coming out of someone's
mouth, into someone's ears. Talk. Speech. Free speech, in fact.
You don't have to like it. In fact, speech is most useful when not
everyone DOES like it.
> How can you escape poverty if you don't understand how to get out of
> it? How can you play the game of life successfully if you're upset,
> misinformed, & consumed with conspiracy theories?
Speaking of consumed with conspiracy theories, what would you call
your argument that the Democrats invoke envy and divert people from
recognizing, acknowledging, and correcting their real problems and
keeps them down? That the Democrats are keeping those in poverty
from understanding how to get out of it, and keeping them upset,
misinformed, and consumed with conspiracy theories?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory itself to me, but hey. One man's
upset, misinformed, and consumed with conspiracy theories is another
man's seeing through the bullshit.
And with that, your sword has cut you as well. :)
> <snip>
>
> > I need to get to my business. I'll take a look at the rest of your
> > post later on.
>
> Understood.
>
> Best wishes,
> James Arthur
--
Richard Eich
In other words, it's a conflated number constructed to be as big as
possible. Take away the wars and most numbers converge around the
500K - 700K range.
Your red herring was flashy, but not sufficient to draw attention
away from this point: Over the same time period as the US invasion
and occupation, it is deeply unlikely that Hussein would have killed
as many innocent Iraqis as the US has. And many of them, I note, in
most unpleasant ways. That 14-yo girl who was gang-raped by US
soldiers and then shot and set afire -- after she had to witness her
family being murdered -- comes to mind.
How you can defend such monstrosities is beyond the pale.
Paul
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:49:09 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
>
>
>
>
>
> <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >news:i90gd41d5t28322fv...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:14:52 -0700, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich)
> >> wrote:
Great! Yeah, they can print as much as they want,
until inflation makes the dollar virtually worthless!
Glad you aren't in power....
> >the TAXPAYERS have all the money and if a debt is going to be repaid guess
> >who pocket the money comes from
> >that's right, mine and yours.
>
> So invest in stuff that's inflation-proof.
>
Bill Chandler
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:55:54 -0400, Bill Chandler
Quite a different situation. In WWII, we WERE attacked--by Japan.
Their allies, Germany and Italy, declared war on the US.
Iraq NEVER attacked the US. The current Iraq war is an unprovoked war
of aggression.
Spin it all you want, it will never come clean.
--------
... Be careful when slinging mud, you might lose ground!
John Larkin
<bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Government have mints. They can print all the money they care to.
>
>this is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read
What, they don't have mints? They can't print money?
John
George's ProSound Company
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
they issue currency
but for people at your level of education I guess "printing money" is as
close as you'll get to this concept
Bill Chandler
<dagmarg...@yahoo.com> brewed up the following, and served it to
the group:
<snip>
>> Tojo.
>
>And, a) deserved or not, who and what provoked Tojo to such action?
>
> b) Which "neutral" nation dispatched supply ships in support of
>Hilter's enemies (rightly, I might add), ensuring their attack? And
>who invoked Göring's method (above) when the inevitable attacks came?
>
> c) Aside: you do understand the Nazis were the
>Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist
>German Workers' Party--they were socialists; lefties. Not
>Republicans ;-)
>
>Cheers,
>James Arthur
Oh, PLEASE. Go back to fellating Jonah Goldberg. The only thing
"socialist" about the Nazis was the name.
Learn some history for crum's sake.
--------
... Car pooling - By Sharif d'Ride
Geezer
Any GUITAR discussion out there???
Geezer
John Larkin
<bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:kicgd4dskm6at0dth...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:56:00 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
>> <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Government have mints. They can print all the money they care to.
>>>
>>>this is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read
>>
>> What, they don't have mints? They can't print money?
>>
>>
>no they do not
>they issue currency
Currency isn't money?
>
>
>but for people at your level of education I guess "printing money" is as
>close as you'll get to this concept
>
BSEE, Tulane University. That included some economics. And you?
John
George's ProSound Company
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
Multi Millionaire
and you?
krw
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, tmor...@gmail.com says...
> On Sep 21, 1:40 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> > Look up the statistics again. That 50% doesn't make $10K/year.
>
> Yep, so my number, which was intentionally an underestimate, is even
> less impressive in real terms.
IOW, a lie.
> > The
> > numbers are readily available. You don't need to create a fantasy
> > to make a point (i.e. your point *is* a fantasy).
>
> Is it?
No, apparently I was wrong. It wasn't a fantasy, rather a lie.
> "In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00
> according to the Census Bureau.[3]" - Wikipedia
>
> Median = 50% point. So half the earning population (which I assume is
> the same bottom 50% that gets taxed by the IRS, not an absurd
> assumption, as income and taxes correspond more or less in a one-to-
> one fashion -- ooh, a math functions term shows up in economics) is
> below that, so the average of that set might be $25k, if linear, but
> we know it's bottom-heavy, so $20k can't be that far off for an
> average. And my point was to compare an average tax rate to lower-
> income people, where 420k/yr is an overestimate and the resulting 10%
> tax rate may be an overestimate (a gross overestimate in the case of
> those "earning" taxes!). So there, Federal taxes aren't much.
Why don't you just look up the numbers instead of guessing. The web
is a wonderful thing.
--
Keith
Steve Hawkins
>
> Any GUITAR discussion out there???
>
>
> Geezer
I practiced for about two hours today.
Steve Hawkins
Geezer
"Steve Hawkins" <res0...@verizon.netREMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:Xns9B21B6FC7186Ar...@199.45.49.11...
GREAT!
NOW we're getting somewhere!
Geezer
Bill Chandler
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>
>Any GUITAR discussion out there???
>
>
>Geezer
Been working...had a crap gig on the weekend...I'm tired. I did get
to play guitar on a few songs, though...so that's on-topic.
We got hosed by the bar we played at and are now looking for another
venue.
Going to bed now.
Good night...sleep tight...and pleasant dreams to yoooooou...Here's a
wish...and a prayer...that all your dreeeeeeams come truuuuue....and
now, until we meet again...adios, au revoir, auf weidersehn...GOOD
NIGHT...
--------
"He is winding the watch of his wit; by and by it will strike." - William Shakespeare
Bill Chandler
<Corb...@maneuver.org> brewed up the following, and served it to the
group:
<snip>
> If the retarded "geezer" moniker is right, I hope your chest grip rip
>in life comes soon, jackass. "impress" yourself with that.
Utilizing the Corbomite Maneuver...which was a monumental bluff.
Boy, howdy, I'm certainly impressed.
Have another shot of tranya and get a grip.
(Nothing like Infinite Dumbassery in Infinite Combinations...)
--------
... Get off my kitchen floor...will ya!
John Larkin
<bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:jjegd4dvbhe2iomfs...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:22:40 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
>> <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:kicgd4dskm6at0dth...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:56:00 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
>>>> <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Government have mints. They can print all the money they care to.
>>>>>
>>>>>this is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read
>>>>
>>>> What, they don't have mints? They can't print money?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>no they do not
>>>they issue currency
>>
>> Currency isn't money?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>but for people at your level of education I guess "printing money" is as
>>>close as you'll get to this concept
>>>
>>
>> BSEE, Tulane University. That included some economics. And you?
>>
>> John
>>
>
>Multi Millionaire
>and you?
>
Actually, a million dollars used to be a lot of money. Or currency.
But I thought we were discussing education.
John
John Larkin
wrote:
That's not necessary. An octave of inflation every 15 years or so will
do nicely, and that's about what we have.
Remember when a "millionaire" was really rich?
>
> Glad you aren't in power....
I don't see the connection between what the government can print, and
whether I rule the world. Actually, I'm quite happy in my current
situation.
Invest in stuff that's inflation-proof.
John
bob
i've got a BSEE myself, took a safety course for high resistance grounding
last wk, the prof said his son had a BSEE from west point, MSEE from
UTexas - and somewhere in that "education" couldn't figure out how to safely
wire a light switch. :-)
bob
Mitch
> I'm finding that right wing extremists are so locked into
> "my party right or wrong" that they can't admit any mistakes by their
> leaders.
I'm finding that right OR left wing extremists are so locked into "my part
right or wrong" that not only can't they admit any mistakes by their
leaders, but they think everyone, everywhere must is a potential target for
conversion to their particular political persuasion.
May some zealous wingnut similarly hammer them in some venue they deem
inappropriate.
M-
James Arthur
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:32:22 -0700 (PDT), James Arthur
>
>
>
> <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 21, 8:19 am, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >> dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
> >> > > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote...
> >> > > > Nazism certainly preached envy, and fanned division and discontent
> >> > > > amongst the classes ("class warfare," I call it), familiar "liberal"
> >> > > > refrains today.[1] The organizing theory for both being that "someone
> >> > > > else has what should be yours," and the promise of fixing this.
>
> >> > > Mmm, no. Class warfare is what happened to Marie Antoinette. <Chop>
>
> >> > > Rhetoric is merely rhetoric.
>
> >> > Whatever one calls it, it's divisive and unhelpful.
>
> >> So you called it class warfare and equated it with Nazism, but your
> >> actual point was just that it's divisive and unhelpful? LMAO.
>
> >No, I still call it class warfare; it's powerful, corrosive, and
> >dastardly, pitting class against class; divide and rule, as Caesar put
> >it. Your scenario describes civil war. That's different.
>
> >Socialism is so much more civil than civil war though--you'd just have
> >the government do that which you could not do yourself: take someone
> >else's money, and give it to you.
>
> I think that to a large extent the USA is beyond money. We are
> productive enough that there is plenty enough stuff to go around, for
> citizens and millions of immigrants, with leftovers for helping people
> in other countries. The problem is that skilled people make heaps of
> money and spend a lot of it on crap, and others haven't the skills or
> temperament to be valuable in a hi-tech society. Political
> redistribution of money doesn't actually help much, for the reasons
> you state. More sensible public policy would encourage the creation of
> service jobs that would help the productive be more productive and
> that would make the less valued feel good about themselves, even in
> cases where their work is barely, or not even, justified by what they
> are paid.
>
> John
I agree the U.S. is getting close to the "Star Trek" society, where
stuff is cheap and everyone has plenty. I thought about this day some
30 years ago and worked out some of the ramifications.
But the main reasons people are poor today are
a) having kids out of wedlock,
b) not finishing high school as a result of a), and
c) getting low-paying jobs as a result of b).
Those are entirely preventable--so much misery and frustration could
be avoided if people turned away from envy-mongers' blame and
conspiracy theories and were taught these simple facts:
How Not To Be Poor (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba428/)
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed101305c.cfm
Then onward and upward, yes?
Cheers,
James Arthur
Don Klipstein
James Arthur wrote in part:
>I agree the U.S. is getting close to the "Star Trek" society, where
>stuff is cheap and everyone has plenty. I thought about this day some
>30 years ago and worked out some of the ramifications.
>
>But the main reasons people are poor today are
> a) having kids out of wedlock,
> b) not finishing high school as a result of a), and
> c) getting low-paying jobs as a result of b).
Many people in high poverty neighborhoods are not finishing high school
even if they don't have children to raise - they are single men. They
just don't value education. And in public schools in high poverty black
neighborhoods, a black student that dares to study hard and do well in
school is typically ridiculed and harassed by fellow students for "acting
white".
In high poverty neighborhoods, it is common for many people to not
finish high school due to not valuing education.
They complain how the schools are terrible, but too many kids cut
classes or skip school for the day a lot, and later drop out entirely.
They also have a high rate of not studying at home and not doing their
homework. Their households often have number of books countable on one
hand. The parents often do not teach the children to read but expect
schools to do all of the teaching.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
John Larkin
wrote:
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:jjegd4dvbhe2iomfs...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:22:40 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
>> <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:kicgd4dskm6at0dth...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:56:00 -0400, "George's ProSound Company"
>>>> <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Government have mints. They can print all the money they care to.
>>>>>
>>>>>this is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read
>>>>
>>>> What, they don't have mints? They can't print money?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>no they do not
>>>they issue currency
>>
>> Currency isn't money?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>but for people at your level of education I guess "printing money" is as
>>>close as you'll get to this concept
>>>
>>
>> BSEE, Tulane University. That included some economics. And you?
>
>i've got a BSEE myself, took a safety course for high resistance grounding
>last wk, the prof said his son had a BSEE from west point, MSEE from
>UTexas - and somewhere in that "education" couldn't figure out how to safely
>wire a light switch. :-)
>
>bob
I actually took two semisters of Electrical Machinery, including the
labs... lots of 3-phase rotating machines and transformers and stuff.
They of course disassembled all that because a Dell running Spice is
safer and a lot cheaper. Tulane sent me one of the old Weston
oak-boxed mirror scale meters as a souvenir, after I sent them a
little money.
John