Questions for Psychotic Dumbass. (Psycho Dave)

[theext...@gmail.com]

Questions for Psycho Dave relating to our current debate.

You put:

"Please provide evidence of this. i have an article on the history of
Mossedegh, and so far, everything you claimed is contradicted by it.
Since you dispense all of your assertions off the top of your head, and
don't actually try to research your facts, I challenge you to find
web-links about Mossadegh that illustrate his communist policies. "

And I answered:

Long Live Mossadegh and Communism!

Mossadegh was included in that movie Bowling For Columbines list of US
atrocities, but jwebsites have analyzed that list and showed the truth:

http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/montage.htm

What Moore fails to mention in his two sentence summary is that
Mohammed Mossadeq was a power-hungry wannabe socialist dictator who had
come to power through dubious means. Originally appointed Prime
Minister in 1951, Mossadeq was dismissed from office a year later for
unconstitutionally trying to take control of the armed forces.

After being fired, Mossadeq took control of Iran's elected parliament
and ordered Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran's constitutional monarch, to
re-appoint him as Prime Minister, to which the Shah obliged. Once back
in power, Mossadeq openly declared himself to be a communist and moved
to implement a series of foolish nationalization schemes that threw out
western investment and badly crippled Iran's economy, creating
tripple-digit inflation. As time went on, Mossadeq began to greatly
consolidate his power, ramming a bill through Parliament that granted
himself dictatorial powers, and forcing the Shah to grant him full
control over the armed forces. He proceeded to hold a blatantly rigged
referendum to "ratify" his actions, and claimed he had obtained victory
with 98% of the vote.

" It was at this point that according to Moore the US "installed" the
Shah as "dictator." For whatever his faults, the Shah had always been
Iran's constitutional Head of State. Mossadeq had no right or public
mandate to overthrow Iran's legal ruler, nor did he have any right or
public mandate to even be Prime Minister, let alone implement his
radical Soviet-style reforms. The Churchill and Eisenhower
administrations assisted the Shah's return from exile, and return to
the throne. They did not "install" him, they returned him to the
position he had legally held since 1941."

Here I found a revelant source detailing Mossadeq's dictatoral powers.
What's your answer?

You put:

"I can show you that most of it's proponents
are quacks, have phoney degrees that they purchased online from diploma
mills, or never actually conducted any actual science work. "

I put:

You mean beyond Ken Hovind? By all means, please try.

So please show me how they are quacks.

You put:

"Prove it. Every piece of gun control legislation being fought for
currently is about tracking gun purchases and background checks to
prevent criminals and insane people from buying them. The only thing
they've tried to illegalize are assault weapons."

Almost everyone trying to shoot down assault weapons is anti-gun.
Prove otherwise. Also, do you disagree that semi-automatic assault
weapons without gernade launchers and such should remain legal?

You put:

Norway. They actually relaxed their gun laws a couple of years ago.

I answered with prove it. Show me any sources that back that up. Also
one country does not destroy my assertion that liberal countries tend
to hate guns. Prove Canada, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Switzerland,
Italy, Greece, etc do not have a paranoid fear of firearms.

You put:

Much more successful?

It also states:

"The range and breadth of Truman's "Fair Deal" proposals stretched from
increased welfare to slum clearance. However, he was able to pass
almost none of the proposed plans. Truman supported increasing Social
Security benefits, unemployment relief, and a national healthcare
plan."

Gee... Sounds like the fair deal offered more socialist-style reforms.

But the fact remains that you fairly and squarely disproved your own
claims by providing a relevent link, and you also showed what a dipshit
you are for not even bothering to read it!

Also, the claim of the fascism is not well-founded. In fact, few
historians still think that. Most of the claims are superficial.

My answer:

I said most of his plans did not succeed but unemployment has decreased
because of it. Also, Socialism is state control over all the economy,
not reforms of certain government and private institutions. Prove me
otherwise. I'm willing to debate over the definition of Socialism and
effects it has on western countries.

You said:

You are totally wrong. Do the math yourself.

POpulation of the USA = 300,000,000 (300 million)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Demographics

POpulation of Sweden = 9,060,430

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Demographics

Homeless in USA = 3.5 million (3,500,000)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4305.htm

Homeless in Sweden = 8,440

http://www.creativeresistance.ca/communitas/2003-mar01-homelessness-t...

3.5 million is 8.5% of 300,000,000 (USA)

8,440 is 1.07% of 9.06 million (SWEDEN)

So basically, you're tryng to tell me that 1.07% is twice as much as
8.5%?

My answer:

That's only per capita. The populations are different. Imagine if
Sweden was the size of the US and had the same population, how much
more would be unemployed? Sweden is not a place where everyone has
jobs.

You added:

Here's the real rub, though. IN all of those countries -- Canada,
Sweden, and the rest -- homeless does not translate into "living on the
street or shanty-towns and begging for handouts from strangers". In all
of those countries, government programs exist to provide help to all of
the homeless people, including free housing, medical care, job-search,
and more. You can't tell who the homeless people are in Sweden if you
visit, because they are cleaner, healthier, and usually very short-term
homeless.

My answer:

It's the same in America. I have never run into a handout, and welfare
and housing programs have been in America longer and are more advanced.
American unemployment does not mean you are going to be dirty and
begging for dollars. That is India. I care about citizens, and I do
not push any agendas. The Republican Party also cares about people.
Your worldview and "stats" are quite bizzare.

You said:

"What would you consider to be "unfair regulations on companies in the
name of the environment?" "

My answer:

Smashing down corporations and companies because Greenpeace does not
want them around. Most people against said companies have an ideology
to pull. They are ideologues.

Alternative to Greenpeace: http://www.greenspirit.com/

You added:

Should companies be allowed to strip the landscape of all trees and
vegetation, and just leave it all ruined?

I answer:

When has tha that happened in history? Has North Americas entire
landscapes been detroyed by corporations, or you trying to demonize
them?

Again, you barf out:

"Should companies be allowed to just dump toxic waste in streams? "

I answer:

No, but that rarely happens. Why are you even mentioning that?

PD:

Should companies be made to pay for toxic waste cleanup or for the
health bills of people made sick by them?

Me:

No. Healthcare should not be free.

PD:

Let's say a company dumps
toxic waste in the stream or into the water table, and people get sick
who live miles away, from those chemicals. Should the company pay for
the medical bills for those people?

Me:

Again, no. Compensation and universal healthcare create more problems,
if not just problems, then they do good.

[LoreAlmighty]

Haha, you linked to this website:

http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/montage.htm

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Don't you realize that's a neocon website that outright
lies to try to break the credibility of Bowling for Columbine? Almost
every anti bowling for columbine website is retarded. This website
even has a section called "smack down on Media Matters." How do you
debunk a website which just collects audio and video clips of
conservatives? Let me guess, all their media is edited to make it look
like conservatives are retarded. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[theext...@gmail.com]

Going to answer Dave? Or getting your lackys to make dumbass responses
to me!

[Psycho Dave]

I think Lorealmighty summed you up rather well. As I said several times
now, it's too painfully clear that you're a troll, and that you're just
playing a made up character. You're style is identical to previous
trolls, especially the technique where you post liks that say the
opposite of what you claim, or which are of questionable accuracy.

[theext...@gmail.com]

The US was founded on Libertarian views. If America went back to those
views, we'd be better off. Crime rates would be lower, and
institutions would be higher. Everything from education to even the
space program would be better off. It's true that a utilitarian state
would probably not have a federalized space program, but I think that
space will be explored when there is a comercial use for space. Look at
how far satellite technology has come since private companies found a
use for them. Eons ahead and vastly cheaper then any useless government
crap. Also enviromental regulation just doesn't work well to start
with. What works well is the threat of lawsuit from private people who
are harmed by eviromental neglect.

[Psycho Dave]

Are you retarded or schizophrenic or something? This collection of
random statements has absolutely nothing to do with what preceeded it
in the thread. Were you even following the thread that you created?
This current post of your isn't even really a coherent statement. It's
just a collection of random speculations loosely conencted and just
blurted out.

This makes me further question your sanity.

[theext...@gmail.com]

Can you disprove what I have claimed?

On Jan 25, 3:31 am, "Psycho Dave" <psy...@weirdcrap.com> wrote:
> Are you retarded or schizophrenic or something? This collection of
> random statements has absolutely nothing to do with what preceeded it
> in the thread. Were you even following the thread that you created?
> This current post of your isn't even really a coherent statement. It's
> just a collection of random speculations loosely conencted and just
> blurted out.
>
> This makes me further question your sanity.
>

[Psycho Dave]

On Jan 24, 5:11 am, theextreme...@gmail.com wrote:

> The US was founded on Libertarian views.

Which type of libertarian views was the US founded on -
-Consequentialist Libertarian views or Rights-Theorist Libertarian
views? I mean, if you're sure that they were libertarian, you should at
least know what type. Please provide links to specific works of the
founders that support your claim.

> If America went back to those
> views, we'd be better off.

So, what views, specifically, are you referring to? Can you list some
specifics?

> Crime rates would be lower, and
> institutions would be higher.

Can you cite some examples of how Libertarian views (and please
identify if you mean Rights-theorist or Consequentialist) that
specifically relate to crime and punishment issues?

And what do you mean by "institutions would be higher"? What
institutions would be higher, and what would they be higher in?

> Everything from education to even the
> space program would be better off.

Uh, what are the classical libertarian views on education, which the
founding fathers believed in, and which you believe are different now?

What specific Libertarian views from the revolutionary period are
relevent to your claims about the space program?

> It's true that a utilitarian state
> would probably not have a federalized space program, but I think that
> space will be explored when there is a comercial use for space.

Utilitarians would have federalized the space program, if they saw it
as beneficial to the greater good of the nation. Utilitarianism is a
philosophy that calls for "The greatest good for the greatest number".

> Look at
> how far satellite technology has come since private companies found a
> use for them.

But aren't all the private sattellites derrived from the technilogy
derrived from government-funded space programs?

> Eons ahead and vastly cheaper then any useless government
> crap.

Which space technologies that the government payed for have proved to
be useless crap?

> Also enviromental regulation just doesn't work well to start
> with. What works well is the threat of lawsuit from private people who
> are harmed by eviromental neglect.

Can you clarify what you're referring to here?

[theext...@gmail.com]

"Which type of libertarian views was the US founded on -
-Consequentialist Libertarian views or Rights-Theorist Libertarian
views? I mean, if you're sure that they were libertarian, you should at
least know what type. Please provide links to specific works of the
founders that support your claim. "

Consequestialist, because we were founded on Anarcho-capitalism. I
myself am an anarcho-capitalist. Yep, I'm even against all the heavy
funds we put into national defense.

"So, what views, specifically, are you referring to? Can you list some
specifics? "

Less funding on the military, we cut so much funding to courts, and
more focus on the individual.

"Can you cite some examples of how Libertarian views (and please
identify if you mean Rights-theorist or Consequentialist) that
specifically relate to crime and punishment issues? "

Consequestialist, at least the ones I know, are for more reasonable
punishments for criminals. We don't need to kill them off if it cost
too much for example. You know what I mean?

"Uh, what are the classical libertarian views on education, which the
founding fathers believed in, and which you believe are different now?
"

Simple, it shouldn't be public. Like healthcare, people can do it
themselves?

"Utilitarians would have federalized the space program, if they saw it
as beneficial to the greater good of the nation. Utilitarianism is a
philosophy that calls for "The greatest good for the greatest number".
"

Hmm...not the ones I know....

"But aren't all the private sattellites derrived from the technilogy
derrived from government-funded space programs?

> Eons ahead and vastly cheaper then any useless government
> crap.

Which space technologies that the government payed for have proved to
be useless crap? "

The private industry completely owns the sattellite industry. I've
been learning my stuff from prominant libertarians on the internet,
such as CapnOawesome of yourreligonsucks.net, and he's straighten up
some of my more conservative stances.

[theext...@gmail.com]

> Also enviromental regulation just doesn't work well to start
> with. What works well is the threat of lawsuit from private people who
> are harmed by eviromental neglect.

Can you clarify what you're referring to here?

Environmental regulations are useless. People can save themselves.

[LoreAlmighty]

How are environmental regulations useless? I mean, beyond them
hurting big corporations pockets...