The kind of Man GWBush is.

by Yerusalyim 208 Replies latest social current

Realist

berten,
LOL that is funny! do you perhaps have an english version too? my french is not that great
berten

Realist:
They don't seem to have an english version on their site...
Jayson

Good morning Realist. I trust the day finds you well.
As I said with those who support the "third way" of socialism also called the chaos theroy/or neo-marxists simply have it wrong. They always have. Socialism will always fail. There can't be a bridge where Socialism leads and capitalism is secondary. However, a Capitalistic system with a welfare state works quite well; So long as the welfare state is kept in check. You should never check the right of indviduals or business to spur new capital. Not lasie-faire capitalism as the US exports to other regions but capitalism as is practiced inside the US. I've recomended "World on Fire" before to cover this area. The idea that the State is more efficent than the private sector is, well, not true. But there will always be managerialists who fight for the right to have power. (I hate bureucrates)
The rift is vast between those who support the EU ideology and those who laugh at it. I believe it (The dream of a untied europe) will fail in my lifetime. You don't. (I assume) We will see in time. (Unless you see the future in a cereal bowl. I don't)
Mr. Gates believes that a super tax upon the rich of WS will lead it out of a resession. Most economists disagree with that concept. (As I understand it) Supporting an increase in sales tax, incorperating an income tax, and increasing cooperate & business taxes probably won't help. But, it is sure to hurt. Why do so many millionares and some (gates) billionaries settle in WS? Mr. Gates is quite concerned with the poor yes. But his ideals settle better in Europe than here.
i fail to see how high minimum wages would be directly linked to a budget deficit.
If you do not understand this basic fact of economics I am wasting my time. Not because it's not important but because you perhaps haven't had much experience in ecomonics in reality.
to give immigrants a house seems indeed extraordinarily generous.
Oh no no you misunderstand not true houses. No, they, the State, for millions and millions provide glorified tents for temporary housing. State run programing at it's best. And they cover less than 10% of migrant/immigrant workers during the peak of seasons. And I agree, they need to change their policy.
if there are not enough jobs available the only possible conclusion is to not allow them to enter the state.
Isolationism, it's an option. But illegal immigration is still a huge problem. And to just exclude the poor doesn't that fly in the face of Socialism? It flies in the face of America. We need to change our immigration laws. My opinion is to reward legal immgration and punish illegal aliens. A sociologiest once asked me why Cuban's get instant immigration status when Mexicans don't. It was an intresting debate.
you mean the US should go back to this habit? what would that mean to the already poorly developed democratic system? Go back.
Ha like 2/3rds of congress will ever agree on something that would give away so much state ( & special interests) power. We are a Republic not a democracy. Any sane person does not want to live in a democracy any more than a dictatorship. And yes liberals do want to live in a democracy and despise the Republic. I think that Ann Coulter my have a point about them.
the US has the lowest social security and international aid spendings in the western world. on the other hand the highest defense budget and one of the highest costs on prisions. that money could be put to better use.
As I said the 'western world' meaning the EU standards can't be maintained. Immigration to boost numbers and offset the retiring babyboomers might help in the EU. But, hatred of immigrants will put need of workers and bigotry/fear of loss of culture at odds. I don't think that the US 'meger' welfare' system can continue without reform either.
Yes defense, guns, war machines, bombs, some 250 billion. Prisions lock'em up. Big money in both. We don't go far enough; Minus the death penalty, I'm with you there. But, probably not for the same reasons. I'm all for killing the bad guys. But state executions are to expensive. Thugs are not worth a million dollars a peice to fry em. A bullet costs about 14 cents. Capital Punishment is to expensive. And it is big money to put on a Capital punishment crime case. If it were really about public deterence they would make executions public. Also, if you were to remove robbery where homicide results from the crime meaning that executions were not an option avalable to the State a lot of problems would be solved. Life in prison, yes. Save execution for the worst of the worst and that's all.
So how much is enough?
enough so that they can live a very simple life. they should be able to afford a small apartment in a cheap area and have enough money for food. Every immigrant into America should recieve a check for?
So anyone who does not make say $40,000 a year should just state how much they made and request a check from the state for the difference? The US gives away food both domesticly and abroad. Oh wait, never mind, you talked about that on another thread.
do not prevent crimes. security, education and equal chances prevent crimes. the higher the living standard the lower the crime rate. It's why I support self defense laws.
self defense laws are absolutely ok. europe is too restrictive in that case imo. In the US crime and criminals are treated to gently.
This flies in the face of white collar crime. Greed is the modivation for crime. Stealing a loaf of bread because you are starving is not what we are talking about. In the US we have a culture where if your friend had a gun he carried illegally would most Americans tell the police? No, it seems they don't. But I not only would, I did. And I would again. All people do not have the rights to even posses a gun much less carry it on them. You have to register youself with the FBI including fingerprinting that is kept on file with the government forever. Also gangs should be treated just like the mob. That is what they are "organized crime." They should be treated as such. So many gun related homicide deaths are gang related.
Thanks for understanding my point on europe and self defense restriction. Personally, I think it clouds the minds of the citizens. Europe is to passive. But that was the goal. In the US we do not hold people responsible for themselves. There is no talk about responsibility to each other or the State. We also do not challenge ourselves enough. (Meaning education.) We need to walk the walk and stop being such slackers. jmo
I think that duty and honor are become back in style. Patriotism and true responsibility are no longer things that liberal minds can use to put people down. That means that liberal ideals of socialism will get the toliet and individualism will come about again. This will not sit well with the desire of a UN with a world tax (meaning taxing Americans to redistribute to nations favored by the UN) with a standing army (Funded and supplied by the US) and a world court (To be used to create endless grandstanding against the US and her allies by dictator nations).
I read an article "End open enrollment into the UN." It was in a chopper magazine of all places. But it was the best I've read yet. If I find in online I'll PM it to you.
Realist

jayson,
we are getting involved in too many topics here so i think we should focus on two of them.
a) the european dream:
The rift is vast between those who support the EU ideology and those who laugh at it. I believe it (The dream of a untied europe) will fail in my lifetime. You don't. (I assume) We will see in time. (Unless you see the future in a cereal bowl. I don't)
unfortunately i have to agree. the different european states do not love each other. they are just trying to do what is best in their own interest. as long as there is no strong crisis the system will work. if something comes up the union or at least the spirit of it will fall apart (as already seen with the iraq war). a common enemy like the US or perhaps in the future china might change that though.
i love the idea of a united europe (or world) but i am not a idealist but realist
b) economics:
If you do not understand this basic fact of economics I am wasting my time. Not because it's not important but because you perhaps haven't had much experience in ecomonics in reality.
well i am always interested to learn new things so please enlighten me! (what kind of business degree do you have?)
However, a Capitalistic system with a welfare state works quite well; So long as the welfare state is kept in check.
i never recommended socialism but controlled markets like they exist in europe.
it is not correct that these systems have to fail. they could and do work very well in some cases. germany was the prime example. without the reunification the system would be absolutely save. switzerland is another example.
Mr. Gates believes that a super tax upon the rich of WS will lead it out of a resession. Most economists disagree with that concept. (As I understand it) Supporting an increase in sales tax, incorperating an income tax, and increasing cooperate & business taxes probably won't help. But, it is sure to hurt. Why do so many millionares and some (gates) billionaries settle in WS? Mr. Gates is quite concerned with the poor yes. But his ideals settle better in Europe than here.
sure as long as there are places where millionairs can move to in order to escape adequate taxation the problem you describes will remain. such tax oasis have to be dried up so that the filthy rich cannot escape their responsibility (ok i might be a dreamer after all )
Yes defense, guns, war machines, bombs, some 250 billion.
its close to 400 billion now. not counting the cost for this stupid war.
So anyone who does not make say $40,000 a year should just state how much they made and request a check from the state for the difference? The US gives away food both domesticly and abroad. Oh wait, never mind, you talked about that on another thread.
well where to draw the line depends on the living costs of the respective area. i find it disgusting that we have to debate whether it is ok that the poor are getting a minimum support while the filthy rich are living like god.
the world should try to get more just instead of trying to make life as easy as possible for the rich while half the world is starving. (again i am dreaming here but that is my personal opinion).
This will not sit well with the desire of a UN with a world tax (meaning taxing Americans to redistribute to nations favored by the UN) with a standing army (Funded and supplied by the US) and a world court (To be used to create endless grandstanding against the US and her allies by dictator nations).
the UN is a joke and US puppet so i think we don'T have to discuss it.
Yerusalyim

Realist,
Your constant justification of Terrorism is SICKENING. Number one, the Palestinians don't have to fight at all, they could make peace at any time. They had a chance at a homeland in 1948, getting the best real estate in the area, and rejected it out of hand wanting the whole lot. Had they not constantly used terrorists to attack Israel between 48 and 67, they could have asked Jordan to make them an independent country (Jordan would have rejected the proposal, they made a HUGE income from pilgrimages to Jerusalem, something denied Jews. From 48 until 67 Jews were forbidden to make a pilgrimage to their most holy site, the Western Wall. Again, had Arafat accepted the Camp David Proposal, instead of renewing the Intafada, Palestinians would be well on their way to a homeland. What is holding up peace is radical Palestinians refusing to drop the Palestine Instead of Israel not Beside Israel platform. Hamas' stated goal is a Palestinian state INSTEAD of Israel.
Also, Hamas et al could restrict their attacks to MILITARY targets, but don't. There is NEVER any justification for strapping a bomb to your body, walking into a communal passover celebration, and blowing up men, women, children, and the elderly. NEVER! But, as long as haters like yourself exist who will justify and excuse terrorism, it will always exist.
As to US Bombing of civilians in WW2, as I understand it, it was the English that did that. The US Bombed Industrial Centers, but with no trully accurate bombs, of course civilians in those areas were killed. I could be wrong on this issue, I'll admit that, but I'd have to see the papers on it. I seem to remember recently a History Channel Program on this subject.
Now then, as to WMD. We have precursor agents found...we have mobile chem labs...we have the Iraqi scientist who just turned over the hidden centrifuge for enriching uranium to make weapons grade U, and documents to go with it. This same scientist told Blix and Company before the war that he had NO IDEA what they were talking about. We also have so many Iraqis dead that Saddam killed it's pathetic...what more do we need to discuss. THIS WAR WAS JUSTIFIED.
Realist

yeru,
i - like any other at least semi sane person - is not pro targeting civilians. however, as i said previously it is a logical consequence if you leave suppressed people with no other choice.
you should know very well that it is almost impossible to target military targets.
Number one, the Palestinians don't have to fight at all, they could make peace at any time.
as you know israel broke every agreement on stopping and/or removing settlements in the occupied territories. israels goal is to throw the arabs out of the occupied territories. they will expand their settlements until all land is owned by them and an arab state becomes impossible. i have to say i understand the arabs of not wanting this to happen.
before we continue the discussion about israel i would love to finally hear your justification of israel getting territories in 48 that were populated by over 90% arabs.
As to US Bombing of civilians in WW2, as I understand it, it was the English that did that. The US Bombed Industrial Centers, but with no trully accurate bombs, of course civilians in those areas were killed. I could be wrong on this issue, I'll admit that, but I'd have to see the papers on it. I seem to remember recently a History Channel Program on this subject.
i think you are mistaken on that one. i at least have never heard of this.
but in case you are right...how do you justify the bombing of vietnam? or the my lai massacre? the responsible officer was pardoned by nixxon!
IronGland

Yeah, we targeted civilians in WW2. The idea was that it takes an entire society to participate in modern war, whether you're carrying a rifle or growing crops or working in a factory, or just voted for the people who started it, therefore everyone should face the consequences. Dresden in particular. In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.
On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 135,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 250,000. Whatever the figure, it was probably greater than the 51,509 British civilians killed by the Luftwaffe during the whole of the Second World War and the 70,000 immediate deaths at Hiroshima after the dropping of the first atom bomb on 6th August 1945. Civilians attempting to flee the city across the river were strafed. WW2 was crazy all around, though and just because all sides did all lot of cold blooded things at that time doesn't justify it today.
Jayson

If you do not understand this basic fact of economics I am wasting my time. Not because it's not important but because you perhaps haven't had much experience in ecomonics in reality.

well i am always interested to learn new things so please enlighten me! (what kind of business degree do you have?)
Realist as I said the economics of reality, it's something that unless you create a successful business out of your own sacrafice, beat the odds, and the massive unfair taxes of self employed people (It's not so easy to write off that SUV in reality.) Then that someday somes where you could actually take some time off, or hire some help. But high minimum wages, add a benifits package, vacation time, and all the other perks that the "working poor" want. See what it would cost in a high income wage state like Wa. How much would job creation cost? The real world is not college. The real world is when you do it. If you understood that minimum wage is suposed to be an introductory wage not a wage to live on then this would be easy. If you understood that taxes do not promote growth it slows it, sometimes kills it when they are too high.. But you promote the same boring anti-west anti-capitalist, anti-americanism sillyness that has caused so much frustration on jwd. I admit that I am the other side Realist. I caused frustration here too, I understand that. Saying that America (As the current Pres is not the only one to offer the aide to Africa and been turned down) doesn't care about the suffering in Africa, well, the offer of aide is there. It's their choice if they choose not to accept it. You also are in favor of arming the likes of Iraq with wmd, "they have the right to them," as I saw on the wmd thread simon started - Realist I don't want to talk to you anymore. I thought about just PMing this to you, but this, all of it, has gone on long enough. I think you represent the side of humaity and the jwd'ers that I stand against pretty clearly. So, thanks for the debate. Hopefully I will learn to walk away from a disucssion like these ones much sooner in the future.
Realist

irongland,
excellent post!
jayson,
well in the REAL world people HAVE TO LIVE from minimum wages. you propagate a society that is based on the principle of surving of the fittest. and you are blind to the consequences of it. there is a large number of individuals rich enough to live comfortably from the interest accumulating on their bank accounts while others because of background, inability and environment are living in utter poorness. if you want to proudly be part of such an society that so be it.
Saying that America (As the current Pres is not the only one to offer the aide to Africa and been turned down) doesn't care about the suffering in Africa
i did not say AMERICA but BUSH (like 90% of all politicians...europeans included) is not caring about africa! there are buisness interests at stake in africa of which you obviously have no idea of. that the west is giving help to africa doesn'T change the fact that it at the same time sucked and sucks out 10 times as much profit from this continent.
Realist I don't want to talk to you anymore.
sounds like one of the famous last words!
wish you the best!
Yerusalyim

Realist,
as you know israel broke every agreement on stopping and/or removing settlements in the occupied territories. israels goal is to throw the arabs out of the occupied territories. they will expand their settlements until all land is owned by them and an arab state becomes impossible. i have to say i understand the arabs of not wanting this to happen.
before we continue the discussion about israel i would love to finally hear your justification of israel getting territories in 48 that were populated by over 90% arabs.
The justification? well, first, your premise is WRONG! In the DISPUTED areas the population of Arabs to Jews was NOT 90% arab, it was more like 60%. Secondly, the land that the Jews physically occupied was bought and paid for. Third, most of the Arabs there were immigrants just as the Jews were. Finally, you're beloved United Nations said so...The Israelis accepted the offer though they got less than 4% of the arable land out of that deal...the Arabs rejected it out of hand...and choose war...a war they lost.
There would be no Jewish settlements in the "occuppied territories" if the Arabs had not used them to stage attacks against Israel from 1948 onward...the taking of that land was necessary if Israel were to have Peace.
Realist...AS YOU KNOW...The Palestinians are also guilty of building illegal settlements...and have never been sanctioned for any of their attacks against Israel. If the Palestinians want peace, they must first control the terrorist element amongst them.

The kind of Man GWBush is.

Share this