so close to the truth...

[Cantacuzene]

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/35493vodi_w.jpg

[Nija]

X

[Kevster]

I haven't spent a lot of time on G|A? lately because of Canta's prolific leftist babbling. You like to post crap like this to offend people - and it only proves I shouldn't back any time soon.

[InfiniteNothing]

It's been pretty unpolitical around lately. I'm suprised you feel that way.

[DankNstickY]

Originally posted by Nija
X

:stupid:

[Grimm]

Originally posted by Yossarian
that ironic...this coming from mr. don't-compare-saddam-to-hitler I think the term you are looking for is "hypocritical".

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Yossarian
that ironic...this coming from mr. don't-compare-saddam-to-hitler

Saddam's family doesn't have ties to the former German National Socialist Party, Bush's does. And as someone pointed out in another thread all the facist things this administration is doing.

Furthermore, this is a tongue in cheek joke, whereas other people are seriously comparing Saddam to Hitler.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Kevster
I haven't spent a lot of time on G|A? lately because of Canta's prolific leftist babbling. You like to post crap like this to offend people - and it only proves I shouldn't back any time soon.

Bye. :wavey: Let me know when I can get a high horse like you to ride on.

[Cubsfan]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Bye. :wavey: Let me know when I can get a high horse like you to ride on.
HINT: Look at what you're sitting on :)

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Cubsfan

HINT: Look at what you're sitting on :)

Wow, you got me there. Boy did I not see that response coming. Boy is the egg on my face.

[Kevster]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Bye. :wavey: Let me know when I can get a high horse like you to ride on.

It's not that I'm on a high horse, it's just that you've set the measurement so low for all others to be judged.

Oh, and :wavey: to you too.

[Jenny]

Kevster, I'm sure you know how many would rather have you here than certain other people... :shrug: I wish you'd reconsider. :)

[Nija]

Originally posted by Kevster
and it only proves I shouldn't back any time soon.

hey hey..

I'm going deep into my second semester of Cisco training, and I want you around to make fun of how little I know :)

so get yur buttocks back here so we can spell obscene things at the AMD people :P

[CynJon]

Originally posted by Yossarian
it was a b/w pic of barbra bush walking next to her husband, with hitlers face chooped on

Looks more like Laura Bush to me...:shrug: :P

[dbax791]

Still X

Has sho put down the daquiri's yet?

[sbp]

...and believed only by upset crackheads. :P


Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Saddam's family doesn't have ties to the former German National Socialist Party, Bush's does. And as someone pointed out in another thread all the facist things this administration is doing.

Furthermore, this is a tongue in cheek joke, whereas other people are seriously comparing Saddam to Hitler. Indeed there are parallels between Hitler and Hussein. Cult of warped personality dictators who murdered countless citizens and invaded neighboring countries. Meanwhile much of the world looked the other way and the world organization of each time sat on its hands. The more things change, the more they sadly stay the same.

[Cantacuzene]

I didn't say Hussein didnt have similarities to Hitler. The only difference between the two is scale.

That doesn't mean that there arent similarities between some of Bush's policies and Hitlers. The SS in Germany was called, the "Department of Home Nation Security." Its things like that which scare me.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Yossarian
so since i have family ties to the same party i'm nazi too?


I never said Bush was a Nazi, just the he has some similarities to them. As for your family ties, it really depends what they are.

Fun question to answer: Whose oil company sold the fuel to the Japanese that was used on the attack at Pearl Harbor?

[ray]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Fun question to answer: Whose oil company sold the fuel to the Japanese that was used on the attack at Pearl Harbor?


who cares? :heh:

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by lilbigblue



who cares? :heh:

why wouldn't you care?

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by lilbigblue



who cares? :heh:

Another resounding victory for american apathy.

[Nija]

Originally posted by Yossarian
so because he dosen't care about one thing hes apathetic?

from dictionary.com


ap·a·thy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-th)
n.
Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.


sounds like a yes on that subject.

[Nija]

Originally posted by Yossarian

read again...i said that ONE thing

And I said yes, on that subject, he is apathetic.

American Apathy is, as far as I can tell, not really caring about a vast majority of things. Most American's follow a herd mentality, one of the most prevailing, is apathy.

Most American's could give a rat's ass about things that are feed to them by the media or their president (and i don't care who the media source is, or the president of the time).

[Nija]

two out of three ain't bad...

people always think i'm stupid. I like the see their faces when I prove them wrong.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing


why wouldn't you care?

In short because we were not at war with them at the time. Whoever they were (see, I don't know either) were merely selling products on the open market to a country that may not have seemed like the nicest guys on the but had not yet been openly hostile to us. Now if they had conducted business with them after the bombing :nono:

Let's make the issue a little more interesting. Sould this oil company who sold product to Japan before hostilities broke out be looked at any differently from a company who does business with France or Germany today? Hind sight is 20/20. I don't think hostilities will break out between us but I can easily see how someone could have come to the same conclusion 50 years ago. Just something fun for everyone to think about and Canta to get upset about. :hihi:

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Kevster
...and it only proves I shouldn't back any time soon.

Let the doorknob hit cha where the good lord split cha! :P



How you been buddy? Haven't heard from ya in while.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Merlin


In short because we were not at war with them at the time. Whoever they were (see, I don't know either) were merely selling products on the open market to a country that may not have seemed like the nicest guys on the but had not yet been openly hostile to us. Now if they had conducted business with them after the bombing :nono:

I'm not sure I can agree with you here. If about a month before we started hostilities with Iraq, say in mid February, Iraq placed an order with American small arms companies for 200,000 assault rifles and RPG launchers, don't you think those companies would be looked at negatively if they sold the weapons? I do. Tensions with Japan in 1941 were very high, in fact US intelligence expected an attack, they just expected it at Singapore. It seems like I would expect something fishy if I ran an oil company and Japan came and placed a massive order for oil right when tensions with the US were highest. Maybe I'm off base here but this isnt the only example of 'trading with the enemy' that prominent American political families were guilty of in WW2.

[InfiniteNothing]

If the company has no idea they are dealing with bad guys then it's an accident-- nothing to get your panties in a bunch. But if they knew, then there's a problem. Also, just because they didn't attack us doesn't mean they were not "bad guys". I'd consider them bad guys if they were atrocious, if they were planning to attack us, or if they were attacking out allies.

I'm not sure I consider France or Germany bad guys. Sure it's always enjoyable to make fun of France but they certainly haven't been planning to attack us or killing innocent people.

[xsiled2]

http://xsiled.homestead.com/files/himmlerx1.jpg

the truth is out there....

[Cantacuzene]

YOu dont even know what facism is. I post things being critical of nazis and you proceed to call me a facist. I think you need to take 10th grade wolrd history again. Then again you are prolly still in it.

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
YOu dont even know what facism is. I post things being critical of nazis and you proceed to call me a facist. I think you need to take 10th grade wolrd history again. Then again you are prolly still in it.

How about some 4th grade english?

You sure are quick to dish it out, but when you get it back you go to the "oh everyone is against me" crap.

You continue with badly quoted or exhumed "information" from one of your lame ass classes or your own "research".

Whiney Socialist.

[Cantacuzene]

Want proof?

"On Octobr 20, 1942, the US government ordered the siezure of NAzi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush (father of Bush Sr.) Under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian siezed Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland Harriman, three top Nazi executives, and two other Bush associates." (Chaitkin and Tarpley, George Bush: the Unauthorized Biography)

"Prescott Bush had four companies siezed including the Holland-American Trading Corporation, the Seamless Steel Equipment Association as well as the Silesian-American Corporation." (same)

The New York Tribune at the time referred to Prescott Bush as "Hitler's Angel." (New York Tribune)

"George Bush [bush 41] ran the fuel company that sold the Japanese the oil and gasoline that was used on the attack on Pearl Harbor. (Glen Yeadon, From the Street of Little Beirut)

Just in case you were wondering, the companies that were seized of goold old Prescotts were responsible for financing over 40 Concentration Camps.

Xsiled, when you get out of high school, maybe you're horizons will expand and you might learn something. Maybe the sheltered little world your mommy built for you will open up and you might meet some minorities and even, god willing, talk to someone of a different socio-economic status than yourself.

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Xsiled, and you might meet some minorities and even, god willing, talk to someone of a different socio-economic status than yourself.


first my best friend is mexican second most of the people i know dont come from even close to equal economic status and third ur an ******* dont talk any more.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by xsiled2
first my best friend is mexican second most of the people i know dont come from even close to equal economic status and third ur an ******* dont talk any more.

Awwww did I hurt your feelings? SO I suppose when YOU assume things abotu me its OK, but when I assume things about you, I am an a**hole. Typical logic from a teenager.

Another thing I noticed about you is you constantly ask me for proof on things and when I do prove it you dont respond to that. You wait for someone with intelligence (merlin, sbp etc) to respond to my sources then you try to jump on the bandwagon.

You can dish it out but you cant take it. Very typical of an insecure teenager.

[hang10wannabe]

i think bush is a badass mofo... i think hes a great leader and doesnt deserve all this ridicule and political jokes :shrug:

[xsiled2]

hah insercurites your funny canta, to bad most of the crap you say you would never say to some one face to face. and no you didnt "hurt" my feeling *******, im jsut proving that your opinion of me and what you think i am its about as good as your socialist ideals. bite a nut.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by xsiled2
[IMG cut]

the truth is out there....

Why must we always turn these threads into personal attacks. I don't like what you're saying so you must be a [comunist, nazi, terrorist, etc]. If we're going to call eachother names can we at least support it with some good evidence?

Can we agree that while Bush is probably not a Nazi, he does have some unignorable connections to them?

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by xsiled2
to bad most of the crap you say you would never say to some one face to face. good as your socialist ideals.

What about me makes you think I wouldn't say things to people's faces? If you are trying to hint that I wouldnt diss you to your face, you're quite wrong.

As far as attacking my socialist leanings, it just goes to show how ignorant you are. You constantly attack socialism but you have never even read a single socialist book. You havent read Marxm you havent read Engels, you havent read Rosa Luxemburg or Trotsky. You attack somethign from a position of pure ignorance. Your opinion on socialism is less than worthless, its so far below worthless that it undermines things you do support.

Edit: The problem I noticed is that in high school teachers are not allowed to present socialism in at all a favorable light. Thus, most graduating high school students have had no exposure to an educated socialist or any principal socialist writings. Thus they are critical of socialism, yet they know nothing about it.

[Cantacuzene]

So you honestly don't realize what a rarity that is?

[dbax791]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Edit: The problem I noticed is that in high school teachers are not allowed to present socialism in at all a favorable light.

Canta - can you point me to a country where socialism has worked?

[Merlin]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I'm not sure I consider France or Germany bad guys. Sure it's always enjoyable to make fun of France but they certainly haven't been planning to attack us or killing innocent people.

I agree completely. All I was trying to say was that at that time doing business with the Japanese might not have seemed like such a bad thing. Hind sight is always 20/20. So I'm somewhat inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt with regards to what happeded before we entered the war.

[Jenny]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Can we agree that while Bush is probably not a Nazi, he does have some unignorable connections to them?


Ok, I am not attacking anyone, esp. you I.N., just saying this cause that made me think it: So, if my ancestors owned slaves, does that make me a racist? Or in favor of slavery? By what you are saying, No, I'm probably not a racist or in favor of slavery. But I *do* "have some unignorable connections to them" . ? I dunno. I just hate the fact that stuff like that is even thought of when thinking of someone, when in fact, it wasn't THEM that did it. Even if it is family... :shrug: (I think that stems from my mother. lol She always ASSUMES that because she did something when she was younger that I am automatically going to do it. ;) )

[nickel]

how many good members is Canta, who btw is a Nazi himself, gonna run off this board before he is banned? it is ok for him to get his jollies by always playing the devil's advocate, but he is soooooo demeaning, and soooooo ridiculing to anyone who takes an opposing view.

....waiting for his demeaning and ridiculing response to my post :rolleyes:

[InfiniteNothing]

N.B. Please give evidence that Canta is a Nazi before you say so. He probably never will be kicked off the board. He's often quite informative. Just watch out for slant.

Merlin, I don't know about "benifit of the doubt." Esp. with some of the other evidence canta presented. But otherwise I agree.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by nickelback
how many good members is Canta, who btw is a Nazi himself, gonna run off this board before he is banned? it is ok for him to get his jollies by always playing the devil's advocate, but he is soooooo demeaning, and soooooo ridiculing to anyone who takes an opposing view.

....waiting for his demeaning and ridiculing response to my post




Playing the Devil's Advocate's Advocate (on this Easter's Eve), his posts are on-topic (even in the Off-Topic forum).

His posts in the other forums (Hardware, Software, etc) stay very much on-topic (and are often topically significant).

However often his conclusions here in the Off-Topic forum are dead-wrong, it's nice to have someone argue the other side.


That last part was for the snub :P


Originally posted by Cantacuzene
...You wait for someone with intelligence (merlin, sbp etc) to respond...



By the way, you're reaching pretty far to make any significant connection between Bush 43 to a company who had business dealings with Nazi Germany.

As often as the lefties trumpet the undesirability of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation, they seem to play that game themselves all too often.

Example, why were there protests against the US eliminating Saddam's regime by force, but no protests of Saddam's regime REMAINING in power by the use of force.

The same goes for N. Korea, Afghanistan and Cuba.

Because someone is targeted by the Bush Admin, the Left suddenly loses all activity regarding Human Rights in these countries.

We fight the fights we can win. In Iraq, the time for talking was through. That point has not come to a head with North Korea (who I presume is just a mouse roaring for more aid). Are they dangerous? Sure. Are they (the North Korean regime) as bad as Saddam's? Probably. Are the reported human rights violations in North Korea awful. Absolutely.

It's easy for Lefties to criticize the violations in China because they know that military action and sanctions are HIGHLY unlikely. So... what they have... is an issue drum that they can perpetually beat.

Damnit... I have to goto dinner... I'll finish my thought later.





Dave.

[Cantacuzene]

Canta, who btw is a Nazi himself

I'd love to see the proof you have that I am a member of the National Socialist party, or support any of the platforms of the National Socialist groups.


By the way, you're reaching pretty far to make any significant connection between Bush 43 to a company who had business dealings with Nazi Germany.

Yeah, I would just like to make it clear that I am on the record saying I don't believ eBush is a Nazi or that he is a nazi sympathizer. The picture was a joke. The information about his father and grandfather are not funny however.

And no, just becuase someone's relatives owned slaves does not make then racist the same way as saying not all modern germans are anti-semitic. That doesn't mean we cant keep an eye on them just to be safe. Also, slavery ended 5 generations ago. WW2 ended 2 generations ago, and many Nazis are still alive. Its more plausible for someone alive to have nazi connections than slavery connections, but I digress.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by dbax791


Canta - can you point me to a country where socialism has worked?

Yup. The Roman Empire. It was run on distinctly socialist lines. Prices and wages were fixed. Population movement and control were regulated by teh government. There was a state sponsored religion. There was a social welfare program. Entertainment and heavy manufacturing were publicly controlled.

Also dbax, don't confuse a despotic tyranny with real socialism. Stalin could quote Marx all he wanted, but he still had more in common with Hitler than Trotsky. Let me add that saying that I am a socialist doesnt at all mean that I not democratic. There is such a thing as a representative elected government that is also socialist. Socialism is more a series of economic reforms than a political system. Its just been bad luck that all the really bad dictators in the 20th century called themselves (wrongly) socialist, because it was a popular thing to call yourself.

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I'd love to see the proof you have that I am a member of the National Socialist party, or support any of the platforms of the National Socialist groups.


Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I am a socialist .

[ProMinx]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Yup. The Roman Empire. It was run on distinctly socialist lines. Prices and wages were fixed. Population movement and control were regulated by teh government. There was a state sponsored religion. There was a social welfare program. Entertainment and heavy manufacturing were publicly controlled.

The Roman Empire was far from Socialist. In socialism, all professions receive the same wages, not just those in the same profession...but in any profession. However...a Gladiator could make twice the wages of the standard population with only one game (and that was if it was your first match; each match after that earns far more, up to ten year's wages). I guess you haven't read much on your preferred political leanings.

Xsiled - please don't confuse Socialism with National Socialism. I usually jump on your side in most issues involving Cantacuzene (basically because he is wrong 2/3s of the time), but there is a huge difference between Socialism and Fascism (and it's offshoot National Socialism). Fascism is basically a command conomy, while Socialism...usually doesn't have any notable economy... I prefer fascism over socialism 10 to 1. (Cantacuzene - if you are thinking about calling me a racist for that...I'll just have to remind you that racism and scapegoating are not necessary aspects of Fascism. Socialism has a longer history of ethnic cleansings than Fascism does...) and please learn to spell the name of the political faction you choose to attack. You just look like an idiot when you speak about some political faction apparently obsessed with the face...

ProMinx

PS - I'd just like to laugh that about a half dozen people have IMed me this link today because they think Canta is making a fool of himself (more than one dev included...).

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by ProMinx
Xsiled - stuff
ProMinx


dont worry about me... i understand it... a touch of anger and information and group get blurred together ;) ill be alright, maybe its my insercurites as a teenager or perhaps my 10th grade education even though im a junior, well more like a 1st sem. senior...:hmm:

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Yup. The Roman Empire. It was run on distinctly socialist lines.

That maybe so but I can discount most of as merely exploiting slaves. The Romans went out, conquered, took slaves and for the most part exploited their free labor pool. If you want an exapmle of where socialism has worked just bring up everybody's favorite - France. And in its current incarnation Germany would also probably qualify.



Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Also dbax, don't confuse a despotic tyranny with real socialism. Stalin could quote Marx all he wanted, but he still had more in common with Hitler than Trotsky. Let me add that saying that I am a socialist doesnt at all mean that I not democratic. There is such a thing as a representative elected government that is also socialist. Socialism is more a series of economic reforms than a political system. Its just been bad luck that all the really bad dictators in the 20th century called themselves (wrongly) socialist, because it was a popular thing to call yourself.

Do you think it is just a coincidence that the vast majority of Socialist systems have all been so oppressive? Could there be something about that system that leads to these breakdowns? I think there probably is. Once you start eroding people's property rights and concentrate the authority in a centralized planning authority there is simply no way people could then stand up for themselves.

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
The SS in Germany was called, the "Department of Home Nation Security." Its things like that which scare me.

Ya, but I have heard people calling Hitler and ass and I have heard (read) people calling you an ass but, I would never think you were the same kind of ass as Hitler.

[Cantacuzene]

The Roman Empire was far from Socialist. In socialism, all professions receive the same wages, not just those in the same profession...but in any profession.

Thats a very limited view of socialism. What you are referring to is a very specific branch of communism, not all of socialist theory. Socialism is hard to pidgeon hole into a small definition like you tried to do. The Roman Empire was indeed socialist. The government had complete control over the economy. Complete. There was absolutely no factor of the economy which the government did not regulate. Thats all that really matters as far as socialismt goes.

As far as everyone making the same wage, like I said, that Communism, and I and definitly not a communist and the Roman Empire was definitly NOT a communist state. Like Merlin said, France and Germany and I'll add even Canada are very socialist, but does everyone in those countries make teh same wage? Your definition is too limited.


Do you think it is just a coincidence that the vast majority of Socialist systems have all been so oppressive?

The vast majority of all political systems in the history of the human race have been oppressive, so it doesnt suprise me at all. Look where oppressive communist government ruled: countries that had never been free or never enjoyed a real democracy.

Not to mention that you seem to imply that socialism starst out free then an inherent flaw in the system leads to a breakdown toward autocracy. Thats a mistake. There was never a second of freedom in maoist china, leninist russia and mihnist vietnam. They were autocracies from the beginning. And like I said, they are communists and not true socialists. They have more incommon with a right wing dictator than a real socialist theoritician.


Once you start eroding people's property rights

Another misconception. There is NOTHING that says socialism and private property are mutually exclusive. Most socialist thinkers are supporters of private property. Yet again, a particular flavor of communism is coloring your perception of a larger picture.

Xsiled: if you think Socialism and National Socialism have anything to do with each other then... well, I don't know what but you're wrong.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Speedfreak


Ya, but I have heard people calling Hitler and ass and I have heard (read) people calling you an ass but, I would never think you were the same kind of ass as Hitler.


:heh:

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Xsiled: if you think Socialism and National Socialism have anything to do with each other then... well, I don't know what but you're wrong.

learn how to read, ass.

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Yossarian

i think canta has one thats looser(watch little nicky, you'll understand)


:P :hihi:

http://www.foodsubs.com/Photos/pineapple.jpg

no, bigger. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[nickel]

don't let him get to you xsiled2. that is his master plan :P

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


What you are referring to is a very specific branch of communism, not all of socialist theory.

tsk tsk you contridict yourself... its communist then its not the its still not pushed even more... comeon man... you shut down what other people say with what makes your own comment flase, then within the same paragraph try to pull it back as true.

[InfiniteNothing]

It seems like logical arguments are beyond many of us. It's really frustrating too.


While it's a very good point that just because two things that have the same name doesn't make them the same, the similarity must be noted. The example with being called an ass is different as he didn't choose that title and because "assness" is unspecific and not unusual.

[ProMinx]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Thats a very limited view of socialism. What you are referring to is a very specific branch of communism, not all of socialist theory. Socialism is hard to pidgeon hole into a small definition like you tried to do. The Roman Empire was indeed socialist. The government had complete control over the economy. Complete. There was absolutely no factor of the economy which the government did not regulate. Thats all that really matters as far as socialismt goes.

Hmm...BULL****. You claim to be a socialist, but you don't know the first thing about the system. The definition that you just listed is for a Command Economy, not Socialism. Germany 1938 was a Command Economy, but it was not Socialist (despite the word in the party's name). For the record, the bird is a Pigeon, not a Pidgeon...


Originally posted by Cantacuzene


As far as everyone making the same wage, like I said, that Communism, and I and definitly not a communist and the Roman Empire was definitly NOT a communist state. Like Merlin said, France and Germany and I'll add even Canada are very socialist, but does everyone in those countries make teh same wage? Your definition is too limited.


You guys do realize that a natioanl healthcare system doesn't make a nation socialist. With the nations that you listed, that seems to be the only qualification. What I find to be humorous is that you chose to ignore the only examples of successful socialization...Finland and Sweden, and they only work because of their low populations.

Rather than respond to the rest of that BS, I simply request that you answer a single, simple question for all of us. ****acuzene, Do you feel a closer relation to Lenin or to Marx? This question will help me understand your beliefs a lot better.

ProMinx

[Cantacuzene]

Prominx, why do you bother replying? People may not care for a lot of what I say, but I dont think a single person finds anything you say worthwhile at all.


You claim to be a socialist, but you don't know the first thing about the system.

If thats what you want to believe than go ahead. I'm sure it will make you feel happier about yourself or whatever.


The definition that you just listed is for a Command Economy, not Socialism.

Hey jackass, has it ever occured to you that your pride and joy, COMMAND ECONOMY might maybe have some similar traits with socialism? If you read my original post about it, I mentioned that beyond the economy the Empire controlled population, entertainment and provided social welfare. But I'm sure that you knew all that because you have read Norwich, AMH Jones, Michael Grant, Gibbon and Jenkins.




You guys do realize that a natioanl healthcare system doesn't make a nation socialist.

Ofcourse. There is no such thing as a "socialist country" anyway. Countries either have more or less socialist aspects. Sweden has a lot, France has less, Canada has few still, the US has even fewer still. There is no such thing as black and white definitions, countries use a variety of aspects of many systems.


****acuzene, Do you feel a closer relation to Lenin or to Marx? This question will help me understand your beliefs a lot better.

Can you express yourself without cursing? But I'll humor you with an answer. I don't really feel closer to either. Marx was a good analyst of capitalism but his ideas about communism were vague and not well developed. Lenin was an authroitarian and infringed on people's personal freedoms. He killed teh patient to fight the disease basically. And his theoretical writing isnt that great. If I had to pick a marxist writer I agree with most I would say Bernstein (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/index.htm). He believed in social evolution and that a violent revolution wasnt necesary. He thought capitalism could be reformed from within. In some aspects he was wrong, but in most of his writing he was proven correct. I hope that helps some.

[ProMinx]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
It seems like logical arguments are beyond many of us. It's really frustrating too.


While it's a very good point that just because two things that have the same name doesn't make them the same, the similarity must be noted. The example with being called an ass is different as he didn't choose that title and because "assness" is unspecific and not unusual.

Let me get this straight... You're trying to draw a difference between the Ass comparison and the Homeland Defense Comparison...so the only reasonably thing to assume is that you're claiming while "assness" is not unusual...defense of the homeland is unusual? And usually, governments try to name things as simply as possible: "The White House", "The Pentagon", "Brandenburg Tür" (Brandenburg Door). Why should they give a department aimed at assuring homeland security...after Homeland Defense or Security? Just run through the logic of what you're saying, before you submit it.

Anyway...the SS was actually known as the Schutzstaffel...which means Defense Squadron (similar to our Department of Defense, so by your logic...clearly Thomas Jefferson was a nazi for giving our military that name...or maybe Hitler was a liberal, but using ****a's gottverdammt logic, you would have to make one of those connections), which undermines that whole basis of your attack. Don't make up crap and post it here, trying to convince those who can't read the language...

Saddam is far more similar to Lenin than Bush is (I consider Lenin to be far worse than Hitler)...

ProMinx

PS - Sometimes the liberals just make it too easy for us with flawed arguments and decreased mental faculties...

[ProMinx]

Originally posted by ****acuzene
Hey jackass, has it ever occured to you that your pride and joy, COMMAND ECONOMY might maybe have some similar traits with socialism? If you read my original post about it, I mentioned that beyond the economy the Empire controlled population, entertainment and provided social welfare. But I'm sure that you knew all that because you have read Norwich, AMH Jones, Michael Grant, Gibbon and Jenkins.

Actually...I detest the idea of a Command Economy. I believe in nearly unrestricted economic freedom. For a man who regularly quotes Benjamin Franklin's age-old "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either", you seem surprisingly willing to sacrifice economic liberties for economic security. I choose to have an overarching belief system, rather than picking and choosing my occasionally contradictory beliefs as i go, which seems to be ****acuzene's method.

ProMinx

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by ProMinx

For a man who regularly quotes Benjamin Franklin's age-old "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either", you seem surprisingly willing to sacrifice economic liberties for economic security. I choose to have an overarching belief system, rather than picking and choosing my occasionally contradictory beliefs as i go, which seems to be ****acuzene's method.

ProMinx

Actually thats Grimm that uses that quote a lot, not me. I AM willing to trade economic freedom for economic security. I'm not a communist. I don't believe in everyone making the same amount of money. But I do believe in using the tremendous wealth we have ensure a certain minimum standard of living for everyone in this country.

If my beliefs seem contradictory thats simply a flaw of the meium of communication we have here. Obviously if we were talking to each other it would be much easier to express a complete idea.

Perhaps my problem is that I can read John Locke and Karl Marx and appreciate both of them and cherish many of the ideas of both of them. You call it contradictory, I call it flexible and moderate. :shrug: I'm willing to take what works from one persona and what works from another, rather than be forced into accepting one set of dogma and rejecting all others. Just my thoughts.

[sho.gun]

I didn't read the whole thread and I never really understood why everyone hates cantacuzene so much...


Anyway, I'd like to point out that after reading parts of this thread I wish I had paid more attention in government/social studies/history class. :o

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
But I do believe in using the tremendous wealth we have ensure a certain minimum standard of living for everyone in this country.


I'm with Cantacuzene on this point, but probably for diferent reasons. As someone who likes to think of himself as a "realist" I realize that without some system for the redistribution of wealth your society will be fertile ground for revolution. So yeah, give them a little welfare if it keeps the bums from rising up. Not entirely capitalist but practical.

[Cantacuzene]

Heh Merlin. Same goal, differnt reasons. I see it more as a modern version of nobless oblige or philanthropy. Rich people and corporations have a moral obligation to support the poor, since it is on the backs of the poor where their enormous wealth is generated. Too bad that they cant be trusted to donate enough to charity on their own, or be trusted to pay their employees a fair wage with out being prodded by the government.

[faither]

There is tremendous redistribution of wealth (on a number of different levels) in this country. The problem is that while the capital used for redistribution comes from the wealthiest, only a portion of it makes it to those neediest. There is an incredible percentage that gets sucked into the big black hole called GOVERNMENT (Fed, State, Local) with VERY little value-added.

Government has turned into an industry that no one could have foreseen. At the local level it's created an employment opportunity for hundreds of thousands who would otherwise be "unhireable" if it wasn't for patronage and nepotism. County and state are also bastions of nepotism and patronage and many of the folks that aspire to this level of "service" are less interested in public service than they are ego gratification and self-aggrandizement. These traits are generally most obvious in Federal officials -- and it's sickening.

The original idea of citizen legislators, where the talented would serve their time and return to private life, has been replaced with a system where incumbency creates a model closer to a "House of Lords" than the citizen-legislators envisioned by the framers.

There is also redistribution of wealth where many states get hosed when comparing taxes paid to those returned by the federal government. The flip side is also true, there are many states that receive proportionally more than they pay.

Maybe it's coincidental but those states that receive the greatest benefit are states where Congressional leadership comes from. Coincidence my a$$.

Those of us in NJ ($0.65 returned for every $1 paid) are happy to be subsidizing the folks in Mississippi ($1.69 received for every $1 paid). :angry: :bawl: :mad:

[nickel]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Prominx, why do you bother replying? People may not care for a lot of what I say, but I dont think a single person finds anything you say worthwhile at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WTF? what gives you the right to conclude that?

[Cantacuzene]

Sorry Nickle, but I'm not getting to into anymore flame wars with ProMinx. If you wanna discuss an issue feel free to reply.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
...since it is on the backs of the poor where their enormous wealth is generated...

C:

A couple of folks have asked you questions regarding your beliefs in the past, now it is my turn...

Do you believe that, for the most part, markets are efficient?

I would imagine that you don't as that is really the only way you can make the "exploited worker" arguement. And, of course, I say this as someone who has been exploited his entire life. :P

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Sorry Nickle, but I'm not getting to into anymore flame wars with ProMinx. If you wanna discuss an issue feel free to reply.

thats ironic, considering that post was to purely piss people off, people who dont consider YOUR posts valid.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by xsiled2


thats ironic, considering that post was to purely piss people off, people who dont consider YOUR posts valid.

Since these geniuses don't consider my posts valid they shouldnt let it piss them off. Please be sure to let us all know when YOU contribute something valid to any conversation.

[mojo]

<joker>this town needs an enema!</joker>

btw xsiled...great chop. fascism for dummies :heh:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Merlin


C:

A couple of folks have asked you questions regarding your beliefs in the past, now it is my turn...

Do you believe that, for the most part, markets are efficient?

I would imagine that you don't as that is really the only way you can make the "exploited worker" arguement. And, of course, I say this as someone who has been exploited his entire life. :P

MArkets are efficient to an extent. Problem is that unless they are well regulated you will either have monopolies or at least price fixing or wage fixing as well as other anti-competive practices which screw the worker and consumer.

Perhaps markets would be self-regulating is market forces alone controlled them. If the "invisible hand" actually was the sole force guiding the market then thigns might actually work out. However, corporations and interests have gotten so powerful that they can and do alter the market in very negative ways. Government intervention is needed to check the power of corrupt human factors.

Bottom line, I don't have faith in the market to keep the interests of the worker and consumer in mind. Its ridiculously obvious that the market exists for the benefit of the stock holder and upper management employee. Any effects which benefit the consumer or worker are coincidental side-effects of something which benefitted the capitalist. Henry Ford only raised wages in his plants as a device to make himself richer, not because he actually cared about teh standard of living of his employees beyond their ability to work without dropping dead of starvation.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

MArkets are efficient to an extent. Problem is that unless they are well regulated you will either have monopolies or at least price fixing or wage fixing as well as other anti-competive practices which screw the worker and consumer.


You might have pockets of this type of behavior but the economy is far too large and competitive for it to persist. People can still switch from company to compnay and from industry to industry fairly easily. So you might see Major League Baseball colluding to keep wages down but that would never work on a grander scale. In my experience the "invisible hand" works and works in a brutal and swift manner.

As for the Ford comment...If he did not raise their pay then how would he attract and retain workers? Remember, this was at a time when he operations were growing exponentially.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Merlin


You might have pockets of this type of behavior but the economy is far too large and competitive for it to persist. People can still switch from company to compnay and from industry to industry fairly easily. So you might see Major League Baseball colluding to keep wages down but that would never work on a grander scale. In my experience the "invisible hand" works and works in a brutal and swift manner.

As for the Ford comment...If he did not raise their pay then how would he attract and retain workers? Remember, this was at a time when he operations were growing exponentially.

People cant just switch jobs and industries like you say. How can you deny the negative effect of the reserve labor force? The fact is, the worker only has that kind of power to dictate his terms when unemployment is extremely low. Unemployment has risen tremendously in the past 30 years and all statistics point to it continuing to rise. The more unemployed people out there the cheaper they will all work. The capitalist has an interest in maintaining a large amount of unemployed (but not too many or else no one will be there to buy his products) labor.

I don't see how you can say the invisible hand on its own is powerful enough to overcome widespread corruption when history has shown that big businesses will do anything they can get away with to squeeze out profit. Unemployment is aproaching critical levels worldwide except in the US where we have what economists refer to as "McJobs" where people hover just above poverty level. Real wages have been shrinking since the 1970's. I don't think the market is going to correct those two trends by itself, especially when employment issues cannot be solved with 'more jobs.'

As for Ford, his plan which is quite horrifying reading, is available for reading in his biography. Read that and try to tell me that he ever did anything for his workers that didnt directly benefit him.

[bachviet]

If socialism is doing great in France/Germany, why do people still want to migrate to the US? I hardly hear anyone here wants to migrate to France/Germany.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by bachviet
If socialism is doing great in France/Germany, why do people still want to migrate to the US? I hardly hear anyone here wants to migrate to France/Germany.

:banghead:

I would answer this but it won't matter.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


People cant just switch jobs and industries like you say. How can you deny the negative effect of the reserve labor force? The fact is, the worker only has that kind of power to dictate his terms when unemployment is extremely low. Unemployment has risen tremendously in the past 30 years and all statistics point to it continuing to rise. The more unemployed people out there the cheaper they will all work. The capitalist has an interest in maintaining a large amount of unemployed (but not too many or else no one will be there to buy his products) labor.

I don't see how you can say the invisible hand on its own is powerful enough to overcome widespread corruption when history has shown that big businesses will do anything they can get away with to squeeze out profit. Unemployment is aproaching critical levels worldwide except in the US where we have what economists refer to as "McJobs" where people hover just above poverty level. Real wages have been shrinking since the 1970's. I don't think the market is going to correct those two trends by itself, especially when employment issues cannot be solved with 'more jobs.'

As for Ford, his plan which is quite horrifying reading, is available for reading in his biography. Read that and try to tell me that he ever did anything for his workers that didnt directly benefit him.

That'll be a point of contention. I know quite a few dot-com'ers who have had to switch industries. They might not have liked it but they have gone where there skills are needed. As for the current climate, yes it is a buyers market in terms of labor and that means people will need to re-adjust their expectations. But then on the other hand a couple of years ago these people were really taking advantage of the corporations. I mean really six figure salaries for IT consulting. Just as people are being gouged now they were doing the gouging a couple of years ago.

Also, ask most people in human resources and they will tell you it is far more difficult to locate, attract and retain what they feel are qualified employees then you might think.

Also, if changing jobs and careers is so difficult then why is turnover so high at most jobs? Because people think they can get a better deal elsewhere and are willing to move.

And yes corporations act in their own self interests, just like the workforce does. Corporations will do whatever it takes to keep their costs (mainly labor costs) down because if they don't they will be at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.

I apologise for the somewhat disjointed response but I'm kind of in the middle of a couple of different things at the moment. Will attempt to be more coherent later. :angel:

[InfiniteNothing]

They might not have liked it but they have gone where there skills are needed. As for the current climate, yes it is a buyers market in terms of labor and that means people will need to re-adjust their expectations. But then on the other hand a couple of years ago these people were really taking advantage of the corporations.
But neither of those things are good. Neither the capitalist nor the programmer should be able to take advantage. Why must either be gouging the other when they can share the profits.

Also, ask most people in human resources and they will tell you it is far more difficult to locate, attract and retain what they feel are qualified employees then you might think.

I don't dispute this but since there are many programmers does this mean that the VAST majority of them are unqualified? Are you implying that if one is qualified they will have negotiating power?

Also, if changing jobs and careers is so difficult then why is turnover so high at most jobs? Because people think they can get a better deal elsewhere and are willing to move.

No, it's because their bosses are morons. Is this leverage power? no this is the worker being leveraged.


And yes corporations act in their own self interests, just like the workforce does. Corporations will do whatever it takes to keep their costs (mainly labor costs) down because if they don't they will be at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
Yes but when corporations act in their best interests it serves the greedy few. When the worker acts in their best interest it serves the (much more deserving) many. (Deserving because the worker is far more less likely to waste the money or even worse save the money. Deserving also because he is putting his labor into the material.) Note: Things in ()s are opinions


Bottom line, I don't have faith in the market to keep the interests of the worker and consumer in mind. Its ridiculously obvious that the market exists for the sole benefit of the stock holder and upper management employee.

I completly agree with that first line. I can't show my support enough. I think that's the key to MANY of the problems (if not all) with capitalism. I'm not sure I agree with the second as well I have edited it to make it agreeable to me.


If socialism is doing great in France/Germany, why do people still want to migrate to the US? I hardly hear anyone here wants to migrate to France/Germany.

I see a couple possibilities:
1)The statement is incorrect.
2)They are leaving the contry for noneconomic reasons (ie. San Diego Weather/Beaches)
3)France/Germany isn't doing it right.

I'm guessing #1 but if it's #3 I think this deserves a more qualified responce.


Do you believe that, for the most part, markets are efficient?

It's pretty good but greed and money hoarding prevent it from running more efficiently. I think with more government checks and less corporate power things could start getting more efficient. I know how inefficient the government can be (see faither post) but I think that often it goes towards a good greater than efficiency. Other times it's just pure wastage I'll admit (esp. with the Fed gov).

[Merlin]

Yes but when corporations act in their best interests it serves the greedy few.

I have to take exception to this point as the company is owned by its shareholders and in many circumstances the number of shareholders outnumber the number of employees. I think one key element of this discussion that has been overlooked is that it is not like it was 100 years ago with a few robber barons in charge of all the assets. People are able to and do participate in corporate ownership. The present era has a greater dispersion of corporate ownership than ever before. Yes, there are the Bill Gates of the world but today virtually everyone in the workforce, thanks to 401(k) plans, own significant stakes in corporate America.


I don't dispute this but since there are many programmers does this mean that the VAST majority of them are unqualified? Are you implying that if one is qualified they will have negotiating power?

Yes. If you prove that you are value added then you do get some negotiating power, providing that your skill set is in not too easily replaced. I'm sure you've heard stories of people informing their boss that they are going to quit and the boss responds with offering to increase their salary if they stay. That is negotiating power right there.


And don't forget, without these folks who start, own, and run these companies these wonderful workers would have nothing more to do than sit home and play Nintendo all day. Those who actually create and enviornment that gves the general masses something to do should be compensated for that.

[InfiniteNothing]

I think having lots of shareholders from outside the company might be even worse because they can't really do anything to help the company. Stock should largely be an incentive to do better work and perform better. When a large amount of the stock is owned by the workers they feel tied to their product and they build better products and live happier lives. When a stockholder who isn't tied to the labor gets more money then there is much less benefit for them as money is not happiness. I think the world is happier when we all have a stake in what we are producing. Also what did that outside stockholder do for the money? Take a risk? Hardly, that was money they could afford to loose (hopefully). They didn't really do anything for the money.

Should the capitalist be rewarded for creating all those jobs. Absolutely. He needs to be compelled to do better too. I don't think he should get his 51% though. Should he get paid as a worker? No, he does have rare skills that should be rewarded.

I think your programmer example is the exception rather than the rule. Just an opinion though.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
...Stock should largely be an incentive to do better work and perform better. When a large amount of the stock is owned by the workers they feel tied to their product and they build better products and live happier lives....

As if this thread didn't have enought turns...

From a motivational perspective this makes sense and there are quite a few management texts out there that would agree with you. Nevertheless, from a financial wealth management perspective, having a large stake in the same business where you draw your paycheck is a very bad idea. Indeed, for evidence of that just check out all those folks at Enron who wound up losing both their nest egg and job at the same time. Or just look at that wonderful owner/operated United Airlines.

[InfiniteNothing]

It's hard to imagine this all started with a silly photochop. Perhaps we should start a new thread? I'd title it "socialism, does it have somoe good ideas?"
Enron sucks on so many levels. That should have never happend. Anyhow I'd argue that socialism's welfare programs would be there to cussion that double blow.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Merlin


As if this thread didn't have enought turns...

From a motivational perspective this makes sense and there are quite a few management texts out there that would agree with you. Nevertheless, from a financial wealth management perspective, having a large stake in the same business where you draw your paycheck is a very bad idea. Indeed, for evidence of that just check out all those folks at Enron who wound up losing both their nest egg and job at the same time. Or just look at that wonderful owner/operated United Airlines.


i think there's a middle ground. employees should be rewarded when their labor produces incredible profits for the company and upper management. what happened with the enron employees is that they were limited in their ability to take those rewards and invest the bulk of them elsewhere.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Merlin
I think one key element of this discussion that has been overlooked is that it is not like it was 100 years ago with a few robber barons in charge of all the assets.

Well, even if its not 5 guys like it used to be in the 1890's its still small. 2% of America controls 98% of the capital. Thats still a ridiculous inbalance.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd



i think there's a middle ground. employees should be rewarded when their labor produces incredible profits for the company and upper management.

Exactly what I think. Being an employee should give you stock in a company. Seems to me if a company wanted a hard working employee they would give said new hire some shares free of charge when he was hired.

[le_stick]

Why could not we all just get along......:D