Inaugeration cost analysis

[phinkasaurus]

as reported by the AP, via Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_price_tag_3&printer=1)


By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush's second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?

(follow link for his answer)

[EN[i]GMA]

as reported by the AP, via Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_price_tag_3&printer=1)


By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush's second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?

(follow link for his answer)

So you don't think companies should be free to donate money to the government?

And Clinton spent 25% more, inflation adjusted, than Bush did.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']So you don't think companies should be free to donate money to the government?

And Clinton spent 25% more, inflation adjusted, than Bush did.

no, I don't think companies should donate money to the gov't.
and clinton is wrong as well.

anything else?

[EN[i]GMA]

no, I don't think companies should donate money to the gov't.
and clinton is wrong as well.

anything else?

So you want to take away the freedom of individuals to give money to the government?

You know what's best for me and my money?

[beastiegirrl101]

I heard it was all personal / private money...but then again politics are german to me....

[EN[i]GMA]

I heard it was all personal / private money...but then again politics are german to me....

It was.

Thought they were surely trying to buy polical favors, exactly why the government shouldn't be involved in the economy.

[ericg]

as reported by the AP, via Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_price_tag_3&printer=1)


By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush's second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?

(follow link for his answer)
Sed. Word up.
EN[i]GMA: STOP. JUST. FUCKING. STOP! Do you even know what you're saying half the time? No, the answer is NO! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH... nevermind. "Wake up...on a little makeup...I don't think you trust..."

[Qdrop]

Sed. Word up.
EN[i]GMA: STOP. JUST. FUCKING. STOP! Do you even know what you're saying half the time? No, the answer is NO! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH... nevermind. "Wake up...on a little makeup...I don't think you trust..."

ericG is off his meds......AGAIN!

[EN[i]GMA]

Sed. Word up.
EN[i]GMA: STOP. JUST. FUCKING. STOP! Do you even know what you're saying half the time? No, the answer is NO! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH... nevermind. "Wake up...on a little makeup...I don't think you trust..."

So people shouldn't be free?

[racer5.0stang]

Sed. Word up.
EN[i]GMA: STOP. JUST. FUCKING. STOP! Do you even know what you're saying half the time? No, the answer is NO! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH... nevermind. "Wake up...on a little makeup...I don't think you trust..."


In your entire statement, you never implied a complete thought. We are now dumber for having to read your post. You are awarded no points. And may God have mercy on your soul. :D

Billy Madison (y)

[Running_Beastie]

Enigma:
There was also about $50 million in gov't money spent as well. The GAO (General Accounting Office) was raising hell over the amount of government money that was being spent on this event. Taxpayer money WAS spent to fund much of what occured in Inauguration Day.

[EN[i]GMA]

Enigma:
There was also about $50 million in gov't money spent as well. The GAO (General Accounting Office) was raising hell over the amount of government money that was being spent on this event. Taxpayer money WAS spent to fund much of what occured in Inauguration Day.

I wasn't aware of that.

It's a waste of money. Let the man the take an oath and a say a few words. No need for all this garbage.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']Thought they were surely trying to buy polical favors, exactly why the government shouldn't be involved in the economy.

the gov't is the economy. a economy is an expression of the politics of a state, aka a gov't. You can't get around that. even the u.s. "free market" is backed up by gov't funding:saving the airlines, miliatry R&D that makes it way to the private sector, etc.

economy and state are one and the same, expressions of the system in which the people are organised.


and if you agree that they were trying to buy political favors (maybe this was sarcasm?- we an emoticon for that) why should it not be outlawed? personal freedom vs a functioning society is a heady issue. but murder is outlawed, so is child raping.

[ASsman]

Let's talk about this on nice warm Hawaii beach. Maybe we could get some hookers from the Red-light District.

[EN[i]GMA]

the gov't is the economy. a economy is an expression of the politics of a state, aka a gov't. You can't get around that. even the u.s. "free market" is backed up by gov't funding:saving the airlines, miliatry R&D that makes it way to the private sector, etc.

economy and state are one and the same, expressions of the system in which the people are organised.


and if you agree that they were trying to buy political favors (maybe this was sarcasm?- we an emoticon for that) why should it not be outlawed? personal freedom vs a functioning society is a heady issue. but murder is outlawed, so is child raping.

The government is not the economy. The government is an entity responsible for the protection of rights, namely the right to life. As such it carries out certain things, most importantly, maintain an army, but also roads and even schooling and such.

The state is seperate from the economy, at least in a free society.

No, I'm serious. They were trying to buy political favors. It shouldn't be "outlawed", like with murder and rape, it just shouldn't happen. The government should stay out of the market, preventing legislation that benefits contributors and hurts everyone else.

[Schmeltz]

It shouldn't be "outlawed", like with murder and rape, it just shouldn't happen.


Ha! This is the best one yet. Sure, Enigma, and while we're at it people shouldn't have premarital sex or drink excessively either. Oh, why can't people simply become aware of the error of their ways?

[ASsman]

A lot of "point-missing" going on. And right now I'm too tired to point them all out.

[yeahwho]

Also not included in this cost analysis are the human factors (http://www.thestranger.com/current/bigcover-1.jpg). I mean, jeez, this isn't like a windfall of political capital for those of us with functioning brains...we have to cope too.

Fox News Live (http://media.milkandcookies.com/media/wmv/f/foxnewspowned.wmv?media=1cbe8b59c33134c91c3e407547 12538d) Anchorwoman Brigitte Quinn gets a surprise when Judy Bachrach from Vanity Fair dares to question the nature of Bush's elaborate second inauguration

[Ali]

GMA']I wasn't aware of that.

It's a waste of money. Let the man the take an oath and a say a few words. No need for all this garbage.I bet you Kerry would have have a massive party, if he'd won.

[yeahwho]

I bet you Kerry would have have a massive party, if he'd won.

And the bands would of been of a much higher quality. Springsteen, Pearl Jam.

However fucking much "some" people may think Bush and Kerry are the same, Kerry would of at least mentioned the word Iraq during the day. Accountability for ones actions goes a long way.

When I think inaugaration cost analysis, I'm thinking the National and International psyche (http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=103597&region=4).

[EN[i]GMA]

Ha! This is the best one yet. Sure, Enigma, and while we're at it people shouldn't have premarital sex or drink excessively either. Oh, why can't people simply become aware of the error of their ways?

God, you're dense.

Listen to me, if the government cannot pass laws that deal with the economy, they can't pass laws that benefit doners or campaign contributors.

You see? They can bribe the politicians all they want, but the politicians will never have any oppurtunity to do anything that would benefit them, no price controls, no government issued cartels, no government monopolies, just a free market.

[Whois]

I bet you Kerry would have have a massive party, if he'd won.

Which of course he wasn't...supposed to win that is.

[Echewta]

Clinton had more balls than Bush.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']The government is not the economy. The government is an entity responsible for the protection of rights, namely the right to life. As such it carries out certain things, most importantly, maintain an army, but also roads and even schooling and such.
so then in the U.S. currently, do you believe the gov't is not responsible for and directly linked to the state of the economy and the economic decisions?
if the answer is yes, how do you describe Alan Greenspan?
if the answer is no, then we can agree on something.
more importantly, as the largest economy in the world, the U.S. plays a heavy role in influencing the global economy. therefore the decisions and direction the u.s. takes directly effect the rest of the world. like when the u.s. gov't stays uninvovled as mulitnationals strike tax deals that drag jobs from the u.s. , but get all in the kool-aid when tariffs are needed to keep u.s. manufacturing on top. etc, etc.
SO... since
GMA']The state is seperate from the economy, at least in a free society.
we don't live in a free society, and the global society is becoming less free as well.


also, if the "free market" cures all ills, why not let the lazzez faire attitude apply to schools, roads, miliatary etc? it would make sense, if the best outcomes are from a "free market" distillation then why limit it simply to commodities like labor, food, materials, etc?

[EN[i]GMA]

so then in the U.S. currently, do you believe the gov't is not responsible for and directly linked to the state of the economy and the economic decisions?
if the answer is yes, how do you describe Alan Greenspan?
if the answer is no, then we can agree on something.
more importantly, as the largest economy in the world, the U.S. plays a heavy role in influencing the global economy. therefore the decisions and direction the u.s. takes directly effect the rest of the world. like when the u.s. gov't stays uninvovled as mulitnationals strike tax deals that drag jobs from the u.s. , but get all in the kool-aid when tariffs are needed to keep u.s. manufacturing on top. etc, etc.
SO... since

we don't live in a free society, and the global society is becoming less free as well.

Yes. I do believe the Government plays a large role in our current economy. I would describe Greenspan as a smart individual trying to perform an impossible task.

I don't quite understand the criticism here. Are you saying government intervention via tarrifs hurts the 3rd world or lack of government intervention hurts everyone?



also, if the "free market" cures all ills, why not let the lazzez faire attitude apply to schools, roads, miliatary etc? it would make sense, if the best outcomes are from a "free market" distillation then why limit it simply to commodities like labor, food, materials, etc?

Good question.

In regards to the military and to a lesser extent, police protection, because personal defense is enormously expensive and it's very difficult to make a profit in a such a business. People just wouldn't pay. I mean, if people don't pay, what are you going to do, let the country be attacked and lose everything? It just isn't a profitable situation.

As for roads, similarly, there is no effective means of profit. Sure, tolls work O.K. at some places, but imagine a toll booth at the entrance and exit or every road or road system. Ludicrious. The hiring of people to take the tolls or people to maintain the machines that take the tolls would be high. User fees could work, but they would also have to be government officiated to prevent cheating.

As for schooling, I see no reason why the free market couldn't take care of it. But at the same time, I don't support just ending public schooling and saying, "Let the market take care of it". I do support vouchers and would like the free market schools to beat the government schools, playing the same game. So while I might ideoligcally support free market educatin, pragmatically, we need to improve our current system more than change it fundamentally.

And some people support anarcho-capitalism, but they're utopian dreamers. You need a government to enforce rights and take care of other things the market can't/doesn't take care of.

[ericg]

Here, I'll... just for starters... Too much of the thinking and the mindless naysaying = devastatingly subjective.. no objective reason and initiative. Look too closely and you'll get your eyes crossed. Keep it simple. Think in holistic terms. Get a gestalt feel for it all and you'll see the picture micro to macro and back. This equals truth... real mean time... Simple results. Now... all you brainiacs can go tell it from a mountain! Peace. Computer guy says "...Your welcome..." :rolleyes: :D

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']I don't quite understand the criticism here. Are you saying government intervention via tarrifs hurts the 3rd world or lack of government intervention hurts everyone?

yes. many gov't tariffs and trade agreements favor the wealthier larger nations (G7) and therefor keep the smaller poorer nations exact;y that, smaller and poorer. Orginazations like the WTO and IMF do some horrible shit in the name of promoting trade..





GMA']In regards to the military and to a lesser extent, police protection... I mean, if people don't pay, what are you going to do, let the country be attacked and lose everything? It just isn't a profitable situation.

GMA']As for roads... Sure, tolls work O.K. at some places, but imagine a toll booth at the entrance and exit or every road or road system. Ludicrious. The hiring of people to take the tolls or people to maintain the machines that take the tolls would be high. User fees could work, but they would also have to be government officiated to prevent cheating.

but these 2 statements go against a free market. if no one pays for protection, i.e. a police force, then clearly the market has spoken. if there are toll booths and loads of toll collectors, or conversly, shitty roads and no viable means of transporting goods, so be it, the market has spoken.

GMA']As for schooling, I see no reason why the free market couldn't take care of it... I do support vouchers and would like the free market schools to beat the government schools, playing the same game.
i know you placed the caveat here that, pragmatically we have to improv our current system before we move to a true "free market" of education. in the current system, the small steps taken towards school vouchers and "free market" education have all had the smae symptoms: favoring the wealthy, read: white, and delivering the children over to advertisement campaigns praying on the young underdeleloped pschye. (Channel One, fast food lunchrooms, etc.) is this what you want to educate your kids in?


GMA']And some people support anarcho-capitalism, but they're utopian dreamers. You need a government to enforce rights and take care of other things the market can't/doesn't take care of.
or you could have a gov't /state that was a true democracy and took care of everything, seeking out all input from all areas of the population.

it can also be called utopian to think that a free market, devoid of regulation, will result in a perfect system. fluxations happen, and capitalists are greedy.

[EN[i]GMA]

yes. many gov't tariffs and trade agreements favor the wealthier larger nations (G7) and therefor keep the smaller poorer nations exact;y that, smaller and poorer. Orginazations like the WTO and IMF do some horrible shit in the name of promoting trade..

Free trade agreements are oxymorons, as I've said before. The IMF and World Bank are disgusting relics of government interventionism and imperialism gone awry.




but these 2 statements go against a free market. if no one pays for protection, i.e. a police force, then clearly the market has spoken. if there are toll booths and loads of toll collectors, or conversly, shitty roads and no viable means of transporting goods, so be it, the market has spoken.

No, that's what a government is contracted for: to provide protection of your rights, namely right to life.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, yes, that would be true.


i know you placed the caveat here that, pragmatically we have to improv our current system before we move to a true "free market" of education. in the current system, the small steps taken towards school vouchers and "free market" education have all had the smae symptoms: favoring the wealthy, read: white, and delivering the children over to advertisement campaigns praying on the young underdeleloped pschye. (Channel One, fast food lunchrooms, etc.) is this what you want to educate your kids in?

Vouchers benefit the rich? The rich don't need vouchers to send their children to private schools.

That's exactly what public schools are now, and no I don't want me kids there. If at all possible they will be privately schooled. If you think every school would have ads, you assume there is no market for ad-free schools.

For someone who supports helping the poor, school vouchers seem like something you should support.



or you could have a gov't /state that was a true democracy and took care of everything, seeking out all input from all areas of the population.

it can also be called utopian to think that a free market, devoid of regulation, will result in a perfect system. fluxations happen, and capitalists are greedy.

True democracy is nothing but mob rule. If 51% of the people want to hold up the rich and rob them of their livelyhood, it happens. Democracy is always doomed to fail without rules applied through a Constitution.

And capitalism isn't utopian, it's perfectally pragmatic.

[Schmeltz]

Your version of capitalism, Enigma, is in fact decidedly utopian. It rests on the same idealist assumptions as any other utopian philosophy: impersonal, intangible forces will bring about ideal conditions that perpetuate themselves. It's nothing but a pipe dream. You're a fool if you think that any capitalist will simply bow to the principles of the free market and allow them to govern his actions without decided interference on his own part; as much a fool, in fact, as any Communist who expects a dictator to bow to the will of the people and voluntarily relinquish his own power.

In addition, if a government has no power to affect the economy, they are also unable to provide support when the economy takes a downturn - as it inevitably will. The market simply doesn't go up all the time, and when any number of international or domestic factors coincide to produce a bear, who's going to step in and salvage the system from decline?

[EN[i]GMA]

Your version of capitalism, Enigma, is in fact decidedly utopian. It rests on the same idealist assumptions as any other utopian philosophy: impersonal, intangible forces will bring about ideal conditions that perpetuate themselves. It's nothing but a pipe dream. You're a fool if you think that any capitalist will simply bow to the principles of the free market and allow them to govern his actions without decided interference on his own part; as much a fool, in fact, as any Communist who expects a dictator to bow to the will of the people and voluntarily relinquish his own power.

In addition, if a government has no power to affect the economy, they are also unable to provide support when the economy takes a downturn - as it inevitably will. The market simply doesn't go up all the time, and when any number of international or domestic factors coincide to produce a bear, who's going to step in and salvage the system from decline?

Government interention does nothing but make the problem worse. I'm sure you think you know something about it, FDR, the New Deal and all, but you clearly don't. Government intervention in the market has never worked.

In fact, I challenge you to show me one time government interferance in the market DID work.

Don't even start with me Shmeltz. If you want to critisize in particular aspects of my arguments, go right ahead, but if you just want to label it all theory when you can't even name any specific flaws, I don't see what you're contributing.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']Free trade agreements are oxymorons, as I've said before. The IMF and World Bank are disgusting relics of government interventionism and imperialism gone awry.

then we agree on something.

GMA']No, that's what a government is contracted for: to provide protection of your rights, namely right to life.

contracted? are they a business as well then? subservient to and benfiting from a free market?

GMA']Vouchers benefit the rich? The rich don't need vouchers to send their children to private schools...
That's exactly what public schools are now, and no I don't want me kids there. If at all possible they will be privately schooled. If you think every school would have ads, you assume there is no market for ad-free schools.
For someone who supports helping the poor, school vouchers seem like something you should support.

First off, rich people would not have to spend their money if given a voucher, thereby benefiting them. secondly, vouchers tend to assist in the "white flight" occuring in most public school systems. this can be chalked up to the bussing or travel time or just general knowledge of available options left to the parent. thirdly, most private schools are religious, something I personally disagree with being involved in education, but I also do not think that the option for religiously based education should be removed. fourthly, ad free schools? the reason I disagree with the idea of private schools is because in privatizing anything, it get's turned into a profit hungry business, a capitalist enitity that needs to accumulate and turn a profit to survive. one way to do this is to sell advertising to businesses, in order to get funding. i for one to not one my kids going to a school where they are merely a trapped demographic. currently, I don't know of ANY ad free schools, do you?

GMA']True democracy is nothing but mob rule. If 51% of the people want to hold up the rich and rob them of their livelyhood, it happens. Democracy is always doomed to fail without rules applied through a Constitution.

so the people can not and should not rule them selves? but a free market with no discernable controllers (this part is a impossible) can solve all the problems?

GMA']And capitalism isn't utopian, it's perfectally pragmatic.

are you really 17?

[EN[i]GMA]

contracted? are they a business as well then? subservient to and benfiting from a free market?

Our Federal Government was a compact between seperate entities - states - so yes, it is a contract.


First off, rich people would not have to spend their money if given a voucher, thereby benefiting them. secondly, vouchers tend to assist in the "white flight" occuring in most public school systems. this can be chalked up to the bussing or travel time or just general knowledge of available options left to the parent. thirdly, most private schools are religious, something I personally disagree with being involved in education, but I also do not think that the option for religiously based education should be removed. fourthly, ad free schools? the reason I disagree with the idea of private schools is because in privatizing anything, it get's turned into a profit hungry business, a capitalist enitity that needs to accumulate and turn a profit to survive. one way to do this is to sell advertising to businesses, in order to get funding. i for one to not one my kids going to a school where they are merely a trapped demographic. currently, I don't know of ANY ad free schools, do you?

I'm sure John Millionaire cares about $2500 here and there. And it proportionally helps the poor more.

The "White Flight" is getting out while the getting is still good. Public education isn't doing so well. And with vouchers, more black students would be able to move out of these schools. And why even bring up race at all?

I'm not religious either, but I see no problem with religious schools.

Are current private schools this way? I would rather have a school that needs to turn a profit to survive than a giant black hole that makes more and more money as more and more students fail. Accountability is a good thing. Teach or your ass if fired sounds good to me. The three Rs are Reading, Writing and Arithmetic no recycling, racism and reproduction. Teach the basics.

So if government schools aren't ad free, what do you propose we do?


so the people can not and should not rule them selves? but a free market with no discernable controllers (this part is a impossible) can solve all the problems?

Sure, they can rule themselves, to a degree. You can rule yourself to the degree where you start to rule me. Invidual rights over collective rights.

It can't solve every problem but whatever it does is agreed upon by the people, giving it a mandate.



are you really 17?

Yep.

[ASsman]

He's been reading for 16 of them.

[EN[i]GMA]

He's been reading for 16 of them.

*polishes shoulder with hand* Yeah, I've been been into Dostoevsky since I was three, the Austrian economics of Mises and Rothbard since I was 5 and have published a peer-review article debunking Keyenesian economic thought at the age of 8. Some would say I'm a prodigy.



And if you're dense, I'm kidding.

[ASsman]

No, but you're reading is.

DAMN! Zinger! BURN!

[EN[i]GMA]

No, but you're reading is.

DAMN! Zinger! BURN!

I don't get it.

Maybe I'm not so smart after all.

[ASsman]

Dense.. reading. Little monkey with massive penis.

[yeahwho]

Meanwhile....back at the cost analysis ranch, the federal deficit is once again going to grow this year, $427 billion...that is including the $80 billion war dollars Bush is now requesting for what is already a $133 million dollar a day war.

So in that perspective the piddly 40 to 50 million spent on the inaugaration (by the rich for the rich) is now acceptable by those who want to "feelgood (http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/10699743.htm)" about the direction the USA is heading.

Let's recap what makes all these ADD people feelgood once more,


'We will capture Osama bin Laden dead or alive'.
'I don't much care about Osama bin Laden, to be honest'.
'Iraq has ties to al-Qaeda'.
'Iraq has WOMD'.
'Iraq has WOMD-related programs'.
'Iraq has WOMD-related activity programs'.
'Iraq has no WOMD but the Iraq people are free'.
'The Iraqi people have a chance for freedom'.
'We are going to introduce death squads into Iraq'.

It's only money right? Our money.

All I can say about a second term for George is I truly and sincerely hope that he doesn't manage to "fix" Social Security the way he's managed to fix Iraq.

[jegtar]

Clinton had more balls than Bush.

But they were always in some fat girls mouth.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']Our Federal Government was a compact between seperate entities - states - so yes, it is a contract.
so then they are subjected to the fluxuation of a free market? so if I could provide their services better and cheaper, I could be the federal gov't? or would that be part of the "free market" that was not free?

GMA']And why even bring up race at all?
in my experience, vouchers have always been a way to get more white and or affluent people out of the public school system.

GMA']I would rather have a school that needs to turn a profit to survive than a giant black hole that makes more and more money as more and more students fail. Accountability is a good thing. Teach or your ass if fired sounds good to me. The three Rs are Reading, Writing and Arithmetic no recycling, racism and reproduction. Teach the basics.
like turn a profit or be fired? you think education should be made into a profit business peursuit? what do you base that on? test scores? overall performance? school spirit? in my opinion, some things should not have the "profit" agenda attached to them, like education and healthcare for one. making the schools a business does not facilitate a good education, it facilitates a good business, which does not always look out for it's customers or employees as much as it's profit margin.

GMA']So if government schools aren't ad free, what do you propose we do?
ban advertisements is ALL SCHOOLS, public or private.

GMA']You can rule yourself to the degree where you start to rule me. Invidual rights over collective rights.
but my rights ending where your's begin does favor the rights of the collective over the individual. if individual were over the collective, then it wouldn't matter when I start to rule you or you me, as long as "I" got my way. bUt by asserting that my rights stop where your's begin, you have put forth the idea that the smooth functioning of the collective society is more important than the wants or desires of any one individual inside it.
and I agree.


Can I ask you how you grew up? Like your socio-economic background? You obviously don't have to tell me, but I am interested in understanding you and your argument.

[EN[i]GMA]

so then they are subjected to the fluxuation of a free market? so if I could provide their services better and cheaper, I could be the federal gov't? or would that be part of the "free market" that was not free?

No, the Federal Government is merely an agreement between states as defined by the Constitution.


in my experience, vouchers have always been a way to get more white and or affluent people out of the public school system.

But they have the opposite effect of allowing more minorities to move out of failing schools and into successful (Predomininantly white) private schools.


like turn a profit or be fired? you think education should be made into a profit business peursuit? what do you base that on? test scores? overall performance? school spirit? in my opinion, some things should not have the "profit" agenda attached to them, like education and healthcare for one. making the schools a business does not facilitate a good education, it facilitates a good business, which does not always look out for it's customers or employees as much as it's profit margin.

Yes, turn a profit or be fired. Educate children or leave. Since there is no product in schools, the children's education is the criteria for success. If you think keeping bad teachers helps education, you're sorely mistaken. Private schools score better on standardized tests and any other form of comparison.

If you had 5 schools to choose from, wouldn't you choose the best? Or the cheapest? Or the one with the best cost-benefit ratio? The schools would be forced to compete for you dollar. Tuitions would lower, teacher salaries would go up, bad teachers would be fired, etc.


ban advertisements is ALL SCHOOLS, public or private.

Taking away another freedom. Advertisement is speach protected under the first ammendment whether you agree with it or not.


but my rights ending where your's begin does favor the rights of the collective over the individual. if individual were over the collective, then it wouldn't matter when I start to rule you or you me, as long as "I" got my way. bUt by asserting that my rights stop where your's begin, you have put forth the idea that the smooth functioning of the collective society is more important than the wants or desires of any one individual inside it.
and I agree.

But the wants or desires of an individual often transcend that of a collective. I say, as Jew in 1937 Germany might want freedom to live outside my ghetto, the collective might (As it did) say "Get back in your ghetto, Jew". The whim of the collective or of the individual has essential no basis in reality or fact. It's better to let everyone person do as they wish, without harming others, than to let the misguided masses speak for everyone.


Can I ask you how you grew up? Like your socio-economic background? You obviously don't have to tell me, but I am interested in understanding you and your argument.

Middle class.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']No, the Federal Government is merely an agreement between states as defined by the Constitution.
an agreement that pays for and maintains a military, pays for and maintians roads and infrastructure, etc. These are all funded by taxes, levied by the federal gov't upon the states. so the states could at any point leave this agreement and go their own, if they thought (they being the free market in that state) it would be more profitable to do so?


GMA']But they have the opposite effect of allowing more minorities to move out of failing schools and into successful (Predomininantly white) private schools.
Yes, turn a profit or be fired. Educate children or leave. Since there is no product in schools, the children's education is the criteria for success. If you think keeping bad teachers helps education, you're sorely mistaken. Private schools score better on standardized tests and any other form of comparison.
If you had 5 schools to choose from, wouldn't you choose the best? Or the cheapest? Or the one with the best cost-benefit ratio? The schools would be forced to compete for you dollar. Tuitions would lower, teacher salaries would go up, bad teachers would be fired, etc.

why I do not suport vouchers:
source (http://www.zmag.org/content/Race/vouchers.cfm)
1)Vouchers Will Exacerbate Key Causes of Public School Failure
underfunding of our public schools has led us to the problem of poor underfunded public schools. talking money and support from them as punishment seems like the wrong solution.

2)Dark Sides of Competition
When one knows they have to accomplish task A or they will lose funding, students, or jobs, one tends to make sure task A happens. in this case, the success of a school is determined by test scores. so if task A is getting higher test scores, then all energy gets put toward making sure the test scores are higher, not toward a well rounded education. SO options become teach the test or limit the reporting of test scores by reclassifing the struggling students.

3) Not as Simple as Choose the Better School
Most publics schools cannot match up against private schools. They are no where near their funding or small sizes. So no choice their. And most inner city youth that would benifit from a better education at these private institutions live no where near them, making the choice for a better education a bit more taxing on the child and family unit. and most voucher programs tend to award the school by lottery, therefore the choice of location is non-existant. and of course, the schools being private they can deny entry for wahtever reason they want.

4) Good or bad? research is very inconsistant
"In a comprehensive study of a large-scale private school voucher program in New York City during the 1990s, the leading think-tank Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. found an at-best weak relationship between vouchers and improved school performance for students receiving vouchers. 'On standardized tests,' Mathematica found, 'students offered a scholarship generally performed at about the same level as students in the [non-voucher] control group.'" plus the Milwaukee program found the vouchered kids at private instituions scored the same as the public kids that did not leave.

5) other various issues:
private schools sometime charge the vouchered kids more for the same education, sometimes up to 400%.
Most often, the most priveldged kids with the most educated parents are the ones who benifet the most from the vouchers, therefore skimming the best students out of public schools, in large part due to the amount of the voucher itself, usually no more than $1500. the family is left to pay the balance, sometimes up to $13000.
if most private school institutions are faith based, why is the federal gov't supporting the faith based institutions? does this go aainst the seperation of church and state?

there are plenty more issues, this was a quick paraphrasing.





GMA']Taking away another freedom. Advertisement is speach protected under the first ammendment whether you agree with it or not.
so beer and tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise to children?



GMA'] It's better to let everyone person do as they wish, without harming others...
i agree. but when do exploitive labor relations become "harming others" in your book? are sweatshops in indochina harming others? are farmers in s.america unable to make enough money, having to clear cut the rainforrests, "harming others"? are corparations (monsantos) that sell seeds with suicide genes "harming others"?




GMA']Middle class.
me too. lower middle class, bordering on poverty.
do you think we can comprehend how the truly poor and destitute feel?
I struggle with this question all the time. because all our debating and arguing comes from our back ground and experience coupled with our education. how can we really know what it's like to be under the gun of hunger or homelessness?

[EN[i]GMA]

an agreement that pays for and maintains a military, pays for and maintians roads and infrastructure, etc. These are all funded by taxes, levied by the federal gov't upon the states. so the states could at any point leave this agreement and go their own, if they thought (they being the free market in that state) it would be more profitable to do so?

State's should be free to leave the union, yes.


why I do not suport vouchers:
source (http://www.zmag.org/content/Race/vouchers.cfm)
1)Vouchers Will Exacerbate Key Causes of Public School Failure
underfunding of our public schools has led us to the problem of poor underfunded public schools. talking money and support from them as punishment seems like the wrong solution.

2)Dark Sides of Competition
When one knows they have to accomplish task A or they will lose funding, students, or jobs, one tends to make sure task A happens. in this case, the success of a school is determined by test scores. so if task A is getting higher test scores, then all energy gets put toward making sure the test scores are higher, not toward a well rounded education. SO options become teach the test or limit the reporting of test scores by reclassifing the struggling students.

3) Not as Simple as Choose the Better School
Most publics schools cannot match up against private schools. They are no where near their funding or small sizes. So no choice their. And most inner city youth that would benifit from a better education at these private institutions live no where near them, making the choice for a better education a bit more taxing on the child and family unit. and most voucher programs tend to award the school by lottery, therefore the choice of location is non-existant. and of course, the schools being private they can deny entry for wahtever reason they want.

4) Good or bad? research is very inconsistant
"private instituions scored the same as the public kids thatIn a comprehensive study of a large-scale private school voucher program in New York City during the 1990s, the leading think-tank Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. found an at-best weak relationship between vouchers and improved school performance for students receiving vouchers. 'On standardized tests,' Mathematica found, 'students offered a scholarship generally performed at about the same level as students in the [non-voucher] control group.'" plus the Milwaukee program found the vouchered kids at did not leave.

5) other various issues:
private schools sometime charge the vouchered kids more for the same education, sometimes up to 400%.
Most often, the most priveldged kids with the most educated parents are the ones who benifet the most from the vouchers, therefore skimming the best students out of public schools, in large part due to the amount of the voucher itself, usually no more than $1500. the family is left to pay the balance, sometimes up to $13000.
if most private school institutions are faith based, why is the federal gov't supporting the faith based institutions? does this go aainst the seperation of church and state?

there are plenty more issues, this was a quick paraphrasing.

1. Public schools are OVERFUNDED. The problem isn't lack of money, it's lack of accountability. Yes, the schools are clamoring for more money. So is everyone. Just because you want more money does not mean you need it or deserve it. With over 8,000 dollars per student, there is no reason why Johhny can't read.

2. What is "Task A". In a private school, standardized tests wouldn't be pounded into student's heads (Not that they would need to, they are better at education than public schools) because in public schools, if they don't pass a certain percentage, the lose money. This happens in public schools not private schools.

3. Than build more schools. With a voucher program, there would be incentive for new, cheap, effective, schools to be created. And current voucher programs suck. We need better, more powerful ones.

4. Bullshit. Private schools score higher than public schools. Maybe those kids were just ruined by the public education system, but you can't argue with the facts.

5. In Kentucky for instance, the average private education tuition is $2500. I support a larger voucher, because anything under the $7,000 spent by the state per pupil is saving money, therefore worthwhile.

Vouchers are incredible. The only reason someone would be against them is because they support state indoctrination. Vouchers are better in every single way.



so beer and tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise to children?

No. Just as some speech is banned because it is clearly harmful (Yelling fire in a crowded theatre) so is phsyically harmful products being sold to children. Advertising a TV show can't harm a child, advertising a beer can.



i agree. but when do exploitive labor relations become "harming others" in your book? are sweatshops in indochina harming others? are farmers in s.america unable to make enough money, having to clear cut the rainforrests, "harming others"? are corparations (monsantos) that sell seeds with suicide genes "harming others"?

Firstly, this avoids what I was saying. This has nothing to do with individual/collective rights.

Secondly, sweatshops are harmful but less harmful than starving to death. A person is free to do what he wishes with land he owns. And it is sad that certain farmers don't make enough to sustain themselves. I'm not sure what you're talking about with this one.



me too. lower middle class, bordering on poverty.
do you think we can comprehend how the truly poor and destitute feel?
I struggle with this question all the time. because all our debating and arguing comes from our back ground and experience coupled with our education. how can we really know what it's like to be under the gun of hunger or homelessness?

But at the same time, can they truly know the facts and machinations behind their poverty?

[yeahwho]

Good news! President George W. Bush wants to lower our taxes. Pride.

[ASsman]

How does that stop fags from fucking?
FRIZZLE FRAZZLE!

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']State's should be free to leave the union, yes.
okay. that's narrowed down. the "agreement" between states, which is the "federal gov't" should be optional, if the states feel in their best interest to leave. got it. everything has to be free to move about in search of the best deal, including the deal from gov't.




GMA']1. Public schools are OVERFUNDED. The problem isn't lack of money, it's lack of accountability. Yes, the schools are clamoring for more money. So is everyone. Just because you want more money does not mean you need it or deserve it. With over 8,000 dollars per student, there is no reason why Johhny can't read.
really? find a teacher or an educator in the public school system and ask then how overfunded their school is. how many inner city schools have you seen? and this is exactly where the voucher program is being championed, the inner cities. I have never once heard a school say in the news," man we have too much money!" that's why schools get private investors, i.e. corporations, to help fund programs, and our schools then end up as living billboards our children have to "learn" in.


GMA']2. What is "Task A". In a private school, standardized tests wouldn't be pounded into student's heads (Not that they would need to, they are better at education than public schools) because in public schools, if they don't pass a certain percentage, the lose money. This happens in public schools not private schools.
i was referring to public schools here. the phenomenon of "teaching to the test" happens in public schools faced with the threat of vouchers and cuts in funding if a certain % is not reached. and it is the equivolent of cramming, not a good method of actually retaining knowledge

GMA']3. Than build more schools. With a voucher program, there would be incentive for new, cheap, effective, schools to be created. And current voucher programs suck. We need better, more powerful ones.
voucher programs are an incentive to build better schools? why don't we just use ou childrens education as the incentive? we could take all the voucher money and build another school. or maybe we could take all the surplus money the overfunded schools have.

GMA']4. Bullshit. Private schools score higher than public schools. Maybe those kids were just ruined by the public education system, but you can't argue with the facts.
i agree you can't argue with facts, but you keep doing it anyway.
here is the paper on the Milwuakee Public School Voucher Trial (http://dpls.dacc.wisc.edu/choice/aea97.html) that I mentioned in my last post. And here are the findings of the Government Accountabiltiy Office (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01914.pdf), also mention ed in my last post. Careful, it's a pdf. And saying the kids were ruined by the public eduction system is quite rediculous. If a child can be ruined, beyond repair educationally, why even offer a voucher?


GMA']5. In Kentucky for instance, the average private education tuition is $2500. I support a larger voucher, because anything under the $7,000 spent by the state per pupil is saving money, therefore worthwhile.
I agree, to make it ruly an equal opportunity, the siae of the voucher would have to cover the enitre cost of the private institution. othewise, it would be cheaper for the family to keep the child in the public school. which currently means, those who can't afford it (the poor) get left behind in the "overfunded" public schools.


GMA']Vouchers are incredible. The only reason someone would be against them is because they support state indoctrination. Vouchers are better in every single way.
well, I do not support vouchers or state indoctrination, so that argument is also faulty. I do support equality and fairness, two things the proposed voucher program does not provide. so I could make an equally worng "black or white" statement about those who support the school voucher program, but I won't. because it would be wrong.




GMA']Just as some speech is banned because it is clearly harmful (Yelling fire in a crowded theatre) so is phsyically harmful products being sold to children. Advertising a TV show can't harm a child, advertising a beer can.
fast food is not harmful? candy and sugar crap is not harmful? children do not make the healthiest of life choices, and advertising crap to them in their schools away from their parents ability to have any voice in what the ingest, purchase, or consume, is done solely so these companies can make more money. clearly harmful speech is banned and it's a good thing. now we have to decide what is clearly harmful.




GMA']Secondly, sweatshops are harmful but less harmful than starving to death. A person is free to do what he wishes with land he owns. And it is sad that certain farmers don't make enough to sustain themselves. I'm not sure what you're talking about with this one.
many farmers enter into contracts to supply their product to a large corporation (Starbucks, McDonald's, etc) then they push and push their land to produce the most product, because that way they get more money. Only the land can't continue to do that level of production, with out a rest (laying fallow). Unfortunately, the farmer's bills and stomach do not rest. So to get more money he needs more land,, and consequently we see farmers deforesting the rain forests in South America.
And sweatshops are less harmful than starving to death? WTF?!?!?! that is a horrible justifiaction. that's like saying the nazi concentration camps were better than being bombed in your town. the sweatshops cut every possible means to keep the product olling out at the highest possible profit level. sometimes the workers are actually starving to death. read No Logo (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312421435/qid=1106856500/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-5401753-9645469?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) Klein, and then tell me sweat shops are "better than starving".

GMA']But at the same time, can they truly know the facts and machinations behind their poverty?
yes, all that takes is education. education can be imparted, experience cannot be.

EN[i]GMA, how are you so callous to the human condition?

[EN[i]GMA]

okay. that's narrowed down. the "agreement" between states, which is the "federal gov't" should be optional, if the states feel in their best interest to leave. got it. everything has to be free to move about in search of the best deal, including the deal from gov't.

Yes.


really? find a teacher or an educator in the public school system and ask then how overfunded their school is. how many inner city schools have you seen? and this is exactly where the voucher program is being championed, the inner cities. I have never once heard a school say in the news," man we have too much money!" that's why schools get private investors, i.e. corporations, to help fund programs, and our schools then end up as living billboards our children have to "learn" in.

In Kansas City, thinking that schools were underfunded, enacted a new program. They built 8 new state-of-the-art schools, spared no expense and ended up paying over $36,000 per student.

The district's test scores didn't go up at all.

Don't you understand? The problem isn't money. 8,000 is student is to much. The free market can do it for a third of that BETTER. The problem isn't lack of money, it's lack of accountability which private schools institute.


i was referring to public schools here. the phenomenon of "teaching to the test" happens in public schools faced with the threat of vouchers and cuts in funding if a certain % is not reached. and it is the equivolent of cramming, not a good method of actually retaining knowledge

Children need to learn math, how to read and write, and basic history. Anything else is gravy. If we test to see if children can read and add, go for it. You should do nothing BUT teach for that test.


voucher programs are an incentive to build better schools? why don't we just use ou childrens education as the incentive? we could take all the voucher money and build another school. or maybe we could take all the surplus money the overfunded schools have.

We multiplied money per student by 4 in Kansas City and it did nothing. How much more do you feel like wasting before you realize money isn't the issue?


i agree you can't argue with facts, but you keep doing it anyway.
here is the paper on the Milwuakee Public School Voucher Trial (http://dpls.dacc.wisc.edu/choice/aea97.html) that I mentioned in my last post. And here are the findings of the Government Accountabiltiy Office (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01914.pdf), also mention ed in my last post. Careful, it's a pdf. And saying the kids were ruined by the public eduction system is quite rediculous. If a child can be ruined, beyond repair educationally, why even offer a voucher?

Studies noted.

So if scores are exactly the same, shouldn't the smallest amount of money be spent? If you can get a score for $2500 why would you get the same score for $8000? Private schools offer at least the same education for far less money.


I agree, to make it ruly an equal opportunity, the siae of the voucher would have to cover the enitre cost of the private institution. othewise, it would be cheaper for the family to keep the child in the public school. which currently means, those who can't afford it (the poor) get left behind in the "overfunded" public schools.

Sure. Very few private schools cost more than 4 or 5,000 dollars a year, considerably less than public schooling for that student so I agree. Perhaps it could be capped at the State's public school per-student expenditure to even it off.


well, I do not support vouchers or state indoctrination, so that argument is also faulty. I do support equality and fairness, two things the proposed voucher program does not provide. so I could make an equally worng "black or white" statement about those who support the school voucher program, but I won't. because it would be wrong.

Well if you state that private schools are likely to have biases (As you did) than why do you claim government schools don't? You DID make the same kind of statement about private schools in regards to their religious bias.


fast food is not harmful? candy and sugar crap is not harmful? children do not make the healthiest of life choices, and advertising crap to them in their schools away from their parents ability to have any voice in what the ingest, purchase, or consume, is done solely so these companies can make more money. clearly harmful speech is banned and it's a good thing. now we have to decide what is clearly harmful.

Fast food isn't INHERINTLY harmful. Micheal Jordan could eat a Big Mac and suffer ZERO adverse effect. Actually, he would be better off if he was in need of nutrition. If he smoked a cig on the other hand, he would gain nothing and suffer lung damage.

Which is of no consequence because he is in control of his own body. Children also control their own bodies (To a degree) and parent's play a VITAL role in their child's development. Parents have to be accountable for their children and children need to be educated about healthy eating (As would likely happen in a private school or through the parents).


many farmers enter into contracts to supply their product to a large corporation (Starbucks, McDonald's, etc) then they push and push their land to produce the most product, because that way they get more money. Only the land can't continue to do that level of production, with out a rest (laying fallow). Unfortunately, the farmer's bills and stomach do not rest. So to get more money he needs more land,, and consequently we see farmers deforesting the rain forests in South America.

So they make an agreement of their own volition and farm their own land? Those choices are fully their own. I'm sorry if I sound callous but come on, you make decisions and suffer consequences.

And what should we do to fix this problem?


And sweatshops are less harmful than starving to death? WTF?!?!?! that is a horrible justifiaction. that's like saying the nazi concentration camps were better than being bombed in your town. the sweatshops cut every possible means to keep the product olling out at the highest possible profit level. sometimes the workers are actually starving to death. read No Logo (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312421435/qid=1106856500/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-5401753-9645469?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) Klein, and then tell me sweat shops are "better than starving".

They VOLUNTARILLY work in these admittidly horrible facilities. If you think starving to death is better than working in a sweatshop, you don't take into account the human spirit and will to live.

I don't like the idea of people working 16 hour days for little pay, I really don't, but they make the choice to work in those conditions because they know it's an improvement over their current life, albeit very small.

Believe me, their sacrafice will pay off as it has everywhere else in the world.


yes, all that takes is education. education can be imparted, experience cannot be.

EN[i]GMA, how are you so callous to the human condition?

I'm not callous towards it, I acknowledge it's existant and work towards ending it. Humanitarian talk does little good. What's needed in these places is capitalism and industrialization and the process is happening.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']The problem isn't money. 8,000 is student is to much. The free market can do it for a third of that BETTER. The problem isn't lack of money, it's lack of accountability which private schools institute.
what happens when the free market decides that a certain subject should or should not be taught? ex: channel one can tell teachers when and what to show during their class time. some sponsored learning materials have been shown to be wildly innacurate, and favoring the product or company.

GMA']Children need to learn math, how to read and write, and basic history. Anything else is gravy. If we test to see if children can read and add, go for it. You should do nothing BUT teach for that test.
no art or music or anything like that? that stuff is all "gravy"? that's a bit sad. and teaching the test is like cramming. Once you go to college you'll learn about cramming, if you have not done it all ready in your high school (private I assume?). cramming is like binge dieting. you get all the knowledge in time to regurgitate it, then you forget it. I passed a roman history class that way. i've since had to re read al the texts just to have a small knowledge on the subject.



GMA']We multiplied money per student by 4 in Kansas City and it did nothing. How much more do you feel like wasting before you realize money isn't the issue?
i would venture a guess that money was not the only issue at play in Kansas City.

GMA']So if scores are exactly the same, shouldn't the smallest amount of money be spent? If you can get a score for $2500 why would you get the same score for $8000? Private schools offer at least the same education for far less money.
most private schools cost much more out of pocket than a public school. the difference is the state pays for public school. so the poor cannot afford to use the vouchers or outright attend a public school, because they cannot afford it. that's why we have a state funded school system, so people who cannot afford it can still be educated.


GMA']Very few private schools cost more than 4 or 5,000 dollars a year, considerably less than public schooling for that student so I agree. Perhaps it could be capped at the State's public school per-student expenditure to even it off. please see above argument

GMA']Well if you state that private schools are likely to have biases (As you did) than why do you claim government schools don't? You DID make the same kind of statement about private schools in regards to their religious bias.
what are you saying here? i do not doubt or deny that private schools have a bias, be it religious or monetary.


GMA']Fast food isn't INHERINTLY harmful. Micheal Jordan could eat a Big Mac and suffer ZERO adverse effect. Actually, he would be better off if he was in need of nutrition. If he smoked a cig on the other hand, he would gain nothing and suffer lung damage.
Which is of no consequence because he is in control of his own body. Children also control their own bodies (To a degree) and parent's play a VITAL role in their child's development. Parents have to be accountable for their children and children need to be educated about healthy eating (As would likely happen in a private school or through the parents).
a private school would not need the funds so it would not be as susceptable to the advertising dollars. and fast food is not inherently bad? is it healthy? is a big mac healthy? when the school becomes just another place for commercialism, capitalism wins right? becasue the children cannot turn off the t.v. or go out side and play or change the channels. they have to be exposed to these ads, with out anyones choices, parents, kids, or teachers.

read this: http://www.consumersunion.org/other/captivekids/problem.htm

GMA']So they make an agreement of their own volition and farm their own land? Those choices are fully their own. I'm sorry if I sound callous but come on, you make decisions and suffer consequences.
And what should we do to fix this problem?
They VOLUNTARILLY work in these admittidly horrible facilities. If you think starving to death is better than working in a sweatshop, you don't take into account the human spirit and will to live.
and the companies VOLUNTARILY pay them very little and take advatage of that. should that be rewarded?


GMA']I don't like the idea of people working 16 hour days for little pay, I really don't, but they make the choice to work in those conditions because they know it's an improvement over their current life, albeit very small.
it's either work in those conditions or starve to death. I agree peoplel would not choose to starve. But why should they have to choose between those two choices? see how that part is evil? the business could be producing and still pay them a living wage, but not if they have to turn a profit by any means necessary. and if you don't like, do something about it, instead of defending the system that subjects them to this life.

GMA']Believe me, their sacrafice will pay off as it has everywhere else in the world.
I'm not callous towards it, I acknowledge it's existant and work towards ending it. Humanitarian talk does little good. What's needed in these places is capitalism and industrialization and the process is happening.


man, you words are so scary. how much of this did you believe before the "capitalism will save the world" book?
to me you sound like an SS youth. you really need to get out and see the world. capitalism does not help, free markets are not free. travel outside of Kansas city, read some other books, talk to the migrant community.

[ASsman]

This is going the way of the "Islam is voilent" and "Jesus talk " threads.

[phinkasaurus]

^^^^
how so assman?

[ASsman]

It is going nowhere, fast. Neither side will concede, nor come to ANY agreement.

[EN[i]GMA]

This is going the way of the "Islam is voilent" and "Jesus talk " threads.

But at least we can debate intelligently and spell properly.

[EN[i]GMA]

what happens when the free market decides that a certain subject should or should not be taught? ex: channel one can tell teachers when and what to show during their class time. some sponsored learning materials have been shown to be wildly innacurate, and favoring the product or company.

Than you vote, with your dollars, not to attend that school and if enough people choose to go to schools without adverts, schools without adverts will exist.


no art or music or anything like that? that stuff is all "gravy"? that's a bit sad. and teaching the test is like cramming. Once you go to college you'll learn about cramming, if you have not done it all ready in your high school (private I assume?). cramming is like binge dieting. you get all the knowledge in time to regurgitate it, then you forget it. I passed a roman history class that way. i've since had to re read al the texts just to have a small knowledge on the subject.

Art and music are fine, once the child knows how to read and write.

Public. And I haven't really had to study much less cram. I just breeze through it. I expect college to require a lot of work though.



i would venture a guess that money was not the only issue at play in Kansas City.

I would say money wasn't the issue, isn't the issue and likely will never be the issue.

It's lack of accountability. No accountability for the administration, for the teachers, for the students.


most private schools cost much more out of pocket than a public school. the difference is the state pays for public school. so the poor cannot afford to use the vouchers or outright attend a public school, because they cannot afford it. that's why we have a state funded school system, so people who cannot afford it can still be educated.

Most private schools are $2500-5000, easily within the budget of vouchers.



what are you saying here? i do not doubt or deny that private schools have a bias, be it religious or monetary.

You said state schools weren't biased.


a private school would not need the funds so it would not be as susceptable to the advertising dollars. and fast food is not inherently bad? is it healthy? is a big mac healthy? when the school becomes just another place for commercialism, capitalism wins right? becasue the children cannot turn off the t.v. or go out side and play or change the channels. they have to be exposed to these ads, with out anyones choices, parents, kids, or teachers.

Than don't send your children to that school. They are getting the ads in public school, how can it be worse in private school? Also, many private schools are religiously themed leading me to believe they will have something other than the bottom line at stake.


read this: http://www.consumersunion.org/other/captivekids/problem.htm


Sure. Read How Capitalism Saved America.


and the companies VOLUNTARILY pay them very little and take advatage of that. should that be rewarded?

No. I'm not rewarding them. They make their own choices regarding their finances.


it's either work in those conditions or starve to death. I agree peoplel would not choose to starve. But why should they have to choose between those two choices? see how that part is evil? the business could be producing and still pay them a living wage, but not if they have to turn a profit by any means necessary. and if you don't like, do something about it, instead of defending the system that subjects them to this life.

So you would tell another what he can or cannot do with his own money? I'm not condoning sweat shop labor but I also refuse to condone a nanny state telling me what I can and cannot do with the money I have earned.

I wish that people were payed more and didn't work in those conditions, as every human should, but I also believe in freedom.


man, you words are so scary. how much of this did you believe before the "capitalism will save the world" book?
to me you sound like an SS youth. you really need to get out and see the world. capitalism does not help, free markets are not free. travel outside of Kansas city, read some other books, talk to the migrant community.

My words are scary? You're the one who wants to dicate how everyone lives their own lives because surpise, you know what's best. Ads bad, ban them! Low wages are bad, pay everyone more!

I say allow humans to excercise freedom over every aspect of their lives and the result is as clear a dictation of the weal of humanity as anything.

If humans constantly backbite, slander, rob and murder when given the freedom to do so, can any system, ran by men of the same faults, ever get them to stop? The answer is of course no.

This isn't politics but philosophy however. But think about. If humans are inherntly bad, as capitalism portrays to be (At least to you) can any system change them? When given freedom, people choose oppression for their fellow man (As you state), can oppression dicated by "wiser" men better them? If what you say is true, that humans in a free system are nothing but self-serving pricks, the problem isn't capitalism or socialism or any ism, but that humans are incapable of anything but death and destruction.

Quite depressing.

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']My words are scary? You're the one who wants to dicate how everyone lives their own lives because surpise, you know what's best.
Ads bad, ban them! Low wages are bad, pay everyone more!

I say allow humans to excercise freedom over every aspect of their lives and the result is as clear a dictation of the weal of humanity as anything.
If humans constantly backbite, slander, rob and murder when given the freedom to do so, can any system, ran by men of the same faults, ever get them to stop? The answer is of course no.

This isn't politics but philosophy however. But think about. If humans are inherntly bad, as capitalism portrays to be (At least to you) can any system change them? When given freedom, people choose oppression for their fellow man (As you state), can oppression dicated by "wiser" men better them? If what you say is true, that humans in a free system are nothing but self-serving pricks, the problem isn't capitalism or socialism or any ism, but that humans are incapable of anything but death and destruction.
Quite depressing.

I don't know what's best for everyone nor the world. I am of the opinion that a system under which humanity functions plays a great part in dictating those human's behaviour. If the system is one that encourages mankind, on an individual basis, to always profit, to constantly accumulate more and more, at the EXPENSE of other individuals, then this sort of behaviour will occur. Whether or not the gov't interferes with trade agreements or regulation, the base rule of this sort of system is PROFIT. THis is how I see capitalism, and thus the "free market".
I see socialism, and the eventual progression of communism, as a system that encourages society to advance all of humanity by changing the base rule away from the individual profit and towards the group profit, in an effort to make everyone's existance better.
Has this failed in the past? yes. I am not pretending the attempts at communist and socialist revolutions in Russia and China and Cuba had some failures, from horrible cruelty to inept beuraracy. and all of them have eventaully returned to some version of socialism or social imperialism or straight up capitalism. Though, there are plenty of examples of succesful socialist gov'ts in the world today.
Most importantly, I think the idea of "all for one and one for all" is better than "one for myself and fuck the rest of you." You know what they say, two heads are better than one.
and I do plan on reading the capitalism saves the world book, but wouldn't you know, I can't find a free version online. Though, ParEcon (http://www.parecon.org) has a free version on their site, if you want to read it.

[EN[i]GMA]

I don't know what's best for everyone nor the world. I am of the opinion that a system under which humanity functions plays a great part in dictating those human's behaviour. If the system is one that encourages mankind, on an individual basis, to always profit, to constantly accumulate more and more, at the EXPENSE of other individuals, then this sort of behaviour will occur. Whether or not the gov't interferes with trade agreements or regulation, the base rule of this sort of system is PROFIT. THis is how I see capitalism, and thus the "free market".
I see socialism, and the eventual progression of communism, as a system that encourages society to advance all of humanity by changing the base rule away from the individual profit and towards the group profit, in an effort to make everyone's existance better.
Has this failed in the past? yes. I am not pretending the attempts at communist and socialist revolutions in Russia and China and Cuba had some failures, from horrible cruelty to inept beuraracy. and all of them have eventaully returned to some version of socialism or social imperialism or straight up capitalism. Though, there are plenty of examples of succesful socialist gov'ts in the world today.
Most importantly, I think the idea of "all for one and one for all" is better than "one for myself and fuck the rest of you." You know what they say, two heads are better than one.
and I do plan on reading the capitalism saves the world book, but wouldn't you know, I can't find a free version online. Though, ParEcon (http://www.parecon.org) has a free version on their site, if you want to read it.


So in socialism, people aren't going to be selfish? It seems like your argument is "In socialism people won't be selfish so because we're in socialism and people aren't selfish in socialism".

This isn't a matter of what benefits society because capitalism has benefited society immensely. If you think socialism could benefit society more, that's fine but the same flaws in human nature that make capitalism fail would make socialism fail.

The rich capitalists would be replaced by the doublecrossing social servant and the tyranny would remain.

You can't avoid flaws in human nature. You just pretend the don't exist in you system. My system allows you to live your own life, free from the flaws and dictations of others, others who DON'T have your best interest at hand be it the rich capitalist or the rich social servent.

And of course the book isn't free. It's a book about capitalism.

[100% ILL]

The government that governs least governs best.

Thomas Jefferson

[Ace42]

GMA']So in socialism, people aren't going to be selfish?

In socialism people are not directly rewarded for being selfish, and indeed there is legislation to persecute people who do behave selfishly.

[EN[i]GMA]

In socialism people are not directly rewarded for being selfish, and indeed there is legislation to persecute people who do behave selfishly.

In America there is legislation preventing the government from growing. It failed.

People have to enact, interpret and enfore legislation. When that very legislation says "No person may have a lot of money and live in a huge mansion" the social servents and government sycophants are going to just juke around that.

When the people who decide who gets what get to decide what they get, there is a huge reward for selfishness, namely not starving to death but also actually living in prosperity.

If you think laws created by people to stop people from acting like people can't be avoided by people, you really are a good candidate for socialism.

[Ace42]

GMA']In America there is legislation preventing the government from growing. It failed.

Due in no small part to the incompetence, idleness, hypocrisy and arrogance of the US population.

People have to enact, interpret and enfore legislation. When that very legislation says "No person may have a lot of money and live in a huge mansion" the social servents and government sycophants are going to just juke around that.

Yeah, just like the murderers "Juke around" the laws against killing people. Everyone knows that enforcing tax collection never works! People all just juke around it. That's why we had to scrap it. Requiring people to have a license to drive? Silly, people will jsut juke around it!

When the people who decide who gets what get to decide what they get, there is a huge reward for selfishness, namely not starving to death but also actually living in prosperity.

Oh, of course, silly me. You spotted the inherant flaw with socialism. Because no-one instituting an egalitarian state would make the slightest effort to ensure that the policies put forward are egalitarian.

If you think laws created by people to stop people from acting like people can't be avoided by people, you really are a good candidate for socialism.

Yeah, let's scrap all laws. It's not like they deter people from doing whatever the hell they want anyway.

Moron.

[EN[i]GMA]

Due in no small part to the incompetence, idleness, hypocrisy and arrogance of the US population.

Yawn. Xenophobia the hip thing accross the pond?



Yeah, just like the murderers "Juke around" the laws against killing people. Everyone knows that enforcing tax collection never works! People all just juke around it. That's why we had to scrap it. Requiring people to have a license to drive? Silly, people will jsut juke around it!

Moron.

What I said was that they won't ignore the law, they'll modify it so they aren't breaking it. You truly are dense.


Oh, of course, silly me. You spotted the inherant flaw with socialism. Because no-one instituting an egalitarian state would make the slightest effort to ensure that the policies put forward are egalitarian.

Lenin really was dilligent about living like a peasant wasn't he? So was Pol Pot. And Mao. And Che. And Fidel. And Stalin. And Trotsky. And every other despotic "egalitarian" leader.



Yeah, let's scrap all laws. It's not like they deter people from doing whatever the hell they want anyway.

Moron.

Actually, let's have some laws, have a lot of personal freedom and use the government to prevent people from ruining our lives and use people to prevent the government from ruining our lives.

Anarchy and socialism both disrupt this by moving to extremes where human frailties doom society.

Someone's ennui acting up again or are you just off your meds?

[phinkasaurus]

GMA']So in socialism, people aren't going to be selfish? It seems like your argument is "In socialism people won't be selfish so because we're in socialism and people aren't selfish in socialism".

first off, no of course people can still be selfish in any form of society. but it won't be ENCOURAGED and PUSHED in EVERY FORM OF MEDIA AND INTERACTION. and like Ace42 pointed out, there would be laws against it. and yes laws are useless if the people who enforce hem do not follow or enforce them. that is why a major leg of any socialist or communist revolution is the on going nature of it. one always has to keep one's leaders in check, and under socialist gov'ts, aka true democracy, one can voice one's opinion. n ot like the sham voting occuring now in the u.s.

plus, in ParEcon, their is no social servants for precisely that reason. creating a coordinator class is creating another class like the capitalist exploiters before them.
some reading for you (free also, by the way) (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/capvsparecon/html/introduction.html)

if you believe human nature is at the core a selfish nature, how can you defend a free market? wouldn't people still be selfish?

[EN[i]GMA]

first off, no of course people can still be selfish in any form of society. but it won't be ENCOURAGED and PUSHED in EVERY FORM OF MEDIA AND INTERACTION. and like Ace42 pointed out, there would be laws against it. and yes laws are useless if the people who enforce hem do not follow or enforce them. that is why a major leg of any socialist or communist revolution is the on going nature of it. one always has to keep one's leaders in check, and under socialist gov'ts, aka true democracy, one can voice one's opinion. n ot like the sham voting occuring now in the u.s.

plus, in ParEcon, their is no social servants for precisely that reason. creating a coordinator class is creating another class like the capitalist exploiters before them.
some reading for you (free also, by the way) (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/capvsparecon/html/introduction.html)

if you believe human nature is at the core a selfish nature, how can you defend a free market? wouldn't people still be selfish?


True democracy? Like anarchy where the majority robs the minority and bands of thugs roam robbing everyone? Because that is true Democracy.

So if there are no civil servants, what's preventing me from ammassing capital and means of production? Your guns? The mob down the street? The government corruption is replaced with the corruption of armed mobs and the tyranny of 51% known as democracy?

Yes, people would still be selfish but their selfishness wouldn't dictate my life. They can be selfish and exist as an island unto themselves while the majority of us "normal", well adjusted individuals, have the freedom to exist as we please.

The free market frees me from the tyranny of their wickedness, collectivism binds me to it.

[Ace42]

GMA']
Moron.

What I said was that they won't ignore the law, they'll modify it so they aren't breaking it.

Just like murderers, speeders, tax-evaders and every other type of criminal has.

Lenin really was dilligent about living like a peasant wasn't he? So was Pol Pot. And Mao. And Che. And Fidel. And Stalin. And Trotsky. And every other despotic "egalitarian" leader.

Who said any of those were egalitarian? And incase you didn't know, Che Guevarra died in a peasant village out in the jungle where he spent most of his revolutionary years. Pol pot forced *everyone* to work in the fields like a peasant. He did not have a big mansion. Stalin famously had the person who decorated his apartment in Moscow fired because it had furnishings not available to the common party members.

You should've gone for "Kim Jong Il" - it still would've been a facile non-argument concocted by a moron, but at least it would've actually had a relation to reality.

Anarchy and socialism both disrupt this by moving to extremes where human frailties doom society.

Now rephrase that so it actually means something, rather than just being a nebulous ambiguity.

Someone's ennui acting up again or are you just off your meds?

It is merely that you disgust me. Your ethics disgust me. Your rationalising of your unfair privlidge disgusts me. Your country disgusts me. Your naive misunderstanding of the mechanisms of capitalism disgusts me. Your inability to seperate your convictions with objective fact disgusts me. Your ariesian willingness to regurgitate bourgeois propoganda disgusts me. Your unwillingness to think for yourself disgusts me.

This is the abridged version, I could continue.

[EN[i]GMA]

Just like murderers, speeders, tax-evaders and every other type of criminal has.

They don't write laws. Government officals do.


Who said any of those were egalitarian? And incase you didn't know, Che Guevarra died in a peasant village out in the jungle where he spent most of his revolutionary years. Pol pot forced *everyone* to work in the fields like a peasant. He did not have a big mansion. Stalin famously had the person who decorated his apartment in Moscow fired because it had furnishings not available to the common party members.

You should've gone for "Kim Jong Il" - it still would've been a facile non-argument concocted by a moron, but at least it would've actually had a relation to reality.

They sure as hell said they were egalitarian. And who knows if they were. Can anyone really know that? All we have to go on is their word and their actions.

I mean, Stalin did great by egalitarianing the Ukranian farms, it only cost 6 million lives!


Now rephrase that so it actually means something, rather than just being a nebulous ambiguity.

I considered it, but than I considered who would be reading it (Namely you) and decided against it. It's meaning is clear enough.


It is merely that you disgust me. Your ethics disgust me. Your rationalising of your unfair privlidge disgusts me. Your country disgusts me. Your naive misunderstanding of the mechanisms of capitalism disgusts me. Your inability to seperate your convictions with objective fact disgusts me. Your ariesian willingness to regurgitate bourgeois propoganda disgusts me. Your unwillingness to think for yourself disgusts me.

This is the abridged version, I could continue.

I'm sure you could.

I'm glad this is out on the table, at least there isn't any pretense of actually holding up intelligent viewpoints.

Just descend into disgust and all the problems go away.

Since I don't get as angry over words over the internet written by people of no consequence, on a forum of no consequence, which amounts to little more than dick waving competition, I see no point in defaming anyone.

You clearly do not. If an internet forum (Or someone on that forum) disgusts you so much, leave, ignore me. You are a grade A, class 1 prick to everyone on these forums. Perhaps the problem doesn't lie with us being unable to comprehend your brilliance but with you having an insecure ego.

And I've found that the person throwing the claim that his opponent can't think for hisself is often unable to think for hisself. It's almost Freudian.

[EN[i]GMA]

Really Ace, just ignore me if you hate me so much.

I think it would be better for you, your sanity, your blood pressure and my mind.

Words on a screen Ace, words on a screen...

[Ace42]

GMA']They don't write laws. Government officals do.

Oh, I forgot that people with the "speeding" gene can't get elected into government.

I might just as well say "selfish bourgeois people don't write the laws, the socialists do" in defence of socialism.

They sure as hell said they were egalitarian. And who knows if they were. Can anyone really know that? All we have to go on is their word and their actions.

And Bush said he was a uniter not a divider. Oh, what a surprise, despots lie. Obviously the only conclusion we can draw from that is "socialism sucks!"

I mean, Stalin did great by egalitarianing the Ukranian farms, it only cost 6 million lives!

It's meaning is clear enough.

Indeed. It means "I am going to talk a load of ephemereal bollocks so that no-one can nail it down enough to prove what meaningless I actually come out with."

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I refrained from posting that translation. Also I was giving the other readers here the benefit of the doubt in that they can come to the same conclusion on their own.

I'm glad this is out on the table, at least there isn't any pretense of actually holding up intelligent viewpoints.

Holding up intelligent viewpoints requires an intelligence. That is something you do not have, and thus there is no point in me arguing it. You have proven an inability to understand simple arguments, and a reluctance to reason through your arguments using even simple common sense. Let alone observable fact.

Just descend into disgust and all the problems go away.

"become someone elses problem" is what you were looking for. Correcting you is not my job, and I have wasted more than enough time illustrating just why the values you hold are absurd. The problems will persist as long as idiots like you keep trying to serve the under-classes shit-sandwiches packaged as caviar. Fortunately, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You will be on the receiving end sooner or later, and while you will no doubt blame society, or the poor, or "those with criminal mentalities", or the last vestiges of government control, or even "human nature" - the culpability will rest cleanly on your own shoulders, and I will not in the least bit be concerned. Just as I was not shocked or gobsmacked when the twin towers got blown up. Yeah, shame, big whup, but that's what happens when you shit on people. Karma shits back.

Since I don't get as angry over words over the internet

You don't get angry because you don't care. You don't care because you are a narcissist. You do not care because your self-satisfaction provides ample justification for everything you say and do, and everything you believe in. You don't care because you live in America, home of self-absorption. You don't care because you see fat dollars, not unemployed factory workers. You do not care because you are a selfish capitalist who is much more concerned with protecting his stake in the status quo than acknowledging what is wrong. That is the worst kind of moral relativism.

"Capitalism must be fine, because I am fine."

I see no point in defaming anyone.

Is that so?

You are a grade A, class 1 prick to everyone on these forums.

And I've found that the person throwing the claim that his opponent can't think for hisself is often unable to think for hisself. It's almost Freudian.

It's almost dyslexic. And highly amusing, considering that you use the "I know what you are, but what am I" argument immediately following "I don't defame anyone, but you are a prick."

What you mean is that I am intollerant and condescending to most of the posters on this forum. Maybe that is because most of the posters on this forum are slow-witted boobs who equate their prosperity (in more ways than one) with justice.

Or maybe it is just because a lot of the posters here are despicable.

[EN[i]GMA]

Oh, I forgot that people with the "speeding" gene can't get elected into government.

I might just as well say "selfish bourgeois people don't write the laws, the socialists do" in defence of socialism.

That isn't what I stated at all. When someone is in charge of money allocation, they are likely to bend the rules. When someone is in charge of the rules of money allocation, they are likely to change them to benefit themselves.

[quoute]
And Bush said he was a uniter not a divider. Oh, what a surprise, despots lie. Obviously the only conclusion we can draw from that is "socialism sucks!"

I mean, Stalin did great by egalitarianing the Ukranian farms, it only cost 6 million lives![/quote]

Close but no cigar. Statism sucks, but you may as well count them as the same thing.


Indeed. It means "I am going to talk a load of ephemereal bollocks so that no-one can nail it down enough to prove what meaningless I actually come out with."

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I refrained from posting that translation. Also I was giving the other readers here the benefit of the doubt in that they can come to the same conclusion on their own.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doub Ace, your compassion affirms my existance.


Holding up intelligent viewpoints requires an intelligence. That is something you do not have, and thus there is no point in me arguing it. You have proven an inability to understand simple arguments, and a reluctance to reason through your arguments using even simple common sense. Let alone observable fact.

Isn't my ability to throw around my 6 dollar vocabulary enough? /sarcasm


"become someone elses problem" is what you were looking for. Correcting you is not my job, and I have wasted more than enough time illustrating just why the values you hold are absurd. The problems will persist as long as idiots like you keep trying to serve the under-classes shit-sandwiches packaged as caviar. Fortunately, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You will be on the receiving end sooner or later, and while you will no doubt blame society, or the poor, or "those with criminal mentalities", or the last vestiges of government control, or even "human nature" - the culpability will rest cleanly on your own shoulders, and I will not in the least bit be concerned. Just as I was not shocked or gobsmacked when the twin towers got blown up. Yeah, shame, big whup, but that's what happens when you shit on people. Karma shits back.

You ARE wasting your time and there is no such thing as karma.


You don't get angry because you don't care. You don't care because you are a narcissist. You do not care because your self-satisfaction provides ample justification for everything you say and do, and everything you believe in. You don't care because you live in America, home of self-absorption. You don't care because you see fat dollars, not unemployed factory workers. You do not care because you are a selfish capitalist who is much more concerned with protecting his stake in the status quo than acknowledging what is wrong. That is the worst kind of moral relativism.

Give the man a prize!

You DO care because you're a psuedo-intellectual who thinks it's edgy to trod down the (beaten) path of collectivism. You think your murderous policies are humanitarian, that your economic fallacies are enlightenment, than your smug self-serving arguments mean shit to anyone, that your brain is anything special, that your ideas are unique, that anyone cares what you think, that your going to convince me with your rhetorical and fallacies, that you aren't wasting your time, that you're going to do anything, that your going to convince anyone, that I care at all what you think.


"Capitalism must be fine, because I am fine."

Why not indulge the fool? Yes Ace, that's the basis of my argument. You found me out.



Is that so?

It's almost dyslexic. And highly amusing, considering that you use the "I know what you are, but what am I" argument immediately following "I don't defame anyone, but you are a prick."

Oops. Let me ammend that post: "I do plan on defaming you".

There, problem solved.


What you mean is that I am intollerant and condescending to most of the posters on this forum. Maybe that is because most of the posters on this forum are slow-witted boobs who equate their prosperity (in more ways than one) with justice.

Or maybe it is just because a lot of the posters here are despicable.

I'm sure that's it Ace. I'm sure that's the reason you don't like anyone and none likes you. Blame it on someone else, how fitting for a collectist.

[EN[i]GMA]

And neither of those claims were really defamation.

They were both true (By your own admission, the first one) and the second one isn't meant to be offensive.

[EN[i]GMA]

Add me to your ignore list if you dislike me so much.

I would add you to mine, but that requires an effort which is more than I feel like spending on you.

[Ace42]

GMA']When someone is in charge of money allocation, they are likely to bend the rules. When someone is in charge of the rules of money allocation, they are likely to change them to benefit themselves.

And yet only a few threads ago you advocated the liberty dollar company being in charge of money allocation. You constantly advocate giving more power to companies which are even less accountable than a government, and in reducing legislation that is intended to reduce corruption.

So once again, it boils down to "socialism sucks" because all the flaws you cite are all present and *subsidised* in a capitalist system.

You ARE wasting your time

Coming from the guy who treble replied to my post because "it was too much effort" to put me on ignore? Hah.

and there is no such thing as karma.

It depends who you ask. To me, karma is an abstract which represents equilibrium. To you it is a trendy middle-eastern philosophy which is of no consequence because it can only interfere with your persuit of the golden dollar.

Give the man a prize!

What do I win, what do I win? A first-class one-way ticket you your capitalist utopia?

You DO care because you're a psuedo-intellectual who thinks it's edgy to trod down the (beaten) path of collectivism.

And the path of capitalism isn't beaten? Plenty more capitalist states that have failed than communist ones.

You think your murderous policies are humanitarian,

Which murderous policies are these? The ones which involve dumping toxic waste in water courses because it is cheaper than disposing of it responsibly? Or the ones which involve invading a country for their oil? Or the ones which involve cutting benefit for the less fortunate? What about my policy of reinstituting slavery because it allows a greater profit?

that your economic fallacies are enlightenment,

This coming from the guy that thinks the value of gold is static.

than your smug self-serving arguments mean shit to anyone,

Self-serving? How is me eschewing material gains and promotion from a materialistic society "self-serving" ? How is me living on scanter means so that the less fortunate can have a bigger piece o' the pie "self serving" ? How is me saying "everyone should have the same" even though it would mean my numerous qualifications become meaningless "self-serving"

rephrase that to "self-agrandising" and you might seem less like you were grasping at straws.

that your brain is anything special, that your ideas are unique, that anyone cares what you think,

This coming from the guy with the dollar bill slapped across his mouth, bent prone for the corporate ass-reaming. "Capitalism is great because it breeds competition and thus the best deal for consumers!"

Yeah, that is so original. Feh. The only thing unique about that is your total unquestioning submission to a premise which is demonstrably false.

that your going to convince me with your rhetorical and fallacies, that you aren't wasting your time, that you're going to do anything, that your going to convince anyone, that I care at all what you think.

Whether I convince you or not is immaterial. You'll still be a poor little rich kid with a silver-spoon in his mouth and a conviction that it is a season ticket to sanity-stadium. You'll still be arguing 'till you are blue in the face that it is right and proper that your prosperity is bought with the lives and suffering of dozens of coloured gentlemen in a continent which is "getting so much better" - because those sweatshop workers are so happy with their 2% wage increase on their pittance, even in the face of higher inflation.

But hell, of course you don't care what I think. If you choose to rationalise your own conscience into limbo, what chance does your intellectual and moral superior have?

Why not indulge the fool?

I take exception at the term "fool" - I'd prefer you refer to me as your "daddy"

Oops. Let me ammend that post: "I do plan on defaming you".

There, problem solved.

Flip-flopper.

Blame it on someone else, how fitting for a collectist.

Is a "collectist" someone who reverses the charges on phone-calls?

Also, "No-one likes me" ? I am sure the "fan-club" that various "Ace-haters" have ascribed to me would be up in arms.

would add you to mine, but that requires an effort which is more than I feel like spending on you.

I said that about your mother when I was banging her. During a treble post...

[EN[i]GMA]

And yet only a few threads ago you advocated the liberty dollar company being in charge of money allocation. You constantly advocate giving more power to companies which are even less accountable than a government, and in reducing legislation that is intended to reduce corruption.

So once again, it boils down to "socialism sucks" because all the flaws you cite are all present and *subsidised* in a capitalist system.


So instead of answering my claims you merely criticize capitalism? Some defense.


Coming from the guy who treble replied to my post because "it was too much effort" to put me on ignore? Hah.

That is rather funny. Oh wait. It isn't.



It depends who you ask. To me, karma is an abstract which represents equilibrium. To you it is a trendy middle-eastern philosophy which is of no consequence because it can only interfere with your persuit of the golden dollar.

So basically, you're going to use a term than disassociate it from it's actual meaning in order to defame me in some way.

Nice job Ace, you can use words and than make up definitions for them. You're great.


What do I win, what do I win? A first-class one-way ticket you your capitalist utopia?

A swift kick in the ass is what you win.


And the path of capitalism isn't beaten? Plenty more capitalist states that have failed than communist ones.

Red herring. More capitalist states have existed than communist ones.



Which murderous policies are these? The ones which involve dumping toxic waste in water courses because it is cheaper than disposing of it responsibly? Or the ones which involve invading a country for their oil? Or the ones which involve cutting benefit for the less fortunate? What about my policy of reinstituting slavery because it allows a greater profit?

Your forced collectivization of course. The policy that always seems to lead to mass death.

You deserve the Noam Chomsky Award for misrepresenting capitalism in a psuedo-intellectual yet intellectually dishonest manner.

It's quite presigious.



This coming from the guy that thinks the value of gold is static.

...more static the price of nothing, yes.


Self-serving? How is me eschewing material gains and promotion from a materialistic society "self-serving" ? How is me living on scanter means so that the less fortunate can have a bigger piece o' the pie "self serving" ? How is me saying "everyone should have the same" even though it would mean my numerous qualifications become meaningless "self-serving"

Self-serving because you only believe in this garbage because it gives you a sense of superiority. You clearly don't understand the implications of your belief which, while sounding selfless, are really as selfish as can be, to the top tier government officials who really gain anything from collectivism.


rephrase that to "self-agrandising" and you might seem less like you were grasping at straws.

Spell aggrandising correctly and you might have a biting remark.


This coming from the guy with the dollar bill slapped across his mouth, bent prone for the corporate ass-reaming. "Capitalism is great because it breeds competition and thus the best deal for consumers!"

This coming from you, who would sooner bow down to his collectivist murderer than admit he was wrong.


Yeah, that is so original. Feh. The only thing unique about that is your total unquestioning submission to a premise which is demonstrably false.

The only thing unique about you is your dependancy on failed ideologies that real human beings no longer put any stock in because they see the stupidity of the claims presented. You're part of dying breed Ace, and the world will be better off for it.


Whether I convince you or not is immaterial. You'll still be a poor little rich kid with a silver-spoon in his mouth and a conviction that it is a season ticket to sanity-stadium. You'll still be arguing 'till you are blue in the face that it is right and proper that your prosperity is bought with the lives and suffering of dozens of coloured gentlemen in a continent which is "getting so much better" - because those sweatshop workers are so happy with their 2% wage increase on their pittance, even in the face of higher inflation.

The figure is inflation adjusted.

And tell me Ace, what would you do to help them? Hit them over the head with your ego and drag them to your collectivist utopia?


But hell, of course you don't care what I think. If you choose to rationalise your own conscience into limbo, what chance does your intellectual and moral superior have?

Intellectual AND moral superiour? Intellectually, you're a sunken ship, morally, you're a joke.

In fact, you ARE a joke.


I take exception at the term "fool" - I'd prefer you refer to me as your "daddy"

I'm sure you would, the term likely has no meaning to you. That would likely explain your paternel dependancy on government.



Flip-flopper.

If I was the foolish one, would I be using a term as asinine as "flip-flopper"? Obviously not.



Is a "collectist" someone who reverses the charges on phone-calls?

Also, "No-one likes me" ? I am sure the "fan-club" that various "Ace-haters" have ascribed to me would be up in arms.

That was the worst witticism I've ever heard.

And I'm sure they would be.



I said that about your mother when I was banging her. During a treble post...

If you say that while banging ANYONE you truly are the biggest nerd and most desperate loser I've ever had the displeasure of discoursing with.

[Whois]

Or maybe it is just because a lot of the posters here are despicable.

That would be me...

*smiles*

*goes and kicks a baby*

(y)

[Ace42]

GMA']So instead of answering my claims you merely criticize capitalism? Some defense.

Don't confuse you not liking / disregarding my answers as "not answering."

Actually, do so. It merely shows your position to be untenable.

That is rather funny. Oh wait. It isn't.

It is the fact that you cannot stay consistant within one post, let alone a thread that is amusing. That was merely one more piece of contributing evidence.

So basically, you're going to use a term than disassociate it from it's actual meaning in order to defame me in some way.

That is exactly what I am going to do. If you disregard what I post, and instead construct a straw-man argument to refute. Your inability to understand the significance of the concept of "karma" in any but the most literal of terms does not effect *my* argument at all.

It does make you look like a fool. Not in itself unusual, but without regular yardsticks, it is easy to lose perspective on how out of your depth you are.

Nice job Ace, you can use words and than make up definitions for them. You're great.

And you called me self-serving? I'm not the one assuming that something I am not familiar with must be fictional.

A swift kick in the ass is what you win.

Wow, a kick up the arse from someone being pumped up the arse. I guess that makes *me* the capitalist bitch.

Red herring. More capitalist states have existed than communist ones.

Ok, when you produce the number of capitalist states througout history, vs the number of failed capitalist states; then compare that with the communist states. Define what constitutes a "sucessful" state, offer the figures which support this assessment, and offer a statistical rationale with which to prove this point, taking into account confounding variables, etc.

Then, THEN, you might not sound like you are making sweeping generalisations based on your personal prejudices.

As I said, your argument is "well, out of all of the communist states run by totalitarian dictators, all have failed" - what a surprise that states which disregard the fundamental principles of communism fail to operate in a communist manner.

You accused *me* of redefining a term. That is rich coming from you, who chooses to equate socialism / communism with totalitarianism. Two things which are not ideologically linked.

Your forced collectivization of course. The policy that always seems to lead to mass death.

"my" forced collectivism? Where did I say anything about force. I think you'll find that what you are arguing against is your preconceptions about communism, rather than any ideological truth.

I could likewise that capitalism always results in mass death - just look at the US civil and subsequent wars, including Iraq. There are millions dying in Africa right now because capitalism says "they can't have cheap anti-AIDS drugs"

You deserve the Noam Chomsky Award for misrepresenting capitalism in a psuedo-intellectual yet intellectually dishonest manner.

This coming from the guy who keeps saying "capitalism means that the customer always gets the best deal due to competition" - a statement which is objectively false.

...more static the price of nothing, yes.

There can be no "more" static. Something is either static or not. And that is ignoring the fact that you were not arguing that it is "more static" than anything (as you clearly cannot). The idea that it can be more static than the price of nothing (nothing) is self-evidently fallacious, even if you ignore the previous two logic errors in your argument.

You clearly don't understand the implications of your belief which, while sounding selfless, are really as selfish as can be, to the top tier government officials who really gain anything from collectivism.

Oh, of course. It is a flaw in my logic that means I cannot understand that the ideals of self-sacrifice must logically lead to self-indulgence; and that a system of government that is based around rule by the common people must logically result in an oligarchy that is seperate from the people.

How stupid I am not to see how common sense states catergorically that opposites must be the same.

Take a look at the shit you are shovelling. Clearly it is *me* that is wrong by not taking things to mean their direct opposite.

Spell aggrandising correctly and you might have a biting remark.

Indeed, I gather it would've been quite "presigious."

This coming from you, who would sooner bow down to his collectivist murderer than admit he was wrong.

How wrong I am. Collectivism kills, capitalism saves. Capitalism doesn't pollute, it doesn't pay for armies, it doesn't invade countries, it doesn't leave cities barren when their plant downsizes. There is no theft in a capitalist country, right? T&F.

The only thing unique about you is your dependancy on failed ideologies

What, like a non-fiat currency?

that real human beings

Like Rumsfeld?

no longer put any stock in because they see the stupidity of the claims presented.

Like the demonstrably false claim that capitalism results in benefits for consumers?

You're part of dying breed Ace, and the world will be better off for it.

I am Winston, you are Parsons. You'd be O'Brien if you weren't so dense.

The figure is inflation adjusted.

No, it isn't. Inflation is a complex value which you have demonstrated you fail to grasp.

And tell me Ace, what would you do to help them? Hit them over the head with your ego and drag them to your collectivist utopia?

Why no, I'd remove any laws protecting their rights and guaranteeing fair treatment, and then the market would magically go against all its principles and take care of them of its own volition.

Fool.

Intellectual AND moral superiour? Intellectually, you're a sunken ship, morally, you're a joke.

Well, yes, if a self-important kid who doesn't know what he is talking about and lives in a fantasy-land is to be believed.

In fact, you ARE a joke.

Anyone who is even remotely aquainted with the real world is a joke in your opinion. But your opinion doesn't count for much, as you are a pea-brain.

I'm sure you would, the term likely has no meaning to you. That would likely explain your paternel dependancy on government.

And you are independant from government? Tell me that when your house catches fire, or you get robbed, or someone starts dumping toxic waste on your property, or you get falsely accused of a crime.

If I was the foolish one, would I be using a term as asinine as "flip-flopper"? Obviously not.

If you were the foolish one, you'd fail to appreciate the irony. Oh, you did.

That was the worst witticism I've ever heard.

It wasn't a witticism. But then, you can't be expected to know that.

If you say that while banging ANYONE you truly are the biggest nerd and most desperate loser I've ever had the displeasure of discoursing with.

I thought the fact that I was a loser was already established when I admitted to having sex with your mother?

[Ace42]

Not wanting to disrupt my beautifully constructed rebuttal, I will expound in this post.

The above can be summed up much more accurately and simply. This summation is unnecessary, as several people have stated (in much more veiled and polite terms, refraining from stating what is on everyone's mind) as much. However, to spell it out:

You are an annoying whiny brat who should actually interact with the world (and maybe pump a woman, drink some beers, visit a few countries, and check some newsreels) before sounding off like he has a pair.

When your testes descend, then you might actually be able to make a point (in a non-castrato-choirboy-singsong voice) without coming across as an ignorant infant.

[EN[i]GMA]

Don't confuse you not liking / disregarding my answers as "not answering."

Actually, do so. It merely shows your position to be untenable.

Sure it does Ace. The mere fact that I can defend my positions eloquently, with factors, figures and evidence is clearly of no consequence, the intellectual has a point to make!


It is the fact that you cannot stay consistant within one post, let alone a thread that is amusing. That was merely one more piece of contributing evidence.

I'm sorry that my wholly serious, completely non farcical, above all serious post had some contradictions. It won't happen again. Or will it?


That is exactly what I am going to do. If you disregard what I post, and instead construct a straw-man argument to refute. Your inability to understand the significance of the concept of "karma" in any but the most literal of terms does not effect *my* argument at all.

It does make you look like a fool. Not in itself unusual, but without regular yardsticks, it is easy to lose perspective on how out of your depth you are.

Your inability to use terms correctly says a lot about your ego, namely that when you're right, you're right, and when you're wrong, you're still right. You're good Ace, you're good.


And you called me self-serving? I'm not the one assuming that something I am not familiar with must be fictional.

Yes, you're self-serving.


Wow, a kick up the arse from someone being pumped up the arse. I guess that makes *me* the capitalist bitch.

By proxy, yes. How's that make you feel?


Ok, when you produce the number of capitalist states througout history, vs the number of failed capitalist states; then compare that with the communist states. Define what constitutes a "sucessful" state, offer the figures which support this assessment, and offer a statistical rationale with which to prove this point, taking into account confounding variables, etc.

Then, THEN, you might not sound like you are making sweeping generalisations based on your personal prejudices.

As I said, your argument is "well, out of all of the communist states run by totalitarian dictators, all have failed" - what a surprise that states which disregard the fundamental principles of communism fail to operate in a communist manner.

You accused *me* of redefining a term. That is rich coming from you, who chooses to equate socialism / communism with totalitarianism. Two things which are not ideologically linked.

Show me one communist state without a totalitarian leader. Oh wait, there hasn't been one, but Ace, the master of all things logical is going to continue to assume they aren't linked though they have been liked 100% of the time in all past cases.

But just ignore it Ace, it's inconvinient to do otherwise.


"my" forced collectivism? Where did I say anything about force. I think you'll find that what you are arguing against is your preconceptions about communism, rather than any ideological truth.

I could likewise that capitalism always results in mass death - just look at the US civil and subsequent wars, including Iraq. There are millions dying in Africa right now because capitalism says "they can't have cheap anti-AIDS drugs"

How are you going to "share" what you don't own? How is what I own going to be shared if I don't choose to share it? You're going to have to make me, compel me or impel me. And 2 and 3 won't work.

And interestingly enough, the majority of AIDS cases in Africa are caused not through sex but thorugh unclean needles administered by our helpful socialists in the UN. The very same people who claim to help, hurt the problem more than can be imagined. How about that Ace? So like Socialism, "We were only trying to help" after the fact, after millions have died.

Facts:

Did medical care spread HIV?

Children and injections: Many studies report young children infected with HIV with mothers who are not infected. One study in Kinshasa kept track of the injections given to infants under two. In one study, nearly 40% of HIV+ infants had mothers who tested negative. These children averaged 44 injections in their lifetimes compared with only 23 for uninfected children.


Good access to medical care: Countries like Zimbabwe, with the best access to medical care, have the highest rates of HIV transmission. "High rates [of HIV] in South Africa have paralleled aggressive efforts to deliver health care to rural populations".


Riskier to be rich: Most STDs are associated with being poor and uneducated. HIV in Africa is associated with urban living, having a good education, and having a higher income. In one hospital in 1984, the rate of HIV in the senior administrators was 9.2%, compared with the average employee rate of 6.4%.

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/Std148main.pdf

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pr126.htm

Thank you socialism, you cure all of our ills!

Actually, AIDS drugs wouldn't even exist in a socialistic society so the point is really moot.



This coming from the guy who keeps saying "capitalism means that the customer always gets the best deal due to competition" - a statement which is objectively false.

This coming from the guy who lives in a capitalistic paradise and bites the hand that feeds him (Literally) on a daily basis.

And it is only false in your mind. Your subjective whims, not actual facts provide evidence for you and your ilk of mental lightweights.


There can be no "more" static. Something is either static or not. And that is ignoring the fact that you were not arguing that it is "more static" than anything (as you clearly cannot). The idea that it can be more static than the price of nothing (nothing) is self-evidently fallacious, even if you ignore the previous two logic errors in your argument.

Something can be more static because nothing is nothing. Nothing has no static value, gold has at least SOME value. Do the math.

Obiously the price of nothing is static, it has no price. That isn't a contradiction. That's like saying a rock weighs something and nothing weighs nothing, and than you respond with "A Ha, but for a rock to weigh more than nothing, nothing has to weigh SOMETHING". When of course it doesn't.

It's you who is committing the fallacies.


Oh, of course. It is a flaw in my logic that means I cannot understand that the ideals of self-sacrifice must logically lead to self-indulgence; and that a system of government that is based around rule by the common people must logically result in an oligarchy that is seperate from the people.

How stupid I am not to see how common sense states catergorically that opposites must be the same.

Take a look at the shit you are shovelling. Clearly it is *me* that is wrong by not taking things to mean their direct opposite.

Once ideals are enough to make the world perfect, get back with me, until then, you're wrong.

Clearly it is you who is wrong because you refuse to see a direct correlation. You merely write it off as my argumentive trickery when really it's a logical determination.


Indeed, I gather it would've been quite "presigious."

Hilarious.


How wrong I am. Collectivism kills, capitalism saves. Capitalism doesn't pollute, it doesn't pay for armies, it doesn't invade countries, it doesn't leave cities barren when their plant downsizes. There is no theft in a capitalist country, right? T&F.

Down to asking to loaded questions huh? No surprise. And your arguments sure are convincing. Nothing bad would or could ever happen in a socialist utopian dreamland, right Ace? Flaws only exist in capitalism.



What, like a non-fiat currency?

All fiat currencies fail.



Like Rumsfeld?

Umm, yeah Ace, just like him. Go with it. It sounds great.



Like the demonstrably false claim that capitalism results in benefits for consumers?

Says the man who is typing on his computer, on Windows (Because he isn't smart enough to use Linux), on a Qwerty keyboard, while drinking a capitalist softdrink.

But I say we just ignore all that. It's inconvenient, right Ace?



I am Winston, you are Parsons. You'd be O'Brien if you weren't so dense.

Pardon me, but I don't quite follow your lightning fast wit, slow it down for us Yanks.



No, it isn't. Inflation is a complex value which you have demonstrated you fail to grasp.

....

But the people compiling the figure obviously did grasp it as they took it into account with the figure.

But I'm sure you're smarter than they are Ace, you're smarter than everyone.

You're the smartest guy in the whole world Ace.

You tell 'em!


Why no, I'd remove any laws protecting their rights and guaranteeing fair treatment, and then the market would magically go against all its principles and take care of them of its own volition.

Fool.

Yawn.

You make this to easy Ace, you really do. You just capitulate, like a bitch.


Well, yes, if a self-important kid who doesn't know what he is talking about and lives in a fantasy-land is to be believed.

Says the fool who is a grand total of SIX years older than me.

Oh wise and ancient sage, what was it like back in the '80s?



Anyone who is even remotely aquainted with the real world is a joke in your opinion. But your opinion doesn't count for much, as you are a pea-brain.

People who aren't as well versed in economics as I, generally know less about economics than I do, yes. And no my opinion isn't much, but yet you converse with me. Strange.


And you are independant from government? Tell me that when your house catches fire, or you get robbed, or someone starts dumping toxic waste on your property, or you get falsely accused of a crime.

Hmm. I could swear that's a non sequitir.


If you were the foolish one, you'd fail to appreciate the irony. Oh, you did.

Oh wait. That wasn't even ironic. Or funny.


It wasn't a witticism. But then, you can't be expected to know that.

No, it wasn't a witticism.


I thought the fact that I was a loser was already established when I admitted to having sex with your mother?

Yes it was Ace. Only a loser would admit to having sex with someone he didn't, expescially when it's glaringly obvious said person is a virgin.

Ahem.

[EN[i]GMA]

Not wanting to disrupt my beautifully constructed rebuttal, I will expound in this post.

The above can be summed up much more accurately and simply. This summation is unnecessary, as several people have stated (in much more veiled and polite terms, refraining from stating what is on everyone's mind) as much. However, to spell it out:

You are an annoying whiny brat who should actually interact with the world (and maybe pump a woman, drink some beers, visit a few countries, and check some newsreels) before sounding off like he has a pair.

When your testes descend, then you might actually be able to make a point (in a non-castrato-choirboy-singsong voice) without coming across as an ignorant infant.

If by interact with the world you mean throw stones from my window as I sit at my computer, as you surely do, than I can only hope to have the sort of intereaction with society that you do Ace.

It's my dream to be like you, it really is.


Hmm. Perhaps that is the case Ace. Or perhaps you're wasting everyone's time with your continued existance.

And that was quite a post dedicated to my balls. How fitting.

[Ace42]

GMA']The mere fact that I can defend my positions eloquently,

You haven't, except in your own mind.

with factors,

The Krypton Factor...

figures

As pulled out of your ass.

and evidence

Such as all communist states being abject failures. Oh, except for the communist states which are still superior to numerous capitalist states.

is clearly of no consequence, the intellectual has a point to make!

You have failed to make a salient point yet.

I'm sorry that my wholly serious, completely non farcical, above all serious post had some contradictions. It won't happen again. Or will it?

Wow, you have mastered sarcasm </sarcasm>

Yes, I appreciate your posts are farcical, but no, I do not acknowledge that you intend them to be. The fact of the matter is that you are convinced you are making a point, and that you are making it "eloquently, with facts, factors " (fuckall) etc.

Don't try to make out that you did not mean what you have been arguing over the course of 6 threads, because no-one here will believe you.

Your inability to use terms correctly says a lot about your ego

If by "correctly" you mean "In a simplistic and childish manner" then you are spot on.

Why not, I dunno, think about the concepts you use before trying to make authoritative judgements about what is "correct"?

Oh yes, because then your inherant inferiority would be inescapable, and you might actually have to come to terms with your limited perspective on the world.

Show me one communist state without a totalitarian leader. Oh wait, there hasn't been one, but Ace, the master of all things logical is going to continue to assume they aren't linked though they have been liked 100% of the time in all past cases.

But just ignore it Ace, it's inconvinient to do otherwise.

Show me one capitalist state where there has never been a pedophile rape. Oh wait, there hasn't been one. But Enigma, the master of all things logical is going to continue to assume they aren't linked though they have been liNked 100% of the time in all past cases.

Clearly, paedophillia is a product of capitalism, because there has never been capitalism without paedophillia.

Oh wait, that is a logical fallacy. I guess it doesn't matter, as logical arguments only apply to capitalism.

How are you going to "share" what you don't own? How is what I own going to be shared if I don't choose to share it? You're going to have to make me, compel me or impel me. And 2 and 3 won't work.

You assume I want what you have. Fallacious arguement. In my vision of a socialist state, if you don't want medical care and technology, power, resources, the forces of production, that is fair enough. You can live in your powerless, foodless, water-less shack hoarding your wealth as much as you want.

Really, knock yourself out. Hell, even though I am not in any ay required to, I'll even lay out some of the people's resources to give you free air-fare on your way out to "fuckyousville" - find your own plot of land and see how much you like being selfish in your hovel there.

Don't share? Don't get. Simple. There is no need for the state to take your tea-pot or TV set. It is idiotic for you to assume they would. We'll find out how much your possessions are worth when no-one wants any dealings with you.

And interestingly enough, the majority of AIDS cases in Africa are caused not through sex but thorugh unclean needles administered by our helpful socialists in the UN.

Oh, it is the socialists who are trying to maximise profits by cutting expenses on clean-needles. Of course in your world it is socialists who are in favour of cutting corners.

Actually, AIDS drugs wouldn't even exist in a socialistic society so the point is really moot.

Just like advanced medical technology like the baceteriophage wouldn't be developed by a communist country, like say, Russia...

Oh wait, the Russians were the cornerstone of one of the most promising anti-bacterial research programs of the last century, and they did it all without dollars behind them.

This coming from the guy who lives in a capitalistic paradise and bites the hand that feeds him (Literally) on a daily basis.

Actually, my paradise was socialist and still demonstrates socialistic tendancies. Not heard of the NHS? What about the DHS? What about the numerous privatised industries the UK had which were cheaper and of a better quality than the privatised industries that replaced them?

And it is only false in your mind. Your subjective whims, not actual facts provide evidence for you and your ilk of mental lightweights.

Oh, so it is just in my imagination that the costs of public transport in the UK have risen while the quality of service has plummetted following privatisation? Or maybe it is in my imagination that the "Private finance initiatives" the government have tried to use to finance hospitals has failed.

Or maybe it is only in my imagination that CDs have retained their cost in face of market conditions. Maybe it is in my imagination that the lifespan of an average TV has declined, despite the technology of the CRT tube not being improved on whatsoever...

Or maybe you are full of shit.

Something can be more static because nothing is nothing. Nothing has no static value, gold has at least SOME value. Do the math.

Read what you said again, then do the math. Static means "non-moving" - you cannot have something that is "more non-moving" than another. It is either moving or not. Saying something can be "more static" is like saying something can be "more silent" - it is either static (or silent) or not. There is no inbetween.

Obiously the price of nothing is static, it has no price. That isn't a contradiction.

And yet you said the value of gold was "more static" than the price of nothing which is as static as you can get.

It's you who is committing the fallacies.

Do you even read your own posts?

Once ideals are enough to make the world perfect, get back with me, until then, you're wrong. Clearly it is you who is wrong because you refuse to see a direct correlation. You merely write it off as my argumentive trickery when really it's a logical determination.

"a direct correleation" - you are assuming that because something has not occured it cannot occur. This is a fallacy.

It is like me saying "This coin has not landed heads yet, thus it cannot land heads."

Oh look, I have flipped a coin 6 times and each time was heads. Guess that means that tails is clearly impossible as it is not in direct correleation with my coin flipping.

Why not study some logic, then try and tell me what logic dictates, hmm?

Down to asking to loaded questions huh? No surprise. And your arguments sure are convincing. Nothing bad would or could ever happen in a socialist utopian dreamland, right Ace? Flaws only exist in capitalism.

When bad things happen in a socialist state, it is a failure in the application of socialist values. When bad things happen in a capitalist state, it is a confirmation of capitalist values. In a communist state, there is no need to steal (indeed, there is nothing to steal) - thus any thieves are kleptomaniacs and this small minority is going to be easily rounded up and arrested. In a capitalist state the only way to suceed is to steal, and as part of the masses, this is a prevalent tendancy in addition to those with innate kleptomania.

Of course, if you had any qualifications whatsoever, you'd know this.

All fiat currencies fail.

Like the dollar, the franc, the pound, the peso, the yen, the deutch-mark... And all thoses non-fiat currencies have gained first-world status to their respective nations... Which are again?

Says the man who is typing on his computer, on Windows (Because he isn't smart enough to use Linux), on a Qwerty keyboard, while drinking a capitalist softdrink.

Actually I LILO boot to a debian distro using a DVORAK layout, whilst drinking homebrew. But nice guess. And care to guess how much I paid for my copy of XP?

But I say we just ignore all that. It's inconvenient, right Ace?

Well, since you brought it up, what have you to say to me refuting all of those points? Something along the lines of "oh, I am a fucking dumbass, I should shut up now before I make myself look more of a cock" would be appropriate.

Pardon me, but I don't quite follow your lightning fast wit, slow it down for us Yanks.

Slowing it down to your level would miss the point. Which is why you have failed to appreciate each and every analogy I have made. That and your stubborn arrogance.

But the people compiling the figure obviously did grasp it as they took it into account with the figure.

According to your little back-patting bullshit book. But then, as it is clearly bollocks, they evidently did not.

But I'm sure you're smarter than they are Ace, you're smarter than everyone.

I'd hardly say that the people who wrote your capitalist bible are clever. Telling people what they want to hear doesn't require skill, just a lack of morals.

You make this to easy Ace, you really do.

Well of course it is easy if you disregard facts and common sense and just persevere in your ignorance.

Oh wise and ancient sage, what was it like back in the '80s?

Well, for starters there was nationalised institutions in the UK which were far superior to their privatised successors. There were wars with Grenada and Argentina, The Berlin Wall was still in place, and the government had less of a stranglehold over the media, what with Murdoch not owning as many institutions over the world.

And Thatcherite free-market economics managed to crash the recession into the history books, failred to sign the maastricht treaty which (whilst tying up free trade according to EU guidelines) would've prevented one hundred deaths due to variant CJD due to infected beef.

The UK and US armed Saddam Hussein (making a tidy capitalist profit) in a couple of popular wars that resulted in 200,000 wars. The US armed a little known Islamist known as "Osama Bin Laden" against those evil "commies" you so hate. And according to your capitalist government he later killed a few thousand of your citizens.

There was the whole Shah of Iran and US hostages business. CO2 emissions rose through the roof and the hole in the ozone layer increased skin-cancer levels in people all over the world. Asthma levels doubled, in many European countries and US states industrial accidents reached an all time high, and the UK government tried to institute the poll tax.

Crazy days. God bless capitalism, and all who die under her.

People who aren't as well versed in economics as I

So that is pretty much everyone then.

And no my opinion isn't much, but yet you converse with me. Strange.

And yet you sound off like it is anything apart from inept. Strange.

Hmm. I could swear that's a non sequitir.

That's because you are dense.

Oh wait. That wasn't even ironic. Or funny.

Like you'd know.

No, it wasn't a witticism.

Yes, I know, which is why I said you were being an asshat for asserting that it was.

Yes it was Ace. Only a loser would admit to having sex with someone he didn't, expescially when it's glaringly obvious said person is a virgin.

Are you implying your mother is a virgin? Are you trying to say you are the second coming? Ill, racerstang, get him.

And that was quite a post dedicated to my balls. How fitting.

In that it was high? Yes. In that it was mighty? No.

[EN[i]GMA]

You haven't, except in your own mind.

Yes Ace, repreating the same tired claim that I haven't made any salient points is going to win this for you. Just keep trying. Eventually I'll get bored.


As pulled out of your ass.

That are sourced in How Capitalism Saved America. But of course since those facts competely wrecked your argument so you have to ignore them.



Such as all communist states being abject failures. Oh, except for the communist states which are still superior to numerous capitalist states.



You have failed to make a salient point yet.



Wow, you have mastered sarcasm </sarcasm>

Yes, I appreciate your posts are farcical, but no, I do not acknowledge that you intend them to be. The fact of the matter is that you are convinced you are making a point, and that you are making it "eloquently, with facts, factors " (fuckall) etc.

Don't try to make out that you did not mean what you have been arguing over the course of 6 threads, because no-one here will believe you.



If by "correctly" you mean "In a simplistic and childish manner" then you are spot on.

Why not, I dunno, think about the concepts you use before trying to make authoritative judgements about what is "correct"?

Oh yes, because then your inherant inferiority would be inescapable, and you might actually have to come to terms with your limited perspective on the world.



Show me one capitalist state where there has never been a pedophile rape. Oh wait, there hasn't been one. But Enigma, the master of all things logical is going to continue to assume they aren't linked though they have been liNked 100% of the time in all past cases.

Clearly, paedophillia is a product of capitalism, because there has never been capitalism without paedophillia.

Oh wait, that is a logical fallacy. I guess it doesn't matter, as logical arguments only apply to capitalism.



You assume I want what you have. Fallacious arguement. In my vision of a socialist state, if you don't want medical care and technology, power, resources, the forces of production, that is fair enough. You can live in your powerless, foodless, water-less shack hoarding your wealth as much as you want.

Really, knock yourself out. Hell, even though I am not in any ay required to, I'll even lay out some of the people's resources to give you free air-fare on your way out to "fuckyousville" - find your own plot of land and see how much you like being selfish in your hovel there.

Don't share? Don't get. Simple. There is no need for the state to take your tea-pot or TV set. It is idiotic for you to assume they would. We'll find out how much your possessions are worth when no-one wants any dealings with you.



Oh, it is the socialists who are trying to maximise profits by cutting expenses on clean-needles. Of course in your world it is socialists who are in favour of cutting corners.



Just like advanced medical technology like the baceteriophage wouldn't be developed by a communist country, like say, Russia...

Oh wait, the Russians were the cornerstone of one of the most promising anti-bacterial research programs of the last century, and they did it all without dollars behind them.



Actually, my paradise was socialist and still demonstrates socialistic tendancies. Not heard of the NHS? What about the DHS? What about the numerous privatised industries the UK had which were cheaper and of a better quality than the privatised industries that replaced them?



Oh, so it is just in my imagination that the costs of public transport in the UK have risen while the quality of service has plummetted following privatisation? Or maybe it is in my imagination that the "Private finance initiatives" the government have tried to use to finance hospitals has failed.

Or maybe it is only in my imagination that CDs have retained their cost in face of market conditions. Maybe it is in my imagination that the lifespan of an average TV has declined, despite the technology of the CRT tube not being improved on whatsoever...

Or maybe you are full of shit.



Read what you said again, then do the math. Static means "non-moving" - you cannot have something that is "more non-moving" than another. It is either moving or not. Saying something can be "more static" is like saying something can be "more silent" - it is either static (or silent) or not. There is no inbetween.



And yet you said the value of gold was "more static" than the price of nothing which is as static as you can get.



Do you even read your own posts?



"a direct correleation" - you are assuming that because something has not occured it cannot occur. This is a fallacy.

It is like me saying "This coin has not landed heads yet, thus it cannot land heads."

Oh look, I have flipped a coin 6 times and each time was heads. Guess that means that tails is clearly impossible as it is not in direct correleation with my coin flipping.

Why not study some logic, then try and tell me what logic dictates, hmm?



When bad things happen in a socialist state, it is a failure in the application of socialist values. When bad things happen in a capitalist state, it is a confirmation of capitalist values. In a communist state, there is no need to steal (indeed, there is nothing to steal) - thus any thieves are kleptomaniacs and this small minority is going to be easily rounded up and arrested. In a capitalist state the only way to suceed is to steal, and as part of the masses, this is a prevalent tendancy in addition to those with innate kleptomania.

Of course, if you had any qualifications whatsoever, you'd know this.



Like the dollar, the franc, the pound, the peso, the yen, the deutch-mark... And all thoses non-fiat currencies have gained first-world status to their respective nations... Which are again?



Actually I LILO boot to a debian distro using a DVORAK layout, whilst drinking homebrew. But nice guess. And care to guess how much I paid for my copy of XP?



Well, since you brought it up, what have you to say to me refuting all of those points? Something along the lines of "oh, I am a fucking dumbass, I should shut up now before I make myself look more of a cock" would be appropriate.



Slowing it down to your level would miss the point. Which is why you have failed to appreciate each and every analogy I have made. That and your stubborn arrogance.



According to your little back-patting bullshit book. But then, as it is clearly bollocks, they evidently did not.



I'd hardly say that the people who wrote your capitalist bible are clever. Telling people what they want to hear doesn't require skill, just a lack of morals.



Well of course it is easy if you disregard facts and common sense and just persevere in your ignorance.



Well, for starters there was nationalised institutions in the UK which were far superior to their privatised successors. There were wars with Grenada and Argentina, The Berlin Wall was still in place, and the government had less of a stranglehold over the media, what with Murdoch not owning as many institutions over the world.

And Thatcherite free-market economics managed to crash the recession into the history books, failred to sign the maastricht treaty which (whilst tying up free trade according to EU guidelines) would've prevented one hundred deaths due to variant CJD due to infected beef.

The UK and US armed Saddam Hussein (making a tidy capitalist profit) in a couple of popular wars that resulted in 200,000 wars. The US armed a little known Islamist known as "Osama Bin Laden" against those evil "commies" you so hate. And according to your capitalist government he later killed a few thousand of your citizens.

There was the whole Shah of Iran and US hostages business. CO2 emissions rose through the roof and the hole in the ozone layer increased skin-cancer levels in people all over the world. Asthma levels doubled, in many European countries and US states industrial accidents reached an all time high, and the UK government tried to institute the poll tax.

Crazy days. God bless capitalism, and all who die under her.



So that is pretty much everyone then.



And yet you sound off like it is anything apart from inept. Strange.



That's because you are dense.



Like you'd know.



Yes, I know, which is why I said you were being an asshat for asserting that it was.



Are you implying your mother is a virgin? Are you trying to say you are the second coming? Ill, racerstang, get him.



In that it was high? Yes. In that it was mighty? No.


You know what Ace, right in the middle of this post, I had an epiphany while watching great a great libertarian on TV.

You are an absolute, total, complete moron. I don't need to prove anything to you.

Read this: http://www.libertarianism.org/ex-9.html

I really wish I could explain to you what I'm watching, it's beautiful.

It really is.

Read this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060529148/ref=pd_pym_ka/104-7915838-1863140

Excerpt here: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124326&page=1

And this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260476/qid=1106971225/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7915838-1863140?v=glance&s=books

And How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo

And I'm done with this forum, for a while, maybe forever.

It really was the most incredible thing, I wish you could have felt it.

Farewell, and I hope you die a fire Ace.

Just kidding.

Really.

Though you're an arrogant prick, you'll learn.

[Ace42]

GMA']Yes Ace, repreating the same tired claim that I haven't made any salient points is going to win this for you. Just keep trying. Eventually I'll get bored.

For "tired" read "irrefutable."

That are sourced in How Capitalism Saved America. But of course since those facts competely wrecked your argument so you have to ignore them.

Since those facts are entirely fictional, they are irrelevant. And Republicans say Michael Moore is unreliable, hah.

Seriously, reading some feel-good capitalist masturbation session doesn't translate to being "well versed in economics" irrespective of your desire for it to.

You know what Ace, right in the middle of this post, I had an epiphany while watching great a great libertarian on TV.

Just to clarify, by "epiphany" do you mean "wet-dream" or "embolism" ?

You are an absolute, total, complete moron.

Who is more educated, informed and experienced than you. Who has a greater depth of information to draw on than you. Who isn't the product of the most mind-numbing and powerful propoganda engine the world has ever seen. IE, who is superior to you in every single respect.

I don't need to prove anything to you.

Of course you don't. You're a whiny kid either way.

I really wish I could explain to you what I'm watching, it's beautiful.

It really is.

Read this book
And this book:
And How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo

Hmmm, self-congratulation for dummies. Well I am sold. Rich Americans telling me how great it is for the WORLD that rich americans exist. How stupid I am not to give credence to fat-cats (who by your own argument have "a huge reward for selfishness") trying to maintain the status quo.

And I'm done with this forum, for a while, maybe forever.

Oh I am sure we will all miss your regurgitation of capitalist doctine and propoganda.

Though you're an arrogant prick, you'll learn.

Only if I get sucked back into my mother's vagina, my virginity regrows, I lose more than a third of your life's and a quater of my life's best experiences, am indoctrinated from birth and then fail to use my brains and eyes in a manner given to me by god himself.

[EN[i]GMA]

You're a stitch Ace, you really are.

Goodbye, and may you never say anything to me again.

[Ace42]

GMA']You're a stitch Ace, you really are.

Goodbye, and may you never say anything to me again.

Don't let the chinese forced-labour-camp doors hit you on your way out.

[ASsman]

EL FIN

[Whois]

^...and about fook'en time mate.

[phinkasaurus]

all this over some cost analysis...

Ace42: 1
EN[i]GMA:0

[ASsman]

+ - 1 point margin of error.

[phinkasaurus]

+ - 1 point margin of error.

of course, nobody is perfect.