I agree, the article is complete nonsense.
"Correlation is enough"
Uhh... Being a successful Venture Capitalist correlates very well with owning expensive cars and having MBA's from expensive schools. If I would like to be a successful VC, should I go to Stanford Business School or Stanford European Motors?
I'd rather see them spend money on non-military items from time to time
What part of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency did you not understand. Besides, DARPA projects often have wildly sucessful civillan spinoffs like this internet thing you kids are so fond of. The rest of the government spends heaps of money on non-military items.
Meh, I'll respond one more time because I have 1/2 hour till the game comes on. If you want to continue this conversation, you'll have to start making sense, and patch up some of the holes in your logic.
Duh
Like, that's an argument? Double duh, ya know?
No, it's not an argument. It is an indication that your point is obvious, and I accept it, but think that it is a stupid or misleading point to bring up. I then go on to explain why it is stupid or misleading.
But even with nothing better to do, I still don't feel like blowing up your falacies one by one, so I'll keep it to one question that is off our original topic, and a redemonstration about why I'm right about the Nazi's. Prepare to have your face rocked, and for some Monty Python references.
You claim that "Freedom and Democracy are absolute", and the US has neither. Name one country larger then Liechtenstein with absolute Freedom and Democracy, ever. Your answer is going to be "We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting." Furthermore, over the last two hundred years, name one country that has done more then the US to spread Freedom and Democracy.
Bzzt, time's up, you can't
dictionary: Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy
me: see, that describes Nazi Germany
you:while one can definitely say that the output of German industry during WW2 was geared to the needs of the State exactly the same applied to the USA, Britain.
me:(in a deft bit of mental judo) I agree! The US, GB, Germany, Russia, in fact every major nation that fought in the war, was at least temporarly socialist.
Can't you see that when you finally stumbled onto the one insight you've had all week, it proves my point. Yet you still flop around like the Black Knight. Me : "Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left." You: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!
And now, like King Arthur, I ride off in triumph to watch the NFL. Come Patsy! CLOP COLP, Clop Clop, clop clop...
If you listen to any of the speeches made by US politicians over the last few decades they always refer to Democracy specifically
Duh. If you are trying to get out the vote, you try to emphasize the part where the voters are important. I don't see anything sinister in this. And when we admonish countries abroad to adopt Democracy and don't mention Republic, we are saying that our particular Republic, with 3 branches and checks and balances, etc. is not the important bit. The important bit is that governments should "derive their power from the consent of the governed".
How can someone that's too dumb to have their own opinions on monetary policy be smart enough to choose the person with the correct opinions?
That's easy. Can you tell me to the quarter percent what the federal reserve overnight rate should be? Why? Is that because the book to bill ratio for the semiconductor industry is up or down? What should we set the 30 year T-bill rate at? How about the 10 year? What effect will that change have on the bond market for utilities and telecommunications? The fact is, large parts of our monitary policy are not even determined by our elected representives, but by some one they chose, so its two steps removed from the people, and that's the way I like it.
CIA, they seem to specialize in foreign assassinations (illegally under international law of course)
Which "internatinal law" is that. Name the treaty. My impression is that the US got out of the assination business by executive order, which means that the president (Nixion I believe) unilaterally decided that assinations was doing more harm then good. Any later president can recind the order with out violating "international law".
This will be accomplished after the police have arrested 649 of you in violation (of the Constitution)
This is your example? This sounds like a regrettable incident, and heads should roll for it, but lets keep these things in perspective. All 649 of these people were back on the street the next day, and the worst thing that happend to them was being pushed against a wall. None of these people were killed, or beaten senseless, or sent to a gulag.
and recently involved assassination of domestic political figures
Do you even read your own links? These people were not assinated, they were harrassed. Then the very system that according to you is hopelessly corrupt handed them a fat check. I'm not agreeing with the harrassment, or dissagreeing with the check, but to say the American system is fundamentally broken because of this is wrong. A real facist state does not cut these people a check, it puts a flaming necktie on them.
one can definitely say that the output of German industry during WW2 was geared to the needs of the State exactly the same applied to the USA, Britain etc
You're right, you could call the US socialist during WWI and WWII. During a major war like that, it's really the only reasonable way to go. The difference is that the US and GB saw total government control like that as a necessary, temporary evil, socialists like Stalin and Hitler saw it as a way to permantly increase their power. If you run a factory in Nazi Germany, you get nice houses, etc. and control of day to day operations in the factory. You can not sell it, or decide what you want to produce, or do any of the things you can do with a factory in America. If you run a factory in Red Russia, you get nice houses, etc. and control, blah blah exactly the same as in Germany. The only difference is that you can't say that you own the place, but you still spend your summers on the Black Sea.
I read the excerpt posted on Amazon, and it is categorically misleading. The thesis of the part posted on line is that "It costs money to run a newspaper, so newspapers only represent the rich".
To back this up, he says that you could start a weekly in England in 1837 that prints 6500 copies a week for about a thousand pounds. But by 1867, daily newspapers cost 50,000 pounds to start.
Let's see here, he compares weekly to daily, and does not reveal how many copies the larger(tool of the capitalist oppressor) paper prints. That's how you make a point, by pulling vague numbers out of your ass that don't mean anything when you use your brain and think about them.
Hey brainiac, you can still start a socialist workers party paper with 6,500 copies down at Kinkos for 6500*.05c = $325.
Two glaring errors:
1: USA saying that it practices Freedom and Democracy The US never clamed to be a complete democracy. It was always was intended to be a democratic republic. The point that the Founding Fathers were trying to make is that the average shmub watching "Worlds Scariest Police Chases 3" shouldn't be able to make many choices about monatary policy. Hopefully they can choose someone smarter then them to figure the complicated things out. And the US is free, relative to most of the world. You can stand on the street and say "George W Bush? More like George W Shrub!" all day long, and the CIA will not come for you. Try doing that in China, or Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, or Saudi Arabia...
2:Private industrial and commercial concerns were not seized and redistributed to the people. That's what socialists believe in. Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy(emphasis mine) The Nazis were socialists because they siezed control of pretty much the entire industrial output of Germany. They intended to keep that control indefinatly. After they had acquired sufficient land and slaves, their stated intention was to turn Germany into a paradise for the Aryan German workers. The fact that they didn't shoot the people running things, unlike the Russians, just means that they were a little bit smarter about some things then the reds. One of the huge mistakes that the Russians made is that they killed all the leaders of the army and industry shortly before the war. Amazingly, it turns out running a factory or a division is a difficult task that takes skills you can't learn at "Uncle Joe's Communist Summer Camp". But make no mistake, if the CEO of BMW said "I don't feel like making tanks any more, I want to go back to cars", he'd dissappear quickly.
The Nazi's were not capitalists. The 'z' in Nazi stands for socialist. It their verision of socialism, the government worked with the heads of industry instead of shooting them in the head like the Russians did, but it amounted to the same thing.
This gets dumber and dumber. This will be my last post on this topic.
First off, if you are at war, you can shoot uniformed soliders at sight. In fact, that is one of the main ways to tell if you are at war.
Second, if you catch a CIA spy in your country, you are allowed to interogate him, torture him, and execute him all you want, and it's ok with rules of war. It's what I've been saying all along. Using illegal combatants is not immoral or illegal, and every country does it. Those illegal combatants forfiet their Geneva protections.
Further off topic, but most of the Taliban were not deemed "illegal combatants". They are POWs, and have been left in Afganistan. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand do not wear uniforms when they infiltrate America, Kenya, Tanzinia, Yemen, etc. to commit acts of terrorism against civillians. For those reasons, and many others, they are illegal combatants, and as such can be deported, interrogated, tortured, held after the cessation of hostilities, and executed.
Well, this is dumb.
IANAG (I am not a general), but GWB is obviously a legit target. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania was probably headed to the White House. I've also heard conjecture that the plane that hit the Pentagon was headed for the White House or the Capitol, but the terrorists got lost.
But the questions of legitimaticy have nothing to do with the terrorists, because they violate just about every point of the "Rules of War".
And you don't need to wear a uniform all the time, just when you should reasonably expect to be combating. It is actually for your peoples protection that this rule was invented. If Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah would wear uniforms, many Afganis and Palestinians would be alive today.
It's not illegal to use illegal combatants, every one does it and they are called spies. But if you are an illegal combatant, you lose your international rights against torture and execution
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, the article is complete nonsense. "Correlation is enough" Uhh... Being a successful Venture Capitalist correlates very well with owning expensive cars and having MBA's from expensive schools. If I would like to be a successful VC, should I go to Stanford Business School or Stanford European Motors?
I'd rather see them spend money on non-military items from time to time
What part of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency did you not understand. Besides, DARPA projects often have wildly sucessful civillan spinoffs like this internet thing you kids are so fond of. The rest of the government spends heaps of money on non-military items.
Meh, I'll respond one more time because I have 1/2 hour till the game comes on. If you want to continue this conversation, you'll have to start making sense, and patch up some of the holes in your logic.
Duh
Like, that's an argument? Double duh, ya know?
No, it's not an argument. It is an indication that your point is obvious, and I accept it, but think that it is a stupid or misleading point to bring up. I then go on to explain why it is stupid or misleading.
But even with nothing better to do, I still don't feel like blowing up your falacies one by one, so I'll keep it to one question that is off our original topic, and a redemonstration about why I'm right about the Nazi's. Prepare to have your face rocked, and for some Monty Python references.
You claim that "Freedom and Democracy are absolute", and the US has neither. Name one country larger then Liechtenstein with absolute Freedom and Democracy, ever. Your answer is going to be "We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting." Furthermore, over the last two hundred years, name one country that has done more then the US to spread Freedom and Democracy.
Bzzt, time's up, you can't
dictionary: Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy
me: see, that describes Nazi Germany
you:while one can definitely say that the output of German industry during WW2 was geared to the needs of the State exactly the same applied to the USA, Britain.
me:(in a deft bit of mental judo) I agree! The US, GB, Germany, Russia, in fact every major nation that fought in the war, was at least temporarly socialist.
Can't you see that when you finally stumbled onto the one insight you've had all week, it proves my point. Yet you still flop around like the Black Knight.
Me : "Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left."
You: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!
And now, like King Arthur, I ride off in triumph to watch the NFL. Come Patsy!
CLOP COLP, Clop Clop, clop clop...
If you listen to any of the speeches made by US politicians over the last few decades they always refer to Democracy specifically
Duh. If you are trying to get out the vote, you try to emphasize the part where the voters are important. I don't see anything sinister in this. And when we admonish countries abroad to adopt Democracy and don't mention Republic, we are saying that our particular Republic, with 3 branches and checks and balances, etc. is not the important bit. The important bit is that governments should "derive their power from the consent of the governed".
How can someone that's too dumb to have their own opinions on monetary policy be smart enough to choose the person with the correct opinions?
That's easy. Can you tell me to the quarter percent what the federal reserve overnight rate should be? Why? Is that because the book to bill ratio for the semiconductor industry is up or down? What should we set the 30 year T-bill rate at? How about the 10 year? What effect will that change have on the bond market for utilities and telecommunications? The fact is, large parts of our monitary policy are not even determined by our elected representives, but by some one they chose, so its two steps removed from the people, and that's the way I like it.
CIA, they seem to specialize in foreign assassinations (illegally under international law of course)
Which "internatinal law" is that. Name the treaty. My impression is that the US got out of the assination business by executive order, which means that the president (Nixion I believe) unilaterally decided that assinations was doing more harm then good. Any later president can recind the order with out violating "international law".
This will be accomplished after the police have arrested 649 of you in violation (of the Constitution)
This is your example? This sounds like a regrettable incident, and heads should roll for it, but lets keep these things in perspective. All 649 of these people were back on the street the next day, and the worst thing that happend to them was being pushed against a wall. None of these people were killed, or beaten senseless, or sent to a gulag.
and recently involved assassination of domestic political figures
Do you even read your own links? These people were not assinated, they were harrassed. Then the very system that according to you is hopelessly corrupt handed them a fat check. I'm not agreeing with the harrassment, or dissagreeing with the check, but to say the American system is fundamentally broken because of this is wrong. A real facist state does not cut these people a check, it puts a flaming necktie on them.
one can definitely say that the output of German industry during WW2 was geared to the needs of the State exactly the same applied to the USA, Britain etc
You're right, you could call the US socialist during WWI and WWII. During a major war like that, it's really the only reasonable way to go. The difference is that the US and GB saw total government control like that as a necessary, temporary evil, socialists like Stalin and Hitler saw it as a way to permantly increase their power. If you run a factory in Nazi Germany, you get nice houses, etc. and control of day to day operations in the factory. You can not sell it, or decide what you want to produce, or do any of the things you can do with a factory in America. If you run a factory in Red Russia, you get nice houses, etc. and control, blah blah exactly the same as in Germany. The only difference is that you can't say that you own the place, but you still spend your summers on the Black Sea.
Here is your evidence of media bias.
I read the excerpt posted on Amazon, and it is categorically misleading. The thesis of the part posted on line is that "It costs money to run a newspaper, so newspapers only represent the rich".
To back this up, he says that you could start a weekly in England in 1837 that prints 6500 copies a week for about a thousand pounds. But by 1867, daily newspapers cost 50,000 pounds to start.
Let's see here, he compares weekly to daily, and does not reveal how many copies the larger(tool of the capitalist oppressor) paper prints. That's how you make a point, by pulling vague numbers out of your ass that don't mean anything when you use your brain and think about them.
Hey brainiac, you can still start a socialist workers party paper with 6,500 copies down at Kinkos for 6500*.05c = $325.
Two glaring errors:
1: USA saying that it practices Freedom and Democracy
The US never clamed to be a complete democracy. It was always was intended to be a democratic republic. The point that the Founding Fathers were trying to make is that the average shmub watching "Worlds Scariest Police Chases 3" shouldn't be able to make many choices about monatary policy. Hopefully they can choose someone smarter then them to figure the complicated things out. And the US is free, relative to most of the world. You can stand on the street and say "George W Bush? More like George W Shrub!" all day long, and the CIA will not come for you. Try doing that in China, or Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, or Saudi Arabia...
2:Private industrial and commercial concerns were not seized and redistributed to the people. That's what socialists believe in.
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy(emphasis mine)
The Nazis were socialists because they siezed control of pretty much the entire industrial output of Germany. They intended to keep that control indefinatly. After they had acquired sufficient land and slaves, their stated intention was to turn Germany into a paradise for the Aryan German workers. The fact that they didn't shoot the people running things, unlike the Russians, just means that they were a little bit smarter about some things then the reds. One of the huge mistakes that the Russians made is that they killed all the leaders of the army and industry shortly before the war. Amazingly, it turns out running a factory or a division is a difficult task that takes skills you can't learn at "Uncle Joe's Communist Summer Camp". But make no mistake, if the CEO of BMW said "I don't feel like making tanks any more, I want to go back to cars", he'd dissappear quickly.
The Nazi's were not capitalists. The 'z' in Nazi stands for socialist. It their verision of socialism, the government worked with the heads of industry instead of shooting them in the head like the Russians did, but it amounted to the same thing.
Be Quiet. I order you to Be Quiet!!
This gets dumber and dumber. This will be my last post on this topic. First off, if you are at war, you can shoot uniformed soliders at sight. In fact, that is one of the main ways to tell if you are at war. Second, if you catch a CIA spy in your country, you are allowed to interogate him, torture him, and execute him all you want, and it's ok with rules of war. It's what I've been saying all along. Using illegal combatants is not immoral or illegal, and every country does it. Those illegal combatants forfiet their Geneva protections.
Further off topic, but most of the Taliban were not deemed "illegal combatants". They are POWs, and have been left in Afganistan. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand do not wear uniforms when they infiltrate America, Kenya, Tanzinia, Yemen, etc. to commit acts of terrorism against civillians. For those reasons, and many others, they are illegal combatants, and as such can be deported, interrogated, tortured, held after the cessation of hostilities, and executed.
Well, this is dumb. IANAG (I am not a general), but GWB is obviously a legit target. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania was probably headed to the White House. I've also heard conjecture that the plane that hit the Pentagon was headed for the White House or the Capitol, but the terrorists got lost. But the questions of legitimaticy have nothing to do with the terrorists, because they violate just about every point of the "Rules of War". And you don't need to wear a uniform all the time, just when you should reasonably expect to be combating. It is actually for your peoples protection that this rule was invented. If Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah would wear uniforms, many Afganis and Palestinians would be alive today. It's not illegal to use illegal combatants, every one does it and they are called spies. But if you are an illegal combatant, you lose your international rights against torture and execution