Does Your Vote Really Count?

[DarkAngel]

As I watch all this ''vote or die'' n ''choose or lose'' blah blah im wondering does a single persons vote really make a diffrence?

[Hung like a horse]

No you fucking euro-trash whore.

[The Forum Idiot]

Originally posted by Hung like a [email protected] 16 2004, 04:17 AM
No you fucking euro-trash whore.
Yes it does actually. every vote counts you god damned racist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Not if the voting machines are made by Diebold, cracker.

The machines, revealed to be unreliable in internal memos leaked to the public, have been shown to be unreliable, and could allow serious election fraud. Despite this, they are being used in the upcomming election.

It is worth noting that Diebold has made large financial contributions to the the Bush campaign.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Hung like a [email protected] 16 2004, 04:17 AM
No you fucking euro-trash whore.
euro trash whore...um ok....


anyways i was just wondering, because im watching this ''vote or die mutha fucka'' blah blah blah...mean while im hearing that bush only won thanks to the electoral votes...n that the ppl chose gore.....

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 16 2004, 08:36 AM
Not if the voting machines are made by Diebold, cracker.

The machines, revealed to be unreliable in internal memos leaked to the public, have been shown to be unreliable, and could allow serious election fraud. Despite this, they are being used in the upcomming election.

It is worth noting that Diebold has made large financial contributions to the the Bush campaign.
Whoa, man. The machines, man, the machines themselves are changing the votes!! I new it, man!

By the way, America staged the moon landing, too! NASA made a big contribution to the Kennedy Administration!


Put away the funny cigarette. puke.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:48 PM
euro trash whore...um ok....


anyways i was just wondering, because im watching this ''vote or die mutha fucka'' blah blah blah...mean while im hearing that bush only won thanks to the electoral votes...n that the ppl chose gore.....
The fact that the electorl college came into play at all shows how close the race was, and how every vote is important.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

No, seriously, Diebold took Indymedia to court over putting the memos up for the public.

I'm stating facts, you're the one reading conspiracy into it, fishbelly.

[NovelGentry]

Yes, diebold machines have been proven unreliable. It's not that they change votes so much that they have bugs and are insecure. If you knew anything about computers and programming you might understand how such problems can arise.

[Capitalist Imperial]

OK, well, even if that is true, we can all agree that arbitrary technical problems aren't "partisan", so any glitches shouldn't really favor either candidate significantly, right?

[redstar2000]

"Does your vote really count?"

No, the Republicrat Party will win as usual.

In the U.K., the Blatcherites will win.

In Germany, the Social Christians.

And so on.

All capitalist countries are really one-party states...the capitalist party always wins.

For some reason, they call it "democracy". :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 12:51 AM
"Does your vote really count?"

No, the Republicrat Party will win as usual.

In the U.K., the Blatcherites will win.

In Germany, the Social Christians.

And so on.

All capitalist countries are really one-party states...the capitalist party always wins.

For some reason, they call it "democracy". :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Actually, Redstar, the US is a Democratic Republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is mob rule.

And it is a grand myth that Bush/Kerry or Republican/Democrat are "basically the same". That is just a canned viewpoint espoused by armchair social commentators as a cop-out and justification for their apathy.

In actuality, the parties are diametrically opposed on a myriad of significant issues.

[STI]

Enter the straw man.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 06:09 PM

By the way, America staged the moon landing, too! NASA made a big contribution to the Kennedy Administration!



They did.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial
Actually, Redstar, the US is a Democratic Republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is mob rule.

As in the Athenian Republic, no doubt.

What a remarkable "mob" they had...some go so far as to hail them as the founders of western "civilization".

Technically, of course, you are quite correct; the United States is a republic and not a democracy at all.

The ruling class rhetoric of our age, however, freely claims "the virtues of democracy"...e.g., "we are bringing democracy to Iraq", etc.

So my statement is literally accurate: they do call it a "democracy".


And it is a grand myth that Bush/Kerry or Republican/Democrat are "basically the same"...In actuality, the parties are diametrically opposed on a myriad of significant issues.

:lol:

Only in the sense that sharks are "diametrically opposed" over the "significant issue" of who gets to eat the prey.

That the prey (the rest of us) exist to be eaten is not in dispute.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Forum Idiot]

Apparently Gore lost to Bush by only like 500 votes...Meaning if 501 more people had decided to vote we would have had Gore and not Bush. And 501 people is very small, all you need is to release some of the apathy of the Kerry fans.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by The Forum [email protected] 17 2004, 05:50 AM
Apparently Gore lost to Bush by only like 500 votes...Meaning if 501 more people had decided to vote we would have had Gore and not Bush. And 501 people is very small, all you need is to release some of the apathy of the Kerry fans.
Nope, do a little research. thousands of Blacks in florida were illegally denied the right to vote in the 2000 election.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by The Forum [email protected] 17 2004, 12:50 AM
Apparently Gore lost to Bush by only like 500 votes...Meaning if 501 more people had decided to vote we would have had Gore and not Bush. And 501 people is very small, all you need is to release some of the apathy of the Kerry fans.
What exactly do you think would have been the difference had Gore become president? The same "intelligence" would have been presented to him and the same corporate interests would have pressured him into sucking capitalist cock.

The real problem for any leftist necessarily stems from the free market and until that is dealt with, nothing will improve. Even for the liberals, they just don't know it.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:26 AM
As I watch all this ''vote or die'' n ''choose or lose'' blah blah im wondering does a single persons vote really make a diffrence?
no it doesn't because this democracy doesn't care other your pathetic life .it only cares about monney...so get a lot of monney be elegable and you will get votes

[GrYnEt]

It does! Vote god damnit! (don't vote for bush, though!)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Why?

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:26 PM
It does! Vote god damnit! (don't vote for bush, though!)
voting is elect somebody who represent yourself
so the choice to vote between two "devil" isn't a choice realy
i would vote "blanco"paralysed the constitution get a guillotine
and overthrow all privilege

[FuckWar]

Voting is a waste of time and ultimately, it is just feeding into the capitalist illusion of "democracy". Honestly, if anyone really thinks that things would be significantly better under Gore, or that Kerry will do anything besides use more moderate rhetoric to calm angry activists (which will inevitably cause a decline in GW's greatest contribution to the world- an increase in political activism and awareness). Kerry is Bush without the (blatant) insanity that makes people hate Bush.

If you want to love amerikan "democracy", vote Kerry. If you love your country but want to see it improve a little, vote Nader (like me, and i dont want to hear that he wont win, i know). If you want a revolution, urge everyone you know not to vote at all, organize anti- voting demonstrations, and try to throw a wrench in the whole system.

This will likely be the last election i ever vote in, and i am only doing it because i am compelled by peer pressure etc. I will vot for Nader because prefferential voting is the only way to try and create some real "democracy".

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Oct 17 2004, 03:23 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Oct 17 2004, 03:23 AM)
Capitalist Imperial
Actually, Redstar, the US is a Democratic Republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is mob rule.

As in the Athenian Republic, no doubt.

What a remarkable "mob" they had...some go so far as to hail them as the founders of western "civilization".

Technically, of course, you are quite correct; the United States is a republic and not a democracy at all.

The ruling class rhetoric of our age, however, freely claims "the virtues of democracy"...e.g., "we are bringing democracy to Iraq", etc.

So my statement is literally accurate: they do call it a "democracy".


And it is a grand myth that Bush/Kerry or Republican/Democrat are "basically the same"...In actuality, the parties are diametrically opposed on a myriad of significant issues.

:lol:

Only in the sense that sharks are "diametrically opposed" over the "significant issue" of who gets to eat the prey.

That the prey (the rest of us) exist to be eaten is not in dispute.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
jeez, what a downer...

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 07:23 PM
jeez, what a downer...
so if you so democratic do you think having choice between two stupids symbols(and no ideas) will bring you to think the world is a good place to live in.(as upper it is)?????
may be $$$$$$$$$$$ .hum...pretty low upper world if you ask me.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by gaf+Oct 18 2004, 08:04 PM--> (gaf @ Oct 18 2004, 08:04 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 07:23 PM
jeez, what a downer...
so if you so democratic do you think having choice between two stupids symbols(and no ideas) will bring you to think the world is a good place to live in.(as upper it is)?????
may be $$$$$$$$$$$ .hum...pretty low upper world if you ask me. [/b]
Any registered voter who receives his/her position papers know that there is actually more than 2 candidates.

Leftists that claim that there are only 2 choices are simply lying.

If America as a populace generally whittles down the pool to 2 parties that get major consideration, then that is the way it is. America, generally speaking, has usally whittled down major consideration to two parties. However, your voting ballot will show several candidates (about 8) to vote for on Nov. 2.

That is a fact, immune from any spin or over-analysis. That being said, it is an individual's responsibility to educate themselves on all of the candidates and issues.

Not to mention that the President is only one of many offices that we vote on. The legislative (congressional) elections are just as important, and each seat for those positions also has sevetral candidates both for the senate and house.

Additionally, we vote directly on many propositions and measures at the state and local levels, respectively.

Ah yes, my commie friends, the choices in American elections are much more comprehensive and dynamic than you suggest. We vote both for representatives of the constituency and directly on issues.

Come on, leftists, stop interpreting American elections in deceptive ways and omitting certain truths about our election process just to fit your anti-U.S. agenda!


.

[Freedom Writer]

If I lived in america I think I would vote Kerry, I dont like him but hes a old activisti like. ;) He opposed vietnam war, where Bush said "This is cool war." While he never went there. Kerry is quite mysterious guy, but I truly want rid of Bush. Here in finland I almost always vote left alliance.

Dont get all pissed, I just saw document comparing these guys I dont want Bush to lead this WPD (world police department).

Bush is: christian fundamentalist, ex-alcoholist, warpig, criminal.

:angry:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 19 2004, 04:23 PM

Bush is: christian fundamentalist, ex-alcoholist, warpig, criminal.

:angry:
don't forget coke addict

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 04:09 PM


Leftists that claim that there are only 2 choices are simply lying.


well imagine i'm not leftist and not liyng .i like the guy who take place in all those places
and they looks like me.they represent me yeah sounds good.my democraty.....but i don't agree whith the two finalists what can i do.......becoming a lawyer :lol: :lol: :lol:

[gaf]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 19 2004, 04:23 PM


Dont get all pissed, I just saw document comparing these guys I dont want Bush to lead this WPD (world police department).


you right a new world order need better....
a boy from brasil could be cool .he :angry: :angry:

[Freedom Writer]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Oct 19 2004, 04:42 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Oct 19 2004, 04:42 PM)
Freedom [email protected] 19 2004, 04:23 PM

Bush is: christian fundamentalist, ex-alcoholist, warpig, criminal.

:angry:
don't forget coke addict [/b]
Yeah, he took something in his youth some of hes old friends told this. Its kinda funny what kinda president/leader [some of] the americans want.

*interviewer tells about imperialism*
"Imperialism is okay, if your part of the center of imperium."
Its not wrong?
"No, its our privilege"
What about the war, iraq for example.
"War is okay if its not fought in our land."

Its kind of funny that there is people like this voting for Bush, they are so self-centered that they only care of their own safety and dont know shit about what war is really about [oil].

[Capitalist Imperial]

I know the war is for oil, it always has been. I simply concede that and support it.

The Bush administration is just sugar-coating the reasons for the operartions in Iraq for many of the idiots here in the USA who don't understand it and don't appreciate our need for petroleum products.

My way of life is currently oil-dependant, and I make no qualms about it.

American sovereignty and viablility must be assured by whatever means necessary, the empire must remain strong. We will develop new means of energy production in due time, but , until then, the United States must hve 1st stake in the world's oil reserve. This is in the best interests of America and the world.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 05:50 PM
I know the war is for oil, it always has been. I simply concede that and support it.

The Bush administration is just sugar-coating the reasons for the operartions in Iraq for many of the idiots here in the USA who don't understand it and don't appreciate our need for petroleum products.

My way of life is currently oil-dependant, and I make no qualms about it.

American sovereignty and viablility must be assured by whatever means necessary, the empire must remain strong. We will develop new means of energy production in due time, but , until then, the United States must hve 1st stake in the world's oil reserve. This is in the best interests of America and the world.
don't you think strange that this system is only dependant on oil and thus monney(vice and versa)
pretty addictive if you ask me and dangerous where a lot of alternative are known.
i'm sure you will put junk to death .well begin to look in a mirror,dude...because you really are the chaotic one here....

imperial they are not,stupid i think is a better word....

[Freedom Writer]

Capitalist Imperial, you are eeeeevil. http://www.oikeuttaelaimille.net/foorumi/style_emoticons/default/thumbdown.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial
...the United States must have 1st stake in the world's oil reserve. This is in the best interests of America and the world. -- emphasis added.

I was admiring the candor of your post up to that last sentence.

I fail, however, to imagine what sorts of arguments you could muster to defend the idea that it is in "the best interests of the world" that the American Empire should have all the oil it wants even if others go without or that the Empire should be in a position to "close the valves" to other parts of the world for any "reason" it wishes.

In fact, I'm not sure it's even in the Empire's "best interests" to create such a situation...what if the whole world felt about the Empire the way the Iraqis feel now?

Whatever the sugarplum visions of world dominion that may dazzle the fools in Washington, I should think you would know enough history to see where such "vaulting ambition" leads.

The successful imperialists have been prudent ones; the "great conquerors" generally come to grief...and fairly quickly at that.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 12:50 PM
I know the war is for oil, it always has been. I simply concede that and support it.

The Bush administration is just sugar-coating the reasons for the operartions in Iraq for many of the idiots here in the USA who don't understand it and don't appreciate our need for petroleum products.

My way of life is currently oil-dependant, and I make no qualms about it.

American sovereignty and viablility must be assured by whatever means necessary, the empire must remain strong. We will develop new means of energy production in due time, but , until then, the United States must hve 1st stake in the world's oil reserve. This is in the best interests of America and the world.
How is it in the best interest of the world to allow the US to have first stake in oil? How is preserving your way of life important for the rest of the world?

The way I see it, it's very detrimental to the rest of the world. To allow the United States to acquire all the world's oil would leave everyone else at its mercy. That would create an even larger power disparity between the nations. The rest of the world would most certainly suffer, no?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Oct 20 2004, 12:35 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Oct 20 2004, 12:35 AM)
Capitalist Imperial
...the United States must have 1st stake in the world's oil reserve. This is in the best interests of America and the world. -- emphasis added.

I was admiring the candor of your post up to that last sentence.

I fail, however, to imagine what sorts of arguments you could muster to defend the idea that it is in "the best interests of the world" that the American Empire should have all the oil it wants even if others go without or that the Empire should be in a position to "close the valves" to other parts of the world for any "reason" it wishes.

In fact, I'm not sure it's even in the Empire's "best interests" to create such a situation...what if the whole world felt about the Empire the way the Iraqis feel now?

Whatever the sugarplum visions of world dominion that may dazzle the fools in Washington, I should think you would know enough history to see where such "vaulting ambition" leads.

The successful imperialists have been prudent ones; the "great conquerors" generally come to grief...and fairly quickly at that.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Redstar, and you actually support my point.

The United States' interest in the world oil supply lends itself to fair and equitable distribution. The US does not pick/choose who does and does not get oil. Any fossil fuel embargos (and there are few if any right now), derive from UN mandates.

I will even go so far as to submit that if the US did not have such a sphere of influence on world oil supplies, then the distribution would not be as free as it is today.

[Osman Ghazi]

My way of life is currently oil-dependant, and I make no qualms about it.


And oil is war-dependant. Therefore, your way of life depends on death. You are, in the most literal sense of the word, a parasite. Congratulations.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 06:51 PM


I will even go so far as to submit that if the US did not have such a sphere of influence on world oil supplies, then the distribution would not be as free as it is today.
that's why we will have now and since long develope much more alternative...
i say it earlier US is a dealer and there for you need to put the other nation adicted ...playing with fire and you will get burn,or the mess cut from two side....so for once i agree with you too....on that point

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 20 2004, 07:21 PM

And oil is war-dependant. Therefore, your way of life depends on death. You are, in the most literal sense of the word, a parasite. Congratulations.
This is meaningless, like many of your posts, Osman.
Stop following me around like a puppy in these forums.

[Capitalist Imperial]

From Dictionary.com:

par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.
1) Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

2) One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

3) One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.


So, Osman, tell me which one of these "literal" definitions fits me, and I want your analysis as to why. However, it would probably do you better to look up "literal" youself, as you have some work to do in the area of vocabulary

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 07:37 PM
From Dictionary.com:

par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.
1) Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

2) One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

3) One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.


So, Osman, tell me which one of these "literal" definitions fits me, and I want your analysis as to why. However, it would probably do you better to look up "literal" youself, as you have some work to do in the area of vocabulary
don't want to go between but you're just gettin personnal....
nothing more nothing less...calm down take a breath,go to your dealer and get a good speedway burst. :P :P

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I will even go so far as to submit that if the US did not have such a sphere of influence on world oil supplies, then the distribution would not be as free as it is today.

I think you're really missing the meaning of the word "free" here.
The "distribution" of oil by government-subsided corporations only serve to exploit oil customers and centralize wealth even more. This in no way leads to "free" access to oil, it leads to oppression and dependence on corporate America.

These folks may be "free" to give the little money they have to the opposition, but that results in subjugation, not freedom.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 05:50 PM
This is in the best interests of America and the world.
:lol:

So are you suggesting that Americas interests are the interests of the worlds?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 10:16 PM
:lol:

So are you suggesting that Americas interests are the interests of the worlds?
Not as an absolute, but they are often aligned.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial
The United States' interest in the world oil supply lends itself to fair and equitable distribution. The US does not pick/choose who does and does not get oil. Any fossil fuel embargoes (and there are few if any right now), derive from UN mandates.

Well, there are several dubious assertions here.

First is the fact that the American Empire does not have exclusive control of all the world's major oil fields...but the implication of the invasion of Iraq is that important elements of the ruling class here would like to achieve such control. (There are other signs of this as well...particularly in central Asia and Latin America.)

Secondly, I know of no evidence that American oil corporations have any interest in "fair and equitable distribution" of anything.

Capitalism is, as you know, not about fairness...it's about profit. Unless restrained by government command, they'll sell oil to anyone with the hard currency to pay for it...and they don't ask where the money came from. Those countries lacking the hard currency can go "freeze in the dark" as far as the American oil corporations are concerned.

(That includes, by the way, poor people in America itself. Every winter there are some unknown number of people who can't pay the inflated prices to heat their apartments. The gas is shut off and they really do "freeze to death in the dark".)

Finally, whatever mandated UN embargoes may be in place (I can't think of any offhand, myself) are subject to both formal and informal veto by the American Empire (which furnishes about 25% of the UN budget when it's in the mood).

So that's a concept that has no real meaning. The US can impose (even now) a significant oil embargo on any country it chooses, regardless of a "vote" at the UN. And it can break a UN embargo whenever it wishes...and there's nothing the UN can do about it.

Perhaps you feel differently, but I don't think the UN is a significant "player" in today's world. Some American imperialists think the UN is a useful "cover" for American ambition, providing a kind of "legitimacy".

But in my opinion, that fools no one any longer...certainly not the people in occupied countries.


I will even go so far as to submit that if the US did not have such a sphere of influence on world oil supplies, then the distribution would not be as free as it is today.

I don't see how we could know that, one way or the other.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Osman Ghazi]

1) Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Okay, so you, an organism (or if you want, America, as an organism) feed off of other human beings (as individuals or groups thereof) while contributing nothing to your host (other human beings).

Was that not obvious? You said yourself that your way of life was dependant on oil. We know that to get oil, people need to die. So far no problem. So, if you are dependant upon oil which is dependant upon killing, you are dependant upon killing. You can't live your life without killing. If the killing stops, your 'way of life' stops.

That is why you are a parasite. And the worst kind too; the kind that invariably destroys it's host.

[Commie Girl]

How Your Vote Counts in the U$ (http://www.vheadline.com/voting_machine.wmv)

It will be interesting to see what these Observers (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1021/p11s02-uspo.html) have to say after November 2!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 21 2004, 02:02 AM
Okay, so you, an organism (or if you want, America, as an organism) feed off of other human beings (as individuals or groups thereof) while contributing nothing to your host (other human beings).

Was that not obvious? You said yourself that your way of life was dependant on oil. We know that to get oil, people need to die. So far no problem. So, if you are dependant upon oil which is dependant upon killing, you are dependant upon killing. You can't live your life without killing. If the killing stops, your 'way of life' stops.

That is why you are a parasite. And the worst kind too; the kind that invariably destroys it's host.
That's not "literal". To the contrary, you are using "parasite" as a metaphor.


Okay, so you, an organism (or if you want, America, as an organism) feed off of other human beings (as individuals or groups thereof) while contributing nothing to your host (other human beings).

Osman, are you really going to suggest that the United States has contributed nothing to humanity? I mean, do you hear what you are saying? Even your leftist ilk will not try to claim this. As a matter of fact, it could easily be argued that America has contributed more to humanity in the last 100 years than any other nation ever has in the history of the world.

I can rattle off 10 significant, groundbreaking, revolutionary contributions to humanity that the United States has made, in about 5 seconds, and still have 1000 left.

Not only was your use of parasite not literal, but even as a metphor, it was just plain wrong.

Come on, Osman, you're gonna have to do better than this.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 01:11 AM

I don't see how we could know that, one way or the other.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Redstar, I never said the US has exclusive control, I understand that they don't. I expressed that they have a significant amount of interest and control of the world's oil reserves.


So that's a concept that has no real meaning. The US can impose (even now) a significant oil embargo on any country it chooses, regardless of a "vote" at the UN. And it can break a UN embargo whenever it wishes...and there's nothing the UN can do about it.

In theory maybe, but that is my point, the US does not impose such embargos. The free flow of oil across emerging markets and America's ecconomic colonies benefits the US


(That includes, by the way, poor people in America itself. Every winter there are some unknown number of people who can't pay the inflated prices to heat their apartments. The gas is shut off and they really do "freeze to death in the dark".)

Come on, Redstar. If one has a house and clothing/blankets, one will not freeze to death. There are often deaths due to heat waves, but not freezing.

[DaCuBaN]

There are often deaths due to heat waves, but not freezing.

You're talking from the mystical hole here, man...

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,2763,1112145,00.html)


George Bates, 89, died from hypothermia and his wife Gertrude, 86, suffered a heart attack. Their bodies were found in October in a house they had shared for 63 years. Two months earlier their gas had been disconnected due to non-payment of a £140 bill.

There's on high-profile example for you: People die of this kind of thing all the time! Had it escaped you that we humans are fragile creatures? Especially as we mature?

or perhaps this? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2357237.stm)


"It is a national disgrace. A large proportion of these (deaths) will be vulnerable older people who die in England and Wales in the winter because of the cold.

"While we welcome the government's initiatives to fight fuel poverty among older people, many of them still cannot afford sufficient heating or they live in housing with inadequate insulation."

Of course, these people (http://www.helptheaged.org.uk/CampaignsNews/Poverty/Winter+deaths/default.htm) are only campaining for this because they're liberal douche's, right? All this because of the rising cost of fuelling their homes? All this in a country that, and lets be frank, to a yank such as yourself is a "socialist" country where the government provides a level of assistance to those in dire need?

Surely this couldn't be happening in America too? :o

Link (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5205a3.htm)


In January 2001, a man aged 60 years was found dead by police; he was lying on a sofa inside an abandoned house that had no heat or electricity.

It took me less than five minutes to google this up, get a grip.

[Capitalist Imperial]

DaCuban, none othese stories actually state that cause of death was due to cold.


"George Bates, 89, died from hypothermia and his wife Gertrude, 86, suffered a heart attack. Their bodies were found in October in a house they had shared for 63 years. Two months earlier their gas had been disconnected due to non-payment of a £140 bill."
It took then 2 months too freeze to death? 89 and 86, and you are surprised they died? Please.



"In January 2001, a man aged 60 years was found dead by police; he was lying on a sofa inside an abandoned house that had no heat or electricity. "
No mention of cause of death.


It took me less than five minutes to google this up, get a grip.

LOL, a trained monkey can Google. What I offer you is critical thinking. I would ask you to try it sometime, but I hesitate to believe that you are capable of such cognitive process.

[DaCuBaN]

I'd quit whilst your ahead CI...

Hypothermia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/276284.stm)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Let me quote myself because you are having trouble with your reading comprehension skills:


Come on, Redstar. If one has a house and clothing/blankets, one will not freeze to death. There are often deaths due to heat waves, but not freezing.

Show me where someone froze to death (as a cause of death per the coroners report) who fit this description, otherwise i'll assume you are on your typical meaningless witchhunt.

Cold temperatures that complicate already existing conditions is a totally different issue, as is hypothermia due to exposure.

Again, DaCuBan, you left your critical thinking skills on the short bus this morning.

[DaCuBaN]

Cold temperatures that complicate already existing conditions is a totally different issue, as is hypothermia due to exposure.

My word... :o


George Bates, 89, died from hypothermia and his wife Gertrude, 86, suffered a heart attack. Their bodies were found in October in a house they had shared for 63 years.

Indoors, died of hypothermia. That's not exposure to the elements, that's exposure plain and simple to the cold. This was their own house, so presumably (it's the UK, we expect to see freezing temperatures during the winter) there was no shortage of blankets and the like, yet the coroner concluded death by hypothermia.

Did you even read the link on what hypothermia is?


Exposure to cold is estimated to cause 30,000 deaths a year in the UK.

The causes vary, and include increased susceptibility to flu and other viruses.

However, hypothermia is one of the most deadly cold-induced conditions and, if not caught and treated early on, can lead to a rapid decline in the body's ability to function normally.

That's the first paragraph. You couldn't have missed it, had you looked. You see, you can't die of "cold", you die of cold induced conditions - such as hypothermia. Read first, man.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Did you even read the link on what hypothermia is?

Dude, I lived in Alaska for years and even worked in the commercial fishing industry there, I know exactly what hypothermia is.

[DaCuBaN]

I forgot to mention:


No mention of cause of death.

The page in question was entitled "Hypothermia Case Studies"

I'll presume you're tired...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial
In theory maybe, but that is my point, the US does not impose such embargoes.

Cuba.

Possibly North Korea as well, I don't know.

And don't forget the most famous one...Japan in 1941. It was the proximate cause of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor and the drive for the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia).

The more of the world's oil that is directly or indirectly under the control of the American Empire, the more damaging such a embargo could prove.


If one has a house and clothing/blankets, one will not freeze to death.

I think I see what you're getting at here; a healthy human naturally generates about the same amount of heat as a 120-watt lightbulb...so if you're covered in clothing/blankets, then that heat is trapped and you "can't freeze".

But I think there are a couple of things you've overlooked here.

The first is that the common meaning of "freeze to death" is not literally true; your body doesn't fall to a temperature of 32 degrees F (0 degrees centigrade) and "then" you die.

What happens is your body temperature need only fall to around 80 degrees F (I forget the exact figure)...at that temperature, the electro-chemical reactions that keep you alive (heart beating, lungs moving, etc.) no longer take place quickly enough...and you lose consciousness and die.

Secondly, no matter how "well-wrapped" and "insulated" you are, you still lose heat and moisture...if only by the act of breathing. A room temperature of 25 degrees F won't kill you...but as the temperature continues to fall, so eventually will your body temperature.

An unheated building in America's northeast during winter can become very cold indeed over just a few days...if the outside air temperature is -10 degrees F, the inside is not going to be much higher than +10 degrees F, if that.

You'll die.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think I see what you're getting at here; a healthy human naturally generates about the same amount of heat as a 120-watt lightbulb...so if you're covered in clothing/blankets, then that heat is trapped and you "can't freeze".

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Thanks for exaplaining to us, Redstar, how blankets keep us warm.

[Im the Vanguard of the Masses]

if voting accomplished anything they would make it illegal. Voting is just a facade behind which the elite manipulates the system to their advantage. We need a revolution not reformation of the system

[Osman Ghazi]

Osman, are you really going to suggest that the United States has contributed nothing to humanity?

I've always thought that was . The United States is a country, it lacks the ability to invent things. Countries don't invent things, the people in them do. Canada didn't invent the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell did.

Maybe you are right about literal being too strong a word, but I still think parasite is apt.

[VukBZ2005]

In my opinion of this question - your vote does not count - it does not significantly
change Anything towards the advantage of the Working Class. Bourgeois elections are just a
illusion and a lie.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 10:19 AM

I've always thought that was . The United States is a country, it lacks the ability to invent things. Countries don't invent things, the people in them do. Canada didn't invent the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell did.

Maybe you are right about literal being too strong a word, but I still think parasite is apt.
Alexander Graham Bell was an American Citizen. I hope you're not trying to give Canada credit for the telephone. That is just one of several revolutionary world-changing inventions brought to you by America.

If nations should not get any credit for inventions, then why is it that the United States has submitted the vast majority of fundamentally revolutionary inventions in the 20th century at a rate that is highly disproportionate to pretty much all other nations?

Of course individuals ultimately are responsible for invention and innovation, but nations also play a part, as they supply the resources, the right environment, and often funding to realize such advances.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:28 AM

I think I see what you're getting at here; a healthy human naturally generates about the same amount of heat as a 120-watt lightbulb...so if you're covered in clothing/blankets, then that heat is trapped and you "can't freeze".

But I think there are a couple of things you've overlooked here.

The first is that the common meaning of "freeze to death" is not literally true; your body doesn't fall to a temperature of 32 degrees F (0 degrees centigrade) and "then" you die.

What happens is your body temperature need only fall to around 80 degrees F (I forget the exact figure)...at that temperature, the electro-chemical reactions that keep you alive (heart beating, lungs moving, etc.) no longer take place quickly enough...and you lose consciousness and die.

Secondly, no matter how "well-wrapped" and "insulated" you are, you still lose heat and moisture...if only by the act of breathing. A room temperature of 25 degrees F won't kill you...but as the temperature continues to fall, so eventually will your body temperature.

An unheated building in America's northeast during winter can become very cold indeed over just a few days...if the outside air temperature is -10 degrees F, the inside is not going to be much higher than +10 degrees F, if that.

You'll die.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
OK, Redstar and Dacuban, I will concede that there are in fact cases every year where preople die because extreme cold aggravated an existing condition or preyed on the very old/young, or even directly induced hypothermia.

These cases are relatively minimal, though, and even among those the cold is merely supplementing the effect of an existing problem.

Let the record reflect that I retract my claim of deaths from extreme cold absolutely not happening (I would like to see one of you concede when you are wrong in such an open fashion, and lets not kid ourselves, it's happened to all of us).

As for the Cuba and DPRK embargos, we all know that I'll support those and you may or may not oppose them (at least the Cuba one I surmise you'll oppose). This will just be a proxy argument that will lead back to our ideological differences. And I did say few, if any, embargos were in effect right now.

You can't invoke Japan '41. We're talking contemporary geopolitics here.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22 2004, 03:48 PM
Alexander Graham Bell was an American Citizen. I hope you're not trying to give Canada credit for the telephone. That is just one of several revolutionary world-changing inventions brought to you by America.

If nations should not get any credit for inventions, then why is it that the United States has submitted the vast majority of fundamentally revolutionary inventions in the 20th century at a rate that is highly disproportionate to pretty much all other nations?

Of course individuals ultimately are responsible for invention and innovation, but nations also play a part, as they supply the resources, the right environment, and often funding to realize such advances.
That is just one of several revolutionary world-changing inventions brought to you by America.

Such as?

The best invention of the US is the transitor, by far.


Alexander Graham Bell was an American Citizen.

Bell didn't invent the telephone, Philipp Reis did.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 04:28 PM
That is just one of several revolutionary world-changing inventions brought to you by America.

Such as?

The best invention of the US is the transitor, by far.


Alexander Graham Bell was an American Citizen.

Bell didn't invent the telephone, Philipp Reis did.

Such as?

The telephone (It was Bell, you're letting you're anti-Americanism get in the way of the facts, Reis' contraptuon didn't even work. As silly as it sounds, function is a requisite of actually getting credit for an invention. Bell is credited with the 1st functioning phone, period.).

The Television (oh, wait, let me guess, you are going to invoke Baird's mecanical contraption). Well, this one is really still argued today, but most credit Phlio Farnswoth (American) with the vaccum-tube television, which is the basis for all modern TV

the telegraph

The Assembly Line (the importance of which to modern industry can't be overstated)

The airplane

The skyscraper

Generated Electricity (how are you going to deny the importance of this)?

Pretty much all modern music, and relevant cinema.

Nuclear power

the cotton gin

the artificial heart

the internet

the lightbulb

the radio (OK, tesla/Edison, it's a toss-up and disputable)

The USA leads in medicine, and emerging sciences like nanotech and biotech

... shall I go on?

If you can find a more impressive aggregate list in the 20th century, I'd like to see it.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22 2004, 05:32 PM


The telephone (It was Bell, you're letting you're anti-Americanism get in the way of the facts, Reis' contraptuon didn't even work. As silly as it sounds, function is a requisite of actually getting credit for an invention. Bell is credited with the 1st functioning phone, period.).

The Television (oh, wait, let me guess, you are going to invoke Baird's mecanical contraption). Well, this one is really still argued today, but most credit Phlio Farnswoth (American) with the vaccum-tube television, which is the basis for all modern TV

the telegraph

The Assembly Line (the importance of which to modern industry can't be overstated)

The airplane

The skyscraper

Generated Electricity (how are you going to deny the importance of this)?

Pretty much all modern music, and relevant cinema.

Nuclear power

the cotton gin

the artificial heart

the internet

the lightbulb

the radio (OK, tesla/Edison, it's a toss-up and disputable)

The USA leads in medicine, and emerging sciences like nanotech and biotech

... shall I go on?

If you can find a more impressive aggregate list in the 20th century, I'd like to see it.
well european didn't discover america they invented it and ameridians had nothig to say
pretty sure that american din't find the way to biase everything,he


all a bunch off school kids.living in a school yard.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:06 PM
well european didn't discover america they invented it and ameridians had nothig to say
pretty sure that american din't find the way to biase everything,he


all a bunch off school kids.living in a school yard.
hey, GAF, don't get sore at me, I was just answering his inquiry!

[Commie Girl]

Bell was actually Scottish!

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22 2004, 06:17 PM
hey, GAF, don't get sore at me, I was just answering his inquiry!
ok,sorry not personal but my view stands
"all a bunch off school kids.living in a school yard"
and doesn't inclues only you .no offences

and i can give you that. you stand almost alone here and doing your best there fore you' ve got my respect.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 22 2004, 06:55 PM
Bell was actually Scottish!
Actually, you're right, he was born Scottish.

However, by the time he invented the telephone, he was an American Citizen, and he developed the telephone in America with American resources and an American patent.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 22 2004, 12:24 PM
Actually, you're right, he was born Scottish.

However, by the time he invented the telephone, he was an American Citizen, and he developed the telephone in America with American resources and an American patent.
But he invented it with that good old Scottish ingenuity!

[Osman Ghazi]

Of course individuals ultimately are responsible for invention and innovation, but nations also play a part, as they supply the resources, the right environment, and often funding to realize such advances.

If that is true, than the UK, who supplied that environment and those resources for the first 25 years of his life would be more responsible for the phone than the US, who supplied them for only 4 years before he invented it.

Face it. Nations can only rarely take the praise for inventions. The Manhattan project, sure, they funded it, got the scientists together etc. But Bell was just a guy. No government grants. No research teams. The knowledge of the mechanics of hearing that were required to invent the phone were taught to him in London, not Boston.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 10:49 PM

If that is true, than the UK, who supplied that environment and those resources for the first 25 years of his life would be more responsible for the phone than the US, who supplied them for only 4 years before he invented it.

Face it. Nations can only rarely take the praise for inventions. The Manhattan project, sure, they funded it, got the scientists together etc. But Bell was just a guy. No government grants. No research teams. The knowledge of the mechanics of hearing that were required to invent the phone were taught to him in London, not Boston.
You are trying to rationalize out credit to America for the telephone.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The airplane

This is also highly disputable.
I personally reckon that Santos Dumont invented the airplane. His airplane was built in 1906, I believe, a few years after the Wright Bros' plane. It's argued that the Wright Bros' plane was not self-propelled and only glided.

read this (http://www.thefirsttofly.hpg.ig.com.br/pioneer2.htm)

If you want to argue in favor of the Wright Bros, please at least read that page.


Pretty much all modern music, and relevant cinema.

That is absolutely absurd!

While Thomas Edison may have invented the first moving picture camera- the kinetiscope, many of the significant inventions that led to cinema as we know today were made by the French and Soviets.

The Lumiere Bros, for example, invented the first hand-crank camera. This was used even in American films for years.

And Battleship Potemkin is considered by some to be the greatest film ever made. It was very innovative in every way for cinema and has most certainly influenced modern cinema hugely.

Out of all advanced capitalist countries, the United States has certainly enjoyed the most stability in the 20th century. It has nothing to do with the economic and social characteristics of this country.

[Capitalist Imperial]

This is also highly disputable.
I personally reckon that Santos Dumont invented the airplane. His airplane was built in 1906, I believe, a few years after the Wright Bros' plane. It's argued that the Wright Bros' plane was not self-propelled and only glided.

read this (http://www.thefirsttofly.hpg.ig.com.br/pioneer2.htm)

If you want to argue in favor of the Wright Bros, please at least read that page.



That is absolutely absurd!

While Thomas Edison may have invented the first moving picture camera- the kinetiscope, many of the significant inventions that led to cinema as we know today were made by the French and Soviets.

The Lumiere Bros, for example, invented the first hand-crank camera. This was used even in American films for years.

And Battleship Potemkin is considered by some to be the greatest film ever made. It was very innovative in every way for cinema and has most certainly influenced modern cinema hugely.

Out of all advanced capitalist countries, the United States has certainly enjoyed the most stability in the 20th century. It has nothing to do with the economic and social characteristics of this country.

[QUOTE]This is also highly disputable.
I personally reckon that Santos Dumont invented the airplane. His airplane was built in 1906, I believe, a few years after the Wright Bros' plane. It's argued that the Wright Bros' plane was not self-propelled and only glided.

read this (http://www.thefirsttofly.hpg.ig.com.br/pioneer2.htm)


Oh, come on, are you really going to send me to that ticky-tack site that looks like it was developed by an acid-tripper? Is this your proof? Additionally, this question is not "highly disputable" as you suggest. Actually, credit to the Wright Brothers is widely acknowledged and accepted pretty much world-wide. Of course there are websites that try and dispute this, but hey, there are websites dedicated to thew notion tha "America faked the moon landing". I think that, realistically, you are capable of weeding through th B.S., RZ. The Wright brothers' first flight was documented on film, and the prop is obviously spinning under the power of internal combustion!!! I think that it is your desire to discredit America more than this meaningless and unaccredited website that makes you doubt the wright brothers legitimacy. I simply can't believe that even you would really try to take credit for the airplane away from the USA. Step back from the brink, my friend.


That is absolutely absurd!

While Thomas Edison may have invented the first moving picture camera- the kinetiscope, many of the significant inventions that led to cinema as we know today were made by the French and Soviets.

The Lumiere Bros, for example, invented the first hand-crank camera. This was used even in American films for years.

And Battleship Potemkin is considered by some to be the greatest film ever made. It was very innovative in every way for cinema and has most certainly influenced modern cinema hugely.

I need to clarify. I don't credit the US with the invention of cinema, but I credit them with basically fostering it into what it is today, and being the foreunner in the art form.


Out of all advanced capitalist countries, the United States has certainly enjoyed the most stability in the 20th century. It has nothing to do with the economic and social characteristics of this country.

Oh come on, man, get real! That's like saying, "Yeah, your team won the World Cup, but that has nothing to do with how good your team is."

Stop splitting Hairs, RZ.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Somebody please edit this guy's post so it's easier to read. Learn how to use the board functions, man.


Oh, come on, are you really going to send me to that ticky-tack site that looks like it was developed by an acid-tripper? Is this your proof? Additionally, this question is not "highly disputable" as you suggest. Actually, credit to the Wright Brothers is widely acknowledged and accepted pretty much world-wide. Of course there are websites that try and dispute this, but hey, there are websites dedicated to thew notion tha "America faked the moon landing". I think that, realistically, you are capable of weeding through th B.S., RZ. The Wright brothers' first flight was documented on film, and the prop is obviously spinning under the power of internal combustion!!! I think that it is your desire to discredit America more than this meaningless and unaccredited website that makes you doubt the wright brothers legitimacy. I simply can't believe that even you would really try to take credit for the airplane away from the USA. Step back from the brink, my friend.

I don't think you're familiar with the global opinion on the subject of who invented the airplane. In Brazil, I know for a fact, that Santos Dumont is credited with the invention. If they were presented with the idea that the Wright Bros invented it, they would react just the way you are. Most have never even heard of the Wright Bros and would imagine that it's some crazy fringe conspiracy or American egoism. I imagine that the French would also share that opinion as well as various other countries.

I don't think you read the website, by the way.

If you want me to post the website's proof on here I can, but I think it's easier if you just click on the link and read.

Anyways...


The Wright brothers' first flight was documented on film, and the prop is obviously spinning under the power of internal combustion!!!

Obviously, but...


The North Americans, however, credit the Wright brothers as the first to fly in an airplane in December 17, 1903 - three years before Santos Dumont -, and make a case for them, but the many sources they cite prove just the opposite.

For example: The New York Times of December 17, 1951 published the declaration of Alpheus Drinkwater, the telegrapher who sent the message ushering the Wrights’ flights of December 17, 1903, in which he told that on that day – December 17, 1903 – the Wright brothers only “glided”, and their first real flight came on May 6, 1908.

and


The North-American Ken Hyde, a expert builder of replicas of the first Wright Flyer, in an interview to The News Observer of December 15, 2002, declared:


“WE KNOW HOW TO PUT THE MAN ON THE MOON, BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN FLYING A TRUE WRIGHT AIRPLANE.”


In December 17, 2003 an attempt to re-enact the original Wright Brothers flight 100 years later flopped when a replica craft couldn’t get off the ground, because there was not enough wind. The cheers quickly turned to groans when, after the plane appeared about to lift off, it fell back and sputtered to a stop in a muddy puddle at the end of the track.


Step back from the brink, my friend.

:lol:
Fuck the Wright Brothers
:lol:


Oh come on, man, get real! That's like saying, "Yeah, your team won the World Cup, but that has nothing to do with how good your team is."

Well, what you're saying is that country of the victor is somehow better because it fostered a better team. This isn't true. Just because Brazil wins in soccer (five times world champion, beotch!), doesn't mean that Brazil is a more "successful" country.