The Face of Capitalism

[redstar2000]

New York's HIV experiment

HIV positive children and their loved ones have few rights if they choose to battle with social work authorities in New York City.

When I first heard the story of the "guinea pig kids", I instinctively refused to believe that it could be happening in any civilised country, particularly the United States, where the propensity for legal action normally ensures a high level of protection.

But that, as I was to discover, was central to the choice of location and subjects, because to be free in New York City, you need money.

Over 23,000 of the city's children are either in foster care or independent homes run mostly by religious organisations on behalf of the local authorities and almost 99% are black or hispanic.

Some of these kids come from "crack" mothers and have been infected with the HIV virus. For over a decade, this became the target group for experimentation involving cocktails of toxic drugs.

Central to this story is the city's child welfare department, the Administration for Children's Services (ACS).

The ACS, as it is known, was granted far-reaching powers in the 1990s by then-Republican Mayor Rudi Giuliani, after a particularly horrific child killing.

Within the shortest of periods, literally thousands of children were being rounded up and placed in foster care.

"They're essentially out of control," said family lawyer David Lansner. "I've had many ACS case workers tell me: 'We're ACS, we can do whatever we want' and they usually get away with it."

Having taken children into care, the ACS was now, effectively, their parent and could do just about anything it wished with them.

One of the homes to which HIV positive children were taken was the Incarnation Children's Center, a large, expensively refurbished red-bricked building set back from the sidewalk in a busy Harlem street.

It is owned by the Catholic church and when we attempted to talk to officials at Incarnation we were referred to an equally expensive Manhattan public relations company, which then refused to comment on activities within the home.

Hardly surprising, when we already knew that highly controversial and secretive drug experiments had been conducted on orphans and foster children as young as three months old.

We asked Dr David Rasnick, visiting scholar at the University of Berkeley, for his opinion on some of the experiments.

He said: "We're talking about serious, serious side-effects. These children are going to be absolutely miserable. They're going to have cramps, diarrhoea and their joints are going to swell up. They're going to roll around the ground and you can't touch them."

He went on to describe some of the drugs - supplied by major drug manufacturers including Glaxo SmithKline - as "lethal".

When approached by the BBC, Glaxo SmithKline said such trials must have stringent standards and be conducted strictly in accordance with local regulations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/programmes/thi...rld/4038375.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm)

I've had occasion before to post some horror stories on this forum for the education of our resident pro-capitalists...but I don't think I've seen one before as horrible as this one.

All the ingredients are present...

1. Poor kids -- 99% Black/Hispanic

2. The Catholic Church

3. A Republican Mayor

4. An arrogant bureaucracy.

5. Some fantastically wealthy multi-national corporations.

The people and the institutions responsible are very fortunate that I do not have Stalin's power -- their last hours would not be pleasant ones.

:redstar2000:

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

[vivalache22]

I agree, this is the problem with the country,the rich money making minority exploits the poor majority. I thought majority rules in this country, No the rich do.

[revolutionindia]

I 'm sure stalinists will have no problem about conducting experiments
This essentially means that communism also has no problem with this because stalinists are the esence and heart of communist ideology

Most of you guys here with liberal views are an eyewash to make communism look good.Its sad that your numbers are small

But fact of the matter is most hardcore communists are stalinists
And they make no apologies about their past

Lets see how this would be under communism

The ingredients present...

1. Kids--whoever they could lay their hands on(There would be no rich or poor because after all this is communism)

2. The State

3. A Mad dictator

4. An arrogant bloated bureaucracy.

5. Some fantastically poor state corporation which at the end of this research would
come up with naught because it lacks the facilities and the will to want to do anything ,prefering to utilize public money to just keep it afloat

I must remind all communists that if you think you have some kind of halo over your head then I must tell there is none

[Zingu]

Communists are Stalinists?

Where are all of the Stalinist parties today?
I don't remember the Paris Commune upholding Stalinist practices.
If you ever read history, Stalinism died with Stalin, De-Stalinization started in the Soviet Bloc, Stalinist parties disintergrated and were reformed back into Leninist ones, The Sino-Soviet split occured, later China would de-Stalinize itself.


Communism does not have a halo around its head, the brutal reality of the world: no-one is innocent, the capitalists aren't innocent either.
Anyways that was a pretty pathetic post, come up with something more informed.

[revolutionindia]

hey I don't really want to get into a prolonged arguement , I'm here only for some more time

What I am saying is under communism this will be worse!
Atleast under capitalism the press has the freedom to report this do you think under communism the state press would report this.Well if anyone did then they would pay with their lives I am sure.

Go look at what happens in China and FOR FUCK'S SAKE DON'T GIVE THE ARGUMENT THAT CHINA IS NOT COMMUNIST

AND FUCK YOU IF YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THE PRESS IS ALREADY MAINPULATED IN CAPITALISM

[Professor Moneybags]

I've had occasion before to post some horror stories on this forum for the education of our resident pro-capitalists...but I don't think I've seen one before as horrible as this one.

All the ingredients are present...

1. Poor kids -- 99% Black/Hispanic

2. The Catholic Church

3. A Republican Mayor

4. An arrogant bureaucracy.

5. Some fantastically wealthy multi-national corporations.

Oh look ! Multinationals/republicans/Catholics are involved ! Therefore it automatically equals capitalism.

This is so dumb it doesn't even warrant refutation.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 04:18 PM
hey I don't really want to get into a prolonged arguement , I'm here only for some more time

What I am saying is under communism this will be worse!
Atleast under capitalism the press has the freedom to report this do you think under communism the state press would report this.Well if anyone did then they would pay with their lives I am sure.

Go look at what happens in China and FOR FUCK'S SAKE DON'T GIVE THE ARGUMENT THAT CHINA IS NOT COMMUNIST

AND FUCK YOU IF YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THE PRESS IS ALREADY MAINPULATED IN CAPITALISM
Enough with the insults.

Incite a flame war somewhere else.

[Zingu]

Oh look ! Multinationals/republicans/Catholics are involved ! Therefore it automatically equals capitalism.

This is so dumb it doesn't even warrant refutation.



Well it does, Multinationals(=Corporatism) + Republicans(= Pro-Free Market) +Catholics (=reactionary capitalist racket)


Its all apart of Capitalism



What I am saying is under communism this will be worse!
Atleast under capitalism the press has the freedom to report this do you think under communism the state press would report this.Well if anyone did then they would pay with their lives I am sure.

Go look at what happens in China and FOR FUCK'S SAKE DON'T GIVE THE ARGUMENT THAT CHINA IS NOT COMMUNIST

AND FUCK YOU IF YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THE PRESS IS ALREADY MAINPULATED IN CAPITALISM


Yeah....you're talking about Stalinism, or an other term 'Authoritarian Socialism' there.
China has entered the Capitalist market now, so I will look what happens in China as well, you're right! It does suck!

[Professor Moneybags]

Well it does, Multinationals(=Corporatism)

Corporatism isn't capitalism.


+ Republicans(= Pro-Free Market)

Only in your dreams.


+Catholics (=reactionary capitalist racket)

Christianity is proto-socialism.


Its all apart of Capitalism

Whatever you say.

[h&s]

Lets see how this would be under communism

The ingredients present...

1. Kids--whoever they could lay their hands on(There would be no rich or poor because after all this is communism)

2. The State

3. A Mad dictator

4. An arrogant bloated bureaucracy.

5. Some fantastically poor state corporation which at the end of this research would
come up with naught because it lacks the facilities and the will to want to do anything ,prefering to utilize public money to just keep it afloat

I thought you said under communism?

[vivalache22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 04:07 PM
Communists are Stalinists?

Where are all of the Stalinist parties today?



How are we all Stalinists. I am not a stalinist. I am a Marxist-Socialist, real communism is far from Stalinism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2004, 04:19 PM
Oh look ! Multinationals/republicans/Catholics are involved ! Therefore it automatically equals capitalism.

This is so dumb it doesn't even warrant refutation.
Mr. Bags, you have once again missed the point of the thread.

Never once did RS write such and such exist therefore it equals capitalism.

Why you ask?

Because since we live in a capitalist society, we already know that "it's capitalism".

There is no need to say it silly.

Since you lack the cognative ability to comprehend written words, I will sum it up for you:


I've had occasion before to post some horror stories on this forum for the education of our resident pro-capitalists...but I don't think I've seen one before as horrible as this one.

This part advises the pro-capitalism members of this board to view exactly what kind of social atrocities are committed in our "free" and "just" society.



All the ingredients are present...

1. Poor kids -- 99% Black/Hispanic

2. The Catholic Church

3. A Republican Mayor

4. An arrogant bureaucracy.

5. Some fantastically wealthy multi-national corporations


This portion provides the an explanation of the factors involved in committing these atrocities as well as allows the reader to use a bit of common sense as to why these atrocities will receive little or no (no being the actual reality) recoursive attention, much less any criminal or civil action.

Next time read the threads very slowly and when you have completed them, read them again.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

"Funny"

There was a documentary aired on this in Holland, for the Dutch speaking people:

http://www.netwerk.tv/index.jsp?p=items&r=deze_week&a=147672

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

I did not know the Catholic Church and ACS in New York had stock holders and they pay out profits to them.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:28 AM
I did not know the Catholic Church and ACS in New York had stock holders and they pay out profits to them.
You're either quite thick or just pulling our legs.

What exactly do you think theis drug research is for?

Do you think these pharmaceutical companies are just going to "give away" the medications that are derived from this type of "research"?

Come on kids, you can do much better than this.

[Professor Moneybags]

Because since we live in a capitalist society, we already know that "it's capitalism".

We live in a semi-capitalist, semi-socialist society.


This part advises the pro-capitalism members of this board to view exactly what kind of social atrocities are committed in our "free" and "just" society.

In the name of what and by whose code of ethics ? Not mine, that's for sure.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 02:15 PM

Because since we live in a capitalist society, we already know that "it's capitalism".

We live in a semi-capitalist, semi-socialist society.


This part advises the pro-capitalism members of this board to view exactly what kind of social atrocities are committed in our "free" and "just" society.

In the name of what and by whose code of ethics ? Not mine, that's for sure.
Good grief Dweedle Dum, the only things that make our current society mixed are social welfare, social security and in some cases social medicine.

The means of production are STILL PRIVATISED.

Get it now kiddo?

As far as the other absurd portion of your post is concerned, I must ask:

What "code of ethics" do you have to follow to see that testing pharmaceuticals that have a very high risk of permanent physical and mental damage on poor minority CHILDEREN is REALLY FUCKING BAD?

Do you consider these acts to be acceptable?

Please anser yes.

[praxus]

Good grief Dweedle Dum, the only things that make our current society mixed are social welfare, social security and in some cases social medicine.

The means of production are STILL PRIVATISED.

Get it now kiddo?

Social Security, Socail Weflare, Medicare, Education, and Medicade constitute over 50% of the Federal Budget and roughly 20% of our Gross Domestic Product. So you think it is minor touch of socialism if I have to work 1/5th of the year for other people?

Being a private company means nothing if you don't have the legal aurthority to act within your right to property. Regulations are contrary to this. Therefor this also ads to the fact that we are a mixed economy.


What "code of ethics" do you have to follow to see that testing pharmaceuticals that have a very high risk of permanent physical and mental damage on poor minority CHILDEREN is REALLY FUCKING BAD?

Do you consider these acts to be acceptable?

You honestly believe that the pharmaceuticals would put a drug on the market that has a "very high risk" as you put it of permanent physical and mental damage? You know what happens if they do this in a capitalist societ? First it is likely the company would get sued, no one would buy their product, and if anyone was seriously harmed by the drugs, the person responsible for getting it on the market get's a nice little trip to jail.

And how come it's only bad when it affects poor minority children?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by praxus
You honestly believe that the pharmaceuticals would put a drug on the market that has a "very high risk" as you put it of permanent physical and mental damage? You know what happens if they do this in a capitalist society? First it is likely the company would get sued, no one would buy their product, and if anyone was seriously harmed by the drugs, the person responsible for getting it on the market gets a nice little trip to jail.

Go back and read the initial post and, this time, pay attention!

1. Nothing is "on the market" yet -- they are testing potentially crippling and certainly painful drugs on these kids.

2. There is no one to sue on behalf of these kids -- they are too young and too poor to hire lawyers. By the ethic of capitalism, they are disposable.

3. The state agency that is supposed to "protect the interests" of these kids is criminally involved itself -- it's not only not going to sue anybody but is probably shredding documents and deleting memos as fast as it possibly can.

4. And we're all well aware of the Catholic Church's deep concern with the welfare of children. :lol:

5. As to "a nice little trip to jail", your faith in capitalist legality is, indeed, touching. Is Ken Lay (Enron) "in jail"? And mind you, he fucked over some fairly important people. The criminal conspiracy to USE these kids as guinea pigs will probably never see a courtroom.


And how come it's only bad when it affects poor minority children?

Because they are totally defenseless, of course.

Not that that would mean anything to a smug bastard like yourself. :angry:

:redstar2000:

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

[praxus]

Go back and read the initial post and, this time, pay attention!

1. Nothing is "on the market" yet -- they are testing potentially crippling and certainly painful drugs on these kids.

Are they not their legal gaurdians? What makes you think they are painful or potentially crippling? Do you know anything about the drugs? Do you have any evidence besides this article?




2. There is no one to sue on behalf of these kids -- they are too young and too poor to hire lawyers. By the ethic of capitalism, they are disposable.

What ethic are you talking about? Certainly not mine.


3. The state agency that is supposed to "protect the interests" of these kids is criminally involved itself -- it's not only not going to sue anybody but is probably shredding documents and deleting memos as fast as it possibly can.

You mean a government agency is involved in this? And your blaming it on Capitalism?


4. And we're all well aware of the Catholic Church's deep concern with the welfare of children. laugh.gif

I'm not exactly a fan of the Catholic Church.



5. As to "a nice little trip to jail", your faith in capitalist legality is, indeed, touching. Is Ken Lay (Enron) "in jail"? And mind you, he fucked over some fairly important people. The criminal conspiracy to USE these kids as guinea pigs will probably never see a courtroom.


Do you have a problem with comprehending the fact that the United States IS NOT a Capitalist country?



Because they are totally defenseless, of course.

Not that that would mean anything to a smug bastard like yourself. mad.gif

So only poor minority children are totally defenseless?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Abby Normal
Do you have any evidence besides this article?

Is any necessary? Perhaps a secretly taped video? So you could hear their groans and cries?


What ethic are you talking about? Certainly not mine.

Yep, yours!

Have you forgotten? Your version of "pure capitalism" is even less regulated than what we have now.

Instead of being scandalous, this kind of shit would be routine under your system.

Don't be such a wuss; stand up for the rights of the rich and powerful to do as they please with the rest of us!


You mean a government agency is involved in this? And your blaming it on Capitalism?

Marxism 101: the government in a capitalist country is an agent of the capitalist ruling class.


I'm not exactly a fan of the Catholic Church.

I don't see why not...it's just another racket, isn't it? What could you possibly have against rackets?


Do you have a problem with comprehending the fact that the United States IS NOT a Capitalist country?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, I do have a big problem with that proposition. I rate it on the same level as the "virgin birth of Jesus" -- not to be taken seriously by anyone with an IQ of 3 digits.


So only poor minority children are totally defenseless?

Well, you've got me there. The followers of Ayn Rand, however, are a "special case". Their intellectual handicap is self-inflicted.

:redstar2000:

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

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

On the contrary - Yanqui-style crony-capitalism (Backed by a terrifying imperialist military machine) is as close to pure capitalism as one might get (Unless you're the sort of regressive sub-moron economics-11-failure who gets off on letting the cycle of boom and bust fuck-shit-up-oldschool.)

Edit: Responding to the post before RedStar's.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Are they not their legal gaurdians? What makes you think they are painful or potentially crippling? Do you know anything about the drugs? Do you have any evidence besides this article?

No, there are no parents or foster parents. They're orphans.
The fact that they test these drugs on orphans makes their safety undeniably questionable, does it not?


What ethic are you talking about? Certainly not mine.

They fail to produce capital, and by the ethics of capitalism are worthless.


You mean a government agency is involved in this? And your blaming it on Capitalism?

The government agency is a tool of the capitalist class. Don't even try to deny that in capitalism, capital yields power.


I'm not exactly a fan of the Catholic Church.

You're not even trying now.


Do you have a problem with comprehending the fact that the United States IS NOT a Capitalist country?

I do!
Because it's not a fact.
We've already shown you in this very thread why the US is capitalist. How about you try presenting an actual argument against it, huh?


So only poor minority children are totally defenseless?

No.
But they are defenseless.
How exactly does the fact that they're not the only disenfranchised group in The United States prove anything at all?

Edit:
also in reply to the post before RedStar's

[praxus]

No, there are no parents or foster parents. They're orphans.
The fact that they test these drugs on orphans makes their safety undeniably questionable, does it not?

I don't see how one implies the other, and no it's not undeniable. Again do you have any proof that these drugs are harmful beyond this article?


They fail to produce capital, and by the ethics of capitalism are worthless.

Again, what code of ethics are you talking about? It seems like you (or some marxists) made up your own little code that makes the Capitalists look evil.


The government agency is a tool of the capitalist class. Don't even try to deny that in capitalism, capital yields power.

Do you understand what a free market is? Are you that intellectually impotent that you are unable to differentiate between a free market and a mixed economy?


You're not even trying now.

I stated a fact, it wasn't an argument.


I do!
Because it's not a fact.
We've already shown you in this very thread why the US is capitalist. How about you try presenting an actual argument against it, huh?


Capitalism the name your buddy gave to Lassiez Faire. Lassiez Faire litterally means let alone. This means the only role of Government is to protect us from force and fraud! This is what Capitalism is, this is it's nature. No matter how much you want to deny it, it does not change this fact.


No.
But they are defenseless.
How exactly does the fact that they're not the only disenfranchised group in The United States prove anything at all?

So your contradicting yourself now? The first thing I said is "Why are only poor minority children defenseless?", then you responded with, "Because they are totally defenseless, of course."

Then when I asked if they are the only poor and defenseless people you renigged and said, "No".

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Yes the drugs are harmfull, in the documentary aired on this subject on Netwerk, they spoke with a nurse who had adopted two of these orphans. However she was required to keep giving them these drugs.

The two sisters that the adopted were both troublesome. One of them was very over active, quikly irritated - the other silent, not good eating, among other problems. The nurse came desperate and decided to stop the medication and pretty much directly their behaviour improved.

But the New York ACS took the children away, because they had stopped medication. The Catholic Church and ACS did not give comment, even tough the camera crew came even to their doorsteps.

[Professor Moneybags]

Yep, yours!

Have you forgotten? Your version of "pure capitalism" is even less regulated than what we have now.

Listen, smartarse. Each individual is enitled to certain negative rights, all of which stem from the fact that the initiation of force is immoral and should be banned by law. Is what you describe "initiating force" ? If it is, then it's going to be banned. Trying equate lack of dictatorial regulations to anarchy is a poor anology.

"Do what you like providing you do not initiate force agaist other people" means precisely what it says.


Marxism 101: the government in a capitalist country is an agent of the capitalist ruling class.

Reality 101 : This country isn't capitalist. It's half capitalist, half socialist.


Yes, I do have a big problem with that proposition. I rate it on the same level as the "virgin birth of Jesus" -- not to be taken seriously by anyone with an IQ of 3 digits.

What a superb refutation. :rolleyes:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a guy who keeps on yelling "Do what you like providing you do not initiate force agaist other people", yet supported the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Dec 23 2004, 04:01 PM
Am I the only one seeing the irony of a guy who keeps on yelling "Do what you like providing you do not initiate force agaist other people", yet supported the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan.
I think Saddam Hussein/Al Quaeda initiatied force against enough people to warrant their removal from power, even if the US is far from innocent.

[Osman Ghazi]

Reality 101 : This country isn't capitalist. It's half capitalist, half socialist.


No, it's more like 90% capitalist, 10% socialist.

I mean honestly, what percentage of economic activity is conducted in 'non-free' or regulated markets?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Social Security, Socail Weflare, Medicare, Education, and Medicade constitute over 50% of the Federal Budget and roughly 20% of our Gross Domestic Product. So you think it is minor touch of socialism if I have to work 1/5th of the year for other people?

Personally I do not consider The 59.5 billion dollars allotted to the Department of Education in 2005 to really be considered a social programme.

That is in comparison to other mandatory budget allotments of course.

Not even the most right wing fanatic would think about privitising education.


Being a private company means nothing if you don't have the legal aurthority to act within your right to property. Regulations are contrary to this. Therefor this also ads to the fact that we are a mixed economy.

Who said that the USA was not a mixed ecomomy?

In any case you have missed the point, which was that the means of production are STILL PRIVATISED.



You honestly believe that the pharmaceuticals would put a drug on the market that has a "very high risk" as you put it of permanent physical and mental damage? You know what happens if they do this in a capitalist societ? First it is likely the company would get sued, no one would buy their product, and if anyone was seriously harmed by the drugs, the person responsible for getting it on the market get's a nice little trip to jail.


You must not get out much; or read the news. Guess you were wrong. (http://www.adrugrecall.com/vioxx/side_effects.html)

The pharmaceutical puts out drugs all the time that later prove to be quite harmful to the people taking them.

As a matter of fact, the FDA has an entire portion of their web site (http://www.fda.gov/po/enforceindex/2004enforce.html) reserved for class 1, 2 and three drug and other recalls.

I suggest you research your facts prior to making a fool out of yourself.



And how come it's only bad when it affects poor minority children?

Who said anything about it "only being bad" when it affects poor minority children?

That just happens to be what this specific topic is about.

Good grief, you are not good at this at all.

:lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Not even the most right wing fanatic would think about privitising education.

On the contrary, that would be the best thing to happen to it. Go on, now tell me how "only the rich will be able to afford it" etc.


Who said that the USA was not a mixed ecomomy?

Just about every communist here.


In any case you have missed the point, which was that the means of production are STILL PRIVATISED.

Privately owned, government controlled.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Dec 23 2004, 05:26 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Dec 23 2004, 05:26 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Dec 23 2004, 04:01 PM
Am I the only one seeing the irony of a guy who keeps on yelling "Do what you like providing you do not initiate force agaist other people", yet supported the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan.
I think Saddam Hussein/Al Quaeda initiatied force against enough people to warrant their removal from power, even if the US is far from innocent. [/b]
So does the Bush deserve a removal from power?

And Al'Qaida Saddam were not linked, atleast no more then the US and Al'Qaida are.

[Osman Ghazi]

Privately owned, government controlled.


Not quite. Privately owned, with the possibility of government control, should they see fit to use their powers. There's a big difference.

Besides which, everyone knows that the governement is privately owned. :lol:


On the contrary, that would be the best thing to happen to it. Go on, now tell me how "only the rich will be able to afford it" etc.


:lol: Well, it wouldn't make things any better, I'll tell you. Private schools (even the ones that exist now, which cater almost exlusively to upper and middle class students) produce at least as many morons as any other educatinoal institute.

Now, as to the only the rich can afford it, that isn't entirely true. Probably 95% of the population will be able to afford it. But what about the other 5%? What about the 10 million or so American children who would be forced to remain as ignorant buffoons because their parents can't afford an education?

Oh, I forgot. The children of the rich earned their wealth, whereas the children of the poor are just lazy slobs, right?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 24 2004, 04:35 PM
Now, as to the only the rich can afford it, that isn't entirely true. Probably 95% of the population will be able to afford it. But what about the other 5%? What about the 10 million or so American children who would be forced to remain as ignorant buffoons because their parents can't afford an education?
Are you proposing that 95% of people that can afford it be forced to cater for the 5% that can't ? Not that going to school guarantees ignorance.

[Vinny Rafarino]

On the contrary, that would be the best thing to happen to it. Go on, now tell me how "only the rich will be able to afford it" etc.

I reckon by your unique perspective, the 33 million US residents living under the povert y line just "don't count".

Right?

Only a complete lunatic would suggest that education should come at a cost to the citizens.


Just about every communist here.

Perhaps you can share the quotes with us.

Good luck.


Privately owned, government controlled.

Besides the Sherman and other antitrust laws the US government does not "control" anything.

Would you care to post the edicts concerning how the US government "controls" the domestic and foreign trade markets?

Do you even know what a trade market is?



Reality 101 : This country isn't capitalist. It's half capitalist, half socialist.

To an uneducated baffoon, it most certainly would appear that way wouldn't it?

[babyface]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24 2004, 01:01 AM

Social Security, Socail Weflare, Medicare, Education, and Medicade constitute over 50% of the Federal Budget and roughly 20% of our Gross Domestic Product. So you think it is minor touch of socialism if I have to work 1/5th of the year for other people?

Personally I do not consider The 59.5 billion dollars allotted to the Department of Education in 2005 to really be considered a social programme.

That is in comparison to other mandatory budget allotments of course.

Not even the most right wing fanatic would think about privitising education.


Being a private company means nothing if you don't have the legal aurthority to act within your right to property. Regulations are contrary to this. Therefor this also ads to the fact that we are a mixed economy.

Who said that the USA was not a mixed ecomomy?

In any case you have missed the point, which was that the means of production are STILL PRIVATISED.



You honestly believe that the pharmaceuticals would put a drug on the market that has a "very high risk" as you put it of permanent physical and mental damage? You know what happens if they do this in a capitalist societ? First it is likely the company would get sued, no one would buy their product, and if anyone was seriously harmed by the drugs, the person responsible for getting it on the market get's a nice little trip to jail.


You must not get out much; or read the news. Guess you were wrong. (http://www.adrugrecall.com/vioxx/side_effects.html)

The pharmaceutical puts out drugs all the time that later prove to be quite harmful to the people taking them.

As a matter of fact, the FDA has an entire portion of their web site (http://www.fda.gov/po/enforceindex/2004enforce.html) reserved for class 1, 2 and three drug and other recalls.

I suggest you research your facts prior to making a fool out of yourself.



And how come it's only bad when it affects poor minority children?

Who said anything about it "only being bad" when it affects poor minority children?

That just happens to be what this specific topic is about.

Good grief, you are not good at this at all.

:lol:
®eal (A)sshole (F)ucker,

You know nothing about Communism. You, my little friend, are a farce. And for your sins against ideology, I sentence you to be cornholed and shot at dawn. Luckily for you, we are going to cornhole you first before shooting you. After all, it's not like we are savages. Might as well leave you meeting your maker with a smile on your face. Now go kiss your mother good-bye, little boy. Your days are numbered! And, by the way, Merry Christmas, you fat, sloppy ton of Aberdeen bacon greese!

[PRC-UTE]

There's nothing cooler or more impressive than making threats over the internet.

[babyface]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 08:24 AM
There's nothing cooler or more impressive than making threats over the internet.
Listen, motherfucker, I've been trolling this motherfucking site for years. If anybody has the right to bust RAF's balls, it's me. He knows I'm joking with him. Hell, I've been using the same lame jokes since I started here. So go and fuck yourself.

Oh, and by the way, have a jolly, holly Christmas! :D You lame-ass motherfucker!

[Professor Moneybags]

Only a complete lunatic would suggest that education should come at a cost to the citizens.

Who's going to be paying the teachers then ? Are you proposing that they work for free ? Or do they get forced ? More likely the taxpayer will be forced to subsidise it and they will have less money to spend on education for their own children as a result.


Perhaps you can share the quotes with us.

Good luck.

For starters, try Molotov's post (above) :


Yanqui-style crony-capitalism (Backed by a terrifying imperialist military machine) is as close to pure capitalism as one might get

That sure sounds like a denial of a mixed economy to me and there are too many other examples to list.


Besides the Sherman and other antitrust laws the US government does not "control" anything.

Is that all ? Hell, the Clinton administration nearly bought down Microsoft. If the government bring them down, they can bring anyone down.


To an uneducated baffoon, it most certainly would appear that way wouldn't it?

I'll remember that for next time I pick up my welfare cheque.

[Osman Ghazi]

Are you proposing that 95% of people that can afford it be forced to cater for the 5% that can't ?

Yes. I don't know that it would be 'catering' (they wouldn't be serving them food after all :P ) to provide everyone with education. I think even you would agree that information differs widely from normal commodities.


Not that (not) going to school guarantees ignorance.

And getting shot doesn't guarantee death, but there's still a mighty strong correlation, no?

In fact, I think this warrants an explanation. Do you expect them to go to your non-existant public libraries? How do you expect them to learn with no facilites available?


That sure sounds like a denial of a mixed economy to me and there are too many other examples to list.


Really? Because to me, it sounds like he admits that it is not pure capitalism. You know, "is as close to pure capitalism". I doubt he thinks its pure socialist, so that leaves only one option...


Is that all ? Hell, the Clinton administration nearly brought down Microsoft.

Did they?

How near was it?

Perhaps it was merely an idle threat?

It always pains me when people say 'this almost happened, so therefore it could happen at any time'. When things come close to happening and don't there is always a good reason. I think that if it did actually come close, a few hundred palms would have been greased and the whole issue would have been dropped. Hell, most likely that is in fact what happened.


If the government (can) bring them down, they can bring anyone down.


My emphasis.

[PRC-UTE]

Listen, motherfucker, I've been trolling this motherfucking site for years. If anybody has the right to bust RAF's balls, it's me. He knows I'm joking with him. Hell, I've been using the same lame jokes since I started here. So go and fuck yourself.

Oh, and by the way, have a jolly, holly Christmas! You lame-ass motherfucker!

Shut up and go get your fucking shinebox!