Education Doesnt Equal Pay

[bed_of_nails]

I would be interested in hearing everyones thoughts on this topic, seeing as how I got into an argument with some people at my school today over this topic.

Their accusations is that people choose to be poor. They believe that no matter your education topic (Archaeology, Chemisty, Physics, etc.) you can make millions of dollars. I wish to see how many cappies here believe this fable. I can provide evidence against it. You can speak eight languages that nobody else on the planet speaks, understand things about ancient cultures that could lead to medicinal breakthroughs one day, and never make above $30,000 (US dollars) a year. Some of the most educated people on the planet will never make enough money to live in a decent house, support their family, and lead an economically happy life.

Do you Capitalists agree with me on this topic, or do you believe that anyone can make any amount of money with any education?

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

To an extent I most certainly agree. I remember back in high school there was a guy who had a degree in computer engineering (He might have actually done a Masters too). Problem was, he was an immigrant and the degree was from a Romanian university. The guy was very intelligent but for all of his education he could only muster a job as a "computer guy." The most challenging thing he got to do was blocking "inappropriate websites" on the school computers.

On the other hand, I think you're exaggerating somewhat. If you know eight languages then you're bound to get a decent job somewhere, particularly in the modern age of "globalization" and whatnot. Now, if these languages happen to be dead languages, well then of course you'll have more trouble. You may be knowledgable, but what you know should also be practical in some way. It's be like me learning absolutely everything there is to know about the Titanic. It may make me smart, but if I can't use this knowledgde in any constructive way then it's useless.

Judging from this post and another post in which you made the same point, I take it you're considering pursuing education in the less popular fields of ancient history, classics, etc. By no means would I say you're doomed to fail, though if you go in with the aattitude of "this will never get me a good job" then you might. As someone who's currently in a similar field of study, I have to say you can certainly make a comfortable living. Will you be a 6 figure salary, driving fancy cars kinda guy? probably not unless you unearth something spectacular. Most people who go into these fields end up doing research, writing books, getting published, and teaching courses. It's not glamourous but it pays the bills. For example, I just landed a fairly sweet summer job doing historical researcg for one of my profs. It's not easy, but it certainly is possible.

[bed_of_nails]

What exactly do you do?

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

I'm currently a university student.

[Jersey Devil]

Statistically you are incorrect. The higher a person's education level, the higher his/her income as well. I do acknowledge solidarity's point however, and see it as a valid one.

[Vallegrande]

How do they expect us to even get an education when we dont have any way to pay for it, or tuition is sky-rocketing? In my opinion, or possibly fact, the tuition kills many people's chances of actually doing something in college. The cost of education is too much for those who are too poor to pay for it.

I have to blame Reagan for his "trickle down theory" and how it has affected education in general. From what I heard, it is after him that people really started struggling to get through college or universities, financially. Someone clarify this if they have been around during that time.

It makes me wonder if that guy who tried to kill Ronald actually had a motif behind his actions, cause he was considered insane in court.

[Jersey Devil]

Indeed. However, I would also argue that one could enter a lower cost large public university, do well, and then move on to a more prestigous graduate school (note that this is what I am doing). What year of uni are you in now?

[Vallegrande]

Right now Im in between Sophomore and Junior, but I still feel like freshman lol, cuz I am clueless as to what my goal is, but who isn't?

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Tuition is indeed a *****. I've managed to be debt-free for two years but that's all going to change next year, unfortunately. It's a shame to think that there are probably many talented individuals out there who simply cannot afford university or have to accumulate a debt so large they'll be paying it off for years to come.

I've always been in favour of the European system. Free university but with entrance exams.

[t_wolves_fan]

How do they expect us to even get an education when we dont have any way to pay for it, or tuition is sky-rocketing? In my opinion, or possibly fact, the tuition kills many people's chances of actually doing something in college. The cost of education is too much for those who are too poor to pay for it.

I agree 100%.


I have to blame Reagan for his "trickle down theory" and how it has affected education in general. From what I heard, it is after him that people really started struggling to get through college or universities, financially. Someone clarify this if they have been around during that time.

I don't blame Reagan specifically, I blame a whole host of issues including lack of funding, increased health care costs (Unis are raising tuition because their cost of doing business is rising), and others.


It makes me wonder if that guy who tried to kill Ronald actually had a motif behind his actions, cause he was considered insane in court.

The word you are looking for is "motive" and John Hinckley was insane: He was obsessed with actress Jodie Foster and the movie Taxi Driver; he wrote a letter to Foster telling her he was going to try to assasinate Reagan to impress her. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/HBIO.HTM)

[Aryan theme]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:09 AM
I would be interested in hearing everyones thoughts on this topic, seeing as how I got into an argument with some people at my school today over this topic.

Their accusations is that people choose to be poor. They believe that no matter your education topic (Archaeology, Chemisty, Physics, etc.) you can make millions of dollars. I wish to see how many cappies here believe this fable. I can provide evidence against it. You can speak eight languages that nobody else on the planet speaks, understand things about ancient cultures that could lead to medicinal breakthroughs one day, and never make above $30,000 (US dollars) a year. Some of the most educated people on the planet will never make enough money to live in a decent house, support their family, and lead an economically happy life.

Do you Capitalists agree with me on this topic, or do you believe that anyone can make any amount of money with any education?
Why do you insist on everyone being equal. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Everyone has DIFFERENT talents, DIFFERENT levels of skills. DIFFERENT work ethics.

[bed_of_nails]

I refuse to dignify that with a response, only a picture.

[bed_of_nails]

I can only hope he came back and saw my gay hitler.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:09 AM
I would be interested in hearing everyones thoughts on this topic, seeing as how I got into an argument with some people at my school today over this topic.

Their accusations is that people choose to be poor. They believe that no matter your education topic (Archaeology, Chemisty, Physics, etc.) you can make millions of dollars. I wish to see how many cappies here believe this fable. I can provide evidence against it. You can speak eight languages that nobody else on the planet speaks, understand things about ancient cultures that could lead to medicinal breakthroughs one day, and never make above $30,000 (US dollars) a year. Some of the most educated people on the planet will never make enough money to live in a decent house, support their family, and lead an economically happy life.

Do you Capitalists agree with me on this topic, or do you believe that anyone can make any amount of money with any education?
You got a false idea of education. Being educated does not mean smart. Being educated means you have more broader field to be able to exploit when opportunities fall into your lap. If you don't have the smarts to begin with, education is not going to matter.

[bed_of_nails]

Quit dodging the question. The only people I know with higher degrees are extremely smart.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Wolnosc-[email protected] 21 2005, 09:22 PM
Tuition is indeed a *****. I've managed to be debt-free for two years but that's all going to change next year, unfortunately. It's a shame to think that there are probably many talented individuals out there who simply cannot afford university or have to accumulate a debt so large they'll be paying it off for years to come.

I've always been in favour of the European system. Free university but with entrance exams.


I think this guy seems worth unrestriciting.

[bed_of_nails]

Why was he restricted in the first place?

[1936]

I read the first line and thats it. Because i encounter this bullshit from tory bithes at my school every day.

Torie racist fuck - people shouldnt be equal, because some work harder then others

My pretty self - Yes well its the production of the people at the bottom of this hierachy that is important, and the bourgoius take the money for this production. You NEED the working class to provide you food shelter and everything you relie on, bill gates hasnt worked a day in hes life for 9 years.

Torie racist fuck - you wah?!?!

[t_wolves_fan]

Well let's see. The Senate is out of town this week, so I'm extremely bored:


I would be interested in hearing everyones thoughts on this topic, seeing as how I got into an argument with some people at my school today over this topic.


Their accusations is that people choose to be poor.

When applied to Americans, I generally believe this to be true. When applied to the third world, I don't believe it is true.


They believe that no matter your education topic (Archaeology, Chemisty, Physics, etc.) you can make millions of dollars. I wish to see how many cappies here believe this fable.

Of course you can, anyone can go into any field and if they work hard enough, are innovative enough, and get a little bit lucky (and I am a firm believer that people create their own luck through their actions), then of course it is possible.

Is it likely? No. But just because it's unlikely that I will get struck by lightning, that doesn't mean I cannot get struck by lightning.


I can provide evidence against it.

At best you can provide evidence that it's very difficult or very unlikely to get rich, but it's impossible to prove that you cannot get rich.

Big difference.


You can speak eight languages that nobody else on the planet speaks,

Then how valuable are you to the world?


understand things about ancient cultures that could lead to medicinal breakthroughs one day, and never make above $30,000 (US dollars) a year.

Actually people who study ancient cultures can be quite well paid if they get a job with a top museum or at a top university, or write a good book.


Some of the most educated people on the planet will never make enough money to live in a decent house, support their family, and lead an economically happy life.

The chances of that happening if they live their life properly are extremely tiny. If a guy with a PHD can't hold a job because he's a drunk or on drugs, then of course he isn't going to do well and that's not the fault of capitalism.

Further, many people go into fields that are not well paid knowing full well they are not going to be well paid. They go into those fields for reasons other than financial gain, and most are quite happy to do it. I for one am in public service and am not paid all that well (though I just accepted a job with a $12K raise) but could care less. I know a lot of people who make in excess of $100K per year who are miserable.

Stop believing money equates to happiness, and stop believing that everyone in capitalism is miserable until they're rich, because it just ain't so.


Do you Capitalists agree with me on this topic, or do you believe that anyone can make any amount of money with any education?

I believe anyone CAN make any amount of money, though the probability varies based on what you're studying and how smart you truly are.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:55 PM
Quit dodging the question. The only people I know with higher degrees are extremely smart.
Yes smart people do have high education. They are only a small sub set of smart people. There are more smart people without high education. Education is not a requirement for smart.

[bed_of_nails]

There are more smart people without educations? That isnt very smart.

You sir, need to think before you speak.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:12 AM
There are more smart people without educations? That isnt very smart.

You sir, need to think before you speak.
Hey it is OK if you don't understand symbolic logic mathematical subsets.

The group of uneducated and educated is larger than the group of educated. It is also a subset. Your a smart guy, figure it out.

Just curious, by any chance do you have one of those 'useless' educations?

[bed_of_nails]

It isnt my grasping of a concept that is a problem here, it is your presentation of the concept itself.

I think I will help you out and let you look at what you said one more time


Yes smart people do have high education. They are only a small sub set of smart people. There are more smart people without high education. Education is not a requirement for smart.


Through your own logic, more than 50% of the intelligent people in the work force are uneducated.

I think this is a baffling amount of bullshit. You are saying very few people are smart. Now you are telling me the majority of this very few are highly educated.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:33 PM
It isnt my grasping of a concept that is a problem here, it is your presentation of the concept itself.

I think I will help you out and let you look at what you said one more time


Yes smart people do have high education. They are only a small sub set of smart people. There are more smart people without high education. Education is not a requirement for smart.


Through your own logic, more than 50% of the intelligent people in the work force are uneducated.

I think this is a baffling amount of bullshit. You are saying very few people are smart. Now you are telling me the majority of this very few are highly educated.
No educated does not mean smart. I know a lot of dumb people with degrees. I know a lot of people with degrees but not smart enough to put sticks together to get a banana. I know a lot of very smart people without degrees too. Keep trying. Try really hard. I know you can get it.

[bed_of_nails]

This is a completely useless tangent.

My point is that the people who hold high degrees (I have only met intellectuals with such, so stuff it AMIC) do not always make enough money to "Succeed" in a capitalist society!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:09 PM
This is a completely useless tangent.

My point is that the people who hold high degrees (I have only met intellectuals with such, so stuff it AMIC) do not always make enough money to "Succeed" in a capitalist society!
Sound more like bitterness to me.

How do you know that they are really smart?

As I have said, there are lots of educated people who can not put sticks together to get a banana. Maybe these are those people. If they were smart they knew what they were getting into right? They KNEW they were going to be poor for persuing the degree discipline, right? The people you describe, were they tricked? Were they promised somthing for persuing thier degree discipline? I know the people you are talking about, if they knew that they were going to be poor by persuing thier degree, then they did get what they wanted. They KNEW the outcome of persuing the degree discipline. They were not tricked, they made a purpose decision to persue the degree into poverty. Common, we all know that some degrees are going to be poor wage degrees. No one forced these people into the major. They wanted the major.

There is a different story for the working poor. The people you describe are NOT working class poor. They don't have the same choice as your intellecutal educated poor.

[1936]

Grrrrrr...

Even if people who have one through education and have the grades are smarter then those who havent. It is the production of the workers that humans survive.

Lawyers get £40,000 a year easily, yet all they symbolise is that the rich can afford to be telling the truth! even if they arnt!

Hi ching sim wong in the rice fields in french indo china earns a dollar a week, and hes production keeps the villagers alive.

It is braun we survive not brain.

This may also be a good time to stop the argument of the REALLY umb capatilsts "if you dont work as hard in school, why should you be equal....does my bum look big in this?"

[bed_of_nails]

AMIC, how do you know your friends are intelligent? It is obvious if someone is smart or not. Generally stupid people do not get higher degrees.

[OleMarxco]

They don't? SHIT. Big news flash. But sometimes they do: That's why we have "managers" - So the moral of this post is...never trust the education of a capitalistic society....where the dumb jock from your high school is the only winners and those who are smart and question authority....fail! :)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:32 PM
Grrrrrr...

Even if people who have one through education and have the grades are smarter then those who havent. It is the production of the workers that humans survive.

Lawyers get £40,000 a year easily, yet all they symbolise is that the rich can afford to be telling the truth! even if they arnt!

Hi ching sim wong in the rice fields in french indo china earns a dollar a week, and hes production keeps the villagers alive.

It is braun we survive not brain.

This may also be a good time to stop the argument of the REALLY umb capatilsts "if you dont work as hard in school, why should you be equal....does my bum look big in this?"
I get it.

What kind of 'production' do educated intellectuals produce to keep workers alive?

Maybe those educated intellectuals will be just as usefull to the collective as they are in capitalism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:09 PM
This is a completely useless tangent.

My point is that the people who hold high degrees (I have only met intellectuals with such, so stuff it AMIC) do not always make enough money to "Succeed" in a capitalist society!
I find that hard to believe. It does not take a very high income to make it in our capitalist society here in the States.

I'm guessing you're making a generalization based on your opinion.

The poor in the U.S. are among the richest on earth.

[Vallegrande]

The poor usually come up with the most efficient way of living. Some make really great works, like Tesla, among one of countless. He was smart but so poor he died pennyless, because the rich(ie Edison, JP Morgan) didnt want him to make energy free to the people. Its the rich who kill off somebody and his/her ideas, only then to turn around and take credit for those ideas later on. So I believe that the smartest are usually the poor.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:19 PM
The poor usually come up with the most efficient way of living. Some make really great works, like Tesla, among one of countless. He was smart but so poor he died pennyless, because the rich(ie Edison, JP Morgan) didnt want him to make energy free to the people. Its the rich who kill off somebody and his/her ideas, only then to turn around and take credit for those ideas later on. So I believe that the smartest are usually the poor.
I don't quite belive so. I turn that around and say some of the smartest people are the UNEDUCATED POOR. Common, how smart is it for someone who has the opportunity to go to college, get a high degree, and on purpose get a degree that will put him/her into poverty, then complain about it?

I know lots of mechanics that can at least understand Donald Trumps job, maybe not execute his jobe, but at least understand his job. I'm pretty sure Don Trump does not understand friction plates in my transmission nor how to swamp them out. The same for 'intellectuals'.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 10 2005, 01:13 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 10 2005, 01:13 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 05:19 PM
The poor usually come up with the most efficient way of living. Some make really great works, like Tesla, among one of countless. He was smart but so poor he died pennyless, because the rich(ie Edison, JP Morgan) didnt want him to make energy free to the people. Its the rich who kill off somebody and his/her ideas, only then to turn around and take credit for those ideas later on. So I believe that the smartest are usually the poor.
I don't quite belive so. I turn that around and say some of the smartest people are the UNEDUCATED POOR. Common, how smart is it for someone who has the opportunity to go to college, get a high degree, and on purpose get a degree that will put him/her into poverty, then complain about it?

I know lots of mechanics that can at least understand Donald Trumps job, maybe not execute his jobe, but at least understand his job. I'm pretty sure Don Trump does not understand friction plates in my transmission nor how to swamp them out. The same for 'intellectuals'. [/b]
Thats because of their education in mechanics, not their natural intelligence ;)

They didnt come out of the womb with a monkey wrench in their hands.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:19 PM
The poor usually come up with the most efficient way of living. Some make really great works, like Tesla, among one of countless. He was smart but so poor he died pennyless, because the rich(ie Edison, JP Morgan) didnt want him to make energy free to the people. Its the rich who kill off somebody and his/her ideas, only then to turn around and take credit for those ideas later on. So I believe that the smartest are usually the poor.
All evidence to the contrary.

Sure, the poor eventually figure out a way to be efficient with what they have and to scam the system to the best of their abilities, which indicates some level of intelligence.

But then staying alive is more of an instinct than a measure of smarts.

On the other hand a lot of poor people exhibit behavior that indicates severe lack of intelligence. Drinking, drug abuse, having children they cannot afford, abusive behavior, victimization, etc. are all examples. The "smart" poor people, such as my parents (I grew up poor), figure out how to avoid these behaviors, how to better themselves, and how to move up in society. The dumb poor people can't figure out that getting drunk on a Wednesday night and failing to show up for work on Thursday isn't a good way to better themselves.

Read Rolling Nowhere by Ted Connover. The author gave up a few months of college to ride the rails of the West as a hobo. He went in as a liberal, thinking society was to blame for these people's plight. He left thinking most of them are to blame because they had zero ability or desire to be responsible for themselves. Sure, they still deserve some help, but the saying "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink" has a lot truth to it.

[t_wolves_fan]

The following info seems to refute the theory of the original poster:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 10 2005, 03:21 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 10 2005, 03:21 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:13 AM

[email protected] 9 2005, 05:19 PM
The poor usually come up with the most efficient way of living. Some make really great works, like Tesla, among one of countless. He was smart but so poor he died pennyless, because the rich(ie Edison, JP Morgan) didnt want him to make energy free to the people. Its the rich who kill off somebody and his/her ideas, only then to turn around and take credit for those ideas later on. So I believe that the smartest are usually the poor.
I don't quite belive so. I turn that around and say some of the smartest people are the UNEDUCATED POOR. Common, how smart is it for someone who has the opportunity to go to college, get a high degree, and on purpose get a degree that will put him/her into poverty, then complain about it?

I know lots of mechanics that can at least understand Donald Trumps job, maybe not execute his jobe, but at least understand his job. I'm pretty sure Don Trump does not understand friction plates in my transmission nor how to swamp them out. The same for 'intellectuals'.
Thats because of their education in mechanics, not their natural intelligence ;)

They didnt come out of the womb with a monkey wrench in their hands. [/b]
Ohhh?

I've tried to explain millions of times to educated people how thier cars work. My friends call me all the time for car advise. I can tell lots just don't get it, the same way a dog will never understand 1+1 = 2.

[Vallegrande]

poor people exhibit behavior that indicates severe lack of intelligence. Drinking, drug abuse, having children they cannot afford, abusive behavior, victimization, etc.

And our system is very ineffecient in changing these issues.
The poor are always the scapegoat for drug abuse and overpopulation. Thats why we send drug addicts to prison and prevent women from getting abortions. And think about why these negative behaviors come out. Its not hard to get angry at everything when you are just another prole.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:30 PM
And our system is very ineffecient in changing these issues.
The poor are always the scapegoat for drug abuse and overpopulation. Thats why we send drug addicts to prison and prevent women from getting abortions. And think about why these negative behaviors come out. Its not hard to get angry at everything when you are just another prole.
Irrelevent.

The "system" shouldn't need to teach me that showing up drunk to work and getting fired won't get me ahead. I should be able to figure that one out on my own. It should not take more than one incident.

I mean for Christ's sake, even rats learn to avoid the food recepticle that is attached to the electric charge.

While I think the 3rd world is an exception because there is much less opportunity, in the 1st world I think the negative behaviors generally come out because they are stupid, which leads to them being in poverty. Stupidity leads to poverty, not the other way around.

There are always exception, but based on experience I believe this to be generally true.

[LSD]

While I think the 3rd world is an exception because there is much less opportunity, in the 1st world I think the negative behaviors generally come out because they are stupid, which leads to them being in poverty. Stupidity leads to poverty, not the other way around.

Sometimes, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes stupid people succeed, sometimes smart people fail.

But let's, for the sake of argument, accept your premise and say that capitalism actually is somewhat meritocratic (despite the overwhelming evidence that it isn't). Is such a system just?

If poverty really is a result of "stupidity", as you've claimed several times, is such a result moral?

Is suffering, starvation, misery, etc.. really justifiable for people who's sole crime is not being particularly intelligent? What kind of society punnishes people for traits they are born with and cannot change?

I'm loathe to make comparisons with Nazi Germany or Appartheid South Africa, but it is worth noting that it is these regimes which are today the most despised and these regimes whose defining feature was a sense of moral "righteousness" in condemning groups of people based on characteristics which they could not change.

How is it any more right to say that someone "deserves" the horrors of poverty, even first world poverty, because they do not meet a standard of intelligence?


The "system" shouldn't need to teach me that showing up drunk to work and getting fired won't get me ahead. I should be able to figure that one out on my own. It should not take more than one incident.

But it clearly does.

Obviously, history has shown that people make mistakes, especially in regards to addictive chemicals. There is no reason to believe that that will change anytime soon.

Whether or not you personally feel that people "should" realize the downside of alchohol and drugs, experience has shown that many do not. Any just model of society clearly must take this fact into consideration,

Expecting people to change to match the system rather than changing the system to match the facts is a ridiculous exercise in futility.

The 'system should need to teach" because ...the system needs to teach. Your belief that people should be "smarter" is irrelevent. Clearly people are still making mistakes, if the "system" doesn't help them, who will?

Clearly not you, you've made your disdain for the "stupid" quite clear.


The following info seems to refute the theory of the original poster:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html

I think the most interesting part of that is that those with PhDs consistantly make less than those with professional degrees.

This is probably explained by the fact that those who pursue doctoral education are more likely to work within an academic environment, while those with only a professional one are more likely to go into business or, at the least, enter into some sort of service occupation.

The fact that a "businessman" makes far more than a teacher is just another example of the misplaced priorities inherent to capitalism.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 09:08 PM

While I think the 3rd world is an exception because there is much less opportunity, in the 1st world I think the negative behaviors generally come out because they are stupid, which leads to them being in poverty. Stupidity leads to poverty, not the other way around.

Sometimes, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes stupid people succeed, sometimes smart people fail.

But let's, for the sake of argument, accept your premise and say that capitalism actually is somewhat meritocratic (despite the overwhelming evidence that it isn't). Is such a system just?

If poverty really is a result of "stupidity", as you've claimed several times, is such a result moral?

Is suffering, starvation, misery, etc.. really justifiable for people who's sole crime is not being particularly intelligent? What kind of society punnishes people for traits they are born with and cannot change?

I'm loathe to make comparisons with Nazi Germany or Appartheid South Africa, but it is worth noting that it is these regimes which are today the most despised and these regimes whose defining feature was a sense of moral "righteousness" in condemning groups of people based on characteristics which they could not change.

How is it any more right to say that someone "deserves" the horrors of poverty, even first world poverty, because they do not meet a standard of intelligence?


The "system" shouldn't need to teach me that showing up drunk to work and getting fired won't get me ahead. I should be able to figure that one out on my own. It should not take more than one incident.

But it clearly does.

Obviously, history has shown that people make mistakes, especially in regards to addictive chemicals. There is no reason to believe that that will change anytime soon.

Whether or not you personally feel that people "should" realize the downside of alchohol and drugs, experience has shown that many do not. Any just model of society clearly must take this fact into consideration,

Expecting people to change to match the system rather than changing the system to match the facts is a ridiculous exercise in futility.

The 'system should need to teach" because ...the system needs to teach. Your belief that people should be "smarter" is irrelevent. Clearly people are still making mistakes, if the "system" doesn't help them, who will?

Clearly not you, you've made your disdain for the "stupid" quite clear.


The following info seems to refute the theory of the original poster:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html

I think the most interesting part of that is that those with PhDs consistantly make less than those with professional degrees.

This is probably explained by the fact that those who pursue doctoral education are more likely to work within an academic environment, while those with only a professional one are more likely to go into business or, at the least, enter into some sort of service occupation.

The fact that a "businessman" makes far more than a teacher is just another example of the misplaced priorities inherent to capitalism.
Did I claim poverty and stupidity is a result of each other in some way prior to May 8 5:22 PM?

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 10 2005, 03:01 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 10 2005, 03:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:13 AM

[email protected] 9 2005, 05:19 PM
The poor usually come up with the most efficient way of living. Some make really great works, like Tesla, among one of countless. He was smart but so poor he died pennyless, because the rich(ie Edison, JP Morgan) didnt want him to make energy free to the people. Its the rich who kill off somebody and his/her ideas, only then to turn around and take credit for those ideas later on. So I believe that the smartest are usually the poor.
I don't quite belive so. I turn that around and say some of the smartest people are the UNEDUCATED POOR. Common, how smart is it for someone who has the opportunity to go to college, get a high degree, and on purpose get a degree that will put him/her into poverty, then complain about it?

I know lots of mechanics that can at least understand Donald Trumps job, maybe not execute his jobe, but at least understand his job. I'm pretty sure Don Trump does not understand friction plates in my transmission nor how to swamp them out. The same for 'intellectuals'.
Thats because of their education in mechanics, not their natural intelligence ;)

They didnt come out of the womb with a monkey wrench in their hands.
Ohhh?

I've tried to explain millions of times to educated people how thier cars work. My friends call me all the time for car advise. I can tell lots just don't get it, the same way a dog will never understand 1+1 = 2. [/b]
So let me get this straight according to your arguments...

You came out of your mother's womb (or test tube), knowing everything you currently know about cars?

You are the Auto-Zone Messiah.

[LSD]

Did I claim poverty and stupidity is a result of each other in some way prior to May 8 5:22 PM?

:lol: Wow, talk about narcisism...

That post was not addressed to you.

You should have been able to tell that by the fact that the quotes I used were not yours.

[t_wolves_fan]

Sometimes, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes stupid people succeed, sometimes smart people fail.

Yep, but the stupid ones over time generally lose the fruits of their success while the smart ones overcome their failures.

See Abraham Lincoln or James Carville, for instance. But especially Lincoln.


But let's, for the sake of argument, accept your premise and say that capitalism actually is somewhat meritocratic (despite the overwhelming evidence that it isn't).

Acutally I believe there is overwhelming evidence that it is.


Is such a system just?

In general, yes.


If poverty really is a result of "stupidity", as you've claimed several times, is such a result moral?

Is suffering, starvation, misery, etc.. really justifiable for people who's sole crime is not being particularly intelligent? What kind of society punnishes people for traits they are born with and cannot change?

I'm loathe to make comparisons with Nazi Germany or Appartheid South Africa, but it is worth noting that it is these regimes which are today the most despised and these regimes whose defining feature was a sense of moral "righteousness" in condemning groups of people based on characteristics which they could not change.

Ugh. What's that rule about the first one to bring up the Nazis loses a debate?

Look, there are alternatives to a socialist system that rations rewards equally, a libertarian model where no societal help is provided at all, and a Nazi pogrom to exterminate the weaker population. Only a closed-minded radical sees such stark choices.

No, allowing the stupid to starve is not moral nor just. I am all for societal, governmental help for those of limited means.

However, it is neither moral nor just to deprive individuals of their ability to succed on their own merits. It is neither moral nor just to take from those who produce and give to those who do not with the intention of making everyone "equal". People are not "equal" and cannot be made to be so. Some people will fail and when they do they need help, up to a point. Some people will succeed and others will reward them as they see fit. If George Steinbrenner wants to pay Alex Rodriguez $25 million a year to play a game, it's not moral or just to prevent him from doing so.


But it clearly does.

Obviously, history has shown that people make mistakes, especially in regards to addictive chemicals. There is no reason to believe that that will change anytime soon.

And how much progress do you think we will make in ending addiction if it doesn't matter whether you're addicted to drugs or not, you'll still get all the same societal rewards as those who learn their lessons?


Whether or not you personally feel that people "should" realize the downside of alchohol and drugs, experience has shown that many do not. Any just model of society clearly must take this fact into consideration,

Absolutely, but not to the point that a person's decision to get addicted to drugs and alcohol (and it is an individual choice) has no bearing on their standing in society. I'm willing to treat people, to give people 2nd and even 3rd chances. I'm not willing to guarantee a drug addict the same standard of living as I have (which would necessarily require limiting the standard of living I can achieve) whether he kicks his habbit or not.


Expecting people to change to match the system rather than changing the system to match the facts is a ridiculous exercise in futility.

That is a fascinating statement, considering many communists think people's tendencies towards greed can be reformed through the communist system. You said yourself in the other thread that communism would be great once materialism is dead. Yet history and evidence show that people are materialistic.


I think the most interesting part of that is that those with PhDs consistantly make less than those with professional degrees.

Why? Most people pursue PhDs despite knowing that their field doesn't pay as well as fields that require a professional degree.


This is probably explained by the fact that those who pursue doctoral education are more likely to work within an academic environment, while those with only a professional one are more likely to go into business or, at the least, enter into some sort of service occupation.

So what? People learn on the job in business or service occupations just as much as people learn in the course of studying their PhDs and working in academia. They learn different things, but they still learn.


The fact that a "businessman" makes far more than a teacher is just another example of the misplaced priorities inherent to capitalism.

Frankly I agree. But then people have always valued things that don't seem to make sense. According to you, changing the system in spite of that fact doesn't make sense though.

:(

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 11 2005, 02:46 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 11 2005, 02:46 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:13 AM

[email protected] 9 2005, 05:19 PM
The poor usually come up with the most efficient way of living. Some make really great works, like Tesla, among one of countless. He was smart but so poor he died pennyless, because the rich(ie Edison, JP Morgan) didnt want him to make energy free to the people. Its the rich who kill off somebody and his/her ideas, only then to turn around and take credit for those ideas later on. So I believe that the smartest are usually the poor.
I don't quite belive so. I turn that around and say some of the smartest people are the UNEDUCATED POOR. Common, how smart is it for someone who has the opportunity to go to college, get a high degree, and on purpose get a degree that will put him/her into poverty, then complain about it?

I know lots of mechanics that can at least understand Donald Trumps job, maybe not execute his jobe, but at least understand his job. I'm pretty sure Don Trump does not understand friction plates in my transmission nor how to swamp them out. The same for 'intellectuals'.
Thats because of their education in mechanics, not their natural intelligence ;)

They didnt come out of the womb with a monkey wrench in their hands.
Ohhh?

I've tried to explain millions of times to educated people how thier cars work. My friends call me all the time for car advise. I can tell lots just don't get it, the same way a dog will never understand 1+1 = 2.
So let me get this straight according to your arguments...

You came out of your mother's womb (or test tube), knowing everything you currently know about cars?

You are the Auto-Zone Messiah. [/b]
Pretty close but not quite.

I came out of my mothers womb SMART enough to understand fuel injection and transmission friction plates.

There are lots of intellectuals who will never be smart enough to understand compression and mixing. There are lots of intellectuals who are not smart enough to 'get' powertrain smart.

[LSD]

However, it is neither moral nor just to deprive individuals of their ability to succed on their own merits. It is neither moral nor just to take from those who produce and give to those who do not with the intention of making everyone "equal".

You're not "taking" anything from them. They have the same access to the public good as everyone else does. They have the same abilities and resources as everyone else.

Again, you're assuming that the world is naturally capitalistic and that, somehow, people are "entitled" to material rewards. That if I do more work than you I am accordingly desreving of more "stuff".

Well, that's the meritocratic argument, and it's contained, to a degree within capitalism. But it's in no way a "rule of nature" or "natural law" and there's nothing at all fundamental about it.

There is no overriding reason why someone who works harder should be entitled to use more stuff, there is no reason why someone who works harder is more deserving of eating!


Some people will fail and when they do they need help, up to a point. Some people will succeed and others will reward them as they see fit. If George Steinbrenner wants to pay Alex Rodriguez $25 million a year to play a game, it's not moral or just to prevent him from doing so.

Of course it is!

You're, basically, espousing a "right" to inequality. That, based on some ludicrous concept of "money". I (or Steinbrenner) has the right to create and enforce vast differences in ability and access. That because I happen to have more little slips of paper than someone else I have the right to dictate other people's lives.

That's immoral.


And how much progress do you think we will make in ending addiction if it doesn't matter whether you're addicted to drugs or not, you'll still get all the same societal rewards as those who learn their lessons?

Because capitalism's done such a "bang up" job? :lol:

If someone doesn't work under communism, they will suffer becasue the society will not allow them access to the public goods. The difference is that if, indeed, they have a substance abuse problem, they will be helped without having to worry about "affording" treatment.


That is a fascinating statement, considering many communists think people's tendencies towards greed can be reformed through the communist system. You said yourself in the other thread that communism would be great once materialism is dead. Yet history and evidence show that people are materialistic.

No it doesn't, it merely shows that when living in a materialistic society, people will adapt to the norms of that society.

If you're living in an environment in which material wealth is the highest social symbol, then of course you seek material wealth.


Frankly I agree. But then people have always valued things that don't seem to make sense. According to you, changing the system in spite of that fact doesn't make sense though.

What I said waas "Expecting people to change to match the system rather than changing the system to match the facts is a ridiculous exercise in futility".

In this case "people" don't value businessmen, the system does.

This isn't a case of people just looooooving :wub: businessmen so much that they want them all to be happy ...it's a metter of the system of capitalism rewarding business while the average person thinks more highly of "real work".

The "facts" in this case are that capitalism rewards an occupation far more than people do. Because of the way the system is formulated these people do much better than most people, if they had a say, would like.


People are not "equal" and cannot be made to be so.

<_<

[Vallegrande]

The "system" shouldn&#39;t need to teach me that showing up drunk to work and getting fired won&#39;t get me ahead. I should be able to figure that one out on my own. It should not take more than one incident.
However, we live in a society where "drugs" are not just alcohol or pot or coffee, but pharmacy pills that a large population of Americans use, especially the elderly for their pain. George Bush himself is a drug addict with pills. And these pharmacy drugs are not even fully tested before they make it to market.


I mean for Christ&#39;s sake, even rats learn to avoid the food recepticle that is attached to the electric charge.
Well, there was one rat who broke into a box full of caffeine and drank it until he exploded, aside from the electrical charge. :unsure:

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 11 2005, 03:14 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 11 2005, 03:14 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:13 AM

[email protected] 9 2005, 05:19 PM
The poor usually come up with the most efficient way of living. Some make really great works, like Tesla, among one of countless. He was smart but so poor he died pennyless, because the rich(ie Edison, JP Morgan) didnt want him to make energy free to the people. Its the rich who kill off somebody and his/her ideas, only then to turn around and take credit for those ideas later on. So I believe that the smartest are usually the poor.
I don&#39;t quite belive so. I turn that around and say some of the smartest people are the UNEDUCATED POOR. Common, how smart is it for someone who has the opportunity to go to college, get a high degree, and on purpose get a degree that will put him/her into poverty, then complain about it?

I know lots of mechanics that can at least understand Donald Trumps job, maybe not execute his jobe, but at least understand his job. I&#39;m pretty sure Don Trump does not understand friction plates in my transmission nor how to swamp them out. The same for &#39;intellectuals&#39;.
Thats because of their education in mechanics, not their natural intelligence ;)

They didnt come out of the womb with a monkey wrench in their hands.
Ohhh?

I&#39;ve tried to explain millions of times to educated people how thier cars work. My friends call me all the time for car advise. I can tell lots just don&#39;t get it, the same way a dog will never understand 1+1 = 2.
So let me get this straight according to your arguments...

You came out of your mother&#39;s womb (or test tube), knowing everything you currently know about cars?

You are the Auto-Zone Messiah.
Pretty close but not quite.

I came out of my mothers womb SMART enough to understand fuel injection and transmission friction plates.

There are lots of intellectuals who will never be smart enough to understand compression and mixing. There are lots of intellectuals who are not smart enough to &#39;get&#39; powertrain smart. [/b]
Give me a break. Anyone can learn things like that given the right education and their predisposition to mechanics instead of other fields of interest.

Lets see an example.

One of the people I could proudly claim as an adoptive parent is definately not a genius. He is not stupid, but he is not a genius.

He has also done enough drugs (before he decided to clean himself up) to kill a Rhino. Just in case you need refreshing, those do fry your brain some also.

He has learned how to be a Harley mechanic by teaching himself, and knows motorcycles backwards, forwards and inside-out.

Education decides if you can accomplish something.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 12 2005, 02:39 AM--> (bed_of_nails &#064; May 12 2005, 02:39 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:13 AM

[email protected] 9 2005, 05:19 PM
The poor usually come up with the most efficient way of living. Some make really great works, like Tesla, among one of countless. He was smart but so poor he died pennyless, because the rich(ie Edison, JP Morgan) didnt want him to make energy free to the people. Its the rich who kill off somebody and his/her ideas, only then to turn around and take credit for those ideas later on. So I believe that the smartest are usually the poor.
I don&#39;t quite belive so. I turn that around and say some of the smartest people are the UNEDUCATED POOR. Common, how smart is it for someone who has the opportunity to go to college, get a high degree, and on purpose get a degree that will put him/her into poverty, then complain about it?

I know lots of mechanics that can at least understand Donald Trumps job, maybe not execute his jobe, but at least understand his job. I&#39;m pretty sure Don Trump does not understand friction plates in my transmission nor how to swamp them out. The same for &#39;intellectuals&#39;.
Thats because of their education in mechanics, not their natural intelligence ;)

They didnt come out of the womb with a monkey wrench in their hands.
Ohhh?

I&#39;ve tried to explain millions of times to educated people how thier cars work. My friends call me all the time for car advise. I can tell lots just don&#39;t get it, the same way a dog will never understand 1+1 = 2.
So let me get this straight according to your arguments...

You came out of your mother&#39;s womb (or test tube), knowing everything you currently know about cars?

You are the Auto-Zone Messiah.
Pretty close but not quite.

I came out of my mothers womb SMART enough to understand fuel injection and transmission friction plates.

There are lots of intellectuals who will never be smart enough to understand compression and mixing. There are lots of intellectuals who are not smart enough to &#39;get&#39; powertrain smart.
Give me a break. Anyone can learn things like that given the right education and their predisposition to mechanics instead of other fields of interest.

Lets see an example.

One of the people I could proudly claim as an adoptive parent is definately not a genius. He is not stupid, but he is not a genius.

He has also done enough drugs (before he decided to clean himself up) to kill a Rhino. Just in case you need refreshing, those do fry your brain some also.

He has learned how to be a Harley mechanic by teaching himself, and knows motorcycles backwards, forwards and inside-out.

Education decides if you can accomplish something. [/b]
Ahhhh.

I think you just proved my point.

Do you any of your intellectual friends? Are they smart enough to be able to balance the 4 corners of a suspension system for maxium speed in a left hand turn?

I try to explain it to losts of educated people, they don&#39;t get it. That is why Phds call me for car advise.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

One more thing.

I think your an anti-revolutionary. You seem to be quite keen on holding down the &#39;average dude&#39; and elevating intellectuals over us. Intellectuals I may add the collective probably does not need thier &#39;intellecutalizing&#39;.

[bed_of_nails]

You have an education in mechanics though. They dont. You have an EDUCATION in that field.

[t_wolves_fan]

You&#39;re not "taking" anything from them. They have the same access to the public good as everyone else does. They have the same abilities and resources as everyone else.

Well no, if everything is public then of course you&#39;re not taking anything, since nothing was anyone&#39;s to begin with.

But, reality being what it is right now, if people are willing to pay me for producing and you make the system comprehensively public, then you are taking away from me.


Again, you&#39;re assuming that the world is naturally capitalistic and that, somehow, people are "entitled" to material rewards. That if I do more work than you I am accordingly desreving of more "stuff".

4,000 years of human history sugests the world is naturally capitalistic and people want and expect material rewards.


Well, that&#39;s the meritocratic argument, and it&#39;s contained, to a degree within capitalism. But it&#39;s in no way a "rule of nature" or "natural law" and there&#39;s nothing at all fundamental about it.

I disagree.


There is no overriding reason why someone who works harder should be entitled to use more stuff, there is no reason why someone who works harder is more deserving of eating&#33;

More stuff definitely, eating less so.



Some people will fail and when they do they need help, up to a point. Some people will succeed and others will reward them as they see fit. If George Steinbrenner wants to pay Alex Rodriguez &#036;25 million a year to play a game, it&#39;s not moral or just to prevent him from doing so.

Of course it is&#33;

No, I&#39;m afraid it isn&#39;t. You have no business telling two people how they may split their resources.


You&#39;re, basically, espousing a "right" to inequality. That, based on some ludicrous concept of "money". I (or Steinbrenner) has the right to create and enforce vast differences in ability and access. That because I happen to have more little slips of paper than someone else I have the right to dictate other people&#39;s lives.

No, that isn&#39;t what I&#39;m saying.

Yes, people have a right to inequality. That is because we are, whether you like it or not, unequal. The theory of evolution tells us that, as does practical experience. Some people are stupid enough to use a lighter to peer inside a gas can, most are not. Some people are slow, some people are stupid, some people are simply mean and malicious. We cannot get rid of these inequalities no matter how much we try. The fact is, the more we try to make people equal, the more we have to, by definition, oppress the above-average people.


I am not saying that because Steinbrenner is rich, he has the right to control people. Not at all. Steinbrenner should have no right to force anyone to do anything. And yes, he should have to share some portion of his rewards with those less fortunate - I am not arguing a total winner-take-all system, which you seem to think I&#39;m all about. No. But, just because we expect Steinbrenner to share some his societal rewards, does not mean we need to also tell Steinbrenner he may not pay Rodriguez more than a certain amount of his own money.




And how much progress do you think we will make in ending addiction if it doesn&#39;t matter whether you&#39;re addicted to drugs or not, you&#39;ll still get all the same societal rewards as those who learn their lessons?

Because capitalism&#39;s done such a "bang up" job? :lol:

That&#39;s a dodge. Answer the question.


If someone doesn&#39;t work under communism, they will suffer becasue the society will not allow them access to the public goods. The difference is that if, indeed, they have a substance abuse problem, they will be helped without having to worry about "affording" treatment.

That is admirable but does not require communism. I agree that treatment should be mandatory and free for first and maybe second-time offenders. Free treatment doesn&#39;t require sharing everyone&#39;s societal rewards equally.



That is a fascinating statement, considering many communists think people&#39;s tendencies towards greed can be reformed through the communist system. You said yourself in the other thread that communism would be great once materialism is dead. Yet history and evidence show that people are materialistic.

No it doesn&#39;t, it merely shows that when living in a materialistic society, people will adapt to the norms of that society.

I knew you&#39;d answer that way. The problem is, society is materialistic because materialism is human nature. The norms exist as they do because we as people have created them, not because some capitalist mastermind determined them. True, some people are not materialistic, and most are not materialistic to the extreme. But they are, in general, materialistic.

I don&#39;t know how you can look at human nature and think otherwise, I just don&#39;t. Systems aren&#39;t created in a vaccuum, you know, and those systems that go against human nature don&#39;t last very long, such as Soviet-style communism.


If you&#39;re living in an environment in which material wealth is the highest social symbol, then of course you seek material wealth.

Wealth is the highest social symbol because it&#39;s human nature to seek wealth. We&#39;ll just have to agree that you don&#39;t accept human history on this, I guess.




Frankly I agree. But then people have always valued things that don&#39;t seem to make sense. According to you, changing the system in spite of that fact doesn&#39;t make sense though.

What I said waas "Expecting people to change to match the system rather than changing the system to match the facts is a ridiculous exercise in futility".

Yet capitalism has managed to do it so well. Let&#39;s take your argument that people are not by nature materialistic: you just said above that people are materialistic because the capitalist system expects them to be.

If it&#39;s ridiculous to change people to match the system, why has capitalism been so successful at making people materialistic as you claim?

Oops. You just contradicted yourself.

;)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:44 AM
You have an education in mechanics though. They dont. You have an EDUCATION in that field.
Can an intellectual really be taught to be a mechanic?

I think they would drop out of the training course because they are not smart enough.

Do you see what I&#39;m really getting at here?

Capatilism does not need intellectuals, that is why they are starving.

The same with communism. They are anti-revolutionaries. They contribute nothing to the collective with &#39;intellecutalizing&#39;. They are dead weight that must be done away with.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:44 PM

Capatilism does not need intellectuals, that is why they are starving.


Hardly. There are plenty of publications read by intellectuals that pay intellectuals to write for them.

Intellectuals and academics are hardly an endangered species, barely getting by. Most live quite comfortably.

I&#39;m guessing more than a few people on here complain that intellectuals don&#39;t make enough to survive because they themelves haven&#39;t made enough to survive, and don&#39;t like the idea that maybe they ain&#39;t intellectual enough to make it as an intellectual.

:lol:

[Vallegrande]

4,000 years of human history sugests the world is naturally capitalistic and people want and expect material rewards.

First, capitalism in itself has to be defined when describing the depth of history in capitalism. Capitalism, from what I know, started in Europe. I cant imagine capitalism starting in Africa.

The Pygmies (forest people) are definitely not capitalistic, but they are being annihilated by a regime that none of our capitalistic countries could care less about.

I dont believe that everyone in the world is inherently capitalistic, such as the Pygmies. They definitely have materials, but do not base their lives on such things. I dont know how to describe if they are socialistic or not. However they do well in a community where no one gets more than everyone else.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 12 2005, 04:16 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 12 2005, 04:16 PM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 03:44 PM

Capatilism does not need intellectuals, that is why they are starving.


Hardly. There are plenty of publications read by intellectuals that pay intellectuals to write for them.

Intellectuals and academics are hardly an endangered species, barely getting by. Most live quite comfortably.

I&#39;m guessing more than a few people on here complain that intellectuals don&#39;t make enough to survive because they themelves haven&#39;t made enough to survive, and don&#39;t like the idea that maybe they ain&#39;t intellectual enough to make it as an intellectual.

:lol: [/b]
Are you trying to imply I am stupid?

I would hope not.

t_wolves_fan, why do you always try and resort to some sort of insult claiming your opposition is just a complete idiot?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 12 2005, 11:37 PM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 12 2005, 11:37 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 04:16 PM

[email protected] 12 2005, 03:44 PM

Capatilism does not need intellectuals, that is why they are starving.


Hardly. There are plenty of publications read by intellectuals that pay intellectuals to write for them.

Intellectuals and academics are hardly an endangered species, barely getting by. Most live quite comfortably.

I&#39;m guessing more than a few people on here complain that intellectuals don&#39;t make enough to survive because they themelves haven&#39;t made enough to survive, and don&#39;t like the idea that maybe they ain&#39;t intellectual enough to make it as an intellectual.

:lol:
Are you trying to imply I am stupid?

I would hope not.

t_wolves_fan, why do you always try and resort to some sort of insult claiming your opposition is just a complete idiot? [/b]
No.

He is just saying, if you are an intellectual, and your not paying the bills with your &#39;intellectualizing&#39;, then your probably not intellectual enough to make it as an intellectual.


Which is why I support communism. You can still intellectualize in communism and not worry about paying the bills.

[bed_of_nails]

I am 17, if that changes any of your arguments against me.

As for making money... People can still survive, but they cant live the "American Dream".

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:18 AM
I am 17, if that changes any of your arguments against me.

As for making money... People can still survive, but they cant live the "American Dream".
Again, what ever is wrong with capitalism does not prove that communism is right. Communism must prove itself on it&#39;s own merits.

Yes that is wrong with the free market in the USA, but that does not prove communism is good.

[bed_of_nails]

You dont seem to grasp my point of mutual exclusivity.

If not A, then B.

I will admit that there are still flaws in the Communist Ideals system, but are they less than those of Capitalism?

I really hate to reference a book, but look to Animal farm. The conditions were still horrible for the Animals, but they were better than when Jones owned the farm.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:33 AM
You dont seem to grasp my point of mutual exclusivity.

If not A, then B.

I will admit that there are still flaws in the Communist Ideals system, but are they less than those of Capitalism?

I really hate to reference a book, but look to Animal farm. The conditions were still horrible for the Animals, but they were better than when Jones owned the farm.
You missed the point of Animal Farm or you didn&#39;t fisnish the book.

and you missed the point of:

No matter how wrong capitalism, it does not prove communism right. Communism must prove itself right.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 13 2005, 07:59 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 13 2005, 07:59 AM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 05:33 AM
You dont seem to grasp my point of mutual exclusivity.

If not A, then B.

I will admit that there are still flaws in the Communist Ideals system, but are they less than those of Capitalism?

I really hate to reference a book, but look to Animal farm. The conditions were still horrible for the Animals, but they were better than when Jones owned the farm.
You missed the point of Animal Farm or you didn&#39;t fisnish the book.

and you missed the point of:

No matter how wrong capitalism, it does not prove communism right. Communism must prove itself right. [/b]
Bingo.

Anyone who looks at Animal Farm and thinks Jones was running a capitalist system is an idiot. Capitalism does not involve forced labor under threat of the whip.

On the other hand the book is a great warning about socialism - the Pigs represent the "vanguard" of the leftwing liberal elite. Napoleon represents the Stalinst whackos who&#39;d run the vanguard out of town so he/they can rule with an iron fist.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 12:17 PM
Anyone who looks at Animal Farm and thinks Jones was running a capitalist system is an idiot. Capitalism does not involve forced labor under threat of the whip.
It was actually based on Russia. The Jones farm was meant to represent the Tzars.

[bed_of_nails]

There are numerous possibilities if you want to sit here and ***** at me about a book.

The point is simple: no matter how intelligent and educated you are, there is no garuntee you will make enough money with your profession to survive.

You were not born knowing how to play with a car, you LEARNED how.

Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:14 PM
There are numerous possibilities if you want to sit here and ***** at me about a book.

The point is simple: no matter how intelligent and educated you are, there is no garuntee you will make enough money with your profession to survive.

You were not born knowing how to play with a car, you LEARNED how.

Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.
Common, I thought you were an intellectual. If it were capitalism in that book there would be things like carrots dangling infront of a horse to make him pull, animals placing value on shiny objects, etc.

If educated intellectuals picked a poor profession on purpose, then why should they complain about being poor? These people were smart enough to realize that they were picking a poor profession, right?

So did someone trick them? Into poverty? Did someone cheat them?Your intellectuals are poor ON PURPOSE. They are not the same as uneducated poor.

[bed_of_nails]

You still havent grasped my original point here...

EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUAL YOUR SALARY.

Your obstinant remarks to anything anyone says makes you of little use around here.

I respect t_wolves_fan (most of the time) for his actual debating capabilities, but you just sit around and talk about shooting people and making porn.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:41 AM
You still havent grasped my original point here...

EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUAL YOUR SALARY.

Your obstinant remarks to anything anyone says makes you of little use around here.

I respect t_wolves_fan (most of the time) for his actual debating capabilities, but you just sit around and talk about shooting people and making porn.
My point?

Is why should I care? If someone on purpose selected a high educated to be poor, why should I care? They were not tricked into it? They were not cheated out of something? They are smart right? They KNEW they were going to be poor by persuing this education, so why should I care?

Common work with me here.

It is not any great secret if you do a PhD in art, philosophy, ancient language, or unemployable subject, your gonna be poor. No one is hiding it, no one is trying to trick you, YOU KNOW it when you persue this study. So stop complaining already.

All educations are NOT EQUAL. Did you think it was?

[bed_of_nails]

Jesus fucking Christ, can you not read?

My original post was to disprove the myth that education lead to great sums of money.

I can see Hooked on Phonics didnt work for you.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:43 AM
Jesus fucking Christ, can you not read?

My original post was to disprove the myth that education lead to great sums of money.

I can see Hooked on Phonics didnt work for you.
Oh, why didn&#39;t you just say so.

I think that is already pretty obvious. I never did think that education = wealth. You seem to be more complaining. It seemed more complaining that somehow being intellectual justified special place where they deserved more than thier free market value.

Of course there are just plainly obvious courses of study that will bring wealth. Courses of study such as plastic surgeon, brain surgeon, or corporate lawyer. Then there are courses of study for a good or stable salary such as semiconductor design, aerospace engineer, nurse, and teacher. Then there are the poverty courses of study such as acting, philosophy, ancient language, and dance.

You seemed to be complaining about the injustice of the poverty courses of study not able to keep up with the salary of more lucrative courses of study.

I can see that like an intellectual, your making your point in such a way only other poor intellectuals will understand.

BTW did you finally &#39;get&#39; Animal Farm?

[bed_of_nails]

My only problem with Animal farm was understanding who Boxer was to represent. I had my speculations, and found out that they were correct.

Yes, this was a rant about the injustices of education where people are told that they should go to school so they wont be poor.

Why do you cappies condone this?

Wouldnt a system where people are encouraged to branch out and learn things be more efficient than telling your kids that they get daddies company when he dies?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:32 PM
My only problem with Animal farm was understanding who Boxer was to represent. I had my speculations, and found out that they were correct.

Yes, this was a rant about the injustices of education where people are told that they should go to school so they wont be poor.

Why do you cappies condone this?

Wouldnt a system where people are encouraged to branch out and learn things be more efficient than telling your kids that they get daddies company when he dies?
Oh. I didn&#39;t know I condone: "the injustices of education where people are told that they should go to school so they wont be poor."


This is what I do condone:

Smart people don&#39;t make lots of mistakes that screw up thier life. Smarter people can make mistakes and recover.

BTW I &#39;got&#39; Animal Farm.

[LSD]

Yes, people have a right to inequality. That is because we are, whether you like it or not, unequal. The theory of evolution tells us that, as does practical experience. Some people are stupid enough to use a lighter to peer inside a gas can, most are not. Some people are slow, some people are stupid, some people are simply mean and malicious. We cannot get rid of these inequalities no matter how much we try. The fact is, the more we try to make people equal, the more we have to, by definition, oppress the above-average people.

Absolutely.

In fact why don&#39;t we allow the clearly superior people more of a say in government. I mean, really, do we want all those "lighter to peer inside a gas can" making important decisisions?

How about we limit voting to thsoe with an IQ above 130?

Or 160?

Or how about just the smartest guy we can find?

I know, we could call him a ....king or something...


That is admirable but does not require communism. I agree that treatment should be mandatory and free for first and maybe second-time offenders. Free treatment doesn&#39;t require sharing everyone&#39;s societal rewards equally.

I didn&#39;t say it did.

You asked how communism would deal with drug addiction, I answered.

Don&#39;t try and twist my response.


I don&#39;t know how you can look at human nature and think otherwise, I just don&#39;t. Systems aren&#39;t created in a vaccuum, you know, and those systems that go against human nature don&#39;t last very long, such as Soviet-style communism.

...or monarchies?

Wow, they seemed to last a loooooooong time, didn&#39;t they?


4,000 years of human history sugests the world is naturally capitalistic and people want and expect material rewards.

I also suggests that the world is natually dictatorial and people expect to be ruled by kings.

Things change.


If it&#39;s ridiculous to change people to match the system, why has capitalism been so successful at making people materialistic as you claim?

Because I would propose that while people have been socialized by capitalism, they are still not fundamentally "capitalistic" in any meaningful sense.

That is, the change that is required is not a deep one, merely one of ideological perception and people make such changes every day.


Smart people don&#39;t make lots of mistakes that screw up thier life. Smarter people can make mistakes and recover.

And the really smart people try and make things better.

I guess that&#39;s not you. :(

[t_wolves_fan]

The point is simple: no matter how intelligent and educated you are, there is no garuntee you will make enough money with your profession to survive.

So what? Higher education greatly increases the probability that you will make enough money.

Society shouldn&#39;t have to guarantee that everyone make as much money as they want in the job of their choice.



Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.

False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

[bed_of_nails]

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 18 2005, 08:04 PM

Yes, people have a right to inequality. That is because we are, whether you like it or not, unequal. The theory of evolution tells us that, as does practical experience. Some people are stupid enough to use a lighter to peer inside a gas can, most are not. Some people are slow, some people are stupid, some people are simply mean and malicious. We cannot get rid of these inequalities no matter how much we try. The fact is, the more we try to make people equal, the more we have to, by definition, oppress the above-average people.

Absolutely.

In fact why don&#39;t we allow the clearly superior people more of a say in government. I mean, really, do we want all those "lighter to peer inside a gas can" making important decisisions?

How about we limit voting to thsoe with an IQ above 130?

Or 160?

Or how about just the smartest guy we can find?

I know, we could call him a ....king or something...


That is admirable but does not require communism. I agree that treatment should be mandatory and free for first and maybe second-time offenders. Free treatment doesn&#39;t require sharing everyone&#39;s societal rewards equally.

I didn&#39;t say it did.

You asked how communism would deal with drug addiction, I answered.

Don&#39;t try and twist my response.


I don&#39;t know how you can look at human nature and think otherwise, I just don&#39;t. Systems aren&#39;t created in a vaccuum, you know, and those systems that go against human nature don&#39;t last very long, such as Soviet-style communism.

...or monarchies?

Wow, they seemed to last a loooooooong time, didn&#39;t they?


4,000 years of human history sugests the world is naturally capitalistic and people want and expect material rewards.

I also suggests that the world is natually dictatorial and people expect to be ruled by kings.

Things change.


If it&#39;s ridiculous to change people to match the system, why has capitalism been so successful at making people materialistic as you claim?

Because I would propose that while people have been socialized by capitalism, they are still not fundamentally "capitalistic" in any meaningful sense.

That is, the change that is required is not a deep one, merely one of ideological perception and people make such changes every day.


Smart people don&#39;t make lots of mistakes that screw up thier life. Smarter people can make mistakes and recover.

And the really smart people try and make things better.

I guess that&#39;s not you. :(
Your plan is a terrible idea.

It totally runs agains lessons of history regarding human nature. There is no such thing as a &#39;smart person&#39; who can not be corrupted by power and authority.

Plus it you just created a class system. I think the fellow commrades need to keep a close eye on anti-revolutionaries like you.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 20 2005, 04:10 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 20 2005, 04:10 PM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed. [/b]
I really doubt you have any experience with this.

People do not join the military to defend themselves.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 20 2005, 10:59 PM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 20 2005, 10:59 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:10 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed.
I really doubt you have any experience with this.

People do not join the military to defend themselves. [/b]
"People do not join the military to defend themselves."

"What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)"

These two statements contradict each other. If people join the military for other reasons, then, why? Is it democracy?

[Jersey Devil]

The New York Times has been doing a special on "Class in America". Again, as usual, the numbers show that the higher the education level, the higher a person&#39;s income. Please stop making incorrect posts based on "opinion".

You can see it right here, but I believe you need to register to see the actual graphs.

http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2005/05/15/national/class/

The graph of education in relation to income:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/natio...C/index_02.html (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_02.html)

[bed_of_nails]

I do not base this off of opinion. They can show as many polls as they want, but that doesnt change anything.

If I make 50,000,000 dollars a year, and everyone else in the room makes 1 dollar a year, obviously the average value of the room will be rather high (Assuming there are roughly 30 people in the room).

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 20 2005, 11:30 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 20 2005, 11:30 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:10 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed.
I really doubt you have any experience with this.

People do not join the military to defend themselves.
"People do not join the military to defend themselves."

"What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)"

These two statements contradict each other. If people join the military for other reasons, then, why? Is it democracy? [/b]
Just to remind you.

These two statements contradict each other.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 22 2005, 01:11 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 22 2005, 01:11 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:10 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed.
I really doubt you have any experience with this.

People do not join the military to defend themselves.
"People do not join the military to defend themselves."

"What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)"

These two statements contradict each other. If people join the military for other reasons, then, why? Is it democracy?
Just to remind you.

These two statements contradict each other. [/b]
Just so you know, they dont.

Look closer, you have two statements telling you that people lay down their lives not for themselves, but for what someone else tells them is good.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 22 2005, 02:02 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 22 2005, 02:02 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:10 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed.
I really doubt you have any experience with this.

People do not join the military to defend themselves.
"People do not join the military to defend themselves."

"What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)"

These two statements contradict each other. If people join the military for other reasons, then, why? Is it democracy?
Just to remind you.

These two statements contradict each other.
Just so you know, they dont.

Look closer, you have two statements telling you that people lay down their lives not for themselves, but for what someone else tells them is good. [/b]
Oh.

So soldiers fight and die for Bush? Is that what I understand your trying to say? That they are brain washed robots?

This is what I know:

They would happly shoot the person ordering them into combat if they could, but they can&#39;t. They all know they rather be somewhere else after being shot at, the novelity is gone fast. No one wants to be there because someone told them to stay, they stay because they consider thier support they offer to friends is irreplaceable. They know if they leave, then one of thier friends will bare the burden they left behind. They know if they fail to do thier assigned roles, it will be a friend who will bare the danger and the burden they fail to do. These they do not because someone told them. Good or bad is not even part of the equation, it is the thought of leaving your duty to someone else who will fill YOUR role YOU left behind. The though of welching out on your friends is why soldiers fight.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 22 2005, 02:33 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 22 2005, 02:33 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:10 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed.
I really doubt you have any experience with this.

People do not join the military to defend themselves.
"People do not join the military to defend themselves."

"What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)"

These two statements contradict each other. If people join the military for other reasons, then, why? Is it democracy?
Just to remind you.

These two statements contradict each other.
Just so you know, they dont.

Look closer, you have two statements telling you that people lay down their lives not for themselves, but for what someone else tells them is good.
Oh.

So soldiers fight and die for Bush? Is that what I understand your trying to say? That they are brain washed robots?

This is what I know:

They would happly shoot the person ordering them into combat if they could, but they can&#39;t. They all know they rather be somewhere else after being shot at, the novelity is gone fast. No one wants to be there because someone told them to stay, they stay because they consider thier support they offer to friends is irreplaceable. They know if they leave, then one of thier friends will bare the burden they left behind. They know if they fail to do thier assigned roles, it will be a friend who will bare the danger and the burden they fail to do. These they do not because someone told them. Good or bad is not even part of the equation, it is the thought of leaving your duty to someone else who will fill YOUR role YOU left behind. The though of welching out on your friends is why soldiers fight. [/b]
Lets go back to enrollment in the military.

NOBODY enrolls in the military to defend themself.

They enroll in the military to support their idea of "Democracy", which is actually a republic.

They enroll out of peer pressure.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 22 2005, 02:33 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 22 2005, 02:33 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:10 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed.
I really doubt you have any experience with this.

People do not join the military to defend themselves.
"People do not join the military to defend themselves."

"What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)"

These two statements contradict each other. If people join the military for other reasons, then, why? Is it democracy?
Just to remind you.

These two statements contradict each other.
Just so you know, they dont.

Look closer, you have two statements telling you that people lay down their lives not for themselves, but for what someone else tells them is good.
Oh.

So soldiers fight and die for Bush? Is that what I understand your trying to say? That they are brain washed robots?

This is what I know:

They would happly shoot the person ordering them into combat if they could, but they can&#39;t. They all know they rather be somewhere else after being shot at, the novelity is gone fast. No one wants to be there because someone told them to stay, they stay because they consider thier support they offer to friends is irreplaceable. They know if they leave, then one of thier friends will bare the burden they left behind. They know if they fail to do thier assigned roles, it will be a friend who will bare the danger and the burden they fail to do. These they do not because someone told them. Good or bad is not even part of the equation, it is the thought of leaving your duty to someone else who will fill YOUR role YOU left behind. The though of welching out on your friends is why soldiers fight. [/b]
No.

Let&#39;s get back to your imperialist friend who lives in Mexico. The one you seem to be learning social justice and compassion from.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 22 2005, 02:44 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 22 2005, 02:44 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:10 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed.
I really doubt you have any experience with this.

People do not join the military to defend themselves.
"People do not join the military to defend themselves."

"What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)"

These two statements contradict each other. If people join the military for other reasons, then, why? Is it democracy?
Just to remind you.

These two statements contradict each other.
Just so you know, they dont.

Look closer, you have two statements telling you that people lay down their lives not for themselves, but for what someone else tells them is good.
Oh.

So soldiers fight and die for Bush? Is that what I understand your trying to say? That they are brain washed robots?

This is what I know:

They would happly shoot the person ordering them into combat if they could, but they can&#39;t. They all know they rather be somewhere else after being shot at, the novelity is gone fast. No one wants to be there because someone told them to stay, they stay because they consider thier support they offer to friends is irreplaceable. They know if they leave, then one of thier friends will bare the burden they left behind. They know if they fail to do thier assigned roles, it will be a friend who will bare the danger and the burden they fail to do. These they do not because someone told them. Good or bad is not even part of the equation, it is the thought of leaving your duty to someone else who will fill YOUR role YOU left behind. The though of welching out on your friends is why soldiers fight.
No.

Let&#39;s get back to your imperialist friend who lives in Mexico. The one you seem to be learning social justice and compassion from. [/b]
Why?

Because you cant answer my argument with anything else than one word?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 22 2005, 02:47 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 22 2005, 02:47 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:10 PM

[email protected] 19 2005, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
Capitalism doesnt involve the whip?

What about companies who fire employees for inefficiency? I see that as a whip. Pull your stone up the hill, eat less food than your employer, and love doing it because in America you are free to pay taxes. Everything else can be revoked.



False analogy. If you don&#39;t like your employer, you can quit and get another job.

I don&#39;t think Boxer had the same luxury.

What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)?
I think I can comment on this with some expertise. Can you trust me on this?

US GIs are not fighting for GW Bush or the President. If you even ask some soldiers, they may even want to shoot some of thier leaders and Bush. Soldiers risk thier lives for each other. That is a big difference I see you missed.
I really doubt you have any experience with this.

People do not join the military to defend themselves.
"People do not join the military to defend themselves."

"What about those people so dedicated to "democracy" they will do anything for their leader, even laying their lives on the line (IE; soldiers)"

These two statements contradict each other. If people join the military for other reasons, then, why? Is it democracy?
Just to remind you.

These two statements contradict each other.
Just so you know, they dont.

Look closer, you have two statements telling you that people lay down their lives not for themselves, but for what someone else tells them is good.
Oh.

So soldiers fight and die for Bush? Is that what I understand your trying to say? That they are brain washed robots?

This is what I know:

They would happly shoot the person ordering them into combat if they could, but they can&#39;t. They all know they rather be somewhere else after being shot at, the novelity is gone fast. No one wants to be there because someone told them to stay, they stay because they consider thier support they offer to friends is irreplaceable. They know if they leave, then one of thier friends will bare the burden they left behind. They know if they fail to do thier assigned roles, it will be a friend who will bare the danger and the burden they fail to do. These they do not because someone told them. Good or bad is not even part of the equation, it is the thought of leaving your duty to someone else who will fill YOUR role YOU left behind. The though of welching out on your friends is why soldiers fight.
No.

Let&#39;s get back to your imperialist friend who lives in Mexico. The one you seem to be learning social justice and compassion from.
Why?

Because you cant answer my argument with anything else than one word? [/b]
"NOBODY enrolls in the military to defend themself. "

Two words: Pat Tilman

Why did he enlist? Did he enlist because a leader told him to?

Plus your friend in Mexico is very imporant. You seem to be absorbing ideals from an imperialist hypocrite.

[Vallegrande]

Pat Tilman wasn&#39;t killed by insurgents, but by his own comrades. I read a report that explained how he was being dictated by his commanding officers and thats what basically got him killed, when another amored division came in and started blowing the shit out of their own friends.

I am sure people joining the military are not to defend themselves, or whatever other reason. It is a job now. As Cheney sais, "Get the job done".

I can come up with a better reason for joining the military. Money. Pat Tilman being an exception.

[MKS]

I can come up with a better reason for joining the military. Money. Pat Tilman being an exception

Do you know how much enlisted men (women) get paid, its very little compared to other occupations. Many American soldiers with families are on some sort of welfare. My brother, a member of the CT ANG, gets paid about 500/month thats including hazardous duty pay&#33;, true, he gets a free education if he survives the war.

There isnt one main reason why people join the military, there are a multitude of reasons why people join.

All people that join the army do share a belief in the value of service to the nation, or else they wouldnt join. To many leftists (including me) such a reason sounds ridiculous, especially about people fighting for the US. However as revolutionaries we expect the same belief in service to support our side.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:03 AM
Pat Tilman wasn&#39;t killed by insurgents, but by his own comrades. I read a report that explained how he was being dictated by his commanding officers and thats what basically got him killed, when another amored division came in and started blowing the shit out of their own friends.

I am sure people joining the military are not to defend themselves, or whatever other reason. It is a job now. As Cheney sais, "Get the job done".

I can come up with a better reason for joining the military. Money. Pat Tilman being an exception.
The young enlisted families I know if they have 2 kids qualify for food stamps. Is that a lot of money?

Is it possible Pat Tilman wan to Afganistan to defend himself, his family, and his country?

[MKS]

Is it possible Pat Tilman wan to Afganistan to defend himself, his family, and his country?

Of course thats why he went. He was a pro-footballer probably making alot more money playing sports. Alot of people join the military to fight for their nation, for the defense of thier nation and thier family.

What alot of leftist hate to admit is that such sentiment does reside with many people, especially in the US.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 24 2005, 01:16 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 24 2005, 01:16 AM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 12:03 AM
Pat Tilman wasn&#39;t killed by insurgents, but by his own comrades. I read a report that explained how he was being dictated by his commanding officers and thats what basically got him killed, when another amored division came in and started blowing the shit out of their own friends.

I am sure people joining the military are not to defend themselves, or whatever other reason. It is a job now. As Cheney sais, "Get the job done".

I can come up with a better reason for joining the military. Money. Pat Tilman being an exception.
The young enlisted families I know if they have 2 kids qualify for food stamps. Is that a lot of money?

Is it possible Pat Tilman wan to Afganistan to defend himself, his family, and his country? [/b]
:lol:

There is not an emoticon that can express my amusement at your statement.

Of course he went to defend his family and country, because obviously Americans are no longer worried about terrorist attacks because people are in Afghanistan and *Dun dun dun* IRAQ&#33;

Obviously the country is truly under attack, I mean the terrorists are out to find his family specifically and kill them&#33;

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 24 2005, 01:46 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 24 2005, 01:46 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:16 AM

[email protected] 24 2005, 12:03 AM
Pat Tilman wasn&#39;t killed by insurgents, but by his own comrades. I read a report that explained how he was being dictated by his commanding officers and thats what basically got him killed, when another amored division came in and started blowing the shit out of their own friends.

I am sure people joining the military are not to defend themselves, or whatever other reason. It is a job now. As Cheney sais, "Get the job done".

I can come up with a better reason for joining the military. Money. Pat Tilman being an exception.
The young enlisted families I know if they have 2 kids qualify for food stamps. Is that a lot of money?

Is it possible Pat Tilman wan to Afganistan to defend himself, his family, and his country?
:lol:

There is not an emoticon that can express my amusement at your statement.

Of course he went to defend his family and country, because obviously Americans are no longer worried about terrorist attacks because people are in Afghanistan and *Dun dun dun* IRAQ&#33;

Obviously the country is truly under attack, I mean the terrorists are out to find his family specifically and kill them&#33; [/b]
What are you such a dope? Pat Tilman was in AFGANISTAN. He was there fighting the same people who trained the 911 terrorist. Pat Tilman was never in Iraq. He was there killing and fighting the very people who trained, ate, sleep, and planned the 911 attacks. The same people who killed 2000 people on 911. So what are you talking about, Iraq? So yes he is defending his family, his country, and himself. He was there to kill the same people who want to kill him, innocent children, and women. These people want to kill YOU too. These are the people Pat Tilman was fighting.

And what about your imperialist friend from Mexico? Why are you absorbing ideas from such an imperialist?

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 24 2005, 02:12 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 24 2005, 02:12 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:16 AM

[email protected] 24 2005, 12:03 AM
Pat Tilman wasn&#39;t killed by insurgents, but by his own comrades. I read a report that explained how he was being dictated by his commanding officers and thats what basically got him killed, when another amored division came in and started blowing the shit out of their own friends.

I am sure people joining the military are not to defend themselves, or whatever other reason. It is a job now. As Cheney sais, "Get the job done".

I can come up with a better reason for joining the military. Money. Pat Tilman being an exception.
The young enlisted families I know if they have 2 kids qualify for food stamps. Is that a lot of money?

Is it possible Pat Tilman wan to Afganistan to defend himself, his family, and his country?
:lol:

There is not an emoticon that can express my amusement at your statement.

Of course he went to defend his family and country, because obviously Americans are no longer worried about terrorist attacks because people are in Afghanistan and *Dun dun dun* IRAQ&#33;

Obviously the country is truly under attack, I mean the terrorists are out to find his family specifically and kill them&#33;
What are you such a dope? Pat Tilman was in AFGANISTAN. He was there fighting the same people who trained the 911 terrorist. Pat Tilman was never in Iraq. He was there killing and fighting the very people who trained, ate, sleep, and planned the 911 attacks. The same people who killed 2000 people on 911. So what are you talking about, Iraq? So yes he is defending his family, his country, and himself. He was there to kill the same people who want to kill him, innocent children, and women. These people want to kill YOU too. These are the people Pat Tilman was fighting.

And what about your imperialist friend from Mexico? Why are you absorbing ideas from such an imperialist? [/b]
There is a difference between going out and shooting people to ensure peace and strengthening your own security measures to ensure it.

And he is my teacher for history. He acknowledges there are definately huge flaws in capitalism, but he has grown up to believe it works.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 24 2005, 02:19 AM--> (bed_of_nails &#064; May 24 2005, 02:19 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:16 AM

[email protected] 24 2005, 12:03 AM
Pat Tilman wasn&#39;t killed by insurgents, but by his own comrades. I read a report that explained how he was being dictated by his commanding officers and thats what basically got him killed, when another amored division came in and started blowing the shit out of their own friends.

I am sure people joining the military are not to defend themselves, or whatever other reason. It is a job now. As Cheney sais, "Get the job done".

I can come up with a better reason for joining the military. Money. Pat Tilman being an exception.
The young enlisted families I know if they have 2 kids qualify for food stamps. Is that a lot of money?

Is it possible Pat Tilman wan to Afganistan to defend himself, his family, and his country?
:lol:

There is not an emoticon that can express my amusement at your statement.

Of course he went to defend his family and country, because obviously Americans are no longer worried about terrorist attacks because people are in Afghanistan and *Dun dun dun* IRAQ&#33;

Obviously the country is truly under attack, I mean the terrorists are out to find his family specifically and kill them&#33;
What are you such a dope? Pat Tilman was in AFGANISTAN. He was there fighting the same people who trained the 911 terrorist. Pat Tilman was never in Iraq. He was there killing and fighting the very people who trained, ate, sleep, and planned the 911 attacks. The same people who killed 2000 people on 911. So what are you talking about, Iraq? So yes he is defending his family, his country, and himself. He was there to kill the same people who want to kill him, innocent children, and women. These people want to kill YOU too. These are the people Pat Tilman was fighting.

And what about your imperialist friend from Mexico? Why are you absorbing ideas from such an imperialist?
There is a difference between going out and shooting people to ensure peace and strengthening your own security measures to ensure it.

And he is my teacher for history. He acknowledges there are definately huge flaws in capitalism, but he has grown up to believe it works. [/b]
Wait a minute. As I recall this guy was some kind of role model or expert you tried to learn from. So who is he? Is he your role model? Well if he is, he is also an imperialist.

The men who planned, helped, trained, ate, and supported the 911 terrorist were from AFGANISTAN. They will kill you, they will kill me, they will kill us all if they had they time and ability to do so. So I would call Tilmans motives for enlisting self-defense. If you don&#39;t think your life is in danger by the men who call themselves Al-Queda, then your seriously narrow minded to not even notice that they WANT TO KILL YOU. Is that right? If one was in your livingroom right now, and the lights all of sudden wen out, would this Al-Queda try to kill you? Not only would he want to kill you, but he would do it with a smile on his face. I would call killing these people self-defense. Every minute they are alive, is one more minute they are putting the next plan in place to kill you or your neighbor. So yes it is self-defense.

Giving Al-Queda a hug is not going to make peace with them and saftey for you. Killing them is the only saftey. As long as they are alive you are in danger. Killing YOU will bring them to heaven with virgins. So yes they do want to kill you and killing them will stop thier next plan.

[Vallegrande]

Why are we fighting terrorists over there when they are right here in America? We got the pharmacy industry killing people slowly. We got food that is killing us. The real terrosism is here in America.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 24 2005, 05:11 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 24 2005, 05:11 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:16 AM

[email protected] 24 2005, 12:03 AM
Pat Tilman wasn&#39;t killed by insurgents, but by his own comrades. I read a report that explained how he was being dictated by his commanding officers and thats what basically got him killed, when another amored division came in and started blowing the shit out of their own friends.

I am sure people joining the military are not to defend themselves, or whatever other reason. It is a job now. As Cheney sais, "Get the job done".

I can come up with a better reason for joining the military. Money. Pat Tilman being an exception.
The young enlisted families I know if they have 2 kids qualify for food stamps. Is that a lot of money?

Is it possible Pat Tilman wan to Afganistan to defend himself, his family, and his country?
:lol:

There is not an emoticon that can express my amusement at your statement.

Of course he went to defend his family and country, because obviously Americans are no longer worried about terrorist attacks because people are in Afghanistan and *Dun dun dun* IRAQ&#33;

Obviously the country is truly under attack, I mean the terrorists are out to find his family specifically and kill them&#33;
What are you such a dope? Pat Tilman was in AFGANISTAN. He was there fighting the same people who trained the 911 terrorist. Pat Tilman was never in Iraq. He was there killing and fighting the very people who trained, ate, sleep, and planned the 911 attacks. The same people who killed 2000 people on 911. So what are you talking about, Iraq? So yes he is defending his family, his country, and himself. He was there to kill the same people who want to kill him, innocent children, and women. These people want to kill YOU too. These are the people Pat Tilman was fighting.

And what about your imperialist friend from Mexico? Why are you absorbing ideas from such an imperialist?
There is a difference between going out and shooting people to ensure peace and strengthening your own security measures to ensure it.

And he is my teacher for history. He acknowledges there are definately huge flaws in capitalism, but he has grown up to believe it works.
Wait a minute. As I recall this guy was some kind of role model or expert you tried to learn from. So who is he? Is he your role model? Well if he is, he is also an imperialist.

The men who planned, helped, trained, ate, and supported the 911 terrorist were from AFGANISTAN. They will kill you, they will kill me, they will kill us all if they had they time and ability to do so. So I would call Tilmans motives for enlisting self-defense. If you don&#39;t think your life is in danger by the men who call themselves Al-Queda, then your seriously narrow minded to not even notice that they WANT TO KILL YOU. Is that right? If one was in your livingroom right now, and the lights all of sudden wen out, would this Al-Queda try to kill you? Not only would he want to kill you, but he would do it with a smile on his face. I would call killing these people self-defense. Every minute they are alive, is one more minute they are putting the next plan in place to kill you or your neighbor. So yes it is self-defense.

Giving Al-Queda a hug is not going to make peace with them and saftey for you. Killing them is the only saftey. As long as they are alive you are in danger. Killing YOU will bring them to heaven with virgins. So yes they do want to kill you and killing them will stop thier next plan. [/b]
I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys.

[MKS]

I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys

What about the janitors and maintance men? Most of the people who were killed were just working people (proletariats) working within a system they had no control over, people just trying to provide for their families.

Calling all the people in the WTC capitalist republicans is a gross (and false) generalisation.

The same people who attacked the WTC would attack (have attacked in Afgahnistan) Communists in a second, they are Islamic fundamentalists. Capitalists, communists, democrats or republicans. These people only understand one thing; Muslim or non-muslim.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:50 PM
Why are we fighting terrorists over there when they are right here in America? We got the pharmacy industry killing people slowly. We got food that is killing us. The real terrosism is here in America.
Why?

Because the democratic majority of Americans favor the killing of Al-Queda.

The demoratic majority of Americans want the pharmacy and food that is delivered to them.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 24 2005, 11:32 PM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 24 2005, 11:32 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:16 AM

[email protected] 24 2005, 12:03 AM
Pat Tilman wasn&#39;t killed by insurgents, but by his own comrades. I read a report that explained how he was being dictated by his commanding officers and thats what basically got him killed, when another amored division came in and started blowing the shit out of their own friends.

I am sure people joining the military are not to defend themselves, or whatever other reason. It is a job now. As Cheney sais, "Get the job done".

I can come up with a better reason for joining the military. Money. Pat Tilman being an exception.
The young enlisted families I know if they have 2 kids qualify for food stamps. Is that a lot of money?

Is it possible Pat Tilman wan to Afganistan to defend himself, his family, and his country?
:lol:

There is not an emoticon that can express my amusement at your statement.

Of course he went to defend his family and country, because obviously Americans are no longer worried about terrorist attacks because people are in Afghanistan and *Dun dun dun* IRAQ&#33;

Obviously the country is truly under attack, I mean the terrorists are out to find his family specifically and kill them&#33;
What are you such a dope? Pat Tilman was in AFGANISTAN. He was there fighting the same people who trained the 911 terrorist. Pat Tilman was never in Iraq. He was there killing and fighting the very people who trained, ate, sleep, and planned the 911 attacks. The same people who killed 2000 people on 911. So what are you talking about, Iraq? So yes he is defending his family, his country, and himself. He was there to kill the same people who want to kill him, innocent children, and women. These people want to kill YOU too. These are the people Pat Tilman was fighting.

And what about your imperialist friend from Mexico? Why are you absorbing ideas from such an imperialist?
There is a difference between going out and shooting people to ensure peace and strengthening your own security measures to ensure it.

And he is my teacher for history. He acknowledges there are definately huge flaws in capitalism, but he has grown up to believe it works.
Wait a minute. As I recall this guy was some kind of role model or expert you tried to learn from. So who is he? Is he your role model? Well if he is, he is also an imperialist.

The men who planned, helped, trained, ate, and supported the 911 terrorist were from AFGANISTAN. They will kill you, they will kill me, they will kill us all if they had they time and ability to do so. So I would call Tilmans motives for enlisting self-defense. If you don&#39;t think your life is in danger by the men who call themselves Al-Queda, then your seriously narrow minded to not even notice that they WANT TO KILL YOU. Is that right? If one was in your livingroom right now, and the lights all of sudden wen out, would this Al-Queda try to kill you? Not only would he want to kill you, but he would do it with a smile on his face. I would call killing these people self-defense. Every minute they are alive, is one more minute they are putting the next plan in place to kill you or your neighbor. So yes it is self-defense.

Giving Al-Queda a hug is not going to make peace with them and saftey for you. Killing them is the only saftey. As long as they are alive you are in danger. Killing YOU will bring them to heaven with virgins. So yes they do want to kill you and killing them will stop thier next plan.
I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys. [/b]
I dare you to stand on a New York street corner and say that. How strongly to do you believe in those words and that philosophy? Enough to die for?

Pat Tilman believed in his mission to die for it. How strong is your character ?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:48 PM

I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys

What about the janitors and maintance men? Most of the people who were killed were just working people (proletariats) working within a system they had no control over, people just trying to provide for their families.

Calling all the people in the WTC capitalist republicans is a gross (and false) generalisation.

The same people who attacked the WTC would attack (have attacked in Afgahnistan) Communists in a second, they are Islamic fundamentalists. Capitalists, communists, democrats or republicans. These people only understand one thing; Muslim or non-muslim.
That was pretty dumb thing to say wasn&#39;t it Mr. Bed of Nails?

Do you doubt that an Al-Queda will not only think twice but smile when he kills a comrade?

Plus you obviously lack mature compassion. How do you expect to be part of a system of social justice with out compassion? I suggest that people like you will just make another despotic tragedy instead of a compassionate system in the next revolution.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 24 2005, 11:59 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 24 2005, 11:59 PM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 11:48 PM

I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys

What about the janitors and maintance men? Most of the people who were killed were just working people (proletariats) working within a system they had no control over, people just trying to provide for their families.

Calling all the people in the WTC capitalist republicans is a gross (and false) generalisation.

The same people who attacked the WTC would attack (have attacked in Afgahnistan) Communists in a second, they are Islamic fundamentalists. Capitalists, communists, democrats or republicans. These people only understand one thing; Muslim or non-muslim.
That was pretty dumb thing to say wasn&#39;t it Mr. Bed of Nails?

Do you doubt that an Al-Queda will not only think twice but smile when he kills a comrade?

Plus you obviously lack mature compassion. How do you expect to be part of a system of social justice with out compassion? I suggest that people like you will just make another despotic tragedy instead of a compassionate system in the next revolution. [/b]
Hey, it may have been an overstatement but I certainly do not feel pity for them. I doubt most of the people were simple proletariats.

I express compassion for people that arent raised to hate me for my ideology.

You stupid Americans helped out the now-terrorists during the cold-war, and now you pay for it.

America started and was founded with terrorism, and now it must face itself.

[Jersey Devil]

Children talking about how great the 9/11 attacks were. Forgive them for they know not what they speak.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 25 2005, 12:06 AM
Children talking about how great the 9/11 attacks were. Forgive them for they know not what they speak.
I dont find them great, I just shed no tears over them and never have.

You seem to hold some sort of vendetta against me due to my stance on your whining about spam. I must ask you to stop because it is rather immature to continue hating me for such things.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 25 2005, 12:04 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 25 2005, 12:04 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:59 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 11:48 PM

I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys

What about the janitors and maintance men? Most of the people who were killed were just working people (proletariats) working within a system they had no control over, people just trying to provide for their families.

Calling all the people in the WTC capitalist republicans is a gross (and false) generalisation.

The same people who attacked the WTC would attack (have attacked in Afgahnistan) Communists in a second, they are Islamic fundamentalists. Capitalists, communists, democrats or republicans. These people only understand one thing; Muslim or non-muslim.
That was pretty dumb thing to say wasn&#39;t it Mr. Bed of Nails?

Do you doubt that an Al-Queda will not only think twice but smile when he kills a comrade?

Plus you obviously lack mature compassion. How do you expect to be part of a system of social justice with out compassion? I suggest that people like you will just make another despotic tragedy instead of a compassionate system in the next revolution.
Hey, it may have been an overstatement but I certainly do not feel pity for them. I doubt most of the people were simple proletariats.

I express compassion for people that arent raised to hate me for my ideology.

You stupid Americans helped out the now-terrorists during the cold-war, and now you pay for it.

America started and was founded with terrorism, and now it must face itself. [/b]
Wait a second mister. Your story is starting to seriously fall apart here. You live on the border? Don&#39;t know about donkies and coyoties? "You Americans". "Your US President". I think you need to start getting your stories straight.

Whate ever the USA did as a country, INDIVIDUALS decided to kill and are reponsible for thier own actions. The "your made me do it" excuse is a copout for cowards.

Who ever was there, the 2000 people that died, there were not 2000 millionaires. Plus you are most definately one sick individual. Thousands of dead and you don&#39;t care? Yes you are one sick person. Do the revolution a favor, don&#39;t get involved. We don&#39;t need uncaring anti-revolutionaries like you.

[Jersey Devil]

Yes we get it, your a "radical" in high school. I am not questioning you "coolness". However, this indeed has more to do with the anti-society fad that you are going through then it has to do with the murder of 3000 human beings. Now, in your twelve year old mind, you may relate this to the the playstation games that you play where you kill people. However, these are actual people with sons and daughters, and mothers and fathers. Indeed, what would you say if someone here, even one of the "comrades" had lost a father to those attacks? or a mother? or a son? or a daughter? I know your still a child and it&#39;s to difficult for you to comprehend the difference between real life and a video game, all I ask is for you to think before you speak.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 25 2005, 12:18 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 25 2005, 12:18 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:59 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 11:48 PM

I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys

What about the janitors and maintance men? Most of the people who were killed were just working people (proletariats) working within a system they had no control over, people just trying to provide for their families.

Calling all the people in the WTC capitalist republicans is a gross (and false) generalisation.

The same people who attacked the WTC would attack (have attacked in Afgahnistan) Communists in a second, they are Islamic fundamentalists. Capitalists, communists, democrats or republicans. These people only understand one thing; Muslim or non-muslim.
That was pretty dumb thing to say wasn&#39;t it Mr. Bed of Nails?

Do you doubt that an Al-Queda will not only think twice but smile when he kills a comrade?

Plus you obviously lack mature compassion. How do you expect to be part of a system of social justice with out compassion? I suggest that people like you will just make another despotic tragedy instead of a compassionate system in the next revolution.
Hey, it may have been an overstatement but I certainly do not feel pity for them. I doubt most of the people were simple proletariats.

I express compassion for people that arent raised to hate me for my ideology.

You stupid Americans helped out the now-terrorists during the cold-war, and now you pay for it.

America started and was founded with terrorism, and now it must face itself.
Wait a second mister. Your story is starting to seriously fall apart here. You live on the border? Don&#39;t know about donkies and coyoties? "You Americans". "Your US President". I think you need to start getting your stories straight.

Whate ever the USA did as a country, INDIVIDUALS decided to kill and are reponsible for thier own actions. The "your made me do it" excuse is a copout for cowards.

Who ever was there, the 2000 people that died, there were not 2000 millionaires. Plus you are most definately one sick individual. Thousands of dead and you don&#39;t care? Yes you are one sick person. Do the revolution a favor, don&#39;t get involved. We don&#39;t need uncaring anti-revolutionaries like you. [/b]
I live in the damned region, but I concider myself no "American" after seeing the shit that goes on in the own nation.

Your same individuals willingly supported the terrorists a while ago. After all, you belong in a "Democracy" where the people get what they want.

I do not care because they are dead. Death is an end to their suffering, and to pity the dead is to say you feel bad for someone who doesnt even know.

You christians should be jumping for joy, after all they have gone to heaven.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 25 2005, 12:18 AM
Yes we get it, your a "radical" in high school. I am not questioning you "coolness". However, this indeed has nothing to do with the anti-society fad that you are going through it has to do with the murder of 3000 human beings. Now, in your twelve year old mind, you may relate this to the the playstation games that you play where you kill people. However, these are actual people with sons and daughters, and mothers and fathers. Indeed, what would you say if someone here, even one of the "comrades" had lost a father to those attacks? or a mother? or a son? or a daughter? I know your still a child and it&#39;s to difficult for you to comprehend the difference between real life and a video game, all I ask is for you to think before you speak.
You are only a year older than me, you fool.

Obviously you hold some sort of hostility towards "The terrorists" for their actions due to the fervor you are attacking me with.

Do not get me wrong, I feel bad for the relatives of the victims but not for the victims themselves. You are putting words in my mouth now.

[Jersey Devil]

Let&#39;s be honest here, this has nothing to do with the attacks. You, like the vast majority of members on this board are undergoing teenage angst. The vast majority know nothing of politics, are unaware of how the U.S three branch system operates, do not have a real understanding of U.S foreign policy, etc... You, like many others, are just angry at your parents and your school, you want autonomy but can&#39;t have it. So you find a board where you find the freedom to let you anger out and in doing so make ludicrous comments in the heat of the moment. That my friend is the truth.

[bed_of_nails]

If you analyze most of my posts, they are not spur-of-the-moment attacks.

You do not know me personally and cannot judge me. Based on your age you would fall into the same category, except for your semi-constant flaming and occasional reactionary statement ;)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 25 2005, 12:23 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 25 2005, 12:23 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:59 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 11:48 PM

I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys

What about the janitors and maintance men? Most of the people who were killed were just working people (proletariats) working within a system they had no control over, people just trying to provide for their families.

Calling all the people in the WTC capitalist republicans is a gross (and false) generalisation.

The same people who attacked the WTC would attack (have attacked in Afgahnistan) Communists in a second, they are Islamic fundamentalists. Capitalists, communists, democrats or republicans. These people only understand one thing; Muslim or non-muslim.
That was pretty dumb thing to say wasn&#39;t it Mr. Bed of Nails?

Do you doubt that an Al-Queda will not only think twice but smile when he kills a comrade?

Plus you obviously lack mature compassion. How do you expect to be part of a system of social justice with out compassion? I suggest that people like you will just make another despotic tragedy instead of a compassionate system in the next revolution.
Hey, it may have been an overstatement but I certainly do not feel pity for them. I doubt most of the people were simple proletariats.

I express compassion for people that arent raised to hate me for my ideology.

You stupid Americans helped out the now-terrorists during the cold-war, and now you pay for it.

America started and was founded with terrorism, and now it must face itself.
Wait a second mister. Your story is starting to seriously fall apart here. You live on the border? Don&#39;t know about donkies and coyoties? "You Americans". "Your US President". I think you need to start getting your stories straight.

Whate ever the USA did as a country, INDIVIDUALS decided to kill and are reponsible for thier own actions. The "your made me do it" excuse is a copout for cowards.

Who ever was there, the 2000 people that died, there were not 2000 millionaires. Plus you are most definately one sick individual. Thousands of dead and you don&#39;t care? Yes you are one sick person. Do the revolution a favor, don&#39;t get involved. We don&#39;t need uncaring anti-revolutionaries like you.
I live in the damned region, but I concider myself no "American" after seeing the shit that goes on in the own nation.

Your same individuals willingly supported the terrorists a while ago. After all, you belong in a "Democracy" where the people get what they want.

I do not care because they are dead. Death is an end to their suffering, and to pity the dead is to say you feel bad for someone who doesnt even know.

You christians should be jumping for joy, after all they have gone to heaven. [/b]
I didn&#39;t know the 911 murder victims were suffering? That is such a load of crap. You making it sound like the terrorist did the murder victims a favor. Is that right?

Next time a someone becomes a murder victim, we should thank the murder for doing them a favor, ehh?

Your one really sick and twisted person.

Do the revolution a favor, don&#39;t be a communist.

[MKS]

I doubt most of the people were simple proletariats.

Out of the 2,000+ people who died how many do you think actually owned or chaired a corporation at the WTC? Very few, the majority were proletariats (white collar or blue collar) they are still working people. Im sure they were Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Jewish, Muslims, and yes maybe even some Socialists and Communists who were working in or around the WTC during the attack.


You stupid Americans helped out the now-terrorists during the cold-war, and now you pay for it.

Why should I pay for what past administrations did? I agree that the US does have blood on its hands, however two wrongs dont make a right. The minute someone kills 2,000 unarmed civilians any legitamte (sp) gripe you have is automaticaly dismissed (that goes for the American government as well as the Muslim terrorists).



I live in the damned region, but I concider myself no "American" after seeing the shit that goes on in the own nation

Well the terrorists consider you an American. And wouldnt hesitate to act against you if they deemed it advantageous to their cause.

It is true the American government armed the Afghan (sp) mujahdin during their war against the USSR, and it is true many of these same fighters comprise the ranks of Al-Qaeda, however to condem innocent people, saying they are the ones who armed these wackos, is completey erroneous. The truth is the American people have very little control over national foriegn policy, it is a sad fact that the innocents must pay for the governments mistakes. Its even sadder when someone makes light of such tradgedy and even condones it. Not only does it show a lack of compassion, but also a lack of intelligence.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 25 2005, 01:55 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 25 2005, 01:55 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:59 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 11:48 PM

I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys

What about the janitors and maintance men? Most of the people who were killed were just working people (proletariats) working within a system they had no control over, people just trying to provide for their families.

Calling all the people in the WTC capitalist republicans is a gross (and false) generalisation.

The same people who attacked the WTC would attack (have attacked in Afgahnistan) Communists in a second, they are Islamic fundamentalists. Capitalists, communists, democrats or republicans. These people only understand one thing; Muslim or non-muslim.
That was pretty dumb thing to say wasn&#39;t it Mr. Bed of Nails?

Do you doubt that an Al-Queda will not only think twice but smile when he kills a comrade?

Plus you obviously lack mature compassion. How do you expect to be part of a system of social justice with out compassion? I suggest that people like you will just make another despotic tragedy instead of a compassionate system in the next revolution.
Hey, it may have been an overstatement but I certainly do not feel pity for them. I doubt most of the people were simple proletariats.

I express compassion for people that arent raised to hate me for my ideology.

You stupid Americans helped out the now-terrorists during the cold-war, and now you pay for it.

America started and was founded with terrorism, and now it must face itself.
Wait a second mister. Your story is starting to seriously fall apart here. You live on the border? Don&#39;t know about donkies and coyoties? "You Americans". "Your US President". I think you need to start getting your stories straight.

Whate ever the USA did as a country, INDIVIDUALS decided to kill and are reponsible for thier own actions. The "your made me do it" excuse is a copout for cowards.

Who ever was there, the 2000 people that died, there were not 2000 millionaires. Plus you are most definately one sick individual. Thousands of dead and you don&#39;t care? Yes you are one sick person. Do the revolution a favor, don&#39;t get involved. We don&#39;t need uncaring anti-revolutionaries like you.
I live in the damned region, but I concider myself no "American" after seeing the shit that goes on in the own nation.

Your same individuals willingly supported the terrorists a while ago. After all, you belong in a "Democracy" where the people get what they want.

I do not care because they are dead. Death is an end to their suffering, and to pity the dead is to say you feel bad for someone who doesnt even know.

You christians should be jumping for joy, after all they have gone to heaven.
I didn&#39;t know the 911 murder victims were suffering? That is such a load of crap. You making it sound like the terrorist did the murder victims a favor. Is that right?

Next time a someone becomes a murder victim, we should thank the murder for doing them a favor, ehh?

Your one really sick and twisted person.

Do the revolution a favor, don&#39;t be a communist. [/b]
You twist my words out of context. :)

I do not cry because people died swift deaths. I did not know them, and they feel no more pain so to sit around crying for them is wasting your life.

Lets get back on the topic.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 25 2005, 02:06 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 25 2005, 02:06 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:59 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 11:48 PM

I laugh at that. I dont really care about how many people that terrorism kills, because I doubt there was one comrade within the World Trade Center.

They were all capitalist, stock-trading, Republican-voting monkeys

What about the janitors and maintance men? Most of the people who were killed were just working people (proletariats) working within a system they had no control over, people just trying to provide for their families.

Calling all the people in the WTC capitalist republicans is a gross (and false) generalisation.

The same people who attacked the WTC would attack (have attacked in Afgahnistan) Communists in a second, they are Islamic fundamentalists. Capitalists, communists, democrats or republicans. These people only understand one thing; Muslim or non-muslim.
That was pretty dumb thing to say wasn&#39;t it Mr. Bed of Nails?

Do you doubt that an Al-Queda will not only think twice but smile when he kills a comrade?

Plus you obviously lack mature compassion. How do you expect to be part of a system of social justice with out compassion? I suggest that people like you will just make another despotic tragedy instead of a compassionate system in the next revolution.
Hey, it may have been an overstatement but I certainly do not feel pity for them. I doubt most of the people were simple proletariats.

I express compassion for people that arent raised to hate me for my ideology.

You stupid Americans helped out the now-terrorists during the cold-war, and now you pay for it.

America started and was founded with terrorism, and now it must face itself.
Wait a second mister. Your story is starting to seriously fall apart here. You live on the border? Don&#39;t know about donkies and coyoties? "You Americans". "Your US President". I think you need to start getting your stories straight.

Whate ever the USA did as a country, INDIVIDUALS decided to kill and are reponsible for thier own actions. The "your made me do it" excuse is a copout for cowards.

Who ever was there, the 2000 people that died, there were not 2000 millionaires. Plus you are most definately one sick individual. Thousands of dead and you don&#39;t care? Yes you are one sick person. Do the revolution a favor, don&#39;t get involved. We don&#39;t need uncaring anti-revolutionaries like you.
I live in the damned region, but I concider myself no "American" after seeing the shit that goes on in the own nation.

Your same individuals willingly supported the terrorists a while ago. After all, you belong in a "Democracy" where the people get what they want.

I do not care because they are dead. Death is an end to their suffering, and to pity the dead is to say you feel bad for someone who doesnt even know.

You christians should be jumping for joy, after all they have gone to heaven.
I didn&#39;t know the 911 murder victims were suffering? That is such a load of crap. You making it sound like the terrorist did the murder victims a favor. Is that right?

Next time a someone becomes a murder victim, we should thank the murder for doing them a favor, ehh?

Your one really sick and twisted person.

Do the revolution a favor, don&#39;t be a communist.
You twist my words out of context. :)

I do not cry because people died swift deaths. I did not know them, and they feel no more pain so to sit around crying for them is wasting your life.

Lets get back on the topic. [/b]
OK. Lets talk about your imperialist friend in Mexico.

Does he have a maid in Mexico?

[Vallegrande]

I just notice the irony in America fighting terrorism. Have we heard any news lately about the regions in Africa? Have we heard about the Pygmies plight for the UN to help them, how there is many more atrocities in Africa than this so called war on terrorism? No cuz we all busy looking for Al Qaeda, we can give a shit less about the Pygmies and other communities being killed right now. America is not helping for shit in Africa, thats why this war on terror is bogus.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:56 PM
I just notice the irony in America fighting terrorism. Have we heard any news lately about the regions in Africa? Have we heard about the Pygmies plight for the UN to help them, how there is many more atrocities in Africa than this so called war on terrorism? No cuz we all busy looking for Al Qaeda, we can give a shit less about the Pygmies and other communities being killed right now. America is not helping for shit in Africa, thats why this war on terror is bogus.
I bet you within 10 miles of you there is a hungry person or a desperate person without a home. Why don&#39;t YOU do something about it.

Or

Are you too busy?

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 25 2005, 11:15 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 25 2005, 11:15 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 04:56 PM
I just notice the irony in America fighting terrorism. Have we heard any news lately about the regions in Africa? Have we heard about the Pygmies plight for the UN to help them, how there is many more atrocities in Africa than this so called war on terrorism? No cuz we all busy looking for Al Qaeda, we can give a shit less about the Pygmies and other communities being killed right now. America is not helping for shit in Africa, thats why this war on terror is bogus.
I bet you within 10 miles of you there is a hungry person or a desperate person without a home. Why don&#39;t YOU do something about it.

Or

Are you too busy? [/b]
Being too busy has nothing to do with it.

Iraq did shit to us, and we are there to "liberate" them. I think its just a tad bit annoying how ol&#39; Dick Cheney can sell off the rebuilding in Iraq to his friends, so the Bush administration makes money off of Iraq.

[Vallegrande]

I bet you within 10 miles of you there is a hungry person or a desperate person without a home. Why don&#39;t YOU do something about it.

Or

Are you too busy?

The people starve because a lot of the surplus food from America gets thrown away. Plus, fast food restaurants or any other restaurant for that matter, locks their garbage cans because thats where they throw their food into. And it&#39;s still edible, but it&#39;s property, so its locked up.

I should be able to help these people out, but I cant do it all at once. It has to be a collective consciouss by the people, to create a solution to this problem.

Lastly, I believe poverty in itself leads to terrorism or violence. People around the world have had their land taken by the corporate military force, its no wonder why terrorism has become so problematic.

Looking back on history, workers in the US had to deal with terrorism from their bosses because strike breakers were sent in to beat, torture, or kill any striker or family for supporting unionization or wage increases. Terrorism is not outside us, it is inside each and every one of us. That is where terrorism lies.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 26 2005, 03:53 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 26 2005, 03:53 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:15 PM

[email protected] 25 2005, 04:56 PM
I just notice the irony in America fighting terrorism. Have we heard any news lately about the regions in Africa? Have we heard about the Pygmies plight for the UN to help them, how there is many more atrocities in Africa than this so called war on terrorism? No cuz we all busy looking for Al Qaeda, we can give a shit less about the Pygmies and other communities being killed right now. America is not helping for shit in Africa, thats why this war on terror is bogus.
I bet you within 10 miles of you there is a hungry person or a desperate person without a home. Why don&#39;t YOU do something about it.

Or

Are you too busy?
Being too busy has nothing to do with it.

Iraq did shit to us, and we are there to "liberate" them. I think its just a tad bit annoying how ol&#39; Dick Cheney can sell off the rebuilding in Iraq to his friends, so the Bush administration makes money off of Iraq. [/b]
Hey get your countries straight bub. This thread is not about Iraq, it is about Afganistan.

It only became about Iraq since your last post.

Now how about your friend in Mexico? Does he have a maid?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 26 2005, 03:53 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 26 2005, 03:53 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:15 PM

[email protected] 25 2005, 04:56 PM
I just notice the irony in America fighting terrorism. Have we heard any news lately about the regions in Africa? Have we heard about the Pygmies plight for the UN to help them, how there is many more atrocities in Africa than this so called war on terrorism? No cuz we all busy looking for Al Qaeda, we can give a shit less about the Pygmies and other communities being killed right now. America is not helping for shit in Africa, thats why this war on terror is bogus.
I bet you within 10 miles of you there is a hungry person or a desperate person without a home. Why don&#39;t YOU do something about it.

Or

Are you too busy?
Being too busy has nothing to do with it.

Iraq did shit to us, and we are there to "liberate" them. I think its just a tad bit annoying how ol&#39; Dick Cheney can sell off the rebuilding in Iraq to his friends, so the Bush administration makes money off of Iraq. [/b]
Maybe Americans are too busy to help everywhere, just like your too busy to help out a homeless person.

[Vallegrande]

Im sure not everyone can claim they have helped out a homeless person. This is just reality. I have noticed that when a homeless community tries to make a better living for themselves, someone complains that they are loitering and attracting crime. This was the case in Seattle when some homeless tried to make themselves a home, legally, and it only took one complaint to kick these people off.

Being homeless means having less rights as a US citizen, and our government compounds this.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:17 PM
The people starve because a lot of the surplus food from America gets thrown away.
Ever asked yourself why there&#39;s surplus food in the US and not in most of Africa ?


Lastly, I believe poverty in itself leads to terrorism or violence. People around the world have had their land taken by the corporate military force, its no wonder why terrorism has become so problematic.

Yeah, look at those starving, homeless people who "did" 9/11.

[Vallegrande]

Ever asked yourself why there&#39;s surplus food in the US and not in most of Africa ?

I have asked myself many times. Well, if "most" of Africa has no surplus food, but only "some" of Africa does, then what countries produce this surplus? And do they sell their surplus to industrialized nations, leaving none left for the people? Would you be able to give me a definite answer?


Lastly, I believe poverty in itself leads to terrorism or violence. People around the world have had their land taken by the corporate military force, its no wonder why terrorism has become so problematic.


Yeah, look at those starving, homeless people who "did" 9/11.

Why did you bring 9/11 into this? That&#39;s a Bush argument. I wasnt talking about 9/11. It was about why we have terrorism in the first place. Terrorism is ancient. Guerrilla warfare is considered terror in one view, and it is considered as liberation in another. Was the cuban revolution terrorism? Or how about the American revolution? Who is the real terrorist in this war?

How would you define a terrorist?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:28 PM

Ever asked yourself why there&#39;s surplus food in the US and not in most of Africa ?

I have asked myself many times. Well, if "most" of Africa has no surplus food, but only "some" of Africa does, then what countries produce this surplus? And do they sell their surplus to industrialized nations, leaving none left for the people? Would you be able to give me a definite answer?


Lastly, I believe poverty in itself leads to terrorism or violence. People around the world have had their land taken by the corporate military force, its no wonder why terrorism has become so problematic.


Yeah, look at those starving, homeless people who "did" 9/11.

Why did you bring 9/11 into this? That&#39;s a Bush argument. I wasnt talking about 9/11. It was about why we have terrorism in the first place. Terrorism is ancient. Guerrilla warfare is considered terror in one view, and it is considered as liberation in another. Was the cuban revolution terrorism? Or how about the American revolution? Who is the real terrorist in this war?

How would you define a terrorist?
Yea there is a country with suprlus in Africa, it is the stinking head quarters of the most capitalist country in Africa, the home of the gold Cougarand, South Africa.

[Professor Moneybags]

And do they sell their surplus to industrialized nations, leaving none left for the people? Would you be able to give me a definite answer?

Because they lack the means. They lack the means because there is no point creating them. There is no point creating them if the neighbouring tribe, or members of your own are going to sieze/destroy them. Western countries don&#39;t tend to have that problem.


Why did you bring 9/11 into this? That&#39;s a Bush argument. I wasnt talking about 9/11.

You claimed that terrorism was caused by poverty and I&#39;ve pointed out that it wasn&#39;t.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2005, 09:09 AM

And do they sell their surplus to industrialized nations, leaving none left for the people? Would you be able to give me a definite answer?

Because they lack the means. They lack the means because there is no point creating them. There is no point creating them if the neighbouring tribe, or members of your own are going to sieze/destroy them. Western countries don&#39;t tend to have that problem.


Why did you bring 9/11 into this? That&#39;s a Bush argument. I wasnt talking about 9/11.

You claimed that terrorism was caused by poverty and I&#39;ve pointed out that it wasn&#39;t.
Hey Prof. I like the sig. Looks like if we have these commies here start a revolution I am sure we can expect alot of death, destruction, injustice, and suffering.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:18 PM
Hey Prof. I like the sig.
Those are just the greatest hits. If I included Rice&#39;s quotes, it&#39;d be three times as long.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2005, 09:09 AM

And do they sell their surplus to industrialized nations, leaving none left for the people? Would you be able to give me a definite answer?

Because they lack the means. They lack the means because there is no point creating them. There is no point creating them if the neighbouring tribe, or members of your own are going to sieze/destroy them. Western countries don&#39;t tend to have that problem.


Why did you bring 9/11 into this? That&#39;s a Bush argument. I wasnt talking about 9/11.

You claimed that terrorism was caused by poverty and I&#39;ve pointed out that it wasn&#39;t.
Thats very ethnocentric of you to behave like America is the only country that has experienced terrorism.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 28 2005, 09:53 PM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 28 2005, 09:53 PM)
Professor [email protected] 28 2005, 09:09 AM

And do they sell their surplus to industrialized nations, leaving none left for the people? Would you be able to give me a definite answer?

Because they lack the means. They lack the means because there is no point creating them. There is no point creating them if the neighbouring tribe, or members of your own are going to sieze/destroy them. Western countries don&#39;t tend to have that problem.


Why did you bring 9/11 into this? That&#39;s a Bush argument. I wasnt talking about 9/11.

You claimed that terrorism was caused by poverty and I&#39;ve pointed out that it wasn&#39;t.
Thats very ethnocentric of you to behave like America is the only country that has experienced terrorism. [/b]
Did you ever find out of your history friend has a maid in Mexico?

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 29 2005, 01:11 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 29 2005, 01:11 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:53 PM

Professor [email protected] 28 2005, 09:09 AM

And do they sell their surplus to industrialized nations, leaving none left for the people? Would you be able to give me a definite answer?

Because they lack the means. They lack the means because there is no point creating them. There is no point creating them if the neighbouring tribe, or members of your own are going to sieze/destroy them. Western countries don&#39;t tend to have that problem.


Why did you bring 9/11 into this? That&#39;s a Bush argument. I wasnt talking about 9/11.

You claimed that terrorism was caused by poverty and I&#39;ve pointed out that it wasn&#39;t.
Thats very ethnocentric of you to behave like America is the only country that has experienced terrorism.
Did you ever find out of your history friend has a maid in Mexico? [/b]
No, I wont be seeing him until next year.

The maid concept is irrelevant.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 29 2005, 02:12 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 29 2005, 02:12 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:53 PM

Professor [email protected] 28 2005, 09:09 AM

And do they sell their surplus to industrialized nations, leaving none left for the people? Would you be able to give me a definite answer?

Because they lack the means. They lack the means because there is no point creating them. There is no point creating them if the neighbouring tribe, or members of your own are going to sieze/destroy them. Western countries don&#39;t tend to have that problem.


Why did you bring 9/11 into this? That&#39;s a Bush argument. I wasnt talking about 9/11.

You claimed that terrorism was caused by poverty and I&#39;ve pointed out that it wasn&#39;t.
Thats very ethnocentric of you to behave like America is the only country that has experienced terrorism.
Did you ever find out of your history friend has a maid in Mexico?
No, I wont be seeing him until next year.

The maid concept is irrelevant. [/b]
Yes it is. Becuase this seems to be a person you are absorbing ideas from. So he is rich in Mexico? He is then an imperialist and holding back workers and a bouguise with a maid. Then why do you believe him? People like that need to be properly re-educated.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 29 2005, 02:17 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 29 2005, 02:17 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:53 PM

Professor [email protected] 28 2005, 09:09 AM

And do they sell their surplus to industrialized nations, leaving none left for the people? Would you be able to give me a definite answer?

Because they lack the means. They lack the means because there is no point creating them. There is no point creating them if the neighbouring tribe, or members of your own are going to sieze/destroy them. Western countries don&#39;t tend to have that problem.


Why did you bring 9/11 into this? That&#39;s a Bush argument. I wasnt talking about 9/11.

You claimed that terrorism was caused by poverty and I&#39;ve pointed out that it wasn&#39;t.
Thats very ethnocentric of you to behave like America is the only country that has experienced terrorism.
Did you ever find out of your history friend has a maid in Mexico?
No, I wont be seeing him until next year.

The maid concept is irrelevant.
Yes it is. Becuase this seems to be a person you are absorbing ideas from. So he is rich in Mexico? He is then an imperialist and holding back workers and a bouguise with a maid. Then why do you believe him? People like that need to be properly re-educated. [/b]
I believe (to a certain extent) what he says about history, not about what is economically moral.

[Vallegrande]

You claimed that terrorism was caused by poverty and I&#39;ve pointed out that it wasn&#39;t.

There are many factors that cause terrorism. Poverty I would argue is one of those factors. Poverty is in itself a form of terror, is it not? In poor communities, poverty is a reflection of organized crime, in which acts of terror are used to complete a goal. I have to say the US breeds its own terrorists.

And this is true, Bush makes friends with leaders who use acts of terror on their people. That tells me that this whole war on terror is not the reality.

But we still have yet to define a terrorist. I think a terrorist is someone who is ignored, and they use any means necessary to be listened to. Columbine is a good example of terrorism.

Now, from the US military perspective, terrorists are non negotiable. Right there is a flaw. Terrorist use their actions to be listened to, but the US does not listen to terrorists, so the battle is endless.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:38 PM
There are many factors that cause terrorism. Poverty I would argue is one of those factors. Poverty is in itself a form of terror, is it not?
No. It&#39;s a default state.

[Vallegrande]

What do you mean by a default state?

Im just saying that war is waged based on resources (how much we can afford to lose, etc). It is the same today, the U.S. is fighting terrorists over land and resources.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:34 AM
What do you mean by a default state?


What you get for producing nothing.


Im just saying that war is waged based on resources (how much we can afford to lose, etc). It is the same today, the U.S. is fighting terrorists over land and resources.

In terms of the Iraq war, it&#39;s a case of taking back resources. In terms of Arghanistan, it was retalliation.

[Freak]

I.Q. has NOTHING to do with education. I.Q.=intelligence. I have met Harvard grads who are total idiots, and elementary school dropouts who are geniuses. I would say about half the work force in the US has higher than a high school education, the other half does not. But you are forgetting that in a capatilist society, the dumb and/or uneducated can also become rich. Hence the term CAPITALism. Look at rap stars, fashion models, hollywood actors, home business entrupeneurs, etc.
Anyone who sets their minds to it and applies themselves can do very well within capitalism.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:38 PM

You claimed that terrorism was caused by poverty and I&#39;ve pointed out that it wasn&#39;t.

There are many factors that cause terrorism. Poverty I would argue is one of those factors. Poverty is in itself a form of terror, is it not? In poor communities, poverty is a reflection of organized crime, in which acts of terror are used to complete a goal. I have to say the US breeds its own terrorists.

And this is true, Bush makes friends with leaders who use acts of terror on their people. That tells me that this whole war on terror is not the reality.

But we still have yet to define a terrorist. I think a terrorist is someone who is ignored, and they use any means necessary to be listened to. Columbine is a good example of terrorism.

Now, from the US military perspective, terrorists are non negotiable. Right there is a flaw. Terrorist use their actions to be listened to, but the US does not listen to terrorists, so the battle is endless.
No.

It ends when everyone of them is dead or has had enough.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:06 PM
I.Q. has NOTHING to do with education. I.Q.=intelligence. I have met Harvard grads who are total idiots, and elementary school dropouts who are geniuses. I would say about half the work force in the US has higher than a high school education, the other half does not. But you are forgetting that in a capatilist society, the dumb and/or uneducated can also become rich. Hence the term CAPITALism. Look at rap stars, fashion models, hollywood actors, home business entrupeneurs, etc.
Anyone who sets their minds to it and applies themselves can do very well within capitalism.
I disagree with this. I see it as often a combination of social and economical situations. Look at the Olsen twins for example. Do they sit down every day and practice acting? No they probably go shopping and dont give a shit until they can get more paychecks.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+Jun 5 2005, 11:01 PM--> (bed_of_nails @ Jun 5 2005, 11:01 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 02:06 PM
I.Q. has NOTHING to do with education. I.Q.=intelligence. I have met Harvard grads who are total idiots, and elementary school dropouts who are geniuses. I would say about half the work force in the US has higher than a high school education, the other half does not. But you are forgetting that in a capatilist society, the dumb and/or uneducated can also become rich. Hence the term CAPITALism. Look at rap stars, fashion models, hollywood actors, home business entrupeneurs, etc.
Anyone who sets their minds to it and applies themselves can do very well within capitalism.
I disagree with this. I see it as often a combination of social and economical situations. Look at the Olsen twins for example. Do they sit down every day and practice acting? No they probably go shopping and dont give a shit until they can get more paychecks. [/b]
Why are you even worried about these people? After the revolution you will be a proterariat, end of story. These people will be protelariat too, end of story. We will all gravitate towards our proper jobs we like, so yes the Olson twins will still do the job they are suited, which is being the Olson twins.