Cappies - yo!

[Eastside Revolt]

I'm creating this thread because I have taken notice that for the most part, imperialists on this site tend not to genuinely care about political issues. Rather they would just sit back and enjoy the ride. To some sense I understand this. Take it from me, actually giving a shit about your planet and it's enhabitants is quite stressful.

Given this knowlege I would like to ask a hypothetical question. If you could stop millions around the world from starving, and idustrialize many more nations, while still being able to live bassicly the same life you live today. Although aswell having to give-up some economic freedom (ie: The "right" to buy as big of a truck as you want, the "right" to buy a company and pay shitty wages etc). Would you allow it to happen under the title of "socialism"? or is that mere word the problem for you?

[hazard]

I just don't understand how anyone cand efend capitalism, period. Its not like these guys stand to become billionares are anything. Its just not possible. The american nightmare is such an obvious lie that I'm starting to think that crappies are simply bots programmed by gates or trump or another one of these pigs to spread their propaganda. Then again, this is not really so far off from the truth.

What I'd like to know is if the crappies think there is a reward for defending not only slavery, but their status as a slave. Way I see it its like a donkey being lead by a carrot on a string. If you ever give that ass the carrot, it'll stop moving.

[Liberty Lover]

redcanada,

Rather than international socialism making the third-world look like the first...It would make the first-world look like the third.

[Eastside Revolt]

That's righ-wing for ya.

Simple answers for complex questions. no knowlege required.

[Liberty Lover]

Yet you cannot refute it.

I don't blame you. It's your ideologies stupidity that's the problem, not your own ignorance.

[Tasha]

Liberty that post was bullshit how can you state that this balances benefits to anything.

[synthesis]

He isn't refuting it because you never proved it in the first place. Where has socialism occured in a first-world nation? Well, there was the Paris Commune, which is a pretty good model of how we'd like socialism to work, and there was also Republican Spain, which was another good blueprint for implementation of socialism... Eh, the burden's on you, pal.

[Eastside Revolt]

I wasn't supposed to prove anything, I was asking a hypothetical question.

So bassically, if it was proven to you that: You could stop millions around the world from starving, and idustrialize many more nations, while still being able to live bassicly the same life you live today. Although aswell having to give-up some economic freedom (ie: The "right" to buy as big of a truck as you want, the "right" to buy a company and pay shitty wages etc). Would you allow it to happen under the title of "socialism"? or is that mere word the problem for you?

[Liberty Lover]

Capitalism generates wealth that would not otherwise exist under socialism. If my country became socialist I would not be able to live "bassicly" the same life I live today.

[synthesis]

Capitalism generates wealth that would not otherwise exist under socialism.

It generates wealth for the bourgeoisie, and provides it and it alone with the means to generate more.

The absolute capital of a socialist country may not necessarily be as great as that of a capitalist country - but I'm sure as hell more satisfied with the distribution.

[Liberty Lover]

"It generates wealth for the bourgeoisie, and provides it and it alone with the means to generate more."

The wealth flows from the bees down to the drones.


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 6:56 am on April 4, 2003)

[hazard]

liberty:

I'm trying to take it easy on ya kid, but do you even realize what your're saying?

do you realize that you yourself are destined to be nothing more than a drone? what makes you think that you are a "bee"(although drones are bee's)?

unless you don't have a problem being part of the 99.99%of the population FORCED to work for that tiny minority of the population that owns 99.99% of the wealth, u have to realize that you are not just supporting slavery, but your own status as a slave

or a drone, however you want to see it

then again, its the bees who do all the work while the drones just chill with the queen

what the hell was that analogy supposed to mean anyway?

[synthesis]

Well, drones are bees, but I get your analogy. Perhaps a more sensible one would be that the wealth flows from the queen bee to the worker drone; however, the only valid analogy to capitalism is that the wealth flows from the vampires to the victims, from the slaver to the slave. Those benefiting from the productive work of the workers while denying those producing to obtain their rightful rewards are intrinsically opposed to the proletariat. Socialism not only frees the slaves, but removes the slaver.

[Liberty Lover]

"I'm trying to take it easy on ya kid, but do you even realize what your're saying?"

This coming from a communist who has proffessed his ideaology to be imperialistic and who thinks China is still a communist nation...despite the fact the the social divide in China is greater now than it was before the revolution in 1949.

"do you realize that you yourself are destined to be nothing more than a drone? what makes you think that you are a "bee"(although drones are bee's)?"

I live in a capitalist democracy...Therefore I am the master of my fate. Whether I choose to work for someone else or start my own business, it is up to me not the government.

"unless you don't have a problem being part of the 99.99%of the population FORCED to work for that tiny minority of the population that owns 99.99% of the wealth, u have to realize that you are not just supporting slavery, but your own status as a slave"

You are quick to condemn capitalism but you have yet to put forward an argument that communism is a viable alternative. I think you will find that people of any class in the United States were far better of than people from the one class in Eastern Europe.

"what the hell was that analogy supposed to mean anyway?"

The Bees are the industrious and motivated workmen. The drones are the lazy and incompotent people who are content to live of others.

[synthesis]

As I'm waiting for you to respond to my post (you probably had not seen it) I would like to address your signature. For posterity, this quote is:

"I believe this country is what it stands for, more than anything else. If we're not true to our principles, we're not serving our national interests."
--Paul Wolfowitz

I would like you to analyze, Liberty Lover, how this aligns with this quote, by Thomas Jefferson.

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
-Thomas Jefferson

[englandsgay]

redcanada.... what your talking about is that rather then RISK failure in a capitalist economy you would rather ENSURE failure for everybody in a socialist one equally?

coward. people like capitalism because of the ability to CHOOSE for themselves. captain their own ship as it were. and yes some people make poor decisions and screw themselves, there is always that remote possibility they can better themselves which is the HOPE that keeps them going.

i mean, gawd... you cant have heaven on earth because not one of us is GOD(omnipotent, omniprecent, etc etc. i mean is that so hard to see?)

give me liberty or give me death - patrick henry

[Liberty Lover]

Socialism not only frees the slaves, but removes the slaver

What is this? Are the slaves the proletariat of industrial countires, or people of third world countries. If the industrial proletariat were the majority and were not happy with the status quo wouldn't we be socialist?

I would like you to analyze, Liberty Lover, how this aligns with this quote, by Thomas Jefferson.

I would like you to do it for me.


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 7:48 am on April 4, 2003)

[synthesis]

The implication of the quote is clear, Liberty Lover. America's war for oil corporations clearly betrays Thomas Jefferson's expressed interest in dispelling corporate power. I was hoping that you would see the writing on the wall and explain why corporate America is not an outright betrayal of the ideals of the founding fathers.

Are the slaves the proletariat of industrial countires, or people of third world countries.

Literally, it's the third world countries where the working class are slaves, taking into account corporate death squads and such.

Figuratively, it's the workers who produce the goods of which the profits go to the boss, the person who profits simply by owning the means by which the workers who produce the goods, and the worker is paid rather whimsically based on the desire of the boss rather than by the quality or demand of the goods he has made.

[hazard]

liberty:

everything else you said to me, except the final line, is literally nonsense. I have no need to make reference to anything else in any greater detail than this.

as for your final line, the explanation of your analogy, I say this

you admit, you readily admit the flaw of capitalism. for the capitalists are the ones who do nothing, who live off of everybody else. I swear you're wearing horse blinders. you are arguing an argument of communism so old that it can be QUOTED DIRECTLY from the communist manifesto. WORD FOR WORD.

btw: you know, I mean you have to know that in order to start "your own" business you have to borrow money from the capitalists. you knew that, right? and if your business EVER becomes profitable, a capitalist will simply buy you out. you knew that too, right? and once your're bought out, you are a wage labourer all over again. there is no escape from your social status. either you borrow the money and are working for the capitalists or you repay the money and are bought out anyway. some choice. this ALSO CAN BE QUOTED DIRECTLY from the communist manifesto.

don't you think it's about time you read it?

(Edited by hazard at 8:38 pm on April 4, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

America's war for oil

War for oil! War for oil! War for oil! I think you will find, DyerMaker, that this is not a war for oil. I find it completely illogical that the US would spend some 200 billion dollars to acquire Iraqi oil when they could spend nothing and get just as much by, say, lifting sanctions on Iraq, lifting the investment ban on Libya or staging a coup in Venezuela. The only argument that I have heard to accompany the assertion that this war is about oil is the question "Why didn't they invade Iraq in the past 12 years?"

There are two reasons for this; 1. Bill Clinton, 2. 9/11.

In 1998 18 prominent figures in Washington signed a letter advocating regime change in Iraq. The proposal was rejected. Of those 18 people 8 now hold high-ranking positions in the Bush administration. Amongst them are Sec. of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Sec. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Chairman of the Defense policy board Richard Pearle. No oil tycoons were among the signatories. 9/11 brought Bush and Paleo-Conservatives like Cheney on side while Powell jumped on board because he didn't really have an option. Put them in a bowl, stir them round and you have a war.

The answer to the question “is this war about oil?” is no. The answer to the question “will American companies control Iraqi oil?” is probably not. There are some elements of the administration that will want this to happen, but Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz will recognise it as a public relations nightmare and not allow it.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from redcanada on 7:50 am on April 4, 2003
I'm creating this thread because I have taken notice that for the most part, imperialists on this site tend not to genuinely care about political issues. Rather they would just sit back and enjoy the ride. To some sense I understand this. Take it from me, actually giving a shit about your planet and it's enhabitants is quite stressful.

Given this knowlege I would like to ask a hypothetical question. If you could stop millions around the world from starving, and idustrialize many more nations, while still being able to live bassicly the same life you live today. Although aswell having to give-up some economic freedom (ie: The "right" to buy as big of a truck as you want, the "right" to buy a company and pay shitty wages etc). Would you allow it to happen under the title of "socialism"? or is that mere word the problem for you?


No.

[Dirty Commie]

I will end all of this bickering.

Capitalism has proven a failure to the overwhelming majority of the people of the world, and socialism (despite not working to its full potential) is the answer.

Unless you are an ultra green party supporter and want every one to live in peace in a de-industrialized society.

( I would love this as much as a socialist paradise.)

[synthesis]

Bill Clinton? What the hell are you talking about? Sorry, but you're rambling.

No oil tycoons were among the signatories.

Well, no shit! Apparently, the signatories were government officials.

The answer to the question “is this war about oil?” is no. The answer to the question “will American companies control Iraqi oil?” is probably not.

Uh....

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2...002/12heart.htm (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2.../2002/08jim.htm (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm)

[Liberty Lover]

Bill Clinton? What the hell are you talking about? Sorry, but you're rambling.

The Clinton administration was commited to containment.

Stupid links.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 7:04 am on April 5, 2003)

[synthesis]

The Clinton administration was commited to containment.

Containment of what? I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Stupid links.

Stupid argument.

(Edited by DyerMaker at 7:37 am on April 5, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

Containment of what? I don't know what the hell you're talking about.



Containment of Saddam. The Clinton administration policy toward Saddam was one of containment. People are always saying to me "if it's not about oil why have they waited so long to invade?" One the reasons for that is Clintons policy of containment.



Stupid argument.


Stupid person

[Blibblob]

Becoming a stupid thread.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 4:11 am on April 4, 2003
Yet you cannot refute it.

I don't blame you. It's your ideologies stupidity that's the problem, not your own ignorance.


Ignorance ehh... Well why dont you go on to the thread i made earlier about how capitalism is doomed to failure... Then see whos ignorant.

[synthesis]

Okay. So please rephrase your assessment as to the motives behind the war so that I may address a clearer message this time. Bill Clinton is clearly not a 'motive' behind the war, and 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Liberty Lover]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statemen...fprinciples.htm (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)

Take a look at the names at the bottom

[synthesis]

That link makes me want to vomit.

We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

translation: An international fascist police state ruled without mercy by America... oh, wait, that already exists

Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

Translation: Does America have the resolve to destroy the sovereignity of other nations, decimate their populace, and eliminate the very ideals it has sworn to uphold?

[A] foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad

A statement as fallacious in practice as that of "free enterprise".

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 02:50 AM
I'm creating this thread because I have taken notice that for the most part, imperialists on this site tend not to genuinely care about political issues. Rather they would just sit back and enjoy the ride. To some sense I understand this. Take it from me, actually giving a shit about your planet and it's enhabitants is quite stressful.

Given this knowlege I would like to ask a hypothetical question. If you could stop millions around the world from starving, and idustrialize many more nations, while still being able to live bassicly the same life you live today. Although aswell having to give-up some economic freedom (ie: The "right" to buy as big of a truck as you want, the "right" to buy a company and pay shitty wages etc). Would you allow it to happen under the title of "socialism"? or is that mere word the problem for you?
Given that we have a whole new line-up of cappies now, I would like to pop the old hypothetical question.

To elaborate on it, let me stress that I am not saying I have some garanteeable proof that socialism works as it should, I'm just asking IF... this was proven to you..... what would you say?

[Bradyman]

This goes to Liberty Lover:

Are you content with these facts:

*Number of people in the world, (pop. 5.5 billion) that live in abject poverty: 1.4 billion
* Number of people currently expected to die from starvation: 900 million
* Percentage of those that live in the undeveloped nations: 97
* Number of children in world dying each year from controllable illness: 12 million
* Number of people in world that died each of the five years of World War II: 10 million
* Number of people in world that die each year of preventable social causes: 10 million
* Cost of one new Osprey aircraft (50 planned): $84 million
* Annual cost of treatment to eliminate world's malaria cases: $84 million
* Money set aside annually for malaria control by organized world health: $9 million
* Money set aside for Viagra pills per annum by organized world health: $40 million
* Number of children in world blinded yearly from lack of Vitamin A: 500 million
* Number of women who died during childbirth last year in world: 650,000
* U.N. estimate of yearly expenditure on war: $800 billion
* U.N. estimate of yearly expenditure on health services: $25 billion
* Number of children in world that die by age 5 (yearly): 12 million
* Percentage of those that succumb to routine preventable health causes: 90
* Ratio of African-American to white new born deaths in U.S. last year: 2:1
* Number of reported pediatric measles deaths in U.S. last year: 45
* Amount of money not allocated by Congress for measles vaccines: $9 million
* Average amount of 1999 year-end bonus paid to Oxford HMO execs: $6 million
* Time it takes the Pentagon to spend annual federal allocation for women's health: 15 minutes
*Today's worker works 160 hours longer per year than 25 years ago.
*The world's 225 richest individuals, of whom 60 are Americans with total assets of $311 billion, have a combined wealth of over $1 trillion -- equal to the annual income of the poorest 47 percent of the entire world's population.
*The average African household today consumes 20 percent less than it did 25 years ago.

And each year it just gets worse.

So if you're happy with these facts, then yes, promote capitalism. But if you want to do something about it, please help us try to change these problems.

[sledovatel]

well, red, i think that if it were possible to keep our freedoms and help out everyone, i don't think that there would be anybody against it. but, unfortunately, socialism isn't that magical problem solver. obviously from your own question we learn that we couldn't have the same "rights" to have "big trucks." within your question we learn that we must become equal to the lowest common denominator. in order to do this, we must make things worse for us. as socialism takes hold, personal freedom is taken and collectivism is promoted. just take a look at your great empire, the USSR. don't tell me that that wasn't communism or socialism, because it was. what was life like there during that time? had it not been for competition with the west (in a capitalist way of doing things) the USSR would have collapsed on itself at the very onset. socialism and communism together create a stagnant environment with no growth.

so yeah, that's what i think. it may sound good to say "yay, everyone is equal!" but in reality, socialism just creates an addiction to government and a repression of rights.

as for you, bradyman, i ask you what have you done personally to help out those people who you act like you care so much about? and don't tell me "promoted socialism" cause that's a cop-out.

-s

[synthesis]

Holy shit, this is old.

[Pro-MyIdeals]

capitalism is all about CHOICE...i do not want to be dragged down and made "equal" without my consent to some lazy two bit piece of shit who doesn't feel like working as hard as i do day in and day out...why should i have to suffer for other people's shortcomings?

socialism promotes mediocrity and laziness...under socialism, what is the point of working hard? you are gonna be the same no matter how much effort you put in it

what innovations have come due to socialism, other than what serves the government's wants?

capitalism rewards me for my hard work...all men were created equal, but all men do not begave equally...everyone is gonna act differently, and why should I have to make up for it?

[synthesis]

what innovations have come due to socialism, other than what serves the government's wants?

Well, you do have the Soviets putting the first man in space...

Not to mention all the socialists who have done great things. Look at Einstein, look at Jack London, look at Orwell, look at Malcolm X, look at W.E.B. Dubois, look at Oscar Wilde...

[Pro-MyIdeals]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 03:12 AM

what innovations have come due to socialism, other than what serves the government's wants?

Well, you do have the Soviets putting the first man in space...

Not to mention all the socialists who have done great things. Look at Einstein, look at Jack London, look at Orwell, look at Malcolm X, look at W.E.B. Dubois, look at Oscar Wilde...
as to the soviets, it served the governments interests to put a man into space, which is why i noted that in my original post...and there may be INDIVIDUAL socialists who have accomplished great things, but as a collective, where is the motivation?

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 03:12 AM

what innovations have come due to socialism, other than what serves the government's wants?

Well, you do have the Soviets putting the first man in space...

Not to mention all the socialists who have done great things. Look at Einstein, look at Jack London, look at Orwell, look at Malcolm X, look at W.E.B. Dubois, look at Oscar Wilde...
BARELY putting the first man in space. As soon as the US put a major national effort to put a man on the Moon, what happened then? Do yo deny that the Capitalist countries in the world totally dominate it? Open your eyes and get real......The Reds are dead...

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Liberty [email protected] 4 2003, 06:35 AM
Capitalism generates wealth that would not otherwise exist under socialism. If my country became socialist I would not be able to live "bassicly" the same life I live today.
I have to start from the top here. You never answered the question. Such aviodance is a sad attemt to appear knowledgable. Capitalism does not generate wealth, like others have said, that is pure nonsense. If capitalism did generate wealth, there would be no need to underpay workers and expand into other counties to enlarge workforces. This is evidence that capitalism causes impoverishment. What capitalism really does is help build a system the hoards wealth and takes the "profit" from the workers to give to those in control. There is not generation of wealth, people don't need to starve to advance industry. Capitalism simply causes people to suffer in order to function. With all of the advances appearant even in the current capitalist system, there is more than enough reasources to tend to the needs of all people yet countless nations are deprived of basic necessities. Where is this great abundance brought forth by capitalism? Smashing capitalism will effectively destroying the elements that withhold wealth from the people. This is true generation of wealth. Without the boss class to deprive the workers of their reasources, there will be more prosperity and an advance in practicaly every way, personaly and as a society. Without the parasitic ruling class (perpetuated by capitalism), workers could actually be free to chose their livelyhoods and contribute to a prosperous society.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Pro-MyIdeals+Oct 26 2003, 04:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pro-MyIdeals @ Oct 26 2003, 04:05 AM)
[email protected] 26 2003, 03:12 AM

what innovations have come due to socialism, other than what serves the government&#39;s wants?

Well, you do have the Soviets putting the first man in space...

Not to mention all the socialists who have done great things. Look at Einstein, look at Jack London, look at Orwell, look at Malcolm X, look at W.E.B. Dubois, look at Oscar Wilde...
as to the soviets, it served the governments interests to put a man into space, which is why i noted that in my original post...and there may be INDIVIDUAL socialists who have accomplished great things, but as a collective, where is the motivation? [/b]
Do you need a collective motivation?
Do you only come here to post becuase it serves a collective?
A collective motivation and an individuals motivation are the same just on a different level.
Will you stop eating if it doesn&#39;t serve your society? This is nonsense, what you do to earn your livelyhood will support your society. A farmer farms and contributes food to a society, a blacksmith builds the tools for a society. These people do these things because it is what they have found they can do in life to survive. They will trade and work together in order to live, this is motivation. You don&#39;t need to expliot others to survive. People have a natural motivation to do what they enjoy, which generaly serves to perpetuate their existance. Are you not motivated to contribute to society? To do great things in life to help yourself and others? Is personal gain by depriving others the only motivation you see? We don&#39;t need a society built on that.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Liberty [email protected] 4 2003, 05:23 PM
"I&#39;m trying to take it easy on ya kid, but do you even realize what your&#39;re saying?"

This coming from a communist who has proffessed his ideaology to be imperialistic and who thinks China is still a communist nation...despite the fact the the social divide in China is greater now than it was before the revolution in 1949.

"do you realize that you yourself are destined to be nothing more than a drone? what makes you think that you are a "bee"(although drones are bee&#39;s)?"

I live in a capitalist democracy...Therefore I am the master of my fate. Whether I choose to work for someone else or start my own business, it is up to me not the government.

"unless you don&#39;t have a problem being part of the 99.99%of the population FORCED to work for that tiny minority of the population that owns 99.99% of the wealth, u have to realize that you are not just supporting slavery, but your own status as a slave"

You are quick to condemn capitalism but you have yet to put forward an argument that communism is a viable alternative. I think you will find that people of any class in the United States were far better of than people from the one class in Eastern Europe.

"what the hell was that analogy supposed to mean anyway?"

The Bees are the industrious and motivated workmen. The drones are the lazy and incompotent people who are content to live of others.
I live in a capitalist democracy...Therefore I am the master of my fate. Whether I choose to work for someone else or start my own business, it is up to me not the government.

The government decides a lot about what you do with your money, as you would relise (sp?) if you tried to do those things.

You don&#39;t live in a capitalist democracy, that it an oxymoron. You live in a semi-democratic partial capitalist country. Even the US has checks in place to prevent capitalism running wild.

Just a quick question LL, knowing that you come from Aus, do you support welfare, the dole, paid maternity leave etc?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+Oct 26 2003, 10:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (apathy maybe @ Oct 26 2003, 10:49 AM)
Liberty [email protected] 4 2003, 05:23 PM
"I&#39;m trying to take it easy on ya kid, but do you even realize what your&#39;re saying?"

This coming from a communist who has proffessed his ideaology to be imperialistic and who thinks China is still a communist nation...despite the fact the the social divide in China is greater now than it was before the revolution in 1949.

"do you realize that you yourself are destined to be nothing more than a drone? what makes you think that you are a "bee"(although drones are bee&#39;s)?"

I live in a capitalist democracy...Therefore I am the master of my fate. Whether I choose to work for someone else or start my own business, it is up to me not the government.

"unless you don&#39;t have a problem being part of the 99.99%of the population FORCED to work for that tiny minority of the population that owns 99.99% of the wealth, u have to realize that you are not just supporting slavery, but your own status as a slave"

You are quick to condemn capitalism but you have yet to put forward an argument that communism is a viable alternative. I think you will find that people of any class in the United States were far better of than people from the one class in Eastern Europe.

"what the hell was that analogy supposed to mean anyway?"

The Bees are the industrious and motivated workmen. The drones are the lazy and incompotent people who are content to live of others.
I live in a capitalist democracy...Therefore I am the master of my fate. Whether I choose to work for someone else or start my own business, it is up to me not the government.

The government decides a lot about what you do with your money, as you would relise (sp?) if you tried to do those things.

You don&#39;t live in a capitalist democracy, that it an oxymoron. You live in a semi-democratic partial capitalist country. Even the US has checks in place to prevent capitalism running wild.

Just a quick question LL, knowing that you come from Aus, do you support welfare, the dole, paid maternity leave etc? [/b]
Just so you know, Liberty Lover&#39;s post is over six months old.

[apathy maybe]

Right well, it is a bit optimistic to expect a response then hey.