Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #22571

Subject: "10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 04:42 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader"


  

          

I cannot understand for the life of me why are you Okayplayers supporting such an illogical, idiotic, extremist party like the Green Party. I think it's some of you's way of simply being non conformist and to stop you from being different. So, I got some points from the Green Party platform together and wanted you guys to check them out. However, I won't provide analysis yet on these issues. Tonite after I come back, we can go point-counterpoint. Maybe this will open your eyes and show you how stupid all his ideas are.

http://www.greenparty.org/Platform061100.html


1. Every household with 4 members get $500/wk, $26,000/yr

2. Guaranteed right to a job, medical care, lifelong education, child care, and housing.

3. Minimum wage raised to $12.50

4. Work week cut to 6 hrs/day, 30/wk.

5. Eliminate the US Senate

6. Make DC a state

7. Governmental break up of the top 500 companies in the US. No company or corporation is allowed to control over 10% of their respected market. Companies are allowed only by federal charter, and must be renewed every 20 years.

8. Every enterprise that has over 10 workers may elect their own management and supervisors.

9. Governmental seizure of the top 200 banks in the US, which includes 80% of the assets.

10. All income over 10X minimum wage ($12.50/hr) shall be taxed 100%. Hence, according to the Green Party guidelines, no individual is allowed to make more than $195,000/yr. And that's gross income, not net.

Well, there ya are. For all you Nader supporters, at least come up with some logical reasoning, if possible.


_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader
Aug 09th 2000
1
Plenty of reasons to vote Nader
Aug 09th 2000
2
sounds more like communism to me n/m
Aug 09th 2000
5
      and ?
Aug 09th 2000
6
      and....
Aug 09th 2000
12
           possibly
epiphany
Aug 09th 2000
14
           RE: and....
Aug 09th 2000
15
           dear Dove
Aug 09th 2000
16
           Yo Krew!
Aug 09th 2000
18
                LOL!
Aug 10th 2000
21
                     hey Dovely
Aug 10th 2000
23
                     Dove much love, but...
d-Best
Aug 10th 2000
28
                     wow
Aug 10th 2000
45
                     nice answer d-Best.
Aug 11th 2000
55
                     hey dove...
Aug 10th 2000
47
                          I feel you
Aug 10th 2000
48
           RE: and....
d-Best
Aug 10th 2000
27
           I never said it was bad
Aug 10th 2000
43
           Democracy Vs. Communism
Aug 10th 2000
39
           I agree to a point
Aug 10th 2000
44
           RE: Democracy Vs. Communism
Aug 11th 2000
57
                true dat! n/m
Aug 11th 2000
62
           Democracy Vs. Communism
Aug 10th 2000
40
      RE: sounds more like communism to me n/m
d-Best
Aug 10th 2000
26
i don't support him
Aug 09th 2000
3
fire, i don't understand
d-Best
Aug 10th 2000
29
      i'm a younger person
Aug 11th 2000
54
           RE: i'm a younger person
Aug 11th 2000
58
I think alot of people
Aug 09th 2000
4
word
d-Best
Aug 10th 2000
30
RE: I think alot of people
Aug 10th 2000
41
dunno yet if i'm voting for him, but...
Aug 09th 2000
7
RE: dunno yet if i'm voting for him, but...
Aug 09th 2000
10
I think that platform is cool...
Aug 09th 2000
8
RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader
dividedwefall
Aug 09th 2000
9
RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader
Aug 09th 2000
11
RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader
Aug 09th 2000
13
10 Reasons to Vote Nader
Aug 09th 2000
17
RE: 10 Reasons to Vote Nader
Aug 10th 2000
20
      you're not reading
Aug 10th 2000
22
      RE: you're not reading
Aug 10th 2000
36
           RE: you're not reading
Aug 10th 2000
51
                Part 1.
Aug 11th 2000
53
                RE: you're not reading
Aug 11th 2000
56
                     fascism rears its ugly head
Aug 11th 2000
60
                          RE: fascism rears its ugly head
Aug 11th 2000
61
                               dear Expertise
Aug 12th 2000
64
                                    RE: dear Expertise part 1
Aug 12th 2000
65
                                         goodbye
Aug 13th 2000
66
                                              Stop Doggin my bwoy!
uncle_clarence_tomas
Aug 14th 2000
67
      RE: 10 Reasons to Vote Nader
d-Best
Aug 10th 2000
31
      RE: 10 Reasons to Vote Nader
Aug 11th 2000
59
      Nader is anti military...thats foolish..he wants
Young_Isa
Aug 14th 2000
69
Analysis
Aug 10th 2000
19
RE: Analysis
Aug 10th 2000
24
again, with your uneducated attempts to talk
d-Best
Aug 10th 2000
32
RE: again, with your uneducated attempts to talk
Aug 10th 2000
37
      Have any of you noticed yet
Aug 10th 2000
38
      Well, now...
Aug 10th 2000
46
      Banks
Aug 11th 2000
52
I have to quote you. Sorry.
Aug 10th 2000
35
Look
Aug 10th 2000
42
      RE: Look
Aug 10th 2000
50
           RE: Look
Aug 14th 2000
70
RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader
d-Best
Aug 10th 2000
25
this is it for me... TODAY
d-Best
Aug 10th 2000
33
      why not just run for office? n/m
Aug 10th 2000
49
Viva El Ralph!
Aug 10th 2000
34
Hear Ye...
Ylana
Aug 11th 2000
63
i wasn't voting for that cracker anyway..vote for ME ISA.
Young_Isa
Aug 14th 2000
68

SpecialLight
Charter member
288 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 05:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. "RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

ADD TO THAT my point that Nader isn't even on some ballots in some states!!!
--------------------------------------------------

"the wackness is spreading like the plague"~guru

"IS TRUTH LIBERATING?

if it is truth that binds
why are there
so many lies between
lovers?

if it is truth that is liberating
why
are people told:
they look good when they don't
they are loved when they aren't
everything is fine when it ain't
glad you're back when you're not.

Black people in america
may not be made for the truth
we wrap our lives in disco
and sunday sermons
while
selling false dreams to our children.

lies
are refundable,
can be bought on our revolving
charge cards as
we all catch truth
on the next go round
if
it doesn't hurt."~Haki Madhubuti


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 05:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "Plenty of reasons to vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 0


          

You inspired me to read the whole platform.

Yes, some of the 10 things you listed are crazy/unworkable, but the vast majority of the platform I agree with. Notably the strong emphasis on
true democracy
anti-discrimination
true quality education
changing the valuation of the environment
truly working for global democracy
de-militarisation
...


AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Dove
Charter member
32915 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 06:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "sounds more like communism to me n/m"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~

"you can still be kind and have sex you know....otherwise, nice people wouldn't reproduce and the world would be full of assholes" - Phil





http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 06:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "and ?"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Dove
Charter member
32915 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 03:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "and...."
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

it doesn't sound like Nader's for democracy. It sounds like he's for communism.
His value system would never work - people are too greedy and selfish to be that equal with their money.
Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~

"you can still be kind and have sex you know....otherwise, nice people wouldn't reproduce and the world would be full of assholes" - Phil





http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
epiphany

Wed Aug-09-00 06:55 PM

  
14. "possibly"
In response to Reply # 12


          

you mean Marxism....which wouldn't be too bad.
To say that the Green Party's politics are communist in nature is a little off base and loaded.
Although I can see how some people might make the same accusation.

(ey, we're Aries...we gotta argue sometime )

"the Pu-tang Clan!?! I loooovveee you guys!" -Hugh Heffner, when he met the RZA at a backstreet boys party

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 08:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "RE: and...."
In response to Reply # 12


          

What points do you feel point towards dictatorship?

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 09:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "dear Dove"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

>it doesn't sound like Nader's for
>democracy. It sounds like
>he's for communism.

Why should it be one of both ?

What makes you think both are contradictory ?

And what makes you think there's democracry today ?

>His value system would never work
>- people are too greedy
>and selfish to be that
>equal with their money.

You have to start somewhere ... If you believe that it'll never work, what's the use of living ?
Even if he won't be able to make a national change, does that mean you can't start things in your community/friends ?

krewc


OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 10:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "Yo Krew!"
In response to Reply # 16


          

I see this turning into another battle of the these OKAYAristocrats vs. The OKAYProletariat...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Dove
Charter member
32915 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 07:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "LOL!"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

you guyz over here givin me the what for....
*sigh*
Remember, I'm 33 years old - I've believed in democrats, then republicans, at one point liberatarians, - hell, I even thought communism would be the best thing for us at one point in my life. I was born & raised POOR AS DIRT. I've worked my butt off for everything I have -which still isn't much.
The fact is people are too selfish and greedy for anything like Nader's plan to work. It's all good in theory to want to make things more 'equal' for people when it comes to money, but you know the rich are NOT going to open up their pocketbooks that easy. Sure, for us little people things would be brighter - but somehow, somewhere people would become discontent with that too.
Like I always say, if people aren't happy with our candidates at the top then dammit go into politics yourself.
Notice I didn't say 'Nader sucks' or anything of the sort, just said his ideas won't work - because people suck.
Please just ignore me. I'm no political expert - I'm not trying to tell anyone how to run their lives or who to vote for.
Fuck it.
You made a post and I replied. Period.
Sorry if you didn't like my answer.
Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~

"you can still be kind and have sex you know....otherwise, nice people wouldn't reproduce and the world would be full of assholes" - Phil





http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 08:34 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "hey Dovely"
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

I ain't mad, it's just that I'm used to that sort of response, where people seem to equate communism with some sort of totalitarian regime.

What existed in the Soviet Union and what exists in China today is everything BUT communism or socialism. Somehow people seem to believe all propaganda and still think I want some Soviet regime.

I got your point, it's all love !


take care fellow Peachy,

krewc

OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
d-Best

Thu Aug-10-00 10:13 AM

  
28. "Dove much love, but..."
In response to Reply # 21


          

people are only selfish and greedy because if they aren't...

they'll die

If we could count on basic shelter, food, medical assistance and clothing, you'd see alot of greed drop.

BUT "welfare" as US practices it does not do that.

It gives some "poor" cats SOME stuff.

Everyone needs to be on welfare. It eliminates conservative jealousy, it eliminates fear of death, and your families death, and it makes America actually means something other than "it could be great, but..."

Don't give up, brother.
d-best

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Dove
Charter member
32915 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 03:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "wow"
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

first you berate me, then you give me love.
I'm confused now.
Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~

"you can still be kind and have sex you know....otherwise, nice people wouldn't reproduce and the world would be full of assholes" - Phil





http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
el_rey
Charter member
5626 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 03:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "nice answer d-Best."
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

true, U.S. greed doesn't come from just nowhere! I been too many places where that type of cutthroat cometitiveness doesn't exist to believe that its human nature or something like that. capitalism + a police state that punished the poor + a lack of any real social services + miseducation & propoganda drives folks in this country more than a little crazy as we struggle to survive. Its not all about the3 size of one's bottstraps as Expertise would have us believe. There are major obstacles to the survuval of the underprivileged on this planet. Those that are "making it" are usually doing so at the expence of their own humanity (read: they often need to step on others to get to where they are ...).

But Dove DOES have a point: How well would Nader's program go over when we are so programmed to believe in the lie of this country's "democracy" and "prosperity for all?"

love and respect,
El Rey


http://www.mumia2000.org
http://www.mumia.org

"To be honest, in any civilized debate a normal person would describe someone like Bush a fascist populist, and Gore a neoliberal opportunist." - Krewcial

CELEBRATING AUGUST AS ... aw fuck it, it's ME'SHELL MONTH up in this joint!

Are you free? Truly Free. Do you believe everything that you hear? Everything that you see? Can you tell me if you're free?

I try to tell folks, do you think if Elian, you know ... the little kid from Cuba ... was from Haiti, that we'd be having all this? If he was my color do you think we'd be having all this news shit? I don't think so. Or if he was a refugee from Rwanda do you think we'd be going through any of this? Wouldn't be such headline news. Do you believe everything that you hear and see? America's got you believing that Communism is right at your door, so boycott Cuba. Don't believe everything that you hear and everything that you see.

It's so sad. I get so sad some times. The only way to feel superior is to crush out the others. Cuz you sell your soul like you sell a piece of ass ... a slave to dead white leaders on paper. Welfare cases, rapists and hoes, all reinforced by videos and T.V. shows. Jail is a sancutary for the walking dead. It fucks with your head when every black leader ends up dead. Somebody said: our greatest destiny is to become white. But white is not pure and hate is not pride. Just cuz Civil Rights is law doesn't mean that you abide. So tell me ... are you free? -- Me'Shell Ndegeocello, from a live Web broadcast of "Dead Nigga Blvd."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
who are you









really

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
jsmooth995
Charter member
2752 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 06:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
47. "hey dove..."
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

1 - Hey, your posts are always on point Dove. Don't let nobody break your stride (c) Matthew Wilder

2 - "The fact is people are too selfish and greedy for anything like Nader's plan to work."
...I agree this platform as a whole is unrealistic. But for the record I must reiterate this is not NADER's plan at all (see my post #7), just the Green party's plan.

3 - Although you are correct that overall this platform represents an unrealistic ideal, one could argue that is the proper role for a third party. The Greens know they are not getting into office, so they aim to expand the boundaries of the debate, and thus sway the mainstream a little closer to their side. Pull the center a little further left.

For example they know damn well a $12 minimum wage ain't gonna happen, but setting the bar that high within the debate could make it easier to push it from $5 to $6. See what I'm saying?

Jay Smooth
WBAI 99.5 FM in NY
http://www.hiphopmusic.com

----------------------------------------
Top ten gems (um, allegedly) found in Napster this week:

10 De La Soul - Freedom of Speak
9 Nina Simone - Funkier Than A Mosquitos Tweeter
8 Jimi Hendrix - Cherokee Jam (solo acoustic)
7 Nolan Thomas - Yo Little Brother
6 Radiohead - Optimistic (live)
5 Prince - Electric Intercourse ("Wake Up, Wendy" version)
4 Diamond D's entire first album
3 Esther Phillips - Home is Where the Hatred Is
2 The Junkyard Band - Sardines
1 Betty Davis - If I'm in Luck I Might Get Picked Up

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Dove
Charter member
32915 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 06:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "I feel you"
In response to Reply # 47


  

          

and thank you for making a point without rhetoric.
I appreciate your explanation.
Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~

"you can still be kind and have sex you know....otherwise, nice people wouldn't reproduce and the world would be full of assholes" - Phil





http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
d-Best

Thu Aug-10-00 10:10 AM

  
27. "RE: and...."
In response to Reply # 12


          

you have obviously done nothing with your education.



Communism IS democracy, fool!

Communism has been practice for thousands of years. Fuck UUSR, Fuck China, fuck all that.

Do you know what "communism" means? Community + ism.

Do you know what a commune is?

These are not bad ideas.
They are impractical to YOU.
They are not bad.

There is not now, and never has been anything wrong with "communism"

FUCK anyone's arguments saying "communism" is bad because a country posing to be "communist" was.

That is foolish, illiterate child crap.

Learn something.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Dove
Charter member
32915 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 03:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "I never said it was bad"
In response to Reply # 27


  

          

perhaps you should ask me what I meant before you went off like that.
I have no problem with communism - but it is not democracy.
If you'd like to belittle me some more, please feel free.

Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~

"you can still be kind and have sex you know....otherwise, nice people wouldn't reproduce and the world would be full of assholes" - Phil





http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Oakley
Charter member
7810 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 02:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "Democracy Vs. Communism"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

True Communism and True democracy are more similar than a lot of people make them out to be. All the so called "communist" countries in the world, aren't communist. They are more socialist than anything else. And the US isn't a true democracy, its a republican form of government. We elect people to make decisions for us.
True communism is acheived when the socialist government disolves and gives everything back to the people. Sounds a lot like democracy doesn't it? A Government of the People!!!!

___________________________________
"WASP of the year: even if he isn�t a WASP, Oakley. Sailing? Check. In a yacht club? Check. Used the term �summer� as a verb instead of a noun? You betcha!" -thejerseytornado

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Dove
Charter member
32915 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 03:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "I agree to a point"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          

the theory of communism is beautiful...
My point is that people are too greedy and selfish to adhere to it.
Most would be happy, but some would never be content with anything.
Like I said - I'm no expert - just my opinion.
Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~

"you can still be kind and have sex you know....otherwise, nice people wouldn't reproduce and the world would be full of assholes" - Phil





http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 07:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
57. "RE: Democracy Vs. Communism"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          

Put simply, a country can be democratic AND communist.

A country may also be capitalist without democracy. Who says you need to be able to vote for your public officials in order to have a free market? Remember the royalty system in Europe? You didn't elect the king, but there were still free market economies in Europe (who paid taxes to the king). That's capitalism under a dictatorship.

Wasn't till America came around that folks thought they needed a free market and a vote. Till then, folks were living under their king, happy to get their farm on.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Dove
Charter member
32915 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 04:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "true dat! n/m"
In response to Reply # 57


  

          

Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~






http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Oakley
Charter member
7810 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 02:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "Democracy Vs. Communism"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

True Communism and True democracy are more similar than a lot of people make them out to be. All the so called "communist" countries in the world, aren't communist. They are more socialist than anything else. And the US isn't a true democracy, its a republican form of government. We elect people to make decisions for us.
True communism is acheived when the socialist government disolves and gives everything back to the people. Sounds a lot like democracy doesn't it? A Government of the People!!!!

___________________________________
"WASP of the year: even if he isn�t a WASP, Oakley. Sailing? Check. In a yacht club? Check. Used the term �summer� as a verb instead of a noun? You betcha!" -thejerseytornado

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
d-Best

Thu Aug-10-00 10:07 AM

  
26. "RE: sounds more like communism to me n/m"
In response to Reply # 5


          

and?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

fire
Charter member
111370 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 05:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "i don't support him"
In response to Reply # 0


          

even before i read this, i know that alot of younger people are just trying to be "radical" and vote non traditionally.

well guess what? ya'll would be M I S E R A B L E!

_______________________________
Celebrating Bitch Month


"respect my genius, suck my penius!" - young isa/my dawg

"respect my month or lick my rump! -fire da BITCH

"my conscience is clearer than a mirror ." - me

"wasn't me!" - eddie murphy/raw

________________________________________
who gonna check me boo?!

www.twitter.com/firefire100
http://instagram.com/firefire100
www.philadelphiaeagles.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
d-Best

Thu Aug-10-00 10:17 AM

  
29. "fire, i don't understand"
In response to Reply # 3


          

what are you saying / did you say anything?


When you risrespect young people's need to help progress our world, you direspect yourself.

Because you were once young.

And you once cared about something.

"radical" literally means "the root of things" it shared linguistic history with "radicand" a geometric term.

"radical" began to mean "extreme" when cats in government started actually solving problems. People were like "why are you solving problems when you should just sit on your ass like me and pretend everything is okay?"

That's when "radical" started to mean "extreme"


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
fire
Charter member
111370 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 03:32 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "i'm a younger person"
In response to Reply # 29


          

but what i'm saying, if you look at the history of the world, it has always been us 20 & 30 somethings going against the grain, but sometimes to our detriment.

i'm not greedy, but limiting the amount of money one can make is absolutely tyranical.

that's the icing on the cake.....i don't have time to get into it this morning but i'll be back after some free coffee from the kitchen of my corporate behemoth.

_______________________________
Celebrating Bitch Month

"respect my genius, suck my penius!" - young isa/my dawg

"respect my month or lick my rump!"-fire da BITCH

"my conscience is clearer than a mirror ." - me

"wasn't me!" - eddie murphy/raw

"diva's need love 2." - cupcake via klymaxx

fire - okayplayer's resident leona helmsley

________________________________________
who gonna check me boo?!

www.twitter.com/firefire100
http://instagram.com/firefire100
www.philadelphiaeagles.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 08:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
58. "RE: i'm a younger person"
In response to Reply # 54


  

          

>i'm not greedy, but limiting the
>amount of money one can
>make is absolutely tyranical.

in certain ways, income tax limits the amount of money you can make. theoretically, if you enter a certain tax bracket, a certain amount gets taken from you, limiting what you can earn by what bracket you're in (realistically, rich folks find all types of tax shelters, but you know...).

i don't know. i read the 10 ideas and if that's what nader proposes, that's a revolution right there. i don't understand why folks are pissed about not being able to make more than $195,000 for. Because, if that happened, the prices on most items would drop so everyone could afford them (example: no $1,000,000 house because no one could afford to buy it...however, if the housing prices drop at the top, the housing prices drop overall, because no one would charge the same price for a 20 room mansion and a 5 room condo...i.e. houses that are a 1,000,000 now might be 100,000, 100,000 houses might be 10,000...anyone see where I'm going with this?).
The entire economy would have to shift.

And what would Nader do with the folks who currently have 90% of the wealth. Bill Gates has 90 billion. Surely he can't keep that 90 billion while everyone else is restricted to 195,000/yr? Because then who holds the wealth now would, de facto through inheritance, hold the wealth forever (even an estate tax would take generations to trim down a 90 billion dollar estate to anywhere near the level of an estate built at 195,000/yr, pre-tax).

Economics heads, holler back.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Ursus
Charter member
800 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 06:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "I think alot of people"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Are voting for Nader in order to finally have a chance at getting a third party to be recongnized and possibly funded by the governement. Would this be so horrible? Isn't it about time there was another party out there that could provide "other" views rather than what the Republicans and Democrats have been offering. If America is a true Democracy, and if there proves to be enough support for the Green Party, then shouldn't the governement act accordingly?

Also yes there may be some loopholes within the Green Party platform, but damn some of their policies on the environment and globalization really speak to me. I can't remember the last time a political party has actually excited me!

Ursus

"Time is just memory mixed with desire" - Tom Waits

"Silence is the loudest parting word..you never say" -Ben Harper

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
d-Best

Thu Aug-10-00 10:19 AM

  
30. "word"
In response to Reply # 4


          

it's iun everyone's best interests ot vote for Nader. Because if he gets a percentage, that paves the way for ALL political parties and ideologies to get a voice.

If he wins, if will inspire millions of people of all viewpoints to take to the streets and be politically active.

Conservatives For Nader --that's what I want to see.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Oakley
Charter member
7810 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 02:52 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "RE: I think alot of people"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

The US isn't a True Democracy! It is a Republic!

___________________________________
"WASP of the year: even if he isn�t a WASP, Oakley. Sailing? Check. In a yacht club? Check. Used the term �summer� as a verb instead of a noun? You betcha!" -thejerseytornado

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

jsmooth995
Charter member
2752 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 08:34 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
7. "dunno yet if i'm voting for him, but..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Some of these ideas in this platform are extreme, no doubt...others such as statehood for D.C. are perfectly sensible, and long overdue.

But regardless, the fact that Nader is running under the Green Party does not mean he endorses every single item in their platform. In fact, in 1996 he stated publicly he had not even READ the party's platform while he was running. So unless you can show us where Nader has specifically endorsed these ideas, your post is irrelevant.

It is common for candidates to form an alliance with one of the major third parties even though they may not agree on all the issues, because it is the only viable way to get on the ballot. For example my colleague at WBAI, Al Lewis, ran on the Green Party ticket but does not see eye-to-eye with them on everything by any means.

So if you want to attack Nader, you'll need do it based on what NADER said, or else it carries no weight.

Jay Smooth
WBAI 99.5 FM in NY
http://www.hiphopmusic.com

http://www.illdoctrine.com - where hip-hop vlogs?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Timmy
Member since Jul 28th 2003
244 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 09:50 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "RE: dunno yet if i'm voting for him, but..."
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

Word and double word.

Check http://www.votenader.com/issues/Concord.html for an idea of what Nader himself stands for. It's a little more sensible-seeming, and certainly the most clear and reality-based platform I've heard in politics today.

Also, word to Ursus. Realistically, the Green Party probably won't win. But I'm hoping they'll receive a large enough percentage of the votes to at least scare some sense into the mainstream parties. We can try to send them the message that they need to clean up their bullshit and become more accountable or lose their monopoly on the presidency.

=Timmy=
eff a long sig... I can't see the posts for the 3-page sigs!

http://www.myspace.com/timaaaaaaay

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 08:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "I think that platform is cool..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

More on this later...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

dividedwefall

Wed Aug-09-00 09:43 AM

  
9. "RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 0


          

>1. Every household with 4 members
>get $500/wk, $26,000/yr

could you elaborate on this one?

>2. Guaranteed right to a job,
>medical care, lifelong education, child
>care, and housing.

Yeah, what kind of jerk would want people to have that. Universal healthcare and child care for poor people ... no way!

>3. Minimum wage raised to $12.50
>
Its a living wage. Thats good. Unless you want to see the income gap continue to grow

>4. Work week cut to 6
>hrs/day, 30/wk.

not sure about this one...

>5. Eliminate the US Senate

Well, thats a little strange...

>6. Make DC a state

Whats so horrible about making DC a state? Do YOU live in DC? If not, than you probably have some sort of say in government, unlike DC residents. If you do live in DC, than no disresoect intended

>7. Governmental break up of the
>top 500 companies in the
>US. No company or corporation
>is allowed to control over
>10% of their respected market.
>Companies are allowed only by
>federal charter, and must be
>renewed every 20 years.

Good! This is breaking up what are virtual monopolies. This is why there are fewer and fewer local business. We need to take away the power from the corporate fat cats

>8. Every enterprise that has over
>10 workers may elect their
>own management and supervisors.

Good idea, but could prove problematic...

>9. Governmental seizure of the top
>200 banks in the US,
>which includes 80% of the
>assets.

I'm not sure, but it sounds pretty good to me. However, this is getting nearer to communism which I definetely have no problem with but a lot of people do. (propaganda)

>10. All income over 10X minimum
>wage ($12.50/hr) shall be taxed
>100%. Hence, according to the
>Green Party guidelines, no individual
>is allowed to make more
>than $195,000/yr. And that's gross
>income, not net.

again, ite is trying to get rid of the income gap. 200 grand is a lot of money anyways

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
k_orr
Charter member
80197 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 11:12 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

>>1. Every household with 4 members
>>get $500/wk, $26,000/yr
>
>could you elaborate on this one?

The federal poverty guideline for a family of 4 is about 23K. So it's pay raise.

>>2. Guaranteed right to a job,
>>medical care, lifelong education, child
>>care, and housing.
>
>Yeah, what kind of jerk would
>want people to have that.
>Universal healthcare and child care
>for poor people ... no
>way!

What do they mean right to a job? Is he talking about prisoners?

>>3. Minimum wage raised to $12.50
>>
>Its a living wage. Thats good.
>Unless you want to see
>the income gap continue to
>grow

But when you raise the minimum, everyone making 12.50+ now needs a pay bump.

On the flip, American productivity has increased by at least 5 fold in the past 10 years, but Ameican paychecks have not done the same.

>>4. Work week cut to 6
>>hrs/day, 30/wk.
>
>not sure about this one...

Why not? It's pretty common in Europe.

>>5. Eliminate the US Senate
>
>Well, thats a little strange...

Maybe we only need one body of legislators.

>>7. Governmental break up of the
>>top 500 companies in the
>>US. No company or corporation
>>is allowed to control over
>>10% of their respected market.
>>Companies are allowed only by
>>federal charter, and must be
>>renewed every 20 years.

I don't see how this could be implemented or enforced. What happens when you invent the market? Do you have to sell your idea to 9 other people? Like let's say I come up with a new technology like anti-gravity. Do I have to share my labor with everyone?

>>9. Governmental seizure of the top
>>200 banks in the US,
>>which includes 80% of the
>>assets.

>I'm not sure, but it sounds
>pretty good to me. However,
>this is getting nearer to
>communism which I definetely have
>no problem with but a
>lot of people do. (propaganda)

Why.

>>10. All income over 10X minimum
>>wage ($12.50/hr) shall be taxed
>>100%. Hence, according to the
>>Green Party guidelines, no individual
>>is allowed to make more
>>than $195,000/yr. And that's gross
>>income, not net.
>
>again, ite is trying to get
>rid of the income gap.
>200 grand is a lot
>of money anyways

200 grand = 132,000 after fed taxes. This doesn't include gas, state income, municipal, or state. And folks make 200K ain't living like folks who make 20K.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

DJ_scratch_N_sniff
Member since Jun 09th 2002
155 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 05:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
13. "RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 0


          

>I cannot understand for the life
>of me why are you
>Okayplayers supporting such an illogical,
>idiotic, extremist party like the
>Green Party.

What an extremist thing to say.


All that stuff looks good to me except maybe 4 and 5.

Come on now... DC should have been a state a long time ago. U know how poor, unrepresented, and Black that town is?

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Wed Aug-09-00 09:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "10 Reasons to Vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Dear Expertise :

please tell me what's wrong/extremist/stupid about these ideas :

1)
Democracy must empower and enable citizens to obtain timely and accurate information from their government, enable citizens to band together in civic associations in pursuit of a just society, and communicate their judgments through modern technology.

2)
The American people should have reasonable control over the public lands, public media airwaves, pension funds, and other societal assets which the public legally owns, rather than having these public assets controlled by a powerful few.

3)
We need modern mechanisms so that civic power for self-government and self-reliance can correct the often converging power imbalance of Big Business and Big Government that weakens the rights of citizens.

4)
Citizens should have measures to ensure that their voting powers are not diluted, over-run, or nullified. Such measures include easier voter registration, state-level binding initiatives and referendums, public financing of campaigns, and term limits not to exceed 12 years.

5)
Citizens must have full legal standing to challenge in the courts the waste, fraud, and abuse of government spending. Overly complex, mystifying jargon in our laws and procedures must be simplified and clarified so that the general public is not shut out from readily understanding and challenging them.

6)
Citizens should be accorded computerized access in libraries and in their homes to the full range of government information. Inserts in billing statements from monopolized utilities and financial companies should invite consumers to join consumer action watchdog groups. The public, which owns the tv/cable/radio media airwaves, which are leased for free to large commercial businesses, should have its own Audience Network to inform, alert, and mobilize democratic citizen debate and initiatives.

7)
Effective legal protections are needed for ethical whistleblowers who alert Americans to abuses or hazards to health and safety in the workplace, or contaminate the environment, or defraud citizens. Such conscientious workers need rights to ensure they will not be fired or demoted for speaking out within the corporations, the government, or in other bureaucracies.

8)
Working people need a reasonable measure of control over how their pension monies are invested, rather than it being controlled by banks and insurance companies.

9)
Shareholders, who are the owners of companies, should not have their assets wasted or worker morale victimized by executives who give themselves huge salaries, bonuses, greenmail, and golden parachutes, self-perpetuating boards of directors, and a stifling of the proxy voting system to block shareholder voting reforms.

10)
Our country's schoolchildren need to be taught democratic principles in their historic context and present relevance, with practical civics experiences to develop their citizen skills and a desire to use them, and so they will be nurtured to serve as a major reservoir of future democracy.



krewc


OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 01:14 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "RE: 10 Reasons to Vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

>1)
>Democracy must empower and enable citizens
>to obtain timely and accurate
>information from their government, enable
>citizens to band together in
>civic associations in pursuit of
>a just society, and communicate
>their judgments through modern technology.

Because to think that democracy can actually cover everyone and give full power to the people is unrealistic. People are individuals, and have individual thoughts and ideas through nature. Democracies only protect the majority. But what about the minority? What about the individual?

>2)
>The American people should have reasonable
>control over the public lands,
>public media airwaves, pension funds,
>and other societal assets which
>the public legally owns, rather
>than having these public assets
>controlled by a powerful few.

Substitute public for GOVERNMENT. The GOVERNMENT should have control over the GOVERNMENT lands, media airwaves controlled by GOVERNMENT, pension funs, and other societal assets that the GOVERNMENT legally owns. The only thing public about that is that you will elect the representatives every couple of years. What, you think every time an issue comes up there is going to be a referendum? You'll have to go to the ballot box every single day. Good luck. Hence that mean that someone is going to be making the decisions for the public on whether or not to do this or do that. The public still has no power, other than to remove their representative whenever election time comes.

>3)
>We need modern mechanisms so that
>civic power for self-government and
>self-reliance can correct the often
>converging power imbalance of Big
>Business and Big Government that
>weakens the rights of citizens.

You're going to use Big Government to stop big government. Sure.
The way you empower citizens is to actually reduce the power of government, not give it more power.

>4)
>Citizens should have measures to ensure
>that their voting powers are
>not diluted, over-run, or nullified.
>Such measures include easier voter
>registration, state-level binding initiatives and
>referendums, public financing of campaigns,
>and term limits not to
>exceed 12 years.

Easier voter registration? How? You're going to make it easier for criminals and illegal immigrants to vote? Public financing campaigns limit freedom of speech. If you want to support a campaign by giving something out of your wallet, why shouldn't you be able to? Why should government be in control of how much support a candidate should have?

>5)
>Citizens must have full legal standing
>to challenge in the courts
>the waste, fraud, and abuse
>of government spending. Overly complex,
>mystifying jargon in our laws
>and procedures must be simplified
>and clarified so that the
>general public is not shut
>out from readily understanding and
>challenging them.

*LOL* Here's what they are saying in lamen's terms: "The citizens of the United States are too lazy and stupid to understand the content of the law, so we are going to dumb down the working and context of the law so these poor simpletons can understand." Yeah. That's having good faith in the people.

>6)
>Citizens should be accorded computerized access
>in libraries and in their
>homes to the full range
>of government information. Inserts in
>billing statements from monopolized utilities
>and financial companies should invite
>consumers to join consumer action
>watchdog groups. The public, which
>owns the tv/cable/radio media airwaves,
>which are leased for free
>to large commercial businesses, should
>have its own Audience Network
>to inform, alert, and mobilize
>democratic citizen debate and initiatives.

There is a reason why citizens are not allowed full government access; it's called National Security. If the public can get access to it from the internet, then what makes you think enemies of the US won't either? With this Audience Network, you are encouraging people to turn against each other. Also, what about the people who DON'T agree with the majority? Do they not have rights too?

>7)
>Effective legal protections are needed for
>ethical whistleblowers who alert Americans
>to abuses or hazards to
>health and safety in the
>workplace, or contaminate the environment,
>or defraud citizens. Such conscientious
>workers need rights to ensure
>they will not be fired
>or demoted for speaking out
>within the corporations, the government,
>or in other bureaucracies.

This whole idea REAKS of corruption. Blackmail, bribes, dirty money, favors, everything, espeically if they are given immunity. Also, who is going to set these standards? The government?

>8)
>Working people need a reasonable measure
>of control over how their
>pension monies are invested, rather
>than it being controlled by
>banks and insurance companies.

By controlling it through their private banks and companies they ARE given control. What, is social security supposed to be an example of public control? Yeah, the government has done a great job with THAT program.

>9)
>Shareholders, who are the owners of
>companies, should not have their
>assets wasted or worker morale
>victimized by executives who give
>themselves huge salaries, bonuses, greenmail,
>and golden parachutes, self-perpetuating boards
>of directors, and a stifling
>of the proxy voting system
>to block shareholder voting reforms.

*shaking head* Lamen's terms: "There are shareholders that are too stupid to understand when to jump off of a sinking ship, therefore government must rush in to save them."

>10)
>Our country's schoolchildren need to be
>taught democratic principles in their
>historic context and present relevance,
>with practical civics experiences to
>develop their citizen skills and
>a desire to use them,
>and so they will be
>nurtured to serve as a
>major reservoir of future democracy.

Lamen's terms: "It is Government's job to indoctrinate the people's children in schools so that they may develop into the citizens we wish for them to be." A very common Communist tactic.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 08:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "you're not reading"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

Your replies are not a reaction to what I posted (the 10 things), most of it are just generalisations/slogans.

>Because to think that democracy can
>actually cover everyone and give
>full power to the people
>is unrealistic.

Then what do you suggest ? Only power to 'enlightened' people (such as yourself ?), who know what's best for the ignorant masses ?

There are many different ways in which 'power to the people' can be translated to reality. But you're not even considering the possibility of that. You're not even willing to consider searching for those various ways.

>People are
>individuals, and have individual thoughts
>and ideas through nature.

Yes, but at the same time people have things in common too. Democracy doesn't mean that everything should be catered to every single wish of every single person. Of course that's impossible ... suppose I want a green road and you want a yellow road ... chances are nothing happens that way.

That's not the point here, but I think you're deliberately exaggerating or ridiculising the topic to avoid having to answer it.

>Democracies only protect the majority.
>But what about the
>minority? What about the
>individual?

Democracies don't only protect the majority. Maybe they do in your definition, but then you need to re-evaluate things. And how about the 'minorities' today ? How about individuals today ?

Today things are like this : a MINORITY of a few rich countries exploits a MAJORITY of poor workers in plenty of countries. Sounds much better than actual democracy, right ?

>>2)
>>The American people should have reasonable
>>control over the public lands,
>>public media airwaves, pension funds,
>>and other societal assets which
>>the public legally owns, rather
>>than having these public assets
>>controlled by a powerful few.
>
>Substitute public for GOVERNMENT. The
>GOVERNMENT should have control over
>the GOVERNMENT lands, media airwaves
>controlled by GOVERNMENT, pension funs,
>and other societal assets that
>the GOVERNMENT legally owns.

What's the problem if this 'government' (your choice of words) thruthfully and accurately represents the public ?

Meaning : a situation completely opposite to the one we know today, where the government represents private/corporate interest and uses the public to finance it.

No wonder people are sick of 'politics' (calling what exists today 'politics' is an insult to the actual meaning and origin of 'politea' anyway).

>The only thing public about
>that is that you will
>elect the representatives every couple
>of years. What, you
>think every time an issue
>comes up there is going
>to be a referendum?
>You'll have to go to
>the ballot box every single
>day. Good luck.

In your view : yes. Why should it be like that ? You only seem to consider one possibility, accidently (?) your view always seems the worst.

>Hence that mean that someone
>is going to be making
>the decisions for the public
>on whether or not to
>do this or do that.
>The public still has
>no power, other than to
>remove their representative whenever election
>time comes.

I'm not a fan of what you are suggesting, but at least it would include more democratic control than having companies with no elected managers whatsoever deciding what's happening with my taxes.

>>3)
>>We need modern mechanisms so that
>>civic power for self-government and
>>self-reliance can correct the often
>>converging power imbalance of Big
>>Business and Big Government that
>>weakens the rights of citizens.
>
>You're going to use Big Government
>to stop big government.
>Sure.
>The way you empower citizens is
>to actually reduce the power
>of government, not give it
>more power.

Funny, you don't seem to mind Big Business at all. You don't need to either, since Big Business = Big Government in reality. So I agree with you in a certain way : we definitely need to reduce the government's (in it's actual definition) power, which also means reducing that of Big Business.

>>4)
>>Citizens should have measures to ensure
>>that their voting powers are
>>not diluted, over-run, or nullified.
>>Such measures include easier voter
>>registration, state-level binding initiatives and
>>referendums, public financing of campaigns,
>>and term limits not to
>>exceed 12 years.
>
>Easier voter registration? How?
>You're going to make it
>easier for criminals and illegal
>immigrants to vote?

Where does it say what you mention ? Maybe Nader means that people won't be discouraged to register, cos they no longer have the impression that it doesn't matter anyway.

>Public financing campaigns limit freedom of
>speech. If you want to support a campaign by
>giving something out of your wallet, why
>shouldn't you be able to? Why should
>government be in control of
>how much support a candidate
>should have?

My guess is that Nader means that rich and powerfull candidates (or those with a programme that supports the values and privileges of the people in power, both political and economical) will always win when there's no limit to the money you spend : the richest candidate will not necessarily win everytime, but it won't really hurt him either.

Suppose Michael Johnson has to run barefooted on a glass track, while the other runners have the best sneakers on a hardcourt track ? Very fair indeed.

Presidential campaigns should be about the content of your programme, not how good you can criticize/marginalize/ridiculise other candidates or how much access to the media you got.

>*LOL* Here's what they are
>saying in lamen's terms:
>"The citizens of the United
>States are too lazy and
>stupid to understand the content
>of the law, so we
>are going to dumb down
>the working and context of
>the law so these poor
>simpletons can understand." Yeah.
> That's having good faith
>in the people.

I thought you would agree with that, seeing your remarks about how 'unworthy' some people are to vote ?

Seeing how much people a) are illiterate (or were denied access to a proper education) in your beatiful United States, and b) how juridic jargon can be so complicated that even lawyers need to read things at least three times, I think something like this makes sense.
It doesn't say people are stupid : it says 'a large number of people end up in jail cos they don't understand what is being said to them, and therefor can't defend themselves properly.' It's constructive self-criticism, and it offers an alternative.

Sounds much better to me than your 'it won't work, it's stupid, it's ignorant ...'

>There is a reason why citizens
>are not allowed full government
>access; it's called National Security.

Another name could be 'totalitarism', or 'misleading the public'.

If that same public finances things, why shouldn't it have access to what is being done with that money ?

>If the public can
>get access to it from
>the internet, then what makes
>you think enemies of the
>US won't either?

>With
>this Audience Network, you are
>encouraging people to turn against
>each other.

Well, at least it would be their individual choice to turn against one another. Not a choice made by government (in your definition) to set up people/communities against one another.

>>7)
>>Effective legal protections are needed for
>>ethical whistleblowers who alert Americans
>>to abuses or hazards to
>>health and safety in the
>>workplace, or contaminate the environment,
>>or defraud citizens. Such conscientious
>>workers need rights to ensure
>>they will not be fired
>>or demoted for speaking out
>>within the corporations, the government,
>>or in other bureaucracies.
>

>This whole idea REAKS of corruption.
>Blackmail, bribes, dirty money,
>favors, everything, especially if they
>are given immunity.

If you think every person is an egoistic and materialistic pig, then it will probably lead to corruption. You talk about 'THEY', which suggests you don't consider the possibility that you may one day be confronted with abuse, fraud, corruption and want to report it.

If people report an illegal activity, that shouldn't backfire on them, agree ? If they're blackmailing someone with the information they have, they are doing something illegal themselves, which means they'd of course no longer have immunity.
Next time, think before you type something.

>Also,
>who is going to set
>these standards? The government?

The public. Parties/candidates could include this in their programme, and have voters decide whether or not they agree.

>>8)
>>Working people need a reasonable measure
>>of control over how their
>>pension monies are invested, rather
>>than it being controlled by
>>banks and insurance companies.

>By controlling it through their private
>banks and companies they ARE
>given control.

I thought I was naive. I hope your bank and insurance company has a lot of customers like you, in that case they don't need to worry for the next 150 years.

Or ... do you work in one of these yourself ? That would explain a lot.

>*shaking head* Lamen's terms:
>"There are shareholders that are
>too stupid to understand when
>to jump off of a
>sinking ship, therefore government must
>rush in to save them."

When shareholders jump off that 'sinking' ship in time (as you suggest), it leaves the workers with no money & no job.
Some of these people may have worked for that company for 30 years, given the best they got, and are suddenly confronted with no money, no job and no perspective (cos they're too old for today's companies) while at the same time they may have a daughter going to college (so that she wouldn't have to struggle like her parents did).

Oh, they should probably have left the sinking ship in time too ?

>>10)
>>Our country's schoolchildren need to be
>>taught democratic principles in their
>>historic context and present relevance,
>>with practical civics experiences to
>>develop their citizen skills and
>>a desire to use them,
>>and so they will be
>>nurtured to serve as a
>>major reservoir of future democracy.
>
>Lamen's terms: "It is Government's
>job to indoctrinate the people's
>children in schools so that
>they may develop into the
>citizens we wish for them
>to be." A very
>common Communist tactic.

Uhm ... you actually descibed today's educational process, but you're probably not aware of it.
So you think we're all educated freely in schools today, not directed to one or another way ?

There's plenty of studies that show schools cater to and focus on middle class values, a specific work ethic and so on. That means that people who don't have these assets either adapt, or drop out.

Funny coincidence (?) is that what we learn in school happens to be very handy in today's capitalist system too. So kids in school today (and the past) are NOT educated, they are being prepared to keep the system running and to conform.

That's why an education/a degree/a diploma is a status symbol, it's a reward for conforming. It means you've been a good boy/girl, and the rewards will get bigger the more you conform.

Ready to work 70 hours a week in a bank that invests its money in nuclear weapons or for Shell in Nigeria ? You'll get paid, don't worry, but I get the impression that that's the real bribery : you get so much money to make you swallow any possible guilt.


You've said some very arrogant and ignorant things, and I'd suggest you never leave the US, cos you might be too shocked. As mke already put it, you've confirmed every stereotype known about fascist Americans.

Since you're unable to debate things in a polite and respectful way, I'm no longer replying to you.
Just like I don't debate with racists over here.


krewc


OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 01:29 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "RE: you're not reading"
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

>Your replies are not a reaction
>to what I posted (the
>10 things), most of it
>are just generalisations/slogans.

You wanted answers, and that's what I gave you. If these "slogans" are incorrect all you have to do is counter. Simple.

>Then what do you suggest ?
> Only power to 'enlightened'
>people (such as yourself ?),
>who know what's best for
>the ignorant masses ?

How about making a document of laws, have the people agree to those laws and ideals, and then make sure that every law and act is in strict accordance to those laws. That way, the law is actually the power of the land, and not the people who make them. Oh yeah, we already have done that. It's called the Constitution.

>There are many different ways in
>which 'power to the people'
>can be translated to reality.
> But you're not even
>considering the possibility of that.
> You're not even willing
>to consider searching for those
>various ways.

Because you cannot trust every individual mind to do the right thing. This is Earth, not Candy Land. Not everyone is nice, and sweet, and going to do everything for everyone else's interests. Therefore to put full trust in people is being naive. That's why this is a nation of laws, not men.

>Yes, but at the same time
>people have things in common
>too. Democracy doesn't mean
>that everything should be catered
>to every single wish of
>every single person. Of
>course that's impossible ... suppose
>I want a green road
>and you want a yellow
>road ... chances are nothing
>happens that way.

Of course not. There are things that can be done democratically, such as the electing of representatives, whether from the Senate or from the House. However, you cannot expect full democracy without eventually either oppressing the minority or retaliation from the minority. It simply does not work.

>>Democracies only protect the majority.
>>But what about the
>>minority? What about the
>>individual?

>Democracies don't only protect the majority.
> Maybe they do in
>your definition, but then you
>need to re-evaluate things.
>And how about the 'minorities'
>today ? How about
>individuals today ?

Well if this country was a democracy, I'd agree with you, but this country is a constitutional republic, and certain individual interests are protected by the Constitution, regardless of popular opinion.

>Today things are like this :
>a MINORITY of a few
>rich countries exploits a MAJORITY
>of poor workers in plenty
>of countries. Sounds much
>better than actual democracy, right
>?

See this is going into another topic. If we are talking about exploitation of international businesses, that's one thing, but if we are talking about ideals and issues pertaining to this country, then that's another.

As far as international exploitation of corporations, you need to actually refer to the country in which the exploiting is done. There is no doubt that sweatshops are wrong, and companies that engage in this practice is wrong. However, that's an issue you need to consult the host country's government about, not the federal government. That is not in their jurisdiction.

Another point: if you think that foreign businesses are acting in this matter, what makes you think the domestic businesses in that country aren't either? Once again, that government must be held accountable.

>>Substitute public for GOVERNMENT. The
>>GOVERNMENT should have control over
>>the GOVERNMENT lands, media airwaves
>>controlled by GOVERNMENT, pension funs,
>>and other societal assets that
>>the GOVERNMENT legally owns.

>What's the problem if this 'government'
>(your choice of words) thruthfully
>and accurately represents the public
>?

But once again, who are the ones to judge if they represent the public accurately? Are we to have referendums in order to decide what is on the air and what isn't? Isn't that the same as the censorship you complained about you fussed about music? Government lands? How much of the land is owned by them? Is there to be a such thing as private property? Should government just take the lands away from the people that actually paid money for it or had it in their families for generations? What other societal assets does government own?

>Meaning : a situation completely opposite
>to the one we know
>today, where the government represents
>private/corporate interest and uses the
>public to finance it.

Please elaborate on this, because I don't understand what you mean.

>No wonder people are sick of
>'politics' (calling what exists today
>'politics' is an insult to
>the actual meaning and origin
>of 'politea' anyway).

I can get sick of breathing, but if I don't, I'll die.
It doesn't matter if they are sick of it or not, the point is that if they are not willing to stay active and keep up with politics then they have no right complaining to the rest of the world. There are newspapers, magazines, television, radio, internet, and other forms of information just waiting for them to open up and access. If they can't take the time to open up a book and read, then it is noone's fault but their own.

>In your view : yes.
>Why should it be like
>that ? You only
>seem to consider one possibility,
>accidently (?) your view always
>seems the worst.

Well then what other possibility is there? If there is another way to effectively represent the people through democratic means, then please inform me.

>I'm not a fan of what
>you are suggesting, but at
>least it would include more
>democratic control than having companies
>with no elected managers whatsoever
>deciding what's happening with my
>taxes.

What companies are deciding how much you pay in taxes? Not one. The government is the one that decides how much is taken out of your paycheck for taxes, not the company. Nor are the companies deciding how those taxes are used. That's your democratically elected representatives that are doing that.

>Funny, you don't seem to mind
>Big Business at all.
>You don't need to either,
>since Big Business = Big
>Government in reality. So
>I agree with you in
>a certain way : we
>definitely need to reduce the
>government's (in it's actual definition)
>power, which also means reducing
>that of Big Business.

I do mind big business, but to think this is the 1890's all over again is unrealistic. Sure there are lobbying interests done by corporations but they have every right to do so, just as representatives have a right not to accept the lobbying interests.

>>Easier voter registration? How?
>>You're going to make it
>>easier for criminals and illegal
>>immigrants to vote?
>
>Where does it say what you
>mention ? Maybe Nader
>means that people won't be
>discouraged to register, cos they
>no longer have the impression
>that it doesn't matter anyway.

He said one measure is easier voter registration. Does he mean that the voting requirements should be laxed or does he mean the registration process should be easier? If people are discouraged to take part in one the most important parts of their lives, the decision to elect the country's leaders, then that's their fault, not anyone else's,

>>Public financing campaigns limit freedom of
>>speech. If you want to support a campaign by
>>giving something out of your wallet, why
>>shouldn't you be able to? Why should
>>government be in control of
>>how much support a candidate
>>should have?
>
>My guess is that Nader means
>that rich and powerfull candidates
>(or those with a programme
>that supports the values and
>privileges of the people in
>power, both political and economical)
>will always win when there's
>no limit to the money
>you spend : the richest
>candidate will not necessarily win
>everytime, but it won't really
>hurt him either.

The Republicans spend more money than any other political party, and they've been on a losing streak since winning Congress in 94. This year the elections are in a dead heat. If a difference is to made, the people will decide and will support that difference. Money might give an advantage, but it doesn't mean victory. The Democrats have proved that in 96 and 98.

Suppose Michael Johnson has to run
>barefooted on a glass track,
>while the other runners have
>the best sneakers on a
>hardcourt track ? Very
>fair indeed.

I suggest Michael Johnson ask someone to support his race by giving him some shoes in order to run in. If noone does, obviously they have no faith in his speed.

>Presidential campaigns should be about the
>content of your programme, not
>how good you can criticize/marginalize/ridiculise
>other candidates or how much
>access to the media you
>got.

The content of the program is true, but it's also important to go pro and con on why your idea will work and your opponent's wont. That's a very important step in decision making. There is nothing wrong with negative campaigning, as long as it is not libelous.

>Seeing how much people a) are
>illiterate (or were denied access
>to a proper education) in
>your beatiful United States,

No citizen is denied access to learn how to read, therefore that is a lie. Anyone that wants to learn can learn. It's noone's fault but their own if they don't.

and
>b) how juridic jargon can
>be so complicated that even
>lawyers need to read things
>at least three times, I
>think something like this makes
>sense.

Not every lawyer is competant either. If you don't know, then ask. That's what legal advice is for.
And also, let's be realistic......an overwhelming majority of people that break the law, KNOW that it was illegal in the first place. Even if they didn't, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

>It doesn't say people are stupid
>: it says 'a large
>number of people end up
>in jail cos they don't
>understand what is being said
>to them, and therefor can't
>defend themselves properly.' It's
>constructive self-criticism, and it offers
>an alternative.

That's stupid. Like I said, if they don't know the laws of the land and how it applies to them, it's their fault. They should ask before they do something questionable. When you try to make things even more simpler, all that is going to do is make more questions.

>Sounds much better to me than
>your 'it won't work, it's
>stupid, it's ignorant ...'

The answer to enlightening people is not to lower everything down to their level, but to have them raise themselves to the appropriate level. Sure it might make them feel good, but that isn't helping them.

>>There is a reason why citizens
>>are not allowed full government
>>access; it's called National Security.

>Another name could be 'totalitarism', or
>'misleading the public'.

That is nothing near totalitarism. It's understanding that not everyone is a nice, flower loving, sweet human being. There are people that actually want to get rid of this country. Giving them full access to government goings is not only unrealistic, but down right dangerous.

>If that same public finances things,
>why shouldn't it have access
>to what is being done
>with that money ?

The public might finance things, and are entitled to know a certain portion behind the scenes of government, but when you talk about public, you don't mean only this nation's public, but the WROLD's public. That's a whole new ballgame.

>Well, at least it would be
>their individual choice to turn
>against one another. Not
>a choice made by government
>(in your definition) to set
>up people/communities against one another.

They would be tempted by government to turn against each other.

>If you think every person is
>an egoistic and materialistic pig,
>then it will probably lead
>to corruption. You talk
>about 'THEY', which suggests you
>don't consider the possibility that
>you may one day be
>confronted with abuse, fraud, corruption
>and want to report it.

If you think there ISN'T people that are materalistic and be tempted with dirty money then you are seriously naive. Why even put someone in that situation to be corrupted?
As far as they goes, I mean that in a "what if" sense.

>If people report an illegal activity,
>that shouldn't backfire on them,
>agree ? If they're
>blackmailing someone with the information
>they have, they are doing
>something illegal themselves, which means
>they'd of course no longer
>have immunity.

*LOL* You think they are going to rat on someone so they can get punished themselves? Yeah right. They'll plead the 5th in a heartbeat. That is, unless you want to get rid of that too.

Also you forgot another scenario: Relaxing the report in order to get them off in exchange for dirty money. It's called bribery.

>Next time, think before you type
>something.

I'll ignore that remark....

>>Also,
>>who is going to set
>>these standards? The government?
>
>The public. Parties/candidates could include
>this in their programme, and
>have voters decide whether or
>not they agree.

Lordy lordy lordy.....You guys complain about politicians not keeping their promises now, what makes you think they will even with an advanced agenda? And what makes you think that agenda will go through flawless through the legislative body? Remember, you can indeed be the minority. Therefore, if the Christian majority decides they want to implement prayers before and after work, and you don't like it, tough luck, because you'll be one praying soul that day and every day on. The beauty of democracy indeed.

>>>8)
>>>Working people need a reasonable measure
>>>of control over how their
>>>pension monies are invested, rather
>>>than it being controlled by
>>>banks and insurance companies.

>I thought I was naive.
>I hope your bank and
>insurance company has a lot
>of customers like you, in
>that case they don't need
>to worry for the next
>150 years.

If you choose the right bank and company to invest in, you won't have to worry because you will get the provisions you want. If you can't get them there, go on to the next company.

>When shareholders jump off that 'sinking'
>ship in time (as you
>suggest), it leaves the workers
>with no money & no
>job.
>Some of these people may have
>worked for that company for
>30 years, given the best
>they got, and are suddenly
>confronted with no money, no
>job and no perspective (cos
>they're too old for today's
>companies) while at the same
>time they may have a
>daughter going to college (so
>that she wouldn't have to
>struggle like her parents did).

Such is life. It's not supposed to be easy, man. Some win, some lose. You gotta roll with the punches.
After 30 years, if you haven't saved enough money to retire with, then tell me, who's fault is that? It's called personal responsibility, something alot of people have forgotten about. Yeah it's a sad thing to see people with no money, but it's also not something someone else should be punished for by giving up a part of their life and luxury by force. Sometimes it's not what you want to do, it's what you HAVE to do. There are too many people expecting government to solve all your problems. Grow up and solve your own.

>Oh, they should probably have left
>the sinking ship in time
>too ?

That's right. Sure should have.

>Uhm ... you actually descibed today's
>educational process, but you're probably
>not aware of it.
>So you think we're all educated
>freely in schools today, not
>directed to one or another
>way ?

Of course, but we are also given the opportunity to have individual minds and ideas. The very fact that we have opposing opinions shows that.

>There's plenty of studies that show
>schools cater to and focus
>on middle class values, a
>specific work ethic and so
>on. That means that
>people who don't have these
>assets either adapt, or drop
>out.

I agree. You're probably right, and these I'm sure are referring to public schools. However, there are always plenty of private schools in order to choose from also if you don't want your child in that atmosphere.

>Funny coincidence (?) is that what
>we learn in school happens
>to be very handy in
>today's capitalist system too.
>So kids in school today
>(and the past) are NOT
>educated, they are being prepared
>to keep the system running
>and to conform.

Well duh, the things taught in school are designed to reflect the society we are in. It's a school, not a brain washing scheme.

>That's why an education/a degree/a diploma
>is a status symbol, it's
>a reward for conforming.
>It means you've been a
>good boy/girl, and the rewards
>will get bigger the more
>you conform.

It's an award for Achieving. Your rant would be on the money if it wasn't for private schools that indoctrinate their students according to their own agenda.

>Ready to work 70 hours a
>week in a bank that
>invests its money in nuclear
>weapons or for Shell in
>Nigeria ? You'll get
>paid, don't worry, but I
>get the impression that that's
>the real bribery : you
>get so much money to
>make you swallow any possible
>guilt.

That is their choice to take the money just as it yours not to take it. Whether you believe in it or not, you don't have a right to tell them what and what not to invest/work in.

>You've said some very arrogant and
>ignorant things, and I'd suggest
>you never leave the US,
>cos you might be too
>shocked. As mke already
>put it, you've confirmed every
>stereotype known about fascist Americans.

I have and will continue to leave the US....as a tourist. Nothing surprises me, especially the thought of people putting security over freedom. It's almost laughable.

As for you and Mke, I could care less. The real fascists are the ones that try to front and pretend that government can and will take care of all your hopes and dreams. Meanwhile, when the going gets rough, and for some unlikely reason government turns it's ugly head against you, who's going to protect you then? Nothing. And once again, you and other African Americans that support these measures will be victims of government oppression, the same things that you tried to get away from.

>Since you're unable to debate things
>in a polite and respectful
>way, I'm no longer replying
>to you.
>Just like I don't debate with
>racists over here.

Awwww poor thing....did I offend you? That's a shame. If you think I'm offensive, wait until reality hits you. You'll think I was Barney.

Hence, you can take your toys and go home. Just remember that the truth is still out there...and whether it's offensive or not, that's something that you'll never be able to change. Bottom line.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com



Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 10:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
51. "RE: you're not reading"
In response to Reply # 36


  

          

>>Then what do you suggest ?
>>Only power to 'enlightened'
>>people (such as yourself ?),
>>who know what's best for
>>the ignorant masses ?
>
>How about making a document of
>laws, have the people agree
>to those laws and ideals,
>and then make sure that
>every law and act is
>in strict accordance to those
>laws. That way, the
>law is actually the power
>of the land, and not
>the people who make them.
> Oh yeah, we already
>have done that. It's
>called the Constitution.

Read my question again ... Please at least try to answer it.

>Because you cannot trust every individual
>mind to do the right
>thing. This is Earth,
>not Candy Land. Not
>everyone is nice, and sweet,
>and going to do everything
>for everyone else's interests.
>Therefore to put full trust
>in people is being naive.
>That's why this is
>a nation of laws, not
>men.

You don't trust a SINGLE person, what's worse ?

>As far as international exploitation of
>corporations, you need to actually
>refer to the country in
>which the exploiting is done.
>There is no doubt
>that sweatshops are wrong, and
>companies that engage in this
>practice is wrong.
>However,
>that's an issue you need
>to consult the host country's
>government about, not the federal
>government. That is not
>in their jurisdiction.

Last time I checked, Nike was an American company, not an Indonesian one.

You act like there's no such thing as globalisation, you completely ignore the ties between big corporations and local governments.

>Another point: if you think
>that foreign businesses are acting
>in this matter, what makes
>you think the domestic businesses
>in that country aren't either?
>Once again, that government
>must be held accountable.

Indeed, that government AND the companies involved. Which means that the governments of the countries where the companies are located are involved too.

You said it yourself : governments should control or check the (il)legality of companies' acts.

>But once again, who are the
>ones to judge if they
>represent the public accurately?

IF they represent the public accurately, that same public will be the one to judge.

>Are we to have referendums
>in order to decide what
>is on the air and
>what isn't? Isn't that
>the same as the censorship
>you complained about you fussed
>about music?

No, that's called consensus/compromise.
Which is completely different from censorship, since it's been discussed, not imposed.

>>Meaning : a situation completely opposite
>>to the one we know
>>today, where the government represents
>>private/corporate interest and uses the
>>public to finance it.
>
>Please elaborate on this, because I
>don't understand what you mean.

The taxes you pay are being used to finance projects, executed by companies.

All Western industrialized governments have very close ties with their respective industries (understatement) : government officials go to new plants, have dinner with managers, ...

All of this has evolved to a situation where governments represent the business interests of a country, or better : where big business has managed to use the government for its own expansion and wellbeing.

I don't expect you to know/understand, since you seem to rely on the official version of history.

>I can get sick of breathing,
>but if I don't, I'll
>die.

Are you serious about that analogy ?

>It doesn't matter if they are
>sick of it or not,
>the point is that if
>they are not willing to
>stay active and keep up
>with politics then they have
>no right complaining to the
>rest of the world.

What's the use of being active, if that only results in harassment, intimidation or ridiculisation ?

>There are newspapers, magazines, television,
>radio, internet, and other forms
>of information just waiting for
>them to open up and
>access. If they can't
>take the time to open
>up a book and read,
>then it is noone's fault
>but their own.

Some people don't have the time or access to what you mentioned, cos they got their 3 jobs to take care of. And they need to work 3 jobs cos the minimum wage is so low.
Those internet connected PC's at the library are occupied 24/7, plus people who work 60 hours a week for a minimum wage probably have other things on their minds than checking out what sweatshops Nike uses in Indonesia. They just wanna chill, they've worked hard all week.

I'm no different : I'm not debating or reading all the time. Part of it is part of my job, but I don't expect anyone to be informing themselves whenever they have some time off.

>>In your view : yes.
>>Why should it be like
>>that ? You only
>>seem to consider one possibility,
>>accidently (?) your view always
>>seems the worst.
>
>Well then what other possibility is
>there? If there is
>another way to effectively represent
>the people through democratic means,
>then please inform me.

There's different ways of organising a referendum, different ways of registering people.
If it ever happens, it will take some time to work out, since the US have never known such a thing.

So, considering its amount of people and its diversity, you'll have to develop and search for a specific way to organize democracy. Don't expect me to come with an instant recipe.

All I'm saying is that you'll have to look for efficient AND democratic ways. But you already seem to exclude that, in other words : you don't even want to try.

>What companies are deciding how much
>you pay in taxes?
>Not one.

Since companies are part of the government OR (rephrased) the government defends big business' interests : the amount of taxes depends on how much money is needed for their projects.

Plus : it's more than just 'taxes'. Cutting down on welfare and directing those 'savings' to the military benefits certain companies.

If a US company builds a new military plane, supported by the government, the money needed for the development of that plane will be taken from the public.

Has anyone ever asked you if you agree with that ?
Has any presidential candidate ever mentioned such a thing when they were campaigning ?
Is your input asked when that plane turns out to be a plane that kills people with 'smart bombs' (another Orwellian term) ?

>The government
>is the one that decides
>how much is taken out
>of your paycheck for taxes,
>not the company. Nor
>are the companies deciding how
>those taxes are used.
>That's your democratically elected representatives
>that are doing that.

Those representatives are NOT democratically elected (how many people go out and vote ?) Unless all citizens went out to vote (and even then) it's not democracy.

And since there's no effective democratic control on what those representatives do, companies can get away with paying/rewarding those representatives for supporting their plans, meaning making sure the public's money flows in.

>I do mind big business, but
>to think this is the
>1890's all over again is
>unrealistic. Sure there are
>lobbying interests done by corporations
>but they have every right
>to do so, just as
>representatives have a right not
>to accept the lobbying interests.

If only things were that simple.

Things may not seem like 1890 in most parts of the US, but as I said on numerous occasions : the world is not just the US. You can say that you don't care about the rest of the world, but you can't say they don't exist.

Even though you might get the impression, since their voice is rarely heard. G8, Nafta, Rio, WTO, ... always the same story.

>If
>people are discouraged to take
>part in one the most
>important parts of their lives,
>the decision to elect the
>country's leaders, then that's their
>fault, not anyone else's,

I prefer to look at WHY they feel discouraged. There's a reason/logic to this madness. People in power have all interest in alienating and marginalizing the people that aren't, since that means they won't even believe in the potential for change.

Those who do persist, are labelled illegal or persecuted/intimidated/killed.

Black Panthers breakfast program, Ken Saro-Wiwa/Ogoni people, MOVE, Malcolm X, Salvador Allende, MLK, ...

No wonder people give up.

>The content of the program is
>true, but it's also important
>to go pro and con
>on why your idea will
>work and your opponent's wont.
>That's a very important
>step in decision making.
>There is nothing wrong with
>negative campaigning, as long as
>it is not libelous.

I agree.

>No citizen is denied access to
>learn how to read, therefore
>that is a lie.
>Anyone that wants to learn
>can learn. It's noone's
>fault but their own if
>they don't.

Do you live on planet Earth, and if so : between people, or in some protected cocon ?

Even if YOU had a decent education in a private school, what makes you think it's like that for everyone ?

Man, please read something else than propaganda.

There's plenty of studies illustrating the reasons why people don't have access to education.

>The answer to enlightening people is
>not to lower everything down
>to their level, but to
>have them raise themselves to
>the appropriate level. Sure
>it might make them feel
>good, but that isn't helping
>them.

I agree, AT LEAST in a perfect world where everyone has access to education and information.

>The public might finance things, and
>are entitled to know a
>certain portion behind the scenes
>of government, but when you
>talk about public, you don't
>mean only this nation's public,
>but the WROLD's public.
>That's a whole new ballgame.

Not if you understand that the world contributes to the US' wealth BIG TIME. Let's have some fair trade before I'll take that back.

>>Some of these people may have
>>worked for that company for
>>30 years, given the best
>>they got, and are suddenly
>>confronted with no money, no
>>job and no perspective (cos
>>they're too old for today's
>>companies) while at the same
>>time they may have a
>>daughter going to college (so
>>that she wouldn't have to
>>struggle like her parents did).
>
>Such is life. It's not
>supposed to be easy, man.
> Some win, some lose.
> You gotta roll with
>the punches.

You obviously don't know what the world is like.

>After 30 years, if you haven't
>saved enough money to retire
>with, then tell me, who's
>fault is that?

Too low minimum wages ?

> It's called personal responsibility,
>something alot of people have
>forgotten about. Yeah it's
>a sad thing to see
>people with no money, but
>it's also not something someone
>else should be punished for
>by giving up a part
>of their life and luxury
>by force.

What about sweatshop and plantation workers in Guatemala ? They're forced to give up (a part of) their life (not even luxury) to enable your wellbeing.
But that's not a problem, since they're not Americans, right ?

>Sometimes it's not
>what you want to do,
>it's what you HAVE to
>do. There are too
>many people expecting government to
>solve all your problems.
>Grow up and solve your
>own.

Problem is that government/business doesn't want people to solve their problems themselves. So people are not expecting government to solve it, they're expecting equal opportunities.

>>Oh, they should probably have left
>>the sinking ship in time
>>too ?
>
>That's right. Sure should have.

No comment. Save this post and reread it in a few years, I hope you'll notice the ignorance of this by then.

>>Uhm ... you actually descibed today's
>>educational process, but you're probably
>>not aware of it.
>>So you think we're all educated
>>freely in schools today, not
>>directed to one or another
>>way ?
>
>Of course, but we are also
>given the opportunity to have
>individual minds and ideas.
>The very fact that we
>have opposing opinions shows that.



>>There's plenty of studies that show
>>schools cater to and focus
>>on middle class values, a
>>specific work ethic and so
>>on. That means that
>>people who don't have these
>>assets either adapt, or drop
>>out.
>
>I agree. You're probably right,
>and these I'm sure are
>referring to public schools.
>However, there are always plenty
>of private schools in order
>to choose from also if
>you don't want your child
>in that atmosphere.

And if you have the money to pay for it (minor detail). Then of course, if you don't have any money, that's probably your own fault, right ?

>Well duh, the things taught in
>school are designed to reflect
>the society we are in.
>It's a school, not
>a brain washing scheme.

Then why should a school in a democratic society not reflect democratic idea(l)s ?

Which means you just took back your criticism of Nader on this point ?

>>Ready to work 70 hours a
>>week in a bank that
>>invests its money in nuclear
>>weapons or for Shell in
>>Nigeria ? You'll get
>>paid, don't worry, but I
>>get the impression that that's
>>the real bribery : you
>>get so much money to
>>make you swallow any possible
>>guilt.
>
>That is their choice to take
>the money just as it
>yours not to take it.
> Whether you believe in
>it or not, you don't
>have a right to tell
>them what and what not
>to invest/work in.

Yes I have if I'm concerned with human rights. Them making that money is DIRECTLY related to the exploitation/oppression of people.

I guess you don't oppose kidnapping and prostituting children either ?

>As for you and Mke, I
>could care less. The
>real fascists are the ones
>that try to front and
>pretend that government can and
>will take care of all
>your hopes and dreams.

Wrong again. You keep talking about this 'government', referring to its current state. In my view, 'government' represents the public, which has democratic control over it.

>Meanwhile, when the going gets
>rough, and for some unlikely
>reason government turns it's ugly
>head against you, who's going
>to protect you then?

Who's protecting me from big business today ?
Who protects workers in the Third World today ?

>And once again,
>you and other African Americans
>that support these measures will
>be victims of government oppression,
>the same things that you
>tried to get away from.

Not if that government is elected and controlled democratically

>Awwww poor thing....did I offend you?
> That's a shame.
>If you think I'm offensive,
>wait until reality hits you.

It already has. Wait until you're fired one day, and loose all your privileges that come with your role as an accomplice in capitalism.

>Hence, you can take your toys
>and go home. Just
>remember that the truth is
>still out there...and whether it's
>offensive or not, that's something
>that you'll never be able
>to change. Bottom line.

I AM changing it right now. But I don't expect you to see it.

>And a PROUD black conservative.

should be PROUD fascist actually ...


OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 03:29 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "Part 1."
In response to Reply # 51


  

          

>>>Then what do you suggest ?
>>>Only power to 'enlightened'
>>>people (such as yourself ?),
>>>who know what's best for
>>>the ignorant masses ?
>>
>>How about making a document of
>>laws, have the people agree
>>to those laws and ideals,
>>and then make sure that
>>every law and act is
>>in strict accordance to those
>>laws. That way, the
>>law is actually the power
>>of the land, and not
>>the people who make them.
>> Oh yeah, we already
>>have done that. It's
>>called the Constitution.
>
>Read my question again ...
>Please at least try to
>answer it.

You asked me to come up with a suggestion, and I did. I said leave it as it is.

>>Because you cannot trust every individual
>>mind to do the right
>>thing. This is Earth,
>>not Candy Land. Not
>>everyone is nice, and sweet,
>>and going to do everything
>>for everyone else's interests.
>>Therefore to put full trust
>>in people is being naive.
>>That's why this is
>>a nation of laws, not
>>men.
>
>You don't trust a SINGLE person,
>what's worse ?

Being naive and gullible.

>Last time I checked, Nike was
>an American company, not an
>Indonesian one.

BUT they are conducting business on Indonesian territory. Therefore, the Indonesian government has jurisdiction, not the US government.

>You act like there's no such
>thing as globalisation, you completely
>ignore the ties between big
>corporations and local governments.

I don't ignore it, I said it goes on. However, you cannot effectively tie that into the responsibilities of the US government. If the US government has to correct every mistake that another government makes, then there is no reason why that foreign government should even be given soverignty in it's respective country. It is THEIR job to govern THEIR own people, and that includes the violations and crimes committed there also.

>Indeed, that government AND the companies
>involved. Which means that
>the governments of the countries
>where the companies are located
>are involved too.

That's right, and the citizens of that country should hold their government accountable for those injustices. You can't blame that on the US government when they don't have jurisdiction in that country.

>You said it yourself : governments
>should control or check the
>(il)legality of companies' acts.

WITHIN THE COUNTRY. There is no feasible way to hold investigations and what not outside the country. I repeat, that's not within US jurisdiction.

>IF they represent the public accurately,
>that same public will be
>the one to judge.

But once again, who is to say that the public is represented accurately?? How will the public be able to judge?

>No, that's called consensus/compromise.
>Which is completely different from censorship,
>since it's been discussed, not
>imposed.

It doesn't matter if it is discussed or not, it's still censorship when you take them off the airwaves. Once again, who is to judge the content to decide whether or not it fits within the guidelines of the "public's" approval? Referendum? Survey? Committee? What?

>The taxes you pay are being
>used to finance projects, executed
>by companies.
>
>All Western industrialized governments have very
>close ties with their respective
>industries (understatement) : government officials
>go to new plants, have
>dinner with managers, ...
>
>All of this has evolved to
>a situation where governments represent
>the business interests of a
>country, or better : where
>big business has managed to
>use the government for its
>own expansion and wellbeing.

The country's economy is dependent on the success of its highest achieving businesses, that's why. Like I said before, the economy can only do as well as it's highest achievers. If they aren't succeeding, then that means the lowest ones aren't either. That's what makes them low. Hence, when companies like Microsoft makes money, everyone makes money, because they bring in more wealth into the economy to be circulated between the corporation itself, which will go to the labor, the businesses it got its materials from, and from them to other businesses.

>>It doesn't matter if they are
>>sick of it or not,
>>the point is that if
>>they are not willing to
>>stay active and keep up
>>with politics then they have
>>no right complaining to the
>>rest of the world.

>What's the use of being active,
>if that only results in
>harassment, intimidation or ridiculisation ?

There is no harrassment or intimidation in reading a newspaper. There is no intimidation or harrassment in going to the poll and casting a concealed ballot. That is just excuses.

>>There are newspapers, magazines, television,
>>radio, internet, and other forms
>>of information just waiting for
>>them to open up and
>>access. If they can't
>>take the time to open
>>up a book and read,
>>then it is noone's fault
>>but their own.
>
>Some people don't have the time
>or access to what you
>mentioned, cos they got their
>3 jobs to take care
>of. And they need
>to work 3 jobs cos
>the minimum wage is so
>low.
>Those internet connected PC's at the
>library are occupied 24/7, plus
>people who work 60 hours
>a week for a minimum
>wage probably have other things
>on their minds than checking
>out what sweatshops Nike uses
>in Indonesia. They just
>wanna chill, they've worked hard
>all week.

Hey, sometimes you can't just "chill". You got to do what has to be done whether you like it or not. We'll talk about minimum wage later.
As for the internet access, buy a computer. You can get a computer that will grant you internet access for as low as $400/mth. Work and save for it. Otherwise, I suggest you sign up on the waiting list or reserve a time at the library. Either way is feasible.

>I'm no different : I'm not
>debating or reading all the
>time. Part of it
>is part of my job,
>but I don't expect anyone
>to be informing themselves whenever
>they have some time off.

Well I do. If you want to get ahead in life, you're going to have to do things that other people WON'T do. That's why there are people that are ahead of the pack, because they do the lil things that other people dont.

>>Well then what other possibility is
>>there? If there is
>>another way to effectively represent
>>the people through democratic means,
>>then please inform me.
>
>There's different ways of organising a
>referendum, different ways of registering
>people.
>If it ever happens, it will
>take some time to work
>out, since the US have
>never known such a thing.
>So, considering its amount of people
>and its diversity, you'll have
>to develop and search for
>a specific way to organize
>democracy. Don't expect me
>to come with an instant
>recipe.

Well, when you find one, please inform me. The concept of democracy has been going on for the past.....I'd say 200 years? Starting with the French Revolution? Therefore, I'd say that if there was a better way, either they haven't found it, and/or tried to find one.

>All I'm saying is that you'll
>have to look for efficient
>AND democratic ways. But
>you already seem to exclude
>that, in other words :
>you don't even want to
>try.

Because, you cannot place the future of the world in men's thoughts and dreams alone, you must have something concrete in line to keep principles solid. That's what a constitutional republic does. It makes sure that people cannot go over the head of the laws of the land.

>>What companies are deciding how much
>>you pay in taxes?
>>Not one.

>Since companies are part of the
>government OR (rephrased) the government
>defends big business' interests :
>the amount of taxes depends
>on how much money is
>needed for their projects.

The amount of taxes given to businesses are definitely exaggerated. Besides, if those funds given to businesses allow them to bring in a positive return, then it only helps out everybody, including the nation's economy.

I'll be back with Part 2 in about an hr.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com



Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 05:23 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "RE: you're not reading"
In response to Reply # 51


  

          

>Plus : it's more than just
>'taxes'. Cutting down on
>welfare and directing those 'savings'
>to the military benefits certain
>companies.

But that also helps out the country again, as we would be ready if a conflict breaks out. Besides the military is the weakest it's ever been for any respective American time period. Right now we wouldn't even be ready to fight Iraq. A national defense is important in protecting the US and it's interests.

>If a US company builds a
>new military plane, supported by
>the government, the money needed
>for the development of that
>plane will be taken from
>the public.

If a road needs to be constructed/fixed, that comes from public dollars. If government buildings needs to be constructed/fixed, that comes from public dollars. In other words, that's what public dollars are for. It's to support the public as a whole.

>Has anyone ever asked you if
>you agree with that ?
>
>Has any presidential candidate ever mentioned
>such a thing when they
>were campaigning ?
>Is your input asked when that
>plane turns out to be
>a plane that kills people
>with 'smart bombs' (another Orwellian
>term) ?

Of course. National security and defense is one of the most important measures in elections, if not THE most important. Why you think the Republicans get elected often? Because Regan, Nixon, Bush, and Eisenhower are considered better at this issue than their respective Democratic opponents in the election.

>Those representatives are NOT democratically elected
>(how many people go out
>and vote ?) Unless
>all citizens went out to
>vote (and even then) it's
>not democracy.

Now that's really naive. You actually think there is going to be 100% turnout to the polls??? The only way you're going to do that is by force. And you say, "and even then" it's not democracy. Well how can you provide effective democracy then? You got to have some kind of idea on how to implement this before you just go all out on these Green Party initiatives that you support.

>And since there's no effective democratic
>control on what those representatives
>do, companies can get away
>with paying/rewarding those representatives for
>supporting their plans, meaning making
>sure the public's money flows
>in.

The way to counter that is to make sure there are representatives coming in that will LESSEN the tax bracket and vote for more tax cuts. The problem is that people are being suckered into thinking that every tax cut is a tax cut for the rich. Clinton has had plenty of chances just in the past month to do this, but he vetoed the estate tax and the marriage penalty. Hence, you can't say there aren't representatives that aren't trying to reduce the size of government.

>Things may not seem like 1890
>in most parts of the
>US, but as I said
>on numerous occasions : the
>world is not just the
>US. You can say
>that you don't care about
>the rest of the world,
>but you can't say they
>don't exist.

But once again, it is not the US's job to continously intervene in foreign countries's domestic affairs. We have no soverignity in them. Hence, you need to hold the respective governments in those countries accountable, not the federal government.

>I prefer to look at WHY
>they feel discouraged. There's
>a reason/logic to this madness.
> People in power have
>all interest in alienating and
>marginalizing the people that aren't,
>since that means they won't
>even believe in the potential
>for change.

I think it's highly illogical. It's a simple fact that they don't understand the power they have in the process. Hell it's only been within the past 20 years where voting has went considerably down. Voting used to be considered a civic duty, something that most people felt proud to do. Black people used to fight for their right to have a voice in government through voting. Now, we take it for granted.

>Those who do persist, are labelled
>illegal or persecuted/intimidated/killed.

Since when? Who has been imprisioned for trying to improve voter registration and political awareness?

>>No citizen is denied access to
>>learn how to read, therefore
>>that is a lie.
>>Anyone that wants to learn
>>can learn. It's noone's
>>fault but their own if
>>they don't.
>
>Do you live on planet Earth,
>and if so : between
>people, or in some protected
>cocon ?
>
>Even if YOU had a decent
>education in a private school,
>what makes you think it's
>like that for everyone ?

I went to public, not private. I have a decent education. You have to have some sort of initiative in order to further your education. If you don't want to learn, you're not going to learn. If you want to learn, and you want to do whatever you can in order to learn it, you can learn.

>There's plenty of studies illustrating the
>reasons why people don't have
>access to education.

Those studies are wrong. Hell, as many programs on the books in which you can go to school and learn? Anyone in this country that wants to learn how to read, can. Anyone that wants a diploma, can. Anyone that wants to go to college, can. They might not go to the one they specifically want to go to, but they CAN go.

>>The public might finance things, and
>>are entitled to know a
>>certain portion behind the scenes
>>of government, but when you
>>talk about public, you don't
>>mean only this nation's public,
>>but the WROLD's public.
>>That's a whole new ballgame.
>
>Not if you understand that the
>world contributes to the US'
>wealth BIG TIME. Let's
>have some fair trade before
>I'll take that back.

The world might contribute, but that doesn't mean the world are doing for the US interests, and it doesn't mean that they aren't going to use it for the demise of this country. Once again, not everyone is sweet and innocent. Therefore, some things are not for the public to know.

As far as "fair" trade, please elaborate.
>You obviously don't know what the
>world is like.

Once again, it's about life here, not about life there. We cannot be held responsible for the rest of the world.

>>After 30 years, if you haven't
>>saved enough money to retire
>>with, then tell me, who's
>>fault is that?
>
>Too low minimum wages ?

No excuse. There are actually people that don't work minimum wage, you know. There are actually jobs available that doesn't pay minimum wage. Besides, that's why they call it MINIMUM wage....even if you bring it up, it's still the bottom of the barrel. Therefore, you can raise it up to $12 or $100, it's STILL going to be the poverty level.

>What about sweatshop and plantation workers
>in Guatemala ? They're
>forced to give up (a
>part of) their life (not
>even luxury) to enable your
>wellbeing.
>But that's not a problem, since
>they're not Americans, right ?

Right. Hold the Guatemala government accountable for allowing such practices. You can't help people who don't help themselves.

>Problem is that government/business doesn't want
>people to solve their problems
>themselves. So people are
>not expecting government to solve
>it, they're expecting equal opportunities.

You know why? Because people like free money and luxuries. Why you think the Democrats get elected? Because they constantly promise us all these programs and all these benefits in order to prostitute the poor's votes. Therefore, they are going to CONTINUE to try to solve the people's problems, and it's the same as the Green Party.

>And if you have the money
>to pay for it (minor
>detail). Then of course,
>if you don't have any
>money, that's probably your own
>fault, right ?

Sure is.

>>Well duh, the things taught in
>>school are designed to reflect
>>the society we are in.
>>It's a school, not
>>a brain washing scheme.
>
>Then why should a school in
>a democratic society not reflect
>democratic idea(l)s ?
>
>Which means you just took back
>your criticism of Nader on
>this point ?

Nope. Because there is a difference between brainwashing and education. The problem is that you want to tell children of the greatness of democracy, instead of telling both sides of the story.

>>That is their choice to take
>>the money just as it
>>yours not to take it.
>> Whether you believe in
>>it or not, you don't
>>have a right to tell
>>them what and what not
>>to invest/work in.
>
>Yes I have if I'm concerned
>with human rights. Them
>making that money is DIRECTLY
>related to the exploitation/oppression of
>people.

NO, you sure don't. If they aren't directly involved with the abuses that goes in in international affairs, then they aren't to be held accountable for them. You don't have any right to tell anyone what to do/believe in just like I don't have any right to tell you what to do/believe in. Just because you think it's wrong does not mean you or anyone else have a right to control the actions of other people. If that was the case, then everyone in Western civilization should be punished, because we all have had some advantage gained, regardless what race, in the historical oppression of nations and groups in past time periods. Such an idea is not feasible.

>I guess you don't oppose kidnapping
>and prostituting children either ?

Those are DIRECT crimes. However, you can't hold the car company accountable that provided the car to the person who kidnapped someone.

>Wrong again. You keep talking
>about this 'government', referring to
>its current state. In
>my view, 'government' represents the
>public, which has democratic control
>over it.

But you haven't even provided me a concrete example on how you plan on imposing effective democracy! You keep saying democracy, but you can't even tell me how you plan on imposing this democracy effective enough that it protects minority interests as well as majority. Your view on government, until you do such, is nothing more than a dream.

>Who's protecting me from big business
>today ?

Yourself.

>Who protects workers in the Third
>World today ?

Themselves.

>Not if that government is elected
>and controlled democratically

You keep saying that, but HOW???

>It already has. Wait until
>you're fired one day, and
>loose all your privileges that
>come with your role as
>an accomplice in capitalism.

I will simply find another job, and until then I will save up, in case such an occasion comes up. However, if things get rough, I won't blame it on government because of my situation.

>>And a PROUD black conservative.
>
>should be PROUD fascist actually ...

I suggest you look up the definition of fascist. Fascism means advocation of the power of big government and suppression of the opposition through censorship and persecution. Democracy is way closer to fascism than libertarian conservatism. I suggest you look into the principles of Hitler and Mussolini. You'd be shocked.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com



Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 08:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "fascism rears its ugly head"
In response to Reply # 56


  

          

>>Plus : it's more than just
>>'taxes'. Cutting down on
>>welfare and directing those 'savings'
>>to the military benefits certain
>>companies.
>
>But that also helps out the
>country again, as we would
>be ready if a conflict
>breaks out. Besides the
>military is the weakest it's
>ever been for any respective
>American time period. Right
>now we wouldn't even be
>ready to fight Iraq.

Really ? You actually believe everything the institutionalised press tells you ?

America is by far the strongest military power in the world today. All this nonsense about terrorists like Osama Bin Laden is to make you believe your money needs to be invested in more hi tech weaponry. The enemy used to be the 'commies', but since the SU fell apart and China is your big buddy now (for its huge internal market), that's no longer a sales argument for an increased financial transfer of public money to the military.

>A national defense is important
>in protecting the US and
>it's interests.

Good, keep on repeating what they tell you.

>If a road needs to be
>constructed/fixed, that comes from public
>dollars. If government buildings
>needs to be constructed/fixed, that
>comes from public dollars.
>In other words, that's what
>public dollars are for.
>It's to support the public
>as a whole.

Roads don't support the public as a whole. It also enables companies to transport goods. Goods that bring in money. Goods that are being transported in heavy trucks that damage those same roads. Damage which is being repaired with public money, while that same public didn't cause the damage.

This is just ONE small example of how private interests are being funded with public money.

>Of course. National security and
>defense is one of the
>most important measures in elections,
>if not THE most important.
>Why you think the
>Republicans get elected often?
>Because Regan, Nixon, Bush, and
>Eisenhower are considered better at
>this issue than their respective
>Democratic opponents in the election.

You completely missed my point. I was referring to the flow of public money to private businesses, not national defense.

>>Those representatives are NOT democratically elected
>>(how many people go out
>>and vote ?) Unless
>>all citizens went out to
>>vote (and even then) it's
>>not democracy.

>Now that's really naive. You
>actually think there is going
>to be 100% turnout to
>the polls??? The only
>way you're going to do
>that is by force.
>And you say, "and even
>then" it's not democracy.


>Well how can you provide
>effective democracy then? You
>got to have some kind
>of idea on how to
>implement this before you just
>go all out on these
>Green Party initiatives that you
>support.

Does this mean you're an expert in empoverishment exploitation, pillage and genocide, since you support the current structure/system ?

I have a few ideas, mostly based on Noam Chomsky's views. If you want more info, you can check this link :

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles.cfm

Chomsky discusses all topics we've touched upon.

He elaborates more than I can do here and does a much better job at it.

>But once again, it is not
>the US's job to continously
>intervene in foreign countries's domestic
>affairs. We have no
>soverignity in them.

I agree that's not what the US SHOULD do, but unfortunately reality is slightly different...

I hope you at least see this ?

>>Those who do persist, are labelled
>>illegal or persecuted/intimidated/killed.
>
>Since when? Who has been
>imprisioned for trying to improve
>voter registration and political awareness?

Malcolm X, MLK, several Black Panthers, MOVE-members, union workers, ... and that's just a few.

>>There's plenty of studies illustrating the
>>reasons why people don't have
>>access to education.
>
>Those studies are wrong.

All of them ? You must live in an easy world, where every single thing that doesn't fit into your logic is 'wrong' ...

>Anyone in this country
>that wants to learn how
>to read, can. Anyone
>that wants a diploma, can.
> Anyone that wants to
>go to college, can.

No comment. You're definitely an alien.

>We cannot be held responsible
>for the rest of the
>world.

Again : not in an ideal world, but the US does nothing BUT acting like they're responsible for the rest of the world in reality.

What sense do your remarks make when it has nothing to do with reality.

What if we all had green skin and were 4 metres tall ?
What if I had 4 dicks ?
What if ...

I'm talking about PLANET EARTH NOW.
Not some abstract theoretical vision of a conservative US that doesn't bother the rest of the world.

>>What about sweatshop and plantation workers
>>in Guatemala ? They're
>>forced to give up (a
>>part of) their life (not
>>even luxury) to enable your
>>wellbeing.
>>But that's not a problem, since
>>they're not Americans, right ?
>
>Right. Hold the Guatemala government
>accountable for allowing such practices.
>You can't help people
>who don't help themselves.

Okay, then be consequent, and no longer buy products that have been made in foreign countries.
Becos, by buying those, you're part of the oppression and exploitation of the workers over there. Since you don't want to be involved and only want to discuss the US, be consequent.

>>And if you have the money
>>to pay for it (minor
>>detail). Then of course,
>>if you don't have any
>>money, that's probably your own
>>fault, right ?
>
>Sure is.

This, my friend, is why I call you a fascist.

>>>Well duh, the things taught in
>>>school are designed to reflect
>>>the society we are in.
>>>It's a school, not
>>>a brain washing scheme.
>>
>>Then why should a school in
>>a democratic society not reflect
>>democratic idea(l)s ?
>>
>>Which means you just took back
>>your criticism of Nader on
>>this point ?
>
>Nope. Because there is a difference
>between brainwashing and education.
>The problem is that you
>want to tell children of
>the greatness of democracy, instead
>of telling both sides of
>the story.

Oh, you wanna talk about both sides ? No problem !

How much did school/media tell you about the peace proposals during the Israeli/Palestina conflict, all vetoed by the US ?

How much did school tell you about the US mass genocide in Vietnam ? Raping of women, pillaging of villages, destroying of agricultural infrastructure and economy ?

How much did school teach you about the enslavement of Africans ?

How much did school tell you about the marginalizing, killing and getto-ing of the original Americans (Indians) ?

How much does school inform our children today about the cancerous effects of food that's filled with hormones ? Are students being told about vegetarianism ?

How much unbiased info do children get about communism/socialism today ?

...

See, you want to criticize me, without realizing that you're actually talking about TODAY, which is supposed to be such an ideal system.

>NO, you sure don't. If
>they aren't directly involved with
>the abuses that goes in
>in international affairs, then they
>aren't to be held accountable
>for them. You don't
>have any right to tell
>anyone what to do/believe in
>just like I don't have
>any right to tell you
>what to do/believe in.

>Just because you think it's
>wrong does not mean you
>or anyone else have a
>right to control the actions
>of other people. If
>that was the case, then
>everyone in Western civilization should
>be punished, because we all
>have had some advantage gained,
>regardless what race, in the
>historical oppression of nations and
>groups in past time periods.
>Such an idea is
>not feasible.

No, you'd rather keep on punishing an overwhelming majority of poor people on a dialy basis, which is the case today.
When did I mention punishment anyway ?
All I'm saying is that there's enough wealth generated

I haven't even mentioned anything revolutionary. Small changes that most of us won't even feel in their budget can make a big difference on a worldwide scale.

What people like you and me need to realize is that a lot of our luxury is ONLY POSSIBLE becos of the exploitation of a mass amount of people.

If you're a little concerned about human rights and other people, that is hard to accept.

On the other hand, if you don't believe in the concept of a 'community' and rely solely on individuality and some survival-of-the-fittest logic, it's no wonder you act like a selfish person.

Basically, you're saying that it's like this because people are too lazy or too stupid, whereas I simply SEE that some people don't have access to proper education or upwards social mobility simply cos they're born in the 'wrong' place, or they got the 'wrong' amount of melanin.

That's not a 'political opinion' (it doesn't make me socialist), it's called REALITY. All you need to do to realize this is LOOK AROUND and stop being so conceited and selfish.

>>I guess you don't oppose kidnapping
>>and prostituting children either ?
>
>Those are DIRECT crimes. However,
>you can't hold the car
>company accountable that provided the
>car to the person who
>kidnapped someone.

Exploitation is not a crime ?
What is 'crime' to you ?
Simple example : when Belgium was occupied by Germany, it was not 'illegal' for German soldiers to rape women. But it still was a crime, if you dig what I'm sayin.

Or, maybe a clearer example to you : a slaveholder killing a slave in the US some 80 years ago was not doing anything illegal, but I still consider it a crime.

Therefor, if you have a country where the legislation allows crimes, the people fighting those are not criminals, the legislation itself is criminal.
Every person/company using that criminal legislation to its own benefit, is therefor an accomplice and criminal too.

That's just my opinion. But it means Nike is mos def to blame for using sweatshops to make clothes and sneakers.

>Your view on government,
>until you do such, is
>nothing more than a dream.

I'd rather have a dream than a nightmare.

>>Who's protecting me from big business
>>today ?
>
>Yourself.

Nope. I can boycott some products, but I don't always have the info needed to make a good decision, basically cos companies are not open enough and there's no democratic control.

>>Who protects workers in the Third
>>World today ?
>
>Themselves.

I guess you're an expert in these matters. How ?

Unions are a no-no in most countries, sometimes there's soldiers inside the plant, workers can hardly go to the toilet (if there are any in the first place) without being fined. Women are forced to have gyneacological examinations every month to check if they're not pregnant (Philippines). If they are, they get fired immediately, with no pay.

So, my question remains : who protects workers in the Third World today ?

>I will simply find another job,
>and until then I will
>save up, in case such
>an occasion comes up.
>However, if things get rough,
>I won't blame it on
>government because of my situation.


>I suggest you look up the
>definition of fascist. Fascism
>means advocation of the power
>of big government and suppression
>of the opposition through censorship
>and persecution.

I don't know what dictionary you use (probably Reagan's version), but this is what mine tells about fascism :

hypernationalist, authoritarian, antidemocratic political system

1) hypernationalist : you've said you only care about the US yourself,

2) authoritarian : I think the US record in external affairs, WTO, G8, UN, NAFTA is pretty obvious

3) antidemocratic : your signature says the US ain't a democracy ... plus the way you rant against Nader doesn't really give me the impression you're willing to give him a fair chance.

Fascism in Italy and Germany was absolute; it didn't allow any other ideology to co-exist. Same thing with the current imperialist capitalism that has stopped countries/communities to develop a different system for the past 30-50 years.

Examples aplenty : Cold War, US interventions in Chile, the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in Congo, Salvador Allende in Chile, the Contras in Nicaragua, ...

>Democracy is
>way closer to fascism than
>libertarian conservatism.

How ?
I really expect you to define these terms before comparing them that loosely.

>I suggest
>you look into the principles
>of Hitler and Mussolini.
>You'd be shocked.

Don't talk to me about Hitler or Mussolini. My family has experienced first hand what they stood for.

>You have had the pleasure of
>reading
>Expertise's posts.

Expertise in what ? Bourgeoisie ?


krewc


OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 02:38 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "RE: fascism rears its ugly head"
In response to Reply # 60


  

          

>Really ? You actually believe
>everything the institutionalised press tells
>you ?

It's better than just listening to mere hearsay.

>America is by far the strongest
>military power in the world
>today. All this nonsense
>about terrorists like Osama Bin
>Laden is to make you
>believe your money needs to
>be invested in more hi
>tech weaponry.

Yeah...so I'm sure that the incident at the US embassy in Kenya never happened.
It's about more than just small-time terrorists like Bin Laden. It's about being prepared. To simply shut down our national defense and pretend that an incident can't break out tomorrow, or whenever, is naive. The best time to attack is when noone's expecting it.

The enemy
>used to be the 'commies',
>but since the SU fell
>apart and China is your
>big buddy now (for its
>huge internal market), that's no
>longer a sales argument for
>an increased financial transfer of
>public money to the military.

China is, huh?
There has been evidence appearing that China has smuggled top secret information from government files, they are building up their arms storage, not to mention has threatened the US with war twice in the past 5 years, not to mention the controversy with Taiwan still looms. Buddies indeed.
Once again, to feel invisible is exactly what terrorist countries want us to think.

>>A national defense is important
>>in protecting the US and
>>it's interests.
>
>Good, keep on repeating what they
>tell you.

That's not repeating what someone tells me, it's COMMON SENSE. Only fools would not protect themselves.

>Roads don't support the public as
>a whole. It also
>enables companies to transport goods.
> Goods that bring in
>money. Goods that are
>being transported in heavy trucks
>that damage those same roads.
> Damage which is being
>repaired with public money, while
>that same public didn't cause
>the damage.

Why don't they? The highway system is not open to the public???? The public does not transport themselves to and from work, home, to see family, friends, and the like? You don't think wear and tear comes from that? You think commercial trucks are the only vehicles that damage the road system, that pollute, that have wrecks? Public money is used because the PUBLIC USES THE ROADS....

>This is just ONE small example
>of how private interests are
>being funded with public money.

All interests use the highway system. Try again.


>You completely missed my point.
>I was referring to the
>flow of public money to
>private businesses, not national defense.

And it's that flow of public money that helps people working for private businesses keep their jobs. What, you think they are going to keep them on despite losing profits? Be real.


>Does this mean you're an expert
>in empoverishment exploitation, pillage and
>genocide, since you support the
>current structure/system ?

There is NO genocide and no exploitation going on in this country. I repeat, if it is going on over international waters, then the respective governments should be held accountable for the exploits, not this government.

>I have a few ideas, mostly
>based on Noam Chomsky's views.
>If you want more info,
>you can check this link
>:
>
>http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles.cfm
>
>Chomsky discusses all topics we've touched
>upon.
>
>He elaborates more than I can
>do here and does a
>much better job at it.

*sighs* I am not going to read 50 columns. If you read it then you should be able to give an accurate analysis on what you read and apply it to the discussion. It would be different if it was only 1 or 2, but don't expect me to sit here and read all of this stuff. Use it to prove your point, not Chomsky's.

>I agree that's not what the
>US SHOULD do, but unfortunately
>reality is slightly different...
>I hope you at least see
>this ?

No I don't. If they shouldn't do it, then why does reality say they should? Explain.

>All of them ? You
>must live in an easy
>world, where every single thing
>that doesn't fit into your
>logic is 'wrong' ...

Look, there is funding out there for anyone, repeat ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN that wants to go to school to do so. Plenty of grants, scholarships, loans, and what not, whether they are public or private. You have to actually LOOK for them. There are thousands of programs at the state and federal level that are just waiting for people to apply for them. The problem is, people don't want to take the time to find them.

>>Anyone in this country
>>that wants to learn how
>>to read, can. Anyone
>>that wants a diploma, can.
>> Anyone that wants to
>>go to college, can.

>No comment. You're definitely an
>alien.

You don't have to. You can sit there and pout if you like but the simple fact is that anyone that wants to achieve, learn, or whatever in this world, can. I see it done every day. What makes people that achieve so different than someone who isn't? The door of opportunity in this world is larger than it has ever been.

>Again : not in an ideal
>world, but the US does
>nothing BUT acting like they're
>responsible for the rest of
>the world in reality.
>What sense do your remarks make
>when it has nothing to
>do with reality.

And that's something that I am against. That's why we vote, that's why we discuss, because we have different visions for the future. I feel that America should be less interventive, and more isolationist. The only thing government should be responsible for is our own interests internationally. We cannot police the entire world. Now, there are indeed things that the government should address internationally, such as international conflicts and the like, but only a few things. The US cannot continue to use the military as if it is a humanitarian organization.

>What if we all had green
>skin and were 4 metres
>tall ?
>What if I had 4 dicks
>?
>What if ...
>I'm talking about PLANET EARTH NOW.

That's right, and the earth is split into countries and territories for a reason, because they are to represent their own interests domestically. What do you want to do, have the federal government make an international police force?

>Not some abstract theoretical vision of
>a conservative US that doesn't
>bother the rest of the
>world.

I never said it doesn't, I said that the federal government's powers should be reduced and the foreign governments should be held accountable for the plight of their citizens.

Let me also remind you that your socialist ideals pertaining to the US are nothing more than "theoretical vision" at this moment. God help us if they do become reality.....

>>Right. Hold the Guatemala government
>>accountable for allowing such practices.
>>You can't help people
>>who don't help themselves.
>
>Okay, then be consequent, and no
>longer buy products that have
>been made in foreign countries.

Why? It's not my job to police the practices of the people and businesses in Guatemala. If you want to boycott products that's fine, but that is an individual decision, and not something that should be forced.

>Becos, by buying those, you're part
>of the oppression and exploitation
>of the workers over there.
> Since you don't want
>to be involved and only
>want to discuss the US,
>be consequent.

I have no responsibility towards the people of Guatemala or any other country. I repeat, that is the GOVERNMENT OF GUATEMALA'S problem, not mine. I'm not part of any oppression or exploitation and hence cannot be held accountable for it. Like I said, if YOU want to boycott the products, go ahead, but you can't force other people to do so.

>>>And if you have the money
>>>to pay for it (minor
>>>detail). Then of course,
>>>if you don't have any
>>>money, that's probably your own
>>>fault, right ?
>>
>>Sure is.
>
>This, my friend, is why I
>call you a fascist.

I am a fascist because I believe in earning what I have? Reaping what I sow? You got a nerve.

>>Nope. Because there is a difference
>>between brainwashing and education.
>>The problem is that you
>>want to tell children of
>>the greatness of democracy, instead
>>of telling both sides of
>>the story.

>Oh, you wanna talk about both
>sides ? No problem !
>How much did school/media tell you
>about the peace proposals during
>the Israeli/Palestina conflict, all vetoed
>by the US ?
>How much did school tell you
>about the US mass genocide
>in Vietnam ? Raping
>of women, pillaging of villages,
>destroying of agricultural infrastructure and
>economy ?
>How much did school teach you
>about the enslavement of Africans
>?
>How much did school tell you
>about the marginalizing, killing and
>getto-ing of the original Americans
>(Indians) ?
>How much does school inform our
>children today about the cancerous
>effects of food that's filled
>with hormones ? Are
>students being told about vegetarianism
>?
>How much unbiased info do children
>get about communism/socialism today ?

ALL of these things you can learn, given you take the respective classes on them, mainly in college.
Also, you can indeed take the initiative to learn things on your own. Some things doesn't need to e proporgandized by school.

>See, you want to criticize me,
>without realizing that you're actually
>talking about TODAY, which is
>supposed to be such an
>ideal system.

It's definitely more ideal that this unrealistic system that you have spoken of.

>No, you'd rather keep on punishing
>an overwhelming majority of poor
>people on a dialy basis,
>which is the case today.

It is not my fault that anyone is poor! That is their government's fault, not mine. The only thing I'm guilty of is being born in a country with opportunity, that's it that's all. I have no responsibility to anyone else unless I volunteer responsibility.

>When did I mention punishment anyway
>?
>All I'm saying is that there's
>enough wealth generated

Who are YOU to say someone has generated enough wealth? Who gave you, or Ralph Nader or those Green Party nuts, the right to tell me how much money I can make and what I have to do with MY money? You have no RIGHT to go and take something that I earned, repeat, EARNED, and do whatever with it. If I want to volunteer my services or my money to a charity, that's one thing, but I should be able to do what I want to with the money I earned. The simple fact that you feel you should make decisions on what I should do with my own money is true fascism. It's the essence of big government leftism.

>I haven't even mentioned anything revolutionary.
> Small changes that most
>of us won't even feel
>in their budget can make
>a big difference on a
>worldwide scale.

Well how about this....since you feel that it won't hurt, how about YOU make enough money to give it to everyone you feel is impoverished??? If you actually want to give power to the people, how about letting the people INDIVIDUALLY make their own decisions?? Since you say the people know what they are doing, and should have some say in what happens to their money, how about letting them HAVE their own money, and if they feel inclined to contribute to the tribulations of the world, let them do so?? But see, that's not a good idea, because then they won't want to give it up, right? So here is what you and the other leftists say....

"Okay American citizens, let's get something straight. Government is going to take your money, whether you like it or not. You might as well get used to it. BUT, what we are going to do is let you democratically vote for how everyone wants that money spent. If you're part of the minority that doesn't like how it's spent, tough shit. Your money is ours now."

Yeah. That'll work.

>What people like you and me
>need to realize is that
>a lot of our luxury
>is ONLY POSSIBLE becos of
>the exploitation of a mass
>amount of people.

Look, not EVERY company exploits people in order to gain fortunes. Not EVERY individual makes their money off the backs of the poor. Not EVERY corporation engages in criminal activity. There are actually SOME people in this world, god forbid, that actually work their asses off to get in the position they are in today. And they don't owe you, they don't owe Ralph Nader, the Green Party, or any other human being on this earth SQUAT. All of you are guys are doing is supporting exploitation YOURSELVES. How? Because you are willing to steal money through the power of government that someone earned and possessed. That's thievery.

>If you're a little concerned about
>human rights and other people,
>that is hard to accept.

Human rights isn't even the point! That's one of the funny things about your dream of a democratic society....you're already assuming that the majority agrees with you! You don't even know whether or not they think their tax money should be given up for massive amounts of foreign aid! This is all your little dream inside your little head. What if they agree with me? What if they say, through democratic means, that they don't want their tax dollars being sent to other countries?? Sit there and ask yourself, if that is an idea that you can actually swallow? What would be next on the drawing board? Would you use government force in order to see that agenda enforced anyways??

>On the other hand, if you
>don't believe in the concept
>of a 'community' and rely
>solely on individuality and some
>survival-of-the-fittest logic, it's no wonder
>you act like a selfish
>person.

Well thank you, because if I want to be selfish and want to keep the possessions I buy, earn, or inherit, I have every right to do so. Once again, it isn't something that is to be forced upon people.

>Basically, you're saying that it's like
>this because people are too
>lazy or too stupid, whereas
>I simply SEE that some
>people don't have access to
>proper education or upwards social
>mobility simply cos they're born
>in the 'wrong' place, or
>they got the 'wrong' amount
>of melanin.

But is it MY personal problem or responsibility that they are going through what they are going through? Should I be forced by government to give up my possessions in order to give it to them? Should I force people to do that? NO.

I know people get down on their luck, believe me, I've been there. But I also know that you don't have to be in that same spot for the rest of your life, you can move up. Plenty of people have done so, and there is nothing stopping me or anyone else in following their footsteps. It's called OPTIMISM.

>That's not a 'political opinion' (it
>doesn't make me socialist), it's
>called REALITY. All you
>need to do to realize
>this is LOOK AROUND and
>stop being so conceited and
>selfish.

It's called being a pessimist. That's far from reality. The whole fact that this country, whether you feel it's exploitive or not, rose from being a startup country to the most powerful nation in the world shows that your "reality" is a lie. When you go to the impoverished, and say, "Look, you're poor, and without our help you're always going to BE poor. So therefore what we are going to do is give you a handout that you can live off of and take care of you for the rest of your days. Because hey, you can't actually SUCCEED by yourself." Once again, what a strong faith you have in the ability of others.

>>>I guess you don't oppose kidnapping
>>>and prostituting children either ?
>>
>>Those are DIRECT crimes. However,
>>you can't hold the car
>>company accountable that provided the
>>car to the person who
>>kidnapped someone.
>Exploitation is not a crime ?
>What is 'crime' to you ?

Those are crimes also, but I nor our government has the jurisdiction to go into another country and police it! That's something that you don't understand. You expect the US to just waltz in a country and just take it over. People won't be satisfied until there is indeed a full blown world war going on, because if you don't think we don't have enemies now, we will once we try to act as an international police force.

>Simple example : when Belgium was
>occupied by Germany, it was
>not 'illegal' for German soldiers
>to rape women. But
>it still was a crime,
>if you dig what I'm
>sayin.

It is a crime, but we can't go into Belgium or Germany and arrest people.

>Or, maybe a clearer example to
>you : a slaveholder killing
>a slave in the US
>some 80 years ago was
>not doing anything illegal, but
>I still consider it a
>crime.

Can you go back in time and arrest that slaveholder? If you can, please tell me how. You can I can make billions. You can give your part to charity.

>Therefor, if you have a country
>where the legislation allows crimes,
>the people fighting those are
>not criminals, the legislation itself
>is criminal.
>Every person/company using that criminal legislation
>to its own benefit, is
>therefor an accomplice and criminal
>too.

Well then you better get ready, because there are plenty of foreign governments you better prepare to overthrow. In fact, you better start mobilizing the military now. And you say there is no need for military buildup?

>That's just my opinion. But
>it means Nike is mos
>def to blame for using
>sweatshops to make clothes and
>sneakers.

Nike is to blame. I'm not going to disagree with that. But in order for someone to do that, there is someone allowing it to happen. I'm not sure about this, but I don't think there are alot of places that are putting a gun up to people's heads forcing them to work.

>>Your view on government,
>>until you do such, is
>>nothing more than a dream.
>
>I'd rather have a dream than
>a nightmare.

Dream......nightmare...it's still not real either way.

>>>Who's protecting me from big business
>>>today ?
>>
>>Yourself.
>
>Nope. I can boycott some
>products, but I don't always
>have the info needed to
>make a good decision, basically
>cos companies are not open
>enough and there's no democratic
>control.

Democratic control of companies? Once again, you are talking as if the majority is going to want the same things you want. Also, the company has to release a full report on it's ventures before you buy a product? That's the only way you're going to know what every company has done.

>Unions are a no-no in most
>countries, sometimes there's soldiers inside
>the plant, workers can hardly
>go to the toilet (if
>there are any in the
>first place) without being fined.
> Women are forced to
>have gyneacological examinations every month
>to check if they're not
>pregnant (Philippines). If they
>are, they get fired immediately,
>with no pay.

Oh well. Once again, these concerns are to be left to their governments. Not ours. If we did, they'd be part of the US and not an independent country.
>>I suggest you look up the
>>definition of fascist. Fascism
>>means advocation of the power
>>of big government and suppression
>>of the opposition through censorship
>>and persecution.
>
>I don't know what dictionary you
>use (probably Reagan's version)

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

That's the definition. Check out dictionary.com

>1) hypernationalist : you've said you
>only care about the US
>yourself,

That's irrelevant. Just because I love where I live doesn't mean a thing. I never said discriminate against anyone.

>2) authoritarian : I think the
>US record in external affairs,
>WTO, G8, UN, NAFTA is
>pretty obvious

That doesn't pertain to me personally. Nor is it obvious.

>3) antidemocratic : your signature says
>the US ain't a democracy

That's right, it sure isn't.

>... plus the way
>you rant against Nader doesn't
>really give me the impression
>you're willing to give him
>a fair chance.

He doesn't DESERVE a fair chance, this mess is nothing more than some socialist ploy. You damn right, I am not giving anyone a chance that I feel is going to take away my freedom in exchange for other people to have security.
Besides, I believe in the democratic system of elections. But I do NOT believe that those representatives or the people they represent for that matter should be above the law. I put my trust in words, not people. Words don't change, people do.

>Fascism in Italy and Germany was
>absolute; it didn't allow any
>other ideology to co-exist.
>Same thing with the current
>imperialist capitalism that has stopped
>countries/communities to develop a different
>system for the past 30-50
>years.

Wrong. Your idealogy exists, doesn't it? You have the right to talk about it and discuss it all you want. But nowhere does it say I have to give it a chance, and you can bet I sure won't if I can do anything about it.

>Examples aplenty : Cold War, US
>interventions in Chile, the assassination
>of Patrice Lumumba in Congo,
>Salvador Allende in Chile, the
>Contras in Nicaragua, ...

This is something I don't understand.....if you disagree with the provisions implemented by the US government, and acknowledge that the government has done crimes against 3rd world countries, why in the world are you willing to grant them more power and more responsibilities unto those same countries and our nation as a whole??

>>Democracy is
>>way closer to fascism than
>>libertarian conservatism.
>
>How ?
>I really expect you to define
>these terms before comparing them
>that loosely.

Simple.
In full democracy you have the majority of the people imposing it's will on the minority. You think that everyone in Germany hated Hitler?? No. They loved him and his policies, and he was able to use that popularity to conduct Jewish genocide and foreign aggression. Hitler had support by the majority of German citizens. So did Mussolini. Therefore, fascism existed because support for Hitler's policies.

In Libertarian Conservatism, the power of government is reduced. Instead of government having the power to impose it's will on the people, the people have the power individually. The people, through laws, are protected by the government, and no representative or the people can simply change the laws due to a simple majority vote. That means the representatives power is dimished, and that means more freedom for the people to conduct their lives how they wish.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com



Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Sat Aug-12-00 12:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "dear Expertise"
In response to Reply # 61


  

          

>>Really ? You actually believe
>>everything the institutionalised press tells
>>you ?
>
>It's better than just listening to
>mere hearsay.

So the only alternative to the institutionalised press is hearsay and gossip or lies ?

What do you rely on ? Just CNN and a few newspapers ? And even so, even those report on atrocities committed in the name of your splendid capitalism. The Financial Times happens to be honest every now and then.

>Yeah...so I'm sure that the incident
>at the US embassy in
>Kenya never happened.
>It's about more than just small-time
>terrorists like Bin Laden.
>It's about being prepared.
>To simply shut down our
>national defense and pretend that
>an incident can't break out
>tomorrow, or whenever, is naive.

Did I say 'shut down' ? Nope. There's a difference between constant expansion when you're already the strongest by far and using that same public money for the public.

>China is, huh?
>There has been evidence appearing that
>China has smuggled top secret
>information from government files, they
>are building up their arms
>storage, not to mention has
>threatened the US with war
>twice in the past 5
>years, not to mention the
>controversy with Taiwan still looms.
>Buddies indeed.

Funny, how come your government makes a deal with China so that it opens up its market to US COMPANIES ? That's not evidence of an ignorant government, it shows that big business has a) taken over the goverment and b) doesn't care about human rights.

>>>A national defense is important
>>>in protecting the US and
>>>it's interests.
>>
>>Good, keep on repeating what they
>>tell you.
>
>That's not repeating what someone tells
>me, it's COMMON SENSE.
>Only fools would not protect
>themselves.

As I said, you have to make choices. There's only a limited amount of money, so there's priorities to be made. That happens today too : money flows to the military instead of a decent accessible health care system.
My point is : this decision has not been supported by the public before it was taken, so it means you have to be convinced that it's a good thing. So that you would repeat rethoric on these boards.

Of course I'm not anti a decent army that can protect it's citizens. All I'm doing is questioning the amount of money that goes to the military (which mainly defends PRIVATE/BUSINESS interests abroad) at the expense of other necessary initiatives.

>Why don't they? The highway
>system is not open to
>the public???? The public
>does not transport themselves to
>and from work, home, to
>see family, friends, and the
>like? You don't think
>wear and tear comes from
>that? You think commercial
>trucks are the only vehicles
>that damage the road system,
>that pollute, that have wrecks?

Major independent studies show that trucks damage roads much more than cars, becos of a few reasons :

a) less restrictions on fuel being used
b) heavier weight
c) the nature of the job leads to more accidents : drivers are often forced to drive over 10 hours without taking breaks
d) an accident with a truck has much more impact, becos of its weight and size

You'll probably call these studies 'wrong' without substantiating, but all I can say is that I see it's true every time I'm on the highway; you better not use the first lane when it's raining, since the road is worn out from having all those heavy trucks.

>Public money is used
>because the PUBLIC USES THE
>ROADS....

funny, when you continue with :

>All interests use the highway system.

>>You completely missed my point.
>>I was referring to the
>>flow of public money to
>>private businesses, not national defense.
>
>And it's that flow of public
>money that helps people working
>for private businesses keep their
>jobs. What, you think
>they are going to keep
>them on despite losing profits?
> Be real.

Oh, so now all of a sudden it's ok for public money to flow to private businesses ? I don't get it : you mentioned something about shareholders being so stupid to stay on a sinking ship, suddenly it's ok to keep that ship from sinking ?

Please elaborate.

>>Does this mean you're an expert
>>in empoverishment exploitation, pillage and
>>genocide, since you support the
>>current structure/system ?
>
>There is NO genocide and no
>exploitation going on in this
>country. I repeat, if
>it is going on over
>international waters, then the respective
>governments should be held accountable
>for the exploits, not this
>government.

This is where we disagree.
The worst thing is that you even deny the exploitation and genocide that goes on in your own country.

Never heard of the Indians in reserves ? Never heard of shipping harddrugs on purpose to gettoes ?

>>I have a few ideas, mostly
>>based on Noam Chomsky's views.
>>If you want more info,
>>you can check this link
>>:
>>
>>http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles.cfm

>*sighs* I am not going
>to read 50 columns.
>If you read it then
>you should be able to
>give an accurate analysis on
>what you read and apply
>it to the discussion.
>It would be different if
>it was only 1 or
>2, but don't expect me
>to sit here and read
>all of this stuff.

Sure. I didn't say you should read all of it. The articles are indexed, by topic. You could pick whatever you want.

If you're not interested just say so, don't blame it on the number of articles. I thought you were so keen on being informed ?

You want to know where I'm coming from ? Well it's all there. I can't summarize a process that's taken me 8 years in a few posts. Especially with you contradicting yourself and ignoring the topic/question.

>>I agree that's not what the
>>US SHOULD do, but unfortunately
>>reality is slightly different...
>>I hope you at least see
>>this ?
>
>No I don't. If they
>shouldn't do it, then why
>does reality say they should?
>Explain.

I'm not saying reality says they 'should', REALITY SHOWS THEY DO.

The US are all over this planet. I don't expect you to know it, since you're not interested in the world outside the US.

>>All of them ? You
>>must live in an easy
>>world, where every single thing
>>that doesn't fit into your
>>logic is 'wrong' ...
>
>Look, there is funding out there
>for anyone, repeat ANY AMERICAN
>CITIZEN that wants to go
>to school to do so.
>Plenty of grants, scholarships,
>loans, and what not, whether
>they are public or private.
>You have to actually
>LOOK for them. There
>are thousands of programs at
>the state and federal level
>that are just waiting for
>people to apply for them.
>The problem is, people
>don't want to take the
>time to find them.

Just cos you had access to them, means everyone can apply ? You know what the situation is like in every US state ? How come you're so sure ?

And how come you're so sure about people not wanting to take the time to find 'm ?

You sound pretty allknowing for a 22 year old.

>The door of opportunity
>in this world is larger
>than it has ever been.

'Glass ceiling' is a socialist fabrication right ?
'Racism' a communist concept right ?
'Sexism' only exists in my imagination ?

>The only thing government
>should be responsible for is
>our own interests internationally.

Could you describe these ? That's a very general remark you make, I'm sure most people will find that's all the US does today.

>That's right, and the earth is
>split into countries and territories
>for a reason, because they
>are to represent their own
>interests domestically. What do
>you want to do, have
>the federal government make an
>international police force?

The US does so now.

>I never said it doesn't, I
>said that the federal government's
>powers should be reduced and
>the foreign governments should be
>held accountable for the plight
>of their citizens.

That would be true if those foreign governments weren't depending on and/or weren't client states
of the US.

>I have no responsibility towards the
>people of Guatemala or any
>other country. I repeat,
>that is the GOVERNMENT OF
>GUATEMALA'S problem, not mine.
>I'm not part of any
>oppression or exploitation and hence
>cannot be held accountable for
>it.

Look, young man. Read at least a few of those 50 columns. Then comeback, okay ?

>>>>Then of course,
>>>>if you don't have any
>>>>money, that's probably your own
>>>>fault, right ?
>>>
>>>Sure is.
>>
>>This, my friend, is why I
>>call you a fascist.
>
>I am a fascist because I
>believe in earning what I
>have? Reaping what I
>sow? You got a
>nerve.

You are fascist cos you blame individuals for structural deficiencies that they have no impact on. You have no sense of solidarity or community.
You'd probably blame a Vietnam war vet for loosing his leg or dying from the consequences of PCP, cos 'those are the risks of being a soldier'.

>>Oh, you wanna talk about both
>>sides ? No problem !
>>How much did school/media tell you
>>about the peace proposals during
>>the Israeli/Palestina conflict, all vetoed
>>by the US ?
>>How much did school tell you
>>about the US mass genocide
>>in Vietnam ? Raping
>>of women, pillaging of villages,
>>destroying of agricultural infrastructure and
>>economy ?
>>How much did school teach you
>>about the enslavement of Africans
>>?
>>How much did school tell you
>>about the marginalizing, killing and
>>getto-ing of the original Americans
>>(Indians) ?
>>How much does school inform our
>>children today about the cancerous
>>effects of food that's filled
>>with hormones ? Are
>>students being told about vegetarianism
>>?
>>How much unbiased info do children
>>get about communism/socialism today ?
>
>ALL of these things you can
>learn, given you take the
>respective classes on them, mainly
>in college.

Missed my point again. How unbiased are these classes ? You assume, simply cos these classes exist, that they'll give you a fair view ?
The existence of such a class doesn't automatically mean that it'll give you both sides.

>Also, you can indeed take the
>initiative to learn things on
>your own. Some things
>doesn't need to e proporgandized
>by school.

Exactly : unfortunately some people (but you seem to blame them for that) don't live in an area where those classes are organized, or have 2 to 3 jobs and a family when they leave school, which hardly leaves time to be educated. Education is nice and all, but if you got no food on the table work comes first.

>It is not my fault that
>anyone is poor! That
>is their government's fault, not
>mine. The only thing
>I'm guilty of is being
>born in a country with
>opportunity, that's it that's all.
>I have no responsibility
>to anyone else unless I
>volunteer responsibility.

Of course you're not responsible individually for the exploitation of banana farmers who work for Chiquita. But still buying those bananas when you KNOW what really goes on, makes you volunteer responsibility.
You can agree or not, but buying those bananas without saying anything/reacting to those injustices, makes you an accomplice. You don't have to argue that with me, talk to the farmers that are being sprayed with insecticide 4 times a day without being warned so that they can leave the plantation during spraying.

>Who are YOU to say someone
>has generated enough wealth?
>Who gave you, or Ralph
>Nader or those Green Party
>nuts, the right to tell
>me how much money I
>can make and what I
>have to do with MY
>money?

Your money may not be generated through exploitation, but your standard of living sure is, cos you can buy cheap goods that have been produced in inhumane circumstances

>You have no
>RIGHT to go and take
>something that I earned, repeat,
>EARNED, and do whatever with
>it.

Then how come you think it's OK for companies to not give people the money they earn through hard work ? Pretty inconsistent ? Or are Indian or Indonesian people worth less than Americans ?

I'm not saying they should get 12 dollars an hour when the standard of living is 10 times lower than where you live.
But their wages are something like 25 times lower than those 12 dollars. They simply don't get a proper pay, considering their reality.

>The simple fact that you
>feel you should make decisions
>on what I should do
>with my own money is
>true fascism. It's the
>essence of big government leftism.

Nope. You're defending a system where many more people than just the few of us with Internet access and enough free time to discuss this are being exploited on a daily basis.

You want the US to be more isolationist ? Good. Be consequent, don't rely on the exploitation abroad anymore. Let Americans cultivate those fruits and make those sneakers. See how much prices rise.

>So here is what
>you and the other leftists
>say....
>
>"Okay American citizens, let's get something
>straight. Government is going
>to take your money, whether
>you like it or not.
>You might as well
>get used to it.
>BUT, what we are going
>to do is let you
>democratically vote for how everyone
>wants that money spent.
>If you're part of the
>minority that doesn't like how
>it's spent, tough shit.
>Your money is ours now."

You're saying :

>"Okay American citizens, let's get something
>straight. Government is going
>to take your money and hand it directly to >companies, whether
>you like it or not.
>You might as well
>get used to it.
>We're not even going
>to let you
>democratically vote for how everyone
>wants that money spent.
>If you're part of the
>majority of people exploited becos of this >system's reliance on massive low wage labour
>, tough shit.
>Your money is ours now."

>Human rights isn't even the point!
> That's one of the
>funny things about your dream
>of a democratic society....you're already
>assuming that the majority agrees
>with you!

The majority of people on this planet is not on your side. They work for you, they experience the 'greatness' of your US dominance every single day. The majority of them don't know elections, don't have access to power at all.

What you call 'majority' is propaganda. It suits your logic, but it's not reality.

>You don't
>even know whether or not
>they think their tax money
>should be given up for
>massive amounts of foreign aid!
>This is all your
>little dream inside your little
>head.

>What if they
>agree with me? What
>if they say, through democratic
>means, that they don't want
>their tax dollars being sent
>to other countries??

Democratic means would mean that people would first be giving the means to extricate themselves from the current propaganda system.

Which is not the case today.

My point is : don't complain/whine/be surprised when your embassy is blown up right at one of the centres of US exploitation. You reap what you sow.

Calling this terrorism, and ignoring the fact that the centre of worldwide terrorism is in DC, is ignoring reality/swallowing propaganda.

>Sit
>there and ask yourself, if
>that is an idea that
>you can actually swallow?
>What would be next on
>the drawing board? Would
>you use government force in
>order to see that agenda
>enforced anyways??

No, cos that happens today and. Only thing is : it's a different agenda.

>Well thank you, because if I
>want to be selfish and
>want to keep the possessions
>I buy, earn, or inherit,
>I have every right to
>do so. Once again,
>it isn't something that is
>to be forced upon people.

It's your right, but don't expect people to applaud you for it. Especially with that twisted definition of 'earning'.
Like other workers don't 'earn' a decent life ?

>But is it MY personal problem
>or responsibility that they are
>going through what they are
>going through? Should I
>be forced by government to
>give up my possessions in
>order to give it to
>them? Should I force
>people to do that?
>NO.

Who said 'give up your possessions' ?
Redistribution is something completely different.

>I know people get down on
>their luck, believe me, I've
>been there.

Oh yeah ? How ?

>But I
>also know that you don't
>have to be in that
>same spot for the rest
>of your life, you can
>move up. Plenty of
>people have done so, and
>there is nothing stopping me
>or anyone else in following
>their footsteps. It's called
>OPTIMISM.

It's called being naive. Just cos you made it, means everybody can, and i they don't they only have themselves to blame ? Right... That's just ignorance.

>>That's not a 'political opinion' (it
>>doesn't make me socialist), it's
>>called REALITY. All you
>>need to do to realize
>>this is LOOK AROUND and
>>stop being so conceited and
>>selfish.
>
>It's called being a pessimist.
>That's far from reality.
>The whole fact that this
>country, whether you feel it's
>exploitive or not, rose from
>being a startup country to
>the most powerful nation in
>the world shows that your
>"reality" is a lie.

How does the US rise to power make the exploitation of other people a lie ?

Especially when both are directly related ?


More later,

krewc

OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Sat Aug-12-00 06:27 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "RE: dear Expertise part 1"
In response to Reply # 64


  

          

>So the only alternative to the
>institutionalised press is hearsay and
>gossip or lies ?

You haven't given me anything to think differently.

>What do you rely on ?
> Just CNN and a
>few newspapers ? And
>even so, even those report
>on atrocities committed in the
>name of your splendid capitalism.
> The Financial Times happens
>to be honest every now
>and then.

Well, yanno, I wasn't actually there when the travesties happened, so when I have CNN, along with other sources come up with the same opinion, then chances are I will believe them or at least find some kind of truth into what they are saying. Especially if I find that the sources are credible and the conversing view isn't.

>Did I say 'shut down' ?
> Nope. There's a
>difference between constant expansion when
>you're already the strongest by
>far and using that same
>public money for the public.

But there ISN'T constant expansion. The military has actually shrunk during Clinton's 2 terms of office. How much do you want it shrunk down to? A couple groups of toy soldiers?

>Funny, how come your government makes
>a deal with China so
>that it opens up its
>market to US COMPANIES ?
> That's not evidence of
>an ignorant government, it shows
>that big business has a)
>taken over the goverment and
>b) doesn't care about human
>rights.

Wrong. The pressure might have influenced the government but that doesn't mean they have taken over. Hey, I'm on your side this time, I don't think we should do a damn thing with the Chinese. I consider them a national enemy.
However, what is your solution on how to handle the Chinese? I mean, it can't be an embargo/sanctions, because after all, you want to lift sanctions in Cuba and they are guilty of the same kind of abuses China is. Are you suggesting that we invade China and overthrow the communist government? If so, then that means we are going to need that defense money aren't we?

>As I said, you have to
>make choices. There's only
>a limited amount of money,
>so there's priorities to be
>made.

LIMITED? The national budget is the biggest it's ever been! They are talking about a 5 trillion tax "surplus" coming. Limited indeed. And let me remind you that most of that money is spent on government programs and subsidies, not corporate welfare or defense spending. Both have been cut during Clinton's terms.

That happens today
>too : money flows to
>the military instead of a
>decent accessible health care system.

We've already been through this....free health care is not FREE, it costs MONEY, money that belongs to someone else in which you advocate taking it by force through government, in which you have no right to do so.

>My point is : this decision
>has not been supported by
>the public before it was
>taken, so it means you
>have to be convinced that
>it's a good thing.
>So that you would repeat
>rethoric on these boards.

You cannot have a referendum every time there is a national decision to be made. How many times I got to repeat this to you....that's why we have representatives. Representatives are there to make the decisions, and they are decided by democratic vote. It's not RHETORIC, it's the TRUTH. And you STILL haven't told me how you're going to implement your "effective democracy".

>Of course I'm not anti a
>decent army that can protect
>it's citizens. All I'm
>doing is questioning the amount
>of money that goes to
>the military (which mainly defends
>PRIVATE/BUSINESS interests abroad) at the
>expense of other necessary initiatives.

And the money has been cut, and the military has become a flimsy existence. As for private/business interests, they are still American intersts, therefore why not. And then what initiatives do you feel are worthy of military assistance other than turning the US Armed Forces into the Camoflauge Cross?

>Major independent studies show that trucks
>damage roads much more than
>cars, becos of a few
>reasons :


>a) less restrictions on fuel being
>used
>b) heavier weight
>c) the nature of the job
>leads to more accidents :
>drivers are often forced to
>drive over 10 hours without
>taking breaks
>d) an accident with a truck
>has much more impact, becos
>of its weight and size

Well of course individually they will, but there are far more privately own cars and vehicles out on the road than there are commericial vehicles. Besides, that still doesn't mean that the public does not use these same roads, therefore they should contribute in the construction and repair of them.

There's your explanation.

>Oh, so now all of a
>sudden it's ok for public
>money to flow to private
>businesses ? I don't
>get it : you mentioned
>something about shareholders being so
>stupid to stay on a
>sinking ship, suddenly it's ok
>to keep that ship from
>sinking ?

That is different. If I am a shareholder, and I see that a company is losing profits and value, then what good will it do me to stay on, regardless of whether or not government is going to bail me out? That's just common sense. Any smart shareholder would do that.

>Never heard of the Indians in
>reserves?

Native Americans are free to leave the reservations. I know a couple that have done so.

Never heard
>of shipping harddrugs on purpose
>to gettoes ?

Personal responsibility. If you offer me drugs does that mean I have to take them?

>If you're not interested just say
>so, don't blame it on
>the number of articles.
>I thought you were so
>keen on being informed ?

I will read some of them eventually, but if you are going to refer me to a columnist, in hopes to strengthen your argument, how about making sure you give me a specific article in which to read? Otherwise, it doesn't help you out any, because you can't even point to me what to read nor did you bother to summarize it and explain to me your point. I'll show you an example of such below.

>You want to know where I'm
>coming from ? Well
>it's all there. I
>can't summarize a process that's
>taken me 8 years in
>a few posts. Especially
>with you contradicting yourself and
>ignoring the topic/question.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm asking you to explain yourself specifically so that I may understand your point.

>I'm not saying reality says they
>'should', REALITY SHOWS THEY DO.

It might show they do, but that's not the ideal way to handle it, especially how Clinton has constantly been using the country's defense for simple humanitarian missions.

>The US are all over this
>planet. I don't expect
>you to know it, since
>you're not interested in the
>world outside the US.

There are military bases all over this world, yes. Does that mean they are constantly active and involved in continuous conflict? No.

>Just cos you had access to
>them, means everyone can apply
>? You know what
>the situation is like in
>every US state ?
>How come you're so sure
>?

But how are you going to know if it doesn't if you don't look? Not to mention that there are federal and private funds available too. ESPECIALLY if you are a minority in this country. The problem is that people don't attempt to tap into them or do some research to find out they are there.

>And how come you're so sure
>about people not wanting to
>take the time to find
>'m ?

If they want to, they can. Public libraries, numbers to call your state government, federal government, etc, internet, infomercials, companies that specifically do scholarship searches, companies that give out student loans.....if you truly want to attend college you can. And ditto for a GED/diploma.

>You sound pretty allknowing for a
>22 year old.

Why thank you.

>'Glass ceiling' is a socialist fabrication
>right ?

Socialism makes the glass ceiling even lower.

>'Racism' a communist concept right ?
>'Sexism' only exists in my imagination
>?

More government control and democratic (mob) rule means more oppression on the minority, whether in racial or gender terms. Tell me something, if this country was fully democratic do you think....

1. Slavery would have been abolished in 1865?
2. Women would have been given the right to vote in 1922?
3. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 would have passed?
4. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 would have passed?

The answer? NO. The fact is if it wasn't for a constitutional republican form of government slavery would not have ended in 1865, women would not have been granted the right to vote, the Civil Rights and Voting Acts would not have been passed, and noone would have equal protection under the law. For your sake, let's just hope you agree with everything the majority says.

>Could you describe these ?
>That's a very general remark
>you make, I'm sure most
>people will find that's all
>the US does today.

Actually, I don't think the Kosovo conflict, or the Iraqi bombings had anything to do with protecting American interests. However, I feel that there should only be foreign military intervention when....

1. The lives of US citizens are in danger.
2. American business interests are threatened.
3. When a conflict threatens to become full scale war in which other countries may be drawn into.

And yes I do believe in embargoes/sanctions.

What do
>>you want to do, have
>>the federal government make an
>>international police force?

>The US does so now.

It does not do so now, but if you keep it in the hands of leftists it will. It is a known fact that Democrats/liberals are terrible at foreign policy.

>That would be true if those
>foreign governments weren't depending on
>and/or weren't client states
>of the US.

Client states? Explain.

>>I have no responsibility towards the
>>people of Guatemala or any
>>other country. I repeat,
>>that is the GOVERNMENT OF
>>GUATEMALA'S problem, not mine.
>>I'm not part of any
>>oppression or exploitation and hence
>>cannot be held accountable for
>>it.
>
>Look, young man. Read at
>least a few of those
>50 columns. Then comeback,
>okay ?

Even if it does say that businesses exploit citizens that doesn't mean I should be held responsible for the plight. Like I said, feel free to boycott to your heart's content.

>>I am a fascist because I
>>believe in earning what I
>>have? Reaping what I
>>sow? You got a
>>nerve.

>You are fascist cos you blame
>individuals for structural deficiencies that
>they have no impact on.
> You have no sense
>of solidarity or community.
>You'd probably blame a Vietnam war
>vet for loosing his leg
>or dying from the consequences
>of PCP, cos 'those are
>the risks of being a
>soldier'.

I believe in individualism, which covers all. Sweep around your own door before you try to do so to others. Groups are only as strong as it's weakest link, and I'd rather be in control of my own future instead of letting other people do so for me.
As for the Vietnam vet, soldiers are different. They are fighting so I won't have to. They are fighting to protect this country. Of course that is a responsibility of citizens to take care of the vets, but it is indeed the risks of being a soldier also.

>Missed my point again. How unbiased
>are these classes ?
>You assume, simply cos these
>classes exist, that they'll give
>you a fair view ?
>The existence of such a class
>doesn't automatically mean that it'll
>give you both sides.

You still have the chance to find out both sides of the story. The way the Green Party platform explains it all they are going to do is explain it like it is a fool-proof initiative, which is a lie.

>Exactly : unfortunately some people (but
>you seem to blame them
>for that) don't live in
>an area where those classes
>are organized, or have 2
>to 3 jobs and a
>family when they leave school,
>which hardly leaves time to
>be educated. Education is
>nice and all, but if
>you got no food on
>the table work comes first.

It's all about planning and strategy. You don't like the job you're at? Get another one. If you make time, you will always have time. Sometimes you gotta give a little to get a little.

>Of course you're not responsible individually
>for the exploitation of banana
>farmers who work for Chiquita.
> But still buying those
>bananas when you KNOW what
>really goes on, makes you
>volunteer responsibility.

What? Volunteer responsibility? Think about it, if noone bought them at all they wouldn't have jobs at all now would they? When businesses are losing money, you can guarantee one of the first things they are going to cut is labor.

And like I said, that is their GOVERNMENT'S problem not mine, regardless whether I know what's going on or not. Me buying and consuming a product is not a criminal activity, so therefore, tough luck.

>You can agree or not, but
>buying those bananas without saying
>anything/reacting to those injustices, makes
>you an accomplice. You
>don't have to argue that
>with me, talk to the
>farmers that are being sprayed
>with insecticide 4 times a
>day without being warned so
>that they can leave the
>plantation during spraying.

How is it MY personal fault if they aren't warned? That is not my problem. You talk as if everyone is supposed to be responsible for everyone else's problems. Last time I checked, Superman does not exist. You can't solve everyone's problems, and if you try, all you gonna do is make even more problems than before. That's what happens when you have the US constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign govenments.

>Your money may not be generated
>through exploitation, but your standard
>of living sure is, cos
>you can buy cheap goods
>that have been produced in
>inhumane circumstances

Once again, that's not my problem. It's nice you want to be a humanitarian, but that is your CHOICE. You can't force people to do so. That's reality.

>Then how come you think it's
>OK for companies to not
>give people the money they
>earn through hard work ?
> Pretty inconsistent ?
>Or are Indian or Indonesian
>people worth less than Americans
>?
>I'm not saying they should get
>12 dollars an hour when
>the standard of living is
>10 times lower than where
>you live.
>But their wages are something like
>25 times lower than those
>12 dollars. They simply
>don't get a proper pay,
>considering their reality.

Once again, you are not understanding me. That is not something that our federal government can enforce or even should enforce because we have no soverignty in those countries. Man if it was up to you there would be international conflicts starting up every week. You can't protect all the world.

>>The simple fact that you
>>feel you should make decisions
>>on what I should do
>>with my own money is
>>true fascism. It's the
>>essence of big government leftism.
>
>Nope. You're defending a system
>where many more people than
>just the few of us
>with Internet access and enough
>free time to discuss this
>are being exploited on a
>daily basis.

I'm not defending exploitation, I am defending isolationism and respecting foreign soverignities. I am also defending the right to possession. Money is a possession, in which you have no right to take from me and freely give it to another. I have a right to VOLUNTEER to give it to someone, but you have no right to take it away from me, whether you feel I am contributing to exploitation or not.

>You want the US to be
>more isolationist ? Good.
> Be consequent, don't rely
>on the exploitation abroad anymore.
> Let Americans cultivate those
>fruits and make those sneakers.
> See how much prices
>rise.

That is not what isolationist means. It means not interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries. To run in gung ho into a country and think you can stop all the crimes and tribulations going on in that country is being interventionist, and to think you can do that in every country around the world is unrealistic.

>>"Okay American citizens, let's get something
>>straight. Government is going
>>to take your money and hand it directly to >companies, whether
>>you like it or not.
>>You might as well
>>get used to it.
>>We're not even going
>>to let you
>>democratically vote for how everyone
>>wants that money spent.
>>If you're part of the
>>majority of people exploited becos of this >system's reliance on massive low wage labour
>>, tough shit.
>>Your money is ours now."

Who says it's got to be given to ANYBODY?? Why is tax cuts not a realistic idea? Instead of giving fake power to people by pretending everyone can choose and has a say in the matter, how about giving them their money back instead of keeping it and spending it? That way, they can support the businesses and charities of their choice.

>The majority of people on this
>planet is not on your
>side. They work for
>you, they experience the 'greatness'
>of your US dominance every
>single day. The majority
>of them don't know elections,
>don't have access to power
>at all.

Once again, there has never been a 100% election, and chances are never will be. Also, how is that fair to the minority? Why should the majority be given prescedence over the interests of the minority? What if the majority wins 51% to the minorities' 49. You mean to tell me that majority agenda should be held in higher consideration?

Let me remind you that you as an African-American are a minority. Are you willing to be oppressed by a white agenda, especially in areas in which the issue is parted between racial lines?

>What you call 'majority' is propaganda.
> It suits your logic,
>but it's not reality.

Well then tell me what is your definition of a majority?

>Democratic means would mean that people
>would first be giving the
>means to extricate themselves from
>the current propaganda system.

That's YOUR view of democracy. Once again, you don't know if that is the majority view of democracy or not. All you are doing is assuming. Dreams.

>Which is not the case today.

And rightfully so. Government should protect the individual through a republican form of government, a government which holds laws above the popular opinion of the people at that time. A Constitution that protects people from the oppression of government.

>My point is : don't complain/whine/be
>surprised when your embassy is
>blown up right at one
>of the centres of US
>exploitation. You reap what
>you sow.

Oh, and I'm sure we are supposed to sit back and say, "Hey, that's alright. We deserved it for all the things our companies did to you and we let go on in your country when your government was too lazy/corrupted to do their job. We won't retaliate, you owed us one." I hope for your sake you never has friends/family that work overseas and become victims of terrorism, due you will be eating those words.

I'll be back later to answer the rest.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Sun Aug-13-00 01:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "goodbye"
In response to Reply # 65


  

          

>>So the only alternative to the
>>institutionalised press is hearsay and
>>gossip or lies ?
>
>You haven't given me anything to
>think differently.

You're obviously not open to anything but the usual propaganda. When reality differs too much from what you've been taught as 'truth', you deny it. You don't substantiate or explain why, you just say it's too different from what you've been taught.

You're not willing to question your beliefs. I could give you all the alternatives in the world, you'd write all of them off as lies, hearsay or left wing bs.

So be it.

>Well, yanno, I wasn't actually there
>when the travesties happened, so
>when I have CNN, along
>with other sources come up
>with the same opinion, then
>chances are I will believe
>them or at least find
>some kind of truth into
>what they are saying.
>Especially if I find that
>the sources are credible and
>the conversing view isn't.

Exactly what I said. You don't substantiate 'credible', you don't question their business structure or the reason why they all might say similar things.

Everything that follows now, has already been said by you numerous times, without any evidence. All you do is repeat slogans.

All you've done in every singe reply of yours, is talk ignorant, bourgeois, selfish, ivory tower rhetoric.

You really must like sucking dick, considering the amount of swallowing you've done so far (that's the battlecat in me).

Think that's harsh/rude/way out of line ?

I think stuff like this is even worse :

>Native Americans are free to leave
>the reservations. I know
>a couple that have done
>so.

OR

>Never heard
>>of shipping harddrugs on purpose
>>to gettoes ?
>
>Personal responsibility. If you offer
>me drugs does that mean
>I have to take them?



>>I'm not saying reality says they
>>'should', REALITY SHOWS THEY DO.
>
>It might show they do, but
>that's not the ideal way
>to handle it, especially how
>Clinton has constantly been using
>the country's defense for simple
>humanitarian missions.

You have no sense of history, nor understanding of the world. Not even of the US. Sad.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON. It could be any ignorant person (yes, you'd make a very good candidate).

It has everything to do with capitalism and its current form that is being pushed down people's throats.

>>'Glass ceiling' is a socialist fabrication
>>right ?
>
>Socialism makes the glass ceiling even
>lower.

I love how you actually proove your point by substantiating and elaborating on this.

>More government control and democratic (mob)
>rule means more oppression on
>the minority, whether in racial
>or gender terms. Tell
>me something, if this country
>was fully democratic do you
>think....
>
>1. Slavery would have been
>abolished in 1865?
>2. Women would have been
>given the right to vote
>in 1922?
>3. The Civil Rights Act
>of 1968 would have passed?
>
>4. The Voting Rights Act
>of 1964 would have passed?

If there had been democracy, slavery wouldn't have happened, women wouldn't have had to 'wait' for their right to vote ...

That's not the point. The subject is today's situation, which you lack any understanding about.

>Actually, I don't think the Kosovo
>conflict, or the Iraqi bombings
>had anything to do with
>protecting American interests.

On the Iraqi bombings (very clearly linked to US impact/influence in the Middle East AND oil) :
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9102-gulf-crisis.html

>Money is a possession,
>in which you have no
>right to take from me
>and freely give it to
>another.


I have a
>right to VOLUNTEER to give
>it to someone, but you
>have no right to take
>it away from me, whether
>you feel I am contributing
>to exploitation or not.

This commie bastard is still gonna do his best to do so, though. That's my right/choice, as you so nicely put it.

>Why
>should the majority be given
>prescedence over the interests of
>the minority? What if
>the majority wins 51% to
>the minorities' 49. You
>mean to tell me that
>majority agenda should be held
>in higher consideration?

Today it's more a 20% minority controlling an 80% majority. Sound a lot better indeed, especially for you (thinking you're part of those 20%).

>Let me remind you that you
>as an African-American are a
>minority.

LOL
What makes you think I'm African-American ?

>Are you willing
>to be oppressed by a
>white agenda, especially in areas
>in which the issue is
>parted between racial lines?

No, that's why I'm trying to extricate myself from white male privilege every single day.
You should try the same, after washing your face from having it up your ass the past 22 years.

>Well then tell me what is
>your definition of a majority?

'majority' = the 3/4 of the world population being exploited today, through economical and military pressure/terror, plus the people in so-called 'developed/industrialized' countries forced to be a part of this against their will.

>That's YOUR view of democracy.
>Once again, you don't know
>if that is the majority
>view of democracy or not.
> All you are doing
>is assuming. Dreams.

Just keep assuming that you and the rest of your proud conservatives are the majority.

I hope you never have to wake up.

> I'll be back later to answer the rest

Never mind, I'm through with you. There's no more sense in debating with an impolite, arrogant, fascist person.

krewc

OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
uncle_clarence_tomas

Mon Aug-14-00 03:27 AM

  
67. "Stop Doggin my bwoy!"
In response to Reply # 66


          

10 reasons why Expertise should run for President:

1. "I cannot understand for the life of me why are you Okayplayers supporting such an illogical, idiotic, extremist party like the Green Party."

2. "I can get sick of breathing, but if I don't, I'll die."

3. "Well duh, the things taught in School are designed to reflect the society we are in. It's a school, not a brain washing scheme."

4. "Awwww poor thing....did I offend you? That's a shame. If you think I'm offensive, wait until reality hits you. You'll think I was Barney ... Hence, you can take your toys and go home."

5. "The economy can only do as well as it's highest achievers. If they aren't succeeding, then that means the lowest ones aren't either. That's what makes them low."

6. "WAKE UP!!! I cannot actually FATHOM meeting any of you dimwits that actually believe this is a good idea. You're actually willing to allow governemt to steal your money. There are actually more life-forms like you guys in this world???"

7. "There is NO genocide and no exploitation going on in this country."

8. "Nader doesn't DESERVE a fair chance (in the elections); this mess is nothing more than some socialist ploy."

9. "It's not big businesses' job to care."

10. "It's all about ME!"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
d-Best

Thu Aug-10-00 10:30 AM

  
31. "RE: 10 Reasons to Vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 20


          

1. Every household with 4 members get $500/wk, $26,000/yr

ending poverty? what a bad idea!?

2. Guaranteed right to a job, medical care, lifelong education, child care, and housing.

Ending suffering? what a bad idea!?

3. Minimum wage raised to $12.50

Ending poverty part II, what a bad idea!?

4. Work week cut to 6 hrs/day, 30/wk.

i'm a work-champ, so i like to work alot, but if it can be voluntarily waived...

5. Eliminate the US Senate

The US senate is controlled by rich white men who cover up the fact that they like to pay large black male prostitutes to give them blowjobs (i'm buggin... no disrepect to senators...)

6. Make DC a state

why is this bad? how about LET DC be a state.

7. Governmental break up of the top 500 companies in the US. No company or corporation is allowed to control over 10% of their respected market. Companies are allowed only by federal charter, and must be renewed every 20 years.

It's called Anti-trust, "expertise"... expertise in WHAT!?

8. Every enterprise that has over 10 workers may elect their own management and supervisors.

QUITE democratic, though perhaps problematic

9. Governmental seizure of the top 200 banks in the US, which includes 80% of the assets.

BANKS ARE BAD NEWS... early US used to oppose banks, until banking cartels got bankers elected. Credit Union's are where it's at, but the banking industry sued the US government to stop credit unions from getting new members.

Credit Unions are non-profit banks. Credit Unions have better services, lower or no fees, higher interest rates, better loans, nicer employees, than ANY BANK IN EXISTENCE.

nonprofit can't work? please...

10. All income over 10X minimum wage ($12.50/hr) shall be taxed 100%. Hence, according to the Green Party guidelines, no individual is allowed to make more than $195,000/yr. And that's gross income, not net.

interesting. it counters limitless income dream of hyper-capitalism, but still secures monetary gain as a motivator. Possibly b/c of inflation. prices will go up without price controls, and eventually $200K might not be that much. But price controls are sometimes problematic... except if you look at eggs and milk--that's not problematic. Hmm...

d-Best


Oh, and Expertise...

>Democracies only protect the majority.
> But what about the
>minority? What about the
>individual?

how very socialist of you.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 08:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
59. "RE: 10 Reasons to Vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

>Because to think that democracy can
>actually cover everyone and give
>full power to the people
>is unrealistic.

Depends on what you mean by "full power". Everyone of voting age who hasn't been convicted of a felony can go to the polls and elect a representative.

Arguably, with telecommunications, certain large scale issues could indeed, in the near future, be voted on by the entire populace. But the many many minor votes that Congress must make to run the country? I think it would be too difficult to have direct democracy as relates to the multitude of minor issues.

>>2)
>>The American people should have reasonable
>>control over the public lands,
>>public media airwaves, pension funds,
>>and other societal assets which
>>the public legally owns, rather
>>than having these public assets
>>controlled by a powerful few.
>
>Substitute public for GOVERNMENT. The
>GOVERNMENT should have control over
>the GOVERNMENT lands, media airwaves
>controlled by GOVERNMENT,

Ahem. I urge you to read a little about the Communications Act of 1934. The airwaves do not indeed belong to the body politic, the public, NOT the government. Public lands I don't know much about...

pension funs,
>and other societal assets that
>the GOVERNMENT legally owns.

The public owns (or should own) pension funds too...at least the part of the public that pays into each individual pension.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

August is Top 10 Month...

The 10 Reasons why you should go to http://www.theamphibians.com

(1) the all-american jerk boy awards...guilliani is leading...
(2) for your convenience, we only do updates once every blue moon
(3) because i'll break your legs if you don't
(4) you need a reason to put off clipping your toenails for 7 more minutes
(5) the bizarre user names (mr. bungles, angry armenian, spottieottiedopalicious etc.)
(6) the good posts that get completely unrecognized
(7) the amazingly true story of me getting mugged, somewhere in there
(8) the goofy bios
(9) to figure out what the hell "fermented bells" are
(10) because you're tired of reading this long ass lists of reasons....just click it! http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Young_Isa

Mon Aug-14-00 09:12 AM

  
69. "Nader is anti military...thats foolish..he wants"
In response to Reply # 20


          

extreme cuts in Military funding...which isn't good for the U.S. The day we stop spending on the Military is the day other countries bomb us and we'll be controlled by a bunch of people with Towels or dots on there heads. FUCK THAT SHIT.


"Respect my Genius, or suck my Penius" -Me

"Bitch nigga, your more of a bitch than a bitch" -Kurupt

Young Isa - The }> 's brotha from another motha.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 12:17 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "Analysis"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Alright now lets go with the breakdown....

>1. Every household with 4 members
>get $500/wk, $26,000/yr

Geez. People there is a reason why it's called money. It is to be traded between two different parties through a common service. It is NOT to be simply given away like it is pieces of paper. This causes inflation of the economy, and for the family complacency. If government is going to pay me for downloading some kids, why work?

Reason #2 is further below.

>2. Guaranteed right to a job,
>medical care, lifelong education, child
>care, and housing.

Nothing but feel good ideas. All these things REQUIRE MONEY for it to be done. Just to give one person all these things could cost over $100,000 or more a year. Imagine 250 million?

>3. Minimum wage raised to $12.50

Hello, it's called a MINIMUM WAGE. That means bottom of the barrel, lowest of the low, etc. What does that mean? Well, if the minimum wage goes up, that means standard of living goes up too. You might not understand now, but when you go to McDonalds and a happy meal for a kid costs $10.00 then maybe you'll understand. Anybody that has moved from the city to the country and vice versa understands that when you live in a place where you generally get paid more, that means everything else costs more. All raising minimum wage does is hurts the poor even more, not helps because they are going to have to come up with more money to live.

>4. Work week cut to 6
>hrs/day, 30/wk.

Great way to decrease productivity. Alot of people already work more than 40 hours anyways. All this is going to do is make overtime hours higher, therefore the company is going to cut back in order to make it's budget. Who you think is going to go first? YOU. Whether its in hours, salary, or simply labor itself.

>5. Eliminate the US Senate

You people need to read your history books. The Senate provides more accurate representation in Congress. If there was only the House, I hope you live in California or New York, because those are 2 of the only few states where your representation would actually count. Eliminating the Senate gives states like Rhode Island, Idaho, Montana, Vermont, and Delavare a fair voice in government.

>6. Make DC a state

Washington DC is a CITY. Why should it be given state status? Hell if that's the case, make LA, New York, Atlanta, Philly, Houston, and Chicago state status too. As for representation, DC does indeed have a representative in the House. Maxine Waters I think. Don't quote me on that.

>7. Governmental break up of the
>top 500 companies in the
>US. No company or corporation
>is allowed to control over
>10% of their respected market.
>Companies are allowed only by
>federal charter, and must be
>renewed every 20 years.

This has got to be a tie for the craziest idea up here (the other is below). First of all, government has no business in the private sector other than to control fraud and unfair business practices. That's it, that's all. Second, when you punish people for succeeding, you hurt motivation and achievement. What motivation is there when once you're able to achieve 10% of your market, the government is going to break it up? Third, this whole thing would reek of bribery and corruption. You think big business is bad now? How about when dirty money is being placed under the table to spike the revenue of a business to the federal government? How about bribes being taken in order to ensure "democratic" approval of a company charter? Last but not least....IT WILL DESTROY THE ECONOMY!!!! It takes MONEY to break up a company. Ask Microsoft. It takes TIME to make up the new companies out of the old one, because time is money and if you ain't making money you are wasting time. You got to do this to 500 of them?? Then the company will be less efficient, because they will have to go to outside sources in order to gain supplies and contacts. Therefore, they aren't going to make that much all together separately as they would under one conglomerate. That's more costs, with less revenue coming in. That means the economy suffers.

>8. Every enterprise that has over
>10 workers may elect their
>own management and supervisors.

It's a COMPANY, not a GOVERNMENT. Great way to add more conflict and turmoil between workers and personel. Not to mention that corruption word again. People don't mind doing dirty favors in order to keep their jobs.

>9. Governmental seizure of the top
>200 banks in the US,
>which includes 80% of the
>assets.

What in the living hell? Okay, I've read some of these posts that you guys have made already, and here's what I'm hearing..."Well, it's okay for government to go into my bank and take the money I earned and keep it for themselves." WAKE UP!!! I cannot actually FATHOM meeting any of you dimwits that actually believe this is a good idea. You're actually willing to allow governemt to steal your money. There are actually more life-forms like you guys in this world???

>10. All income over 10X minimum
>wage ($12.50/hr) shall be taxed
>100%. Hence, according to the
>Green Party guidelines, no individual
>is allowed to make more
>than $195,000/yr. And that's gross
>income, not net.

Now tell me, what gives government....or any other person for that matter, the right to tell you how much you can't and cannot earn and achieve? If I am working my ass off, and by virtue making money, what gives the Green Party any kind of right to say, "Well you are making enough money, so we are going to take the rest." You have every right to make and achieve as much as you want to as long as you aren't defrauding or engaging in criminal activities. That's not an American right, that's a HUMAN right. Noone should be able to take away your right to pursue life, liberty, and property without just cause. And it's absolutely stupid that people actually believe in this garbage in the name of the poor. You're not helping the poor do nothing but stay poor! If you make the rich poorer, then the whole country is poorer, not richer. The country can only, and repeat only be as successful as it's highest achievers. If the achievers aren't doing anything worthwhile, then pop quiz hot shot...what makes you think the lovest achievers are? If you would bother looking at communist and highly socialist countries, you would see that. Hell in most countries our "poor" have more money and luxuries than a majority of their population. And there is definitely more opportunity in this country than any other in the world. Why? Because technology is advanced by achievement and motivation. THAT is the reason why this country is on the top of the food chain, and others aren't. It's called COMPETITION. It's what keeps this country going.

Man some of you guys really need clues....

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
krewcial
Charter member
3268 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 08:48 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "RE: Analysis"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

>You
>have every right to make
>and achieve as much as
>you want to as long
>as you aren't defrauding or
>engaging in criminal activities.

Which means Shell, Nike and plenty of other companies shouldn't pay their personnel, since they get a big part of their money through illegal activitiest, such as sweatshops, bribing/financing local governments and/or armies ... ?

>That's not an American right,
>that's a HUMAN right.

Let's discuss the human rights of people working for Nike in Indonesia.

>Noone should be able to
>take away your right to
>pursue life, liberty, and property
>without just cause.

Oh, so you agree with me ?

>If you
>make the rich poorer, then
>the whole country is poorer,
>not richer.

Incorrect. If you redistribute money, the country will still be as rich, it will only be distributed in another way. Plus those less-poor people can now consume more, which means businesses will flourish.

>The country
>can only, and repeat only
>be as successful as it's
>highest achievers. If the
>achievers aren't doing anything worthwhile,
>then pop quiz hot shot...what
>makes you think the lovest
>achievers are?

>If you
>would bother looking at communist
>and highly socialist countries, you
>would see that.

Could you give me some examples of what you consider to be communist/socialist countries ?

I know none today, except for Nicaragua during the short Sandinista period and Cuba some time ago.

>Hell
>in most countries our "poor"
>have more money and luxuries
>than a majority of their
>population.

Oh oh. 29 year olds die of the flu in your country. I've seen pics of people's bedrooms in the Bronx that remind me of Third World (hate the term) countries.

>And there is
>definitely more opportunity in this
>country than any other in
>the world.

Yes, FOR A FEW. Or 'minority', as you would call it. At the expense of a majority, both in and outside of the US.

>Because technology is advanced by
>achievement and motivation. THAT
>is the reason why this
>country is on the top
>of the food chain, and
>others aren't. It's called
>COMPETITION. It's what keeps
>this country going.

It's called abusing a monopoly and crushing any alternative, by taking taxpayers money, and lack of any democratic control

>Man some of you guys really
>need clues....

And you need to travel ...


krewc

OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
d-Best

Thu Aug-10-00 10:37 AM

  
32. "again, with your uneducated attempts to talk"
In response to Reply # 19


          

your poster-countries for "communism" (which, of COURSE, represent the ideology, and not that country, right?)

do not have the same opportunities as the US because the do not have the same RESOURCES or PRODUCTION base. learn something.

FURTHERMORE, seizing bank assets is not "stealing your money." The money these banks have is not "your money" they owe you a debt (THAT is your money) as they are contracted to you (when you deposit, you loan them money, which may or may not be paid back in interest depending on the type of account).

The money seized is the assets controlled by this bank. Join a credit union and see the difference between a bank that is using you, and a bank-esque service that is helping you.


Oh, and Expertise...

>Eliminating the Senate gives states like Rhode Island, Idaho, Montana, Vermont, and Delavare a fair voice in government.

You said it, not me.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 02:01 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "RE: again, with your uneducated attempts to talk"
In response to Reply # 32


  

          

>do not have the same opportunities
>as the US because the
>do not have the same
>RESOURCES or PRODUCTION base.
>learn something.

Who's fault is that? Who's fault that their production is low? Who's fault is it that they can't gather raw materials? Their own. Not ours.

>FURTHERMORE, seizing bank assets is not
>"stealing your money." The
>money these banks have is
>not "your money" they owe
>you a debt (THAT is
>your money) as they are
>contracted to you (when you
>deposit, you loan them money,
>which may or may not
>be paid back in interest
>depending on the type of
>account).

Oh my god....banks do not owe you a DEBT, a DEBT is something owed you due to you doing a service for someone else. They are servicing YOU by allowing you to store YOUR money in the bank. The only debts in that collaboration is the charges put onto you by virtue of you storing your money in the bank. The bank is a STORAGE, not a payment center, and you can get that money out whenever you want according to the agreements you and the bank agreed upon. Therefore, it's not just the banks assets that they are getting from their fees, but your assets too.

>The money seized is the assets
>controlled by this bank.
>Join a credit union and
>see the difference between a
>bank that is using you,
>and a bank-esque service that
>is helping you.

I know what a credit union is, and I have an account at one. However that still doesn't take away the fact that you're actually giving the government an excuse to take your money. That's really sad.

>Oh, and Expertise...
>
>>Eliminating the Senate gives states like Rhode Island, Idaho, Montana, Vermont, and Delavare a fair voice in government.

That's nice. However, you know what I said, but since some people might be to slow to understand, I will rephrase it.....

ESTABLISHMENT of the Senate gives states like Rhode Island, Idaho, Montana, Vermant, and Delaware a fair voice in government.

Now....agree or disagree?

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com



Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 02:19 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "Have any of you noticed yet"
In response to Reply # 37


  

          

that eliminating the Senate would require a Constitutional amendment which just isn't all that easy, even on non-controversial stuff. Who cares whether this is part of the platform?

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Battousai
Charter member
4386 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 05:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "Well, now..."
In response to Reply # 37


          

>The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
>REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Why are you so afraid of democracy?

----------------------------------------
Densetsu no hitokiri, Himura Battousai.

"If victories are flawless, then what are you gonna land on?" - Thirstin Howl III

"I prefer manga, with mecha..." - Del

http://welcome.to/crunchyfrog/

--

Your San Francisco Giants: 4.26.2005 - 8.15.2005.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
mke
Member since Oct 20th 2002
3 posts
Fri Aug-11-00 02:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "Banks"
In response to Reply # 37


          

>Oh my god....banks do not owe
>you a DEBT, a DEBT
>is something owed you due
>to you doing a service
>for someone else.

The money you deposit in a bank is money they owe you. It is a debt.

They
>are servicing YOU by allowing
>you to store YOUR money
>in the bank.

No, you are servicing them (see below).

The
>only debts in that collaboration
>is the charges put onto
>you by virtue of you
>storing your money in the
>bank. The bank is
>a STORAGE,

Do you know what banks do? They don't store your money in some big warehouse. You surely know this, a conservative/facist, but banks use your money to make money. They invest in many different types of things. Some, not all, are highly reprehensible.

The thing I wonder about is, if banks make money off of our money, why do we pay them anything at all?


AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
HotThyng76
Charter member
51232 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 11:57 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "I have to quote you. Sorry."
In response to Reply # 19


  

          


>
>>6. Make DC a state
>
>Washington DC is a CITY.
>Why should it be given
>state status? Hell if
>that's the case, make LA,
>New York, Atlanta, Philly, Houston,
>and Chicago state status too.
> As for representation, DC
>does indeed have a representative
>in the House. Maxine
>Waters I think. Don't
>quote me on that.

Maxine Waters represents a section of Los Angeles. DC does indeed have a NON-VOTING representative. It's sickening.

Now, I'm quoting South Park (and Fire)...
TIMMMAAAAAAY!!!!!

------

Is that yo bitch? (c) Jay Z via Missy.




_______________________

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 03:12 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "Look"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

I'm not a fan of the Green Party and I haven't studied their platform at length, but this idea that they're advocating seizure of private assets held in banks seemed a little outlandish to me, so I did check that business on the web site you gave (thanks) and found out that it isn't the monies on deposit that they propose transferring but the ownership of the banks, which, please, is totally different. Granted that the tax scheme (as you state it -- I didn't check that part) would ultimately redistribute all wealth (assuming that there's also a tax on savings proposed) but they're not proposing to steal your money out of the bank. Really.


Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 09:33 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "RE: Look"
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

>I'm not a fan of the
>Green Party and I haven't
>studied their platform at length,
>but this idea that they're
>advocating seizure of private assets
>held in banks seemed a
>little outlandish to me, so
>I did check that business
>on the web site you
>gave (thanks) and found out
>that it isn't the monies
>on deposit that they propose
>transferring but the ownership of
>the banks, which, please, is
>totally different. Granted that the
>tax scheme (as you state
>it -- I didn't check
>that part) would ultimately redistribute
>all wealth (assuming that there's
>also a tax on savings
>proposed) but they're not proposing
>to steal your money out
>of the bank. Really.

Here's what the Green Party's Platform states word for word....

* Democratic Banking: Mandatory conversion of the 200 largest banks with 80% of all bank assets into democratic publicly-owned community banks. Financial and technical incentives and assistance for voluntary conversion of other privately-owned banks into publicly-owned community banks or consumer-owned credit unions.

What this means is they are going to take the 200 biggest private banks and turn them into government-run banks, along with 80% of the monies that were generated within the private banks. Now think about it.....government under the Green Party controls the money, controls the tax rate, and controls your income and how much you can even MAKE in one year. What makes you think they won't touch that money? Hell it was only a couple of years ago in which representatives were trying to get a bill passed in Congress in which banks were to be required to report to the government of any out of the ordinary transactions by it's customers. A bill like that wouldn't be necessary because government already CONTROLS the banks. therefore, eventually, all that money is going to be gone, especially for former millionaires. The Green Party has a provision in which to tax all assets in a household over 2.5 million. Good justice there. Hence, you're only going to get what government SAYS you can get.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com



Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Mon Aug-14-00 12:16 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
70. "RE: Look"
In response to Reply # 50


  

          

>Here's what the Green Party's Platform
>states word for word....
>
>* Democratic Banking: Mandatory conversion of
>the 200 largest banks with
>80% of all bank assets
>into democratic publicly-owned community banks.
>Financial and technical incentives and
>assistance for voluntary conversion of
>other privately-owned banks into publicly-owned
>community banks or consumer-owned credit
>unions.

Which restates my point that the platform contemplates transferring ownership of the banks and not ownership of the monies on deposit.


>What this means is they are
>going to take the 200
>biggest private banks and turn
>them into government-run banks,

Do you believe that the banking industry is not currently regulated by the government?

along
>with 80% of the monies
>that were generated within the
>private banks.

No. That is a definitional provision. This is the way that they are defining, or clarifying, what they mean by the largest 200 banks.

Now think
>about it.....government under the Green
>Party controls the money,

As today's government does.

controls
>the tax rate,

As today's government does.

and controls
>your income

There are complicated back door ways of regulating this that are currently in place. At least give it to the Green Party that they are up front about their agenda.

and how much
>you can even MAKE in
>one year. What makes
>you think they won't touch
>that money?

True that they appear to be advocating a complete redistribution of wealth, HOWEVER, you will note that my point to which you are responding is that the platform regarding bank ownership does not contemplate nationalizing the monies on deposit.

Hell it
>was only a couple of
>years ago in which representatives
>were trying to get a
>bill passed in Congress in
>which banks were to be
>required to report to the
>government of any out of
>the ordinary transactions by it's
>customers.

Surely you are aware that a transaction (ANY transaction by a regulated institution, whether that is a bank or a stock brokerage or whatever) that is in excess of $10,000 and is conducted in cash must be reported to the government? That law has been in place for at least 15 years (I became aware of it 15 years ago). In addition, your point isn't terribly apt, since you are pointing to proposals that were not made by Green Party members.

A bill like
>that wouldn't be necessary because
>government already CONTROLS the banks.

Not clear how much more control the government could assert than it already does. All this proposal does, in my view, is shift the bank profits to the government. And allow the government then to decide whether profits are appropriate for financial institutions and, if so, how those monies could be used for society as a whole.

>therefore, eventually, all that money
>is going to be gone,
>especially for former millionaires.
>The Green Party has a
>provision in which to tax
>all assets in a household
>over 2.5 million.

A relatively small number of people have assets in excess of 2.5 million. You also don't say at what rate those assets will be taxed. I assume 100%, given some of the other proposals that they have made. But be clear that just saying "they're going to tax it" doesn't tell you what will be left at the end of the day.

Good
>justice there. Hence, you're
>only going to get what
>government SAYS you can get.

And how is that different from how the system is currently set up? Except that you agree with the current allocations and the effects of the proposed allocations are unknown, so frightening.

Again, I am not a Green Party member or proponent. Just trying to keep your arguments on the straight and narrow. You are a powerful and persuasive writer (just because I disagree with you and am not generally persuaded by your writing does not negate this). You don't need to descend into exaggeration or hyperbole to make your points.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

d-Best

Thu Aug-10-00 10:06 AM

  
25. "RE: 10 Reasons NOT to Vote Nader"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Allright, I already have opinions on some of these, but i want EXPERTISE, who often plays the role of fool, to actualy

SAY SOMETHING FOR ONCE.

Number them 1.) - 10.) and say WHY they're "idiotic" i don't give a damn why they're "extreme" i have eyes. Why are they "idiotic" and not why they're "impractical".

WHY ARE THESE BAD IDEAS.
Do it. I'll do the same.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
d-Best

Thu Aug-10-00 10:46 AM

  
33. "this is it for me... TODAY"
In response to Reply # 25


          

Expertise...

The reason this country is on top...

has nothing to do with rich people
has nothing to do with large companies
has nothing to do with white carpets
has nothing to do with daughters raised princess
has nothing to do with picket fences
has nothing to do with "wanting stuff"
has nothing to do with ANYTHING GOING ON TODAY.

The reason this country is on "top" (of what) is because early Americans exploited millions of black people into raising our GDP through the roof for hundreds of years, and raped the women to alleviate tension, and...

...in 1776 we REDISTRIBUTED tax capital from going back to England, and kept it with "the people".


That of course, is nationalist jargon, but... the fact remains that in the context of the American Revolution (coup), everyone here was the "we."

In the context of today's philosophical revolutions, the "we" are scattered out. Some are poor, some are not. The "we" need redistributed tax capital.

FURTHERMORE,
providing food, medical and housing to all people will not break the bank, it will require a tax raise (the greens propose one possibility).

It will cost less than the construction of our warplanes and nuclear arms.

Expertise needs to EXPERience life, and learn why many of his views aren't as enlightened as they need be.

If Expertise is ever in Indiana, i'll take him down to the Pizza House, and drop some knowledge.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Dove
Charter member
32915 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 06:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "why not just run for office? n/m"
In response to Reply # 33


  

          

Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~


http://UrbLife.com
http://twitter.com/FlyLikeDove
http://instagram.com/FlyLikeDove
http://Facebook.com/FlyLikeDove
http://flylikedove.contently.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

HotThyng76
Charter member
51232 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 11:45 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "Viva El Ralph!"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I don't agree with all of it, but I agree with enough of it to vote for Ralph. I've read some speeches he's given, and like him more than I like Gore or Bush.

------

Is that yo bitch? (c) Jay Z via Missy.




_______________________

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Ylana

Fri Aug-11-00 05:08 PM

  
63. "Hear Ye..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

Sounds splendid on paper!!! But in our extremely capitalistic society, could Nader, or any other progressive individual/party rearrange this country's "rock-solid" infrastructure???

Can such an individual/party reign victorious through the political process as we know it?


"I'm tryin' to soar to altitudes unknown to man, woman or the most agile of birds"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Young_Isa

Mon Aug-14-00 09:05 AM

  
68. "i wasn't voting for that cracker anyway..vote for ME ISA."
In response to Reply # 0


          

"Respect my Genius, or suck my Penius" -Me

"Bitch nigga, your more of a bitch than a bitch" -Kurupt

Young Isa - The }> 's brotha from another motha.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #22571 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com