Perhaps you haven't had any plumbing issues lately, but the guy who does mine makes more per hour than me.

Tee hee!

Right on the website that I linked to is the bibliography for her book in pdf, quoting all the sources she used, there you can find your DATA that she got her facts from. And if you'd read the book, as opposed to going to the Cato institute blurb, you'd see that the book is based on facts which explain the monstrosity that was foisted on the Chilean people in the name of free markets.

tee hee!

Wrong again Leauki.

The 1st documented case of the Iraqis using mustard gas was at Haij Umran in august of 1983, which would put us pretty close to the 20 year mark, no? However in november of 1980 both the Iranian military and the U.S defense intelligence agency reported that the Iraqis were deploying various forms of chemical weapons in the field.

So, at the earliest that would put it at the 20 year mark, or later if the november 1980 reports are correct 23 years.

But anywho, the MASSIVE arsenal that was found by weapons inspectors in 2003?

14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity

Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol

Some 122 mm chemical warheads

Some chemical equipment

224.6 kg of expired growth media

Oh... my.... gaaawd!!!! With those 14 artillery shells he could have wiped out half the eastern seaboard!!!!

furthermore-

Scott Ritter stated that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago has long since turned to harmless substances. Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years.^[58] On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix's last report to the UN security Council prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, described Iraq as actively and proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC, though not necessarily in all areas of relevance and had been frequently uncooperative in the past, but that it was within months of resolving key remaining disarmament tasks.^[59]

I've provided sources many times in the past. But whenever I have, you state:

Lies!!!

Faulty opinion!!!!

You're making it up!!!!

hence why I rarely bother anymore.

I've given you the titles of many of the books that I've gotten my information from, from the following authors:

Chris Hedges;

"War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"

Chalmers Johnson

"Blowback" (this one was prescient as it was written in the 90's and he was dismissed as some crackpot doomsayer... but, he turned out to be right... isn't that interesting??) "Sorrows of Empire" "Nemesis, the Last Days of the American Republic"

Naomi Klein

"The Shock Doctrine"

Noam Chomsky

lots a titles.

Jimmy Carter

"Palestine- peace, not apartheid" (reading this one right now... will let ya know)

And quite frankly, if you'd do any research on these authors beyond a wikipedia entry or a blurb from the cato institute stating "don't believe these lies!!!"

you'd see that they back up their assertions with facts and list all their sources that you can then go and look up.

Because, you know, a think-tank like the cato institute or heritage foundation isn't biased at all! not. one. bit.

How does the first occurence being 20 years ago contradict the existance of a later occurence 15 years ago?
Anyways, it was less then 15 years when it was shot at israel, and the whole "Degraded gas" thing... the specific gas in question lasts mere WEEKS before degrading under proper storage conditions. (days otherwise). What was found was technicians and equipment trained and ready to produce more of it on demand. (this is probably on purpose, you want to kill the enemy and move in, not poison a large area and deal with run off for years).

 

Reading propaganda opinion works is not "research" artisym... no wonder you are so biased.

I would not put anything past him.  However, repeating an error does not make it any more authentic.

And please show where Reagan betrayed SAG.  Do you mean he did not carry their water for them?  If so, then yes, Reagan is a politician.

Not in discussions with me and never for your lies.

 

Arty is likely to try to prove the innocence of a thief by pointing to a video showing him not to steal while ignoring the video that shows him stealing.

 

 

He doesn't understand the difference between opinion and facts. I do believe him that there are books describing Pinochet's economic policies as a disaster. But that doesn't mean that they were.

 

 

Yes, bt that doesn't mean he's in the $250,000 bracket.

God Bless Phil Donahue!

In an ultra conservative nation sense, yes. Any thing the Republicans do in the guise of their "revolution" is a return to basic "reform." Whereas when Dems want change it is subversion and UnAmerican.  

the other way around stevendadelus. The liberals are calling their actions reform, and refer to conservatism as "undermining"... heck obama himself is accusing conservatives of being "divisive" in his DNC acceptance speech. How is disagreeing with him being divissive? CALLING people divisive for merely disagreeing with you is divisive.

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned in semantics: after all, bringing up "palling around with terrorists" or "who is the real  Barack Obama?" is simply a noble disagreement.

No, that is a question looking for an answer.

That one isn't even accusing of anything, just insinuating that you SHOULD bother to do some background research, that should be true of all the politicians on both sides. Don't just take their words for it, do some background research...

And palling around with terrorists happen to be the truth. Truth hurts though.

But your counter argument was "two wrongs make a right". This is not quite true either, even if the question and truthful statement were being divisive it would not justify being divisive in return. And it isn't even related to the situation at hand. Obama straight out went and said that everyone who disagrees with him is just being divisive, as if their whole purpose is to promote infighting because they are evil, rather then honestly not agreeing with what he has to say.

I don't think any liberals are trying to be divisive, they are just genuinely disagreeing with me on things. I could be justified in thinking they are being wrong, undereducated, or stupid. But why divisive? that does not just insinuate, it flat out says that their whole PURPOSE in not agreeing with me in to create conflict. That deep down in their hearts they know I am right but are too evil to let go. This is a very egocentric point of view.

And to sum things up... Why should the RIGHT be the ones to give in to the demands of the wrong? (err, left).

Yes, as I said the right never engages in divisiveness, only noble disagreement: only dems engage in class warfare because they dare storm the coffers of the super rich, who the innocent darlings "earned" every penny even those who helped them accumulate wealth worked their asses off; once one exits small town America he is grabbed up by unAmerican urbanites, etc.

Aside from it being all true despite being meant as sarcasm... how exactly is it divisive of the democrats to do so? They do so because they honestly believe that the rich don't deserve their money, that the rich got rich by being parasites, and that wealth redistribution and other communistic ideals are wonderful beautiful things. They are not trying to be divisive unless they honestly beleive themselves to be wrong and are doing it just out of spite. Which is what obama accused the conservatives of doing. (which is a divisive act in of itself)

First, what gives them the right (note not authority - that is done through the end of a gun) to storm anyone's coffers?

Second, when did I become super rich?  Or you for that matter.  The rumblings are already there (ala Clinton and his "Never worked harder in my life" to steal your money after promising to return it) that anyone not on welfare is now "super rich".

Good question. The answer depends on your definition of wealth and where it came from.

Current popular thinking is that wealth is "created", that it was conjured out of thin air by hard work and determination and therefore is the sole property of the owner.

If the above definition is true, then no one has the right to storm the coffers, and all taxes, of all kinds, should be abolished and then the same geniuses who "created" their wealth would then have to "create" roads, water treatment systems and electrical grids.... and no, they couldn't have employees or laborers do it for them, they'd have to do it all on their own, from crushing gravel to smelting iron ore to sewing their own clothes and growing their own food when not building the other aparatus needed merely to keep them alive.

But, these folks didn't have to do all that, because other people did it for them, AND all of these other peripheral things, like roads, water treatment systems, public education, etc, allowed for a population that was healthy and smart enough to secure employment in the economy to be able to go out and make money, and then use that money to buy the products and services of the wealthy.

ssssooooooo, then one could say that the wealth was not truly "created", more that it was transferred from one person to another.

Buddy deciding to buy your widget means that he already has money in his pocket (or credit to make up for his falling wages it seems which won't last too much longer)

So he has TRANSFERRED, or distributed, some of his wealth to you, you didn't just create it out of the blue.

Therefore, for those who don't have to worry about where their next paycheque or meal is coming from, it's safe to say that everyone needs to do their part to make society work. If that's the difference between being able to afford only two summer homes and not three, while the average joe has trouble ponying up the cash to pay for lunch, I don't think that's such a raw deal myself, and that yes, the rich should indeed be taxed more for that very reason. But, it seems that whenever any scrap of wealth is going to be redistributed back to the middle class working joe (who is still having trouble to pay for lunch) the rich howl from the balconies of their second home that we're turning into a communist nightmare.

And that leads into your next point, what classifies as being super rich?

It sure as heck aint being a millionaire.

Today, if you're worth a million that's still pretty much middle class territory (upper middle class actually, but nowhere near being considered "rich")

You're 'super rich' when you're mulling over whether or not to buy a gulfstream jet, I think they go for a cool 40 mil not counting all the additional costs

Or, you're probably also super rich when you buy a 10 thousand dollar martini in NY without batting an eyelash

Can you explain which part of the principle you cite as current popular thinking would prohibit division of labour?

 

No, sorry Karl, you are wrong.  I enrich my employer by giving more value than I get.  I can just as easily take my skills elsewhere, even into my own business, and make the money.  I chose to sell my skills to my current employer.  They are not using me. It is not a parasitic relationship, it is a symbiotic one.  They own me nothing as I can always take my skills elsewhere if I feel I am not getting compensated for them.

This ideal of rich people exploiting the masses is as outdated as is the author.  WHat most dont understand is that Karl Marx had no conception of Capitalism (how could he?  he never saw it, just Feudalism and socialism), and therefore badly missed the boat.

The Rich earn their money just like I do.  And the concept that they are stealing it is not only insanely stupid, but a sure way to destroy the golden goose.  I am surprised you even propose it.  Even Keynes was not that idiotic. 

I totally agree that the idea of rich people exploiting the masses is outdated in democracies. However that doesn't make your statement true that Marx only knew Feudalism and socialism. In fact he lived in a society which didnt have such "socialist" features as:

1) Minimum Wage

2) Anti-Trust Laws (Adam Smith wouldnt like those, he only opposed encouraging Trusts but he opposed anti-trust laws, I mean I think we all can agree that Anti-Trust Laws seem to work better than without but it isn't something which is "free market"

3) Legal Worker Unions

4) ban of children labour.

It was not a very nice free market society but england was a free market society in the 19th Century not a feudal.

Minimum wage encourages inflation and creates unemployment. I don't see it as particularly good for the poor. It's good only for those lucky enough to get a job and too lazy to improve their lot by working harder and learning.

 

Anti-trust laws are certainly not free market. But I never understood why it is obvious that they are good. Seems to me like all examples cited for anti-trust laws actually protecting customers (as opposed to protecting other greedy companies) are cases of resource (rather than product) monopolies. And all such monopolies could certainly be handled without anti-trust law, for example by modifying the tax system to tax natural resource property claims.

 

 

They are a feature of a free market just like supplier trusts are. Did you know that unions are specifically exempted from anti-trust laws?

 

Child labour is a result of poverty, not a free market. The free market concerns only legal agents in the market, it doesn't say at what age a person becomes a legal agent and participant in whatever market system we have.

What capitalism did do, however, was create the enormous wealth needed to worry about child labour.

Banning child labour does NOT solve the problem child labour itself tries to solve. It merely takes away from the really poor one of their options.

 

Yes, and England abolished slavery world-wide (wherever it had the power to do so). I don't recall a similar accomplishment coming from the communists.

 

what are you attacking me on? I never said that minimum wages are good, just that they certainly aren't free market so the absence of them is free market.

Okay you might have another opinion on Anti-Trust laws then me but I mostly mentioned it because having no anti-trust laws is very free market in the original idea of Adam Smith.

Legal Worker Unions aren't too encouraged by Smith either as he disliked the Idea that groups of employees can dictate the wages (nor did he like that groups of employers dictate them using trusts) but yeah he wasn't for keeping the ban of labour unions either.

Yah okay the children labour example was pretty bad I admit.

Still you agree with me that England was neither feudal nor socialist in the 19th century so Marx, as opposed to DrGuys statement, didn't only know socialism and feudalism but a free market society as well?

What do you mean "attack"? I merely commented on the points you raised. I didn't make any claims about your opinions regarding those points.

 

Yes, and you were right.

 

Exactly.

 

Yes, I agree with you. Marx knew a free market society.

 

 

I disagree, minimum wage can prevent exploitation with pretty well no negative impact on unemployment or inflation. It's only if you set the minimum wage too high that you get real problems.

Reduced competition means less choice and higher prices (and often worse efficiency) for the consumer in many cases. Meanwhile you can have two large companies that should be competing with each other (hence driving down costs, increasing efficiency, and increasing choice), but if there are no anti-trust laws they may decide to collude together and act as a monopoly, sharing the additional proceeds they gain as a result.

Well if the government didn't provide education, and instead left it to the market, child poverty would be determined by parents income (and how much they like their children), since that would affect whether they could afford to send their children to school or not. Hence if you go totally free market and look to abolish public education you don't end up with a good result.

I'd agree though that simply banning child labour doesn't solve the problem.

 

You noticed I said socialism and feudalims (or you can say Monarchism).  About all he did know was a class system based upon royalty and position in society.  SOmething the US (with the exception of some self apointed snobs) has never had.

so UK is stil a feudalist state, must have missed that.