Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drew on March 20, 2004, 07:20:27 pm
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/20/weu20.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/20/ixworld.html
yay, censorship :rolleyes:
-
Fook. Thats about all I can think to say as at this point.
I'm suire Bob or Tin Can or someone will be along shortly to tell us how we're all being paranoid and ought to trust the government. They'll then make sarcastic remarks, telling us to put on our tinfoil hats and hide under a desk. If its Bob, he'll probably use incorrect spelling, type all in caps and throw in plenty of exclamation point which will then degenerate into 1s, in an attempt to portray just how panicy and misguided we really are. I'm a clair****ingvoyant.
-
then watch mik change the subject to haliburton co.
-
That was a bit preemptive. And Unnecesary.
Something Bob might appreciate actually.
*runs*
-
At least he was defended by the ombudsman - and the press cast light on the issue. This means there's a chance that things would improove.
I must agree though on the paranoid issue - but I must say it's not that much of an issue as you would think. Since I already saw somewhat how a goverment works from the inside (it's somewhat like a club in your highschool/university) things like this aren't so much a suprise.
-
but it should be a suprise. When i read the First Amendment, i know i should not be afraid of the government when i speak against it.
-
story: :eek2:
other people: :doubt:
I thought Europe didn't have that sort of thing, only in America would the evil government smack down upon innocent jornolists.
being that I am totaly ignorant of this situation and this is the first I've ever heard of this guy I'm not going to jump to conclusions (that being that Europe is a ****ing haven of the corupt politition), but if that article is acurate it sound as though you all have a little problem on your hands. good thing I live in a contry were things like that never happen, that overtly.
!!!!!!!111111
-
To the UK Govt. : Would someone please get US THE **** OUT OF THIS TREATY(s) (e.g. EU constitution etc) before our rights are well and truly raped?
-
Well, its not just in the EU or just in America. The concept of censorship is one that runs directly contrary to a democratic system, and any country which practices it can not hold itself to be a democratic one. In America, there is more self censorship going on, so the need rarely arises to smack down someone like this.
But I can think of two recent reports which the Bush administration has tried and/or succeded in killing. One is a report to the media on the human costs of the war in Iraq. This report was simply canceled. The other is the 9/11 report, which I think even the staunchest Bush supporter can agree is being drowned in red tape in hopes that it will never see the light of day.
I have a sincere question for all the Bushies on this board. I don't want an arguement, I really am genuinly interested.
The question is, why do you think its OK for Bush to try to censor and limit the 9/11 inquiry? By my logic, when Bush tries to prevent the 9/11 panel from doing its job, which is to find out exactly who knew what and when, then alarm bells start going off in my head. To me, its is totally obvious that is someone tries to censor a report, that means that that person will be implicated negatively in that report. What I want to know is how, given the same starting evidence (Bush trying to censor the report), you arrive at a different conclusion than mine.
-
the thing is it's not that it's OK or not, it's that there is no frek'n chance of a cube of dry ice in the deepest pits of hell that it would be unbiased and/or useful in anyway,
if republicans are runing it, I can tell you what it'll say:
"Bush did everything in his power to stop 9/11 but his valiant efforts failed becase of evil anti-american democratic cutting of intelegence agencies, God bless GW Bush, and god bless the gorius Republican party!"
if the demacrats run it:
"the illigitimately selected current head of the executave branch of our government failed miserably to stop the islamic militants from atacking on 9/11 despite nummerus warnings an declaritive evedence of it happening, also we have found that Bush eats babies"
see there is no way that any of the internal reviews will be anything other than a political game by who ever runs it.
-
I posted this elsewere but I think it's apropriate here too
(http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/bunnies.gif)
-
Heh, the hard part would be NOT finding corruption in the EU, he must feel like a kid in a candyshop ;) The same is, in fact, true of any of the financial 'superpowers', the people in charge are those who tell the biggest whoppers, be they political or commercial, and manage not to get 'too' caught.
-
it's not finding coruption that's hard it's finding the biggest coruption, there is a lot of sorting to do and if you pick the wrong lead you end up finding some little pidly thing and missing the 'I'll give you 200 million and you give gore -11,000 votes ;)'
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
*snip*
what bob is trying to say is, it is impossible to find any pice of data that isnt effected by bias.
rictor, could u please supply us with a little more data?
Mainly, what the hell are you talking about?
-
it was more like, it's imposable for our government to self regulate it's self, so criticiseing when someone within the government trys to much it up is like puting someone in jail for crualy to animals for beating a dead horse.
-
thats why america is a republic. the government only has the power *we* give it.
-
If only that were true...
We do give the g'ment power, the more they scare us, the more we give them. In fact it's the reason why America is turning into a Welfare State. People are too poorly educated to get good paying jobs, and if they earn too much they get their g'ment check cut. The System is literally paying people to stay unemployed. It's degenerated to the point where the social stigma of being unemployed is evaporating.
*note*
This in no way differs with my stance as a conservative, we are Primarily in favor of shrinking Government. The System is out of control and broken.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
If only that were true...
We do give the g'ment power, the more they scare us, the more we give them. In fact it's the reason why America is turning into a Welfare State. People are too poorly educated to get good paying jobs, and if they earn too much they get their g'ment check cut. The System is literally paying people to stay unemployed. It's degenerated to the point where the social stigma of being unemployed is evaporating.
it is true. unfortunatly it shows what kind of people we, in general, are.
-
In point of fact we are a Republic in name only, we ceased being one the very moment we could vote for our own entitlements.
-
our system isnt in that bad of shape, compared to the EU and other systems.
-
US isn't free
you obey and consume and die.
we have managed to keep the same gov't only only because the west ingeneral has bevome more "stable."
Now I must go finish my Coca-Cola and finish my business management studies.
-
u know, normaly, hit and run "statements" are reserved for ghetto assasinations
mind clarifing/backing up you statement?
-
sure people are controlled by the authority. have you ever read the prince, you ought to. people are manipulated by politics in general. It is just something I have really awaken to recently.
hehe my 600th post.
-
I don't mean to turn this into a political debate. So just ignore my previous post. However I will strongly suggest you read the prince.
-
99% of things done by the government are to manipulate you. Pork barrel spending, for example. Rather than spend money on that, they could lower the income taxes, primarily for the middle class. Not for the upper class, since they're already rich, and not for the impoverished, since, IIRC, they don't actually have to pay taxes. But both sides in Washington are too afraid to even think about cutting any government program, no matter how useless or unwanted, for fear of losing any of their precious political base.
-
redmenace, you didn't turn this into a political debate, it was a highly political topic to begin with.
The trouble is, very, very few people are citizens anymore. Being a citizen means being involved in politics and caring about the issues. When the Constitution was writen, it was intended that people do their civic duty by participating in politics. It was considered a privilege and an honour.
Now, watching CNN once a week is about as political as people get. And they base their entire political and social understanding on what some guy on the tube says. Thats bull****.
You watch TV and vote once in four years and you think you're doing your part. And if that information that you recieved on TV happens to be wrong, or if its very heavily spun, oh well, such if live. And sometimes, instead of Aaron Brown or whatever talking head happens to be on, the President makes a speech. Oooh, aaah. But its the same problem. People just accept what he says as fact, and then their entire view of the world is based on that. And if its a lie, or if its misleading, too bad. This pisses me off to no end.
One problem is that you have career politicans who just switch places. It was never inteded to be that way. The way the system was devised, it would work something like jury duty. If you are intersted, you run for a local office, and you spend a few years in there. But thats it. That was intended to be the end of it. If you have people who's enitre life is spent on politics, they can't be trusted because they are so disconneted from the world around them.
What I'm getting at, is that instead of the entire country controlloing the power, you have a very small group who wield ultimate power. Politicans, lobbyists, CEOs, media moguls. The rest of the people are considered to be, and I'll use Noam Chomsky's term here, the "bewildered herd". They're too stupid to know whats best, so they have to be told what to think and what to believe. You have to lie, and use propaganda and manipulate, because if left to govern for themsleves, they would only mess things up and it would be a disaster. Thats is the mentality which the powerful few follow. Thats how they justify their actions to themselves.
So, instead of having a dictatorship of one, like Stalinist Russia, you have a dictatorship of a few hundred. And they all pretty much share the same views, so there is a certain level of cooperation. No one, Deomcrat or Republican or whoever, they don't want this power to be snatched away from them. So, though they compete for power, no one wants to destroy the system whereby the few have ultimate power.
And thats the problem. The bewildered herd is blinded by flags and slogans and rhetoric, so that they never realize that they are not in control. Its nice to think you live in a democracy, but if so much of the power is controled by so few people, and you have conflicts of interest left and right, then sorry to say but its just a more complex form of dictatorship.
-
OLAF was created to replace the old fraud office UCLAF, which was accused of covering up abuses by the disgraced Santer Commission. Many UCLAF staff were transferred to OLAF.
wtf do they think the world is coming too.... people aren't total dumbarses! Changing the name of a commission and keeping many of the original staff doesn't mean they have a clean history. Its pitiable that the government would go so low as to do things this way…
I think most politicians are over-confident and so up themselves they assume they'll never get caught over corruption, and when they get close to it they use methods that are inhumane to rid the person(s) that discovered the information. Perhaps there should be stricter penalties for such pathetic acts of crime.
-
Hooray for yet another reason to rid the world of the corrupt power-mongering disgrace that is the European Union.
-
The European Union is the only thing standing between the world and unchallenged US rule. You're just bitter cause there's another power on the block who is shaping up to be as big as you.
That, and their policies are way more progressive than America's.
Perhaps America could get away with looking like the "nice guy" when they were being compared to the USSR, but now that its the US and EU, you look like as empirialistic and power-mongering as the Soviets did.
-
Perhaps a name change would help?
"The United European States of America"?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The European Union is the only thing standing between the world and unchallenged US rule. You're just bitter cause there's another power on the block who is shaping up to be as big as you.
That, and their policies are way more progressive than America's.
Perhaps America could get away with looking like the "nice guy" when they were being compared to the USSR, but now that its the US and EU, you look like as empirialistic and power-mongering as the Soviets did.
just cuz we took out saddam hussien? Its dumb to compare us to the USSR, 1) we dont have any other territory then we got 150 years ago, 2) we havent "eradicated" 22 million people in gulags keeping ours
-
Hmm, lets see
Military bases in 130 foreign nations.
Economic dominance via the WTO, IMF and World Bank.
Wars every few years, none of which were legal under both domestic and international law.
Support for dictators and tyrants acting as puppet governments to further US interests.
A complete disregard for international law or opinion.
This all amounts to one simple truth; Empire.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Hmm, lets see
Military bases in 130 foreign nations.
Economic dominance via the WTO, IMF and World Bank.
Wars every few years, none of which were legal under both domestic and international law.
Support for dictators and tyrants acting as puppet governments to further US interests.
A complete disregard for international law or opinion.
This all amounts to one simple truth; Empire.
thanks for summing up the clinton administration for me.
-
You mean that the US haven't been in a war since the clinton administration? Or that it doesn't have all those bases now? Or that it didn't disregard international law and/or opinion recently?
Right...
-
Actually, thats every administration since the end of World War 2. Clinton and JFK and other Democrats just put a smily face on the reality of the situation and everyone was fooled.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The European Union is the only thing standing between the world and unchallenged US rule. You're just bitter cause there's another power on the block who is shaping up to be as big as you.
That, and their policies are way more progressive than America's.
Perhaps America could get away with looking like the "nice guy" when they were being compared to the USSR, but now that its the US and EU, you look like as empirialistic and power-mongering as the Soviets did.
You are absolutely wrong. The EU has always been a cash funnel from its member states' taxpayers that feeds into either the pockets of corrupt individuals or insane administrative overheads. It has no other function than to impose unnecessary (and in the UK's case, unfair) regulations which are completely regressive and distort the market in key areas. If Blair or anyone else promised secession from it I would seriously consider voting for them.
-
Sid, it won't pay off being an EU member while Eastern European Countries (like us Hungarians) are joining the community. These economically and socially beat down countries desperately need money - or more properly investment.
That money is going to come from your pocket.
Why do it?
That's the only way you can create a greater and more enduring economy that can stand up to the US.
So either pay up and kick some sense into the continent or be content with being a ***** to the USA.
In the long term the whole Union could benefit from itself - 'til then its gona cost a lot for the advanced western countries.
....and BTW Hungary is already a no.1 source for engineers throughtout the continent (not the only or the 1st, but among the leading ones) and your countries had jack**** to pay for their education (your 1st diploma is still free of charge here).
-
Originally posted by Flaser
Sid, it won't pay off being an EU member while Eastern European Countries (like us Hungarians) are joining the community. These economically and socially beat down countries desperately need money - or more properly investment.
That money is going to come from your pocket.
Why do it?
That's the only way you can create a greater and more enduring economy that can stand up to the US.
So either pay up and kick some sense into the continent or be content with being a ***** to the USA.
In the long term the whole Union could benefit from itself - 'til then its gona cost a lot for the advanced western countries.
....and BTW Hungary is already a no.1 source for engineers throughtout the continent (not the only or the 1st, but among the leading ones) and your countries had jack**** to pay for their education (your 1st diploma is still free of charge here).
That kinda describes the whole mindset of the EU - 'create a greater and more enduring economy that can stand up to the US' - and 'kick some sense into the continent or be content with being a ***** to the USA'.
The only way 'we', as a continent, could create a competitive economy to the US, is to abolish the kind of bollocks regulations, money-grabbing corruption, and market-distorting policies that the EU thrives upon. The best, most free economy is the one which is constrained the least. This, compared to the EU philosophy of interfering in EVERYTHING, is why your statement is such garbage.
-
You could be right - but the less constrained market will crush us eastern countries, and never actually help us out of the **** the soviets and our own lazzy socialist asses has left us in.
Take the IMB for example in my own country - they estabilished a HD manufacturing facroty only to move on 2 years later to Romany 'casue the workforce is almost for free over there - meanwhile they were given a chanve to not to pay even a cent of tax for setting up business here in Hungary and creating job opportunities.
You may be right about jackass politicians and corrupt bureocrats in the EU, but some kind of inertnational unified European overseeing is necessary, 'casuse the companies will screw us big time if countries have to deal with them on their own.
-
I like the EU.
Anything the tabloids are against == good.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
You could be right - but the less constrained market will crush us eastern countries, and never actually help us out of the **** the soviets and our own lazzy socialist asses has left us in.
Take the IMB for example in my own country - they estabilished a HD manufacturing facroty only to move on 2 years later to Romany 'casue the workforce is almost for free over there - meanwhile they were given a chanve to not to pay even a cent of tax for setting up business here in Hungary and creating job opportunities.
You may be right about jackass politicians and corrupt bureocrats in the EU, but some kind of inertnational unified European overseeing is necessary, 'casuse the companies will screw us big time if countries have to deal with them on their own.
Flaser, what you forget is that the market has been constrained as you say for decades and it hasn't helped all but the most basic industries in the poorer already-member-states, and damaged them in the more successful ones. It is an approach that only limits economic growth and makes life worse for everyone by consequence. Countries like Hungary may perceptibly benefit in the short term, but a free market would benefit them more in the long term.
And the EU remains an obstacle to that.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Flaser, what you forget is that the market has been constrained as you say for decades and it hasn't helped all but the most basic industries in the poorer already-member-states, and damaged them in the more successful ones. It is an approach that only limits economic growth and makes life worse for everyone by consequence. Countries like Hungary may perceptibly benefit in the short term, but a free market would benefit them more in the long term.
aye
"you cannon strengthen the weak by weakening the strong."
"you cannont help the poor by destroying the rich"'
Abe lincoln
-
Well, fancy quotes aside, its a matter of Grade 2 math to figure out that you can indeed make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.
Amy has 3 apples, but Bob has only 1. If you take one of Amy's apples and give it to Bob, how many apples will they each have? C'mon class, you know this, its easy.
Not that robbing the rich should be the method by which the poor are made richer.By the way, I only use richer out of convencience. I should probably say less poor, becuase I don't know what the word rich is doing when describing the act of increasing someone's income from one dollar a day to two.
If someone if rich, and they've earned it fair and square, than that's their money to keep. If they choose to donate it to some charity or something, good for them, but it is their money to do with as they wish.
However, the same can not be said for those people who have wealth and have not earned it. By using unmoral (is that a word?) and usually illegal means to aqcuire money, you forfiet the claim to it. Its a pretty basic concept. If you rob a bank, that money does not belong to you and you should be made to return it. I think most people agree with this. The only difference between a bank robber and, say, the CEO of Bechtel, is that the latter is involved in a more complex form of robbery, which he manages to convince the world is just good business skill.
Exploiting workers, influencing government policy that will affect your business, using force to keep your operations running, these all negate your right to the money which you have.
The main fault of capitalism is that it encourages greed. The personal with the least morals will make the most money. Thats why there are regualtions in place to prevent exploitation of workers and so forth, but these regulations are worth nothing is you can simply pay a Washington lobby group a few million dollars to change it.
-
on the other hand.
Amy was broke and she wanted to buy somthing. So she went and picked three apples. Then she set up a stand to sell the apples. Bob comes along and asks if he can have an apple. Amy says utl cost you .25 cents. Instead of paying the money or going and picking his own apple, bob *****es to his mom and his mom takes an apple from Amy, telling her how selfish she is for not sharing.
Now imagin what would happen if nobody stopped Amy from selling apples, hiring assitants, buying a few trees, and creating a company.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, fancy quotes aside, its a matter of Grade 2 math to figure out that you can indeed make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.
Amy has 3 apples, but Bob has only 1. If you take one of Amy's apples and give it to Bob, how many apples will they each have? C'mon class, you know this, its easy.
Not that robbing the rich should be the method by which the poor are made richer.By the way, I only use richer out of convencience. I should probably say less poor, becuase I don't know what the word rich is doing when describing the act of increasing someone's income from one dollar a day to two.
If someone if rich, and they've earned it fair and square, than that's their money to keep. If they choose to donate it to some charity or something, good for them, but it is their money to do with as they wish.
However, the same can not be said for those people who have wealth and have not earned it. By using unmoral (is that a word?) and usually illegal means to aqcuire money, you forfiet the claim to it. Its a pretty basic concept. If you rob a bank, that money does not belong to you and you should be made to return it. I think most people agree with this. The only difference between a bank robber and, say, the CEO of Bechtel, is that the latter is involved in a more complex form of robbery, which he manages to convince the world is just good business skill.
Exploiting workers, influencing government policy that will affect your business, using force to keep your operations running, these all negate your right to the money which you have.
The main fault of capitalism is that it encourages greed. The personal with the least morals will make the most money. Thats why there are regualtions in place to prevent exploitation of workers and so forth, but these regulations are worth nothing is you can simply pay a Washington lobby group a few million dollars to change it.
Even though I'm a socialist (any other term that identifies a disillusioned, progressive communist?), and you're a somewhat conservative righter person (as far as I could see from your posts) I agree 100% with what you see.
This also should show, that some things should be a primary concern for any honest person regardless their political priorities.
-
Drew: OK, before any more nonsense comes out of your mouth, please be aware that we are talking about Amy as being an American CEO running a company worth $40 billion, while Bob as an Indonesian 15-year old making $1.20 a day.
As well, please make sure you understand that it is practically impossible for Bob to every make any more than $1.20 a day, because Amy has intentionally made a system whereby the poor stay poor. Capitalism is all well and good, but it works on the principle of competition. Competition does not work if one side is actively working to disable cit.
Without regulations, capitalism is "Might makes Right."
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Drew: OK, before any more nonsense comes out of your mouth, please be aware that we are talking about Amy as being an American CEO running a company worth $40 billion, while Bob as an Indonesian 15-year old making $1.20 a day.
As well, please make sure you understand that it is practically impossible for Bob to every make any more than $1.20 a day, because Amy has intentionally made a system whereby the poor stay poor. Capitalism is all well and good, but it works on the principle of competition. Competition does not work if one side is actively working to disable cit.
Without regulations, capitalism is "Might makes Right."
ok, i guess ill have to quote everthing abe said.
"you cannot bring about prospertity by discoraging thrift"
"you cannong strengthen the weak by weakening the strong"
"you cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer"
You cannont further the brotherhood of man by encouragin class hatred."
"You cannont help the poor by destroying the rich"
"you cannont keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn"
"you cannont build charater and courage by taking away mans initiative and inddependance"
"you cannont help men permenetly by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves"
(thats all one quote btw)
ill comment more on that later.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Exploiting workers, influencing government policy that will affect your business, using force to keep your operations running, these all negate your right to the money which you have.
The main fault of capitalism is that it encourages greed. The personal with the least morals will make the most money. Thats why there are regualtions in place to prevent exploitation of workers and so forth, but these regulations are worth nothing is you can simply pay a Washington lobby group a few million dollars to change it.
Show me the example of exploting workers your talking about.
The idea that the person with the least morals is the richest is complete and utter bs. There are criminals on death row today and they certantly dont have much money. And arnt you aware that the high majority of employers are not $40 biillion companys, rather, small local business?
-
I think he means like when companies outsorce to cambodia and have some 4 year old make shoes 18 hours a day for .4 cents a week.
-
Originally posted by Drew
Show me the example of exploting workers your talking about.
The idea that the person with the least morals is the richest is complete and utter bs. There are criminals on death row today and they certantly dont have much money. And arnt you aware that the high majority of employers are not $40 biillion companys, rather, small local business?
Cynics and the economically-interested might be interested in In Praise of Cheap Labor (http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html), a fascinating economics piece that I was referred to a while ago. Basically it maintains that however 'perceptibly bad' working conditions and pay are in third world countries, they are always better than a country where total unemployment is the alternative.
-
Drew:
"While the ability to quote may be a substitute for wit, parroting the expressions of others is a sure sign of mindlessness."
-- from the complete, unabridged, translation of the works of W. Somerset Maugham.
_______
Imagine if you will, two men competing for a goal. To gain power, or money or fame, or to win a race or anything at all. One man is restricted in his behaviour by such concepts as morality, honour, justice and so forth. The other, simply put, is out to win. At any cost. He will do anything at all if it will ensure him victory. Assuming that both of them are of equal skill, which man will invariably win?
Consdier the following scenarios
1. You go to rob a convenience store. You shoot the two clerks that are on duty. You're caught and end up serving 50 years in prison.
2. You use your buddies in the White House to threaten Argentina with trade sanctions if they continue to sell cheap, generic AIDS medicine to Africa. They comply, and now Africans are forced to buy the much costlier brand-name drugs, which your company just happens to produce. As a result of the inability to pay for the brand-name drugs, millions die of AIDS.You do not go to prison, but are instead rewarded with millions of dollars in revenue for your immoral actions. Pat yourself on the back and buy another Lexus.
That right there is the problem with unrestricted capitalism. The immoral win.
edit: The AIDS medicine thing actually happened. Its a real life example if you are wondering.