Discussion:
U.S. of A: The Broke Empire
(too old to reply)
TC
2006-12-21 04:04:30 UTC
Permalink
The United States Empire is broke. Period. Make no mistake, it most
certainly is an Empire and one whose many credit cards are redlined. Any
country that has military forces in over 120 countries worldwide
overwhelmingly qualifies as an Empire. Unfortunately this Empire is on its
way down. Inevitably, the windows on America's storefront will be papered
over and the doors locked its just a matter of time.

The American Empire has trillions of dollars in debt, much of which is
*unfunded*, and its' rapidly growing. The debtload is one that will *NEVER*
be paid off. Ever. And, this is by design of course. Bush, the big
government socialist, will continue to play his role and spend the American
Empire into oblivion.

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_02_26_01.html

Government spending by Bush has gone through the roof ever since he was
strategically allowed to be front man for the people who put him there and
continue to control him.

The only thing keeping that country alive is the military industrial
complex, which is why the USA *must* continually be at war or "peacekeeping"
duty. If the USA radically downsized its military, pulled out of Iraq /
Afghanistan and brought its troops home from numerous bases around the world
its already fragile economy would go immediately tits up tomorrow. Everyone
wants army bases to close - except not in their area, its bad for business!
Ever wonder what the retail price tag is on a single stealth bomber?

And Bush, the phoney pinko conservative sellout, wants to EXPAND the
military?? I guess there are a few countries left on the Earth that don't
have Empirical military bases on them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061219/pl_nm/security_bush_dc_2

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_spending

Soldiers don't create or produce anything. They destroy. I am not saying a
country doesn't need adequate defences, because it does - just not in 120
countries. But ask any beekeeper: how many soldier drones does the hive need
versus worker drones? The USA's imbalanced quota of non-producing soldier
drones far outweighs the hives ability to sustain itself, the soldiers
included. Imagine if there were nothing but soldier drones and no workers -
who'll feed the hive?

The USA is getting its ass kicked in Iraq. The USA can win battles, but they
are going to lose this war. Just like Vietnam. The British got their asses
kicked in Afghanistan. So did the Russians. Now it is the Americans turn.

My point is should Canadians be accepting an increasingly valueless currency
from an Empire that is already living on borrowed time, at considerable
interest so to speak, for Canadian goods. I say make actual trade with the
USA using tangeable assets as the medium of exchange - NOT U.S. federal
reserve notes. Canadian timbre or Tar Sand oil, for U.S. gold. and so forth.

With a cash register full of IOU's it'll get kinda hard to pay the bills...



--
***************************
Socialist 'Max the Canuck' on
Tues, Mar 22 2005 3:05 pm said to a conservative poster:

"Since I'm a left wing feller, I wanna make sure you look as bad as
possible."
Peter D
2006-12-21 05:53:01 UTC
Permalink
"TC" <***@DIESPAMDIEflashmail.com> wrote

<snip usual crap>
Bush, the big government socialist,
Bush The Socialist? You really outdid your whacked-our self this time, TC.
Bust a Socialist? OMG. Stalin is turning in his grave!

<snip usual crap>
TC
2006-12-22 15:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D
<snip usual crap>
Bush, the big government socialist,
Bush The Socialist? You really outdid your whacked-our self this time, TC.
Bust a Socialist? OMG. Stalin is turning in his grave!
Of course he's a socialist, it's obvious. I don't think you can tell me why
he isn't.

--
***************************
Socialist 'Max the Canuck' on
Tues, Mar 22 2005 3:05 pm said to a conservative poster:

"Since I'm a left wing feller, I wanna make sure you look as bad as
possible."
Peter D
2006-12-22 21:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by TC
Post by Peter D
<snip usual crap>
Bush, the big government socialist,
Bush The Socialist? You really outdid your whacked-our self this time, TC.
Bust a Socialist? OMG. Stalin is turning in his grave!
Of course he's a socialist, it's obvious. I don't think you can tell me why
he isn't.
(a) He's a Republican. Republicans are by definition, tradition, history,
ideology, and politics "right". Socialism is "left".
(b) He is "right" while Socialists are "left" politically
(c) He's a Republican

Shit, TC, you might as well ask me to demonstrate to you why the night isn't
pink -- maybe it is in your world. I dunno.

But how about you prove your claim and tell me why "Bush=Socialist" is True.
TC
2006-12-23 01:27:37 UTC
Permalink
--
***************************
Socialist 'Max the Canuck' on
Tues, Mar 22 2005 3:05 pm said to a conservative poster:

"Since I'm a left wing feller, I wanna make sure you look as bad as
possible."
Post by Peter D
Post by TC
Post by Peter D
<snip usual crap>
Bush, the big government socialist,
Bush The Socialist? You really outdid your whacked-our self this time, TC.
Bust a Socialist? OMG. Stalin is turning in his grave!
Of course he's a socialist, it's obvious. I don't think you can tell me why
he isn't.
(a) He's a Republican. Republicans are by definition, tradition, history,
ideology, and politics "right". Socialism is "left".
(b) He is "right" while Socialists are "left" politically
(c) He's a Republican
Shit, TC, you might as well ask me to demonstrate to you why the night isn't
pink -- maybe it is in your world. I dunno.
But how about you prove your claim and tell me why "Bush=Socialist" is True.
That's it...? That's your answer? You must be kidding.

Just because a politician has an "R" beside their name does not make them a
conservative. Their actions decide that. A rose by any other name. That "R"
should really be an "N", for NEOCON.

Peter, I'll first explain why Bush is NOT a conservative. Then, in a
following post I will explain why he subscribes to socialism.

A phony conservative is a politician who talks one way and acts exactly the
opposite, and certainly Bush not a conservative in the traditional sense of
that word. And conservatism is all about tradition - about conserving.
Doubling the size of government spending and debt after being handed a
surplus, being a despoiler of the environment, a fearmonger, an
ally-alienator, an enemy inflamer, a reckless warmonger and an imperialist
does not qualify for the title "conservative."

Practicing secrecy and deception and displaying an open contempt for the
Constitution and international law (Geneva convention on torture) are
likewise not the characteristics of a conservative. Conservatives do not
create new enormous $30 billion per annum police state agencys (Dept of
Homeland Security), and they most certainly don't hire ex-STASI / KGB chiefs
General Yevgeni Primakov and Markus Wolfe to help run that show. But,
socialists hire socialists.

Non-interventionism is pivotal to conservatism. Bush is all about
interventionism. A true conservative does not ignore 228 years of American
foreign policy to adopt a National Security Strategy of "preventive war",
and then use cherry-picked and flawed intelligence to mislead Congress about
the real motive for the war.

In Bush's own words Oct 11, 2001:

"....It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign
policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us.....but if we're a
humble nation they'll respect us."

How many friends does the "humble" USA have anymore? Like the hippocrite he
is, he says one thing and does another. In sales, you tell people what they
want to hear to get them to buy. The maniacal 'perpetual war for perpetual
peace' is most certainly NOT a conservative ideology.

Congressman Ron Paul, the closest thing Americans have to a real
conservative politician, details why Bush and his cronies are devotees of
Trotskyism, a leftist ideology.

http://www.bigeye.com/neoconned.htm

The Bush presidency has misused the rhetoric of conservatism to advance an
agenda that is neither conservative nor consistent with traditional American
values. A true conservative doesn't portray himself as a champion of free
enterprise while handing out billions in bidless contracts to cronies who
are campaign contributors and letting corporate criminals name their own
regulators.

A conservative most certainly doesn't claim to have "no ambitions of empire"
, and then fill his administration with professed empire-builders.

Bush's invasive policies into Americans lives is not conservative.
Socialists believe the government that manages most manages best. Such
policy can't help but produce a government that micro-manages and
scrutinizes peoples lives, and under the guise of "homeland security", Bush
is all about micro-management. Actions speak volumes about reality, rhetoric
doesn't.

I've given some examples from a seemingly bottomless list why he is not a
conservative, and in the next post I'll tell you why he is a leftist - a
neocon.
Peter D
2006-12-23 14:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by TC
Post by Peter D
Post by TC
Post by Peter D
<snip usual crap>
Bush, the big government socialist,
Bush The Socialist? You really outdid your whacked-our self this time, TC.
Bust a Socialist? OMG. Stalin is turning in his grave!
Of course he's a socialist, it's obvious. I don't think you can tell me why
he isn't.
(a) He's a Republican. Republicans are by definition, tradition, history,
ideology, and politics "right". Socialism is "left".
(b) He is "right" while Socialists are "left" politically
(c) He's a Republican
Shit, TC, you might as well ask me to demonstrate to you why the night
isn't
Post by Peter D
pink -- maybe it is in your world. I dunno.
But how about you prove your claim and tell me why "Bush=Socialist" is
True.
That's it...? That's your answer? You must be kidding.
Yup. And No.
Post by TC
Just because a politician has an "R" beside their name does not make them a
conservative.
And htat's not what I said.
Post by TC
Their actions decide that. A rose by any other name. That "R"
should really be an "N", for NEOCON.
Oh, so according to the Word of TC Diuctionary "Neocon=Socialist". Make your
mind up, fool.
Post by TC
Peter, I'll first explain why Bush is NOT a conservative. Then, in a
following post I will explain why he subscribes to socialism.
A phony conservative is a politician who talks one way and acts exactly the
opposite, and certainly Bush not a conservative in the traditional sense of
that word. And conservatism is all about tradition - about conserving.
You seem to be saying that while he got in (twice) on a
Repulbican/COnservative ticket, preaches R/C views, etc. because you say he
isn't, he isn't. You'll have to do better than that, TC.
Post by TC
Doubling the size of government spending and debt after being handed a
surplus, being a despoiler of the environment, a fearmonger, an
ally-alienator, an enemy inflamer, a reckless warmonger and an imperialist
does not qualify for the title "conservative."
Sounds like a conservative to me. Espeically if while doing it he makes his
fat oil buddies rich and steals form the poor and working class to do it.
Post by TC
Practicing secrecy and deception and displaying an open contempt for the
Constitution and international law (Geneva convention on torture) are
likewise not the characteristics of a conservative.
Oh, bollox, TC! Name me one "conservative" US President who has not ignored
domestic and international law -- and that includes his adminstration. Name
ONE.

You know what, TC, let's not bother, eh? I mean in your world Bust is a
"Socialist". As long as you keep your tin foil hat on when you come into
this world, no harm. You have a great Christmas!
TC
2006-12-28 05:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D
Post by TC
Post by Peter D
Post by Peter D
<snip usual crap>
(a) He's a Republican. Republicans are by definition, tradition, history,
ideology, and politics "right". Socialism is "left".
(b) He is "right" while Socialists are "left" politically
(c) He's a Republican
Oh, so according to the Word of TC Diuctionary "Neocon=Socialist". Make your
mind up, fool.
Socialists are leftists. Neocons are leftists. Neocons certainly don't
motion to phase out socialism, they leave the socialist infrastructure in
place.
Post by Peter D
You seem to be saying that while he got in (twice) on a
Repulbican/COnservative ticket, preaches R/C views, etc. because you say he
isn't, he isn't. You'll have to do better than that, TC.
Once again I'll explain. Preaching is talk. Doing and voting is reality. Be
concerned with what Bush DOES not what he SAYS. Actions define reality. It
is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Post by Peter D
Post by TC
Doubling the size of government spending and debt after being handed a
surplus, being a despoiler of the environment, a fearmonger, an
ally-alienator, an enemy inflamer, a reckless warmonger and an imperialist
does not qualify for the title "conservative."
Sounds like a conservative to me. Espeically if while doing it he makes his
fat oil buddies rich and steals form the poor and working class to do it.
Like I've stated: Bush is not a conservative. Your idea of a "conservative"
is skewed, as are most peoples, because the USA hasn't had a conservative in
office for over a hundred years to compare to. Haven't you ever stopped to
think why it's always a rich democrat who knows what's best for the "common
man"? Democrats conduct deception, lies, thievery, exploitation of the poor
etc too, the only difference is naive lefties relax and let their guard down
because a "liberal" is in power. They figure no one on their "team" could
ever betray or sellout. It is called agnosia - the inability to see what is
clearly in front of you. Of course, those who vote conservative also let
their guard down when their guy gets in.
Peter, this is part of the game of controlled opposition. If you want to
understand how the mechanics of political power works I would suggest you
explore that concept.
Post by Peter D
Oh, bollox, TC! Name me one "conservative" US President who has not ignored
domestic and international law -- and that includes his adminstration. Name
ONE.
Bush is the first to publicly ignore the human decency laws concerning
torture, which is what I mentioned. I say publicly because regardless of who
is in power, the CIA / NSA remains. They torture and kill people, and will
continue to do so despite whichever administration is in place.
For the record, international law is, for the most part, to further an
agenda of world governance - something which I do not support. Who writes
and asks for these "laws" anyways. While there are exceptions, I would
support ignoring "international law" if it was based upon: furthering such a
world agenda, clearly one-sided, the ridiculous or non-sensical. Good law is
based upon reaon, logic and common sense. Switzerland's (former) neutrality
is a good conservative model in terms of geopolitics (i.e. butting out).
Post by Peter D
You know what, TC, let's not bother, eh? I mean in your world Bust is a
"Socialist". As long as you keep your tin foil hat on when you come into
this world, no harm. You have a great Christmas!
If you choose to be rigid minded and infantile in your understanding of the
world, it is your choice. Only people who are afraid to think for themselves
use the canned "tin foil hat" response. Merry Christmas to you too fella.
The Wizard of Oz
2006-12-28 16:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D
Post by Peter D
Post by TC
Post by Peter D
Post by Peter D
<snip usual crap>
(a) He's a Republican. Republicans are by definition, tradition,
history,
Post by Peter D
Post by TC
Post by Peter D
ideology, and politics "right". Socialism is "left".
(b) He is "right" while Socialists are "left" politically
(c) He's a Republican
Oh, so according to the Word of TC Diuctionary "Neocon=Socialist". Make
your
Post by Peter D
mind up, fool.
Socialists are leftists. Neocons are leftists. Neocons certainly don't
motion to phase out socialism, they leave the socialist infrastructure in
place.
Here is the source of the problem. Neocons aren't leftist. They are
rightoids. The term "Neocon" comes from the word "Neo-Conservative" with
"Neo" being Latin (I think) for "New". If he doesn't "walk the walk"
then he betrayed his Neocon roots the same way Hitler betrayed his
Socialist roots.
Post by Peter D
Post by Peter D
You seem to be saying that while he got in (twice) on a
Repulbican/COnservative ticket, preaches R/C views, etc. because you say
he
Post by Peter D
isn't, he isn't. You'll have to do better than that, TC.
Once again I'll explain. Preaching is talk. Doing and voting is reality. Be
concerned with what Bush DOES not what he SAYS. Actions define reality. It
is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Look at his non-war actions. They speak to being corrupt not to any
leftist leanings.
Post by Peter D
Post by Peter D
Post by TC
Doubling the size of government spending and debt after being handed a
surplus, being a despoiler of the environment, a fearmonger, an
ally-alienator, an enemy inflamer, a reckless warmonger and an
imperialist
Post by Peter D
Post by TC
does not qualify for the title "conservative."
Sounds like a conservative to me. Espeically if while doing it he makes
his
Post by Peter D
fat oil buddies rich and steals form the poor and working class to do it.
Like I've stated: Bush is not a conservative. Your idea of a "conservative"
is skewed, as are most peoples, because the USA hasn't had a conservative in
office for over a hundred years to compare to.
Nonsense. For the last century the USA has been more conservative than
the rest of the world.
Post by Peter D
Haven't you ever stopped to
think why it's always a rich democrat who knows what's best for the "common
man"?
Since Reagan the Democrats have been unorganised and have let the
republicans rule their country. Even for the short time the Democrats
controlled the presidency, house, and senate during the Clinton
administration they still fought each other. The last time all three
groups cooperated was in the Carter administration. So I'd say unless
they get their act together they really don't "know best".

The other half is the perception put forth by both those in power and
the mass media which is "Those who are rich are better people than those
who are not". Some are, most are not. You don't get rich by being Mr.
Niceguy.
Post by Peter D
Democrats conduct deception, lies, thievery, exploitation of the poor
etc too, the only difference is naive lefties relax and let their guard down
because a "liberal" is in power. They figure no one on their "team" could
ever betray or sellout.
This is true of almost any organised group. As yet the Democrats are
still unorganised.
Post by Peter D
It is called agnosia - the inability to see what is
clearly in front of you.
I learned a new word. Thanks.
Post by Peter D
Of course, those who vote conservative also let
their guard down when their guy gets in.
They are more organised at the moment. Although there are cracks
showing in their "united" surface.
Post by Peter D
Peter, this is part of the game of controlled opposition. If you want to
understand how the mechanics of political power works I would suggest you
explore that concept.
Works on both sides.
Post by Peter D
Post by Peter D
Oh, bollox, TC! Name me one "conservative" US President who has not
ignored
Post by Peter D
domestic and international law -- and that includes his adminstration.
Name
Post by Peter D
ONE.
Bush is the first to publicly ignore the human decency laws concerning
torture, which is what I mentioned. I say publicly because regardless of who
is in power, the CIA / NSA remains. They torture and kill people, and will
continue to do so despite whichever administration is in place.
For the record, international law is, for the most part, to further an
agenda of world governance - something which I do not support. Who writes
and asks for these "laws" anyways. While there are exceptions, I would
support ignoring "international law" if it was based upon: furthering such a
world agenda, clearly one-sided, the ridiculous or non-sensical. Good law is
based upon reaon, logic and common sense. Switzerland's (former) neutrality
is a good conservative model in terms of geopolitics (i.e. butting out).
This doesn't address his request.
Post by Peter D
Post by Peter D
You know what, TC, let's not bother, eh? I mean in your world Bust is a
"Socialist". As long as you keep your tin foil hat on when you come into
this world, no harm. You have a great Christmas!
If you choose to be rigid minded and infantile in your understanding of the
world, it is your choice. Only people who are afraid to think for themselves
use the canned "tin foil hat" response. Merry Christmas to you too fella.
Apart from your definition of what is a Conservative and what is not
you're both closer than you think.

Later
Mike
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2006-12-29 03:04:40 UTC
Permalink
The Wizard of Oz <***@emeraldcity.gov> wrote:
TO> The other half is the perception put forth by both those in power and
TO> the mass media which is "Those who are rich are better people than those
TO> who are not". Some are, most are not. You don't get rich by being Mr.
TO> Niceguy.

Sure, you can -- you can get rich being nice, but if you want to be WEALTHY...

One definition I've heard (might've been Chris Rock)

Rich: Shaq O'Neal
Wealthy: them's who pay his salary


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-{(} ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)
(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com
(replies to this vcn address likely to be auto-deleted without reading)

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
Ceri Thomas
2006-12-23 18:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Stalin was by no means a socialist. Socialists are out to help the people
first hense the word social in the word but there has yet to be a group to
do that in Earth's history, 99% of rulers have been dictatorships in one
form or another. The US had one president of the people but they shot him
dead and nobody has helped the people really since. The US call themselves a
republic but they are not much better than China's republic, which is really
a dictatorship wrapped in a fancy word implying some kind of public
decision is involved. Oh I forgot they ask which do you want Saitan,
Lucifer, St Micheal or devil every five or so years.

Don't get me wrong here, these other freaks only offer another devil of
the same cloth not an option to improve anything.
Post by Peter D
<snip usual crap>
Bush, the big government socialist,
Bush The Socialist? You really outdid your whacked-our self this time, TC.
Bust a Socialist? OMG. Stalin is turning in his grave!
<snip usual crap>
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
2006-12-21 16:24:25 UTC
Permalink
In article <PJnih.24461$***@newsfe19.lga>,
"TC" <***@DIESPAMDIEflashmail.com> wrote:

: Bush, the big government socialist

You misspelled "fascist".


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- ***@ubb.ca -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
Glen
2006-12-21 17:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by TC
The United States Empire is broke. Period. Make no mistake, it most
certainly is an Empire and one whose many credit cards are redlined. Any
country that has military forces in over 120 countries worldwide
overwhelmingly qualifies as an Empire. Unfortunately this Empire is on its
way down. Inevitably, the windows on America's storefront will be papered
over and the doors locked its just a matter of time.
The American Empire has trillions of dollars in debt, much of which is
*unfunded*, and its' rapidly growing. The debtload is one that will *NEVER*
be paid off. Ever. And, this is by design of course. Bush, the big
government socialist, will continue to play his role and spend the American
Empire into oblivion.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_02_26_01.html
Government spending by Bush has gone through the roof ever since he was
strategically allowed to be front man for the people who put him there and
continue to control him.
The only thing keeping that country alive is the military industrial
complex, which is why the USA *must* continually be at war or "peacekeeping"
duty. If the USA radically downsized its military, pulled out of Iraq /
Afghanistan and brought its troops home from numerous bases around the world
its already fragile economy would go immediately tits up tomorrow. Everyone
wants army bases to close - except not in their area, its bad for business!
Ever wonder what the retail price tag is on a single stealth bomber?
And Bush, the phoney pinko conservative sellout, wants to EXPAND the
military?? I guess there are a few countries left on the Earth that don't
have Empirical military bases on them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061219/pl_nm/security_bush_dc_2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_spending
Soldiers don't create or produce anything. They destroy. I am not saying a
country doesn't need adequate defences, because it does - just not in 120
countries. But ask any beekeeper: how many soldier drones does the hive need
versus worker drones? The USA's imbalanced quota of non-producing soldier
drones far outweighs the hives ability to sustain itself, the soldiers
included. Imagine if there were nothing but soldier drones and no workers -
who'll feed the hive?
The USA is getting its ass kicked in Iraq. The USA can win battles, but they
are going to lose this war. Just like Vietnam. The British got their asses
kicked in Afghanistan. So did the Russians. Now it is the Americans turn.
My point is should Canadians be accepting an increasingly valueless currency
from an Empire that is already living on borrowed time, at considerable
interest so to speak, for Canadian goods. I say make actual trade with the
USA using tangeable assets as the medium of exchange - NOT U.S. federal
reserve notes. Canadian timbre or Tar Sand oil, for U.S. gold. and so forth.
With a cash register full of IOU's it'll get kinda hard to pay the bills...
Interesting. In this post you call Bush a socialist. Yet before you
deemed him either as Marxist or as Maoist. Now one may very well be
slicing hairs here, but it seems to me there are some differences
between these left-wing ideologies. Anyhow regardless of what left-wing
ideology you choose to call Bush, there is one thing for certain and
that is whatever credibility you MIGHT have had has now been reduce to
nothing.

TC, you are an idiot of nearly unimagineable magnitude.


Glen
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-21 17:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by TC
My point is should Canadians be accepting an increasingly valueless currency
from an Empire that is already living on borrowed time, at considerable
interest so to speak, for Canadian goods. I say make actual trade with the
USA using tangeable assets as the medium of exchange - NOT U.S. federal
reserve notes. Canadian timbre or Tar Sand oil, for U.S. gold. and so forth.
With a cash register full of IOU's it'll get kinda hard to pay the bills...
I agree the "conservatives" in power really are phony. It's like Statism
big-government scumbags infiltrated the Republican party and took control.
They had control of the house and the presidency and did they even try to
reduce the size of government? It was a golden opportunity and the fact that
they didn't act on it shows where their true values lie. Instead they inflated
government control worse than any Democrat would have. It seems like Israel is
more important to the current leaders than the actual country they govern.

That aside, it would be pretty hard to demand gold for payment. I do most of
my business with the USA and there is no way another company would fulfill
that request. Too much hassle. Besides, they pay me in current market value
for their dollar so if I wanted gold I could just use USA bucks to buy gold
right away and I wouldn't lose any value as the US dollar sinks. What I end up
doing in reality is just buying Canadian dollars with the US dollars.

- B
Peter D
2006-12-21 19:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by TC
My point is should Canadians be accepting an increasingly valueless currency
from an Empire that is already living on borrowed time, at considerable
interest so to speak, for Canadian goods. I say make actual trade with the
USA using tangeable assets as the medium of exchange - NOT U.S. federal
reserve notes. Canadian timbre or Tar Sand oil, for U.S. gold. and so forth.
With a cash register full of IOU's it'll get kinda hard to pay the bills...
I agree the "conservatives" in power really are phony.
You seem to be saying (with the ""s) that they aren't "real" conservatives.
They think they are. They act liek they are. They espouse classic
"conservative" doctrine and political views. If it walks like a duck, and
looks liek a duck, and quacks liek a duck it's porobalby a duck. These ducks
are conservatives. That they have shown how willing conservatives are to
betray the people and thus fail your idealist view is immaterial.
Post by Brian Bagnall
It's like Statism big-government scumbags infiltrated the Republican party
and took control.
You seem to be saying that the Republicans were infiltrated by
non-Republicans. How can that be? Are Republicans that stupid that they
would allow non-Republicans to crack the whip and lead them? Do you really
expect us to believe that the Republicans selected a "Socialist" President
in a fit of cluelessness? Maybe they are ducks and you want them to bark
instead of quack. Too bad.
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-21 21:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D
Post by Brian Bagnall
I agree the "conservatives" in power really are phony.
You seem to be saying (with the ""s) that they aren't "real" conservatives.
They think they are. They act liek they are. They espouse classic
"conservative" doctrine and political views. If it walks like a duck, and
looks liek a duck, and quacks liek a duck it's porobalby a duck. These ducks
are conservatives. That they have shown how willing conservatives are to
betray the people and thus fail your idealist view is immaterial.
You don't seem to have a very good definition of classic conservatism. Try
Wikipedia. It means less government control, smaller government, less
interference, less regulations, less taxes, etc... (in other words, more
freedom) The current Republicans are anything but. And I would say they were
infiltrated by neo-Cons, who seem to favor large-scale statist control just
like Socialists, albeit with a different flavor.

- B
Post by Peter D
Post by Brian Bagnall
It's like Statism big-government scumbags infiltrated the Republican party
and took control.
You seem to be saying that the Republicans were infiltrated by
non-Republicans. How can that be? Are Republicans that stupid that they
would allow non-Republicans to crack the whip and lead them? Do you really
expect us to believe that the Republicans selected a "Socialist" President
in a fit of cluelessness? Maybe they are ducks and you want them to bark
instead of quack. Too bad.
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
2006-12-22 02:17:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <q4Dih.25532$***@newsfe19.lga>,
"Brian Bagnall" <***@mts.net> wrote:

: And I would say they were
: infiltrated by neo-Cons, who seem to favor large-scale statist control just
: like Socialists, albeit with a different flavor.

The different flavour is rather the determining factor. While communism is off
the deep-end to the left of the political spectrum, the neo-cons are off the
deep-end to the right.

The sensible government lies in the middle, to the right of which people want to
make sure the government doesn't expand needlessly, and to the left of which
people want to make sure that the government ensures everyone has the basic
opportunity to succeed in life.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- ***@ubb.ca -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-22 19:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
The different flavour is rather the determining factor. While communism is off
the deep-end to the left of the political spectrum, the neo-cons are off the
deep-end to the right.
The sensible government lies in the middle, to the right of which people want to
make sure the government doesn't expand needlessly, and to the left of which
people want to make sure that the government ensures everyone has the basic
opportunity to succeed in life.
That stance that "the middle" is always right is not something I agree with.
Say one person has the idea that kids should not be molested at all, and
another person has the idea that kids should be molested regularly, "the
middle" seems to say that they should be molested some of the time. Extreme
example, yes, but I think it applies to things in general. Compromise is not a
good solution. You should instead just try to come up with the best solution,
no matter what side of the fence it sits on.

- B
4newsgroups
2006-12-22 19:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
The different flavour is rather the determining factor. While communism is off
the deep-end to the left of the political spectrum, the neo-cons are off the
deep-end to the right.
The sensible government lies in the middle, to the right of which people want to
make sure the government doesn't expand needlessly, and to the left of which
people want to make sure that the government ensures everyone has the basic
opportunity to succeed in life.
That stance that "the middle" is always right is not something I agree
with. Say one person has the idea that kids should not be molested at all,
and another person has the idea that kids should be molested regularly,
"the middle" seems to say that they should be molested some of the time.
Extreme example, yes, but I think it applies to things in general.
Compromise is not a good solution. You should instead just try to come up
with the best solution, no matter what side of the fence it sits on.
- B
That's not an "extreme example" it's asinine.

How about this equally asinine example. Brian's dad deserves to get aids
and die because he's a "fag." Brian's mom doesn't deserve to get aids and
die because she's in a monogamous relationship. Brian deserves to get aids
and not die.

Come on man, smarten up.
Peter D
2006-12-22 21:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
The different flavour is rather the determining factor. While communism is off
the deep-end to the left of the political spectrum, the neo-cons are off the
deep-end to the right.
The sensible government lies in the middle, to the right of which people want to
make sure the government doesn't expand needlessly, and to the left of which
people want to make sure that the government ensures everyone has the basic
opportunity to succeed in life.
That stance that "the middle" is always right is not something I agree
with. Say one person has the idea that kids should not be molested at all,
and another person has the idea that kids should be molested regularly,
"the middle" seems to say that they should be molested some of the time.
Extreme example
Totally stupid example that has absolutely nothing to do with what was said.
He never suggessted his preference was a global rule for all matters. And
your example does concern me. Out of everything you could think of, why did
you come up with child molesting? It's just too weird, even for you.
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
2006-12-23 00:49:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <QeWih.14812$***@newsfe22.lga>,
"Brian Bagnall" <***@mts.net> wrote:

: "Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <***@ubb.ca> wrote in message
: news:nicoya-***@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
: >
: > The different flavour is rather the determining factor. While communism is off
: > the deep-end to the left of the political spectrum, the neo-cons are off the
: > deep-end to the right.
: >
: > The sensible government lies in the middle, to the right of which people want to
: > make sure the government doesn't expand needlessly, and to the left of which
: > people want to make sure that the government ensures everyone has the basic
: > opportunity to succeed in life.
:
: That stance that "the middle" is always right is not something I agree with.
: Say one person has the idea that kids should not be molested at all, and
: another person has the idea that kids should be molested regularly, "the
: middle" seems to say that they should be molested some of the time. Extreme
: example, yes, but I think it applies to things in general. Compromise is not a
: good solution. You should instead just try to come up with the best solution,
: no matter what side of the fence it sits on.

I think it's fairly clear that my post was not advocating the position of the
false compromise. I was merely condemning the extreme-left and extreme-right
political positions, and pointing out the (in this case broadly defined)
moderate position stands on its own merits as being the sensible method of
governance.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_compromise>


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- ***@ubb.ca -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
Peter D
2006-12-22 06:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by Peter D
Post by Brian Bagnall
I agree the "conservatives" in power really are phony.
You seem to be saying (with the ""s) that they aren't "real"
conservatives. They think they are. They act liek they are. They espouse
classic "conservative" doctrine and political views. If it walks like a
duck, and looks liek a duck, and quacks liek a duck it's porobalby a
duck. These ducks are conservatives. That they have shown how willing
conservatives are to betray the people and thus fail your idealist view
is immaterial.
You don't seem to have a very good definition of classic conservatism.
Well you didn't say "classic conservatism". You said "conservatives" and
named them as being "in power". The only group that that matches is
"Republicans". They certianly espouse classic -- by which I mean standard,
common, historical, defined by those who propose it politically --
conservative ideology. To say thatif they betray the trust of the people
once in power they are "socialist' is overly simplistic and stupid.
Post by Brian Bagnall
Wikipedia. It means less government control, smaller government, less
interference, less regulations, less taxes, etc... (in other words, more
freedom)
I would suggest that descibes "Classic Liberalism" not "Classic
Conservatism"
Post by Brian Bagnall
The current Republicans are anything but. And I would say they were
infiltrated by neo-Cons, who seem to favor large-scale statist control just
like Socialists, albeit with a different flavor.
But htey aren't "Socialists" -- my point.
TC
2006-12-28 04:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
That aside, it would be pretty hard to demand gold for payment. I do most of
my business with the USA and there is no way another company would fulfill
that request. Too much hassle. Besides, they pay me in current market value
for their dollar so if I wanted gold I could just use USA bucks to buy gold
right away and I wouldn't lose any value as the US dollar sinks. What I end up
doing in reality is just buying Canadian dollars with the US dollars.
- B
I would push as much as possible for deals which trade tangible for
tangible, be it gold or otherwise.
Business is all about expediency for sure, but there could also be
incentives made for gold payments by the buyer.
I am not suggesting demanding payment in gold by a small canadian business
for some $10k deal from an american company, but when multi-million dollar
deals are being made then there is some room for negotiation (as in partial
gold payment and so forth). Countries will often pay off debts to one
another in gold, so will banks. If there are those who are brave enough to
hold their wealth in U.S. currency, better to spend / or invest it quickly.
With each passing minute it depreciates.
g***@vcn.bc.ca
2006-12-28 09:14:22 UTC
Permalink
"TC" <***@DIESPAMDIEflashmail.com> wrote:
"> > doing in reality is just buying Canadian dollars with the US dollars.
"> >
"> > - B
">
"> I would push as much as possible for deals which trade tangible for
"> tangible, be it gold or otherwise.
"> Business is all about expediency for sure, but there could also be
"> incentives made for gold payments by the buyer.
"> I am not suggesting demanding payment in gold by a small canadian business
"> for some $10k deal from an american company, but when multi-million dollar
"> deals are being made then there is some room for negotiation (as in partia
"> gold payment and so forth). Countries will often pay off debts to one
"> another in gold, so will banks. If there are those who are brave enough to
"> hold their wealth in U.S. currency, better to spend / or invest it quickly
"> With each passing minute it depreciates.

Didn't the USA go off the gold standard years ago, and join the IMF-preferred
GNP-based dollars?


--

Because I care,

|<+]::-{(} ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)
(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com
(replies to this vcn address likely to be auto-deleted without reading)

PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
4newsgroups
2006-12-28 22:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@vcn.bc.ca
"> > doing in reality is just buying Canadian dollars with the US dollars.
"> >
"> > - B
">
"> I would push as much as possible for deals which trade tangible for
"> tangible, be it gold or otherwise.
"> Business is all about expediency for sure, but there could also be
"> incentives made for gold payments by the buyer.
"> I am not suggesting demanding payment in gold by a small canadian business
"> for some $10k deal from an american company, but when multi-million dollar
"> deals are being made then there is some room for negotiation (as in partia
"> gold payment and so forth). Countries will often pay off debts to one
"> another in gold, so will banks. If there are those who are brave enough to
"> hold their wealth in U.S. currency, better to spend / or invest it quickly
"> With each passing minute it depreciates.
Didn't the USA go off the gold standard years ago, and join the IMF-preferred
GNP-based dollars?
Yes.
Post by g***@vcn.bc.ca
--
Because I care,
|<+]::-{(} ("Cyberpope," the Bishop of ROM!)
(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
note new preferred reply email: Cyberpope67(at)yahoo(dot)com
(replies to this vcn address likely to be auto-deleted without reading)
PS This post specially encoded for verification purposes
--
.
from gapope(at)vcn(dot)bc(dot)ca << Official Reply Address for Usenet Post
.
4newsgroups
2006-12-28 22:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by Brian Bagnall
That aside, it would be pretty hard to demand gold for payment. I do most
of
Post by Brian Bagnall
my business with the USA and there is no way another company would fulfill
that request. Too much hassle. Besides, they pay me in current market
value
Post by Brian Bagnall
for their dollar so if I wanted gold I could just use USA bucks to buy
gold
Post by Brian Bagnall
right away and I wouldn't lose any value as the US dollar sinks. What I
end up
Post by Brian Bagnall
doing in reality is just buying Canadian dollars with the US dollars.
- B
I would push as much as possible for deals which trade tangible for
tangible, be it gold or otherwise.
Business is all about expediency for sure, but there could also be
incentives made for gold payments by the buyer.
I am not suggesting demanding payment in gold by a small canadian business
for some $10k deal from an american company, but when multi-million dollar
deals are being made then there is some room for negotiation (as in partial
gold payment and so forth). Countries will often pay off debts to one
another in gold, so will banks. If there are those who are brave enough to
hold their wealth in U.S. currency, better to spend / or invest it quickly.
With each passing minute it depreciates.
My apologies TC, I never realized you were an international banker and
"money man."
The Wizard of Oz
2006-12-21 17:49:20 UTC
Permalink
TC wrote:
<snip>
I neither completely agree or disagree with what you said. Since I have
a few minutes let's go over some of your points starting from the top.

The USA is broke:
It has gone deep into debt. If the IMF/world bank/other nations/whoever
decided to call in their IOUs then they would be unable to pay.
Unfortunately for everybody else they have a good chunk of the worlds
national gold reserves in Fort Knox. They could hold this hostage or
outright steal it to pay off their debt.

Bush is a Socialist:
In a word... No. A Socialist does things in the name of Social good.
You know... Day care. Low cost housing. Welfare. Spending money on the
collective good. That sort of thing. Bush has spent money for private
interests as well as a phony war. He is merely (at best) incompetent.

Bush is a Puppet:
I don't know for certain but it sure looks like it.

The American economy depends on military spending:
Sure does. I think it was Eisenhower which warned about the
"Military/Industrial Complex". He was correct. Since Reagan the scope of
the American economy has narrowed. There is less manufacturing and more
in the areas of the military and service industries. Eliminate or reduce
military spending and the USA goes into a MAJOR depression.

Bush, the phoney pinko conservative sellout: (A copy and paste)
Generally you don't see pinko and conservative in the same sentence.
They are thought of as polar opposites. I suppose you could think of the
NDP as being close since they are Socialists (pinko) and fiscally
responsible (much more so than the BATs). The words "Phony" and
"Sellout" wouldn't apply if he had intended this action from the start
and really believed in it.

Soldiers don't create or produce anything: (Copy and paste)
Correct. They could be used as slave labour or slave drivers as the
situation dictates.

The USA is losing in Iraq:
Absolutely.

Should Canadians accept American currency:
Can we get our gold reserves back before we stop?

Later
Mike
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-21 19:25:04 UTC
Permalink
In a word... No. A Socialist does things in the name of Social good. You
know... Day care. Low cost housing. Welfare. Spending money on the
collective good. That sort of thing. Bush has spent money for private
interests as well as a phony war. He is merely (at best) incompetent.
Wow, you really are from the fantasy land of Oz, aren't you? Socialists screw
up society. Always have, always will. Their policies are similar to "We need
wealth. I know, let's print lots of money and hand it out to everybody, then
we'll all be rich!" Everything from trying to control prices, trying to
control wages, etc... all share the same common flaw. In the end, the control
they try to exert ends up going into the hands of the powerful who use the
government aparatus to make their businesses even more powerful at the expense
of free market competition. The solution is and always has been the same:
reduce the size of government, reduce government interference in our lives.
You do that by making government fiscally responsible and reducing the
combined government tax rate (all levels) to about 15% total.

- B
Peter D
2006-12-21 19:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
In a word... No. A Socialist does things in the name of Social good. You
know... Day care. Low cost housing. Welfare. Spending money on the
collective good. That sort of thing. Bush has spent money for private
interests as well as a phony war. He is merely (at best) incompetent.
Wow, you really are from the fantasy land of Oz, aren't you?
I can only presume you were staring at your reflection when you said that.

Maybe the answer is much simpler than your desperate attempt to blame the
current US conservative mismanagement on "Socialism". Maybe it's because
those in power, without accountability and ruling by fear, abuse the power
the people have granted them.
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-21 21:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D
Maybe the answer is much simpler than your desperate attempt to blame the
current US conservative mismanagement on "Socialism". Maybe it's because
those in power, without accountability and ruling by fear, abuse the power
the people have granted them.
How good is a system if it relies on getting certain kinds of people in power?
i.e. If it's hit or miss (and in the USA/Canada it seems like it's usually
miss) then perhaps the system is broken. There isn't enough fluidity in the
election process right now. To get fluidity, you need *smaller states*. In the
USA it will always be Republican/Democrat, both which suck. At least in Canada
(1/10th the USA size) we were able to change from Conservative to Liberal to
the quasi Reform party we see today. Not much better, but still more fluid
than you see in the US.

If we had a whole bunch of independent states, the political system would be
so much more vibrant than you see today. And you could choose the place with
the values you like the most to live.

(Sorry if these thoughts aren't fleshed out a little more, just don't have
time at the moment.)

- B
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
2006-12-22 02:26:52 UTC
Permalink
In article <N0Dih.25520$***@newsfe19.lga>,
"Brian Bagnall" <***@mts.net> wrote:

: If we had a whole bunch of independent states, the political system would be
: so much more vibrant than you see today.

The US, much more so than Canada, was developed around the idea of independent
states. It doesn't seem to have worked for them.

Personally I think the issue is more with how the government is structured. With
the American system of a separately elected president/executive who (in the
modern context) answers to essentially nobody, you get a system where a group of
nutcases like Bush & Co can seize far too much power.

I think the Canadian system at least partially avoids this issue by making the
executive part of the house, and making them directly accountable there.


: And you could choose the place with the values you like the most to live.

I don't like moral relativism. Or political relativism if you will. It's like
xenophobia (it's ok if it happens to them, so long as it doesn't happen to us)
and rabid political correctness (you can't call them wrong, only different) all
wrapped up into a disgusting piece of philosophical garbage that serves no
purpose other than to avoid actually having to make rational judgements.

Also, you'll never find a single location that satisfies every criteria on the
laundry list of "if you don't like it, move somewhere else" factors.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- ***@ubb.ca -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-22 19:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
: And you could choose the place with the values you like the most to live.
I don't like moral relativism. Or political relativism if you will. It's like
xenophobia (it's ok if it happens to them, so long as it doesn't happen to us)
and rabid political correctness (you can't call them wrong, only different) all
wrapped up into a disgusting piece of philosophical garbage that serves no
purpose other than to avoid actually having to make rational judgements.
Also, you'll never find a single location that satisfies every criteria on the
laundry list of "if you don't like it, move somewhere else" factors.
At least you could move to a state with values much closer to your ideals.
Right now you have tax dollars from anti-abortionists going to abortions. You
have tax dollars from anti-business people going to businesses. You have taxes
from anti-war people going to wars. It's very unjust to make someone support a
cause they don't agree with. You get around this problem by giving people more
choice.

- B
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
2006-12-23 00:40:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <TiWih.14814$***@newsfe22.lga>,
"Brian Bagnall" <***@mts.net> wrote:

: At least you could move to a state with values much closer to your ideals.
: Right now you have tax dollars from anti-abortionists going to abortions. You
: have tax dollars from anti-business people going to businesses. You have taxes
: from anti-war people going to wars. It's very unjust to make someone support a
: cause they don't agree with. You get around this problem by giving people more
: choice.

Your mother told you to eat your vegetables when you were a kid. You didn't want
to, but she made you do it anyway because it was good for you.

People are selfish and petty if left to their own devices. Sometimes you need to
come together in larger groups to pressure people into doing the right thing.
That's what governments do.

I don't want there to be *any* place on earth where slavery is legal, or women
aren't given rights, or gays are freely beaten, or torture is practised openly
REGARDLESS of how the locals might feel.

But that's what moral relativism gets you. Little pockets of asshats who all
agree that, say, being a Muslim is a crime punishable by death. "If you don't
like it, move somewhere else" is not an acceptable response.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- ***@ubb.ca -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-29 19:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
: At least you could move to a state with values much closer to your ideals.
: Right now you have tax dollars from anti-abortionists going to abortions. You
: have tax dollars from anti-business people going to businesses. You have taxes
: from anti-war people going to wars. It's very unjust to make someone support a
: cause they don't agree with. You get around this problem by giving people more
: choice.
Your mother told you to eat your vegetables when you were a kid. You didn't want
to, but she made you do it anyway because it was good for you.
People are selfish and petty if left to their own devices. Sometimes you need to
come together in larger groups to pressure people into doing the right thing.
That's what governments do.
Aha. It always comes down to this with lefties. "People are imbiciles! People
are irrational! People are destructive! People are greedy! People can't be
trusted!" (yet somehow these criticisms conveniently never seem to apply to
the lefty making these statements) These are all classical reasons used by
various tyrannical regimes in the past to rationalise the taking away of
freedoms. If you are for freedom, you must allow people the freedom to choose.
You obviously are not in favor of freedom.
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
I don't want there to be *any* place on earth where slavery is legal, or women
aren't given rights, or gays are freely beaten, or torture is practised openly
REGARDLESS of how the locals might feel.
Er, are you aware that basic laws protect individual rights?
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
But that's what moral relativism gets you. Little pockets of asshats who all
agree that, say, being a Muslim is a crime punishable by death. "If you don't
like it, move somewhere else" is not an acceptable response.
You are making things up now. Your thing about muslims is laughable.

- B
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
2006-12-29 22:22:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <pUdlh.55585$***@newsfe17.lga>,
"Brian Bagnall" <***@mts.net> wrote:

: "Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <***@ubb.ca> wrote in message
: news:nicoya-***@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
: > Your mother told you to eat your vegetables when you were a kid. You didn't want
: > to, but she made you do it anyway because it was good for you.
: >
: > People are selfish and petty if left to their own devices. Sometimes you need to
: > come together in larger groups to pressure people into doing the right thing.
: > That's what governments do.
:
: Aha. It always comes down to this with lefties. "People are imbiciles! People
: are irrational! People are destructive! People are greedy! People can't be
: trusted!" (yet somehow these criticisms conveniently never seem to apply to
: the lefty making these statements) These are all classical reasons used by
: various tyrannical regimes in the past to rationalise the taking away of
: freedoms. If you are for freedom, you must allow people the freedom to
: choose.
: You obviously are not in favor of freedom.

You're obviously in complete denial about human nature. Maybe in your utopian
wonderland people would get along without the government twisting their arm now
and then, but that's not the planet we live on.

Sure I wish that everyone could Just Get Along and always do the right thing,
but I'm not some toked-up hippie who thinks it's actually gonna happen any time
soon. Are you?


: > I don't want there to be *any* place on earth where slavery is legal, or women
: > aren't given rights, or gays are freely beaten, or torture is practised openly
: > REGARDLESS of how the locals might feel.
:
: Er, are you aware that basic laws protect individual rights?

What laws? The laws the government makes? The local, autonomous government
composed of entirely of backwards, mouth-breathing hicks who think that all that
stuff I wrote is a perfectly normal and ordinary part of daily life?

And who's going to stop them? Not the moral relativists, not the "if you don't
like it, move" people.


: > But that's what moral relativism gets you. Little pockets of asshats who all
: > agree that, say, being a Muslim is a crime punishable by death. "If you don't
: > like it, move somewhere else" is not an acceptable response.
:
: You are making things up now. Your thing about muslims is laughable.

You can try to wish it away as much as you like, but that's the reality we live
in. I'm sorry if it happens to be inconvenient to your pet theories and notions.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- ***@ubb.ca -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
Peter D
2006-12-22 06:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by Peter D
Maybe the answer is much simpler than your desperate attempt to blame the
current US conservative mismanagement on "Socialism". Maybe it's because
those in power, without accountability and ruling by fear, abuse the
power the people have granted them.
How good is a system if it relies on getting certain kinds of people in power?
What "system"? Democracy? If it's deficient, what do you suggest, maybe a
Benevolent Dictatorship? A Monarchy? Make your suggestion, demonstrate it's
workable, better, and has sufficent checks and balances to deter despotism
and a reduciton in freedoms, and you'll get a audience. It's very easy to
say what we have is bad (I think it could be better), but hard to actually
come up with a workable solution. But you go for it. I'm listening.
Post by Brian Bagnall
i.e. If it's hit or miss (and in the USA/Canada it seems like it's usually
miss) then perhaps the system is broken. There isn't enough fluidity in
the election process right now. To get fluidity, you need *smaller
states*. In the USA it will always be Republican/Democrat, both which
suck. At least in Canada (1/10th the USA size) we were able to change from
Conservative to Liberal to the quasi Reform party we see today. Not much
better, but still more fluid than you see in the US.
If we had a whole bunch of independent states, the political system would
be so much more vibrant than you see today. And you could choose the place
with the values you like the most to live.
I don't claim to be an expert on the German political system, and I don't
know if it's still the same, but back when I lived there people voted
according to party platforms at city, state, and federal levels all at once.
Many chose the party based on what they believed was best for them and the
nation at each level. So, a perosn might vote for a "right" party at city
level, a "centre" party at state level, and a "left" party at federal level
(or any permutaiton you wanted), choosing what you beleived to be the best
at each level. They also used the system of proportional representaiton so
the ruling party wasn't the one that got the most ridings, but the one that
got the most votes. That meant there was no need to split the vote say,
between two "centre" parties or choosing the better of two evils. I thought
it was very workable.
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-22 19:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D
Post by Brian Bagnall
How good is a system if it relies on getting certain kinds of people in power?
What "system"? Democracy? If it's deficient, what do you suggest, maybe a
Benevolent Dictatorship? A Monarchy? Make your suggestion, demonstrate it's
workable, better, and has sufficent checks and balances to deter despotism
and a reduciton in freedoms, and you'll get a audience. It's very easy to
say what we have is bad (I think it could be better), but hard to actually
come up with a workable solution. But you go for it. I'm listening.
The solution is a smaller, limited government (15% tax rate total) that is
fiscally responsible. At that rate they just couldn't afford these adventures
in the middle east and across the globe. They also couldn't afford to give
corporate handouts.

- B
Post by Peter D
Post by Brian Bagnall
i.e. If it's hit or miss (and in the USA/Canada it seems like it's usually
miss) then perhaps the system is broken. There isn't enough fluidity in the
election process right now. To get fluidity, you need *smaller states*. In
the USA it will always be Republican/Democrat, both which suck. At least in
Canada (1/10th the USA size) we were able to change from Conservative to
Liberal to the quasi Reform party we see today. Not much better, but still
more fluid than you see in the US.
If we had a whole bunch of independent states, the political system would
be so much more vibrant than you see today. And you could choose the place
with the values you like the most to live.
I don't claim to be an expert on the German political system, and I don't
know if it's still the same, but back when I lived there people voted
according to party platforms at city, state, and federal levels all at once.
Many chose the party based on what they believed was best for them and the
nation at each level. So, a perosn might vote for a "right" party at city
level, a "centre" party at state level, and a "left" party at federal level
(or any permutaiton you wanted), choosing what you beleived to be the best
at each level. They also used the system of proportional representaiton so
the ruling party wasn't the one that got the most ridings, but the one that
got the most votes. That meant there was no need to split the vote say,
between two "centre" parties or choosing the better of two evils. I thought
it was very workable.
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
2006-12-23 00:32:16 UTC
Permalink
In article <BkWih.14816$***@newsfe22.lga>,
"Brian Bagnall" <***@mts.net> wrote:

: The solution is a smaller, limited government (15% tax rate total) that is
: fiscally responsible. At that rate they just couldn't afford these adventures
: in the middle east and across the globe. They also couldn't afford to give
: corporate handouts.

Have you seen the US deficit lately? They can't afford any of that *right now*
and they're still doing it.

Don't have enough money? No problem, just print more!


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- ***@ubb.ca -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
The Wizard of Oz
2006-12-22 15:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
In a word... No. A Socialist does things in the name of Social good. You
know... Day care. Low cost housing. Welfare. Spending money on the
collective good. That sort of thing. Bush has spent money for private
interests as well as a phony war. He is merely (at best) incompetent.
Wow, you really are from the fantasy land of Oz, aren't you?
I have my moments. ;-)
Post by Brian Bagnall
Socialists screw
up society.
I'll disagree.
Post by Brian Bagnall
Always have, always will.
Sweden and other Northern European countries have made a go of it. The
problem is corrupt politicians. All politicians can be corrupted
including Socialists (or Conservatives).
Post by Brian Bagnall
Their policies are similar to "We need
wealth. I know, let's print lots of money and hand it out to everybody, then
we'll all be rich!"
That's not the definition of Socialism. That's the definition people
influenced by Conservatives and Neo-cons have been told to accept.
Post by Brian Bagnall
Everything from trying to control prices, trying to
control wages, etc... all share the same common flaw. In the end, the control
they try to exert ends up going into the hands of the powerful who use the
government aparatus to make their businesses even more powerful at the expense
of free market competition.
Again, that's not inherently Socialist. It's anti-freemarket. One does
not equate to the other. Rather than rely on what other people say about
them you should ask them what defines themselves. You've probably never
sat down and talked with one. You've probably only been exposed to the
Grits and BATs.
Post by Brian Bagnall
reduce the size of government, reduce government interference in our lives.
Only two groups have been able to "Walk the walk" on this issue. Namely
Libertarians and Anarchists. Conservatives and Neo-cons merely shift the
priorities and resources of government to their own pet projects. The
relative size remains the same.
Post by Brian Bagnall
You do that by making government fiscally responsible and reducing the
combined government tax rate (all levels) to about 15% total.
Government could reduce its impact on the population by cutting back
services. For example citizens could be responsible for paving the
street in front of their house. In this case it makes sense for
government to do it because they can get better deals (because of
volume) than private citizens can. In situations like this it can be
argued the average citizen is better off because of this "Socialist"
policy. The paving companies are worse off because they can't charge the
public a premium for paving small sections of the streets.
Post by Brian Bagnall
- B
Later
Mike
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-22 19:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
Always have, always will.
Sweden and other Northern European countries have made a go of it. The
problem is corrupt politicians. All politicians can be corrupted including
Socialists (or Conservatives).
My position is that Sweeden would be doing far better than they are now under
a less restrictive government. They have very able people but their system
doesn't encourage individual achievement. Can you tell me some innovative
breakthroughs, companies, or inventions from Sweeden lately? I can't. True,
population size is one consideration, but consider Hong Kong (relatively
non-Socialist) - tiny place, tons of impact on the world.
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Again, that's not inherently Socialist. It's anti-freemarket. One does not
equate to the other.
I do. Milton Friedman does.
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
The solution is and always has been the same: reduce the size of
government, reduce government interference in our lives.
Only two groups have been able to "Walk the walk" on this issue. Namely
Libertarians and Anarchists. Conservatives and Neo-cons merely shift the
priorities and resources of government to their own pet projects. The
relative size remains the same.
This is TC's main objection to Republicans, and also my own.
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
You do that by making government fiscally responsible and reducing the
combined government tax rate (all levels) to about 15% total.
Government could reduce its impact on the population by cutting back
services.
Amen.

- B
Peter D
2006-12-22 21:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Sweden and other Northern European countries have made a go of it. The
problem is corrupt politicians. All politicians can be corrupted
including Socialists (or Conservatives).
My position is that Sweeden would be doing far better than they are now
under a less restrictive government.
Well, your position could be that Sweden could have put a turnip on the moon
except for their "Socialist" government, but so what? You can't even bring
yourself to admit that your mantra "Socialism is Bad" is wrong. Someone
tells you where it's succeeded and you claim they could have done better.
Fact is, they've done well. Deal with it.

Oh, yeah, I'll toss in Allende's Chile. There was "Socialism" that worked --
well until the US funded a bloody military coup that saw the CHilean people
abused and murdered in teh name of "the American Way"!
Post by Brian Bagnall
They have very able people but their system doesn't encourage individual
achievement.
Yeah, I know. All those lazy-arsed, welfare leeching Nobel Prize winners
(and donors) and do-nothing but sit around all day inventors,
industrialists, health creators, etc.
The Wizard of Oz
2006-12-23 20:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
Always have, always will.
Sweden and other Northern European countries have made a go of it. The
problem is corrupt politicians. All politicians can be corrupted including
Socialists (or Conservatives).
My position is that Sweeden would be doing far better than they are now under
a less restrictive government. They have very able people but their system
doesn't encourage individual achievement. Can you tell me some innovative
breakthroughs, companies, or inventions from Sweeden lately? I can't. True,
population size is one consideration, but consider Hong Kong (relatively
non-Socialist) - tiny place, tons of impact on the world.
Apart from what has been mentioned already there have been a number of
playwrites (the spell checker catches this last word no matter how I
spell it) in the last couple of centuries from there. The musical group
ABBA. Also the North Sea oil projects.
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Again, that's not inherently Socialist. It's anti-freemarket. One does not
equate to the other.
I do. Milton Friedman does.
Milton Friedman (his theory anyhow) is slowly being discredited.
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
The solution is and always has been the same: reduce the size of
government, reduce government interference in our lives.
Only two groups have been able to "Walk the walk" on this issue. Namely
Libertarians and Anarchists. Conservatives and Neo-cons merely shift the
priorities and resources of government to their own pet projects. The
relative size remains the same.
This is TC's main objection to Republicans, and also my own.
But equating conservatism with reduced government is still wrong.
Conservatism is anything "right of center" including the American Democrats.
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
You do that by making government fiscally responsible and reducing the
combined government tax rate (all levels) to about 15% total.
Government could reduce its impact on the population by cutting back
services.
Amen.
The part you cut out was the nub of the argument. There are things the
government can do better than individuals. Military, public utilities
(eg. sewer and water), police, roads, etc.. Over all the idea is to get
the best performance for the cash spent. Granted there is going to be a
certain amount of waste, but if it exceeds reasonable levels then the
problem becomes one of incompetence or corruption. Getting back to the
OPs point, an example of this is the war in Iraq. Incompetence and
corruption are not limited by political dogma.
Post by Brian Bagnall
- B
Later
Mike
Brian Bagnall
2006-12-29 19:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
My position is that Sweeden would be doing far better than they are now
under a less restrictive government. They have very able people but their
system doesn't encourage individual achievement. Can you tell me some
innovative breakthroughs, companies, or inventions from Sweeden lately? I
can't. True, population size is one consideration, but consider Hong Kong
(relatively non-Socialist) - tiny place, tons of impact on the world.
Apart from what has been mentioned already there have been a number of
playwrites (the spell checker catches this last word no matter how I spell
it) in the last couple of centuries from there. The musical group ABBA. Also
the North Sea oil projects.
There are always individuals who achieve greatness, even in the worst
societies. Even in Communist Russia, an obviously broken and terrible system,
you had the guy who invented Tetris and probably Nobel winners too.
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Again, that's not inherently Socialist. It's anti-freemarket. One does not
equate to the other.
I do. Milton Friedman does.
Milton Friedman (his theory anyhow) is slowly being discredited.
Excuse me for a moment while I try to stop laughing. His theories are being
embraced more and more. As Milton-Wan Kenobi said, "If you strike me down, I
shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
The solution is and always has been the same: reduce the size of
government, reduce government interference in our lives.
Only two groups have been able to "Walk the walk" on this issue. Namely
Libertarians and Anarchists. Conservatives and Neo-cons merely shift the
priorities and resources of government to their own pet projects. The
relative size remains the same.
This is TC's main objection to Republicans, and also my own.
But equating conservatism with reduced government is still wrong.
Conservatism is anything "right of center" including the American Democrats.
Conservatism has traditionally embraced limited government power. The
conservatives of old would bristle at the sheer amount of wealth modern
government takes from us all.
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
You do that by making government fiscally responsible and reducing the
combined government tax rate (all levels) to about 15% total.
Government could reduce its impact on the population by cutting back
services.
Amen.
The part you cut out was the nub of the argument. There are things the
government can do better than individuals. Military, public utilities (eg.
sewer and water), police, roads, etc.. Over all the idea is to get the best
performance for the cash spent. Granted there is going to be a certain
amount of waste, but if it exceeds reasonable levels then the problem
becomes one of incompetence or corruption. Getting back to the OPs point, an
example of this is the war in Iraq. Incompetence and corruption are not
limited by political dogma.
Did you know that military, public utilities, police, roads etc... can all be
maintained by a total of 15% tax rate? Milton Friedman wrote about this and
calculated that is all it would take.

- B
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
- B
Later
Mike
The Wizard of Oz
2006-12-30 13:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
My position is that Sweeden would be doing far better than they are now
under a less restrictive government. They have very able people but their
system doesn't encourage individual achievement. Can you tell me some
innovative breakthroughs, companies, or inventions from Sweeden lately? I
can't. True, population size is one consideration, but consider Hong Kong
(relatively non-Socialist) - tiny place, tons of impact on the world.
Apart from what has been mentioned already there have been a number of
playwrites (the spell checker catches this last word no matter how I spell
it) in the last couple of centuries from there. The musical group ABBA. Also
the North Sea oil projects.
There are always individuals who achieve greatness, even in the worst
societies. Even in Communist Russia, an obviously broken and terrible system,
you had the guy who invented Tetris and probably Nobel winners too.
But doesn't that address your request? Don't they count?
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Again, that's not inherently Socialist. It's anti-freemarket. One does not
equate to the other.
I do. Milton Friedman does.
Milton Friedman (his theory anyhow) is slowly being discredited.
Excuse me for a moment while I try to stop laughing. His theories are being
embraced more and more. As Milton-Wan Kenobi said, "If you strike me down, I
shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
I did say slowly. It's the usual story where people pick apart the
theory one piece at a time. Since he's no longer alive to defend the
theory it's no longer a "moving target".
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
The solution is and always has been the same: reduce the size of
government, reduce government interference in our lives.
Only two groups have been able to "Walk the walk" on this issue. Namely
Libertarians and Anarchists. Conservatives and Neo-cons merely shift the
priorities and resources of government to their own pet projects. The
relative size remains the same.
This is TC's main objection to Republicans, and also my own.
But equating conservatism with reduced government is still wrong.
Conservatism is anything "right of center" including the American Democrats.
Conservatism has traditionally embraced limited government power. The
conservatives of old would bristle at the sheer amount of wealth modern
government takes from us all.
That's only partially true. People who claim to be conservative only
*talk* this way. They fail to do anything about it. In general it's only
Libertarians (on the right) and Anarchists (on the left) who actually do
anything about it. I have yet to meet a politician in power who is
willing to give up any little bit of power (or money for that matter).
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
You do that by making government fiscally responsible and reducing the
combined government tax rate (all levels) to about 15% total.
Government could reduce its impact on the population by cutting back
services.
Amen.
The part you cut out was the nub of the argument. There are things the
government can do better than individuals. Military, public utilities (eg.
sewer and water), police, roads, etc.. Over all the idea is to get the best
performance for the cash spent. Granted there is going to be a certain
amount of waste, but if it exceeds reasonable levels then the problem
becomes one of incompetence or corruption. Getting back to the OPs point, an
example of this is the war in Iraq. Incompetence and corruption are not
limited by political dogma.
Did you know that military, public utilities, police, roads etc... can all be
maintained by a total of 15% tax rate? Milton Friedman wrote about this and
calculated that is all it would take.
Does that include the reasonable amount of waste I mentioned or is that
the theoretical minimum? Health care is something I think he never
considered. Likewise maintaining an internet backbone or three. Then
there is bringing services to remote areas. Canada is more remote than
the USA. Then again this is getting away from the ideas in the OP.

Bush did underestimate the costs (not just financial) of the war in
Iraq. That speaks to incompetence. Maintaining the war speaks to corruption.


Later
Mike
Post by Brian Bagnall
- B
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Brian Bagnall
- B
Later
Mike
Canuck57
2006-12-22 02:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wizard of Oz
<snip>
I neither completely agree or disagree with what you said. Since I have a
few minutes let's go over some of your points starting from the top.
It has gone deep into debt. If the IMF/world bank/other nations/whoever
decided to call in their IOUs then they would be unable to pay.
Unfortunately for everybody else they have a good chunk of the worlds
national gold reserves in Fort Knox. They could hold this hostage or
outright steal it to pay off their debt.
In a word... No. A Socialist does things in the name of Social good. You
know... Day care. Low cost housing. Welfare. Spending money on the
collective good. That sort of thing. Bush has spent money for private
interests as well as a phony war. He is merely (at best) incompetent.
I don't know for certain but it sure looks like it.
Sure does. I think it was Eisenhower which warned about the
"Military/Industrial Complex". He was correct. Since Reagan the scope of
the American economy has narrowed. There is less manufacturing and more in
the areas of the military and service industries. Eliminate or reduce
military spending and the USA goes into a MAJOR depression.
Bush, the phoney pinko conservative sellout: (A copy and paste)
Generally you don't see pinko and conservative in the same sentence. They
are thought of as polar opposites. I suppose you could think of the NDP as
being close since they are Socialists (pinko) and fiscally responsible
(much more so than the BATs). The words "Phony" and "Sellout" wouldn't
apply if he had intended this action from the start and really believed in
it.
Soldiers don't create or produce anything: (Copy and paste)
Correct. They could be used as slave labour or slave drivers as the
situation dictates.
Absolutely.
Can we get our gold reserves back before we stop?
I don't know why this is in calgary.general, I guess the original poster
didn't know Calgary isn't part of the USA. Might not be a bad idea, but it
hasn't happened yet and not likely any time soon.

But if the US is "broke", then Canada is in the sewer. The US reports as
part of their debt future obligations where as Stats Canada does not. Look
at the pension funds. US funded into 202x sometime while Canada pays out
its revenue in 3 months. Plus Americans have 10 times the population and
some pretty rich stores in the 401K plans to pay future taxes.

If the US goes down the toilet, Canada will be one of the turds to go with
it.
TC
2006-12-22 15:55:09 UTC
Permalink
--
***************************
Socialist 'Max the Canuck' on
Tues, Mar 22 2005 3:05 pm said to a conservative poster:

"Since I'm a left wing feller, I wanna make sure you look as bad as
possible."
Post by Canuck57
I don't know why this is in calgary.general, I guess the original poster
didn't know Calgary isn't part of the USA.
But if the US is "broke", then Canada is in the sewer.
Hi, I think you answered your own question as to why this post was in
Calgary.general
Calgary is a part of Canada, the USA is Canadas' largest trading partner.
The original post is macro in scope, not micro (i.e. it will effect all
Canadians).

The US reports as
Post by Canuck57
part of their debt future obligations where as Stats Canada does not.
Look
Post by Canuck57
at the pension funds. US funded into 202x sometime while Canada pays out
its revenue in 3 months. Plus Americans have 10 times the population and
some pretty rich stores in the 401K plans to pay future taxes.
If the US goes down the toilet, Canada will be one of the turds to go with
it.
The world will feel the pinch of the USA being flushed, as will we. My
suggestions are if Canada is to weather this impending financial upheaval it
might be best to prepare beforehand to soften the blow as much as possible
rather than be caught totally with our pants down.
The Wizard of Oz
2006-12-22 16:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Canuck57
Post by The Wizard of Oz
<snip>
I neither completely agree or disagree with what you said. Since I have a
few minutes let's go over some of your points starting from the top.
It has gone deep into debt. If the IMF/world bank/other nations/whoever
decided to call in their IOUs then they would be unable to pay.
Unfortunately for everybody else they have a good chunk of the worlds
national gold reserves in Fort Knox. They could hold this hostage or
outright steal it to pay off their debt.
In a word... No. A Socialist does things in the name of Social good. You
know... Day care. Low cost housing. Welfare. Spending money on the
collective good. That sort of thing. Bush has spent money for private
interests as well as a phony war. He is merely (at best) incompetent.
I don't know for certain but it sure looks like it.
Sure does. I think it was Eisenhower which warned about the
"Military/Industrial Complex". He was correct. Since Reagan the scope of
the American economy has narrowed. There is less manufacturing and more in
the areas of the military and service industries. Eliminate or reduce
military spending and the USA goes into a MAJOR depression.
Bush, the phoney pinko conservative sellout: (A copy and paste)
Generally you don't see pinko and conservative in the same sentence. They
are thought of as polar opposites. I suppose you could think of the NDP as
being close since they are Socialists (pinko) and fiscally responsible
(much more so than the BATs). The words "Phony" and "Sellout" wouldn't
apply if he had intended this action from the start and really believed in
it.
Soldiers don't create or produce anything: (Copy and paste)
Correct. They could be used as slave labour or slave drivers as the
situation dictates.
Absolutely.
Can we get our gold reserves back before we stop?
I don't know why this is in calgary.general, I guess the original poster
didn't know Calgary isn't part of the USA. Might not be a bad idea, but it
hasn't happened yet and not likely any time soon.
None of the other crossposted groups are about American cities either.
Joining the States would be a TERRIBLE idea.
Post by Canuck57
But if the US is "broke", then Canada is in the sewer. The US reports as
part of their debt future obligations where as Stats Canada does not. Look
at the pension funds. US funded into 202x sometime while Canada pays out
its revenue in 3 months. Plus Americans have 10 times the population and
some pretty rich stores in the 401K plans to pay future taxes.
In terms of the federal budget Canada is doing a better job than the
States. We are paying down not only the interest on what we own (the
defecit) but the actual debt as well. If we get out of the free trade
agreements Canada will be more productive and we wouldn't be so worried
about pension plans.

What bothers me is we contract with the USA to have some or all of our
gold reserves stored in Fort Knox. They could use OUR reserves to pay
THEIR debt.
Post by Canuck57
If the US goes down the toilet, Canada will be one of the turds to go with
it.
Only because our politicians are brown nosers. ;-)

Later
Mike
Canuck57
2006-12-22 16:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Canuck57
But if the US is "broke", then Canada is in the sewer. The US reports as
part of their debt future obligations where as Stats Canada does not.
Look at the pension funds. US funded into 202x sometime while Canada
pays out its revenue in 3 months. Plus Americans have 10 times the
population and some pretty rich stores in the 401K plans to pay future
taxes.
In terms of the federal budget Canada is doing a better job than the
States. We are paying down not only the interest on what we own (the
defecit) but the actual debt as well. If we get out of the free trade
agreements Canada will be more productive and we wouldn't be so worried
about pension plans.
Lets go back in recent history to GST, 1991. It was to have payed of the
debt out right by about now so the government could signifigantly lower
taxes. Almost 17 years later taxes are up and debt, including future
obligation has never been hights. What really happened is government spent
more as it's citizens got less.

If we get out of free trade, it would hurt Canada severly. Might as well
stamp "Brazil of the North without the heat" on the border signs. Would
give the US also sorts of reasons to tax our exports so Canadians get paid
less.
Post by The Wizard of Oz
What bothers me is we contract with the USA to have some or all of our
gold reserves stored in Fort Knox. They could use OUR reserves to pay
THEIR debt.
Trust me, the amount of Canadian gold in those reserves will no make a dent
in debt.
The Wizard of Oz
2006-12-23 21:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Canuck57
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by Canuck57
But if the US is "broke", then Canada is in the sewer. The US reports as
part of their debt future obligations where as Stats Canada does not.
Look at the pension funds. US funded into 202x sometime while Canada
pays out its revenue in 3 months. Plus Americans have 10 times the
population and some pretty rich stores in the 401K plans to pay future
taxes.
In terms of the federal budget Canada is doing a better job than the
States. We are paying down not only the interest on what we own (the
defecit) but the actual debt as well. If we get out of the free trade
agreements Canada will be more productive and we wouldn't be so worried
about pension plans.
Lets go back in recent history to GST, 1991. It was to have payed of the
debt out right by about now so the government could signifigantly lower
taxes. Almost 17 years later taxes are up and debt, including future
obligation has never been hights. What really happened is government spent
more as it's citizens got less.
Yes. That's what happens when politicians can't budget the taxes
properly. This has been a trend since the late 60's and early 70's where
the various taxes go into general revenue instead of accounts marked for
a specific purpose. This is so the politicians don't have to go back to
the voters if they blow through their funding for the year.
Post by Canuck57
If we get out of free trade, it would hurt Canada severly. Might as well
stamp "Brazil of the North without the heat" on the border signs. Would
give the US also sorts of reasons to tax our exports so Canadians get paid
less.
So what? We did better in Canada before we signed the free trade deal.
We had things other than natural resources and trained people to export.
We were able to equip our own military. We had our own ship and aircraft
manufacturing. Our electronics industry was still pretty good by world
standards. We were able to fly to London without having to go through
New York. This is the thing people don't get. We don't have to trade
with the States. We can trade with other countries. If the States want
to tax the living daylights out of our lumber then ship it to Japan if
they are willing to pay for it.
Post by Canuck57
Post by The Wizard of Oz
What bothers me is we contract with the USA to have some or all of our
gold reserves stored in Fort Knox. They could use OUR reserves to pay
THEIR debt.
Trust me, the amount of Canadian gold in those reserves will no make a dent
in debt.
If Bill Gates or Donald Trump mugged you and stole all your money it
would not mean a whole lot to them. To you it might be your entire life
savings. Where would the net effect be felt the most. By the thief or by
the victim? If the Americans were to take our reserves it would pay of
one year of their war but what would it do to us? Judging by your last
statement you really need to turn your focus from an American centered
one to a Canadian centered one.

Later
Mike
4newsgroups
2006-12-22 19:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by The Wizard of Oz
<snip>
<more snip>
In terms of the federal budget Canada is doing a better job than the
States. We are paying down not only the interest on what we own (the
defecit) but the actual debt as well. If we get out of the free trade
agreements Canada will be more productive and we wouldn't be so worried
about pension plans.
Isn't the difference between what we make and what we spend in a fiscal year
called the deficit?
The Wizard of Oz
2006-12-23 21:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by 4newsgroups
Post by The Wizard of Oz
Post by The Wizard of Oz
<snip>
<more snip>
In terms of the federal budget Canada is doing a better job than the
States. We are paying down not only the interest on what we own (the
defecit) but the actual debt as well. If we get out of the free trade
agreements Canada will be more productive and we wouldn't be so worried
about pension plans.
Isn't the difference between what we make and what we spend in a fiscal year
called the deficit?
I have to think about that... You could be correct. In any event Canada
is now making more than it is spending. The result is the surplus is
going to pay down the debt. The thing I'm thinking about is what is
going to happen when the debt is gone? What will be done then? Will our
taxes be reduced or will they stay the same and the government give us
more services?

Later
Mike
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
2006-12-23 23:22:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <X7hjh.514248$***@pd7urf3no>,
The Wizard of Oz <***@emeraldcity.gov> wrote:

: The thing I'm thinking about is what is
: going to happen when the debt is gone?

The debt will never fully disappear, nor should it. What is needed is a
manageable debt load, where the value of the capital that the debt represents
exceeds the cost of that debt.

But as we approach that ideal point, we will indeed get lower taxes, more
services, etc.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- ***@ubb.ca -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
Robert Sveinson
2006-12-23 23:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
: The thing I'm thinking about is what is
: going to happen when the debt is gone?
The debt will never fully disappear, nor should it. What is needed is a
manageable debt load, where the value of the capital that the debt represents
exceeds the cost of that debt.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
But as we approach that ideal point, we will indeed get lower taxes, more
services, etc.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
Nobody
2006-12-24 00:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sveinson
Post by Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler
: The thing I'm thinking about is what is
: going to happen when the debt is gone?
The debt will never fully disappear, nor should it. What is
needed is a manageable debt load, where the value of the capital
that the debt represents
exceeds the cost of that debt.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
That is a USA debt clock Bobby. One would think that the groups of
calgary.general, tor.general, van.general, wpg.general would have given
you a hint.
kd4supper
2006-12-23 05:58:37 UTC
Permalink
sounds like they will need Canadian resources more than ever,
Ceri Thomas
2006-12-27 18:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Sure TC, as their money becomes worth less and less we trade in commodity
until it expires and then they become a third world nation. Not that its
likely going to happen though as they produce lots of goods for trade.
Their military is in lots of countries around the globe but not in the
mannor you propose. They due take tribute for their presence and charge to
rebuild a plundered war torn land. Thats the war machine in action. Most of
this globe is run on the all mighty dollar and most actions must show some
kind of return ($). When a coutry looses a war what do you think war
retributions are all about. If the US looses they simpley get less back but
still have revenue from the war factories replaceing the spent weapons. I
work in the defence industry and it's been booming since the 9/11 scam of
mass defence, not that I'm complaining with my bank account looking this
good (never did in the late eighties until the late ninties).
Post by TC
The United States Empire is broke. Period. Make no mistake, it most
certainly is an Empire and one whose many credit cards are redlined. Any
country that has military forces in over 120 countries worldwide
overwhelmingly qualifies as an Empire. Unfortunately this Empire is on its
way down. Inevitably, the windows on America's storefront will be papered
over and the doors locked its just a matter of time.
The American Empire has trillions of dollars in debt, much of which is
*unfunded*, and its' rapidly growing. The debtload is one that will *NEVER*
be paid off. Ever. And, this is by design of course. Bush, the big
government socialist, will continue to play his role and spend the American
Empire into oblivion.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_02_26_01.html
Government spending by Bush has gone through the roof ever since he was
strategically allowed to be front man for the people who put him there and
continue to control him.
The only thing keeping that country alive is the military industrial
complex, which is why the USA *must* continually be at war or
"peacekeeping"
duty. If the USA radically downsized its military, pulled out of Iraq /
Afghanistan and brought its troops home from numerous bases around the world
its already fragile economy would go immediately tits up tomorrow. Everyone
wants army bases to close - except not in their area, its bad for business!
Ever wonder what the retail price tag is on a single stealth bomber?
And Bush, the phoney pinko conservative sellout, wants to EXPAND the
military?? I guess there are a few countries left on the Earth that don't
have Empirical military bases on them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061219/pl_nm/security_bush_dc_2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_spending
Soldiers don't create or produce anything. They destroy. I am not saying a
country doesn't need adequate defences, because it does - just not in 120
countries. But ask any beekeeper: how many soldier drones does the hive need
versus worker drones? The USA's imbalanced quota of non-producing soldier
drones far outweighs the hives ability to sustain itself, the soldiers
included. Imagine if there were nothing but soldier drones and no workers -
who'll feed the hive?
The USA is getting its ass kicked in Iraq. The USA can win battles, but they
are going to lose this war. Just like Vietnam. The British got their asses
kicked in Afghanistan. So did the Russians. Now it is the Americans turn.
My point is should Canadians be accepting an increasingly valueless currency
from an Empire that is already living on borrowed time, at considerable
interest so to speak, for Canadian goods. I say make actual trade with the
USA using tangeable assets as the medium of exchange - NOT U.S. federal
reserve notes. Canadian timbre or Tar Sand oil, for U.S. gold. and so forth.
With a cash register full of IOU's it'll get kinda hard to pay the bills...
--
***************************
Socialist 'Max the Canuck' on
"Since I'm a left wing feller, I wanna make sure you look as bad as
possible."
Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'U.S. of A: The Broke Empire' (newsgroups and mailing lists)
31
replies
Are these the acts of a patriot, a conservative?
started 2006-03-24 15:46:45 UTC
misc.survivalism
19
replies
95 percent of Pak Muslim truckers ‘indulge in sex with `boy helpers’ - According to The News, transportation terminals and bus stands are the main hubs for such activity, as truck drivers are away from home for an average of 21.5 days in a month.,,Sahil, an NGO working for child rights, shared these deplorable findings at the launch of a report titled ‘A Situational Analysis of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Transport Industry of Pakistan’. - http://www.zopag.com/news/95-percent-of-pak-truckers-indulge-in-sex-with-boy-helpers/14366.html
started 2010-02-22 02:18:37 UTC
soc.culture.australian
27
replies
95 percent of Pak Muslim truckers ‘indulge in sex with `boy helpers’ - According to The News, transportation terminals and bus stands are the main hubs for such activity, as truck drivers are away from home for an average of 21.5 days in a month.,,Sahil, an NGO working for child rights, shared these deplorable findings at the launch of a report titled ‘A Situational Analysis of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Transport Industry of Pakistan’. - http://www.zopag.com/news/95-percent-of-pak-truckers-indulge-in-sex-with-boy-helpers/14366.html
started 2010-02-22 02:18:37 UTC
alt.politics.british
11
replies
Fuck the us OF a and all the merKins
started 2004-11-03 22:44:01 UTC
soc.culture.scottish
8
replies
America vs. the British Empire
started 2004-01-04 08:17:59 UTC
soc.culture.british
Loading...