February 7, 200620 yr Author Why do you hate freedom Spee ? Why are you a bleeding-heart liberal (sorry, Progressive) B-Fly? Progressive is the future, Boon Mee, mark my word You will be crawling on your hands, lost and confused, when your "capitalism" dies one day Why do you hate freedom Spee ? Why are you a bleeding-heart liberal (sorry, Progressive) B-Fly? He is not a liberal. He is a self-admitted communist (see previous threads). I don't hate freedom. I love it and I wish everyone else in the world had the same love for it as I do. I don't want government involved in my life any more than it needs to be. But in many places in the world, you have governmental control over the most basic aspects of peoples' lives (see Iran, Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc., etc.). That is flat out wrong. Period. End of story. So you love "your" freedom as long as "your" freedom is not "bothered" by other people freedom, right ? Have you heard of the Patriot Act ?
February 7, 200620 yr You will be crawling on your hands, lost and confused, when your "capitalism" dies one day So you are not a capitalist Butterfly? Who paid for your house...the state, the Palistinians or little green people?
February 7, 200620 yr Author You will be crawling on your hands, lost and confused, when your "capitalism" dies one day So you are not a capitalist Butterfly? Who paid for your house...the state, the Palistinians or little green people? Actually Saddam Hussein did, that's why I was so sad to see him go, but he will be back, soon No capitalism didn't pay for my house, hard work did
February 7, 200620 yr You will be crawling on your hands, lost and confused, when your "capitalism" dies one day So you are not a capitalist Butterfly? Who paid for your house...the state, the Palistinians or little green people? Actually Saddam Hussein did, that's why I was so sad to see him go, but he will be back, soon No capitalism didn't pay for my house, hard work did Funny how that goes hand in hand.
February 7, 200620 yr Author You will be crawling on your hands, lost and confused, when your "capitalism" dies one day So you are not a capitalist Butterfly? Who paid for your house...the state, the Palistinians or little green people? Actually Saddam Hussein did, that's why I was so sad to see him go, but he will be back, soon No capitalism didn't pay for my house, hard work did Funny how that goes hand in hand. Wrong. Capitalism is about maximizing your capital returns. Basically not working while getting paid as long as you have the capital for it. A little bit like communism, soviet style. Ask GW Bush, he is a typical capitalist. No wonder all the conservatives on this board worship and envy him. This is paradise, their last stop on their conservative journey. Making millions without working, winning the lottery. Islamists have their virgins, Capitalists have the "working poors". A perfect world.
February 7, 200620 yr You will be crawling on your hands, lost and confused, when your "capitalism" dies one day So you are not a capitalist Butterfly? Who paid for your house...the state, the Palistinians or little green people? Actually Saddam Hussein did, that's why I was so sad to see him go, but he will be back, soon No capitalism didn't pay for my house, hard work did Funny how that goes hand in hand. Wrong. Capitalism is about maximizing your capital returns. Basically not working while getting paid as long as you have the capital for it. A little bit like communism, soviet style. Ask GW Bush, he is a typical capitalist. No wonder all the conservatives on this board worship and envy him. This is paradise, their last stop on their conservative journey. Making millions without working, winning the lottery. Islamists have their virgins, Capitalists have the "working poors". A perfect world. Oh dear Butterfly, you really do have a hard on for the USA don't you.You are wrong according to me. There are many definitions of Capitalism.Here is the one that best describes it for me......... "Capitalism has been defined in various ways.[1] In common usage, it means an economic or socio-economic system in which the means of production are overwhelmingly privately owned and operated for profit, decisions regarding investment of capital are made privately, and where production, distribution, and the prices of goods, services, and labor are affected by the forces of supply and demand in a largely free market." Emergence of early capitalism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "The notion that capitalism can be divided into early, middle, and late periods is itself extremely controversial. Some scholars have found capitalism, or elements thereof, in very early times. Some philosophers consider capitalism not a time-bound practice or a historical era at all, but the recognition of some timeless elements of the human condition. Nonetheless, periodization is often undertaken on the presumption that there was a uniquely notable explosion of capitalistic practice in early-modern Europe. Since pre-Roman times goods have been bought and sold on markets throughout Europe, and local trading networks have enabled goods to make there way onto European markets from places as far away as China. Much of the expansion of the Roman Empire was at least partially driven by the desire to obtain control of the sources of goods being traded with the Romans (such as Tin and cement), and thus obtain these goods more cheaply by cutting out the middle-men. The Bruges Bourse opened in 1309 as a place for commodity traders to meet and trade their goods. In the sixteenth century, merchants of Antwerp developed the idea of shareholdership, to facilitate the building of larger ships, and to make possible more extensive trade......" So you European lot gave us capitalism.Shame on you.
February 7, 200620 yr Wrong. Capitalism is about maximizing your capital returns. Basically not working while getting paid as long as you have the capital for it. A little bit like communism, soviet style. Ask GW Bush, he is a typical capitalist. No wonder all the conservatives on this board worship and envy him. This is paradise, their last stop on their conservative journey. Making millions without working, winning the lottery. Islamists have their virgins, Capitalists have the "working poors". A perfect world. Oh the choices. What a blithering twit! or What a blithering <deleted>! As defined in the American Heritage dictionary: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...ntry/capitalism Capitalism is: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. As for your blathering about capitalists having working poor, all I can say is what utter crap! Everything is a cyclic and related. Investors create jobs. Jobs create opportunities for income for lower, middle and upper class workers who do not own their own business. Investors can and should reap some of the rewards because they assume the financial risk. Workers save/invest also, and also spend their income on other businesses. The only thing common between free republics, free market capitalist economies, dictatorships and communist empires are that money, power and politics inevitably leads to a certain amount of corruption. That is present everywhere, from the US to Japan, China to France, Iran to Scandinavia. At least in free markets and free republics, by and large the vast majority of the population is free to choose their own destiny, as opposed to places like cold war Russia and present day Iran and North Korea, where one's destiny and very existence is dictated and controlled by an out of control minority government. Just face facts. You are a Communist. You hate Bush. None of your arguments about freedom of speech or free market economy make any sense when mixed in with your "Socialist Worker" mentality and drivel. Why is it that something about words like free, freedom and capitalism are more like unwanted stones in your shoe than part of life's values?
February 7, 200620 yr Author I think there is a broad misconception between Capitalism and free market. Two different animals. Many times people confuse one for the other. Capitalism per se always lead to facism. Free Market is just one condition to ease Capitalism, but it's not necessary. Capitalism can also exist under a non-free market. Also the definition of free market is an open debate in itself. And if you believe in the "invisible hand", you might as well believe in Santa Clause Since pre-Roman times goods have been bought and sold on markets throughout Europe, and local trading networks have enabled goods to make there way onto European markets from places as far away as China. Much of the expansion of the Roman Empire was at least partially driven by the desire to obtain control of the sources of goods being traded with the Romans (such as Tin and cement), and thus obtain these goods more cheaply by cutting out the middle-men.The Bruges Bourse opened in 1309 as a place for commodity traders to meet and trade their goods. In the sixteenth century, merchants of Antwerp developed the idea of shareholdership, to facilitate the building of larger ships, and to make possible more extensive trade......" So you European lot gave us capitalism.Shame on you. Mercantilism is the precursor of Capitalism. It lead to many wars and depression.
February 7, 200620 yr And Butterfly an active participant in the equities market - the supreme form of Capitalism. So mixed-up & confused you are...
February 7, 200620 yr And Butterfly an active participant in the equities market - the supreme form of Capitalism.So mixed-up & confused you are... Walking contradiction!!!
February 8, 200620 yr Author And Butterfly an active participant in the equities market - the supreme form of Capitalism. you are confused and jealous It's a contradiction indeed, but maybe not. I am just abusing a system that is there to be abused. Why wait and see while you can participate to the burnout of capitalism And since I am not going to change the world, why not participate to the fuk fest and have fun with it
February 9, 200620 yr B.o.T. (I hope). Cindy Sheehan is trying to be today, what Jane Fonda was during the Vietnam conflict. She got a taste of the spot-light during her protest outside Bush's ranch and now she's addicted to it. Andy Warhol said that everyone will get their 15 minutes of fame (or words to that effect). Sheehan got her 15 minutes and is desperate for more. No doubt she has book and movie deals in the works. The more exposure she gets, the better the offers will be. That could backfire on her though especially if she continues her loonie escapades with people like Chavez. As for her latest stunt. There are specific rules about what you can and can't do in the Congress building. I'm not sure if they apply all the time, or just during State of the Union address's. What Sheehan tried to do was a violation of those rules. Anyone who doesn't think she went there planning on disrupting the president's speech is naive, or worse. Funny how almost all of the coverage and debate is about Sheehan, and very little about the other woman who was ejected for wearing a shirt that was supportive of the troops. Goes to show how biased the mainstream media in the US is.
February 9, 200620 yr Author To be honnest, I like the idea of free market in its purest form, but I don't like capitalism in its current state. What I don't like is the glorification of it. Same with communism, except communism is a better idea, at least on paper, so the glorification of it could be justified. Both system are built in such a manner that they lead to self-destruction at the end, so no matter what, we are fuked B.o.T. (I hope).Cindy Sheehan is trying to be today, what Jane Fonda was during the Vietnam conflict. She got a taste of the spot-light during her protest outside Bush's ranch and now she's addicted to it. Sure, but that doesn't make her message any less valuable. Anyone who doesn't think she went there planning on disrupting the president's speech is naive, or worse. I doubt that Bush would have been disrupted by this. He just doesn't care. He so ill-fitted in that role, it must hard for him to pretend all the time. He is just doing it for making his daddy proud. So far it has worked. Bush Sr would be remembered as a great president despite a failed presidency while Jr would be remembered as a total failure.
February 9, 200620 yr Author Boon Mee here is your chance to meet her http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=6034322259
February 9, 200620 yr Boon Mee here is your chance to meet her http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=6034322259 Well, $900.00 being the latest bid on e-bay for her 'services' is a bit rich for me! Besides, this disclaimer kinda puts me off!: Note: Because of the obvious potential for right-wing shenanigans, Cindy retains the right to refuse to speak to groups antithetical to her cause or offensive to her beliefs." Boy, is that a contradiction in terms for a 'progressive' or not!
February 9, 200620 yr Boon Mee here is your chance to meet her http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=6034322259 Well, $900.00 being the latest bid on e-bay for her 'services' is a bit rich for me! Besides, this disclaimer kinda puts me off!: Note: Because of the obvious potential for right-wing shenanigans, Cindy retains the right to refuse to speak to groups antithetical to her cause or offensive to her beliefs." Boy, is that a contradiction in terms for a 'progressive' or not! Gotta be a gag auction! I almost sh*t myself laughing when I read the ad, especially when I saw where the net proceeds go. The mission statement for this group is obvious propaganda: http://www.yearlykos.org/Mission_Statement , especially when taking into account that anyone associated with the group is either a Bush-hater or the far left of the left wing. No less that "el-corrupto" "king of the hypocrites" himself, Harry Reid, has been invited to be the keynote speak of their annual convention. One would have a harder time finding more quacks in migrating flock of canadian mallards than at this convention.
February 11, 200620 yr B.o.T. (I hope). Cindy Sheehan is trying to be today, what Jane Fonda was during the Vietnam conflict. She got a taste of the spot-light during her protest outside Bush's ranch and now she's addicted to it. Sure, but that doesn't make her message any less valuable. I disagree. Her addiction to the spotlight, and her increasingly loonie statements and appearances are causing the original message to be lost. When she shows up in the media with people like Chavez, making derogatory comments about Bush, her original anti-war message is lost and the story is about how whacky she is getting. Anyone who doesn't think she went there planning on disrupting the president's speech is naive, or worse. I doubt that Bush would have been disrupted by this. Bush, whether you like or hate him, is a seasoned politician. I would hardly expect him to be distracted by this, but it would have distracted the media and focused attention on Sheehan instead of the SOTU speech. Every camera in the place would have been zoomed in on her, and the media would have spent more time guaging the reactions of the people around her than on the speech itself. She would have become the story and I think that was her intent.
February 11, 200620 yr Author I disagree. Her addiction to the spotlight, and her increasingly loonie statements and appearances are causing the original message to be lost. When she shows up in the media with people like Chavez, making derogatory comments about Bush, her original anti-war message is lost and the story is about how whacky she is getting. True, but the true meaning of her message stands. Her being histerical can be "justified" here. I doubt that Bush would have been disrupted by this. Bush, whether you like or hate him, is a seasoned politician. I would hardly expect him to be distracted by this, but it would have distracted the media and focused attention on Sheehan instead of the SOTU speech. Every camera in the place would have been zoomed in on her, and the media would have spent more time guaging the reactions of the people around her than on the speech itself. She would have become the story and I think that was her intent. Very true but his speech is the same old boring diatribe we have been listening to for the last 4 years. At least with the protest, it would have focus the news media on the validity of his speech. Since he keeps rambling the same propaganda and non-sense, it was a non-event in the first place. What else was new with the SOTU ? nothing
February 11, 200620 yr Very true but his speech is the same old boring diatribe we have been listening to for the last 4 years. At least with the protest, it would have focus the news media on the validity of his speech. Since he keeps rambling the same propaganda and non-sense, it was a non-event in the first place. What else was new with the SOTU ? nothing I didn't pay attention to his speech, expecting it to be similar to the Throne Speeches our politicians spout every year. How ever, the State of the Union address is a constitutionally mandated speech that every president is obligated to give. Whether or not you like Bush, he has to give this speech. They (the Americans) even created special rules of conduct for the congress to ensure there wouldn't be disruptions during this event. The right to protest is protected (as Free Speech, more or less) by the constitution, but there is a time and place to do it, and times and places you shouldn't (or can't) do it. Like those who used Coretta King's funeral to make political comments, Sheehan could have shown off her shirt at a different place and time, but tried instead to do it in an inappropriate place at an inappropriate time.
Create an account or sign in to comment