weiser says:
============
Just look at places like
Denmark, where the marginal tax rates are above 50%, and half the
nation is
on the dole, paid by the other half.
==========

why then do the danes keep electing governments that support what you
purport to be the case? have you ever been there? great education
system. great healthcare system. great elder care. clean streets.
relatively few ghettos. all in all a pretty awesome place to live.

frtzw906

weiser says:
======
Giving money to the poor is like giving a fish to a hungry man. He'll
eat
the fish and be hungry again in six hours
..====

give a corporation a subsidy, and it will only operate and provide job
creation so long as the subsidy is in place. as soon as the subsidy
stops, the firm packs up and moves to mexico.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Once the Creationists acknowledge and explain fossil evidence I might
listen to them. Until such time, it is a fairy tale. The Evolutionists
at least have a plausible explanation.

Explain then, how it is that there are no as-yet proven sub-species links
between fossil record iterations of similar creatures, much less entirely
different species?

One can say that eohippus is the progenitor of the horse because of gross
similarities, but one cannot show how eohippus became horse through an
unbroken line of incremental evolutionary change in the fossil record. How
did the three toes become one hoof, and where are the intervening
proto-horses that demonstrate the incremental change?

While biblical Creationists of strict belief may actually subscribe to the
"God created heaven and earth in seven days" dogma, creationism as a
scientific theory is somewhat more flexible, both in process and timeline.

There are interesting facts of physics, such as the properties of freezing
water, that some believe are so unlikely to have occurred by random chance,
statistically speaking, particularly when combined with other, equally
unlikely physical properties of matter, that it is mathematically impossible
(or at least extremely improbable) that there is NOT some "intelligent
design" at work.

Whether or not God is the agent, and whether or not He popped everything
into existence during a long workweek is less important than examining the
inconsistencies found in physics and history that seem to defy random chance
as the organizing force of nature.

Teaching children about this disparity of thought is hardly propagandizing
them with "fairly tales." It's merely introducing them to other arguments
and teaching them to think critically by including *all* possible theses,
rather than excluding those that seem at first blush to be improbable.

Given the statistical unlikelyhood of life arising in the Universe by random
chance, theories of intelligent design certainly deserve discussion at
least.

And even if creationism is simply wrong, nothing is gained by censoring
mention of it. In fact, I argue that the very best way to destroy myths is
to hold them up to the withering light of reason. You can't do that if you
refuse to even mention the subject. That's as small-minded as a theocracy
that censors evidence that the earth revolves around the sun.

More information is never a bad thing, particularly for children who are
learning how to reason.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 12-Feb-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.

Where the teacher goes is irrelevant - the students aren't going
anywhere and will grow up at a disadvantage compared to those
in other countries. US children already trail the rest of OECD
countries in academic standings (particularly maths and science)
so any further degradation in knowledge and skill will make it
worse.

Since when does providing students with more information rather than less
make things worse?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Christianity has another theory called Creation, also lots of info, not
all supported so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

It's not a theory, it's a doctrine. It has been proven - to be false.

Actually, you're wrong. At best, the classic "God created the world in seven
days" version of creationism has been debunked. The theory of intelligent
design of the Universe has most emphatically NOT been proven to be false.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

China won't go to war with us,

They don't have to - they just have to call in the debt.

How do you propose that they collect it if we decide to repudiate it, as
virtually every other nation on the planet that owes the US money has done?

Do you think they will go to war with us?

Demanding payment is rather different from receiving payment. Just ask any
bill collection agency.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

weiser says:
=========
"If you have two operating feet, get up and walk
out of the ghetto.
=========

did i say something about a ghetto here?

and, frankly, i don't give a **** about what the people in kansas want
to teach their kids. but from where i sit, their actions and similar
"ban the books" from literature classes actions in the US bible belt
look awfully similar to what the taliban was up to. great! have your
regious freedom (if that's what you think it is)! i think it's a
purposeful dumbing down of your children.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If Canada wants to legalize heroin poppy production, that heroin is likely
to find its way to the US. We have every right to use our economic and
political influence to prevent that.

Why don't you just use your border to do that?

Because it's a long and rugged border, and it's probably easier to use
economic and political pressure to get the offenders to fix the problem
themselves. That way we don't waste a lot of our money trying to compensate
for their policies.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, I merely point out that there is no such thing as the "Christian Right"
as an organization. It's a sound-bite label attached to conservatives in
general that is used as a device of demonization by the left.

Well, sweety, there's no such thing as an organized left either.

Thank God for that! I rejoice every day that the left can't get it's sh*t
together.

Yet
the right condemns that invisible group as well.

Well, we condemn the political philosophy and its practitoners, and find it
unnecessary to label them beyond "Leftists."

That says everything anyone needs to know about them.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Not true, but even it it were true, so what? Oil is a strategic resource.
Every nation on the planet wants to secure strategic resources for its own
use. That's the nature of nations. That's the history of the planet.

That's why Japan trashed US bases in Pearl Harbor and the Philippines
in Dec, 1941. I suppose you think that's justified.

In their view it was. Unfortunately, they grossly miscalculated our ability
and willingness to defend our resources. That's why, in fact, we intend to
maintain military superiority over every other nation on earth, no matter
what...so that we have the capacity to destroy any nation that tries to
invade us to appropriate our resources. And by having that capacity, and by
being willing to project military force outside our national boundaries at a
moment's notice, we deter attempts by others to use military force, not only
against the US, but against our allies. Thus, we rarely have to exercise
military force, because the threat is usually sufficient.

Every once and a while, however, some tyrant or terrorist somewhere gets it
in his pinhead that he can challenge our military without consequence and we
have to go exterminate them.

Such events are rare, but also serve as object lessons to other wannabe
tyrants not to screw with the US or its allies, because we can, and will,
kick their asses right back into the stone age if necessary.

Peace through superior firepower.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

weiser:
=========
Don't discount the effectiveness of insurgents.
============

shouldn't that read "freedom fighters"?

frtzw906

weiser on:
========
theories of intelligent design
==========

look, you seem to know something about this. at some level of inquiry,
it may make for an interesting debate.

but you likely heard the kansas school board officials as i did. most
(all?) of them wouldn't recognize theories of intelligent design if
they jumped up and bit them in the ass! as you well know, the agenda
was not about broadening the intellectual base. this was about
religious dogma.

if the people of that community think religion is important, i say go
ahead and have religion classes where you can promote this doctrine. it
very clearly does not belong in the science class.

when it is accepted as part of the science canon (determined by the
science community), then by all means. I don't think your local school
board officials who have a background in, say, used car sales, farming,
insurance, or whatever, are in any position to determine what is or is
not "scientific". next we'll be asking them to write revisionist
history for the history classes. recommend projects for shop class,
perhaps? decide which language ought to be taught in computer classes?

frtzw906

Melissa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Tinkerntom,

On 12 Feb 2005 15:48:41 -0800, you wrote:

Dear Melissa, you don't think you can come in to this frackus, and
not get involved with this thread do you. You have been very
helpful to me in the past, and I certainly want to express my
appreciation,...

You're welcome! Unfortunately, my efforts to help you have not yet
yielded positive results. ;-) Oh well.

...however there are no free passes that I have heard about.

And so am I to understand that you'll enlighten me as to what I now
owe, and to whom?

Especially if you're going to use those big words around us simple
black and white types, that are just oozing with
Patriotic/nationalistic pride. Then you cuddle up with the boys
from up north and across the sea. She must be from out on the right
coast!

Actually, I've lived on both the left and right coasts; currently on
the left coast again (from whence I originated, originally).
Apparently, your ability to perceive one's point of origin, and how
that may or may not affect one's ideas, is severely limited.

But being from the right coast...

See above.

If you can answer that for me I will give you a pass on the rest of
what you said. "The Tinkering One", TnT

Is it really up to you to bestow, or not, a "pass" for anyone but
your
very own self?

Now I have some outfitting to do in the cockpit of one of my boats,
and since I might find that even more interesting than continuing
this discussion at this moment, I'll be going now. Would that be
acceptable to you? ;-)

- --
Melissa

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCDppcKgHVMc6ouYMRAowTAJ4m3XxuDgL48Rt8AbxRh1 BRyFiJzACeKKPL
54bgb79SY/QlgZEtgxNqFKY=
=SlAs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Coming from you, this is originally originated redundancy. But I am
sure that working on the outfitting in the cockpit of one of your boats
would be much more interesting than this discussion, and will help
clear your head! So as far as I am concerned I will go ahead and issue
you a pass, though you failed to answer my question. You'll just owe me
one! Any passes from the others, you will have to work out with them.

To understand that you are back on the left coast, and that you
originated there, explains other phenomenon in some of your posting. I
am learning to not assume, though it seems that some recent stories I
heard indicated that you were on the Right coast. In fact I saw a web
picture of you launching into surf, with following story that would
indicate you were in the Oregon/Washington coast area, and known as
some sort of crazy lady paddler. But then maybe we are all crazy, so
what does that prove.

Well enjoy your outfitting, talk to you again, TnT
TnT

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Since when does providing students with more information rather than less
make things worse?

Unless you're providing more time to teach, they are getting less. You can't
teach two things in the space of one. Creationism also blinds them from the
truth.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Totalitarian capitalistic country

There were several in South America years ago. the US
supported them because they were capitalistic and ignored
the grotesque human rights abuses that took place. Time
to pull out your history books.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Thus, we rarely have to exercise
military force, because the threat is usually sufficient.

Name one other country that has been involved in more wars and
invasions than the US since WWII.

If you were rarely exercising military force, we wouldn't be so
concerned. In fact the Yanks use military force at the drop of
a hat and for flimsy reasons. E.g. You toppled a democratically
elected government in Honduras for the sole purpose of maintaining
the profits of a fruit company owned by Dulles and his cronies.

However, maintaining a force to defend ones territory and using that
force to defend extraterritorial interests are two very different
things. America imports almost all its oil - defending that is
not possible without violating international law. Better to
wean yourself off the stuff than wave guns around.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

science-fiction book

You get your information from science fiction? No wonder you
don't understand anything in the real world.

BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


After all, nations (including the
entirely of Europe) who owe the US commonly default on repayment of their
debts.

Name one country in Europe that has defaulted on a loan to the US since WWII.

Or, maybe we'll call in
all those WWI and WWII debts that Europe owes us, with interest.

When did those countries sign up for a loan? It was a gift.

You make this stuff up as you go along and you expect us to take
you seriously?

Do you think that either Japan or China is willing to engage in nuclear war
with the US in order to try to collect those debts? I think not.

If they call in the loans and the US defaults, the economy goes down the toilet.
Since you live on debt, you'll be broke and since you import more than you
export, you have little useful collateral. The Euro is stronger than the
US dollar and is backed by more people. Start thinking more globally and
stop thinking so insularly.

Mike

BCITORGB wrote:
Tnt says:
========
Totalitarian Capitalist ?????????
=========

Nazi Germany springs to mind. Chile in a previous iteration.

Although, given the nature of this thread, I'm going to quibble with
you a bit. I'll contend that so long as nations confer welfare (both
individual and corporate), there exist absolutely NO capitalist
economies.

Like communism, capitalism is an interesting academic concept. I'm
reminded of my college physics texts which prefaced questions with
"assuming no friction" in order to make the theoretical concepts
easier
to comprehend. In the case of both communism and capitalism, if you
could preface your explanations with "assuming no human avarice, ....
oh hell, let's keep it simple: assumimg no common human traits".

I find it interesting that you should label Canada as DS, and the USA
as DC. What lead you to that conclusion? In your mind, how is the USA
more capitalist than Germany?

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++=

Oh yeah, I forgot about the NAZI, that means National Capitalistic
party! No wait, I am wrong, that was National Socialist Party. Sorry
they don't fill the bill.

Regarding Chile, I spent way to much time in Mexico, a Latin American
country, to believe you would put Chile forward as a defining example
of a Totalitarian Capitalistic country. Granted the beggar selling
pencils on the street could be considered a free Enterprise
entrepreneur, but hardly a capitalist. Judging from that, even N.Korea
could be a capitalistic country. Sorry again, you've got to do better
that that.

Regarding Canada as Ds, Us as DC, and Germany as DS. Maybe we get to
the heart of the difference of definitions. The D part has to how we
select or arrive at our leaders, and we seem to be in agreement here
that Democracy and elections are the preferable process. When we look
at the S or C distinction, is where we differ. I see it as more than
the production of profit aspect, but also the distribution of profit as
well. In a C environment the individual produces and determines the
distribution of the proceeds of the production. In a S environment, the
individual produces, and the government determines the distribution.
Now there are degrees of involvement of the individual and the
government in both production and distribution. Countries with more
involvement are defined as Socialistic, and countries with less, as
Capitalistic.

In the US we started out as the great experiment in capitalism, after a
shaky start at communism in some of the early colonies. Did not take
them long to figure out that would not work, so they issued everyone a
plot of land where they could raise their own produce, and sale any
excess for a profit. The Jamestown colony started prospering after
that. Not all the colonies were set up the same. However after the War
of Independence, and other struggles, they established the idea of
capitalism as being central in our country.

Then as a new country, they found they needed to raise taxes to support
a Dept of Defense, and then other necessary Depts. Finding out how
easy it is to raise taxes, and spend the money for our good, various
poiticians got the idea this was a good thing. Which brings us up to
today. There are some that want more federal involvement, hence more
taxes, and there are some who want less. Less fed, and less taxes. The
first are social liberals, and the second is capitalist conservatives.

There is no pure capitalism economy, and you are correct in asserting
this. But there are those of us who would like to keep it as
capitalistic as we can. All politicians love to collect money to spend
on their pet projects, and some are quite expensive. We can only hope
they are necessary, and that our politician is watching out for our
best interest.

I could consider myself more of a libertarian, though that doesn't hold
much clout in any government by definition. So you compromise. TnT

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Welfare is a drain on the system consisting
of money given to people who produce nothing in return.

Like the military-industrial complex.

it places our nation at
strategic risk for us to be dependent on other nations for our basic food
supplies.

But not oil. Bizarre contradiction.

Government protection of agriculture merely
ensures that American farmers don't go out of business because of low crop
prices.

Even if it means that the products are simply stored and never consumed?
That's not support, that's corporate welfare.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
Snip...

There is no National Guard in this country.

Nothing to guard maybe, that anyone would invade to take from you. And
if they did, you could always fall back on Nato or UN to intervene.


It's a US thing.

Maybe lots to guard that many would love to have. And Luckily for you,
your neighbor to the south is content to have you as the neighbor to
the north. That's a US thing also!

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

As far as the scientific method, sometimes it was not so
scientific

Don't confuse the scientific method for the nonsense that some people
practice.

Mike

Therein lies the problem, Evolutionism is based on an underlying
philosophy called Uniformatarianism, not a scientific method at all.
Just the assumtion that processes follow one after the other. Makes
understanding thing much easier. The only problem is that the evidence
does not bare this out. The uniformatarian scientist just went out and
found info that supported there position, and ignored info that did
not. Sort of like picking yourself up by your boot straps. And hence
uniformatarianism has fallen into disrepute in many quarters, and the
superstructure of evolution abandoned by many scientist.

Another philosophy has become more acceptable recently in the
scientific community called Catastrophism. This basically says that
cataclismic events occurred in the course of history that completely
changed the course of history. Radical events and elements have been
injected into the course of history that have determined where we are
today. These events would make following any uniform record impossible.
Hence though the dinosaur records are interesting, they are not
complete, and cannot be relied on for scientific information. Even such
test procedures as C-14 dating etc would not be considered reliable.

The bottom line is that what we "know" is a pitance, and a little early
even yet for making concluding scientific proof of process. TnT

Michael Daly wrote:
On 12-Feb-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.

Where the teacher goes is irrelevant - the students aren't going
anywhere and will grow up at a disadvantage compared to those
in other countries. US children already trail the rest of OECD
countries in academic standings (particularly maths and science)
so any further degradation in knowledge and skill will make it
worse.

Mike

Maybe, though the typical Christian School educated student scores way
above average on SAT. It is the public schools sector that teaches all
this enlightened scientific stuff to the exclusion of the Christian
perspective, that drags down the test results! You do the math. TnT

Michael Daly wrote:
On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Totalitarian capitalistic country

There were several in South America years ago. the US
supported them because they were capitalistic and ignored
the grotesque human rights abuses that took place. Time
to pull out your history books.

Mike

Banana Republics, and nice way to say fake government, no doubt. But
again I don't buy the stretch that they represented any sort of
capitalism.

Obviously this end of the spectrum is harder to find because the two
principles are diametrically opposed. Capitalism emphasizes the
individual. Totalitarian denies the individual. So their possible
coexistance is fleeting at best. Even a benevolent king, would still
controll all the assets, and hence not really capitalism.

On the other end of the spectrum the situation can be more compatible,
and accebtable if the totalitarian is benevolent, such as some
constitutional monarchies where I believe the king is trully concerned
for their subjects. It can be hell where the leader is not so nice.

Inbetween there are many shades and colors. However I still maintain
that the political/economical factors are interrelated, and can not be
considered in a vacuum. TnT

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If you twits would quit letting terrorists in, we might not have to.

None of the Sept 11 terrorists came from Canada. The claim that
Canada lets in terrorists is absurd.

We may not have utterly unguarded borders with Canada or
Mexico, but not only CAN you travel freely from state to state in the US,
you have an absolute constitutional right to do so, regardless of what any
particular state may say.

You don't seem to know the difference between countries and states. Bizarre.

Which is fine, except that socialized medicine has been proven to be a death
sentence for the seriously ill because underpaid, overworked doctors have no
reason to extend themselves and because health care is free, people with
minor complaints feel free to clog the system with petty complaints.

Total bull****, seen from my position as a person living in a country with
government provided health care.

fund public transit.

So do we.

What Americans call public transit is a joke in the rest of the world.

When you give subsidies to companies to help them succeed, excel and become
larger, the immediate return is more jobs that the poor can take, thus
becoming productive and self-sufficient members of society rather than
leeches.

But the inevitable outcome is actually a transfer of wealth from the poor
to the rich.

Corporate subsidies prop up ineffective and obsolete companies. US steel
companies are a perfect example. They saw the competition as the offshore
companies and got government support. Instead of modernizing and competing,
the share holders got rich from the subsidies and the companies wallowed in
inefficiency. Now it turns out that those American steel companies that
were not subsidized are the real threat to the subsidized ones. BUt the
old companies still can't compete because they are more obsolete than
ever. Full analysis in The Economist (www.economist.com) 'coupla years ago.


Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

why then do the danes keep electing governments that support what you
purport to be the case?

Actually, the Danes just re-elected a right-wing majority for their
second term.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I argue that the very best way to destroy myths is
to hold them up to the withering light of reason.

The schools are not holding them up to the light. They are
presenting them as a valid theory.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

get the offenders to fix the problem
themselves

But they're only offenders in your eyes. Extraterritorial enforcement
of laws is against international law.

If Canada decriminalizes pot possession, it has no direct effect on the
US. However, they keep getting cranky and threatening every time the
topic comes up. Most countries treat drug addiction as a medical problem;
the US holds to obsolete ideas about it being a criminal problem. Fix
it in your own country and stop trying to export your backward problems.

Mike

TnT wrote:
=============
Oh yeah, I forgot about the NAZI, that means National Capitalistic
party! No wait, I am wrong, that was National Socialist Party. Sorry
they don't fill the bill
============

Are you always taken in so easily by labels? Time for the history books
again. Do the names Farben and Krupp mean anything to you? You're not
about to tell that they were government owned concerns hiding under the
guise of private capital are you?

frtzw906
++++++++++

TnT says:
===========
Regarding Chile... Granted the beggar selling
pencils on the street could be considered a free Enterprise
entrepreneur,
===========

Beggars in the street! What are you talking about. Does the word MINING
meaning anything to you?

frtzw906

TnT says:
==============
In a C environment the individual produces and determines the
distribution of the proceeds of the production. In a S environment, the
individual produces, and the government determines the distribution
===============

I hope you'll share that information with the thousands of people who
hold shares in Siemen, Mercedes, etc... I expect a massive sell-off of
those shares once they hear your news!

TnT, have you ever been to Europe?

frtzw906

TnT says:
============
Countries with more
involvement are defined as Socialistic, and countries with less, as
Capitalistic.
==========

that's not particularly helpful. where do you draw the line?

frtzw906

TnT says:
========
There are some that want more federal involvement, hence more
taxes, and there are some who want less. Less fed, and less taxes. The
first are social liberals, and the second is capitalist conservatives.
========

A where do huge firms who hold out their hands for corporate welfare
fit into your scheme? those would be, by your nomenclature, those who
want lower taxes for corporations, but more federal involvement by way
of subsidies, tariffs, environmental dispensations. you'll need to find
a spot for them.

frtzw906

TnT says:
==========
All politicians love to collect money to spend
on their pet projects, and some are quite expensive.
==============

i'm guessing the war in iraq is one of those pet projects

frtzw906

TnT says:
==========
I could consider myself more of a libertarian
========
hey, i considered myself one as well... then i came to my senses... the
world does not work that way.

ayn rand makes for a good read (or not), but it is pure fiction.

frtzw906

TnT says:
=========
Maybe, though the typical Christian School educated student scores way
above average on SAT. It is the public schools sector that teaches all
this enlightened scientific stuff to the exclusion of the Christian
perspective, that drags down the test results! You do the math. TnT
=========

No, you do the math. most private schools (christian included) feel no
need to enroll the seriously disadvantaged (physical or mental). those
students are left to the public schools.

the meager tax dollars allocated to the public schools must serve to
educate the entire spectrum of students. you're the entrepreneur: you
do the math.

btw, please check the math and science score of most christian schools:
they are atrocious!

historical sidebar: so long as the catholic church had a stranglehold
of the curricula of irish schools, ireland scored among the poorest of
all western nations in math and science. the irish are now (perhaps
because they've seen the light through membership in the EU) somewhat
less enamoured with the catholic church. Hallelujah, their math and
science score are just fine, thank you very much!

frtzw906

TnT says:
========
Banana Republics, and nice way to say fake government, no doubt. But
again I don't buy the stretch that they represented any sort of
capitalism
=========

then what was United Fruit company? a hippie collective? a kibbutz?

frtzw906

Mike says:
==========
Actually, the Danes just re-elected a right-wing majority for their
second term
========

right. but as we all know, "right-wing" by danish standards hardly
equates with right-wing in the USA.

that's why i find it so droll when republican americans get ecstatic
about CDU gains in germany, the rising poll numbers for dutch
right-wing parties etc etc.... they have no clue that even though they
are "right-wing" by european standards, they are a very FAR cry from
anything called right-wing in the USA. Kerry, for example, might have
made for a very right-wing euro politician.


frtzw906

TnT says:
=============
Oh yeah, I forgot about the NAZI, that means National Capitalistic
party! No wait, I am wrong, that was National Socialist Party. Sorry
they don't fill the bill.
==============

you might want to tell that to the thousands of trade unionists jailed
by the NAZIs.

i suspect you don't know why they were jailed do you? they were jailed
for actively supporting the socialist party. and, also, for actively
campaigning against the nazi party.

do you have any idea why they opposed the nazi party? for starters,
because the nazi party supported the huge capitalist concerns (of
course, only for nation strategic purposes, to use komrad weiser's
paradigm). in many ways, the nazi party acted against the interests of
the german proletariat in the same way the american government ignored
the interests of ordinary latin american citizens while propping up
american corporate interests (of course, purely for national strategic
reasons).

i'm telling you TnT, the founders of your once-proud republic must be
turning over in their graves... so much promise, and it has come to
this.

now do you get the problem with labels?

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
===========
Regarding Chile... Granted the beggar selling
pencils on the street could be considered a free Enterprise
entrepreneur,
===========

Beggars in the street! What are you talking about. Does the word
MINING
meaning anything to you?

frtzw906

NAZI Germany, and Banana Republics with Government sanction, bought and
paid for National Economic Enterprises, whether mining, oil, or
armament factories, hardly make a capitalistic economy. Granted there
may be some oligarchs that profit hansomly, but always at the expense
of the masses, who eventually, usually pay with their blood. Think
Dauchau!

Have you been in the stinkhole of Socialism so long you can't smell the
difference any longer? Besides see the difference between Capitalism
and Nazism. You begin to sound like Ward Churchill as well. "We in USA
deserved 9/11!" TnT