Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » The real evil in this world!
| The real evil in this world! [message #55622] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 06:05  |
Jimmy
Messages: 1
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
have been afforded to them.
This influence has existed to one degree or another for decades. Yet it was
another Supreme Court decision, handed down in 1976, that allowed these super-citizens
to establish a strangle-hold on our politics and government institutions.
The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen
In 1976, the case "Buckley v. Valeo" came before the Supreme Court. Senator
James Buckley, former Senator and Presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy,
and several others had filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) and the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund Act. Among the defendants were Francis Valeo, Secretary of
the Senate and ex officio member of the newly-created Federal Election Commission,
as well as the Commission itself.
The final Supreme Court decision split a number of legal hairs. The decision
upheld the constitutionality of limiting political contributions to candidates,
and the disclosure and record-keeping requirements established by FECA. The
aspects of FECA deemed unconstitutional, however, became the basis for the
supremacy of the super-citizen. In short, the Court decided that limiting
the amount of money a candidate could spend was a violation of the First
Amendment. In other words, the spending of campaign money was equated with
the right of free speech.
On the surface, the decision makes sense. Because so much of modern political
campaigning involves television and radio advertisements, direct mailing
of campaign literature, extensive travel and lodging and staff payrolls,
and because all these things cost money, a limitation on campaign spending
necessarily restricts the ability of a candidate to practice free speech
in the political realm.
The danger, of course, was that corporations would take advantage of
the new spending freedoms enjoyed by politicians and flood them with influence-creating
cash. The Court attempted to address this concern by upholding the limits
on contribution amounts, stating that these limitations were the "primary
weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming
from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions."
The Court's attempt to address this concern failed, in no small part
because of the existence of so-called "soft money." Soft money was supposed
to be cash given to political parties for "party-building activities" rather
than for the direct support of candidates and campaigns. Soft money contributions
were not subjected to limitations, allowing super-citizens to flood outrageous
amounts of money into the process. Because the soft-money rules were so vague,
and because soft money contributions were so huge, the money was invariably
directed towards the support of individual candidates. The politicians became
corporate entities, commodities bought and sold by the super-citizens.
The passage in 2002 of the Campaign Reform Act did little to cut into
the massive influence in politics enjoyed by the super-citizens. The Campaign
Reform Act made most soft money contributions illegal but created a loophole
large enough to sail a British tea ship through, with the enshrinement of
527 groups as political entities. 527s are tax-exempt organizations created
to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of political
candidates.
The soft money previously given to political parties goes now to these
groups, and these groups enjoy umbilical connections to the parties and candidates
they work in favor of. In other words, nothing really changed, and the influence
of the super-citizens was undiminished. The Campaign Reform Act also raised
the hard money contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000, thus doubling the
ability of super-citizens to exert direct financial influence upon candidates
and office-holders.
Today, virtually every politician holding national office is financially
beholden to a corporation. Beyond the favorable tax status for corporations
established by these owned politicians, the effects of this ownership are
felt by average citizens every day.
Foreign policy is all too often decided by corporate considerations,
and these decisions often lead to war. The air we breathe, the food we eat
and the water we drink is contaminated by pollutants that corporations are
legally allowed to spew, thanks to the legislative protections created by
corporate-owned politicians. Draconian sentencing rules created by legislators
that incarcerate millions of Americans - think "The War on Drugs" specifically
- have as much to do with the influence of the corporate-controlled prison
industry as with anything else.
This list goes on and on. Super-citizens define our reality by controlling
the information we receive via television, newspaper and radio. Super-citizens
make sure that information casts them in a favorable light. Super-citizens
pound us with advertising and thus maintain the fiction that spending money
on products defines the nature of a person.
The best and brightest are drafted out of law school to work for corporate
defense firms for six-figure salaries, thus ensuring that super-citizens
enjoy a level of legal defense not available to anyone else. Many of these
corporate attorneys graduate to the bench, where they extend the influence
of super-citizens across all levels of the judicial branch.
More than anything else, however, super-citizens control the ways and
means of government at every level. They bought it, they own it, and they
make sure it does their bidding. The needs, requirements and best interests
of the average citizen do not enter into the equation.
Created Equal
Arguments can be made that corporations are good for the economy and
the country. They can get things done with a speed and efficiency not often
found in the bureaucracies of government. When the country had to get itself
ready to fight World War II, for one example, it was the industrial and manufacturing
corporations that produced the means to achieve victory beyond anyone's expectations.
In the final analysis, however, the influence held by these entities
is antithetical to the fundamental ideals of the nation. We are not all created
equal, and within that inequality lies the potential for enormous evil. Consider
the case of I.G. Farben, the industrial giant that was the financial core
of the Nazi regime. Farben produced the gas used in the concentration camps,
and made lucrative use of slave labor in the camps. Before the war, Farben
worked hand-in-hand with a number of powerful American corporations, the
most prominent of which was Standard Oil.
In the aftermath of World War II, the crimes committed by Farben were
considered so enormous that many wanted the corporation to be utterly destroyed.
Instead, Farben was split into several smaller entities, several of which
still exist. Millions of Americans purchase aspirin from Bayer, a company
that was once part of Farben. Commercials for BASF tell us that company makes
the products we buy better, but do not tell us that BASF was once part of
Farben. It speaks to the power enjoyed by corporations that Farben, the company
that forced concentration camp laborers to manufacture the Zyklon-B used
to exterminate them, and which was the backbone of Nazi financial power,
was not destroyed out of hand once the war was over. Farben is still with
us. Its charter has merely been changed.
Are all corporations on the moral level of I.G. Farben? Certainly not.
Many corporations work for the public good, and many that work for their
own enrichment do not necessarily undermine the country and its principles.
But some do, and exist beyond punishment or account.
The potential for evil is certainly there when super-citizens exist above
the law. When the New York Times reviewed the book The Crime and Punishment
of I.G. Farben, it observed that the story of Farben "Forces one to consider
the possibility that when corporate evil reaches a certain status, it simply
cannot be defeated."
In the end, the existence of incredibly powerful entities that enjoy
the status of citizens demote the vast majority of average citizens to second-class
status. If the ideals we hold sacred have any truth to them, if the myths
we sleep by have any basis in reality, such a division is intolerable and
must be changed. "All men are created equal" once excluded vast swaths of
Americans from their basic rights. Battles were fought to change that. Today,
a battle to realign the balance of power between the citizen and the super-citizen
must also be fought. It must be won.Neil, you have good taste. Fat Tire is a fine Colorado beer from New
Belgium Brewery in Fort Collins.
http://www.newbelgium.com/beers_ft.php
Their neighbor brewery, Odell, makes a really excellent beer called 90
shilling. Highly recommended if you can find it in your locale.
http://www.odellbrewing.com/brew_90.htm
Kim, congrats!
Cheers,
-Jamie K
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Neil wrote:
> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Anybody got a recommendation of a first class beer I should buy a slab (case)
>
> of to celebrate? :o)
>
> I've recently been introduced to Fat Tire Ale, and it's pretty
> good... somewhat reminiscent of Guinness stout in taste, but
> not as heavy or dark. Give it a try if they carry it down there.
> Congrats on the raise! (TODAY is when they'll give you the
> news about the company car: "But Kimmers, how can you bitch
> about this, mate? After all, you just got a nice pay increase
> yesterday!")
>
> :)You can buy one now instead of that extra special beer for your extra coming
money;-)
Erlilo
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:42d50ab5$1@linux...
>
>
> STOP IT!! I WANT ONE!!! ;o)
>Hey Erlilo,
The United States of America is strong enough and secure enough to face
constructive criticism (or praise) any time, anywhere. I don't agree
with any implication that it's appropriate to suppress discussion
because of the terrible actions of a few English criminals.
No country is perfect, but one of the real strengths of the USA is the
ability to speak freely, and point out errors where they may (or may
not) lay. We are a country of opinions, disagreements and noisy
expressions of both.
Being human, sometimes emotion comes into play which is OK. But now and
then it and drowns out logic for a while which is not. Sometimes we have
our episodes of suppression but so far we have been able to shake them off.
We have many great accomplishments as a nation and contributions to the
world in which we take a certain pride, and profound respect for the
accomplishments of other nations. Indeed we owe a debt of gratitude to
the nations who helped us establish our great experiment; the foundation
of thought on which we built our nation; and a long history of
emmigration of people and ideas from all over the world that have helped
us grow and innovate.
We also reserve the right to criticize other nations where they stray,
so it would be hypocritical to not expect criticism from others. We
especially cherish our right to criticize our own government as we each
deem necessary, and to "throw the bums out" periodically.
I appreciate your sincere research into your own family's history and
sacrifice. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Cheers,
-Jamie K
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
erlilo wrote:
> Don, I knew it well that you're not mad at me but feelings for right or
> wrong can often do some stupid behavings all over the world.
> If we don't get sourches from all sides, not only one side, we will grow up
> without wisedom at all in our minds. The documentations I for the most have
> found was not only "made in Europe", there were plenty of American documents
> too. I wanted to find out something from different sides, trying to find
> some understandings. You see, I had to find out why my father had to be
> killed in the second worldwar because of different leaders stupidness and I
> must say I found out a whole lot, as you may have seen with my struggling
> writings here up against the year:-).
>
> Take care, Don
>
> erlilo
>
>
>
> There are
> "DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> skrev i en meddelelse news:42d4682b$1@linux...
>
>>Erling,
>>
>>I appreciate you struggling with english to communicate with me,
>>and I am not mad at you, nor was I accusing Norway of
>>anything.
>>
>>This is simple. I consider it unethical to use the death of innocent
>>people as an opportunity to trash my country. You come visit,
>>I will solidly refute every euro-socialist cliched view you hold of this
>>country, and send you home a better man. You need to stop
>>getting all your info from euro sources...
>>
>>And that is as far as I am going to participate in the act of attacking
>>and defending anyone's country. yours or mine.
>>
>>Be well
>>
>>DC
>>
>>
>>
>>"erlilo" <erlilo@online.no> wrote:
>>
>>>Please, please Don, I am not doing any defence of any terrorism or
>>>terrorists at all, can't you really understand these facts? And I'm not
>>
>>>trying to score any cheap points at all on the London bombing or all the
>>
>>>sivilians that have lost their lifes because of stupid statemen affairs
>>
>>up
>>
>>>against the years. I have just tried to show you an opinion, from outside
>>
>>>America, how the roots to people like these can grow up and hate so much
>>
>>>t
>>
>>
>>
>>hat they are doing these kind of things.
>>
>>>By the way, saw they have arrested someone up in NorthEngland after the
>>
>>>bombs in London earlier today. Hope it's some of the right persons they
>>
>>have
>>
>>>arrested and will find them all.
>>>Michael Moore? you mean that famous American filmmaker that don't like the
>>
>>>American President's behavings and is saying it high and clearly? Sorry
>>
>>to
>>
>>>say, I havn't heard him speaking or seeing any of his films. Have just
>>>read
>>
>>>about him, that he have won big American and international prizes for
>>>works
>>
>>>like "Fahrenheit 9/11". It must have reasons that he have won these high
>>
>>>prizes and I think it can't be for any lies he have told in these films.
>>>
>>>So, yes I did it again Don, but not for the reasons you are throwing at
>>
>>me
>>
>>>here. You see, I don't need any Michael Moore or any President or American
>>
>>>lifestylist to think for me at all.
>>>
>>>Nonsense, accusations, and lies? Have you documentations to stand besides
>>
>>>your speaking here or is it just believings? Sitting nearly three years
>>
>>in
>>
>>>different Scandinavian libraries, doing research for a book about second
>>
>>>worldwar and my father, gave me plenty of documentations about the last
>>
>>>couple of hundred years of wars to stand behind what I'm trying to say
>>>here
>>
>>>about war and terror.
>>>
>>>Sorry to hear that you don't know at all what Norway stands for in
>>>humanity
>>
>>>and political thinking. If it wasn't for me, maybe you didn't had any
>>>knowings about Norway at all? So, I think it's time for you to find out
>>
>>real
>>
>>>documentations and facts about that nation too before throwing out talk
>>
>>>about racism and intolerance that really can be used as a mirror to why
>>
>>the
>>
>>>world have all these kind of problems.
>>>
>>>Take care
>>>
>>>erlilo
>>>
>>>
>>>"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> skrev i en meddelelse news:42d402ed$1@linux...
>>>
>>>>"erlilo" <erlilo@online.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hello again Don,
>>>>>I can see and understand that you don't have understand what I have
>>>>>written
>>>>
>>>>>at all. You have just seen words that you don't like at all, as an
>>>>>patriotic
>>>>
>>>>>American and have gone directly and deeply into your shooting grave,
>>>>>firing
>>>>
>>>>>up at once at all those bastards that's saying "ugly
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55626 is a reply to message #55622] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 07:29  |
HeavyD
Messages: 9
Registered: June 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
xecutive retreats are all tax
> write-offs; the regular citizen, by contrast, pays for their perks with
after-tax
> dollars. When a corporation screws up and destroys an ecosystem with a
toxic
> spill, corporate liability shields protect them from financial and legal
> punishment, and the cost of the clean-up is borne by the tax dollars of
the
> regular citizen.
>
> Today, corporations control almost every aspect of what we see, hear,
> eat, wear and live. Every television news media organization is owned by
> a small handful of corporations, which use these news outlets to filter
out
> information that might be damaging to the parent company. Agriculture in
> America is controlled by a small group of corporations. One cannot drive
> a car, rent a van, buy a house or deliver goods in a business transaction
> without purchasing insurance from a corporation. Getting sick in America
> has become a ruinously expensive experience because corporations now
control
> even the smallest functions of the medical profession, and have turned the
> practice of health care into a for-profit industry.
>
> The influence these super-citizens hold over local, state and national
> politics is the reason why so many privileges have been afforded to them.
> This influence has existed to one degree or another for decades. Yet it
was
> another Supreme Court decision, handed down in 1976, that allowed these
super-citizens
> to establish a strangle-hold on our politics and government institutions.
>
>
> The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen
>
> In 1976, the case "Buckley v. Valeo" came before the Supreme Court.
Senator
> James Buckley, former Senator and Presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy,
> and several others had filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of
the
> Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) and the Presidential Election
> Campaign Fund Act. Among the defendants were Francis Valeo, Secretary of
> the Senate and ex officio member of the newly-created Federal Election
Commission,
> as well as the Commission itself.
>
> The final Supreme Court decision split a number of legal hairs. The
decision
> upheld the constitutionality of limiting political contributions to
candidates,
> and the disclosure and record-keeping requirements established by FECA.
The
> aspects of FECA deemed unconstitutional, however, became the basis for the
> supremacy of the super-citizen. In short, the Court decided that limiting
> the amount of money a candidate could spend was a violation of the First
> Amendment. In other words, the spending of campaign money was equated with
> the right of free speech.
>
> On the surface, the decision makes sense. Because so much of modern
political
> campaigning involves television and radio advertisements, direct mailing
> of campaign literature, extensive travel and lodging and staff payrolls,
> and because all these things cost money, a limitation on campaign spending
> necessarily restricts the ability of a candidate to practice free speech
> in the political realm.
>
> The danger, of course, was that corporations would take advantage of
> the new spending freedoms enjoyed by politicians and flood them with
influence-creating
> cash. The Court attempted to address this concern by upholding the limits
> on contribution amounts, stating that these limitations were the "primary
> weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming
> from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions."
>
> The Court's attempt to address this concern failed, in no small part
> because of the existence of so-called "soft money." Soft money was
supposed
> to be cash given to political parties for "party-building activities"
rather
> than for the direct support of candidates and campaigns. Soft money
contributions
> were not subjected to limitations, allowing super-citizens to flood
outrageous
> amounts of money into the process. Because the soft-money rules were so
vague,
> and because soft money contributions were so huge, the money was
invariably
> directed towards the support of individual candidates. The politicians
became
> corporate entities, commodities bought and sold by the super-citizens.
>
> The passage in 2002 of the Campaign Reform Act did little to cut into
> the massive influence in politics enjoyed by the super-citizens. The
Campaign
> Reform Act made most soft money contributions illegal but created a
loophole
> large enough to sail a British tea ship through, with the enshrinement of
> 527 groups as political entities. 527s are tax-exempt organizations
created
> to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of political
> candidates.
>
> The soft money previously given to political parties goes now to these
> groups, and these groups enjoy umbilical connections to the parties and
candidates
> they work in favor of. In other words, nothing really changed, and the
influence
> of the super-citizens was undiminished. The Campaign Reform Act also
raised
> the hard money contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000, thus doubling the
> ability of super-citizens to exert direct financial influence upon
candidates
> and office-holders.
>
> Today, virtually every politician holding national office is financial
ly
> beholden to a corporation. Beyond the favorable tax status for
corporations
> established by these owned politicians, the effects of this ownership are
> felt by average citizens every day.
>
> Foreign policy is all too often decided by corporate considerations,
> and these decisions often lead to war. The air we breathe, the food we eat
> and the water we drink is contaminated by pollutants that corporations are
> legally allowed to spew, thanks to the legislative protections created by
> corporate-owned politicians. Draconian sentencing rules created by
legislators
> that incarcerate millions of Americans - think "The War on Drugs"
specifically
> - have as much to do with the influence of the corporate-controlled prison
> industry as with anything else.
>
> This list goes on and on. Super-citizens define our reality by
controlling
> the information we receive via television, newspaper and radio.
Super-citizens
> make sure that information casts them in a favorable light. Super-citizens
> pound us with advertising and thus maintain the fiction that spending
money
> on products defines the nature of a person.
>
> The best and brightest are drafted out of law school to work for
corporate
> defense firms for six-figure salaries, thus ensuring that super-citizens
> enjoy a level of legal defense not available to anyone else. Many of these
> corporate attorneys graduate to the bench, where they extend the influence
> of super-citizens across all levels of the judicial branch.
>
> More than anything else, however, super-citizens control the ways and
> means of government at every level. They bought it, they own it, and they
> make sure it does their bidding. The needs, requirements and best
interests
> of the average citizen do not enter into the equation.
>
> Created Equal
>
> Arguments can be made that corporations are good for the economy and
> the country. They can get things done with a speed and efficiency not
often
> found in the bureaucracies of government. When the country had to get
itself
> ready to fight World War II, for one example, it was the industrial and
manufacturing
> corporations that produced the means to achieve victory beyond anyone's
expectations.
>
>
> In the final analysis, however, the influence held by these entities
> is antithetical to the fundamental ideals of the nation. We are not all
created
> equal, and within that inequality lies the potential for enormous evil.
Consider
> the case of I.G. Farben, the industrial giant that was the financial core
> of the Nazi regime. Farben produced the gas used in the concentration
camps,
> and made lucrative use of slave labor in the camps. Before the war, Farben
> worked hand-in-hand with a number of powerful American corporations, the
> most prominent of which was Standard Oil.
>
> In the aftermath of World War II, the crimes committed by Farben were
> considered so enormous that many wanted the corporation to be utterly
destroyed.
> Instead, Farben was split into several smaller entities, several of which
> still exist. Millions of Americans purchase aspirin from Bayer, a company
> that was once part of Farben. Commercials for BASF tell us that company
makes
> the products we buy better, but do not tell us that BASF was once part of
> Farben. It speaks to the power enjoyed by corporations that Farben, the
company
> that forced concentration camp laborers to manufacture the Zyklon-B used
> to exterminate them, and which was the backbone of Nazi financial power,
> was not destroyed out of hand once the war was over. Farben is still with
> us. Its charter has merely been changed.
>
> Are all corporations on the moral level of I.G. Farben? Certainly not.
> Many corporations work for the public good, and many that work for their
> own enrichment do not necessarily undermine the country and its
principles.
> But some do, and exist beyond punishment or account.
>
> The potential for evil is certainly there when super-citizens exist
above
> the law. When the New York Times reviewed the book The Crime and
Punishment
> of I.G. Farben, it observed that the story of Farben "Forces one to
consider
> the possibility that when corporate evil reaches a certain status, it
simply
> cannot be defeated."
>
> In the end, the existence of incredibly powerful entities that enjoy
> the status of citizens demote the vast majority of average citizens to
second-class
> status. If the ideals we hold sacred have any truth to them, if the myths
> we sleep by have any basis in reality, such a division is intolerable and
> must be changed. "All men are created equal" once excluded vast swaths of
> Americans from their basic rights. Battles were fought to change that.
Today,
> a battle to realign the balance of power between the citizen and the
super-citizen
> must also be fought. It must be won.
>
>And if yhe doesn't buy one..........he will die.
;o)
"erlilo" <erlilo@online.no> wrote in message news:42d52007$1@linux...
> You can buy one now instead of that extra special beer for your extra
coming
> money;-)
>
> Erlilo
>
> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:42d50ab5$1@linux...
> >
> >
> > STOP IT!! I WANT ONE!!! ;o)
> >
>
>You do know what's gonna' happen if you don't get a
DAC-1................right?
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42d4ad23$1@linux...
>
>
> WHAT THE?!?
>
> To my astonishment, I just got back to my desk and found a mysterious
letter.
> I was fully expecting the letter to tell me I'm not going to have a
company
> car anymore, which has been an ongoing issue here at work, but, to my
AMAZEMENT...
>
> ...I've somehow scored myself an extra $5000 a year!! WOOHOO!!
>
> First higher pay is Friday, and being monthly there'll be something like
> $250-$300 extra in there. YIPPEE!!!!
>
> Anybody got a recommendation of a first class beer I should buy a slab
(case)
> of to celebrate? :o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.Without these corporations, what would you watch? what would you record
music on? How would you communicate?
Corporations are nothing without the mindless masses that feed them. If you
don't like it, sell all your crap and live in a cave.Its an interesting concept though.
What used to be considered usury is now considered standard operating
procedure. Corporate technicality helps the owners avoid responsibility,
when that wasn't always the case.
"jp" <no@mail.please> wrote in message news:42d526c2@linux...
> Without these corporations, what would you watch? what would you record
> music on? How would you communicate?
>
> Corporations are nothing without the mindless masses that feed them. If
> you don't like it, sell all your crap and live in a cave.
>jp wrote:
> Without these corporations, what would you watch? what would you record
> music on? How would you communicate?
I didn't see where that article advocated eliminating corporations.
Rather it seems to be advocating changing the system to keep
corporations from running amuck.
> Corporations are nothing without the mindless masses that feed them. If you
> don't like it, sell all your crap and live in a cave.
Whether you agree with it or not, it reads as a call to citizens (not
mindless masses) to be aware and do something to change the situation
the article describes.
Anyone who wants to abdicate and live in a cave is welcome to do so, I
suppose.
Cheers,
-Jamie K
http://www.JamieKrutz.comWell, I guess my reply has about as much to do with the topic as the topic
has to do with digital recording or PARIS.
Maybe Jimmy should write a song about it?
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:42d52a75@linux...
> jp wrote:
>
>> Without these corporations, what would you watch? what would you record
>> music on? How would you communicate?
>
> I didn't see where that article advocated eliminating corporations. Rather
> it seems to be advocating changing the system to keep corporations from
> running amuck.
>
>
>> Corporations are nothing without the mindless masses that feed them. If
>> you
>> don't like it, sell all your crap and live in a cave.
>
> Whether you agree with it or not, it reads as a call to citizens (not
> mindless masses) to be aware and do something to change the situation the
> article describes.
>
> Anyone who wants to abdicate and live in a cave is welcome to do so, I
> suppose.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie K
> http://www.JamieKrutz.comMaybe so.
Hmm, come to think of it the saga of PARIS is tied to corporations,
large and small. Maybe he could write lyrics about ID, Ensoniq, EMU and
Creative.
You might be more on topic than you think. ;^)
Cheers,
-Jamie K
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
jp wrote:
> Well, I guess my reply has about as much to do with the topic as the topic
> has to do with digital recording or PARIS.
>
> Maybe Jimmy should write a song about it?
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:42d52a75@linux...
>
>>jp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Without these corporations, what would you watch? what would you record
>>>music on? How would you communicate?
>>
>>I didn't see where that article advocated eliminating corporations. Rather
>>it seems to be advocating changing the system to keep corporations from
>>running amuck.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Corporations are nothing without the mindless masses that feed them. If
>>>you
>>>don't like it, sell all your crap and live in a cave.
>>
>>Whether you agree with it or not, it reads as a call to citizens (not
>>mindless masses) to be aware and do something to change the situation the
>>article describes.
>>
>>Anyone who wants to abdicate and live in a cave is welcome to do so, I
>>suppose.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie K
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>"Jimmy" <jj@campnowhere.com> wrote:
>These super-citizens exist today under the familiar name "corporation."
No they don't... they exist under the familiar name of: "welfare
recipients". While I do believe that we should be compassionate
towards & lend a hand to people that cannot work (physical or
mental disability, for example), our social support system has
been open to abuse for so long that entire families make
lifelong careers out of milking the system for all it's worth.
Everybody knows of these kinds of instances... THESE are the
super-citizens, never having to work, shirking all
responsibility, getting free medical & dental care when plenty
of working families cannot afford insurance if their company
doesn't provide it for them, having an entire political party
back them up at every turn because they know that's where they
get plenty of votes from.
Now THAT's power.
Neil"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>You do know what's gonna' happen if you don't get a
>DAC-1................right?
He will die?Sure Kneel...
The haves always look down their noses at the have nots.
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d5364c$1@linux...
>
> "Jimmy" <jj@campnowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>These super-citizens exist today under the familiar name "corporation."
>
> No they don't... they exist under the familiar name of: "welfare
> recipients". While I do believe that we should be compassionate
> towards & lend a hand to people that cannot work (physical or
> mental disability, for example), our social support system has
> been open to abuse for so long that entire families make
> lifelong careers out of milking the system for all it's worth.
> Everybody knows of these kinds of instances... THESE are the
> super-citizens, never having to work, shirking all
> responsibility, getting free medical & dental care when plenty
> of working families cannot afford insurance if their company
> doesn't provide it for them, having an entire political party
> back them up at every turn because they know that's where they
> get plenty of votes from.
>
> Now THAT's power.
>
> Neil
>I agree Jimmy that much needs to be done in the area of campaign and
corporate reform. Unfortunately, most of the advances in science and
technology over the last 100 or so years couldn't have been accomplished
with out corporations. I agree though, that they hold far too much power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55632 is a reply to message #55631] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 08:36 |
jp
Messages: 65
Registered: June 2005
|
Member |
|
|
dents
> hurled the tea into Boston Harbor in 1773, it was an attack specifically
> upon the economic power and supremacy of a corporation called the British
> East India Tea Company, which had been undercutting the profits of
> colonial
> merchants thanks to the passage of the Tea Acts.
>
> After the revolution, and for a hundred years, the American people bore
> a deep distrust of the corporation, and corporations were regulated
> severely.
> Corporate charters were created by individual states, and those states had
> the power to revoke that charter if the corporation was deemed to be
> acting
> against the public good or had deviated from its charter. Corporations
> were
> not allowed to own other corporations, nor were they allowed to
> participate
> in the political process.
>
> Very slowly over that 100 years, however, the power of the corporation
> began to grow. In the 1818 Supreme Court case "Dartmouth College v.
> Woodward,"
> Daniel Webster, advocating for Dartmouth, argued passionately for the
> power
> of corporations in regards to property rights. The Court sided with
> Webster
> and corporate rights, stating: "The opinion of the Court, after mature
> d
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55633 is a reply to message #55632] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 09:41 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
eliberation,
> is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which
> cannot
> be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This
> opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former
> decisions of this Court."
>
> A good deal of hell was raised after this decision, with many citizens
> and state legislatures standing upon the right of a state to repeal or
> amend
> a corporate charter. Seven years later, however, another Supreme Court
> case
> buttressed the power of the corporation with their decision in "Society
> for
> the Preservation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet." The
> Society
> was seeking to protect its colonial-era property grants in Vermont, while
> Vermont was seeking to revoke those grants. The Court decided in favor of
> the Society, and explicitly extended the same protections to
> corporation-owned
> property as are enjoyed by property-owning natural persons.
>
> Corporations in America began to become truly powerful with the rise
> of the railroads. Railroads were the lifeblood of the growing nation,
> carrying
> both agriculture and industry from one side of the country to the other.
> This was a highly profitable enterprise, and railroad corporations began
> to exert heavy influence on both state and federal leaders. Corporate
> attorneys
> boldly asserted the precedents set in the Dartmouth and Society Supreme
> Court
> decisions, demanding that corporations deserved to have at least some of
> the rights of natural persons. Meanwhile, attorneys loyal to the railroads
> began to rise through the ranks of the Judiciary, finally finding seats on
> the highest bench.
>
> This process
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55636 is a reply to message #55634] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 09:04 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
protection of the
> laws."
>
>
> Before the Santa Clara decision, this amendment applied only to living,
> breathing people. After Santa Clara, it applied also to massively wealthy
> corporations, groups of people authorized to act as individuals, but
> beyond
> the kinds of legal liabilities natural persons are subject to. The Santa
> Clara decision, and subsequent decisions affirming it, created the
> formidable
> distinction between the citizen and the super-citizen.
>
> Both have purchasing power, both can give money to whomever or whatever
> they please, but the difference lies in the extent to which this can be
> done.
> A natural person can buy a house and give money to a politician. A wealthy
> corporation, on the other hand, can buy a thousand houses and give money
> to a thousand politicians. In other words, a corporation which enjoys the
> same rights as a natural person has a thousand times the power and
> influence
> of a natural person over the economics and politics of the country. That
> is a super-citizen.
>
> Because these super-citizens can exert so much power, their rights have
> been dramatically extended over the years. In the 1950s, for example,
> corporations
> paid some 40% of the taxes in this country. They flexed their muscles and
&g
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55637 is a reply to message #55622] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 09:23 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t; exerted their influence, and by 1980 were paying only 26% of the taxes in
> this country. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 slashed that payment
> to 8%.
>
> The economic boon enjoyed by these super-citizens is augmented by the
> fact that regular citizens' tax dollars are used by the government to
> purchase
> goods and services from corporations involved in the production of
> weapons,
> petroleum, timber and agricultural products. Corporate perks like jets,
> elaborate
> headquarters, public relations firms, and executive retreats are all tax
> write-offs; the regular citizen, by contrast, pays for their perks with
> after-tax
> dollars. When a corporation screws up and destroys an ecosystem with a
> toxic
> spill, corporate liability shields protect them from financial and legal
> punishment, and the cost of the clean-up is borne by the tax dollars of
> the
> regular citizen.
>
> Today, corporations control almost every aspect of what we see, hear,
> eat, wear and live. Every television news media organization is owned by
> a small handful of corporations, which use these news outlets to filter
> out
> information that might be damaging to the parent company. Agriculture in
> America is controlled by a small group of corporations. One cannot drive
> a car, rent a van, buy a house or deliver goods in a business transaction
> without purchasing insurance from a corporation. Getting sick in America
> has become a ruinously expensive experience because corporations now
> control
> even the smallest functions of the medical profession, and have turned the
> practice of health care into a for-profit industry.
>
> The influence these super-citizens hold over local, state and national
> politics is the reason why so many privileges have been afforded to them.
> This influence has existed to one degree or another for decades. Yet it
> was
> another Supreme Court decision, handed down in 1976, that allowed these
> super-citizens
> to establish a strangle-hold on our politics and government institutions.
>
>
> The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen
>
> In 1976, the case "Buckley v. Valeo" came before the Supreme Court.
> Senator
> James Buckley, former Senator and Presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy,
> and several others had filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of
> the
> Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) and the Presidential Election
> Campaign Fund Act. Among the defendants were Francis Valeo, Secretary of
> the Senate and ex officio member of the newly-created Federal Election
> Commission,
> as well as the Commission itself.
>
> The final Supreme Court decision split a number of legal hairs. The
> decision
> upheld the constitutionality of limiting political contributions to
> candidates,
> and the disclosure and record-keeping requirements established by FECA.
> The
> aspects of FECA deemed unconstitutional, however, became the basis for the
> supremacy of the super-citizen. In short, the Court decided that limiting
> the amount of money a candidate could spend was a violation of the First
> Amendment. In other words, the spending of campaign money was equated with
> the right of free speech.
>
> On the surface, the decision makes sense. Because so much of modern
> political
> campaigning involves television and radio advertisements, direct mailing
> of campaign literature, extensive travel and lodging and staff payrolls,
> and because all these things cost money, a limitation on campaign spending
> necessarily restricts the ability of a candidate to practice free speech
> in the political realm.
>
> The danger, of course, was that corporations would take advantage of
> the new spending freedoms enjoyed by politicians and flood them with
> influence-creating
> cash. The Court attempted to address this concern by upholding the limits
> on contribution amounts, stating that these limitations were the "primary
> weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming
> from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions."
>
> The Court's attempt to address this concern failed, in no small part
> because of the existence of so-called "soft money." Soft money was
> supposed
> to be cash given to political parties for "party-building activities"
> rather
> than for the direct support of candidates and campaigns. Soft money
> contributions
> were not subjected to limitations, allowing super-citizens to flood
> outrageous
> amounts of money into the process. Because the soft-money rules were so
> vague,
> and because soft money contributions were so huge, the money was
> invariably
> directed towards the support of individual candidates. The politicians
> became
> corporate entities, commodities bought and sold by the super-citizens.
>
> The passage in 2002 of the Campaign Reform Act did little to cut into
> the massive influence in politics enjoyed by the super-citizens. The
> Campaign
> Reform Act made most soft money contributions illegal but created a
> loophole
> large enough to sail a British tea ship through, with the enshrinement of
> 527 groups as political entities. 527s are tax-exempt organizations
> created
> to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of political
> candidates.
>
> The soft money previously given to political parties goes now to these
> groups, and these groups enjoy umbilical connections to the parties and
> candidates
> they work in favor of. In other words, nothing really changed, and the
> influence
> of the super-citizens was undiminished. The Campaign Reform Act also
> raised
> the hard money contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000, thus doubling the
> ability of super-citizens to exert direct financial influence upon
> candidates
> and office-holders.
>
> Today, virtually every politician holding national office is
> financially
> beholden to a corporation. Beyond the favorable tax status for
> corporations
> established by these owned politicians, the effects of this ownership are
> felt by average citizens every day.
>
> Foreign policy is all too often decided by corporate considerations,
> and these decisions often lead to war. The air we breathe, the food we eat
> and the water we drink is contaminated by pollutants that corporations are
> legally allowed to spew, thanks to the legislative protections created by
> corporate-owned politicians. Draconian sentencing rules created by
> legislators
> that incarcerate millions of Americans - think "The War on Drugs"
> specifically
> - have as much to do with the influence of the corporate-controlled prison
> industry as with anything else.
>
> This list goes on and on. Super-citizens define our reality by
> controlling
> the information we receive via television, newspaper and radio.
> Super-citizens
> make sure that information casts them in a favorable light. Super-citizens
> pound us with advertising and thus maintain the fiction that spending
> money
> on products defines the nature of a person.
>
> The best and brightest are drafted out of law school to work for
> corporate
> defense firms for six-figure salaries, thus ensuring that super-citizens
> enjoy a level of legal defense not available to anyone else. Many of these
> corporate attorneys graduate to the bench, where they extend the influence
> of super-citizens across all levels of the judicial branch.
>
> More than anything else, however, super-citizens control the ways and
> means of government at every level. They bought it, they own it, and they
> make sure it does their bidding. The needs, requirements and best
> interests
> of the average citizen do not enter into the equation.
>
> Created Equal
>
> Arguments can be made that corporations are good for the economy and
> the country. They can get things done with a speed and efficiency not
> often
> found in the bureaucracies of government. When the country had to get
> itself
> ready to fight World War II, for one example, it was the industrial and
> manufacturing
> corporations that produced the means to achieve victory beyond anyone's
> expectations.
>
>
> In the final analysis, however, the influence held by these entities
> is antithetical to the fundamental ideals of the nation. We are not all
> created
> equal, and within that inequality lies the potential for enormous evil.
> Consider
> the case of I.G. Farben, the industrial giant that was the financial core
> of the Nazi regime. Farben produced the gas used in the concentration
> camps,
> and made lucrative use of slave labor in the camps. Before the war, Farben
> worked hand-in-hand with a number of powerful American corporations, the
> most prominent of which was Standard Oil.
>
> In the aftermath of World War II, the crimes committed by Farben were
> considered so enormous that many wanted the corporation to be utterly
> destroyed.
> Instead, Farben was split into several smaller entities, several of which
> still exist. Millions of Americans purchase aspirin from Bayer, a company
> that was once part of Farben. Commercials for BASF tell us that company
> makes
> the products we buy better, but do not tell us that BASF was once part of
> Farben. It speaks to the power enjoyed by corporations that Farben, the
> company
> that forced concentration camp laborers to manufacture the Zyklon-B used
> to exterminate them, and which was the backbone of Nazi financial power,
> was not destroyed out of hand once the war was over. Farben is still with
> us. Its charter has merely been changed.
>
> Are all corporations on the moral level of I.G. Farben? Certainly not.
> Many corporations work for the public good, and many that work for their
> own enrichment do not necessarily undermine the country and its
> principles.
> But some do, and exist beyond punishment or account.
>
> The potential for evil is certainly there when super-citizens exist
> above
> the law. When the New York Times reviewed the book The Crime and
> Punishment
> of I.G. Farben, it observed that the story of Farben "Forces one to
> consider
> the possibility that when corporate evil reaches a certain status, it
> simply
> cannot be defeated."
>
> In the end, the existence of incredibly powerful entities that enjoy
> the status of citizens demote the vast majority of average citizens to
> second-class
> status. If the ideals we hold sacred have any truth to them, if the myths
> we sleep by have any basis in reality, such a division is intolerable and
> must be changed. "All men are created equal" once excluded vast swaths of
> Americans from their basic rights. Battles were fought to change that.
> Today,
> a battle to realign the balance of power between the citizen and the
> super-citizen
> must also be fought. It must be won.
>
>"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>Sure Kneel...
>
>The haves always look down their noses at the have nots.
Dear Crumb...
I look down my nose at people who can work, but decide it's
easier to let me pay for their existence. I've not always been
a "have", I worked my ass off to get where I am, so don't think
I'm some kind of blueblood like your homestate hero John Kerry
(who mainly lives off his wife's money anyway).
Anyway, if I can do it, anyone can; I assure you of that.
NeilJustcron,
A quote from Neil's post:
"While I do believe that we should be compassionate towards & lend a hand to
people that cannot work (physical or mental disability, for example)"
I can't believe anyone can honestly say our welfare system isn't completely
fubar. Personally, I'm sick of having to pay for the lazy ass who's
perfectly content to sit around and drink beer all day (beer purchased with
his welfare check). Now, before you say "what if he can't find a job", I'll
say there are plenty of jobs available in this area of the country. Besides,
when the welfare system was established, it was a work for pay system.
Here's some info from this website:
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_3.html#welfare
A National Welfare System
The emphasis during the first two years of President Franklin Roosevelt's
"New Deal" was to provide work relief for the millions of unemployed
Americans. Federal money flowed to the states to pay for public works
projects, which employed the jobless. Some federal aid also directly
assisted needy victims of the Depression. The states, however, remained
mainly responsible for taking care of the so-called "unemployables" (widows,
poor children, the elderly poor, and the disabled). But states and private
charities, too, were unable to keep up the support of these people at a time
when tax collections and personal giving were declining steeply.
In his State of the Union Address before Congress on January 4, 1935,
President Roosevelt declared, "the time has come for action by the national
government" to provide "security against the major hazards and vicissitudes
[uncertainties] of life." He went on to propose the creation of federal
unemployment and old-age insurance programs. He also called for guaranteed
benefits for poor single mothers and their children along with other
dependent persons.
By permanently expanding federal responsibility for the security of all
Americans, Roosevelt believed that the necessity for government make-work
employment and other forms of Depression relief would disappear. In his
address before Congress, Roosevelt argued that the continuation of
government relief programs was a bad thing for the country:
The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me,
show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual
and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To
dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer
of the human spirit. . . .
Tony
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:42d53baf$1@linux...
> Sure Kneel...
>
> The haves always look down their noses at the have nots.
>
> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d5364c$1@linux...
>>
>> "Jimmy" <jj@campnowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>These super-citizens exist today under the familiar name "corporation."
>>
>> No they don't... they exist under the familiar name of: "welfare
>> recipients". While I do believe that we should be compassionate
>> towards & lend a hand to people that cannot work (physical or
>> mental disability, for example), our social support system has
>> been open to abuse for so long that entire families make
>> lifelong careers out of milking the system for all it's worth.
>> Everybody knows of these kinds of instances... THESE are the
>> super-citizens, never having to work, shirking all
>> responsibility, getting free medical & dental care when plenty
>> of working families cannot afford insurance if their company
>> doesn't provide it for them, having an entire political party
>> back them up at every turn because they know that's where they
>> get plenty of votes from.
>>
>> Now THAT's power.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>
>>
>>These super-citizens exist today under the familiar name "corporation."
>
> No they don't... they exist under the familiar name of: "welfare
> recipients".
I almost spit out my sandwich....funny stuff...There are many forms of welfare. No-bid contracts to a government
official's former employer, for example.
The corporate system should be examined and kept free from abuse.
To follow the digression, any problems in the social welfare system
should also be fixed. Last time that happened it was Clinton, FWIW.
Problems with one certainly do not excuse problems with the other.
Welfare moms (whether justified or not) do not innoculate corporations
from proper oversight.
Cheers,
-Jamie K
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Neil wrote:
> "Jimmy" <jj@campnowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>These super-citizens exist today under the familiar name "corporation."
>
>
> No they don't... they exist under the familiar name of: "welfare
> recipients". While I do believe that we should be compassionate
> towards & lend a hand to people that cannot work (physical or
> mental disability, for example), our social support system has
> been open to abuse for so long that entire families make
> lifelong careers out of milking the system for all it's worth.
> Everybody knows of these kinds of instances... THESE are the
> super-citizens, never having to work, shirking all
> responsibility, getting free medical & dental care when plenty
> of working families cannot afford insurance if their company
> doesn't provide it for them, having an entire political party
> back them up at every turn because they know that's where they
> get plenty of votes from.
>
> Now THAT's power.
>
> Neil
>Sure, but thats twice now you took a shot at the 'other political party' to
make your point.
Government waste is real. No doubt. Only usually it's being funneled into
think tanks and weapons research.
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d5424f$1@linux...
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>>Sure Kneel...
>>
>>The haves always look down their noses at the have nots.
>
> Dear Crumb...
>
> I look down my nose at people who can work, but decide it's
> easier to let me pay for their existence. I've not always been
> a "have", I worked my ass off to get where I am, so don't think
> I'm some kind of blueblood like your homestate hero John Kerry
> (who mainly lives off his wife's money anyway).
>
> Anyway, if I can do it, anyone can; I assure you of that.
>
> NeilGovernment waste is real, but its not the social programs we need to worry
about.
Everything has already been CUT from medical care, to fire response, to
police coverage to education.
So where are our billions going?
"Tony Benson" <t o n y@s t a n d i n g h a m p t o n.c o m> wrote in message
news:42d54435@linux...
> Justcron,
>
> A quote from Neil's post:
>
> "While I do believe that we should be compassionate towards & lend a hand
> to people that cannot work (physical or mental disability, for example)"
>
> I can't believe anyone can honestly say our welfare system isn't
> completely fubar. Personally, I'm sick of having to pay for the lazy ass
> who's perfectly content to sit around and drink beer all day (beer
> purchased with his welfare check). Now, before you say "what if he can't
> find a job", I'll say there are plenty of jobs available in this area of
> the country. Besides, when the welfare system was established, it was a
> work for pay system.
>
> Here's some info from this website:
> Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55639 is a reply to message #55636] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 09:41 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
y poor, and the disabled). But states
> and private charities, too, were unable to keep up the support of these
> people at a time when tax collections and personal giving were declining
> steeply.
>
> In his State of the Union Address before Congress on January 4, 1935,
> President Roosevelt declared, "the time has come for action by the
> national government" to provide "security against the major hazards and
> vicissitudes [uncertainties] of life." He went on to propose the creation
> of federal unemployment and old-age insurance programs. He also called for
> guaranteed benefits for poor single mothers and their children along with
> other dependent persons.
> By permanently expanding federal responsibility for the security of all
> Americans, Roosevelt believed that the necessity for government make-work
> employment and other forms of Depression relief would disappear. In his
> address before Congress, Roosevelt argued that the continuation of
> government relief programs was a bad thing for the country:
> The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me,
> show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a
> spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the
> national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a
> narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> news:42d53baf$1@linux...
>> Sure Kneel...
>>
>> The haves always look down their noses at the have nots.
>>
>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d5364c$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "Jimmy" <jj@campnowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>These super-citizens exist today under the familiar name "corporation."
>>>
>>> No they don't... they exist under the familiar name of: "welfare
>>> recipients". While I do believe that we should be compassionate
>>> towards & lend a hand to people that cannot work (physical or
>>> mental disability, for example), our social support system has
>>> been open to abuse for so long that entire families make
>>> lifelong careers out of milking the system for all it's worth.
>>> Everybody knows of these kinds of instances... THESE are the
>>> super-citizens, never having to work, shirking all
>>> responsibility, getting free medical & dental care when plenty
>>> of working families cannot afford insurance if their company
>>> doesn't provide it for them, having an entire political party
>>> back them up at every turn because they know that's where they
>>> get plenty of votes from.
>>>
>>> Now THAT's power.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>
>>
>
>Hi Erling,
Yes, I am sure that you have read material that came from the
US. Hey, some of the best euro-socialist boilerplate is spewed right
here in the USA. See, many of our left wing elites really wish
they WERE euros.
You are right, both sides are required. You seem
to be missing the other side and many of your points did not
represent a balanced view.
BTW, I am very sorry for your loss of your Dad in the war. No one
should have to lose their father to war.
In WWII, they
had these little recording booths where you could pay some money
and record a little vinyl-over-cardboard record of yourself and send
it to your family. I transferred some of these to Sonic Solutions
for a man whose father had died in the war. He had no
memories of his father, since he died while the man was a baby.
Then, 50 years later, they find a stack of these records in the attic
and came into my studio! It was one of the most moving things
I have ever done. Out of the speakers comes the voice of a young
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55641 is a reply to message #55634] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 10:50 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
.. If you would like
to hear a bit of this, email me.
War sucks. Killing sucks. Even if none of our guys die, it sucks.
And our guys die. And sometimes because of stupidity.
The only thing worse than war is slavery to evil. Some wars should
have never been started (vietnam and WWI come to mind) and
others were unavoidable. IMO the war on terror is unavoidable.
These ghouls are 14th century relics whose leaders decided way
back then that Islam is all they need, so now they fill parts of the
world with satrapys and dictatorships while the western guilt-ridden
idiot-left supports them. Have you seen Theo Van Gogh's movie?
The one he was murdered for? It is profound and moving, and
yet any perceived attack on Islam results in someone trying to
cut your head off, or rip your neck open. Is this what you open,
tolerant, multi-culti euros want for your future?? Do you have the
backbone to do what it takes, both speaking up, and and with
violence if you must, to defend your way of life against the
head-choppers? I have my doubts, and further I have my doubts
that our generation is even capable of winning against a Hitler
today.
The root causes of terrorism are the terrorists, and their evil
sectarian, triumphalist perversion of Islam, and the left and left
-dominated media that support them and excuse them. Period.
This blaming america every time, this listing of america's faults,
some true, some greatly exaggerated, some complete lies, every
time some asshole attacks us, is itself evil, and while I cannot
"suppress" anything Jamie, I will refuse to defend or answer these
charges in this context, and I will call upon you to recognize the
evil of doing so.
First, you speak LOUDLY, against the head-choppers and s
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55642 is a reply to message #55638] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 09:57 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
uicide
bombers and their evil leaders. Turn the tide of world opinion
towards universal condemnation of these acts instead of white-man
guilt and narcissistic breast-beating and finger pointing at Bush and
Blair. Then support those who ensure your tolerant, peaceful,
intellectual lives will still be here to live in 10 years.
And THEN, when the rest of Islam rises up against the
head-choppers and lunatics and demands democracy and decent
treatment of women. THEN, if you want to talk about Kyoto, and
Native Americans, and Social Justice, and "negroes" (hey, did you
say NEGROES? man, there ain't been no negroes around for 50
years...) <grin> THEN I will sit down at the table with you and
talk about what fools Johnson and Nixon were, and how
anti-communism made us do stupid stuff, and yadda yadda, but
do not bring these things up in the context of those poor dead
people in London!
Have a great day
DC
"erlilo" <erlilo@online.no> wrote:
>Don, I knew it well t
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55643 is a reply to message #55639] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 09:59 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hat you're not mad at me but feelings for right or
>wrong can often do some stupid behavings all over the world.
>If we don't get sourches from all sides, not only one side, we will grow
up
>without wisedom at all in our minds. The documentations I for the most have
>found was not only "made in Europe", there were plenty of American documents
>too. I wanted to find out something from different sides, trying to find
>some understandings. You see, I had to find out why my father had to be
>killed in the second worldwar because of different leaders stupidness and
I
>must say I found out a whole lot, as you may have seen with my struggling
>writings here up against the year:-).
>
>Take care, Don
>
>erlilo
>
>
>
>There are
>"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> skrev i en meddelelse news:42d4682b$1@linux...
>>
>> Erling,
>>
>> I appreciate you struggling with english to communicate with me,
>> and I am not mad at you, nor was I accusing Norway of
>> anything.
>>
>> This is simple. I consider it unethical to use the death of innocent
>> people as an opportunity to trash my country. You come visit,
>> I will solidly refute every euro-socialist cliched view you hold of this
>> country, and send you home a better man. You need to stop
>> getting all your info from euro sources...
>>
>> And that is as far as I am going to participate in the act of attacking
>> and defending anyone's country. yours or mine.
>>
>> Be well
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>>
>> "erlilo" <erlilo@online.no> wrote:
>>>Please, please Don, I am not doing any defence of any terrorism or
>>>terrorists at all, can't you really understand these facts? And I'm not
>>
>>>trying to score any cheap points at all on the London bombing or all the
>>
>>>sivilians that have lost their lifes because of stupid statemen affairs
>> up
>>>against the years. I have just tried to show you an opinion, from outside
>>
>>>America, how the roots to people like these can grow up and hate so much
>>
>>>t
>>
>>
>>
>> hat they are doing these kind of things.
>>>By the way, saw they have arrested someone up in NorthEngland after the
>>
>>>bombs in London earlier today. Hope it's some of the right persons they
>> have
>>>arrested and will find them all.
>>>Michael Moore? you mean that famous American filmmaker that don't like
the
>>
>>>American President's behavings and is saying it high and clearly? Sorry
>> to
>>>say, I havn't heard him speaking or seeing any of his films. Have just
>>>read
>>
>>>about him, that he have won big American and international prizes for
>>>works
>>
>>>like "Fahrenheit 9/11". It must have reasons that he have won these high
>>
>>>prizes and I think it can't be for any lies he have told in these films.
>>>
>>>So, yes I did it again Don, but not for the reasons you are throwing at
>> me
>>>here. You see, I don't need any Michael Moore or any President or American
>>
>>>lifestylist to think for me at all.
>>>
>>>Nonsense, accusations, and lies? Have you documentations to stand besides
>>
>>>your speaking here or is it just believings? Sitting nearly three years
>> in
>>>different Scandinavian libraries, doing research for a book about second
>>
>>>worldwar and my father, gave me plenty of documentations about the last
>>
>>>couple of hundred years of wars to stand behind what I'm trying to say
>>>here
>>
>>>about war and terror.
>>>
>>>Sorry to hear that you don't know at all what Norway stands for in
>>>humanity
>>
>>>and political thinking. If it wasn't for me, maybe you didn't had any
>>>knowings about Norway at all? So, I think it's time for you to find out
>> real
>>>documentations and facts about that nation too before throwing out talk
>>
>>>about racism and intolerance that really can be used as a mirror to why
>> the
>>>world have all these kind of problems.
>>>
>>>Take care
>>>
>>>erlilo
>>>
>>>
>>>"DC" <dcicchetti@urs2.net> skrev i en meddelelse news:42d402ed$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> "erlilo" <erlilo@online.no> wrote:<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55663 is a reply to message #55653] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 12:30 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ice that says, "yes, if you are so stupid that you cannot
differentiate between ther two" I'd check that one in a heartbeart.
;o)
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:42d565a7$1@linux...
> Im not sure how valid this test is, but if you're willing to answer a few
> questions....
>
> http://politicalcompass.org
>
> I placed right near Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, almost dead center on the
> social scale and to the left on the economic scale
>
>"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>Im not sure how valid this test is, but if you're willing to answer a few
>questions....
>
>http://politicalcompass.org
>
>I placed right near Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, almost dead center on the
>social scale and to the left on the economic scale
If you're that close to Ghandi, then the REAL evil in this world
is that you're not out there changing it. :)
Crumb, you'll probably shit your pants to find this out...
according to this test, I'm dead center to the left & right, and slightly
towards the libertarian side:
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
And, no I did not try to manipulate the test in anyway - I
answered straight up (even though some of the questions seemed
a bit loaded).
Neil"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42d57833@linux...
> according to this test, I'm dead center to the left & right, and slightly
> towards the libertarian side:
>
> Economic Left/Right: 0.00
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
interesting.... you're more of a libertarian than I amdont give away the questions until everyone has a chance to take the test...
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55664 is a reply to message #55641] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 12:33 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
but I agree with you... the questions are simplistic while complex. they're
trying to score you on an axis with imperfect questions.
what are your overall scores?
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42d57702@linux...
> "IfMost of the questions are definitely extremely vague or leave a lot up to
interpretation, but I went a long anyway. It seems I'm .5 to the left and
2.5 to the Libertarian. I would have guessed myself a little more to the
right, but I suspect the problem to be the wording of the questions and my
attempt to answer putting aside any degree of clarification.
Take the abortion question:
Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
This wording doesn't have anything to do with how I feel "morally" about
abortion. I feel abortion is morally wrong, but I'm not prepared just yet to
say that those who feel differently should be thrown in jail. Nor does it
address how I feel about my fiscal responsibility to fund abortion clinics.
Now if the question had said:
Do you think a portion of your tax dollars should go towards funding
abortion clinics so people who either don't/won't use birth control or in
the event their birth control fails can feel assured that they won't have
any responsibility for their actions?
I would have said I strongly disagree.
You know the old saying "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"? That
basically sums up my feelings about many things. Unwise action seems easy
for a lot of people, but when things go wrong, they feel entitled to be
bailed out by society or the government. Sorry, now I'm ranting.
Tony
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42d57702@linux...
> "If economic globalisation is inevitable......."
>
> This is asinine.........
> Sorry I don't buy that it is so to pursue this would be to buy into the
> spin.
>
> "I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong"
>
> According to what criteria?
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55683 is a reply to message #55664] |
Wed, 13 July 2005 16:56 |
JeffH
Messages: 307
Registered: October 2007
Location: Wamic, OR
|
Senior Member |
|
|
f. Now I installed all the plugs and software.
I
> know I have the updates drivers for XP. And the software runs fine. But
when
> I open a project I get the "I/O will not work in this configuration of
> Paris" message. Now I get that message when the mec is powered off and the
> software boots. But in this case the mes is on and I see the lights flash
as
> usual but I still get the message.
>
> I have,
>
> I tried different PCI slots. I have currently have the EDS in slot 2 and
irq
> 9
>
> So nothing yet. Can one of you seasoned gets please help me out.
>
> Running on a Pentium III / 550 with 256MB Ram. (I know... give me some
time
> to save some more money)
>
> I also need an 8 in card....
>
> Anyhow help would be appreciated!!!!
>
> Spappy
>
>
>
>That's about where I was...
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"HeavyD" <dave@giantkiller.ca> wrote in message news:42d56cc2$1@linux...
>I must have some "issues" I placed just left on the economic and just north
> of the line towards Authoritarian left. I'm so confused.
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> news:42d565a7$1@linux...
>> Im not sure how valid this test is, but if you're willing to answer a few
>> questions....
>>
>> http://politicalcompass.org
>>
>> I placed right near Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, almost dead center on the
>> social scale and to the left on the economic scale
>>
>>
>
>Little creatures or Beez Neez....
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42d4ad23$1@linux...
>
>
> WHAT THE?!?
>
> To my astonishment, I just got back to my desk and found a mysterious
> letter.
> I was fully expecting the letter to tell me I'm not going to have a
> company
> car anymore, which has been an ongoing issue here at work, but, to my
> AMAZEMENT...
>
> ...I've somehow scored myself an extra $5000 a year!! WOOHOO!!
>
> First higher pay is Friday, and being monthly there'll be something like
> $250-$300 extra in there. YIPPEE!!!!
>
> Anybody got a recommendation of a first class beer I should buy a slab
> (case)
> of to celebrate? :o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.Hold on just a minute, buddy!
I'm fixing to come out as the new prophet, and there ain't enough room in
this Global Village fer tha two of us!
Might I suggest a Godzilla .vs Mothra confontation somewhere in Iraq to settle
this matter like gentlemen? Might take the human's minds off of their trivial
pissing match.
"There ain't no good and there ain't no evil, there's just what people does."
- Henry Fonda as Tom Joad, The Grapes of Wrath
I'm puttin' on my purple cape and black Nikes and waitin' for the comet.
Get me off of this rock!!!!!
"why's of the world?" uh......man, that shit'll make you crazy! Get an expensive
hobby like music! ;0)
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55707 is a reply to message #55683] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 05:55 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
xist today under the familiar name
>>>>>>"corporation."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No they don't... they exist under the familiar name of: "welfare
>>>>>recipients". While I do believe that we should be compassionate
>>>>>towards & lend a hand to people that cannot work (physical or
>>>>>mental disability, for example), our social support system has
>>>>>been open to abuse for so long that entire families make
>>>>>lifelong careers out of milking the system for all it's worth.
>>>>>Everybody knows of these kinds of instances... THESE are the
>>>>>super-citizens, never having to work, shirking all
>>>>>responsibility, getting free medical & dental care when plenty
>>>>>of working families cannot afford insurance if their company
>>>>>doesn't provide it for them, having an entire political party
>>>>>back them up at every turn because they know that's where they
>>>>>get plenty of votes from.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now THAT's power.
>>>>>
>>>>>Neil
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>I've been using a demo of Pitch'n'Time and am blown
away by how well it preserves the quality of the audio when
shifting pitch. I'm told that Waves 4's Transform bundle
has an even better pitch/time transposer. Has anyone tried it?
Has anyone used Pitch'n'Time and compared?
Is anyone running Waves 4 in Paris with success? It
crashed me when I tried the demo but I'm a Mac guy.
Thanks,
GanttI don't understand what is sad about that. PARIS was developed in code warrior.
The MAC versions of the plug-ins were developed with code warrior.
"zornwil" <wilson.zorn@takeout_asterick_theobvious.com> wrote:
>That's just sad.
>
>"Michael Yanoska" <yanoska@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:42595563$1@linux...
>>
>> Apparently this is what has Edmund's interest lately:
>>
>> http://www.codecomments.com/archive241-2004-6-222597.html
>
>greetings sir.
Its kinda sad that edmund has to mess around with CW instead of his baby
PARIS...
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:42d68b23$1@linux...
>
> I don't understand what is sad about that. PARIS was developed in code
> warrior.
> The MAC versions of the plug-ins were developed with code warrior.
>
> "zornwil" <wilson.zorn@takeout_asterick_theobvious.com> wrote:
>>That's just sad.
>>
>>"Michael Yanoska" <yanoska@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:42595563$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Apparently this is what has Edmund's interest lately:
>>>
>>> http://www.codecomments.com/archive241-2004-6-222597.html
>>
>>
>Well, I've got little time here so I'm going to try to finish this in a
brief a post as possible.
To sum up the previous post.......after 1976, when electricity and decent
roads were brought into this area, it became an increasingly international
community of people and a big experiment in socialism. The same problems
that inevitably doom socialism to failure, were very evident and it was a
real eye opener to those among us who thouight we could transcend human
nature for the *good of the group*. Also the permissiveness and
non-judgmentalism that was part of this experiment (we call it political
correctness now) caused a lot of problems. One really funny thing happened
early on. The Indians who were all part of the big extended family that ws
running this place were all laughing like crazy one night at a get together
they were having. I could understand their dialect and they had known me for
years. wht they were laughing about was the stereotypes they were noticing.
The French tourists distrusted the Germans. The Italians and the French
seemed to be in some sort of competition all the time with each other. The
Quebecois Canadians pretty much hated the French and vice versa. The Germans
and the Americans got along pretty well, though no one really wanted to
admit liking the Americans much when Americans weren't around. The Americans
seemed to have ver
|
|
|
|
| Re: The real evil in this world! [message #55708 is a reply to message #55707] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 06:00 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
y strange reltionships with the Europeans and other
Americans. Some of the Americans wanted to be liked by the Europeans, lots
of the Americans wanted everyone to think they were Californians. The
Scandinavians were a bit aloof from the rest of the Europeans and Americans.
The Texans weren't really considered to be Americans by the Europeans or the
Mexicans and got along better with the Mexicans than with anyone else there.
There were lots of other things like this that they were noticing. The
really telling thing about it all was that every nationality eventually
ended up at their own posada (sort of like an outdoor hotel on the beach).
There was the German, French, Spanish, Swiss, American......etc. posada.
Just like all of these people who were willing to pay lip service to the
idea of one big happy worle, were totally unable to practice this and their
preconceptions and stereotypes where easy to recognize by a group of people
who were totally unfamiliar with world history and politics............so
they saw the stereotypic BS that you ascribe to me. Once I heard this, I
started paying attention to it and there is a lot more ugly stuff I could
say about it, but it would do no good and despite your anger at me, I am
basing my opinions on real experience, not theories of how things ought to
be.
During the 70's and 80's this was a good jumping off place for travelling
further down into central and south america. It was pretty awful down there
because there was a lot of killing going on, boith over politics and drugs
(which were pretty much the same). The Hollywood movies like Salvador only
show one side of this *freedom fighter* picture. It was awful, but I saw
some stuff down there that was done by Cuban agents and their bloodthirsty
guerilla allies that was as bad as anything you can possibly imagine in your
worst nightmares. None of this kind of stuff is good, but I can assure you
that Americans weren't the only ones associated with death squads. It was
just reported that way in the press.
As far as my comments which apparently have convinced you that I am
unrecoginzable, perhaps I am. People change. We have been attacked. We know
how long it takes the UN do anything. In the meantime.....millions of people
can die. Sadaam had been in violation of the UN sanctions for years and was
in a position to do us a lot of harm. I don't buy the idea that he was some
non-threat. Saying that we should have waited longer after we had waited for
10 years while the French, Russians and the UN bureaucrats had supported
Sadaam against the same resolutions they had approved gives me little faith
in the UN doing anything right or in a timely manner and given this
experience.
I think the European people should be supporting us and they are very
divided about this. My opinions are mixed about them as well so yes......I
have changed. I'm tryly sorry that you now see me as some kind of evil
person, but I'll get over it.
Regards,
Doug
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42d54f92@linux...
> Ok Derek,
>
> >maybe im missing the irony or some linguistic fineprint,
> but as far as im concerned, doug, no i dont understand you. reading the
> stereotype BS you spread<
>
> I'm not spouting stereotypes for the sake of trying to make someone *bad*
> and someone else *good*. I am relating the truth I have seen based on real
> world experience. If it's ugly to you, then that's good. It's ugly to me
> too. When I look at what is happening I see stereotypes, though they are
not
> racial, they are cultural, they are constantly evolving and they are very
> real. From around 1965 through 1995 I spent a good part of my life as part
> of one of these evolving stereotypes.
>
> I am old compared to most of the folks here, I think. I was born in 1950.
> The town where I was born was a small town in the southern US which was
full
> of hypocracy and racial predjudice. I remember some very ugly things very
> vividly. Without going into a lot of detail about this, the effect of this
> made me really angry and very willing to believe that there was something
> wrong with what my parents generation was saying, but not doing. I also
came
> to distrust organized religion at a very early age because of these
> experiences and the hypocracy I saw.
>
> My grandmother had a big hammond organ in her parlor and also a baby grand
> piano. From the time I was about 5 years old, I would climb up on the
> benches and play the keys. I was told I had a *good ear* because I could
> listen to the radio songs and figure out how to play them on the keys
> (though I couldn't reach the pedals ;o). During the 50's, I lived in south
> Texas (part of the time in Erling's favorite place, Corpus Christi, Texas)
> and travelled across the border into Mexico often with my father. He was
a
> merchanical design engineer and a pilot and did a lot of work designing
> large installations for the agricultural interests which were sponsored by
> both rich Mexican landowners and the Mexican government (which was
basically
> rich Mexican and other international landowners) I saw lots more ugliness
> there as far as exploitation of people by other people. It was so
obviously
> wrong and when I would ask my father about it, he would excuse it, but I
> couldn't accept this. I became very rebellous and a what is called here, a
> *problem child*
>
> By 1965, this pissed off 15 year old kid was playing in a band that was
> fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to be recognized in a fairly large
> regional marke
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Dec 15 00:02:02 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04352 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
