What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 19 July 2004 - 01:33 PM
The biggest proof for me that Walesa, Pope were the CIA mission is how the movement was perfect organized and successful. How US media @Radio free Europe worked for them, how they had money and resources@. Even Polish Media changed then the front moving in direction to @democracy@.
Today is very different, people somehow are disorganized, Solidarity- the workers organization removed from the government and any influece, without resources, without truly Polish Media and future.
As the situation develops further the Silesia and Pomore will be vote for the consolidation with Germany. And it, thought very tragic for Polish independence and sovereignty, I think that might be funny, because US/Israel/Vatican influence and control in Poland might be lost after all. Together with Poland ...
Posted 19 July 2004 - 02:59 PM
Long live zionism! Long live nationalism! >
Howdy and welcome Viracocha
I stand on the internationalist side with Bader, but your point shouldn't be dismissed. IMMIGRATION IS A PROBLEM. But the solution is not securing borders or chasing away immigrants. The real culprit gets away with it: the employer who hires him as cheap labor. A permanent solution though--which is what we are talking about here--is to fix the problem of poverty and prosecution in their source countries.
Posted 19 July 2004 - 03:04 PM
Today is very different, people somehow are disorganized, Solidarity- the workers organization removed from the government and any influece, without resources, without truly Polish Media and future.>
Now the lion is not so obvious. And he got a lot of money to hand out. Press, Solidarity don't see him. Only the poor see him...:confused:
Posted 19 July 2004 - 04:32 PM
I think you don't intend it that way, but that's exactly what the world resents about American democracy. Perhaps the hipocrisy of it compounded by the imposition of it. Countries like Finland or Switzerland are far more democratic, but they don't sell themselves. The reality of American democracy though is big bucks. And they don't even take small steps like campaign reform to correct it. And that's what guides her foreign policy, and why they insist in war to impose democracy: It's big business.:confused:
Perhaps we should be invaded by Finland or Switzerland...
Posted 19 July 2004 - 05:25 PM
No. Lion is obvious, just nation wait for the new election.
Donq; @Countries like Finland or Switzerland are far more democratic, but they don't sell themselves. The reality of American democracy though is big bucks. And they don't even take small steps like campaign reform to correct it. And that's what guides her foreign policy, and why they insist in war to impose democracy: It's big business.
Perhaps we should be invaded by Finland or Switzerland... @
French warn husbands never to discuss their wives in public , because one in chat might be better informed
Posted 19 July 2004 - 05:41 PM
The following article sees little hope in right-libertarians ever making it, but I see big hope mostly coming from left-libertarians: THE COOP. Likeminded people getting together over what really counts--THE WATER WELL. Complaints about taxation? No problem, go into a coop. Complaints about bureaucracy? No problem, go into a coop. There's none in it. Some coops would be more to the left--the kibbutz; some to the right--Mondragon's "workers' capitalism." So I see hope...
The Libertarians only hope
As a former card-carrying Libertarian, I agree with much of the party's platform. No other political entity is closer to my personal belief system than the Libertarians, but I have never voted for one. They won't win big. They can't win big. Here are the drastic, and perhaps to them, unconscionable, measures they need to even the deck, and how this will win them a lot of new supporters, even while losing some current ones.
Since it's difficult to design a political system for people who loathe political systems, being a Libertarian is tougher to manage than most other political philosophies. Like a group called "Humans Against Heartbeats," to some in the party, its very existence tends to contradict its own cause. In this form of government, trying to change the entire system will usually require some help from within the existing system. The best way to do this would be to disguise themselves as members of the existing system, but Libertarian philosophy precludes this.
It takes big bucks to run for political office. Huge and often obscene amounts of money are poured into the coffers of candidates, much of it to cover media expenses, which is, and will continue to be, the best tool for any candidate to use to get his or her message across. As long as the Libertarians refuse to take part in the current system to get the money to put themselves in a position to change it back to the system the founders intended, they'll have no say whatsoever. Either way, they'll always be faced with the same two unattractive choices v irrelevance or hypocrisy.
The best way for Libertarian candidates to get in a position to obtain a high elected office in our current system would be to climb inside a "Trojan Horse" of sorts and infiltrate one of the major parties. As long as most Libertarians refuse to do this based on "principle," they'll remain as consistently overlooked as a rice cake in Ted Kennedy's pantry. They'll be forever sitting on an airport runway, refusing to get on a 747 because they're convinced they can build their own out of some two-by-fours, glue, mason blocks and the motor from a weedwacker.
Raising money requires ****ing up to people and corporations, and making promises you know you'll never be able to keep. Libertarian candidates, in the recognition that this is often a corrupt and unconstitutional way to run the government, refuse (correctly) to take part in doing business that way. This is why a Libertarian will never be elected to a major national office. The refusal to collectively stow away on the S.S. Status Quo and then once as sea, take over, condemns them forever to a life of 8 p.m. meetings in backrooms of Denny's restaurants across the country.
Another reason Libertarians have trouble getting elected to a major office is the constant discussions concerning the drug issue. Every party has its single-issue voters. The Republicans and Democrats have voters who will choose a candidate based only on his or her stance on abortion, taxes, school vouchers or immigration. I have no hard data on this, but I would wager that the Libertarian party has the most single-issue voters of any party v that issue is the legalization of drugs.
Posted 19 July 2004 - 06:17 PM
Yes I do. Because taxes are going to special interest groups, foundations and subsidizing as for example tfor G M, or Microsoft or recently created war on terrorism groups , parties and etc. .
People want to pay taxes only for defense small Congress and government, and socialized society safety net. .
Everything else is attack on freedom of individual. Just people freedom is to make decision where to put their money, not to government or special interest groups .
Posted 19 July 2004 - 06:48 PM
Hey, wait a minute Chomsky. Your point is taken but, "Who's the real enemy the Lion or the Fox?" I distrust the fox more... The lion you see and fakes nothing and doesn't eat you by taxes. Could he eat some little animals who *willingly* go to his side? Sure the key word is "willingly," in which case there's no beast. That's the same with Marxism, ALL PROLETARIANS should be free from their capitalist masters... Are we going to liberate dogs too?:confused:
In this world some are born to be dogs, and some cats. Aren't we talking about FREEDOM?
Posted 19 July 2004 - 06:57 PM
OK, that's where I'd put the money. But some taxes should be reduced (property taxes, say) and some increased. How about taxing cigarretes, junk food, gas?
< Everything else is attack on freedom of individual. Just people freedom is to make decision where to put their money, not to government or special interest groups .
People don-t need have any party to select their representatives. Just to select the candidates and vote for them. Parties are just an legally attack on democracies.
People, no parties should make decisions about Congress and Government, and to end with special interest government nomination. >
Perhaps the representative should be any citizen picked at random so he wouldn't have any connections. Or perhaps corrupt politics should be allowed to go unchecked--so more citizens run for the coops. Perhaps what the system needs is COMPETITION...
Posted 19 July 2004 - 07:10 PM
Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Viracocha; I understand that you don-t want to pay prize for the consolidation of Western Christian empire, but this decision was made in 1052 , when Christianity devided Europe on West and East. And I am also against it. Unfortunately, the all Eastern, and central Europe countries, with help CIA and Pope and Walesa, became dismantled not to compete with Western Europe and US.
It is not accident that biggest way of immigration start in 1980 up to now , because for example in Poland is 20% of unemployment. Our industries were dismantled and what still exist is in foreign hands. So please don-t complain ; emigration is result of Reagan, Pope and members of your government politics in name of democracy.
Israel is financed by US to govern Europe by proxy with Jewish help. Therefore Bulgaria didn-t bow to terrorist because Bulgarian foreign minister is Jew, Kwasniewski who sending Polish troop is Jew, etc. . Jew Geremek will be in European Union represent US orders as a Polish wishes.
But I don-t thing that role of Israel is something to envy.
Frankly, I don´t understand what you are drivelling about. But it sounds interesting, I also believe that Western Europe more and more are taking the shape of an "Superstate", I hope Russia will keep out of it! But, I just wrote that I think Israel is a nation with leaders who work for their own interests, not for any foreign interests.
It seems that anti-zionism is something of a religion for you Russians, but maybe I can change your mind!
God bless Russia! God bless all the free nations of the World! Down with imperialism and warmongering! Cheers!
Posted 19 July 2004 - 07:15 PM
Liberalization is doctrine of capitalists masters, who are, very fortunately together with liberating the world , will liberate themselves from the money, so problem with dog liberalization will diminish, they will be consummated.
Donq; @In this world some are born to be dogs, and some cats. Aren't we talking about FREEDOM.@
You are mistaken. Englishmen will be perfect rickshaw drivers in Hanoi as well.
Posted 19 July 2004 - 07:19 PM
You repeat this, and you have a point. Israeli government is probably better for its own people than most governments on this Earth. Perhaps doesn't prey as much on them.
Only problem though is that it may be a Dove at home and Hawk abroad. And there lies the problem.
Posted 19 July 2004 - 07:30 PM
I see it every day: Proletariats loyal to their masters. They don't want to be liberated in the least. We should make room for them as well. And how about if their masters are good?:confused:
Donq; @In this world some are born to be dogs, and some cats. Aren't we talking about FREEDOM.@
< You are mistaken. Englishmen will be perfect rickshaw drivers in Hanoi as well.>
Is that the fate of the BBC? Who's the passenger, Blair?
Posted 19 July 2004 - 07:32 PM
I am not Russian only Polish who believes that Slavs are victims of Church thousand years of mending and responsible for whole antagonism between the Slavs.
I noticed that not all members of minorities living in Slavs countries are interested in Slavs countries well beings.
These who are valuable citizens should be equally rewarded, these who are not, should be outlaw.
Posted 19 July 2004 - 08:24 PM
Taxes, levies, excise duties, etc. should be paid collectively by the
cooperative, not individuals. This frees individuals from financial
pressure and economic exploitation through personal taxation systems.
The primary source of taxation revenue in a PROUT system would appear to
be at the point of production. This makes sense in that enterprises which
make first use of resources have a social responsibility to ensure proper
utilisation and rational distribution; taxation imposes some restraint to
ensure this responsibility is carried out.
After building full-service social welfare states for decades, governments have been forced to cut down on expenditure because of the growing burden of public debts. This has resulted in a reduction of public spending on social security and health services, causing hardship for the less advantaged groups of society. To fill the gaps left by the withdrawal of the State, private initiative and organized self-help are becoming increasingly important.
Growing unemployment is also caused by strategies of industry to modernize through merger and acquisition and to develop new labour-saving technologies which replace workers by robots. As a result, factories or enterprises belonging to large international conglomerates may disappear practically overnight --together with the jobs they used to offer, if this fits into the corporate strategy. In such an environment, large numbers of workers lose their jobs and tens of thousands of young persons remain without training opportunities or jobs, with the danger that they might be excluded from the mainstream of society.
There is an urgent need to deal with these problems which apparently cannot be solved either by the State or by the market. This is a classical scenario for cooperatives, applying the principles of self-help, mutual assistance, solidarity and social responsibility.
Posted 19 July 2004 - 09:09 PM
"Socio-economic cooperation is most valuable when focused on addressing some of the most fundamental symptoms of underdevelopment --for example on breaking the stranglehold of anti-developmental forces such as rural elites, moneylenders and middlemen."
Notice the first type being fit for left-libertarians, and the second for right-libertarians...
There are basically two forms of cooperation, although many different types of cooperatives are used to achieve the objectives set by their members: socio-economic cooperation and business cooperation --and both have the potential to serve the cause of sustainable development. The main features of each form of cooperation are resumed here below:
-Socio-economic cooperation occurs between individuals who seek to provide a service for themselves. This form of cooperation normally offers life-quality enhancing benefits that can especially serve the disadvantaged and usually succeeds in promoting social cohesion and strengthening the bargaining power of the relatively economically weaker sections of society. Socio-economic cooperation is most valuable when focused on addressing some of the most fundamental symptoms of underdevelopment --for example on breaking the stranglehold of anti-developmental forces such as rural elites, moneylenders and middlemen. It is often most effective in terms of delivering essential community and social services no longer provided by the State, including health care, education, agricultural extension services and public utilities. However, it must be borne in mind that in order to work in poorer communities, high levels of solidarity are required and strong local leadership is critical.
-Business cooperation takes place between business persons (entrepreneurs) and small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It is most common between farmers operating above the subsistence level. Business cooperation is used to build the capacity of SMEs (including individually or family-owned farm enterprises), helping them to compete, sustain profitability and maintain their independence. The success of SMEs frequently depends upon their ability to work in cooperation with similar enterprises. In order to survive the intense competitiveness of a global market-place it is essential that SMEs work together through institutions able both to address local and export markets and to provide the strength to meet the challenge of multinational competitors --often even in their home markets. This is particularly important in the sphere of primary agricultural produce and agro-industrial products --but it can also be significant in terms of creating and/or maintaining local employment, which may otherwise not exist. Many factors may impede social and economic development in poor communities. The absence of sustainable institutions with the capacity to provide both primary production inputs at competitive prices, and/or appropriate channels into home and export markets, remains a significant obstacle to wealth and employment creation, most notably in rural areas.
Posted 20 July 2004 - 02:44 AM
French press review
Tuesday July 20, 2004
The French papers were united in their condemnation of Ariel Sharon after the Israeli prime minister urged all French Jews to relocate to Israel to escape anti-semitism in France. Addressing a meeting of the American Jewish Association in Jerusalem, Mr Sharon said Jews around the world should move to Israel as soon as they could, but added that Jews in France had a special imperative to do so because of rising levels of anti-semitic violence there.
"This is perhaps the worst thing that could happen," exclaimed Andr? Bercoff in France Soir. He said Mr Sharon was "exacerbating tensions and hatred" with his comments and "must stop providing the spark that all too often lights the touchpaper of explosive conflict". In L'Alsace, Fran?ois B?cet agreed. "These extreme remarks don't help anyone, and certainly not the Jewish community that he wants to protect," he sighed. "If there is an initiative to be taken - and there is - it should be taken here, in France."
La Presse de la Manche had a more practical objection. "France is not a country in the midst of war, it has no ongoing hostilities with any other country, and, in general, the French live in far greater security than people in the Middle East," it said. Mr Sharon had "missed a great opportunity to keep his mouth shut".
"Mr Sharon's attack is doubly shameful: firstly because France is not anti-semitic, and, secondly, because he knows that it is not anti-semitic," thundered Charles Lambroschini in Le Figaro. French anti-semitism was the preserve of marginal groups and was not enshrined in French politics, he argued. The real reason for Mr Sharon's comments was that he hoped to "deny the legitimacy of a France that continues to defend Yasser Arafat".
Le Monde's Sylvain Cypel maintained anti-semitism in France was "a reality we have been aware of for too long" but felt there was another reality to be addressed: "The tendency of some Jews to always see themselves as victims, even when they are being aggressors themselves." France should strive to combat racism of all kinds, she concluded, but must take care the fight against antisemitism "does not become associated with an unconditional support of Israel".
Posted 20 July 2004 - 11:01 AM
welcome with a different point of view.
I do see a lot of striking similarities between the US and Israel,
and the pun "striking" is intended on my part.
I call political leaders who commit crimes against humanity criminals. Both countries have extremist leaders just as the PA.
Your description of Israel is very debatable. We neednt delve further Israel has had fifty years of Western press support but in the last few years public sentiment has suffered the inevitable result of overkill and they are starting to think again.
I do agree with your sentiment about the paranoia against conservative views regards immigration. Clearly it is driven by the socialists/unions but contrary in part to your view it is also associated with Jewish claims of antisemitism which makes your position quite unique.
But that contradiction is nowhere near as great as that of the Left fighting to get cheap labour in to take their jobs off them.
That takes the cake.
I have referred to this previously- globalism and international socialism have the same goal, which is why they have become strangebedfellows. In other words to hell with the workers
its power we really want.
"The movement was perfectly organised .....Today its very different .........disorganised". Walsea and Gorbachev played the same role? Didnt Gorby go well at first and then it turned to that smelly stuff.
It figures for me. De-structure and then restructure (UE membership). Pope is re-uniting E and W plus the Old Europe
(pre-Luther?) and modern Europe. It started out as the Treaty Of Rome. Capitalists and communists=strangebedfellows?
No the puppeteer bank-rolled both which is why the dismantling of the USSR was so quick and effortless. The word dismantling may not really (fully)be true.
So the internationalists behind the US/Israel/vatican will loose a son (Poland) but gain a huge family.
I agree with Viracocha, Russia should stay put, or we can all kiss good buy to nationalism and sovereignty if they troop off to the whorehouse with the rest of them. Putin may well be a very lonely man amongst world leaders because his position is so
unique and critical.
I would argue that the US isnt defending democracy and freedom but is undermining it. We may not see an election there this year.
There cannot be a NWO to become world govt if Israel and the US remain nationalist. Both are suffering changes unthinkable
just a few short years ago. Sept 11 was as much to do with changing US conceptions as changing Islam in my view.
I agree with Noam Chompsky.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users