Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#3621 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 20 August 2004 - 04:01 PM

IDonq; @I say the predator type is separate from most other humans by genetic traits. Probably he feels at home in the political arena, where he can exert his power and histrionic ambitions...
The Narcissistic-Aggressive Type

Also known as: Cyclothymic, histrionic, hysterical or hypomanic-depressive personality. "The ambitious predator"..@


Tapeworms ;

Question ;
Human tapeworms are most closely related to those of:

  • 0

#3622 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 20 August 2004 - 07:03 PM

As usual, Scandinavian countries rank highest in sustainability. Switzerland is among the firsts too and so is Canada and Costa Rica. The Americanus Raptor though, also as expected, ranks very low at 45th place.:( Surprisingly though Germany is behind at 50th, and, of course, Russia and China are even lower at 72nd and 129th respectively. Chinese unite!;)


Nordics rank highest in environmental index
Finland, Norway and Sweden lead the world in environmental sustainability, according to a 142-nation study released at the 2002 meeting of the World Economic Forum

Nordics do better in environmental sustainability

You may have heard that Stockholm is the cleanest capital in the world, that Finland leads in sustainable forest management or that Norway is one of the world's leading renewable energy suppliers.

"The Nordic countries rank highest in environmental sustainability". These are the conclusions from the most recent update of the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), a project conducted jointly by Yale University (USA), Columbia University (USA), and the World Economic Forum.

According to a 142 nation study released at the 2002 meeting of the World Economic Forum in New York, Finland leads the world in environmental sustainability, followed by Norway and Sweden in second and third place respectively. Nordic neighbours Iceland rank eighth on the list and the Baltic republic of Latvia climbs up to an excellent tenth place.


Respect for the environment

According to the study, the Nordic countries rank at the top because of their success in minimizing air and water pollution, their high institutional capacity to handle environmental problems, and their comparatively low levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The study's findings were based on calculations of 20 key indicators in five categories: environmental systems, environmental stresses, human vulnerability to environmental risks, a society's institutional capacity to respond to environmental threats, and a nation's stewardship of the shared resources of the global commons.

Among the 20 indicators that comprise the ESI are factors such as urban air quality, water, and the strength of environmental regulation. The study builds on 68 underlying databases, representing the most comprehensive publicly available collection of environmental indicators in existence.


Cross-National comparisons

The ESI takes account of environmental "endowments", current results as well as future capacity to manage environmental challenges. "The ESI permits systematic cross-national environmental comparisons," says ESI Project Director Daniel Esty of Yale's Center for Environmental Law and Policy. "Environmental decision making has long been plagued by uncertainties and a lack of critical information. As a result, choices are made on the basis of generalized observations and best guesses, or worse yet, rhetoric or emotion. The ESI moves us toward a more analytically rigorous and data driven approach to environmental decision making."

Just as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) provides a broad-gauge indicator of economic success, the ESI distills a country's capacity for sustained environmental strength into a single number ranging from 0 to 100. Much like a cumulative grade point average for the environment, this number provides a comprehensive snapshot of a country's likely environmental quality of life over the next generation or two.

The ESI provides a basis for addressing a number of pressing policy questions, such as: does good environmental performance come at a price in terms of economic success? The ESI suggests not. Finland and Belgium, for example, have similar GDP per capita, but are ranked widely apart by the ESI. Finland has a $22,008 GDP per capita and a 73.7 score, while Belgium has a GDP of $24,533 per capita and scores 38.6.

"The ESI shows that a nation's economic status does not necessarily predict its environmental success," says Marc Levy of Columbia University's Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), a unit of the Columbia Earth Institute.


The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)

2002 ESI rankings

Rank Country ESI
1 Finland 73.9
2 Norway 73.0
3 Sweden 72.6
4 Canada 70.6
5 Switzerland 66.5
6 Uruguay 66.0
7 Austria 64.2
8 Iceland 63.9
9 Costa Rica 63.2
10 Latvia 63.0

The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) is a measure of overall progress towards environmental sustainability, developed for 142 countries.

The ESI is the result of collaboration among the World Economic Forum's Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force, The Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, and the Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN).

The ESI scores are based upon a set of 20 core indicators, each of which combines two to eight variables for a total of 68 underlying variables. The ESI permits cross-national comparisons of environmental progress in a systematic and quantitative fashion.

http://www.scandinav...sustainable.htm

all countries...;)

http://www.ciesin.or...s/ESI/rank.html
  • 0

#3623 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 20 August 2004 - 07:28 PM

Donq; @
Rank Country ESI
1 Finland 73.9
2 Norway 73.0
3 Sweden 72.6
4 Canada 70.6
5 Switzerland 66.5
6 Uruguay 66.0
7 Austria 64.2
8 Iceland 63.9
9 Costa Rica 63.2
10 Latvia 63.0 @

One upon time Cossack asks me; @Why Polish don
  • 0

#3624 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 20 August 2004 - 07:33 PM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Donq; @
Rank Country ESI
1 Finland 73.9
2 Norway 73.0
3 Sweden 72.6
4 Canada 70.6
5 Switzerland 66.5
6 Uruguay 66.0
7 Austria 64.2
8 Iceland 63.9
9 Costa Rica 63.2
10 Latvia 63.0 @

One upon time Cossack asks me; @Why Polish don-t like Russia so much. @
My answer is; @Siberia is not Italy.@

Donq; Majority of your positive grading countries have worse climate than Siberia.
We appreciate their values and stay out. :)



Me dear Woj, I'm sorry to inform you that Costa Rica is absolutely tropical and that Russia while being as cold as it gets, occupies the 72nd place...:confused:
  • 0

#3625 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 21 August 2004 - 11:36 AM

Bader; @I would have to say- Rome and Greece eat your heart out. He has travelled the world, I put it to him that surely the best Europe has to offer couldnt come near this and he agreed.
Have you ever been there?@

To go there, is to become part of experience to feel like a spare part on production line. To be the subject of operations and out.

Two truck of broken china are sent everyday to archeological spots for tourist attraction so they could collect the memorable things.
Sometimes is more interested to walk on less crowded path.

True untouched Roman time artifacts are in Libya; Kartagina. Last week in Bulgaria in region of Kazaluk found gold mask weight of 1 pound of Trathia king from V century bc. etc.

@Venice merchant@ of Thomas Mann talks of dangerous Venice air. Group of tourists stay in hotel but news of cholera coming is persistent. People rush to leave city to escape quarantine or even the death. Only Merchant looks in eyes of beautiful Polish aristocrat and imagine positive respond. He is not aware of situation. Practically is nobody left from tourist in the city. Next morning he doesn
  • 0

#3626 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 21 August 2004 - 11:57 AM

@I would have to say- Rome and Greece eat your heart out. He has travelled the world, I put it to him that surely the best Europe has to offer couldnt come near this and he agreed.
Have you ever been there?@

<To go there, is to become part of experience to feel like a spare part on production line. To be the subject of operations and out.>

Regrettably I haven't been there, but I have to Costa Rica which is the subject of sustainability. The people is involved in the care of the environment, which shows that education is the first step in a good environment. The country is simply awesome...;)

< I just wonder why Donq doesn-t have NZ on his The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). Is it the case that NZ neutrality prevents this country from good standard in US eyes? Doesn-t Donq aware of this? Donq's double standard might have bad influence on people attitude to his coops.>

As for NZ, I think our good friend Woj needs glasses or else the drinks blurred his eyesight. NZ clocks at 19th place (59.9 points), not exactly the best but better than Netherlands at 34th place(55.4 points) which got very tought environmental laws and provides bicycle lanes for all who don't want to participate in the trashing of the environment.
  • 0

#3627 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 21 August 2004 - 11:28 PM

If you think your vote counts think again;
If you're a Bostonian and plan to vote for President George W. Bush in November, don't expect your vote to count.
Don't feel bad. Not a single Texas vote for Senator John Kerry will matter, either.
We can thank the Electoral College and state legislatures for making voting, that key to democracy, meaningless for millions of Americans.
It is a diatribe about the Electoral College stripping Republicans, Democrats and independents of their votes.
Consider this: More than 47 million people cast irrelevant votes for president in 2000 because their favorite candidate piled up fewer votes in their state than another guy did.
That's right. Out of 104 million votes cast for Bush, Al Gore and Ralph Nader, 47 million people punched cards, touched screens or pulled levers to cast votes that simply didn't matter. That's because in all but two states, the candidate who gets the biggest chunk of the popular vote wins all of the electoral votes.
``It violates political equality,'' The winner-take-all rule, used in all states except Maine and Nebraska, means any vote cast for a presidential favorite who doesn't carry the state does not count.
Whatever happened to one person, one vote?
Forget about Florida's hanging chads or the U.S. Supreme Court decision to halt vote-counting in that state in December 2000. Consider the 4.6 million Californians whose votes for Bush were rendered impotent.
U.S. Constitution
The use of electoral votes in presidential elections is required by the U.S. Constitution, but even those votes don't carry equal weight. Each state gets as many electors as it has members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
Because every state has two senators no matter what its population, residents of small states get more electoral wallop than those in large states. Combine that with differences in voter turnout and margins of victory, apply some math and you see that each North Dakota elector in 2000 represented only 58,000 votes for Bush, while each New York elector represented 124,000 votes for Gore.
In other words, it took twice as many New Yorkers as North Dakotans to make one electoral vote.
Nebraska and Maine
In the late 20th century, lawmakers in Nebraska and Maine, each with four electoral votes, changed it so that two electors represent the winner in each of two congressional districts, while the candidate who takes the state gets two bonus electors.
Vote Anyway
If that were true, why are two-thirds of the states -- big ones, little ones, rural ones and urban ones -- ignored by presidential candidates?
Likewise, minority interests matter to candidates only if the minorities live in sufficient numbers in battleground states.
Then there is the philosophic argument: the U.S. is, after all, a republic, not a democracy. woolner@bloomberg.net.
  • 0

#3628 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 02:47 AM

<We can thank the Electoral College and state legislatures for making voting, that key to democracy, meaningless for millions of Americans.>

Good article, Woj. I read somewhere it was born out of mistrust by the powerful for people's vote.

But look at this other issue: You better stay home if you are ignorant of the issues. The first paragraph's warning about war and the corruption of the institutions is prophetic. I know personally some of these ignorant people who casted an ignorant vote--and we are still paying the consequences...:(

"If you can't see beyond a media image or some catchy phrases and
emotional attitudes, then why should you take the future of America --
and the world -- into your hands in a voting booth? Stay home. At least
you won't be doing any harm. Media pundits will undoubtedly wring their
hands about low voter turnout, but this gives them something to do
instead of spreading misinformation."

"There are people out there whose job it is to manipulate your emotions
for political purposes -- and they get paid big bucks for doing it. But
the real price will be paid by millions of Americans, including
Americans yet unborn."


Terminal triviality?
Thomas Sowell September 21, 2000

Does America have a terminal case of triviality? Just weeks from now,
we will be selecting someone for the highest office in our land -- and
the most important office in the world. This is someone who can take us
into war, or blunder us into war, someone who can restore the rule of
law or further corrupt our institutions until this is no longer
America.

Yet what are we talking about? How Gore kissed Tipper, how Bush kissed
Oprah, how Lieberman is Jewish and what Cheney's retirement package was
from his previous employer. Is this how little we think about the
future of our country and the lives of our children?

As election day gets closer, we are going to hear more and more
repetitions of the mindless mantra that we need to "get out the vote."
But how are we better off if more people who don't even care enough to
become informed about the serious issues show up at the polls to make
choices by guess and by golly?

That is putting form over substance. It is also putting enormous power
in the hands of political demagogues who exploit the voters' ignorance
to gain power for themselves. It used to be said that an informed
citizenry was the foundation of democracy. It is still true, but it
just doesn't get said any more. "Participation" is now the magic word,
even if it is participation in self-destruction.

Truth and reality count for so little today that the cardinal sin,
according to the media, is "negative advertising." In other words, when
some political chameleon misleads the public about the kinds of
policies he has supported and the kind of ideology he embraces -- the
classic example being Michael Dukakis in 1988 -- then it is terrible if
someone exposes him for the phony that he is.

Far better that a politician should acquire the enormous powers of
President of the United States under false pretenses than that we
should hear "negative advertising." This is a blank check for phonies --
including both Clintons and Gore.

The whole history of this century reeks with the tragic consequences of
blank checks for people whose chief talent has been the emotional
manipulation of the public for political purposes. Lenin was
charismatic. So was Hitler. So was Mao. In each case, tens of millions
of people paid with their lives for this charisma and their own
emotional decisions to follow the pied piper of the moment.

Would it have been so terrible if there had been some "negative
advertising" to warn the people of what these aspirants to power were
really like? Or would that not have been sporting? Or would it have
spoiled the fun of those who looked up in glassy-eyed admiration at
their heroes, even though these were heroes who would lead them to
their doom?

If you can't be bothered to read a lot of dull stuff about Social
Security or military defense or what is really going on in our public
schools, then why should you be bothered to go down to the polls on
election day and cast an ignorant vote? And don't kid yourself that
watching TV -- even TV debates -- is going to inform you. Sound bites
are usually very unsound.

If you can't see beyond a media image or some catchy phrases and
emotional attitudes, then why should you take the future of America --
and the world -- into your hands in a voting booth? Stay home. At least
you won't be doing any harm. Media pundits will undoubtedly wring their
hands about low voter turnout, but this gives them something to do
instead of spreading misinformation.

In this age, when everything seems to be discussed in terms of what you
have a "right" to do, no doubt you have a right to go vote and take the
consequences. But the consequences don't apply just to you. They apply
to people who have no right to vote, who are babes in their cribs who
will be the people of tomorrow who will inherit the world that your
vote helps create.

You also inherited. You inherited what was created and preserved by the
efforts of centuries and the sacrifices of lives on the beaches of
Normandy and Iwo Jima. Is it too much of a sacrifice for you to take a
little time to become informed on both sides of the issues that will
determine what kind of country our children will inherit?

There are people out there whose job it is to manipulate your emotions
for political purposes -- and they get paid big bucks for doing it. But
the real price will be paid by millions of Americans, including
Americans yet unborn.

L2000 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

townhall.com
  • 0

#3629 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 04:04 AM

Well I'm glad somebody else besides me noticed the connection between bananas and revolution. For one, a Banana Revolution seems to me like the perfect cure to the Banana Republic...;)

"Such a revolution is especially important if we are to find ways to shift from the current forms of egocentric globalisation to a global society that recognises the actual interrelatedness of all human beings as well as our interconnectedness with the planet that supports us."


Bananas and the Revolution
Peter Schata

There is a long political history behind bananas becoming the fifth most important food commodity in the world. They were on of the first products where no expense was spared to create world markets for this unmistakeable fruit, turning whole countries over to banana production, with stooge dictators controlled by the USA, in what aptly became known as 'the banana republics'. Half a century after the big Hollywood-style banana campaigns, the banana reflects ever more clearly a world economic system concerned only with the kind of 'growth' that means control of the markets and massive profits. What happens to the environment or to the people, who produce and consume the fruit of such intentions, appears to be irrelevant.

This project of the Free International University Social Sculpture Forum, centring around bananas produced by the small farmers of the Windward Islands, has facilitated many imaginative exchanges with many people in several countries, about the nature of the social and economic systems we find ourselves in, and can be described as 'social sculpture'.

This should not be confused with art that serves a political programme. Nor does it have anything to do with the kind of 'social engineering' that anyone who strives for a free and democratic society so abhors. It is 'social sculpture' because it lifts the 'aesthetic' out of its narrow confinement to a particular sphere and particular media, returning it to or lives and the life of society. The 'images' we make of our lives, how we envision and shape our society is an aesthetic process. This 'warmth sculpture' as Joseph Beuys described it, is an enormous 'living sculpture' constituted by the creative, transformative activity of human beings, using materials available to everyone - thought, speech, discussion, images. We enter into the living being of the society with our imagination, so that we can shape a free, democratic society that is sustainable, socially and environmentally.

In a society in which agriculture is no longer concerned with quality as the nourishment value of the produce, or maintaining the health of the earth on which it depends, we are in grave danger. When agriculture has become a form of industrial production, concerned above all with maximizing profits and control, then the revolution in agriculture that is needed is, first and foremost, a revolution in our thinking, a revolution in our concepts, not only of work, value, growth, but also in our understanding of money as a regulator of rights and responsibilities. There are no longer isolated social problems because there are no longer isolated spheres of society. Over the last 200 years, in the shift from the small-scale, exchange economies to an international, credit and enterprise economy, our conception of society has gone through a process of radical transformation, so much so that it now almost synonymous with that of the economy. However, the actual changes that have taken place have not been paralleled by an adequate transformation of our economic concepts. Consequently, the complex world economy in which we live is still described in terms that have been meaningless for more than a century. This is the root of the crisis that confronts us today. Mad cow disease and an unscrupulous disregard for basic laws of nature, exploitation in the Third World, unemployment and environmental destruction certainly all have their particular causes. Considered, however, in conjunction with one another these immense problems reflect the total inappropriateness of our social-economic concepts and ideas. "One cannot master a situation with ideas that are contrary to the very nature of the situation" (Wilhelm Schmundt).

In today's society consumers are led to believe they are exercising their 'freedom of choice' when their choices are largely defined for them. Questions could be raised too about other freedoms: 'freedom of association', 'freedom of speech' and 'free trade'. In our democracies there is little self-determination, and we only need to look at poverty and unemployment in Europe as well, to raise doubts as to what is meant by 'free trade'. Such distortions of language that hoodwink millions of people into accepting their lot, need to be challenged and overturned. New language means new ideas, new concepts. This is the revolution. We are this revolution!

Such a revolution is especially important if we are to find ways to shift from the current forms of egocentric globalisation to a global society that recognises the actual interrelatedness of all human beings as well as our interconnectedness with the planet that supports us.
  • 0

#3630 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 08:03 AM

GOLDWATER SEES ELITIST SENTIMENTS
THREATENING LIBERTIES
By U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater
Reprinted in part from F.R.E.E.
(Fund to Restore an Educated Electorate)
Box 8616,
Waco, TX. 76710

Johnny Stewart, Director


Membership List

GOLDWATER SEES ELITIST SENTIMENTS THREATENING LIBERTIES
By U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater (1979)
"In September 1939, two members of the Council on Foreign Relations visited the State Department to offer the council's services.

"They proposed to do research and make recommendations for the department without formal assignment or responsibility, particularly in four areas - security armaments, economic and financial problems, political problems, and territorial problems. The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to finance the operation of this plan.

"From that day forward, the Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making positions with the State Department and other federal agencies. EVERY SECRETARY OF STATE SINCE 1944, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JAMES F. BYRNES, HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.

"Almost without exception, its members are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status and educational background. The organization itself began in 1919 in Paris when scholars turned their attention to foreign affairs after the end of World War I. It remains a non-governmental private grouping of specialists in foreign affairs.

"A NUMBER OF WRITERS, disturbed by the influential role that this organization has played in determining foreign policy, have concluded that the council and its members are an active part of the communist conspiracy for world domination.

"Their syllogistic argument goes like this: THE COUNCIL HAS DOMINATED AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY SINCE 1945. ALL AMERICAN POLICY DECISIONS HAVE RESULTED IN LOSSES TO THE COMMUNISTS. Therefore, all members of the council are communist sympathizers.

"Many of the policies advocated by the council have been damaging to the cause of freedom and particularly to the United States. But this is not because the members are communists or communist sympathizers. This explanation of our foreign policy reversals is too pat, too simplistic.

"I believe that the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. IN THEIR PURSUIT OF A NEW WORLD ORDER, THEY ARE PREPARED TO DEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH A COMMUNIST STATE, A SOCIALIST STATE, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy - its all the same to them.

"THEIR GOAL IS TO impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through merger and consolidation. THEY SEE THE ELIMINATION OF NATIONAL BOUNDARIES, THE SUPPRESSION OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC LOYALTIES, as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. They believe economic competition is the root cause of international tension.

"Perhaps if the council's vision of the future were realized, it would reduce wars, lessen poverty and bring about a more efficient utilization of the world's resources. To my mind, THIS WOULD INEVITABLY BE ACCOMPANIED BY A LOSS IN PERSONAL FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RESTRAINTS THAT PROVOKED THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering achange in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four Democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy direction.

"THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT TURNOVER IN PERSONNEL. BUT NO CHANGE IN POLICY. Example: DURING THE NIXON YEARS, HENRY KISSINGER, A COUNCIL MEMBER AND NELSON ROCKEFELLER PROTEGE, WAS IN CHARGE OF FOREIGN POLICY. WHEN JIMMY CARTER WAS ELECTED, KISSINGER WAS REPLACED BY ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, A COUNCIL MEMBER AND DAVID ROCKEFELLER PROTEGE.
  • 0

#3631 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 08:21 AM

The site with the rest of Goldwaters address:

www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/multi/goldwatr.html

which I found via article on timeline to world control, next to year 1921 dealing with the advent of the Council of Foreign Relations a sister of the Royal International Institute of Foriegn Affairs on site:

www.sovereignty.net/timeline.html

The Goldwater article has a long list of CFR members in govt, media, intelligence, banking etc.

Goldwater was one of the very few (US) who impressed me when I was younger. In fact I could count them all on the single finger of one hand. I cant do that anymore, not because I have no fingers either.
His campaign for Presidency was murdered by the media.
  • 0

#3632 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 09:11 AM

Interesting post on Goldwater.

I never knew too much of him but what I heard in our Canadian media and it wasn't good. He was portrayed as a racist.

On many issues, I believe, he was a patriotic American and staunch supporter of the constitution. I think he would have made a better President than a lot that were, like Clinton and Carter and FDR and Nixon and Donder and Blitzen:)
  • 0

#3633 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 10:26 AM

I dont recall much. He was right wing, similar to todays libertarian
as i recall but seemed to have uncommon common sense.
He was going to win the vietnam war as one might expect in a
war on communism, as it was portrayed then, but because he
might have used nuclear or atomic weapons ( we are only supposed to think of the biggest bombs not small ones) to clear a strip between north and south to cut the vietmin/cong supply lines he was potrayed as a war crazy. But in those days it wasnt to be public knowledge that they werent there to win.
Everyone is a little wiser today regardless of the view one may have had but it was his clarity and common sense which impressed not the war issues and those types all over the world (eg Ian Smith of Rhodesia, Enoch Powell in Britain also media assassinated racists etc) would have spoilt the universal game which wasnt about common sense and solving the problem but the reverse.
  • 0

#3634 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 02:59 PM

Howdy Pliny, all
Welcome back. These are some interesting stats on the class that rules our lives. The bureaucracy first helps itself, then the scraps--if any--is left to the poor. That's BAD SOCIALISM to me...;)


The Privileged Class
Employees of federal, state and local governments all are paid more, on average, than employees in the private sector. The disparity is greatest at the federal level. In 1991, the latest year for which complete figures are available:

Wages and salaries of federal civilian employees were, on average, 26 percent higher than private wages and salaries, and those of state and local government employees were 5.4 percent higher.

When fringe benefits were included, the annual compensation of federal civilian employees averaged $46,164, or 45.2 percent more than the $31,789 of private-sector employees.

The annual compensation of state and local government employees was $35,054, or 10.3 percent more than that of private-sector employees.

When the greater amount of employee time off was also considered, the hourly compensation of federal employees was 64 percent higher than private-sector employees, and state and local government employees' compensation was 25 percent higher.
The pattern of higher public-sector pay held true nationwide.

Among state governments, annual employee compensation in 1991 exceeded that of private-sector employees in every state but Georgia and Missouri, and hourly compensation was higher in all 50 states.

Further, state government employees received at least $5,000 more in compensation than private-sector employees in 26 states.

Among local governments, annual employee compensation exceeded that of private-sector employees in 38 states.
Between 1980 and 1991, after adjustments for inflation, state and local government employees received $4.78 and federal civilian employees received $4.56 in new compensation for every $1 that private employee compensation increased.


Source: Wendell Cox and Samuel A. Brunelli, "America's Protected Class III," State Factor, Vol. 20, No. 4, April 1994, American Legislative Exchange Council, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 240, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 547-4646.
  • 0

#3635 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 09:50 PM

Socer; Iraq
  • 0

#3636 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 10:38 PM

Bader; @"I believe that the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. IN THEIR PURSUIT OF A NEW WORLD ORDER, THEY ARE PREPARED TO DEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH A COMMUNIST STATE, A SOCIALIST STATE, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy - its all the same to them.
"THEIR GOAL IS TO impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through merger and consolidation. THEY SEE THE ELIMINATION OF NATIONAL BOUNDARIES, THE SUPPRESSION OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC LOYALTIES, as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. They believe economic competition is the root cause of international tension.@

We have in Poland satiric song regarding peasant mentality; Co je twoje to je moje, co je moje to nie twoje ..

What
  • 0

#3637 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 02:07 AM

Communists for Kerry, Fascists for Bush!

http://engforum.prav...?threadid=93068

What should Kerry do regarding Iraq?

http://engforum.prav...?threadid=93057
  • 0

#3638 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 06:32 AM

After reading that do you wonder why democracy will lead to the socialist state? The more they vote to pay themselves the more taxes must be extracted from the economy thamore control must be exercised to control the economy....et voila...the totalitarian state.
Thanks for that post Donq...
  • 0

#3639 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:33 AM

The Mayas in Peru had a ommunist state, a monarchy and a priesthood, as I recall.
The UN is socialist and is likely to become world govt, they have already worked out a tax system, all govts will be bound by the UN laws and its treaties, all centralised control. They cant try and bring them in yet because the US people will revolt, so the
damage of the US has to continue, whether by Bush or Kerry.
A major incident like Ridge is always preaching (perhaps hes al Qaeda's PR man) could lead to marshall law/FEMA taking over to condition the people to submit to world authority.
The elite would choose socialism to regiment the masses and have the law makers who like centralised power.

Someone has claimed Kerry has promised Jews/Israel 40,000
more troops in iraq, which must have been in closed meeting.

Another reason a major incident could look very convenient is the fact that 329 cities and counties plus the states of Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont have passed legislation in opposition to the Patriot Act- that is certain sections of it which are unconstitutional.
Some provisions of the act have already been ruled unconstitutional so a precedent has been set.
I would expect a draft would follow Marshall Law, likewise the
new war effort/financial and economic control may pass to a board
as though the nation had mobilised for war under Roosevelt.
The constitution, the dollar and the huge deficit can all be lost to a new creation and the UN security forces would be helping keep
the nation running while the cannon fodder are overseas (Syria?
Iran? Said Arabia? as well as Iraq ) thus the nation has a major change in heart about its security/sovereingty/relationship with UN/world govt.
Bush would like it to happen before the election, Kerry after the election.
According to Texe Marrs who writes book about the worlds elite
and their secret dimensions, Kohn alias Kerry was given a Bones
nickname of long devil. He allegedly took a bribe from a Red China lobbyist ($10,000) and has a photo of himself in a Vietnam musium embracing communist leaders, uses the old marxist clinched fist salute and his wife funds communist causes, so maybe there is something behind the tag of being commmunist.
Bush's Bones name is Temporary, so maybe he may not get the nod again for a second term.
  • 0

#3640 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:56 AM

Donq; @I know personally some of these ignorant people who casted an ignorant vote--and we are still paying the consequences@

Ignorance of the people or rather issue of credibility?

Albert A. Gore, Jr.of Tennessee, the country's vice president, lost his bid for the U.S. presidency to Republican George W. Bush (q.v.), governor of Texas.
why?
Albert Gore as democrat fought smoking habit and cried for losses of life to addiction.
Albert A.Gore Jr Tennessee in Tennessee in his bid for state office claimed his family and his contribution to state well being by growing tobacco with his own hands. !!!

Al Gore also as a running mate selected senator Lieberman from Connecticut who was main supporter of Clinton/Albright war on Yugoslavian Slavs, so he couldn
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru