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

#4101 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 02:04 AM

"It is simply not right for today's elderly to appropriate for themselves resources and prerogatives in a way that discriminates against their own children and grandchildren."

We sure need new blood, but we also need some fairness in the treatment b/ the elderly and the young. Big money is being lavishly spent on keeping the elderly happy at the expense of education for the young. Ironic since the young represent a better future, but why? Simple. Because the former votes and the latter can't.:confused:

(The article is a bit old, but if the situation has changed, it has been for the worse)

"Expenditures for the elderly at all levels of government exceed the amount spent on children, age seventeen and under, including the total amount spent on public education, by more than three to one."

One solution I see, without "upsetting" the elderly, is giving parents the choice to raise the children in coops--away from the bureaucrats who got this jungle upside down...

Though you can provide the elderly great benefits without incurring in big waste, like bloated medical expenses. But, hey, what can you expect our politicians to do other than like the ostrich when they smell trouble?;)


Politics and the Elderly: Toward a Sharing of Resources

by Harold E. Fey

Inequities in the distribution of what have come to be called "entitlements" need to receive more attention in American society. The disproportion of public funds paid to the elderly as over against payments and services to children is a scandal, but almost nobody is scandalized. A look at the facts and a little speculation concerning the consequences of the disparity are in order.

In the discussion that follows, my indebtedness to Philip Longman's Born to Pay: The New Politics of Aging in America (Houghton Mifflin, 1987) is substantial. Longman identifies the key fact by quoting a 1977 study by economists Spencer Spengler and Robert Clark: "Expenditures for the elderly at all levels of government exceed the amount spent on children, age seventeen and under, including the total amount spent on public education, by more than three to one." Noting that "the disparity is much larger today," Longman states that "Social Security pensions and Medicare pensions have become much more generous while welfare and educational programs for the young have been cut. " He adds: "At the federal level, the disproportion is about ten to one. "

Public apathy explains the inadequate emphasis that the presidential candidates gave to education in the recent campaign. Neither candidate acknowledged that the U.S. is falling behind other industrial democracies because our educational standards have slumped, particularly in mathematics and science. Our nation is suffering and will suffer more from our comparative neglect of our children. Neither the public nor the government takes seriously the findings of several national commissions which have deplored this neglect of the younger generation.

Reasons for the disparate treatment of the old and the young include the simple fact that elders vote and children do not. Entitlements for the elderly have become the sacred cow of American politics. Officeholders and candidates threaten entitlements at their peril. One of the most powerful lobbies in Washington is run by the 29-million-member American Association of Retired Persons--which Newsweek recently described as "the big gray money machine."

(snip)

The importance of equal treatment of the young has been raised by several educational and financial groups. In 1981 the National Commission on Excellence in Education was appointed by Secretary of Education T. H. Bell. Eighteen eminent persons studied the problem and reported in 1985 that "our nation is at risk." The commission did not mince words:

Our once unchallenged pre-eminence in commerce, industry, science and technical innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. . . . The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur?others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments. . . . We have done it to ourselves--squandered the gains made after Sputnik, dismantled our educational support systems.

The tone of grave concern runs throughout the report, yet its impact on our government has been negligible.

This commission, which included the president of Yale University, teachers and officials of leading educational organizations, did not regard our situation as hopeless:

We do not believe that public commitment to excellence in educational reform must be made at the expense of a strong public commitment to the equitable treatment of our diverse population. The twin goals of equity and high-quality scholarship have profound and practical meaning for our economy and society, and we cannot permit one to yield to the other in principle or in practice. To do so would deprive young people of their chance to live and learn according to their aspirations and abilities. It also would lead to an accommodation to mediocrity in our society or to the creation of an undemocratic elitism.

more...

http://www.religion-...e.asp?title=211
  • 0

#4102 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 02:28 AM

<THe "Related article: How Coops can change the world" is a good one and shows how the dialectic materialism works against
economic democracy. Both capitalism and socialism will fight it
to survive because it exposes their cultic myth and resulting bondage.>

"Production for human needs, rather than profit, can only be fully realized through a democratically planned world economy. But building coop networks is the best first step toward that gold."

The question I have though is regarding this paragraph. Do we need "democratically planned world economy"? Or rather "supply and demand"?

I think we are inclined here to the second one, aren't we?;)

However, there should be limits for those processes and products that affect the environment, which in the end affect human beings. In that area we need world planning and/or agreements.
  • 0

#4103 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 04:17 AM

Don't miss the latest installment of the election puppet show. Even Michael Moore is present...;)

http://atomfilms.sho...goodtobeindc_af
  • 0

#4104 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 04:23 AM

Back again DonQ:

You said you didnt know why these people promoting coops would call it socialism.
The reason I would think is the same as you like the word "humanism" and it gives the wrong message because so many would just close their minds to it and be convinced that it was a left wing revival, thus they stay with trying to hope that capitalism will improve.
Its not socialism because the owners are private industry. Same as someone leaving a job as an employee and going self-employed, which is very different from Unionists trying to wrestle control or joint control from Private industry at factory office.
I think it is pretty dumb to use that kind of misleading language
which does the same job as the mis-leading information referred to in the past to discourage coops. One would think these people would have learnt from the past.

Notice in the problems mentioned in the past, the one about when the finance is borrowed and they use the banks as any other business, which of course is a legimate option but the banks take part of the cream. The trouble is the combined effect of the down side of the debt money system, ( to just talk of the cost of interest may sound like just another business expense and that on its own for one business it is just that but the the real and true story is hidden which is why people play with the
symptims and not the causes because they dont see them) which all businesses suffer from, and the glory of the coop is to create a new environemnt free of that.

The problems of the past that coops have experienced from Left and Right can be formidable and the forces on the right or monopolistic capitalism and banks whom the principles of coops threatens will have political, legal and financial forces they will bring to bear in order to cause disasters and bad press/propoganda. No route is easy, but if finance system can be reformed then the whole environment will change for the better.
Its easier to build a house in a sheltered spot than in the middle of a strong river you have no control over.

The character of "centralised planning" was a good identifying
problem and a key trait of socialism and globalism as we head towards Lenin's dream of global centralised demokrazy. But they fell down using the lanuage of the left (where centralised planning is basic culture) in referring to spreading workplace democracy. It will look like the unionist dont just want to have a seat on the board they are determined to get their hands on shares. Why dont they just go and play russian roulette and leave us alone?
These guys can see outside the square but they have to take their language outside the square as well. But one thing that this does bring out is the way the left and those dependant on
capitalism have been betrayed. If Marx had of exposed the banking system behind capitalism the principles of coops would have created a socio-economic rennaissance. He wouldnt because the grass-roots freedom would have been the opposite to centralised planning and control.

The core is the nature of the 'water-well' - symbolising the seat of the creation and cancellation of the money. Thats why its easy for "capitalism declares war on coops" so take the war-office off them and make it a democractic servant to all society, not a private momopoly or a state monopoly.
  • 0

#4105 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 04:55 AM

<You said you didnt know why these people promoting coops would call it socialism.
The reason I would think is the same as you like the word "humanism" >

I'm willing to consider options, but what can better express the fact that--above nations, religions, and races--we are all human beings. I think also that most proles never ever heard about it, so they wouldn't have preconceptions, one way or the other.

(skipped the other part since I agree with it)

<These guys can see outside the square but they have to take their language outside the square as well. But one thing that this does bring out is the way the left and those dependant on
capitalism have been betrayed. If Marx had of exposed the banking system behind capitalism the principles of coops would have created a socio-economic rennaissance. He wouldnt because the grass-roots freedom would have been the opposite to centralised planning and control.>

OK, so "centralized planning" is out of the question. And "supply and demand," is it loaded with capitalist connotation? Can we have a truly spontaneous market--ie. without lion control of any kind? Or a "good lion" kicks in here?:confused:

How do we control market aberrations like these?

(I respond at the bottom)

> I have included some information from Safecarguide.com at the bottom of
> this post it demonstrates a gradual increase in road fatalities from
> 1994 to 1998., in addition I have included a link to the 2003 traffic
> fatality report from the National Center of Statistics and Analysis
> which demonstrates a continuation of the trend in an increase in road
> fatalities per year over the last ten years(42,643 deaths in 2003)
> (http://www-nrd.nhtsa...2003/809767.pdf)
> The increase correponds directly to the increase of light trucks as a
> percentage of passenger vehicles in the United states.
>
> In addition, if you look at the rollover statistics posted recently by
> the feds (http://www.suvrollov...l/article7.html) you will
> find that 53% of all traffic fatalities are due to SUV rollovers and
> that SUV's have a 25% higher fatality rate per accident than
> passenger vehicles. (http://www.stats.org...ype=news&ID=388)
>
> Imprisonment for driving dangerous SUV's would probably have no effect
> especially considering that the rollover rate and corresponding deaths
> would make few of the defendants available for trial. However, there
> is much to support that SUV's considerably more dangerous to their
> occupants and to the occupants of passenger cars that are struck by
> them than other vehicles. It is clear that from a fuel consumption
> standpoint that SUV's are supremely wasteful when it comes to natural
> resources.
>
> I find it shocking that in an age where safety features in automobiles
> are advancing at a record rate, the irrational and selfish vehicle
> choices of a nation actually increase the number of road fatalities.
> Imagine the numbers if EAS, side airbags, and anti lock brakes weren't
> around to soften the blow.
>
> Is that enough documentation?
>
> It took about 10 minutes of googling to find thousands of pages, I can
> include more links if you would like.
>
>
>
> "United States - The death toll on our highways makes driving the
> number one cause of death and injury for young people ages 5 to 27.
> Highway crashes cause 94 percent of all transportation fatalities and
> 99 percent of all transportation injuries, yet traffic safety programs
> receive only one percent of the funding of the U.S. DOT budget. The
> staggering loss of life and the incidence of life-threatening injuries
> occurring each year is best described as a public health crisis.
> According to a WHO report, "The Injury Pyramid," for every motor
> vehicle injury resulting in death in the US, 13 people sustain injuries
> severe enough to require hospitalization.
>
> In the US DOT publication "The Economic Costs Of Motor Vehicle
> Crashes," NHTSA investigator Lawrence J. Blincoe reports that in 1994,
> motor vehicle crashes accounted for 40,676 fatalites, and 4,100,000
> injuries (of which 533,000 or 13% were serious). The total lifetime
> cost to the US economy for automobile accidents that occured in 1994
> was $150.5 billion. The 1996 NHTSA report "1996 Traffic Safety Facts"
> (pdf) came up with similar though somewhat improved statistics: 41,907
> fatalities and 3,511,000 injuries, 456,430 of them serious. The 1997
> NHTSA report "Traffic Safety Facts 1997" reports 41,967 fatalities and
> 3,399,000 injuries, 441,870 of them serious. The 1998 NHTSA report
> "Traffic Safety Facts 1998 Annual Report" reports 41,471 fatalities and
> 3,192,000 injuries, 414,960 of them serious. "

Very dramatic information, but since SUVs generate so much business, nobody will do a thing about it.

SUVs are a sign of how much "armor" we need on American roads. Ironically, along with posing a much greater risk to others, the armor exposes their own Achilles' heel. We are the victims of our own success... :(

If we measure "success" in terms of the junk we own.
  • 0

#4106 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 05:15 AM

"Freedom is powerful," Bush told a Republican breakfast fund-raiser. "Think about a society in which young girls couldn't go to school, and their mothers were whipped in the public square, and today they're holding a presidential election."

<"After loss in Afghanistan, next try..."

I came across a comment that actually questioned whether the US implant leader controlled Kabul, forget the rest of the country.
The US havent lost there, only the Afghanies. The opium crop is brobably the biggest to date and the instability/lack of a
stable, sovereign regime means the scattering of US military bases are sounder than NY.>

Puppet show went wrong in Afghanistan though. But hey, they had the best experts in the field of mockery, didn't they?;)

'Islamic poet Abdul Latif Padran, another minor candidate, said, "Today was a very black day. Today was the occupation of Afghanistan by America through elections."'


Accusations of Fraud Mar Afghan Election
By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer

KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghans packed polling stations on Saturday for a historic presidential election that was blemished when all 15 candidates opposing U.S.-backed interim President Hamid Karzai withdrew, charging the government and the U.N. with fraud and incompetence.

In the end, faulty ink --not Taliban bombs and bullets-- threatened three years of painstaking progress toward democracy. The opposition candidates claimed the ink used to mark people's thumbs rubbed off too easily, allowing for mass deception.

(snip)

"Freedom is powerful," Bush told a Republican breakfast fund-raiser. "Think about a society in which young girls couldn't go to school, and their mothers were whipped in the public square, and today they're holding a presidential election."

It was a starkly different scene in Kabul, where the opposition candidates met at the house of Uzbek candidate Abdul Satar Sirat and signed a petition saying they would not recognize the vote results.

Sirat, an ex-aide to Afghanistan's last king and a minor candidate expected to poll in the low single-digits, said all 15 challengers to Karzai agreed to the boycott.

"Today's election is not a legitimate election. It should be stopped and we don't recognize the results," Sirat said. "This vote is a fraud and any government formed from it is illegitimate."

Islamic poet Abdul Latif Padran, another minor candidate, said, "Today was a very black day. Today was the occupation of Afghanistan by America through elections."

http://story.news.ya...id=516&ncid=716
  • 0

#4107 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 06:20 AM

That last sentence stood out for me too DonQ.

"Production for human needs, rather than profit, can only be fully
realised through a democractically planned world economy. But building coop networks is the best first step towards that gold."

I thought that this was an anticlimax after the previous
paragraphs. Unfortunately its full of the distorted thinking of the
dialectic materialistic (law of excluded middle) thinking, principly through capitalist thinking not Marxist, both funded through the same international dictorship.
Pitting the notion of production for human needs (socialist colour)
against profit (which is used to meet human needs!) which is the
non-socialist pro-capialist thinking merely continues the false divide and rule and only attracts one false side and appears to attack the other false side.
Then the bombshell was the claim that this problem can only be solved by "democractically planned world economy".
Firstly its centralised planning, secondly democracy at global levels is impossible and merely repeats Lenins dream. You cannot promote workplace democracy from Lucerne or where ever the Bank of International Settlements is, or the Hague, or Wall st or the City of London.
The notion that all problems have to be globalised first before we
try to solve them is evidence that they are facing the wrong way.
You immediately capitulate to centralised large scale planning which they earlier identified as the worst or opposite to workplace
(which I would call grass-roots) democracy.
You can see why the unions have capitulated to globalism because they can see the world govt of centralised planning coming over the horizon and they expect to be given a place on the BOARD.
If people can form coops to meet their needs and be free of capitalism and socialism, they will be opposed to the forces building global centralised 'democractic' planning. The only planning is for cooping and networking and thats grassroots stuff not global.
Those great examples of coops industry/society need to promote themselves in language outside the square and learn to use political pressure on the law makers to bring society and govt
as a servant back to middle ground and making provision for
democractic finance.
Govts create bonds against which debt is created, so they can create money direct at only accounting costs to manage the records and they can be made as grants to help create self supporting societies like coop networks which would result in less need for taxes.
It is effectively a Social Credit society. The essential issue is around the power from the privilege of controlling the creation of money- democratise it or remain in bondage. The Marxists and the capitalists keep the truth about this from the majority (the excluded middle). The game is ever playing the ends (extremes)
against this middle.
They can see the need to democratise the workplace (grassroots
industry, self employed as opposed to the employee) but they cant see that this is the same as democratism the money system
which will not only make it easier but the whole environment will change for the better.

The issue of the choice between funding the needs of the retired against the needs of the young come straight out of the
environment caused by the debt money system. Waste of time fighting the synptims the dynamics driving this young v old ,just as the left v right, workers v business remains intact. In the end everyone thinks it has to be solved by global (international )planning and that is exactly what the Soviet Union was going to prove to world how it can be done and bring social justice and end oppressive and exploiting capitalism. We are heading for
globalised planning of the IMf etc, the globalised planning of the UN, of global treaties about the environment and the corporates
are having a party with the socialist beurocrats, ie fascism.
  • 0

#4108 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Bader
The issue of the choice between funding the needs of the retired against the needs of the young come straight out of the
environment caused by the debt money system. Waste of time fighting the synptims the dynamics driving this young v old ,just as the left v right, workers v business remains intact. In the end everyone thinks it has to be solved by global (international )planning and that is exactly what the Soviet Union was going to prove to world how it can be done and bring social justice and end oppressive and exploiting capitalism. We are heading for
globalised planning of the IMf etc, the globalised planning of the UN, of global treaties about the environment and the corporates
are having a party with the socialist beurocrats, ie fascism.



OK, Bader, we really know where the problem lies. The problem lies in the jungle. NO JUNGLE NO PROBLEM!!!:cool:

But we really need to address more the needs of women and the young instead of squandering money on the elderly in exchange for votes. Scandinavia does just that...

I bet you the elderly who put Bush in power will not be able to identify Iraq on a map.;)
  • 0

#4109 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Bader
That last sentence stood out for me too DonQ.

"Production for human needs, rather than profit, can only be fully
realised through a democractically planned world economy. But building coop networks is the best first step towards that gold."

I thought that this was an anticlimax after the previous
paragraphs. Unfortunately its full of the distorted thinking of the
dialectic materialistic (law of excluded middle) thinking, principly through capitalist thinking not Marxist, both funded through the same international dictorship.



OK, Bader, the bad lion is out. But how do you manage distortions of the "free market"--which in fact is monopoly--like the one driving everybody into ever bigger SUVs just to play it safe, while destroying the environment? Won't we need a need a "good lion" to say, "Hey, destroying the environment, putting other people's lives in danger is off limits "... Or is it international treaties (say like Kyoto, but better) that will put order into things without the need for a lion?

HOW DO WE MANAGE THAT ALL THAT PROSPERITY THAT WE WILL HAVE WON'T GO INTO SUV'S?:confused:
  • 0

#4110 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 06:29 PM

This is somebody's signature. It sounds like you, Bader.;)

Let me issue and control a nation's money & I care not who writes its laws.- M. Amschel Rothschild
http://www.indybay.o...neymasters1.wmv
http://www.indybay.o...neymasters2.wmv

It's a movie.:cool:
  • 0

#4111 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 10 October 2004 - 07:14 PM

Howdy DonQ:

Bankerrule who quoted old man Rothschild knows what me and Pliny know and many others. As the statement says- those who control the creation of money control everything else.
Thus the appeal for economic democracy (water well) coming
under the control of the citizens which then would mean so would the law makers.

YOur question: how do we control all that prosperity?

The money system creates extremes of too much in one area and
not enough in the main. A fairer system would make a more equitable distribution without limiting people who are good and successful business people, only the highwayman who creat legal
and commercial advantages that exploit.
The present money system has to be expanded continually thus
it is an artificial drive that creates more than actually necessary and is exhausting resourse needlessly, thus there wouldnt be industries to create false markets and products and there would be more quality which means resources also last longer through that as well.
The world would change so much one can only touch on some of the more obvious changes.
The simple fact is billions of people around the world are merely as palestinians, people treated as animals by an elite.
There can never be democracy until the people control the money system and evan Marx didnt advocate controlling it through the state. He like many other knew who his boss was.
But before you can change it you have to get your head around the mystique of the money, as you saw in the swapping of views between me and Pliny it isnt easy to settle on how it should be done and this was a reflection of the interpretation of money and what one wanted it to do for society.
People cant control gold as that can be captured since its a commodity and a finite one as opposed to an accounting system
that can be kept in control and balance (sovereignty).
  • 0

#4112 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 11 October 2004 - 03:37 AM

Well, this is funny and cruel, but, hey, that's how it is in the jungle too...;)

What do you think, Bader? A good laugh doesn't hurt, ah?:cool:


Two cannibals, a father and son, were elected by the tribe to
go out and get something to eat. They walked deep into the
jungle and waited by a path.

Before long, along came this little old man. The son said, "Oh
dad, there's one."

"No," said the father. "There's not enough meat on that one to
even feed the dogs. We'll just wait."

Well, a little while later, along came this really fat man. The
son said, "Hey dad, he's plenty big enough."

"No," the father said. "We'd all die of a heart attack from the
fat in that one. We'll just wait."

About an hour later, here comes this absolutely gorgeous
woman. The son said, "Now there's nothing wrong with that
one dad. Let's eat her."

"No," said the father. "We'll not eat her either."

"Why not?" asked the son.

"Because, we're going to take her back alive and eat your
mother."
  • 0

#4113 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 11 October 2004 - 06:49 AM

Was this a story about democracy DonQ. Was it on one of Georgie boys handouts explaining how democracy works, two out vote one?
  • 0

#4114 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 11 October 2004 - 11:21 AM

<1- Hear what a Muslim Journalist tells you about the roots of Islamic terror and how to handle it:

"The production line of terror

By Gazi Abu Hakak v www.ynet.co.il

Like Toyota is manufactured in Japan and Opel in Germany, the Islamic World produces terrorists

A terrorist is a product, and no wonder the Islamic world specializes in production lines of terrorists: All conditions required exist. As Toyota is manufactured in Japan and Opel in Germany, so Islamic world manufactures terrorists, of the most advanced and dangerous model.
The line of production starts by indoctrinating the faith of paradise existence, where each soul achieves anything, and all forbiddances and earthily limitations are removed. In paradise you are free to eat and drink as you wish, with out any effort to achieve what ever you want. Wants a beauty? Instantly a white as snow virgin will lie down in your bed, clean and pure, and only a fool will refuse to exchange his life on earth with a journey to a world where fantasies come true.>

Isn't that the promise of Capitalism, when you become rich? The difference being that some people do reach that "paradise," after pushing and shoving the rest of the people around, right?;)

<Next stage is the manufacture process of the product- terrorist- and a religious educator, or the preaching Sheikh accomplishes this. The process includes the indoctrination of hatrage against any human that is not Muslim, and in the advanced models, even against Muslims that do not fulfill the ?commandments-.
The terrorist is interested in gaining the ?terrorist- nickname, since he acts according a verse of the Koran, that call Muslims ?to scare the enemies of God and their lovers-. He is loaded with motivation to reach paradise as soon as possible, while the hatred for the countless enemies is used as catalyst.
A terrorist leaving the Islamic production line, is different than any other terrorist. The other are acting only in certain domain, focused against one target, in a certain time frame and at known in advance location. They stop being terrorists when circumstances change, while the terrorist of the Islamic production line is unlimited. He is capable to hit any target at ay place, he is programmed to hit a women not covering its head, a military enemy, a child at the Tabba shore, a welder women on the sickbed, and is not deterred of cutting down the head of a Korean that came to fix an electricity line in Baghdad.
Islamic terrorist, can slaughter with pleasure an Islamic Algerian family, not wash his hands, and pray to God for letting him to accomplish his mission.>

But religious fervor not only happens is Islamic societies, and indeed we got a president whose constant use of the word "god," makes him more a preacher than the leader of a Western nation. And that fervor, needless to say, can only entrench fanatics on the other side. So it's FANATIC v. FANATIC, right?:confused:

<The Islamic terror endangers any human any place, scattering horror and fear, causing damage to world-s economics, but at the end, will bring actually a horrible disaster on the Islam. It will spread in any Islamic town and village, and day will come where an Islamic woman will be afraid of leaving its home, Islamic man will be afraid of uttering any word, and in Europe will be erected a defensive wall that shall partition between the European continent and the Islamic countries.
In order to fight this terror control should be taken out of the hands of the religious Islamic educators in schools, to generate an educational reform in all schools in the Islamic world, to legislate laws against incitement to prevent preachers of dripping hatred in the Friday prayers v and all of that requires an democratic environment.>

And why haven't the elites educated the people into some humanist education, rather than kept them in fanatism. Was it handy for manipulating them? We could have lived in an age of abundance and enlightment both East and West, but we have CHOSEN to live in another DARK AGE. It's our choice, and they are responding to it.:(

<And until the Islamic world will become democratic, that accepts the freedom of the other, allows the freedom the speech and religion and honors the human rights - until then, a long time will pass and endless terrorist acts.">

They were more than "democratic," if you refer with that to the ELECTION PUPPET SHOW in the West. They were enlightened...;)

<2- Yea, your proposal reminds the 2nd WW . Then the role of facist Islam was played by Nazi Germany, and Czechoslovakia
was the escape goat you wish Israel will be, in order to refrain of dealing with the horror and fear of the Islam. >

And who's Czechoslavakia in this case, America?:D That was funny...

***

Will the real Western World, Islam please step forward?

"When London and Paris were little more than villages, characterised by sprawling cottages and streets of mud, Baghdad was a large and sophisticated metropolis, well lit at night, and home to a university and astronomical observatory. Here Muslim scholars studied classical Greek texts, and Muslim engineers made many new discoveries that would eventually prove essential for the European industrial revolution."

Who's us, Bush, Blair, Berlusconi? Who's them, Hussein, bin Laden? Well, will the real "us" please step forward? Please Cervantes, please Boccaccio. Will the real "them" please step forward? Please Averroes, please "Scheherazade"...

A New Dark Age is falling on us. We need you back...;)

"Muslim Spain produced a flourishing culture, aboce all after the Caliph Al-Hakam II (961-976) came to power. He is credited with founding a library of hundreds of thousands of volumes, which was practically inconceivable in Europe at that time. The most distinctive feature of this calture was the early readoption of classical philosophy by Ibn Masarra, Abentofain, Averroes and the Jew Maimonide. But the Spanish-Muslim thinkers stood out, abouve all in medicine, mathematics andastronomy."
(http://www.sispain.o...ory/muslim.html)

***

THE COMING DARK AGE
Newsletter
February, 2004

1. INTRODUCTION

This month's edition describes some of the stories from the Thousand
And One Nights, since these contradict the idea of Islam as an
inevitably backward force in world affairs (an idea that has been
promulgated by Francis ***uyama to name just one example). Past
editions of the newsletter are at the following address:
http://www.darkage.f.../Newsletter.htm
I welcome all comments, suggestions and contributions, especially the
latter. Please forward this newsletter to anyone you think might be
interested.
Marc Widdowson

2. THE THOUSAND AND ONE NIGHTS - ISLAM IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Islam or the Islamic world tends to be presented as a backward,
'medieval' society, which has not caught up with 'modern times' like
the west. Yet in the actual Middle Ages, the Islamic world was a
powerhouse of science and technology. Muslims were in control of a vast
empire stretching from Spain to Pakistan. This was also a culturally
tolerant society. Jews flocked to Muslim rulers, fleeing the pogroms
and other atrocities to which they were regularly subjected by mobs of
fanatical Christians. When London and Paris were little more than
villages, characterised by sprawling cottages and streets of mud,
Baghdad was a large and sophisticated metropolis, well lit at night,
and home to a university and astronomical observatory. Here Muslim
scholars studied classical Greek texts, and Muslim engineers made many
new discoveries that would eventually prove essential for the European
industrial revolution.

(snip)

The overall point is that all this surely gives a rather different
impression of Islamic society than the benighted, 'medieval' mindset
conveyed by people like the Taliban and the Wahhabi. The latter are
actually products of the 20th and 21st centuries, reacting against
economic and political conditions of the western-dominated world,
especially as that world begins to crumble into a dark age.

http://www.darkage.f...ers/2004-02.htm
  • 0

#4115 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 12 October 2004 - 12:22 AM

I went to see the last days of summer.. Weather was nice. Only the homosexual and lesbians with dogs were the horror story. Dogs may be used instead of a communication devices , internet or identification cod. I am sorry to the dogs.

Russian Choir of Alextrandrova got standing ovation singing Polish song ; Red Poppy on Monte Casino and now they are going to sing for Polish Polonia in US in Detroit and Vatican. Sounds amazing isn
  • 0

#4116 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 12 October 2004 - 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Bader
DonQ playing Reggae with the bagpipes!

The NWO is bringing back the old Babylon empire whos original head was typed by a lion. You posted a lot of detail on their ancient religion some time back Woj.
A new World religion is being formed by the majority coming together in unity (including the Anglican Church) which is where your comment about the Vatican cooperating with world powers comes together and many expect the Pope to become the head of the world church of a mixture of all major religions. This isnt the Kingdom of God its the Kingdom of man. The Pope still has the old Babylonian title. Its purely academic. Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome and historical records show who was. The Vatican is a world religious, political and financial power, totally alien to the first believers/church in Jerusalem and outside anything Jesus said. Jesus didnt dress like a king and sit on a throne as the pope does.
Jesus a critic of earthly events? Give us one quote. He only criticised the false teachings and the religious leaders which is why the Romans had no interest in him, as you said his business was to teach about the kingdom of heaven and he stuck to his brief.



Jesus removed pharisaeuses from the temple. .
  • 0

#4117 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 October 2004 - 02:46 AM

Well, they may have killed many mosquitoes, but they weren't the mosquitoes that were biting us. Now the family and the friends of the mosquitoes want to bite us too...;)

'If the goal in the war against terrorism is "not just to kill the mosquitos but to dry the swamp," he said, "now it's quite clear" that Iraq "is not the swamp."'

Think Tank: Iraq War Distracted U.S.
Mon Oct 11, 2:10 PM ET Middle East - AP

By MARK LAVIE, Associated Press Writer

TEL AVIV, Israel - The war in Iraq (news - web sites) did not damage international terror groups, but instead distracted the United States from confronting other hotbeds of Islamic militancy and actually "created momentum" for many terrorists, a top Israeli security think tank said in a report released Monday.

President Bush (news - web sites) has called the war in Iraq an integral part of the war on terrorism, saying that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) hoped to develop unconventional weapons and could have given them to Islamic militants across the world.

But the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said that instead of striking a blow against Islamic extremists, the Iraq war "has created momentum for many terrorist elements, but chiefly al-Qaida and its affiliates."

Jaffee Center director Shai Feldman said the vast amount of money and effort the United States has poured into Iraq has deflected attention and assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan (news - web sites).

The concentration of U.S. intelligence assets in Iraq "has to be at the expense of being able to follow strategic dangers in other parts of the world," he said.

Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli army general, said the U.S.-led effort was strategically misdirected. If the goal in the war against terrorism is "not just to kill the mosquitos but to dry the swamp," he said, "now it's quite clear" that Iraq "is not the swamp."

Instead, he said, the Iraq campaign is having the opposite effect, drawing Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to join the battle.

"On a strategic level as well as an operational level," Brom concluded, "the war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism."

http://news.yahoo.co...srael_terrorism
  • 0

#4118 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 October 2004 - 03:11 AM

"In fact, recent developments and trends on the planet convey the impression that we are returning to the law of the jungle in which might or raw power is the name of the game. The maxim now seems to be: 'every nation to itself and may the devil take the hindmost'."

I wonder what happens to the arms race in order to remain on top. Will it go up, by any chance?

And what happens then to development? "Cannons not butter," could be the slogan of the lion...;)

Oh, the Third World won't even get the scraps...:(

"It is sad to observe that in international relations, it is Might, not Right, that dictates the tune, with the strong riding roughshod over the weak, both in economic and political terms."

"It is clear that these developments and posturing portend grave danger for mankind, as they could backfire and throw us all into a great cataclysm."

Nigeria, the Third World And World Politics
Posted to the web October 8, 2004

Uchenna Nwankwo

The spate of famine, abject poverty, international terrorism, local wars and rumbles around the world clearly indicates that in spite of man's professed commitment and attempts at making the world safer and more secure for its inhabitants, the future of mankind everywhere remains bleak and in great jeopardy. This is more so in black Africa where leadership by a vain self-seeking political elite continues to devastate the region. Meanwhile the global environment remains anarchic; a minefield in which social Darwinism is still very much at work. It is sad to observe that in international relations, it is Might, not Right, that dictates the tune, with the strong riding roughshod over the weak, both in economic and political terms.

The collapse of the bi-polar world of the last century has compounded, for the Third World, an already complicated situation. The negative impact of the subsisting unipolar world is manifested in a virtual neglect of the terrible plight of the Third World. This neglect is most poignantly expressed in the way the HIV (AIDS) scourge in Africa is being handled by international agencies. This strange disease is wiping out a whole sub-region, yet the international community remains aloof; it has not deemed it wise and expedient to subsidize the cost of anti-retroviral drugs and make them readily accessible to the poor and the needy. It is as if there is an international conspiracy to allow the AIDS pandemic consume Africa and its people, to make way for another scramble and annexation, indeed takeover, of the African territorial space by the better materially endowed races of the world.

Indeed, the emergence of the unipolar world in which the United States struggles to play the world policeman and to whip the small nations into line, especially with respect to its selective enforcement of a 'unilateral' strategic arms control policy, is to say the least worrisome. It is as if the collapse of the bi-polar world of the last century has drastically altered the axioms of international diplomacy, curtailed international cooperation and has signalled a cutback in international development assistance that used to flow from the two 'poles'.

It is clear that these developments and posturing portend grave danger for mankind, as they could backfire and throw us all into a great cataclysm. The unfolding drama in Iraq is a reference point, which nobody can conceivably fathom how it will end, while America's deadly gamble in Iran and North Korea remains ominous.

In fact, recent developments and trends on the planet convey the impression that we are returning to the law of the jungle in which might or raw power is the name of the game. The maxim now seems to be: 'every nation to itself and may the devil take the hindmost'. It need not be so. And everything must be done to ensure that the situation does not degenerate any further. Third World nations must in unison make concerted effort to promote a new equitable world order in which their sorry debilitating plight could be given deserving attention.

In our last installment, I drew attention to the need for a recognition and validation of the preeminence of the three factors of population size, economic power and the equality of states principle in the axiology of national power. The idea being that for certain complex and heterogeneous polities, the three factors should make up the yardstick for effective power distribution between constituent territorial groups. Although I had discussed this within the context of national politics, it has to be acknowledged that the application of the concept is even more apt within the framework of international relations.

My notion is that power sharing among nations at the international arena, the United Nations, should be based on the said three factors of population size, economic power and the equality of states principle. In my humble opinion, the arrangement, which is detailed in my book, Strategy for Political Stability, 1988, has the potential of reining in the centrifugal forces that have continued to weaken the UN. The proposed format is indeed geared towards refocussing attention on economic and political cooperation among nations as well as inculcating more harmonious relationships among them. It is bound to prove a recipe for the ushering in of an equitable world order in which belligerent pursuits will be drastically curtailed, and a reasonable modus vivendi achieved and sustained.

The bottom line is that the Nigerian Federal Government should channel effort towards the realization of the above goal - i.e. the democratization of the UN along the line proposed - rather than dissipate energy chasing an illusive unconscionable permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Actually, I find it most perplexing that President Obasanjo should be calling for the democratisation of the United Nations and, at the same time, asking that Nigeria be made a permanent (veto-wielding) member of the Security Council. The two demands contradict one another. The call translates to both a demand for democratisation and the preservation of the undemocratic status of the UN.

The Security Council is the symbol of the undemocratic status of the United Nations. It is the de facto decision-making organ of the UN in which the permanent members use their veto-power to dictate to the rest of the world, while the General Assembly is merely a powerless talk-shop without leverage and voice in the critical affairs of the world body. The democratisation of the United Nations will entail the transformation of the General Assembly into the decision-making organ of the UN, a world Legislature in which all member-nations of the UN will participate or partake in setting the rules that drive world affairs and international relations. In the new reformed United Nations, we will in place of the Security Council have an in-house advisory committee on security whose decisions and projections will have to be tabled before the General Assembly for ratification, adoption, amendments or outright rejection.

At the moment, the Security Council passes and carries out resolutions without recourse to the General Assembly. It is the classic case of the tail wagging the dog, and not the dog wagging its tail. The clamour for the democratisation of the UN is therefore about getting the dog to wag its tail; it is about abrogating the Security Council and conferring greater power on the General Assembly to function as the true world Legislature. So, in a democratized UN, there will be no Security Council! This is what makes Obasanjo's demands somewhat absurd and unedifying. It is like praying for life and death in one breathe. It is indeed shocking that the president's speechwriters should hand him such an unresearched script for delivery at the world podium of all places.

All said, it must be acknowledged that the primary reason why the founders of the United Nations Organisation chose to create a separate exclusive world powerhouse called the Security Council was to avoid the liability of sharing power with a multitude of small and medium powers or nations on the basis of the two axioms of equality of states and population size, which informed the accepted political norm and power-sharing formula at the time the UN was founded.

This is understandable because under such a format the big powers would have been swamped, nominalised and relegated. Such a set-up would have been rather unnatural, unworkable and unsustainable. It is partly in recognition of this handicap, this deficiency in the accepted notional concept of power distribution between groups, that we propose the inclusion of economic power in a power-sharing format that might interest the big powers and hence bring them to accept the idea of democratisation for the UN. The format will help preserve some of their privileges but at the same time bring about a robust fluid power interplay that will excite the smaller nations as well as confer some material and honorific advantages to them.
  • 0

#4119 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 12 October 2004 - 08:39 AM

Gaz Abu Hakak sounded as fanatic as those he thought were fanatic. - building walls between people! The Third Reich and the Soviet Union tried that, made them out of barbed wire, but it escapes me what their religions were.
A wall is flat out under construction as we speak.
I thought the whole lot was funny, DonQ.

It is getting more and more ominous that Sept 11 was an inside job, and that includes training terrorists, but there is not question about which countries/"faith" has attacked two muslim countries every day for over a year. (not to mention the 12 yrs prior)

Could it be possible that terrorists and the public image of Bin Laden embarases the average Muslim as Blair and Howard the anglo-saxons and Bush christians? I came across some stuff
recently written by a European Muslim for the purposes of converting christians and his material was to be a series of lectures delivered to Muslims in Britain. It never got completed because the English Muslims were so embarassed by Sept 11.
A large number of muslims died that day, people from all over the world frequented that place, US propoganda would have us believe they were exclusively singled out ( remind you of someone else by any chance?)

Nigeria: just another pretext for world govt and it wont want a
bar of democracy either anymore than the UN.
Its already planned out including depopulation which is well on the way in Africa. By the time it is fully debated in the UN for Nigeria to become a permanent member of the exclusive club, to
enhance democracy, the population of Nigeria will be level with Iceland. Perhaps aids is the only way to stop genocide and civil wars in Africa. Its easier to take people out of the jungle than take the jungle out of people, and this doesnt have to be an African subject. Some who are white on the outside are black on the inside, unlike blacks.

Dry the swamp: get the Europeans (Ashkenazis) and the US bases out of the Middle East and leave it to the original Muslim, Christian and Jewish Arabs etc. Cant be done.
Well there are plenty of Jews downing Bush, now after its a mess,
not before, and remember Congressman James Moran who had to step down from his house leadership role for exposing the
fact that if it wasnt for the strong Jewish pressure the invasion wouldnt have gone head - "we would not be doing this".
Wait till the investigation into Israeli penetration/influence in US foreign policy gets through and leeked.
  • 0

#4120 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 12 October 2004 - 10:21 AM

acts differently"

Howdy Woj:

Good on you for rising to the challenge.

There were references to the poor as we know them but the reference you quoted which was the prophecy of his first advent-
mission=brief, was to bring truth (good news) hidden by the
pharasaic talmudic teachings of their cult that had the people in spiritual bondage. The prisoner of this cult were going to be set free spiritually- those who had eyes to see/ears to hear.
No protest marches with banners and plagues or sit-ins.
It was also prophesied that light would appear in a place of darkness and this hasnt got anything to do with power shortages
anymore than the other has to do with social policy or prison reform.
Even the miracles like the loaves and fish wasnt anything like William Booths mission in the slims of London and any later appeal to govt regards social policy.
It says several time that he taught the people, that is teacher not reformer, and brought out the true meaning of the prophets/
scriptures.
When the heirachy sent their smarties to try and embarass him in front of those gathered around, they didnt debate social and economic problems and policy, it was always scripture related.
He was a spiritual teacher/prophet on his way to becoming the
sacrificial lamb. Nothing to do with trying to set up a kingdom of heaven on earth by being a social worker or a militant zealot.
Note the context. This isnt saying anything for or against people
doing what they can to improve life for others. Appealing to representatives to introduce policy that helpes the poor etc are
good. The issue is about the brief of Jesus's mission.

"The Church" in scripture is the ecclesia (greek?) which means those 'called out', as Abraham was. That refers to the universal body of believers, where ever they might be. They may or may not be found in all churches and many may not attend a church.
There are enough scriptures that refer to a remnant that it is nonsense to take it that the sum total of all the churches, and there are supposedly over 20,000 different churches/denominations, are the "church" (ecclesia) and even the spiritualists call their assemblies churches. We are all aware of the numerous cults as well.
There are good and bad and phoney and genuine in many things in this world. THis is no exception. Labels are for children.
Adults are supposed to have learnt something in life.
So if anyone says church and they dont mean a universal memebership known only to God, then they need to specify what church organisation they refer to eg the Southern Baptist church.
Similarly the word christian really doesnt automatically have alot of meaning, same as muslim. given the divisions of interpretations and beliefs.

AS you has said in effect, Constantine made Christianity the state religion, so the pagan religion of many gods that originated in babylon became renamed to preserve their office and beliefs under a false label. Thats why christian hoilidays are pagan.
But thats the Roman Catholic Church- pagan traditions mixed with
Bible influences and using christian labels. Today it is a world financial, political and ecclesiastic power, and the whole so-called christian world is in bondage to jewish bankers. They have need a light in a dark place again.
I say again, just because Bush believes the spiritual entity that urged him to run for office is God, doesnt make it God nor bind God.
Christians are advised to checkout the spirits/ make sure they are of God. It is just as dumb to believe any spiritual being is of God as to believe that every so-called christian is of the Eccelsia- the genuine.

Paul and the runaway slave isnt a sample of formal policy of social action in relation to authorities. It was personal advice.
Slave doesnt necessarily mean a beaten, overworked bag of bones covered withg sores. A runaway was a fugitive with no rights, like lost property, at the mercy of what ever befalls them/
who ever they run into,
because they have no rights and no protection, they are property
and thus subject to laws about property.
Who could harbour someone elses property and not run fowl of the law? The believers were exhorted to live lawfully and peacably as far as possible to be free of the adversity of man made laws. Is a fugative free? He lawfully belonged to his owner, then there is the social image of believers in the eyes of others from which they then draw conclusions about their God.
Not an easy issue but that was a normal part of life for millions for most of time.
It has never been the duty of believers from day one of their faith that they devote the rest of their lives to do nothing but fight injustice and try and change the world.
Many expected the Messiah to be a militant zealot and drive the Romans out, not a social worker come reformer. He was neither
because it wasnt in the scriptures. If anyone reads carefully they can see he was focused on fulfilling the prophecy of the first coming. Kicking arse and setting up a new world comes later,
First time was as a lamb for sacrifice, the second is the Lion of Judah, which the lion of this thread language we have been using
counterfiets.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru