i suppose introductions are in order ...

[supertackyman]

It's too bad that as humans, we cant all gang up on all the a**holes of the world and put them in one place long enough to carpetbomb them to ashes. then all the people that could get along with each other could live where they pleased without worries.

I, as an American, think that we are too often sticking our noses and troops in places that may not be in the best intrest. dont get me wrong: I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. they are doing their job, just like the repo man.

I believe that there was a time when it was considered "ok" to destroy a city (innocents and all) in order to eliminate a threat or induce surrender. what we did with the atomic bomb to Japan wouldnt fly today. Not just because everybody else on the block has the same bomb, but as a peoples, the world has become more sensitive to the tragedy of others. we want to eliminate the threat with no innocent people getting hurt.
the trouble is that the people that are the threat use this.
there is no more front line. the enemy cares little about innocent bystanders. I feel that (allthough unfortunate) unless NATO troops in general dont adopt this tactic they are fighting a loosing battle.

seems cold, I know. but the allies bombed the s**t out of berlin during WW2, and allthough the targets were mostly of military importance, countless innocent lives were lost. that was just a fact of war back then.

[Culann]

Gaah - I had a nice response, then accidentally quit the browser. Reader's Digest version:
the total war in the World Wars were massive violations of previous international law, where war was limited exclusively to the military. So if anyone would have paid attention, it wouldn't have been okay then, either.
"Time when it was 'ok' to destroy a city" - once you get the people psyched up, they will let you do anything. There was a lot of just plain evil on our side surrounding the bombs, especially the second.
NATO will have to do without the US shortly, because we're bankrupt. I doubt it will be able to do much against terrorists - assuming it's helped at all, which I don't think it has. All we are doing is giving the terrorists more reason to attack again. (I am a believer in the blowback theory. The idea that they attacked us just because we're free is ludicrous, at best.)
As for Zimbabwe: we don't need the troops. Just ask for immediate payment of the debts and don't send foreign aid or trade with them. Their economy will REALLY go down the tubes (not like it's good right now), and the people will kick the current dictator off of their own accord. We should have done that to Russia and China, but we lost our chance.
If you want elaboration on any of that, ask and ye shall receive.

[unleash]

Originally Posted by Culann

"Time when it was 'ok' to destroy a city" - once you get the people psyched up, they will let you do anything.

I think there have been times that it was "justffied" to bomb city's. But only to ensure survival. Im talking about way back then(waaay back). But if the people are oke with bombing something, than it is okay....That the funny part, the people that are complaining now, where once part of "the believers", as I call them, of G. Bush.(not all of them offcourse, but I believe a huge part switched sites)

Originally Posted by Culann

As for Zimbabwe: we don't need the troops. Just ask for immediate payment of the debts and don't send foreign aid or trade with them. Their economy will REALLY go down the tubes (not like it's good right now), and the people will kick the current dictator off of their own accord.

But will that do any good? The only thing that will happen, is that the current dictator uses other way to get his money(drugs/ diamonds etc.) And the only ones suffering will be the public, the common people. As they dont have a milion dollar trust-fund, or means to make money other that their current job.

I think that if there should be a war, it should be a war against these kind of criminals. Why does anyone deserve to own milions of dollars? Anyone? If the "top" money makers would donate half their fortune to the poor, look what that do to the world. Than no one has to starve because they cant afford food....

[synthetic]

history has shown that most governments go through a revolution roughly every 200 years... I have a feeling the US and few other countries will be seeing this if they haven't already and we may end up in another world war which will be unlike any war previously due to tactics and technology changes. I am not sure where I would want to be when that happens... on the moon or mars I guess (let's go space R&D... hurry it up)

[unleash]

True, a ne ww would be possible...but at the other hand, its in no ones best interest to start a WWIII. Its not good for the econimics or for votes....Its better to stick with the invisible enemey we nowadays have. That way you can blame them for everything.

And if a WW would break out, yeah lets pay mars a visit...or maybe pluto, as you never know with al the warheads that are around....

[Culann]

Originally Posted by synthetic

history has shown that most governments go through a revolution roughly every 200 years... I have a feeling the US and few other countries will be seeing this if they haven't already and we may end up in another world war which will be unlike any war previously due to tactics and technology changes. I am not sure where I would want to be when that happens... on the moon or mars I guess (let's go space R&D... hurry it up)

That's especially true for democracies. I plan to get as far away from everything as I can.

But will that do any good? The only thing that will happen, is that the current dictator uses other way to get his money(drugs/ diamonds etc.) And the only ones suffering will be the public, the common people. As they dont have a milion dollar trust-fund, or means to make money other that their current job.

It will. He will try to get money elsewhere, but that will be very hard, since the people have no reason to accumulate capital to carry any of that out. (why accumulate when it will just get stolen anyway?)
You're also missing that it's the people who are the only ones suffering right now. So how is my proposal worse?

Why does anyone deserve to own milions of dollars? Anyone? If the "top" money makers would donate half their fortune to the poor, look what that do to the world. Than no one has to starve because they cant afford food....

That's a thin line. From your phrasing I assume you mean that you would, given the choice, redistribute all of the wealth away from the millionaires. If I'm wrong, tell me.
People deserve exactly what they earn honestly. Entrepreneurs get money by pleasing people, so that they give money willingly. Politicos get money by stealing from me and giving me... nothing. I want my money back from them, because they don't do much good.
But the big issue is this: how would you make your idea happen? Forcing money out of people is immoral, no matter how good it would make you feel. We've seen how well government wealth distribution works through Social "Security" aka "bankruptcy." If they donate to the poor, that's fine; encourage them to donate more. There's a lot of economic reasons that they do deserve what they earn - and that it's in your best interest.

[supertackyman]

how bout the fatcats paying their employees what the work is worth, rather than outsourcing cheaper labour in order to boost profits for a select few.

and this one is gonna get me hurt, but: abolish unions. back in the day they were usefull. they made sure that working conditions were human. now union workers are loosing their jobs to persons in other countries that arent as "pampered". if the american workers would work for less, and work harder for it (like our forefathers) prices of american made products could go down, allowing for some competition. if people could afford to purchace quality, locally made products, then it would turn to serve the best intrest of the american maker of those products by increasing job stability and future financial gain.

and please, don't send the teamsters to kill me.

on the same token, there are some real s**tty jobs out there that pay way less than they should. and the rich get richer......

[unleash]

In my eyes the big problem with money is, that money makes money. The more you have the more you can get. If you are completely broke, it will be very hard to make money out of it, while if you own a million or two you could live from the stocks.

I think that a line should be drawn, as to maximum income per year. At lets say 1 million. That way there can still be difference. So that the extremely good do have an bonus. But that that bonus wouldn't cost someone else their life.

If one goes above that 1 million per year, he would have to pay "humanitarian" taxes, that are as high as the amount over the 1 million(minus 5% of that amount). Al that money could be put into projects to get the poorer back on top of their game. Not only the Africans, but also the poor in American, European, Russian and Asian would get some more money to spend.

And if you think about it, that would only boost economie. Because the millionairs spend their money on extravagant stuff, which is sold by probably whealty people. But the common people need food, shelter ans stuff like that more that an diamont. As the supermarket sells food, they will get more money, so they can expand, which means more employees...who all need to eat and so on....

about outsourcing....it may be a pain in the ass. But those people will in time become as spoiled as the Americans. And the Americans will then be less spoild. So than the company will outsource back into America. Nothing wrong there just another cycle. And outsourcing only counts for the factory jobs, but there are plenty of other things to do for living....right?

[synthetic]

I have been in a union and I seen the pros and the cons. But... I see a new trend coming in the workforce that may force the unions to come back. I see more and more employers taking advantage of their employees to the point that the employees are loosing their rights and benefits.

I also agree that unions protect too many lazy workers. I know stories from my uncle at a popular truck plant talked about guys sleeping 3-4 hours of their shifts and clocking overtime to catch up... guys that would go out and drink their lunch in bourbon and come back to do crappy work or not come back at all. They got away with it because of seniority which matters more than anything else in a union.

I also see that the unions help some that deserve it better pay and benefits than they would have had without the union. I have seen unions stick up for workers that were unjustly fired which is a plus.

I honestly can't say whether I think they are good or not for economy. Maybe not... but, if the levels of pay were not so out of whack and more employees were made to feel like partners as in stock holding options based on performances etc... then labor relations would work better between all... its has worked for some small businesses.

Oh... and outsourcing isn't just for factory jobs... many telephone support jobs have been outsourced to India with people on voice over IP which can be horrible combined with accent for support. Also... we had a newspaper not far from us that outsourced 100 of its advertising department jobs to India as well. Heck... maybe photography could even be outsourced... anything that is capable of being done remotely for less cost stands chance to outsourcing sadly.

[Culann]

Unions, under a free market, are helpful bargaining tools. It's when they get unfair legal authority, like compulsory membership, that they become problematic. I agree that unions are currently a pain in the backside.
So I was right about Unleash's plan. How do you expect a government to make better use of money than a businessman? Businessmen have a profit system to guide them - see my rant about Franchise studios. Government is unable to calculate what works and what doesn't, because it can break all of the rules in the market. And look what government foreign aid does - it addicts an economy, just like crack cocaine, because the local industry can't compete with free stuff coming in from overseas. Just look at Somalia. As far as I've been able to see, it gets very little foreign aid, and its economy is growing way faster than the surrounding nation's. IMO, if you want more money, get off your duff and work. Don't use your government to steal from those who contribute something. 'Cause if my earnings just get stolen out from under me, I won't work anymore.
This is the point that I've been trying to tell you for the last several posts: when property rights (especially of the rich) are insecure, there will be no rich people - only poor people who will keep getting poorer. If there's something you don't understand, like why we need rich people, just ask. Or if you disagree and don't want to hear anymore, tell me and I'll shut up. I'm easy.

[supertackyman]

I think its a real shame how some (not all) wealthy persons, usually ones born into wealth are completely out of touch with people that have to plan their expenses. its like they cant imagine not having money. mostly because they have never had that come up.
if I were wealthy yeah, if. I would make a condition in my will that before they can inherit my legacy, My kid or kids would have to leave home with nothing but the clothes on thier backs, and a packed sandwich, get on a one way Greyhound bus to someplace far away. they would have to get a job, and make it totally on their own for a year. with no more support than absolutely needed. I would gladly pay for the first months rent at a cheap apartment. after that its up to them to use what i have taught them about budgeting and work. getting evicted builds character, so does getting fired. selling things you worked hard to pay for to keep the lights on during bad times, thats normal life for many.

I have known several people that judge by status, and not by character. those people tend to be jerkwads.

[Tamlin]

This is all getting very serious and depressing...can't we talk about food again?

[Culann]

I'd probably do that too. Only I'd give them one month with the possibility of support, and after that, absolutely nothing for the rest of the year, that way they'd have to be really careful.
BTW: please raise your hand if you read my last post. If you're interested, I have a decent link that explains this topic better than I can. It's a book review, but it gets the basic idea across:The Mises Review: Are the Rich Necessary? Great Economic Arguments and How They Reflect Our Personal Values by Hunter Lewis

[supertackyman]

ok change of subject......

does anybody know how to get the reek of patchouli off of a cat?
(yes I have washed him, it didnt work.)

[synthetic]

Originally Posted by supertackyman

ok change of subject......

does anybody know how to get the reek of patchouli off of a cat?
(yes I have washed him, it didnt work.)

I have heard of vinegar helping to get rid of skunk before... seems like its just substituting one awful smell for another though lol