Yes, I'm the one simplifying things... didn't you state a simple correlation between overpopulation and impoverishment? I fail to see how my claim was any more facile than yours...Toontown wrote:Thank you for that earth-shaking revelation. Do you really think it's that simple? Just get our Merkin asses out there and educate all them poor women? All two billion of them?Eriku wrote: Educate women more and you'll find population growth declines... there's plenty of research on this.
Yes, it's us against you lot... and us "Euros" are a homogenous lot... I've not said Norway or Europe has done more, but we've certainly done far less harm. But like I said, I'm not interested in us versus you... in a way Europe is complicit, and I've no trouble admitting that.How about you Euros get your asses out there and educate them women. Their menfolk aren't going to like it, but...bring tanks. I advise parking a tank in front of each school during hours of operation. You will also need armored personnel carriers to serve as buses for the girls.
We've built plenty of schools in the last 10 years, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Had to force our way in, but we got in there and started building schools. We just don't have enough troops and tanks to guard all the schools and keep The Taliban from running in and throwing acid in the girls' faces. Do you Euros have any troops to spare? No?
We might have to cut back on our school-building activities in the future. Makes the natives restless. Especially the Euros.
Stop accusing me of trying to "frame the debate." In a thread that's asking about the merits of a properly implemented Communist system I reckon it's relevant to ask "compared to what?"Stop trying to "frame the debate" in a way that you think is to your advantage. That might fool you, but it won't fool me. For starters, I'm not interested in debating your stubbornness. It's a waste of time. Secondly, communism can't win in your chosen frame of reference either.Eriku wrote: And the capitalist system has hardly been trying its best to spread the riches, has it now? The US, being the model capitalist society, has the largest concentration of wealth in the western world, and has systematically been marginalising workers ever since its rise to prominence.
Frame this: It is not the job of the "capitalist system" to spread riches. That's what communism purports to do, and has always failed to do. You can't spread what you don't create. For the most part, you can't have what you don't create.
It's the government's job to levy taxes and judiciously spread some of the wealth as needed. Whether the government is doing that to your satisfaction, or should do that to your satisfaction is not even the question. The question is, how much wealth can the government redistribute without choking off the economic engine. You may rest assured that the vote-grubbing politikers will siphon off as much of Richie Rich's wealth as they think they can get away with, in order to buy the votes of their constituents. There aren't enough rich people to form a voting base. But they have to be careful not to choke off the economic engine, or they will be choked off.
And to say that a communist country wouldn't create any wealth is just false... You know money is just a representation of wealth, it's not the actual wealth? It's not the job of the capitalist system to spread it, fair enough... but it's certainly any fair-minded person's duty to consider whether the system that they proclaim to be the cause of the pinnacle of mankind's democratic history actually serves the people well. If not then people have a right to be upset and want change. But perhaps it's unfair of me to question the supremacy of the capitalist system?
How much wealth can be redistributed? Not much... And the propaganda model certainly helps, with people in the US, and more and more in Norway, even, considering socialism a dirty word. Big fat bail-outs for huge companies that have fucked around with people's lives to an enormous degree, but little or no help to be offered to those who need it the most. Might seem trivial to me, but the sum of these sort of things, plus the incredible effort put into spreading it, fucking over the third world again and again as they go, seem to me to not be too far off Communist atrocities.
It's the ILLUSION of two choices, with the two parties hardly differing on anything of huge importance. They've far more in common than what seperates them, and while communist regimes certainly are more overtly cruel to their own populaces, that doesn't forgive the marginalisation of the public at large when it comes to how THEIR country is run. Wars are started, Patriot acts and whatnot are passed, and people are giving up freedom for perceived safety... It goes against the grand principles on which the US was founded, which I have tremendous respect for.And I can't believe you're even bringing this up. Is this another debate-framing attempt?Eriku wrote: People generally don't even question why they're only given two alternatives in an election (unless they want to throw away their vote on a renegade), and why they seem so similar. They differ on certain contentious issues, played up by the media, so you'll have the population worried about their stances on gay rights, abortion, guns, etc. rather than how they systematically are aiding the priveleged classes. Home of the free, indeed.
If so, it's another piss-poor one. How is two choices worse than the one choice any communist country has ever given anyone?
The manufactured hot-button issues are intended to capture the marginal social issue votes. Politikers fight for every scrap of votes they can suck up. They'll vacuum out every corner of a room for votes. They fight over marginal issues mostly because their fates are usually already sealed on the important bedrock issues. By the time election time rolls around, they've either been on the right side of the real issues, or the wrong side. They'd better have been on the right side of the bedrock issues, which is why you lament that they all seem so similar. There really aren't that many ways to go. Politickers can't just go running off in any direction. No one will follow, which is good. Frankly, we're lucky the freaking system even works at all. No use whining that it won't run sideways or backwards.
BTW, that was really clever the way you questioned MY FREEDOM!!!
And can you really state that their fates are sealed on the important bedrock issues, with the public having no say, and not find yourself irked at all? Well, good for you, I suppose... it troubles me.
Apologies for not responding to LaMont yet, but this is my lunch-break and I had to go with responding to the one that was stuffed with implicit ad homs. I was really hoping this thread could go on without my motives being called into question. I'm not out to restrict debate in any way... I'm all for a free exchange on this topic, whereas you seem outraged about me raising certain points. Go figure.
and more 
Now, all of a sudden, you want "proof"? How transparently selective your demands for "proof" are. You never needed any "proof" when you accused Americans of killing millions of Iraqis. All you needed then were bald assertions and some carelessly creative accounting. But now, all of a sudden, you want "proof". How revealing.
I also never even mentioned Iraq so don't know where you're getting that from.
