segnosaur

Yes, and having that 'dream' has given the people the motivation to better themselves and create a standard of living unmatched in history. Actually, no it doesn't. Again, no it doesn't. It is true that western capitalist countries do use a lot of resources, but its not because they rely on such resource usage.... its because capitalism has given us such a high standard of living that people expect/demand the type of products to make our lives better. Its only because our capitalist system works so well that so many people can afford cars (something that would not be as common in 3rd world/less capitalistic countries). Oh, and keep in mind that socialist countries like the old soviet block and china actually have pretty horrible environmental records themselves. The problem is that such corporate welfare schemes have nothing to do with capitalism... if anything, its anti-captialist.

Please define what you define as 'abuse' in the above sentence. Last time I checked, slavery has been outlawed in North America. We cannot 'abuse' anyone. Every individual working for a private company has the right to resign their job if they feel that they are not receiving adequate compensation for their efforts. Except for the fact that 'social housing' has nothing to do with capitalism. Nope, they aren't. It may be a byproduct of our society that some people are more wealthy than others, but there is no requirement that we 'need' poor people. In fact, consider that many of our poor people (e.g. those on welfare, or the 'working poor') have a better standard of living than those in many non-capitalist countries. Eliminating the 'wealthy' will not necessarily improve the lives of the poor; in fact, it will probably make their overall standard of living worse. Which 'drugs' are unnecessary? You talking things like crack/meth/pot? Last time I checked, those weren't exactly legal products produced by pharma companies. Except that pharmaceutical companies tend to be publically traded, with no single 'owner'. Everyone in the country has the ability to buy/sell shares in the company and so share in any profits that might result.

If your goal is to 'gather info', then why did you open this thread with a post trying to GIVE info (as in 'look at this article')? If you wanted to just 'gather info' then you would have said something like 'what are some of the benefits and drawbacks to capitalism'. Yes, we can deny that. Please indicate one example where free trade itself has caused 'major harm' (rather than government incompetence or other factors outside the bounds of 'free trade'.) Hey, I agree... we have too much government influence in our life. But guess what? That should (in theory) make you pro-capitalist/free enterprise, since wanting to reduce the impact of governments is more of a libertarian ideal. Umm... maybe because you'd be making some very stupid decisions in your life? I've been working for 15 years. In the next 5-10 years, I can consider retiring. (And as I've stated before, I am certainly nowhere being classified as 'wealthy'.) How could I afford to do that? Just doing a LITTLE research, and making a few smart decisions that will allow me to retire early. Of course, I'm relying on investments (which themselves depend on the capitalist system.) Ayn Rand was a supporter of capitalism.

Actually, no it doesn't. Yes, its true that we currently receive products made by (relatively) low cost labor in other countries. But that is not a requirement for capitalism. In fact, if and when the standard of living (as well as wages) in those less developed nations start to rise it will not mean the end of western capitalism. What will likely happen is that they will end up selling us fewer products, and because of their higher wages will be able to purchase more products made in Canada/the U.S.A./Other capitalist nations. I suggest you look up 'opportunity cost' in an economics text book. Again, no it doesn't. It is true that investments and the use of natural resources is increasing, but that's because A) our population is also growing (requiring more resources in the process), and capitalism is successful at giving people a better life, thus allowing people to purchase luxury goods. So, you've basically got the cause-and-effect wrong. Wrong again. There is no real 'control' over money. The federal government sets monetary policy, but ultimately individual bank users have the decision on whether to deal with a bank or not, to deposit money or take out loans, etc. Furthermore, those 'banks' are actually owned by thousands of individual shareholders, who all have a say in the conduct of the bank. Again, you've got the cause-and-effect relationship wrong. Capitalism isn't working in half the world not because its a flawed system, but because it hasn't even really been tried. Most 3rd world countries are dictatorships, many are (or have been) socialist, and many have authoritarian governments which restrict economic activity. Instead of blaming capitalism (a system which hasn't been tried), why don't you try looking at the actual causes of the problems? That's because capitalism DOES work. In fact, its because it worked so well in the U.S. (with one of the freest economies in the world) that the U.S. can and does have an impact over the world. If the U.S. decided to adopt a more socialist economy, it would have less influence in the word, but that's because its economy would suffer. What a totally retarded statement. There is no reason why a capitalist economy cannot have trade relations with a socialist economy. For example, prior to the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Canada regularly sold wheat to the Soviet bloc. That still didn't make Russia capitalist... the state still had control over most of the economy. Its because many of those 'poor countries' have governments that interfere directly in the economics of the country. Yeah but the question is, if you went on for ever, would you eventually start to get anything right?

You know, I find the arguments put forward by Senator Carstairs to be a little... strange. First of all, she is complaining about the crime bill including 'reverse onus'. But the thing is, the Canadian criminal code already has several crimes for which reverse onus applies (and those particular sections of the criminal code were in effect when the Liberals were in power). The Tory crime bill does expand the number of situations where reverse onus applies, but the concept (requiring people to prove they are not a threat before they are let out on bail) already exists. Secondly, she is complaining about the raising of the age of consent, and claiming it will affect underage prostitutes. But why should it matter? We already have laws regarding prostitution (and if I remember correctly there are stronger penalties for johns using underage prostitutes.) So why should a change in the laws regarding consentual sex affect prostitution?

Amazing... just totally amazing... I took several posts made by Viv3lar3volution and totally destroyed his arguments. I pointed out the flaws in all of his pro-socialist arguments, and left him with nothing to stand on. I also challenged him to answer to several flaws in his argument. So what his his response? Some vague, pointless post that addresses none of the points I raised, and resorts to emotional arguments ("people are starving") rather than dealing with logic or facts. How do you respond to my assertion that your 'democratic socialist' system is also oppressive, just in different ways? How do you respond to the point that being both pro-worker and pro-environment will lead to conflicts in which either the worker or environment will suffer? How do you respond to the point that many of the supposed 'goals' of your socialist movement have nothing to do with anti-capitalism, and that things such as discrimination can and do exist in socialist countries? I think its very revealing that when presented with these issues, your actions involve ignoring them. Perhaps you should actually put some thought into your political philosophy. If you can't defend your arguments, perhaps you should reconsider your attachment to 'socialism'. Yes, and the world consists of a mix of free-market, government regulation, and socialism. Yes, and as whitedoors pointed out, many of those 'starving 3rd world countries' are not necessarily capitalistic... some may be socialist (or former socialist), while in other cases the 'starving countries' are dictatorships which do not fit into either the socialist or capitalist mold. In many cases, there is plenty of food available, but it is not being distributed properly. (Ironically, in such cases like that, a military solution would probably do the most good in getting people fed, but that would violate your socialist beliefs against 'imperialism'.) Of course, I could also point out that there is much research by private companies on ways to improve crop yields. Such biotechnology can help to greatly improve the world's food supply, by increasing growth rates, making plants resistant to disease, or allowing them to be grown in more varied environments. While those companies may doing such research for financial gain rather than to be ultratruistic, the end result is the same... private companies are finding ways to provide more food for the world. Well, as I pointed out before, perhaps the problem is that you're looking at things emotionally and as a result you are taking the easy knee-jerk reaction and assuming socialism is the answer. And why not? It seems on the surface to be viable, but that's just the surface appearance. When you actually examine such 'socialism' logically you begin to see the multitude of flaws that actually exist. Yes, there are problems in the world, but assuming a flawed premise such as socialism is not the answer. We need to actually examine what the actual real underlying problems are, and take the appropriate action.

Why exactly are you making that assumption? I'm solidly middle class... I am nowhere near being wealthy (at least by Canadian standards...) Yet I believe that my life is better off due to capitalism than it would be under economic systems. I have more economic freedom, and can purchase luxury items that would be denied to me otherwise. You don't think there are socialists country that have descent health care? Keep in mind that the original person wasn't talking about health care systems, but health care research and development. There is a widespread belief among many that many advances in medical technology (including drugs) come about because companies see the possibility of financial rewards for developing certain cures and invest in research accordingly. Countries with more 'socialized' systems then are able to use the medicines (or other techniques) developed by the capitalist companies and sell/distribute them to their own people with whatever 'socialist' methodologies exist. There may be socialist countries with descent health care, but part of their 'success' is the fact that they're parasitically benefiting over medical advances made possible by the demands placed on it by private enterprise and private health care. In that case, what exactly do you define to be the difference between socialist and communist? After all, the main difference (at least economically) between a 'social democrat' and a 'communist' is the amount of free enterprise they allow... if you're not necessarily a communist, then you must assume that some capitalism is OK (which conflicts with another assertion you made about how you were against capitalism.)

One major problem with that claim... Any such 'socialist' group (which, I assume provides at least some restrictions on private ownership/private economic activity) is itself oppressive. After all, if I'm truly 'free', then I should have the ability to spend my money and/or accumulate wealth as I see fit (outside of outright theft). Government attempts to restrict the way I use my money is a form of oppression, regardless of how noble your goals are, and regardless of whether a majority supports your 'democratic'. If you truly are against 'oppression', then perhaps you should look at joining the Libertarians. Ok, here's the problem with that statement.... If you are truly against 'capitalism', then you want to see more government ownership and/or government controls. This, by its very nature, is going to lead to more bureaucracy. If you want to fight against racism, sexism, or any other discrimination, then you are more than welcome to do so. (Hey, I think racism is a sign of ignorance too.). But keep in mind that such discrimination is not something related directly to capitalism. Its a problem with society. If anything, it runs counter to capitalism (since by disenfranchising certain segments of the population you reduce the ability to build wealth through their contributions.) Plus, discrimination is also quite possible under a 'socialist' system. Consider the issue of gay marriage... True, most states in the U.S. (one of the most 'captialist' countries) do not allow same-sex marriage... but then, many countries in Europe who are much more socialist than the U.S. also do not allow same-sex marriage. You know, I wonder what would happen if the members of the NSG had a choice between making a choice which protected the environment, and one which actually benefited the workers. After all, those are sometimes mutually exclusive. Again, those are not issues that directly relate to capitalism and/or socialism. I'm sure you will probably find many libertarian types who also support the right to choose independence and/or self-determination for first nations.

Well, your father may not have been a socialist, but he was likely an idiot (or at least extremely ignorant). The "take what you can/give nothing" is just a retarded statement for a number of reasons... While capitalism is a way to build wealth, it in itself does not exclude the ability for people to act charitably. In fact, far from not 'giving back', the additional wealth provided by capitalism can actually lead to greater charitable acts. Want proof? Consider this... the U.S. is generally a more 'free enterprise/capitalistic' country than Canada... yet there is a greater contribution to Charity by Americans, both in the number of people donating, and in the total amount given. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071101/d071101c.htm http://abuja.usembassy.gov/pr_06272007.html http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.we...e.aspx?nid=5116 (Note: its understandable if people do not want to assume the Fraser Institute is an un-biased source; however, in this case their statistics are verified by other sources that I've provided.) The other major problem I have is the assumption that you're "taking what you can"... While the concept of capitalism is to obtain wealth, you are not 'taking' anything... you offer goods and/or services and receive goods/services in return. The person you are dealing with has the option to accept/reject any offer you make. You are not 'taking' anything. Bad anology... Those 'human cows' are actually individuals who are also looking out for their own best interests. They can and will fight any attempt to be 'overused'. They have a choice in things. But guess what? Greed is not eliminated when people live in a 'socialist' system... people will still have the desire to provide a better life with as little effort as possible. This could mean, in effect, that many people will be able to express the desire not to work at all (and express their greed in that manner), while still receiving the benefits of assistance. Not to mention that the greed in the capitalist system is not necessarily a bad thing. Such greed and and does lead to innovation, since the possibility of building wealth will provide an incentive for people to create new products/technologies, or offer services to fill previously unfilled economic niches. If, as under a socialist system you eliminated such a possibility to build wealth, then you eliminate the incentive for much of that innovation. And under a socialist system, people lose the heart to work because they don't need to... they can get the same benefits whether they work 9-5 or stay home all day eating potato chips and watching Oprah. The ironic thing is... you probably wrote your post criticizing capitalism on a computer that was created by a company that exists largely due to capitalism.

Ok, first of all, Diane Sawyer is a journalist. While there's nothing wrong about that, I doubt she has any experience with criminal profiling. I've read plenty of books on serial killers (most written by former FBI criminal profilers, such as Robert Ressler and John Douglas); getting accurate information out of them is NOT the same as interviewing celebrities or politicians. So making claims based on Diane Sawyer's interview should be suspect. Secondly, why exactly are you taking the word of a serial killer as the truth? Any claims (such as "the devil made me do it") should be viewed as suspect, since they are ultimately self-serving and likely impossible to verify. And lets face it, being a psychopath does require the ability to be deceptive, and I doubt a few years in prison has changed is basic mental condition. This reminds me of the similarly false claim made by Bundy where he suggested that is desires were partly fueled by pr0n.

Sweet zombie jebus... I thought this thread was long dead and buried. Why would anyone waste their time resurecting it from the dead? The Windsor Tower was a different design than the WTC, and made use of a concrete-reinforced core that made it more tollerant to fire and heat. So, what happened at the Windsor tower has no relevance to what happened on 9/11. http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Nobody is denying that there are sociopaths (and other anti-social individuals) around. The question is are there enough of them that are A) capable of working together to form an NWO with enough resources to 'control' everything, C) with enough security to keep their existence secret. To that, Occam's razor suggests 'no'.

When you talk about the "New World Order", you first have to clarify what exactly you mean by "New World Order". There are multiple ways to define it. One definition of NWO is that its some sort of shadowy underground group that somehow controls most of the world, and who sometimes engage in conspiracies to consolidate their power. Another definition of NWO is the idea that there will be a general increase in globalization, international cooperation, and a dismantaling of certain non-democratic institutions. The problem is, whenever a politician uses NWO using the second definition (of greater globalization, etc.), there are invaribly idiots who somehow assume he's using the first definition (of an underground conspiracy). Alex Jones is either a paranoid idiot, or someone who really doesn't believe the things he says and just makes outrageous claims in order to gain publicity (and thus market himself). Relying on what he says is a big mistake. Lets put things into context.. the Bilderberg group DOES have meetings that are not strongly publicized. But, they are attended by people with wildly varying political opinions. If there was some shadowy right-wing organzation involved, do you think various socialist attendees would really keep quiet about it? But you're more likely to find that 9/11 is connected with a small group of Muslim extremists who had a particular conflict with the U.S. Try not to keep such an open mind that your brains leak out. Skepticism is your friend... use it. The rule here is that you should apply Occam's razor... to paraphrase it, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. So, what's more likely... that there is some sort of shadowy group that controls the world, and is willing to have people killed to advance their cause, with enough manpower to do everything they can to hid their existance, but not one 'insider' has ever had a change of heart and decided to expose the group? Or that the world is really the product of many small groups/parties/countries, sometimes working together, sometimes in conflict, with primarly self-motivation in mind?

You DO realize that its pretty much impossible to compare how things taste at different points in time (especially separated by decades). Yes, farming practices have changed. That's probably because A) we want food produced as cheaply as possible (using fewer personnel and other resources), with a lot of consistency. Perhaps that's because food recalls are actually very rare (when you consider how many different food products are on the market). The reason why we have 'so little interest' is probably because the controls that we have in place DO eliminate the vast majority of risks. Frankly, you can never eliminate the problems of e-coli and salmonella. They're natural bacteria and will always be with us. (Can't blame 'factory farming' on those.) And mad cow is so exceedingly rare that you'd be more likely to be hit by lightning than catch anything from it.

Yeah, but how often do your meals turn around and bite you? I'm taking martial arts classes... Not an expert by any means, but it does give me an idea what is needed to disable/control someone, and what damage can be done. A 115 pound girl is more than capable of seriously injuring someone much larger than themselves. Personally I'll save my sympathy for people who might get wrongly arrested/accused, and who DON'T try biting the cops.

Hey, I'm all for more document evidence about what happens between cops and civilians. However, from the sounds of it, it looks like had the start of the incident been fully recorded, it would have been worse for the girl. Any attempts by her to resist arrest (prior to the cop turning on HIS camera) would have been captured for all to see. Just out of curiosity, exactly how far would you take that argument? If, for example, you had just run over a pedestrian, or had just been given a breathalizer test which showed you were drunk, would you accept the cops would be justified in demanding you exit your vehicle? Or is your sense that you never have to leave your car absolute, regardless of the circumstances? I'm sure there ARE plenty of cases of unjustifiable police brutality out there. But trying to turn every event where a police officer touches a victim into a case of horrible assault is counter-productive. It ends up overwhelming cases of true brutality, and you run the risk of having all the bad cases getting dismissed by the public because they've heard (and rejected) so many cases before. Last time we checked, we had: - A constitution (both in the U.S. and Canada), developed by civilian politicians, covering people's basic rights - Judges, either elected directly or appointed by elected officials who interpret laws and can dismiss cases where cops have overstepped their authority - Police forces subject to local, provincial or national political organizations Sounds like pretty good civilian oversight to me. No system is perfect, and I'm sure there will always be cases of unjustified police brutality; however, its also possible for civilian organizations to 'micromanage' police actions, which can put society at greater risk.

What you have given is a sort of false dichotomy. In our society, we do not have any sort of firm 'dividing line' between when someone is a child and when they are an adult; instead, we have a series of gradual increases in rights and responsibilities. The age where someone can vote, drink legally, drive, get married, etc. all may happen at different ages. the same with criminal responsibility; children below a certain age are always assumed to be not responsible for their actions; however, as a child gets older more rights and more responsibilities are given. Nobody is assuming that the kid in this case should be treated exactly as an adult. However, they do have some added protection (e.g. sealed juvenile records, lower criminal penalties), at a cost of some loss of freedom (such as being subjected to a curfew). However, at the age of 15, most people should understand the difference between right and wrong, and should respect the law.

For the most part I don't really have the time to debunk the conspricy theorist nonsense like I should (although others here have done a very good job.) But something about the following post really stuck out at me... Ok, here we have a very specific claim... that Molten Metal wasn't covered by the NIST report. Yet 30 seconds and google found this: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (see section 11): NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid...NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius. Now, even if kuzadd didn't believe the NIST and their assesment of the molten material, his claim was that it "wasn't noted" at all is quite false. Furthermore, if this is indicative of his inability to get such basic 'facts' stright, then you have to wonder just what else he's gotten wrong. (Obviously quite a lot, but we'll start with that.)

You know, after reading this article, I'd caution people against reading too much into this particular 'study'. First of all, the article is appearing in a "new" publication called "Open Medicine". Normally, I'm a big fan of the concept of 'peer review'. However, as this is a new publication, it doesn't really have much of a track record behind it. Seondly, the study itself was done by meta-analysis... They selected studies that had already been done and combined the result. (From the original article...To conduct their meta-analysis, researchers identified almost 5,000 titles and abstracts. Of these, 498 appeared potentially eligible on initial review. Eventually, 38 studies were deemed to be eligible..) That's less than 8% of the articles. How exactly did they decide which articles to include and which to reject? How exactly did they combine the results of studies that may have had greatly different sample sizes and/or dealt with totally different diseases? Without knowing that, it may be quite possible that some selection bias has come into play.

Yes, it is true that private companies must make a profit... but there are ways that the 'costs' can get offset. In a purely public system, there is little incentive for management to reduce costs, nor is there much incentive to improve service (in a way that would bring in more 'business'). As a result, publically run operations may continue to be inefficient, and may not provide what users (or, 'customers') really need. Not that I think we should go to an all U.S.-style system. However, the profit motive CAN lead to cost efficiencies. Keep in mind that many of the cuts that were blamed on the Conservative party in Ontario were actually necessitated by cuts in Federal health care spending. I believe that over the course of their 2 terms, provincial health care contributions increased under the conservatives... but they failed to counteract a much greater drop in fed spending. Sorry to hear about your dauther's problem... but do you really think private health care is to blame? Without the private option, do you really think that the waiting list would be any shorter (given the likelyhood of health care spending restrictions brought on by debt reduction)?

Using the police as a backdrop for policy announcements and telling them to declare their political support is indeed inappropriate. It may or may not be appropriate... but remember, the Liberal party regularly used statements by various police representatives in order to support the gun registry. And, at times various public service unions have given their support to the Liberals and NDP. If the conservative government wanting the police to become 'allies' is wrong, then perhaps we should consider restrictions on ALL inputs from government workers into the political system.

I posted a reference to the federal regulations. Got it? Federal. Last time I checked, Florida was actually still a member of the United States of America. When did they separate? You're right... it was for a subsititute teacher... but do you have any reason to believe that a full time teacher would be handled any differently? Really... you have to apply some rationality here... What makes more sense, that some school followed the FEDERAL regulations limiting contact with students, or that somehow this one particular school allowed teachers to restrain students all they wanted for whatever reason they wanted? You keep taking potshots at myself and the school board; don't you think that its at least REASONABLE to assume that the school might be following federal regulations?

I wanted to get a picture of how much or little damage you believed a six year old was capable of carrying out and how much damage justified a police take-down on a six-year old. Well, given the fact that we're dealing with kids who are having EXTENDED temper tantrums (in the example that started this thread it was at least 20 minutes, although likely well over half an hour, although I've read about similar cases that went on for over an hour), I suspect that the amount of damage could be rather considerable. I'll tell you what... you get a bunch of kindergarden kids at your home, give them a bunch of books, markers, etc, and tell them to just go nuts and see how much they can wreck. And if schools can't afford the insurance? (All you need is one or 2 incidence to really drive up the cost of such insurance, and as I pointed out when talking about lawsuits, you don't necessarily have to do anything wrong to be hit with a lawsuit.) Schools are government bodies and can afford whatever insurance they need. Just raise taxes. School boards in the U.S. have much tighter controls over their funding than they do in Canada. Often, boards can't "just raise taxes" without passing some referendum. If the citizens in the area don't agree to pass the referendum, the school will either have to skip the insurance, or take the funds from somewhere else. You overlook what I actually think ... that what you describe is nonsense. Unfortunately, what you THINK doesn't seem to be based on reality. I pointed out real dangers that a teacher would experience if approachng for a 'hug'. The fact that you dismiss such dangers with no explaination why just underscores your lack of logic in this matter. ??? Presumably they are putting on their hockey equipment. I'm assuming that there would always be someone available in a supervisory capacity in the classroom even when ONE teacher is putting their armour on. Of course, that's assuming you were even serious about that. Putting on hockey equipment (or anything else) seems rediculous, but then, your arguments seem to thrive on lack of logic. I doubt it. Well then, lets start seeing your masses of examples of kids injured after handcuffs have been applied. If they're so dangerous I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples. I will try to keep up with examples of kids injured through restraints. Of course, I notice you STILL haven't given any sort of comprehensive set of rules on how to deal with situations like this.... when and how to apply hugs, how to deal with students who don't respond, how to deal with students who were victims of sexual assault. Are you ever going to do that, or are you just going to take pot shots and make bogus claims?

No, it wasn't. You can make that claim all you want, but back in the late 70s/early 80s I remember hearing about regular appointments Trudeau made to various crown corporations and/or departments. (And do you remember that last flury of patronage appointments following Trudeau's retirement, that probaby did more than anything else to sink Turner's chances of winning the election?) It's well known and blindingly clear that the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord fiascos rejuvenated Quebec separatism. If you're going to blame anyone, why don't you give at least part of the blame to Trudeau, who brought in a constitution that Quebec didn't sign (thus causing resentment between Quebec and English Canada in teh first place)? Frankly, I think Meech Lake and Charlottetown were both big wastes of time, but I also think the constitution was a similar wast of time. But, if it was worth the risk to bring in the original constitution, then it should also be considered worth the risk to try to get Quebec to sign it.

Well, as has been discussed many times, some of these folks would have us believe that a very incompetent administration and "stupid" president pulled off the biggest criminal conspiracy in US history with 9/11. Can't have it both ways. Yeah, I recognize the inconsistencies in the arguments put forward by various conspiricy theorits. Its just that I know several posters on line who hold left wing views that I respect. (I may not agree with all of their positions, but I can at least recognize that they put a significant amount of thought into their views.) And those people find 9/11 conspiracies to be as idiotic as you and I, even if they don't like Bush. And they would hate to be lumped in with individuals like polynewbie, who are unable to actually come up with anthing resembling coherence in their arguments.