NationStates Jolt Archive

If you could make one person of historical significance a miscarriage, who would it be? Keep in mind the following things:

World War II spawned a bunch of cool goodies, including the space program, which spawned a bunch of cool goodies.
Karl Marx caused the Soviet Union, which was key in the defeat of Hitler.
Napoleon is the reason we have canned foods.

Etc.

Pinochet:

One of the most burtal dictators in the history of history. He murdered thousands of innoccent civilians in Chile when he was paid to orchestrate a coup against the benevolent elected socialist, Allende.

Hitler:

I'm sure you can figure out why.

Stalin:

He was a terrible, terrible socialist. He wasn't supposed to take over the USSR, but he did. He had the rightful successor of the Soviet Union, Leon Trotsky, killed in Mexico. I'm a firm believer, that if Trotsky had taken over as planned, the Soveit Union wouldn't have been as bad as it was- certainly not imperialistic. Plus, he killed all of the farmers that wouldn't merge into collective farms.

Stalin.

Pinochet:

One of the most burtal dictators in the history of history. He murdered thousands of innoccent civilians in Chile when he was paid to orchestrate a coup against the benevolent elected socialist, Allende.

Hitler:

I'm sure you can figure out why.



Nope, not a clue care to explain why? Killing him would be unlikely to change history much. At least not stop any of the masses events such as ww2, since they are so much more than the result of one person.

i was going to say Jesus, but that wouldn't make any historical difference, so i'll go with Billy Graham...he just annoys the hell out of me.

I'd love to eliminate Hitler, however I'm not sure what would have happened . . . so I went with Leopold II.

With him gone, we might not have Africa in such bad shape as it is now

I'm surprized that this poll didn't include the assasins of Archduke Ferdinand.

Nope, not a clue care to explain why? Killing him would be unlikely to change history much. At least not stop any of the masses events such as ww2, since they are so much more than the result of one person.
Well, I suppose you're right. But no one likes Hitler.

Oh, and I'd also like to mention Mobutu, the brutal African dictator that took over the Congo after the CIA assasinated the benevolent Patrice Lamumba.

I dunno... Hitler or Stalin would be too simple, especially as a German... perhaps Adam Smith? Or Christopher Columbus? I really don't know....

i was going to say Jesus, but that wouldn't make any historical difference, so i'll go with Billy Graham...he just annoys the hell out of me.

Yeah, but there'd be less people telling me I need a personal relationship with Jesus. I don't want a personal relationship with a 2000 year old corpse.

Marx.

Osama Bin Laden.........where the FUCK is he on the poll? The one fanatical Moslem who seems strangely keen on NOT being a Martyr.
"Ah.....no...I've....got a bad leg see,I'll only slow you guys down,maybe on the next mission"

Mao.

Pinochet:

One of the most burtal dictators in the history of history. He murdered thousands of innoccent civilians in Chile when he was paid to orchestrate a coup against the benevolent elected socialist, Allende.

A)Allende was far from benevolent

B)Even if Pinochet did kill 3,000+ people, you have to admit, that's awful tame compared to many other dictators.

I picked Hitler, because I believe that with no Hitler, Gernamy would never have fallen to the Nazis. It more likely would have turned Communist or monarchist, and while it may have been anti-Western Europe (France and Britain) either way, it is doubtful that the Communists would have chanced a full-scale war with the West. The war in Europe would have lasted longer and been more dragged out until the Communist system flat-out expired and beleagured Britan and France began the long road to recovery, eventually becoming the class of Europe while the rest of Europe, including Germany and defeated fascist Italy take a longer road to recovery.

The U.S. would have fought the Japanese alone and turned Asia into an outpost for anti-Communist planning. That or they would have decided that Asia can go to hell and just beaten the Japanese and gone back to life as usual, but that's doubtful. The U.S. wouldn't have wanted another war with the Japanese, and as such would have likely tried to rebuild the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese homelands. Therefore, China doesn't go Communist and Korea remains united under Syngman Rhee at first and then turns democratic just as China eventually does.

I would give up the chance to deny life to a single person if I could collectivly deny life to all those childeren who are born with fatal diseses or defects and end up costing their famillies' everything they have both fiscally and emotionally, never give anyone any joy only sorrow, and in the end have no positive impact on the world.

(BTW if any clause if false, id let them live)

Oh, and I'd also like to mention Mobutu, the brutal African dictator that took over the Congo after the CIA assasinated the benevolent Patrice Lamumba.

That's absurd. The CIA didn't kill Lumumba. They may have instigated or otherwise tacitly approved his murder, but they didn't directly kill him. Nor was Lumumba benevolent.

you! for creating this evil thread.

Osama Bin Laden.........where the FUCK is he on the poll? The one fanatical Moslem who seems strangely keen on NOT being a Martyr.
"Ah.....no...I've....got a bad leg see,I'll only slow you guys down,maybe on the next mission"

I can't include everyone we want to see go. I want to provide options for as many views as possible, even if I disagree with those views. Adolf Hitler is very popular, though I would not stop World War II as it happened if I could. I would not stop George Washington or Ronald Reagan for obvious reasons, but some people have picked them.

Aquanarius, if you HAD to pick just one specific person...

Jhenova, it's purely hypothetical.

First of all, I wouldn't want to kill anybody. If I had to do it, well...

Alfred Kinsey.

'Nuff said!

George Bush Sr.'s dad.

You know what would make an awesome super villian? A time traveling abortion doctor.

Bump

Jesus Christ

Myrth, for kicking Paradise Club 6 into spam

Definately Karl Marx. Just think how influencial his philosophy has been. Without him there would have been no communism and therefore no Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro or Pot; no socialism and no welfare or publically funded programs. Capitalism may have continued to become more laissez-faire and probably would have resulted in being adopted in more countries and making the world more wealthier and technologically advanced. There may have been no Federal Reserve created and therefore no Great Depression. With no Great Depression Franklin D. Roosevelt may never have become president; meanwhile Germany may have recovered from World War 1 and Hitler may have never become leader of Germany. Therefore, there would have been no World War 2 (or, at the very least, would have been a shorter war against Japan), possibly no atomic bomb, no Cold War, possibly no CIA, and the mess they created, and Echelon network, no Bin Laden and September 11 and smallpox would have been eradicated for good.

if karl marx wouldn't have lived we still lived under a complete liberal society where the workers have almost no rights

ur an idiot
all the things you mentioned have almost nothing to do with karl marx but with kapitalism
ww2 was beceause of capitalism
the depresion or however you call it is beceause of capitalism
and actually the cold war is beceause of capitalism
the atomic bomb is beceause of ww2 and ww2 is beceause of capitalism so the atomic bomb is beceause of capitalism

in the time of marx every country in the world was capitalist
and then the industrial revolution began...

and a lot of people in the world would be opressed...

bin laden was after the defeat of the soviet union so thats just the fould of the USA
and smallpox was created in the US and Iran and some other nations but NO socialist nation

and ww2 would have been lost so there would be no capitalist world but a fassist world...

Henry Ford (Revolutionised mass production - Only here to cater to some misguided viewpoints)

"International financiers are behind all wars. They are what is called the International Jew; German-Jews, French-Jews, English-Jews, American-Jews…the Jew is the threat"- Henry Ford

Blimey, how misguided am I to not like him? :rolleyes:

Definately Karl Marx. Just think how influencial his philosophy has been. Without him there would have been no communism and therefore no Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro or Pot; no socialism and no welfare or publically funded programs. Capitalism may have continued to become more laissez-faire and probably would have resulted in being adopted in more countries and making the world more wealthier and technologically advanced. There may have been no Federal Reserve created and therefore no Great Depression. With no Great Depression Franklin D. Roosevelt may never have become president; meanwhile Germany may have recovered from World War 1 and Hitler may have never become leader of Germany. Therefore, there would have been no World War 2 (or, at the very least, would have been a shorter war against Japan), possibly no atomic bomb, no Cold War, possibly no CIA, and the mess they created, and Echelon network, no Bin Laden and September 11 and smallpox would have been eradicated for good.

Moron, they were all Socialists first!

What does the Soviet Union have to do with the stock market crashing?

Perhaps if Communism didn't come aorund, worker's rights wouldn't have come around. Maybe, you'd be a slave right now.

Now, just because you want all that to happen doesn't mean it would have. It's rather unlikely that all of that would.

Otto von Bismark

He put the world on the road to World War I, which is why everything is so screwed up today.

if karl marx wouldn't have lived we still lived under a complete liberal society where the workers have almost no rights

ur an idiot
all the things you mentioned have almost nothing to do with karl marx but with kapitalism
ww2 was beceause of capitalism
the depresion or however you call it is beceause of capitalism
and actually the cold war is beceause of capitalism
the atomic bomb is beceause of ww2 and ww2 is beceause of capitalism so the atomic bomb is beceause of capitalism

in the time of marx every country in the world was capitalist
and then the industrial revolution began...

and a lot of people in the world would be opressed...

bin laden was after the defeat of the soviet union so thats just the fould of the USA
and smallpox was created in the US and Iran and some other nations but NO socialist nation

and ww2 would have been lost so there would be no capitalist world but a fassist world...

Adolf Hitler's party: National Socialist

Of course, stopping World War II would totally screw up the world timeline for jets rockets, nukes, rubber, computers, and the space program, which in turn opens up freeze-dried foods, GPS, weather and communication satellites, cool mattresses, etc. I don't want to mess with all of that.

"International financiers are behind all wars. They are what is called the International Jew; German-Jews, French-Jews, English-Jews, American-Jews…the Jew is the threat"- Henry Ford

Hm, now that I think hard about him, I remember that he kept a picture of Adolf Hitler on his desk...and Adolf Hitler kept a picture of Henry Ford on his desk...

Adam Smith, Ayn Raynd, and Henry Ford


You seriously think that the Nazis are really socialist?

They totally pandered to industry! You poor, poor misguided fools. Just because someone chooses a name, doesn't mean they believe in it. I.E. Democratic People's Republic of North Korea!!!

Now, if what they were saying were true, then there would be: elections, representatives, freedom of speech and press, and Social programs, all in the country of North Korea!!!

Is that the truth? F**k no!

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html

Sorry, only read the first part of your post.

You guys are a bit misguided to think that Marx is the enemy of capitalism. His idea was to expand the advantages of capitalism to everybody, not just to the rich, which is where the benefits have always gone.

The cause of the great depression, contrary to any bullshit you ever heard from some dumb libertarian that taught you up until you dropped out of high school Vitania, was a combination of trickle-down economics and Protectionism. Also, the lack of control on the stock market caused it to drop so badly. Nowadays, the stock market is regulated so that the world doesn't come to an end again. See, free trade is a dumb idea! It caused the near extinction of America!

Roosevelt was one of the most important men in all of history. First is Jesus, second is him. Even if you don't agree with his social programs, the industrialization that he accomplished during the Great Depression (which helped bring back millions of the jobs that were lost) were the only way that we were able to sustain the war effort (which was what finally got us out of the depression)

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html


Ah, touche`

The benefits of capitalism are gizmos and gadgets that people want to make money from.

Now, you're going to have quite a challenge explaining away the Reagan years...

I have also examined this though. True, Hitler did institute many Socialist programs, and he was fairly progressive, but the times had called for them. Any good leader who leads during a hard time, will always do what is necessary to get out of that period. However, after the German economy was boosted to the necessary levels, Hitler started to phase away from a controlled economy, and back into a free enterprise one. Granted, it is possible that he was simply trying to reward the ambitious Aryans, after all, the Jewish population had been a strong controller of industry and business. He maintained some direction over the economy, but only in the realm of the war effort. Otherwise, he gave tax handouts and such to the businesses that he did not need for the war effort.

To me, he seems more like a good leader than anything. And I hate to say that, but what he accomplished was great. Just what Stalin accomplished was greater.

*sneezes out the words "took Russia from an agrarian society to an industrial one in only 10 years! Ahem, excuse me!"*

Otto von Bismark

He put the world on the road to World War I, which is why everything is so screwed up today.

How did he? The Kaiser sacked him 18xx and I don't know if it was he who arranged all the alliances-but still, how is it his fault?

George W. Bush. Or George H.W. Bush.

I'l say Lenin, but only because the result of taking out anyone earlier is pretty much impossible to predict. Otto von Bismarck is a good suggestion though, but then Stalin probably takes over the world (no Germany to slow him down). See C&C: Red Alert for the result of taking out Hitler.
Lenin was the first to seriously bully people into applying Marxist theories to a country, and look how it turned out. Without him, Russia would probably have stabilised into some form of democracy after the revolution against the Romanovs, and Stalin wouldn't have had the leeway to kill millions and millions and millions of people; Russia and the U.S. together (plus us plucky Brits)would still have beaten Germany in WWII, but no Cold War, no Korean War, no Vietnam police action (smirk), generally a nicer time for the people of the U.S.S.R.
So I think Lenin wins.

P.S. I want to plug two books: What If?, and More What If?, both edited by Robert Cowley. They're collections of counterfactual essays, examining what might have happened differently if things had been slightly different, usually in key military scenarios. I adapted my Lenin idea from an essay in the second one; the first includes, for instance, 13 ways the American War of Independence could have failed.

The benefits of capitalism are gizmos and gadgets that people want to make money from.

Now, you're going to have quite a challenge explaining away the Reagan years...


And those Gizmos and gadgets can't be accomplished in a Democratic, communistic society? First off, innovation happens more rapidly when people work together, not less. The benefit of innovating in this society is that everyone will benefit. From those selling to those buying. The idea that I'm trying to communicate is, that democratically practiced communism is basically the same thing as capitalism, except that everyone gets to benefit, not just the rich.

Reaganomics, ahh. Tell me, do rich people spend money in the same percentages as the middle-class? The answer to that is no. Sure, they have more money, and they do spend more, but not much more by comparison. The idea of Reaganomics was to give the wealthy tax cuts, so that they would either invest in their companies, or spend it. Well, they did, but not nearly as much as would be hoped.

Reaganomics (also known as tricke-down and voodoo economics) works wonders on a small business. In one of these, the entire livelihood of the owner depends on the success of the business. Thus, when they make more money, they don't save it, they invest it in their company! The problem with translating this idea to a large company, is that the CEO is more interested in making the money than having the company succeed. They have more than enough to survive quite well, just on the money they make in a year.

Have you seen all the massive layoffs over the past years? These are usually taken when a company is healthy and expanding. More than anything, these are taken to increase temporary profit, not sustain the company.

However, and my final point on why Reaganomics is bad for the economy is this: Our economy is measured by the amount of money that is posessed by all Americans. During the Reagan years, the economy improved. But, for some reason, wages did not go up for the middle and working classes, the cost of living increased, and so did unemployment. So why did the economy not show a drop in performance??? Because the money was held in huge quantities by the wealthy, and the newly expanded global market took emphasis away from the market at home.

And that, my friend, is my rebuttal to the economy of Reagan.

Allende was far from benevolent
Allende was a democratically elected official, so whether he was benevolent or not (which he very much was), no one had the right to remove him. Our president is a brutal war-wager, yet no one is calling for a coup.

Some New York Times facts on the coup. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ciachile.htm)

And an online encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende)

And I believe it was Allende that said "Half a glass of milk to every Chilean child." If that's not benevolent, tell me what is.

That's absurd. The CIA didn't kill Lumumba. They may have instigated or otherwise tacitly approved his murder, but they didn't directly kill him. Nor was Lumumba benevolent.

"Devlin says he suspected, but didn't know for sure, that the order to assassinate Lumumba must have come from President Eisenhower himself. In August this year, however, Devlin's suspicion was confirmed officially by Washington - the order had come from the President." (http://www.africawithin.com/lumumba/who_killed_lumumba.htm)

Lumumba was also democratically elected. Why? Because he transcended racial barriers and spoke out against the exploitive Belgians who were raping Africa even to that day. Even in the 1950's. With one speech ("passionately denouncing the harsh brutalities and indignities suffered by the Congolese under Belgian colonial rule") the country rallied under his support. And that's why he was elected prime minister.

I happen to personally know his nephew, who is probably the kindest, gentlest thing on this earth. (Like... if Jesus ever existed, and came back... he'd be Tukumbi Lumumba.) And the smartest man I know. He teaches with my father at a college in New York (They wrote a few articles together if you want to look into that, heh.), but he's also a well respected international figure who, on many occasion, works with the united nations. And he's very, very much like his uncle.

He's a humble man, so very rarely talks about his uncle, but the once occasion that he has spoken to me about him, I trust what he says.

Edit: And bravo to Comandante. That's the finest interpretation of Reaganomics I have seen in a long time. Well done.

Peyo, Peyo, Peyo, the father of the Smurfs.
Life without him as we hope to know it,
but be the closes thing to an Eutopia.

Those devilish, little imps, who up to this day,
give me nightmares are at the root, of social
capitalistic greed, drugs, murder, and gangs.
Who as i write this, they take the smurf name
as an intimidating factor, to 'cause more hell on earth.

Has this man, Peyo, :sniper: a mediocre cartoonist,
would of been aborted,
i and the rest of the world, would of known
that electric blue the color, is just wrong, wrong,
wrong.
that's me thoughts on that.

I still have to say that Stalin should still have lived though.

I mean, saying that Roosevelt, or Hitler should have died because of their social programs, or Hitler's purges, is short-sighted. They managed to take their economies out from being tanked to being powerhouses, quite quickly!

And my justification for Stalin? True, the starvation of millions was the result of his work, but from what he accomplished, nothing else could have happened. He transformed a completely agrarian society into a fully industrial one in only 10 years. Naturally, the body counts during this time would be high, but come on!!! Think about it! It took America over 100 years to become an industrialized society! It took Britain longer, and they started industrializing first!!! How could one man's policy industrialize a country in only 10 years??? It's mind boggling!!!

That is the most incredible accomplishment I have ever heard of. He built an entire infrastructure up from scratch, and it only took 10 years!!!

Henry Ford, he was such a panzy.

And my justification for Stalin? True, the starvation of millions was the result of his work, but from what he accomplished, nothing else could have happened. He transformed a completely agrarian society into a fully industrial one in only 10 years. Naturally, the body counts during this time would be high, but come on!!! Think about it! It took America over 100 years to become an industrialized society! It took Britain longer, and they started industrializing first!!! How could one man's policy industrialize a country in only 10 years??? It's mind boggling!!!
Japan did it in just about the same amount of time, too. To keep up with Russia and the rest of the western world. It is indeed an amazing accomplishment, but nothing is worth that amount of human lives.

Allende was a democratically elected official, so whether he was benevolent or not (which he very much was), no one had the right to remove him. Our president is a brutal war-wager, yet no one is calling for a coup.


Maybe you aren't but I know some peope who are ;)

And I have to agree. Both Allende and Lumumba are the prime examples of communism going the right way. Few Americans are willing to admit it, but it is a workable system, as long as it is democratic.

Lumumba is my personal hero, right behind the world's biggest radical, Jesus.

None, each ultimatly had an important role to play in our history. Changing history could have dire consequences.

And those Gizmos and gadgets can't be accomplished in a Democratic, communistic society? First off, innovation happens more rapidly when people work together, not less. The benefit of innovating in this society is that everyone will benefit. From those selling to those buying. The idea that I'm trying to communicate is, that democratically practiced communism is basically the same thing as capitalism, except that everyone gets to benefit, not just the rich.

Reaganomics, ahh. Tell me, do rich people spend money in the same percentages as the middle-class? The answer to that is no. Sure, they have more money, and they do spend more, but not much more by comparison. The idea of Reaganomics was to give the wealthy tax cuts, so that they would either invest in their companies, or spend it. Well, they did, but not nearly as much as would be hoped.

Reaganomics (also known as tricke-down and voodoo economics) works wonders on a small business. In one of these, the entire livelihood of the owner depends on the success of the business. Thus, when they make more money, they don't save it, they invest it in their company! The problem with translating this idea to a large company, is that the CEO is more interested in making the money than having the company succeed. They have more than enough to survive quite well, just on the money they make in a year.

Have you seen all the massive layoffs over the past years? These are usually taken when a company is healthy and expanding. More than anything, these are taken to increase temporary profit, not sustain the company.

However, and my final point on why Reaganomics is bad for the economy is this: Our economy is measured by the amount of money that is posessed by all Americans. During the Reagan years, the economy improved. But, for some reason, wages did not go up for the middle and working classes, the cost of living increased, and so did unemployment. So why did the economy not show a drop in performance??? Because the money was held in huge quantities by the wealthy, and the newly expanded global market took emphasis away from the market at home.

And that, my friend, is my rebuttal to the economy of Reagan.

You've spewed theory at me, but you have not rebutted the economy of Reagan. According to the Bureau of Labor, unemployment went from 7.6% in 1981 to 5.3& in 1989.

The poverty line is irrelevant; our standard for poor is what most of the world considers rich.

Otto von Bismark

He put the world on the road to World War I, which is why everything is so screwed up today.
No, it was the Serbs and the Austrio-Hungarians who did! The Germans who were an ally of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire were drawn in by their alliance obligations. They never started the war; the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sofia by Gavrilo Princip when they were in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia after leaving Zagreb the capital of Croatia.

The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914/ferdead.html)

I've spewed reality at you. We tried Reaganomics once before. In the 10 years before the Great Depression, the politicians at the time believed this theory. Look at what happened in 1932. Look at the success of Trickle-Down economics. If we didn't have the same controls on the stock market that we have today, the same thing could have resulted.

Our standard for poor is our standard for poor. It has just as much relevance as if it was in any other country. How about this fact for you, hmm? Reagan had the halfway houses and much of the insane asylums closed down. The people who were in these were forced to join society and work. They were unable to, and that is why the number of crazy-ass bums walking around the streets is as high as it is now! He practically quadrupled the homeless population!

If I also remember correctly, the definition of unemployment was redefined in the Reagan era. It used to be that anyone who didn't have a job was considered unemployed. Now it is if you have been unemployed for 13 weeks, and after that, you aren't unemployed anymore. You aren't counted as anything at all.

So naturally, unemployment numbers would seem lower. I mean, to Reagan, just because you didn't have a job, didn't mean you were unemployed!

That sounds like a paradox to me.

Now how about this, you have to prove that both Trickle-down economics is a good idea, and that Reagan's presidency benefited the middle class. If you can do that, you win a free candy bar!

And how did I not disprove Reaganomics? I gave you the facts (not figures, but if you're that stingy, I'll go look em up. And then you'll say to "stop using that liberal rag", and I'll say that "it is a non-partisian, moderate organization" and you'll say "lies! All lies!" and I'll say "whatever, you already lost this one") But where was I? Oh yes, I presented you with the facts, I analyzed the patterns that these facts took, I gave my interpretation, and I backed it up with a historical reference. So how did I not prove my point???

A rising tide lifts all boats. When a business becomes successful, it expands, creating jobs. Steve Jobs has all the money he'll ever need and has lowered his own salary to $1, so don't talk about executives being out for personal enrichment. Generally, executives become executives through hard work, and are entitled to a little personal enrichment. If I start a bakery, turn it into a chain of bakeries, and eventually become CEO of Baker Bakeries, Inc., I'd expect to make a hefty sum. However, this is not a thread about Reaganomics, this is a thread about alternate history.

No, it was the Serbs and the Austrio-Hungarians who did! The Germans who were an ally of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire were drawn in by their alliance obligations. They never started the war; the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sofia by Gavrilo Princip when they were in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia after leaving Zagreb the capital of Croatia.

The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914/ferdead.html)

I agree! Personally, I feel the Austro-Hungarians are to blame. Had they simply issued their ultimatum immediately, the rest of the world would probably have sat back and let them annex Serbia. But they didn't. Instead the dithered for a month, to make sure that Germany would back them if Russia intervened. And it led to full scale war.

Bismarck, I believe, was long dead by that time. I don't see why people keep blaming him. He even predicted that the next big war would be caused "by some damn silly thing in the Balkans".

Steve Jobs has all the money he'll ever need and has lowered his own salary to $1, so don't talk about executives being out for personal enrichment.

Isn't that under minimum wage? :-)

Go Jobs!

Who to eliminate?

No one.

Alternate history? Just what have you been smoking? OK, here we go. Many businessmen are hard workers, granted. But, for all the hard work they do, they get paid quite a bit more than anyone else for the same hard work.

My explanation for this. A doctor makes about $90,000 per year, pays a good portion of that to malpractice insurance, and goes to school for upwards of 24 years. A businessman makes about $120,000 per year, pays only for the lawyers that he needs because he is being sued all the time, and goes to school for 18-20 years.

Now, a doctor has such a high stress profession, that even though they are health concious, they only live to be, on average, 62 years old. A businessman, although it is also a high stress profession, is more likely to die when they are 72 years old.

Thus, we can conclude, that Businessmen make more, by working less.

I could prove this point even better if I used a teacher instead.

Why the thing with age you might ask? Well, a difficult or high stress profession takes both a bodily and a mental toll on the worker. They are prone to heart failure, disease, and cancer, just because the job is so damn difficult.

My explanation for this. A doctor makes about $90,000 per year, pays a good portion of that to malpractice insurance
On a COMPLETELY unrelated note, I submitted an issue to NationStates about malpractice insurance.

Apple also tries to be everything that Microsoft isn't. Steve knows that he can't be a capitalist. If anything, Apple is a computer Guild. They will never corner the market, and they will never try to. But for what they do, they are definitely the best.

You know what's funny? Paxamania is getting his ass handed to him by a 18 year old kid who is partially drunk, and smoked some pot earlier. :)

Osama Bin Laden.........where the FUCK is he on the poll? The one fanatical Moslem who seems strangely keen on NOT being a Martyr.
"Ah.....no...I've....got a bad leg see,I'll only slow you guys down,maybe on the next mission"

Nah, see...he can't wheel around a dialysis machine AND a bomb.... hehehehhe.

;)

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: Bill Clinton :gundge: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Hey neat! I've never been on a poll before. :D

Anyway, my answer: ABBA

You know what's funny? Paxamania is getting his ass handed to him by a 18 year old kid who is partially drunk, and smoked some pot earlier. :)


Jeezum Crow, mang! Stop handing out asses!

As horrible as it may be to conceive, I've been presented with the argument that had the Holocaust not occured, it may have taken much more time for the Western world to recognize the horrors of institutionalized racism (and later racism as a whole).

Indeed, humanity has learned from it's mistakes with the Nazis and their philosophy, and as a result, most forms of racism are on the decline in most parts of the Western world. But we had to learn this lesson harshly, and so I have questionned whether it would have been the right thing to do if, given the chance, to eliminate Hitler before the Final Solution.

Of course, no amount of debating and introspection can make me ever forget the atrocities committed against the Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Greeks, Homosexuals, and the mentally ill. I am thankful that I was born in a time long after such things, yet reading accounts of those times, and watching the videos of the camps instills me with a sickness that I could never forget.

I have faith that humanity would have learned tolerance eventually. I think that no matter how long it would have taken us, if given the choice, I would never have sacrificed the dignity, emotional well-being and lives of the over-six-million people murdered in defense of a racial-specific and downright evil ideology.

You know what's funny? Paxamania is getting his ass handed to him by a 18 year old kid who is partially drunk, and smoked some pot earlier. :)

Oh, be nice. I'm very liberal, but I have a lot of respect for Paxania. He's unlike most conservative in this forum in that- he's not as unbelievably cruel and can actually keep an argument afloat. Kudos to you, Paxania, for rising above your republican colleagues.

Case in point: Zerihemla.

As horrible as it may be to conceive, I've been presented with the argument that had the Holocaust not occured, it may have taken much more time for the Western world to recognize the horrors of institutionalized racism (and later racism as a whole).

Indeed, humanity has learned from it's mistakes with the Nazis and their philosophy, and as a result, most forms of racism are on the decline in most parts of the Western world. But we had to learn this lesson harshly, and so I have questionned whether it would have been the right thing to do if, given the chance, to eliminate Hitler before the Final Solution.

Of course, no amount of debating and introspection can make me ever forget the atrocities committed against the Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Greeks, Homosexuals, and the mentally ill. I am thankful that I was born in a time long after such things, yet reading accounts of those times, and watching the videos of the camps instills me with a sickness that I could never forget.

I have faith that humanity would have learned tolerance eventually. I think that no matter how long it would have taken us, if given the choice, I would never have sacrificed the dignity, emotional well-being and lives of the over-six-million people murdered in defense of a racial-specific and downright evil ideology.



Absolutely. If it wasn't for Hitler, then Jews would still be persecuted. If it wasn't for the KKK, blacks would still be hung from trees. If it wasn't for Pol Pot, I would daydream about a world without Conservatives, and try to make it a reality.

Oh, be nice. I'm very liberal, but I have a lot of respect for Paxania. He's unlike most conservative in this forum in that- he's not as unbelievably cruel and can actually keep an argument afloat. Kudos to you, Paxania, for rising above your republican colleagues.

Case in point: Zerihemla.


I do agree with you. He has maintained a very intelligent argument, which is difficult for most conservatives who frequent these threads to manage. Although, I have to hand out the insult. I am an extremely radical leftist, and he also hasn't posted anything here for a while.

That whole unbelievably cruel thing though, I'm hurt :(
That is what us revolutionaries have to be. It's all in the name of progress that I wish memocide. I don't like violence, but I love a perfect world, and you have to weigh the two against each other.

Of course, no amount of debating and introspection can make me ever forget the atrocities committed against the Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Greeks, Homosexuals, and the mentally ill.

You forgot the overzealous Christians.

You forgot the overzealous Christians.


I am a christian, and in most places, they were committing the atrocities. :(
You have to admit that we have a ton of hypocrites within our ranks.

Does anyone else agree with me about Kinsey?

Atrocities were committed against Overzealous Christians? I never knew that. How did that happen?

Atrocities were committed against Overzealous Christians? I never knew that. How did that happen?


Quite a few missionaries are still being persecuted in other countries.

They were on Hitler's list. Jews, Greeks, blacks, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, antisocial people, and overzealous Christians.

They were on Hitler's list. Jews, Greeks, blacks, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, antisocial people, and overzealous Christians.

Homosexuals were? I find that hard to believe. The Nazi Party was started in a gay bar and many of the top Nazis were themselves homosexuals. Hitler was a male prostitute as a teenager and had sex with other males.

Homosexuals were? I find that hard to believe. The Nazi Party was started in a gay bar and many of the top Nazis were themselves homosexuals. Hitler was a male prostitute as a teenager and had sex with other males.
Yeah, apparently they were. Twas in my history textbook so it must be true...
heh heh, Hitler the hooker... :D

if karl marx wouldn't have lived we still lived under a complete liberal society where the workers have almost no rights

No one has a right to someone elses' property.

ur an idiot

For arguing with you, yes.

all the things you mentioned have almost nothing to do with karl marx but with kapitalism
ww2 was beceause of capitalism
the depresion or however you call it is beceause of capitalism
and actually the cold war is beceause of capitalism
the atomic bomb is beceause of ww2 and ww2 is beceause of capitalism so the atomic bomb is beceause of capitalism

As I said in my post it was Karl Marx's philosophy which influenced the things I mentioned. Some of the ideas Marx presented were not original but it was he who the first to present such ideas that began to influence people.
You have offered no explanation as to how capitalism caused the Great Depression and World War 2.

in the time of marx every country in the world was capitalist
and then the industrial revolution began...

The politico-economic system of Capitalism and trade are not one and the same but trade is an important part of Capitalism. It is true that trade has always existed. The Industrial Revolution occured many years before Karl Marx. At the time of Karl Marx, America was the closest thing to the politico-economic system of Capitalism. There were some nations which had capitalist economies but many nations in the world were still monarchist, fedualist or tribal.

and a lot of people in the world would be opressed...

Like all the people in capitalist economies, which have sprung up since Marx, whose standard of living have been raised dramatically and have more basic freedoms than people in non-capitalist economies?

bin laden was after the defeat of the soviet union so thats just the fould of the USA
and smallpox was created in the US and Iran and some other nations but NO socialist nation

I agree with you on Bin Laden but the idea that Smallpox was created by America is hilarious. It was the first disease we used vaccinations to fight and the first disease we nearly eradicated. I say nearly because both the US and the USSR kept vials of the disease after it had been eradicated out of fear that one might use it against the other.

Moron, they were all Socialists first!

You weren't clear enough on this point. If you're refering to the leaders I mentioned then you could say that they were socialist but it still doesn't negate the fact that all were responsible for mass murder.

What does the Soviet Union have to do with the stock market crashing?

Nothing. You've misinterpreted what I've said. I said that it was Marx's philosophy which influenced the world, possibly influencing those who created the Federal Reserve which led to the Great Depression.

Perhaps if Communism didn't come aorund, worker's rights wouldn't have come around. Maybe, you'd be a slave right now.

Actually I work in a non-union workshop and if at any point I considered myself to be oppressed then I would have left the workshop. A slave is a person who has no right to his property or what he produces. This does not include a factory worker who produces goods for his owner since he has agreed to work for the owner in exchange for an income. The goods he produces may be worth more than what he earns but the goods he produced were made with tools owned by the factory owner and it was not part of the Terms of Employment between the owner and the worker that the worker would receive the income from the sale of the goods.

Now, just because you want all that to happen doesn't mean it would have. It's rather unlikely that all of that would.

Considering that America went from a largely agriculture-based economy to an industrialised nation with a level of technological achievment greater than Great Britain in a timeframe of less than 100 years; considering that Japan went from a imperialist nation with a standard of living lower then China at the time, experienced widescale destruction caused by World War 2 and built an economy which rivaled America in less than 50 years then I do not see how the scenario I proposed could not have come about.

Tough one, I want to say Hitler, but it's past and we lived through it and what is done is done, so I want to pick some one that is pure bad to the bone that lives today. I'm going with OBL.

Adam Smith, Ayn Raynd, and Henry Ford

While these people made significant contributions to society I don't believe that eliminating any of them would have had a major effect on the world.

I said that it was Marx's philosophy which influenced the world, possibly influencing those who created the Federal Reserve which led to the Great Depression.

You are correct. Edward Mandell House, the man behind the Federal Reserve, explicitly said his "political and ethical faith" was "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx," with "a spiritual leavening."

Kim Jong Il.

Why wouldn't you want the world to be rid of this snively-nosed propagandist, ego-maniac, rat-man, spoiled son of a revolutionary?

1. The internal destabilization of North Korea would serve us by making an opening for democratic reunification.
2. Asia would not be under as great a threat of a nuclear attack
3. A stronger Korea would be an economic boon, as well as provide sufficient FOOD for the STARVING northereners.
4. We could evacuate most, if not all, of our military presence on the DMZ
5. Kim-Jong Il is just an all-around fat, ugly, despicable, extremo-communist.

I agree! Personally, I feel the Austro-Hungarians are to blame. Had they simply issued their ultimatum immediately, the rest of the world would probably have sat back and let them annex Serbia. But they didn't. Instead the dithered for a month, to make sure that Germany would back them if Russia intervened. And it led to full scale war.

Bismarck, I believe, was long dead by that time. I don't see why people keep blaming him. He even predicted that the next big war would be caused "by some damn silly thing in the Balkans".
That is so true.

After all, didn't Otto Von Bismark exist before this time period? And, wasn't the leader of Germany Kasier Wilheim (William)?

Germany During WWI (http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/germanyduringww1.htm)

You guys are a bit misguided to think that Marx is the enemy of capitalism. His idea was to expand the advantages of capitalism to everybody, not just to the rich, which is where the benefits have always gone.

I'm sure that Marx meant well in composing his philosophy but the fact of the matter is that it has done a lot more harm than good. I think that you are short sighted in stating that the rich are the only ones that benefit of capitalism. Look at how everybody's standard of living has risen over the last 100 years. Look at all the technological achievements that we all have access to.

The cause of the great depression, contrary to any bullshit you ever heard from some dumb libertarian that taught you up until you dropped out of high school Vitania, was a combination of trickle-down economics and Protectionism. Also, the lack of control on the stock market caused it to drop so badly. Nowadays, the stock market is regulated so that the world doesn't come to an end again. See, free trade is a dumb idea! It caused the near extinction of America!

First if all, if you are going to debate me do not flame. For your information not only did I graduate from secondary school but I received an ENTER score of 77.95. For those who do not live in Australia, the ENTER score indicates how much better your study score was to the rest of the population who undertook Year 12. In other words, my study score was better than 77.95 percent of those who undertook Year 12. Secondly, I think you will find that very few secondary school teachers and university lecturers speak in favour of free market economics.

The Great Depression was not a one-off event. Depressions had occured in the past but not at the level of severity as the Great Depression. What was a common trigger for these depressions was when the government fiddled with the money supply.
Such is the case with the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve was founded in 1913 as a means for banks to never be short of cash reserves.Although it was founded by private institutions it was government controlled and supported. It was hypothesised that if they were never short of cash reserves then there would be no need for them to raise interests rates when they were short on cash reserves and therefore the economy would never go into recession. In addition to gold, credit extended by Federal Reserve paper could serve as legal tender for banks to pay depositers. But despite the creation of the Federal Reserve, there was a depression in 1920.
In 1927, a mild recession led the Federal Reserve to create more paper reserves to counteract the effects. The creation of more paper reserves also aimed to counteract the effects of a gold shortage in England. The Bank of England has refused to allow interest rates to rise when it was obvious that they needed to be, which had led to the gold shortage. The Federal Reserve believed that by creating more paper reserves then this would lower American interest rates to the same level as England's, thus discouraging people in England to deposit their gold in American banks. The planned worked but the excess credit led to a speculative share boom. Only now did the Federal Reserve realise that it had to contract the excess reserves by raising interest rates sharply. This led to the Crash of 1929, a massive drop in business confidence, bank closures and finally the Great Depression.
In short, it was government inteference that almost led to the civilised world being destroyed.

Roosevelt was one of the most important men in all of history. First is Jesus, second is him. Even if you don't agree with his social programs, the industrialization that he accomplished during the Great Depression (which helped bring back millions of the jobs that were lost) were the only way that we were able to sustain the war effort (which was what finally got us out of the depression)

When Roosevelt came into power America was beginning to recover from the effects of the Great Depression. Roosevelt policies merely prolonged the Great Depression. As part of his New Deal, a bureaucracy called the National Recovery Administration was created. Under the NRA, most manufacturing industries were forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement. It is estimated that the NRA raised the cost of doing business by an average of 40 percent.
In the five months leading up to the creation of the NRA, factory employment and payrolls had increased by 23 and 35 percent respectively. The NRA shortened work hours, raised wages and imposed other new costs on enterprise. Six months after the creation of the NRA, industrial production dropped 25 percent. (Source: http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=4031 ). Only after the Supreme Court outlawed the NRA on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, as well as other acts part of the New Deal, did the economy recover.
Roosevelt eliminated the Gold Standard in 1933, believing it to be the cause of the Great Depression. Prices had remained relatively steady since 1800; today they are about 15 times greater compared to 1933. The highest income tax rate rose to 90% under Roosevelt; he proposed a 100% income tax rate on all income earned over $25,000 but it was rejected.

None of them. Messing with time has trillions of unforseeable implications.

And those Gizmos and gadgets can't be accomplished in a Democratic, communistic society? First off, innovation happens more rapidly when people work together, not less. The benefit of innovating in this society is that everyone will benefit. From those selling to those buying. The idea that I'm trying to communicate is, that democratically practiced communism is basically the same thing as capitalism, except that everyone gets to benefit, not just the rich.

Please list ten technological achievements first acomplished by the Soviet Union which benefitted all societies.

Alternate history? Just what have you been smoking? OK, here we go. Many businessmen are hard workers, granted. But, for all the hard work they do, they get paid quite a bit more than anyone else for the same hard work.

That is why they become businessmen in the first place: to earn more money.

My explanation for this. A doctor makes about $90,000 per year, pays a good portion of that to malpractice insurance, and goes to school for upwards of 24 years. A businessman makes about $120,000 per year, pays only for the lawyers that he needs because he is being sued all the time, and goes to school for 18-20 years.

Talk about warped generalisations. "Okay, today I'll be a businessman. All I need is a few lawyers and I'll be a millionaire in no time!"

Now, a doctor has such a high stress profession, that even though they are health concious, they only live to be, on average, 62 years old. A businessman, although it is also a high stress profession, is more likely to die when they are 72 years old.

Again, warped generalisations. Where did your statistics come from, the Department of Thin Air?

Thus, we can conclude, that Businessmen make more, by working less.

So what? The person who hired the businessman values him more than the person who hired the doctor.

I could prove this point even better if I used a teacher instead.

What a hypocrite you are. You go on about how exploitive capitalism is yet you want to exploit a teacher to make your arguments and get the credit for it.

Hitler was a male prostitute as a teenager and had sex with other males.

Lol, that's hilarious. Pity they couldn't have pulled it out during election time. But I'm afraid you're wrong; Hitler did persecute homosexuals. Many were sent to do hard labour in the northern parts of Norway - during the winter.

Lydon Johnson. I believe that if he were not born, Kennedy would not have been killed and the Vietnam War would not have happened on the scale that it did

I am horrified that Ronald Reagan has overtaken Leopold II.

Moses
Jesus
Mohammad


Religious feuding and acts carried out in 'God's name' have caused more deaths and suffering than anything else in our history.

At least Hitler has taken his rightful place as the most hated of these hated figures. Where he should be.

What an idiotic way to ask the question of who you don't like.
Since I don't believe in abortion, and that is how the question was posed,
I cannot answer it the way you asked, nor will I vote.

But I will say that dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein would have done us better if they had been caught earlier on and put in jail than left to the human rights violations that they caused.

A miscarriage is the natural loss of the baby. Anyway, in this case, you know how the person's life would turn out.

A miscarriage is the natural loss of the baby. Anyway, in this case, you know how the person's life would turn out.

Well then you basically want me to make a judgement call on someone's
viability to be alive. I cannot do that. God made us with free will, some people use that freedom to do very bad things, some do very good things. Some don't do much of anything either way. Some don't believe in a God.
I think you walk a really slippery slope asking who would you like miscarried, or killed, or aborted, so that life would have turned out differently for millions of people. Again, I think the way the question was asked sounded very odd and I couldn't vote with good conscience on it.

I think you are presuming that no one else would have done what these men did and that things would be 10 times better than they are now. I can tell you that if God was not going to stop all the Jews from being slaughtered, whether by Hitler and Stalin or someone else, someone else would have come along and done so sooner or later. God lets wills of men do as they want.
But He can inspire others to interrupt someone else's willful intentions.

Alright, who would you have stand under a tree during a lightning storm at the age of 5?

But I will say that dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein would have done us better if they had been caught earlier on and put in jail than left to the human rights violations that they caused.

Well, Hussein was, at one point, employed by the CIA and later encourged with millions of dollars. So don't that the United States would have been the ones to do it.

Look at how everybody's standard of living has risen over the last 100 years.
Yeah, in this country. At the expense of Africa and South-East Asia, whose standard of living have gone dramatically down because of western influence.

I would say Jesus, but he never existed in the first place. So then... I guess whoever actually wrote out the original bible.

I would say Jesus, but he never existed in the first place. So then... I guess whoever actually wrote out the original bible.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were just collections of old Jewish lore.

Jesus is just a fairy tale. Like Santa Claus.

George W. Bush. Or George H.W. Bush.



I would love to see your explanation for comparing the bush's to the likes of hitler.

no really i do.

Funny it is that if you remember history the german people were ready for change they ellected hitler.

Not saying that Kerry is hitler but I just cant stand the "Anybody but bush crowd" they are usally not well versed on the issues and just like being political followers.

sorry for the hostility people.

Jesus is just a fairy tale. Like Santa Claus.


I also thinks its funny that the bible is the only fairytale that makes it pased child hood.

jesus trashed the temples because people were starving ouside while the clerics were living well. just how it is now.

No, he didn't want people using the Temple as a money-making scheme:

1.) The Temple as a marketplace
2.) Priests deeming animals unacceptable for sacrifice, but offering to sell perfect ones

Bump

Jesus is just a fairy tale. Like Santa Claus.
Santa Claus isn't real?! Then explain to me who ate the cookies and milk I left out last Xmas, Mr. smarty pants!