NationStates Jolt Archive

His administration cut the funding to strength the levies,
what was considered the #1 risk for natural disasters in the nation.

Was he thinking let N.O. sink so that the nation would 'reach out'
and bring the survivors to other parts of the country and
thus force cultural change?

Not only in the spread of N.O. food, music, and other cultural things,

but also to focus the rest of the country on the race and class issues
the the nation tries oh-so-desperately to ignore.

'What? Class? We don't have that. We're not England you know'


ha. a joke.
while the Soviet Union sucked, it was more of a state-capitalism
model than that of communism. no real communist would kill (in theory
anyway. they'd probably try to convert you)


The gov't,
because it is run by a super-rich oligarchy (on this point I am not pointing
specifically at the Bush klan, but major players in the pol parties, contributors, the revolving door between industry and agencies that
are supposed to police them)
something like

"The vast majority of the 54 million Americans who own stock own very little of it, and receive only token dividend payments. Likewise, the 45 per cent of dividend recipients making under $50,000 a year collect a tiny proportion of total dividends. Some 62 per cent of all dividend payments go to the top five per cent of the population. The top one per cent of the population collects more dividends than the bottom 50 per cent."
http://www.blonnet.com/2003/01/28/stories/2003012801610400.htm

Booyakasha!

That is your oligarchy,
they don't give a rats-patoot about you or me,
don't care if we sink like N.O.
Only when it happens on a grand scale like this do
they have to do something, for P.R. or stay in power.
I do not know. Maybe Clinton would have been 1 day earlier
or not. But he too worked for the ultra-rich corporate oligarchy
that only change to keep things the same. As the robber barrons
did when they invented the P.R. industry.

His administration cut the funding to strength the levies,
what was considered the #1 risk for natural disasters in the nation.

Was he thinking let NO sink so that the nation would 'reach out'
and bring the survivors to other parts of the country and
thus force cultural change?

Not only in the spread of NO food, music, and other cultural things,

but also to focus the rest of the country on the race and class issues
the the nation tries oh-so-desperately to ignore.

'What? Class? We don't have that. We're not England you know'


The gov't,
because it is run by a super-rich oligarchy (on this point I am not pointing
specifically at the Bush klan, but major players in the pol parties, contributors, the revolving door between industry and agencies that
are supposed to police them)
something like

"The vast majority of the 54 million Americans who own stock own very little of it, and receive only token dividend payments. Likewise, the 45 per cent of dividend recipients making under $50,000 a year collect a tiny proportion of total dividends. Some 62 per cent of all dividend payments go to the top five per cent of the population. The top one per cent of the population collects more dividends than the bottom 50 per cent."
http://www.blonnet.com/2003/01/28/stories/2003012801610400.htm

Booyakasha!

That is your oligarchy,
they don't give a rats-patoot about you or me,
don't care if we sink like N.O.
Only when it happens on a grand scale like this do
they have to do something, for P.R. or stay in power.
I do not know. Maybe Clinton would have been 1 day earlier
or not. But he too worked for the ultra-rich corporate oligarchy
that only change to keep things the same. As the robber barrons
did when they invented the P.R. industry.

which if any of those things makes him a communist?
lets be more open minded and not decide that communism is by definition bad, and thus use it as a derogatory adjective.... :mad:

ok, Bush is a commie because he purposefully didn't fix the levees and knew that a catagory 4 hurricane would strike the city on his watch? That he not only is not interested in the style of cultural life produced by the city,but that he has an animus to it so strong he'd do all he could to see the city destroyed? Whereever your mind reading machine is, you need to bring it out for public use. Just think of how much good it could do in court...

The N.O. disaster is the result of a lot of things over a number of years. A poor state without the money to fix the problem themselves, administrations with other priorities over the years, and national politicians from every state more interested in bringing pork back to their own districts than in evaluating the needs of the nation and acting accordingly. So no, Bush isn't a communist. He's just one more politician without a crystal ball and with an agenda that made New Orleans and its levees fly under the radar.

Bush a comie?
wtf
no offense dude but either you are high on some weed..
In that case tell me the name of your dealer,
if not learn history, commi is not by defeniton bad you know...
And other then that how does a christianfanatic like mr. Bush become a commie??'
just so you know, we commies hate religon, couse we think is sucks ass...
Anyway this tread i think should be locked, couse its cind of meaningless

That's an insult to Communists.

the levees for protection against hurricane floods are a national concern.
fema.
did you watch daily show last night (tuesday night)?

Booyakasha!



I've actually got nothing against commies.
They have some good ideas.
Bolsheviks on the other hand, the ones I met that
wanted to immitate Lenin..., sorry, Lennin crushed
the workers councils and is a murderer.

While I don't mind allying with people who have good ideas,
anarchy is a much better political philosophy.
(don't get duped by the hollywood fiction of destruction & chaos & death)
(that is not anarchy. that is someone's idea of what would happen
without external constraints on human behavior)

we commies hate religon, couse we think is sucks ass...
Anyway this tread i think should be locked, couse its cind of meaningless


It is in the general section.
Why should it be locked?

Actually Marx was not against religion, fyi.
He never had any intention of getting rid of people's religion.
And most of the communists in Latin America come from a religious
background.
To them and many communism and christianity are not incompatable.

I think you just want it locked because it seemingly dissed something close
to your heart. But this is the general section.
I thought just about anything went here?

A communist? NO

An idiot? MOST DEFINATELY

A communist? NO

An idiot? MOST DEFINATELY

I'm actually not sure hes an idiot. He was really good at playing people's fears after 9/11 and he managed to make the entire south follow him through his huge support to religion....

What an interesting view of the world you have...
The United States, a communist country?
(yahyah, I know you didn't say that, but since Bush is the US president, him being communist would make the whole country communist, too. officially, at least.)
Bwaaahahhaa!
You did make me laugh. I'll give you that :D

nope, not a Communist. President Bush, like most Americans, would see that as an insult.

for a model Communist American politician, look more toward the American far left toward Sharpton, HRC, etc.

Those who believe in socialism.

What an interesting view of the world you have...
The United States, a communist country?
(yahyah, I know you didn't say that, but since Bush is the US president, him being communist would make the whole country communist, too. officially, at least.)
Bwaaahahhaa!
You did make me laugh. I'll give you that :D

Unfortunately we must keep dreaming : /

Communism and oligarchy are different things.

Bush may be alot of things but I dont think he is a communist...

Unfortunately we must keep dreaming : /
I'm pretty sure that for most Americans it would be more of a nightmare than a pleasant dream if the US were to turn communist...;)

for a model Communist American politician,
Those who believe in socialism.


communism?
socialism?

same thing?

uh,
no

I'm pretty sure that for most Americans it would be more of a nightmare than a pleasant dream if the US were to turn communist...;)

it would be a pleasant dream for all who don't currently (or ever want to) work!

and a nightmare for anyone with a dream to better himself.

and for those who enjoy free enterprise and financial freedom.

I'm pretty sure that for most Americans it would be more of a nightmare than a pleasant dream if the US were to turn communist...;)

what was the statistic? Like one fifth of america does not believe in evolution?
I could really care less what they think... You can probably guess that i'm for a father knows best state. lol

communism?
socialism?

same thing?

uh,
no

uh, no kidding. I made no such assertion.

socialism is the natural economic arm of Communism... you know, steal from the productive, give to the unproductive.

it would be a pleasant dream for all who don't currently (or ever want to) work!
uh...not quite. people in socialist countries did/do have to work. ... it doesn't work otherwise. They just don't make quite as much money as Capitalists do.

and a nightmare for anyone with a dream to better himself.

and for those who enjoy free enterprise and financial freedom.
Obviously those who enjoy Capitalist commodities, won't appreciate Socialism all too much.
But 'just' because there are drawbacks that doesn't mean it can't work... Capitalism itself isn't really paradise, either, or is it? ;)

(not in the mood for an in-depth discussion here, so I'll just state that I'm not as anti-communist as most people in the Western world are)

uh, no kidding. I made no such assertion.

socialism is the natural economic arm of Communism... you know, steal from the productive, give to the unproductive.

What strange world that must be, where the working class produces nothing while the capitalist class churns out all the products we use. :rolleyes:

what was the statistic? Like one fifth of america does not believe in evolution?
I could really care less what they think... You can probably guess that i'm for a father knows best state. lol
Uhm. ok... I find that somewhat scary, considering that there are a whole lot of people in the US and a fifth of a whole lot is still... a lot ;)

while the Soviet Union sucked, it was more of a state-capitalism
model than that of communism. no real communist would kill

Gaaack! Not that term again!

Horrendously innacurate and oxymoronic. It's doublethink in action kids. The Soviet Union was socialist, the state ran all industries and agriculture. That is the definition of socialist. A capitalist is inherently free of the influence of the state, and is also in a competitive market. Neither of which existed in the Soviet Union. The term State Capitalism is a fine example of double think. The proper term for the Soviet Union is: Totalitarian Socialism.

no real communist would kill

Not a true scotsman fallacy in action.

This post pains me to the point of Seppuku with a Frisbee

His administration cut the funding to strength the levies
The article from factcheck.org (http://factcheck.org/article344.html) says "It is not so clear whether the money Bush cut from levee projects would have made any difference". So while the cut was bad public relations, I don't think one can claim it "caused" or "worsened" anything until we get the results of the called-for investigation.

-----

As for your plutocratic oligarchy theories, you show a link that demonstrates that there are rich people in the USA but nothing that shows they control government or policy. However, here are some things thwarting that theory.

First, no single individual can donate more than $2,000 per candidate per race. It's the law, and it's enforced. So you can't just buy a candidate outright. It takes a group of people.

So let's look at private organizations. Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?Order=A&View=P) is a list of the top campaign contributors. These are party-wide contribution numbers, but I don't know where to get trustworthy Bush-specific numbers for individual contributors.

Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00008072) are some 2004 Presidential Campaign budget numbers for George W. Bush. $271,814,020 (or 74%) of his donations are from private donors.

So how many organizations does it take to get up to $271 million dollars (I'm counting only the Republican portion of the donations, since Bush is a Republican)? With a little math and a spreadsheet program, I find it crosses the line at #43, the Bank of America. So, assuming the biggest contributing organizations care only about the Presidential election, it still takes all of the top 43 to add up to Bush's contributions. Go ahead, read through the contributors list again. What's the combined membership of all of those organizations? Do you think it's more than 1% of the US population? Are they the richest people in the country?

Also, notice that those top 43 organizations are largely biased towards the Democrat Party. If these economic powerhouses had the power to sway elections, they would have gotten the Democrat candidate they wanted and Kerry would be our current President. But he isn't.


I don't see any evidence supporting your proposal of a small-but-rich ruling class. The evidence seems to suggest the opposite, though certainly not conclusively. I'm interested to hear if you have any additional evidence.

[Edit: Sorry, I'm new to this editor...]

A capitalist is inherently free of the influence of the state, and is also in a competitive market.



The US is state-capitalism.
capitalism ENORCED by the state.

it does not, and cannot exist without the government.

at least the system the US currently has. that's for sure.



take, for example,
just the item of corporations.
the corporation is a legal entity first and foremost.
the charter a corporation is granted by states(i.e. we the people),
gives the holder emense amounts of legal privalege. limited liability.

if the free market fundamentalists out there truly
believed in what they claim they would be actively advocating
for the revocation of all corporate charters.
limited liability artificially distorts the stated ideal of no government interference in the market. ha!


so, no, the US is not free market.
rather a protection unit for privelege.

"It is not so clear whether the money Bush cut from levee projects would have made any difference". So while the cut was bad public relations, I don't think one can claim it "caused" or "worsened" anything until we get the results of the called-for investigation.

Yes, even if the 100$+ million was not cut to 40$ million and all that were
used to reinforce the levies, they still might have broke.


-----

As for your plutocratic oligarchy theories,

US policies favor the wealthy.
That is no secret.
Also they hide behind the legality of the corporation.
The privalege of the limited liability company is just that - a privalege.
Yet politicians, maybe a few are just ingorant of that fact,
act as if it is a right. They also treat a corporation the same
as a regular business. 2 utterly different institutions. Not only in size
as I pointed out just before.

But even if we revoked every corporate charter,
the privaleged few would continue to find some way to
screw us over. I know, 'one person owning 50% of the earth's
land and resources', that's ordained by gawd, dontcha know?
Talk about unjust.

sure, you or I could get into the lower echelon's of power,
if we 'play by the rules'. That is, don't challenge real power.

I don't see any evidence supporting your proposal of a small-but-rich ruling class. The evidence seems to suggest the opposite, though certainly not conclusively. I'm interested to hear if you have any additional evidence.

[Edit: Sorry, I'm new to this editor...]


Funny, I was going to go to OpenSecrets.com to prove my point,
but here's an even better source.


http://www.poclad.org/elite.cfm
The Elite Consensus: When Corporations Wield the Constitution
will forever change how you read a newspaper or follow the news.

Written by George Draffan, Executive Director of the Public Information Network, Elite Consensus goes behind the veil of giant corporations-Enron, Bechtel, Halliburton, Monsanto, and others making our daily news-to show how the "system" really works.

For the record, the democrats also believed there should be cuts to funding the levee.

Otherwise, it wouldn't have happened.

The US is state-capitalism.
capitalism ENORCED by the state.

it does not, and cannot exist without the government.

at least the system the US currently has. that's for sure.



take, for example,
just the item of corporations.
the corporation is a legal entity first and foremost.
the charter a corporation is granted by states(i.e. we the people),
gives the holder emense amounts of legal privalege. limited liability.
Typically because liability is dispersed amongst the investors. You will only lose that which you have put into the corporation. All that limited liability does is make it so if the corporation folds, the banks won't come and foreclose on you yourself.

if the free market fundamentalists out there truly
believed in what they claim they would be actively advocating
for the revocation of all corporate charters.
limited liability artificially distorts the stated ideal of no government interference in the market. ha!
I seem to get a different idea of what a corporation is from what you view it as. What I got from my econ class is that a corporate charter allows a single company to be treated as an individual entity. So as to have the chief source of responsibility be the corporation, not the people who make up the corp.

And while I'd desire a totally free market, I realize that it isn't truly possible to do so. As such I admit that there are needs for some minor controls, think of them as guardrails on the highway perhaps.


so, no, the US is not free market.
rather a protection unit for privelege.
Of course the US is not a free market. Certain government restraints are of course needed, anti-monopoly laws, moderated taxation and other things play a role.

Canada City']For the record, the democrats also believed there should be cuts to funding the levee.

Otherwise, it wouldn't have happened.



More proof of an uncaring oligarchy.

Funny, I was going to go to OpenSecrets.com to prove my point,
but here's an even better source.


http://www.poclad.org/elite.cfm
The Elite Consensus: When Corporations Wield the Constitution
will forever change how you read a newspaper or follow the news.

Written by George Draffan, Executive Director of the Public Information Network, Elite Consensus goes behind the veil of giant corporations-Enron, Bechtel, Halliburton, Monsanto, and others making our daily news-to show how the "system" really works.
Are you the reincarnation of TRA, MKULTRA and Skapedroe?

A corporation is a legal entity first and foremost.

If you ever read corporate history you will find all those things
you listed are indeed additional privaleges.


Shareholders used to be held liable not only for any and all debts
encured, but also any crimes committed.
This should be made so again. No more running up mega-debt
behind the facade of legality that is the corporation.

Also,
a corporation is a person.
Isn't that the most assine thing you've ever heard?
No?
Consider how it came to be so.
1886 supreme court ruling said, using the 14th amendment,
one of the amendments supposed to be for guaranteeing
freed slaves their rights, that ruling said that no "corporation"
could be denied life, liberty, or property without due process
of law.
How ABSURD is THAT?!??!!
"Oh, well, that's the way we do things now"
Well it used to be that holding people in chains was
"the way we do things".
Disgusting. Both.

Also corporations were not immortal.
They had a limited life span. 10, 20, 30, or 40 years.
This too should be made so again.
No more waiting til those suing you die to get away with your crimes.

But, it's so screwed up.
Those rich, white males of privalege will just find some other
way to screw us over once again.

Are you the reincarnation of TRA, MKULTRA and Skapedroe?


No, I am new to this game about 2 weeks ago.

although
MKULTRA, besides being a group of muses,
was the code name for a CIA mind-control research program.
Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to 'unwitting subjects in social situations.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA


Conducting experiments on their own people.
Who's going to find & disarm our WMD, errr, excuse me,
"liberate" us.

uh...not quite. people in socialist countries did/do have to work. ... it doesn't work otherwise. They just don't make quite as much money as Capitalists do.

Obviously those who enjoy Capitalist commodities, won't appreciate Socialism all too much.
But 'just' because there are drawbacks that doesn't mean it can't work... Capitalism itself isn't really paradise, either, or is it? ;)

(not in the mood for an in-depth discussion here, so I'll just state that I'm not as anti-communist as most people in the Western world are)

hehe

Shareholders used to be held liable not only for any and all debts
encured, but also any crimes committed.
This should be made so again. No more running up mega-debt
behind the facade of legality that is the corporation.

So, let's say I owned a sizable portion of Enron stock, but I was neither on the board, nor did I ever participate in any shareholder meetings. Enron comes apart due to corrupt practices in the corporation, should I be arrested? Is that what you're suggesting?

Also,
a corporation is a person.
Isn't that the most assine thing you've ever heard?
No?
Consider how it came to be so.
1886 supreme court ruling said, using the 14th amendment,
one of the amendments supposed to be for guaranteeing
freed slaves their rights, that ruling said that no "corporation"
could be denied life, liberty, or property without due process
of law.
How ABSURD is THAT?!??!!
A corporation is a group of people. Should their combined assets be denied due process? Do you want the government to be able to up and say "oh, we don't like your company anymore, we're here to take it away from you." It would appear so...

No because if Bush was a communist more people would have died

Think about it

Communism destroys the middle class, making everyone equality poor. Therefore less people would have had cars to leave...meaning more people would have dies

So, let's say I owned a sizable portion of Enron stock, but I was neither on the board, nor did I ever participate in any shareholder meetings. Enron comes apart due to corrupt practices in the corporation, should I be arrested? Is that what you're suggesting?

Extreme yes, but on the other hand if individual shareholders were deemed just as responsible as the executives for any fraud perpetrated with the company, then you can be damn sure there's going to be a very focused and demanding group of stockholders demanding transparency and accountability from the executives involved.

A corporation is a group of people. Should their combined assets be denied due process? Do you want the government to be able to up and say "oh, we don't like your company anymore, we're here to take it away from you." It would appear so...

What he was trying to point out is that according to the law, a corporation is treated as an individual also, which means they get privileges which they wouldn't if they were not classified as "individuals," such as not being held liable for irresponsible public statements.

we're here to take it away from you."



Do not confuse corporations with REGULAR businesses.
2 completely different institutions.


A corporation is a legal fiction,
that legal fiction which much privalege is gained,
is granted, yes granted, by the states or we the people.
Each state has specific corporate chartering laws.
Nowadays you mostly just have to fill out a form.

Corporations in the United States, used to be formed
when there was a need to do large project for the public
good, such as build a toll road or canal, that individuals
could not afford by themselves.

If a corporation went beyond what was explicitly laid
out in their charter, it could be revoked. That was not uncommon.
Assest would then be sold off to those that would conduct
themselves in the public interest.

We can still legally revoke corporate charters.


This is not some marxist retoric.
This is as american as apple pie.
The first americans feared and hated corporations as much
as they did the king.
The history exists, it is there for us to look up.

Here is an review of the pamphlet "Taking Care of Business"
put out by http://www.poclad.org/

You can read up on the real history for yourself
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/TCoBeij.html
I cannot vouch for other things on this site.

also, the ceo historically did not have as much power
as they do today and
The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking corporation directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

while the Soviet Union sucked, it was more of a state-capitalism
model than that of communism. no real communist would kill


The gov't,
because it is run by a super-rich oligarchy (on this point I am not pointing
specifically at the Bush klan, but major players in the pol parties, contributors, the revolving door between industry and agencies that
are supposed to police them)
That is your oligarchy.
:eek: ; :( :confused:
you, sir, have just insulted my two highest held ideologies by comparing them with america!

How can anyone on their right mind think Bush is a communist?

They're as similar as...two completely dissimilar things in a pod.

How can anyone on their right mind think Bush is a communist?

Calling Bush a Communist is way off the mark. He's an opportunist yes, and also in my opinion the world's biggest welfare recepient in terms of getting access to positions people without his connections and more intelligence and talent can't ever get a shot at, as well as being excused by a mindless legion that's eager to literally crucify a Democrat who did the exact same thing or less.

bush is not even close to communist

This is outrageous. Most communists, including myself, are liberal. That already rules Bush out. He gives perks to the rich, doesn't care about the working class, and is himself a capitalist pig-dog. I guess you could compare him to Stalin though... :D

No, GWB's a capitalist.

This is outrageous. Most communists, including myself, are liberal. That already rules Bush out. He gives perks to the rich, doesn't care about the working class, and is himself a capitalist pig-dog. I guess you could compare him to Stalin though... :D

Comparing Stalin to Bush is grounds for getting your ass capped in Siberia. :D

the levees for protection against hurricane floods are a national concern.
fema.
did you watch daily show last night (tuesday night)?

Booyakasha!



I've actually got nothing against commies.
They have some good ideas.
Bolsheviks on the other hand, the ones I met that
wanted to immitate Lenin..., sorry, Lennin crushed
the workers councils and is a murderer.

While I don't mind allying with people who have good ideas,
anarchy is a much better political philosophy.
(don't get duped by the hollywood fiction of destruction & chaos & death)
(that is not anarchy. that is someone's idea of what would happen
without external constraints on human behavior)

You are no longer allowed to quote Ran or any variation of his sayings. If you do I'll drag his commie ass here and I'll get him to do as he pleases.

And no, he is not a communist. Just a bad president. And this Katrina disaster is just being used by left-winged jealous gits who are just pissed off because they have no charismna whatsoever and think that policies are going to win the hearts of the American people. That works for senators and Congressmen, but not the president. That's why GWB was elected and not Kerry. People thought he was more charasmatic and that's why he won. All there is to it.

Did anyone see footage of Bush on his visit to Moscow the other month for the VE celebrations? He was really cheering those red soldiers with their hammer and sickle flags on. The site of a Republican admiring this smacked of outright self-parody, it was brilliant.

You are no longer allowed to quote Ran or any variation of his sayings. If you do I'll drag his commie ass here and I'll get him to do as he pleases.

And no, he is not a communist. Just a bad president. And this Katrina disaster is just being used by left-winged jealous gits who are just pissed off because they have no charismna whatsoever and think that policies are going to win the hearts of the American people. That works for senators and Congressmen, but not the president. That's why GWB was elected and not Kerry. People thought he was more charasmatic and that's why he won. All there is to it.



Who the heck is "Ran"?!?
No, seriously, who the heck is Ran?

Beware the cult of personality. It is pure evil.
That is how dictatorships begin.
No one person in the world should have as much power as the
president of the united states does. It is obscenely absurd.
Who wants to be a famous twit?
Known for the shallowness of two-dimensional tv screens and news paper
print.

Who the heck is Ran?
Ian Ran? Yne Ran? I do not know.