Sorry... long time
So, I saw I've been getting a bunch of hits on here, though I'm not sure why. I've been extremely busy and not motivated at all to post my political thoughts, wonderings, muses, whatever on here. I'll try to muster something up soon though. Peace!
posted by Jexas at 12:26 PM
38 Comments:
It's because you look dam fit in your picture and you come straight up on the search for fellow students in the user profile. You should be honoured. How do you get to see the number of hits on your site?
June 11, 2005 at 3:46 AM
good god. american politics is currently and could possibly go down as the greatest paradox in our generations life, next to NAFTA (oh, snap!)
whatever your views are, i suggest you continue to post, debate sparks interest, and interest sparks debate, no...wait...
June 12, 2005 at 9:23 PM
I second the first post. You look bloody amazing.
Be Seeing You
June 15, 2005 at 12:32 PM
Having said that, conservatism is not good. It's regressive and cruel and often hipocritical.
Be Seeing You
June 15, 2005 at 1:21 PM
kweller is kewl
June 21, 2005 at 9:56 PM
You should use a translator (on-line ones are ok).
I'm English, take from that what you want.
June 23, 2005 at 1:26 PM
Iraq never posed a threat to our freedom.
June 24, 2005 at 10:21 AM
No, cjm, I think they did, and still do as long as it's not politically sound.
July 1, 2005 at 9:43 AM
OK, explain to me exactly how Iraq, a tiny, essentially helpless country in the Middle East, posed a direct threat to the security of Britain or America.
July 1, 2005 at 2:26 PM
It didn't. Look at it this way. The key to the economic soundness of any modern civilization is it energy resources. Bush (and hence America) acted to protect their interests in the middle-eastern and middle-asian oilfields from the rising Chinese infuluence in Asia.
That said, Bush is a barbarian. What he has done and further, his explanations for it are riddled with contradictions.
Search for WMDs in Iraq, while declaring Pakistan, which sold nuclear weapon designs to Korea and Iran as "strategic ally"? Don't believe me? Check this out...
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050214/
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/Pakistan.asp
He is doing more damage to the US economy than people like Osama ever could. Ultimately, thats the only thing which can bring a nation to its knees - economics.
Whats a bomb here or a grenade there? We've been facing this terrorist shit for the last 20 years from America's "strategic all" (oh, the irony). Oh, and I do hope you remember that Osama and the Al-Quaeda was originally funded by America, don't you.
Watch Farenheit 9/11 guys... the fact that after that movie, Bush still came into power says a lot about the average American citizen. Maybe Kerry was too poor an option, but still, Bush? Please... nothing could be worse.
July 6, 2005 at 3:07 PM
Hey just checking out your site. It's awesome!
July 7, 2005 at 8:27 AM
The word monopoly mean anything to oyu. If we were a Communist society, we wouldn't have to invade places for resources as everybody would own all the resources. But we don't have to be Communist, we could just stop our quite frankly dangerous dependance on oil and find alternate sources of energy, think what wonders that would do.
And yes, I do know America funded Bin Laden. It's like Iraq, we knew they had WMDs, we've got the invoices.
July 7, 2005 at 9:57 AM
Monopoly? In what context?
If we were a communist society there would be some people more equal than others who would have preferential access to resources. Communism as described by you does not factor in human nature. Please spare me the theories. The USSR practiced what you preach - and failed. China does not - and it is a phenomenal success.
Alernate sources of energy? Like what? Biogas? Solar cells? Fuel cells? Nuclear fission? Nuclear fusion? Cold fusion?
The first three aren't practical on a large scale. Fission produces extremely dangerous waste material. Fusion hasn't achieved a state of sustainable reaction yet. So whats your point? Wishing for alternate energy sources won't have them drop from the heavens.
Invoices for WMDs. Fascinating. Available with a bill are they? How about the WMDs themselves? You don't just dispose of tons of radioactive , biological or chemical material without a trace, just by pouring it down the kitchen sink. I suggest you check out the means used to dispose off America's nuclear reactor waste before so blithely assuming that all the weapons were there - but were destroyed rather than used against the coalition.
July 7, 2005 at 12:23 PM
The invoices thing was a joke, unfortunately, tone of voice cannot be communicated over the internet, sorry.
Oh dear, someone knows very little about Communism. The USSR did not practice Communism, they practiced State Capitalism, just like every other state calling itself Communist. Stop taking Animal farm as an indictment of OCmmunism, it's an indictment of Stalin and Totalitarianism, it actually supports Communism. If everyone controlled the worlds resources Democratically, they wouldn't allow people to take control, would they?
And no, wishing for alternate energy doesn't get you anywhere, but if Bush got off his arse and bloody did somethign about Climate Change and the crisis currently facing this world and researched alternate energy sources, then maybe something would get done.
July 7, 2005 at 12:31 PM
I do not wish to split hairs about definitions. Ultimately, the question is simple - irrespective of the economic theories, does the political system subscribe to "Each according to hi abilty and each according to his need"? - If so, such a system will never suceed. It stifles large scale innovation. India is a standing example of socialist business practices failing, with almost every damn thing being in the public sector making enormous losses. Our overall economy has moved up (enormously) only after we shifted to a nearly pure capitalist system. Inded what India had for the first 45 years of Independence seems to be pretty similar to what I got as description of Communist economies in contrast to State Capitalist economies (of which I found three different definitions). Incidentally, my understanding of the practicalities of communism comes not just from books (no, not Animal Farm - and I assume you have read Ayn Rand) but from my dad who worked his way up to the post of a senior executive (read bureaucrat) in a nationalized life insurance firm over a period of forty years or more, and my aunt who was an Ambassador and has travelled extensively, including postings behind the iron curtain (this was in the 40s, 50s and 60s.)
Oh, and my apologies for misunderstanding the bit over the invoices.
July 8, 2005 at 7:03 AM
East of the Iron Curtain in that period was not repeat not Communist. It was Totalitarian, Fascist and State Capitalist. This is a common mistake wrought by American Conservatives who feel threatened by the very notion of equality.
July 8, 2005 at 2:00 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
July 8, 2005 at 4:35 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
July 8, 2005 at 4:40 PM
I think that Iraq was generally more secure before the invasion than after it. Although Saddam Hussein was killing many of his own people, now Iraqis are killing many other Iraqis in terrorist attacks, food, water and power are all gone, I don't think any of the soldiers there were helping Iraq to become prosperous again (although in the South around British controlled Basra there are fewer attacks than the American controlled areas around Baghdad.)
July 9, 2005 at 7:34 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
July 9, 2005 at 9:41 AM
Ah cjm, thats the point I'm trying to make. People aren't equal. They may be born equal - but in the world as it stands today (except perhaps to the best of my knowledge the USA and definitely in the former USSR) they start real life unequal thanks to unequal opportunities while growing up.
And here is the real irony. The losers (and whatever you say there are always losers - in the sense of David Eddings) start losing once they are on their own and turn into leeches and drags on the other members of a productive society.
Irrespective of what name you wish to give to the USSR's system, it gave everything to the children. If the child had ability, it was given opportunity. In my aunt's words "Nothing was too good for the children of the Soviet Union"(It was why I recommended you check out "Misha").It ensured equality.
It was only after they started contributing to society as adults that the differences showed. And this was because people are unequal. Some wish to move ahead. Others are wish to be pulled ahead. And the second type breed like maggots in the "Each according to his need" system.
In a capitalist society, the initial inequalities stunt an individual's abilty. A kid born to a rich family will have far more opportunities than one born to a poor family. If this is overcome (an excellent way would be a uniform, high quality, free education for starters, plus food, security etc. for children all of which are tough to guarantee - but its possible. I'm not 100% certain but I think the US has managed this). Beyond this if people screw up their own lives - well too bad.
If you really believe that a communist society where everyone is treated equally irrespective of their ability and everyone has one vote with a democratic election of people into governing positions will work, then you have a very high opinion of human nature in general. Such a system would require everyone to be a contributor - with no one grudging the incompetent and the leeches an equal share of the earnings. Especially the those in governing positions who must sacrifice their personal gains for those of others. Impractical to say the least, especially considering the nature of politicians in general.
I suggest you take a look at David Eddings' "The Losers". Fascinating book born of his study of a certain category of people found in every society who have nothing to contribute and do not have the inclination to change this.
July 9, 2005 at 10:59 AM
Incidentally, in the context of nando's first comment, has anyone noticed a tendency on the part of the fundamentalists to time attacks and/or public annoncements in a manner which has a definite predictable effect in democratic countries on elections and other activities thanks to media coverage?
Wonder if they have an overall global agenda that ties all these moves together. Must say that they definitely consider the media as their weapon too.
July 9, 2005 at 11:05 AM
I'm not suggesting that everyone will be equal in ability etc., that's not possible, but what I am suggesting is that nobody is financially better off than anyone (by removing money) or has power over anyone else, everything is done democratically.
Look, I can't explain it very well, got to www.worldsocialism.org that will tell you everything.
I think any terrorist attack is guarenteed to catch the atention of the media.
July 9, 2005 at 2:11 PM
kai wren, I agree absolutely with your last comment. Terrorist attacks are being vey well prepared in that sense, and I'm sure that they know very well how that "autodestructive proccess" works.
July 9, 2005 at 6:37 PM
Off subject:
Is this blog going to be updated, or are we going ot be forever posting comments on this one post?
July 10, 2005 at 12:55 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
July 10, 2005 at 5:29 PM
I doubt that there will be another post, we'll just comment on this one forever.
HELLO, PRETTY GIRL. PLEASE POST SOMETHING.
July 11, 2005 at 1:55 PM
The things the picture of a pretty girl catalyses!
July 12, 2005 at 11:55 AM
PS: Please, please, another controversial post about Bush and America so we can argue about that, with occasional interruptions from newcomers about your picture...
July 12, 2005 at 11:58 AM
PPS: At least that moron is getting smart advisers like Ashley Tellis. Maybe there's hope yet. (And that's an excuse to start another argument ;) )
July 12, 2005 at 12:00 PM
It was quite a cunning idea, putting that picture up.
July 12, 2005 at 1:31 PM
Very true. Maybe we should all look for pictures of pretty girls and put 'em up so we can increase hits. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen it happen, at that.
July 12, 2005 at 6:51 PM
That's a good idea, but people might think you were a bit strange.
July 13, 2005 at 3:05 AM
Hey,Jess,
I don’t use to publish comments, but I’d like you know I’m waiting so, as many bloggers, some post of you...
Don’t unsatisfy our expectation.
Kisses
July 13, 2005 at 8:55 AM
Well cjm, I'd be inclined to agree with them ;) In any case, we really can't be certain that this young lady isn't really a 6'4" 120 kilo red-neck from Texas, can we?
July 20, 2005 at 12:14 PM
cjm, to me, you seem like a guy who just likes to make points against the war, so that people like everyone who agrees with you can make the soldiers feel like they're fighting for nothing.
If Iraq didn't pose a threat to us, then congress would never have let us declare war. We need the petrolium products, sure, but these guys in congress are fairly smart. Iraq may not have posed a threat when it came to military, but I'm sure that they'd have done many more terrorist related things, had we not stepped in to slow them down.
I'm not a warmonger, I'm just someone with an open mind. Not someone who likes to take credit from the men fighting overseas, and from a decent president, and flush it down the toilet.
July 25, 2005 at 5:23 PM
Mr. Taylor, well said. I also am a Briton, and proud of it.
Xymus. Many members of my family have fouht (and many died) in wars. But they were wars that had a good purpose (The Great War, the Second War, The Napoleonic Wars), not anyone in this current conflict.
And another thing, you place too much stock in your government. Do not imagine for one moment that they are infallible. There is no evidence that Iraq was supporting terrorism, there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq posed no threat, you should not trust your government, my government, or any government as much as you do. I trust Blair about as fire as I could flick him.
I am not someone who likes to make points against the war, I am someone who likes to make points against uneccessary war, against injustice, against lies, and and against the sheer stupidity of the War on Terror.
July 28, 2005 at 11:06 AM
Bush said Iraq had WMDs. None were found. Bush lied. The government is fallible. QED.
Guys, come on. Governments and theocracies have one motive - grasping and holding on to power. The issue is, to what end do they weild this power and whose toes (or throats) they step on to keep it.
Bush should be lauded by Americans - he is doing everything to keep America dominant in the world (except save it's economy, the silly twat). It's just that imperialism isn't in fashion these days...
September 11, 2005 at 10:17 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home