Tax Dollars?

[Formant024]

Listen, Atlas didnt carry the world on it's shoulders... You're misinterpretate a myth here.

Second let me again tell you about the Oil in Iraq... It's a bonus, just look at it as a bonus. 400us$ Billion has been pumped into a war that's has been bothering Bush Sr. for a long time. Now Bush Senior is a key figure in the Carlyle Group or Bank, his son has been participating in it aswell but less succesfull, more like a mascotte since his presence was never of any relevance. But, of all the 400us$ Billion a significant amount of money has been used on various outsourcing on military supplement, appliances, vehicles, transport, bio/chemical/nuclear technology & research, weapons/ammunition, foods, tents, huts, shelters, clothing. As much of these products and services as possible, that are neccesary to start and execute this war are for decleared to Carlyle branches of the firm. Nobody benefitted from invading Iraq except for share holders of the Carlyle group, because all this money was neccesary to pay for those expenses in order to have this war. Even the reconstruction of Bagdad etc was already contracted to Carlyle firm (cant remember the name), I mean, in all fairness if you want to help the country out than get a construction company from Iraq or construct one in favor the agonized public. No...Carlyle wants that cash aswell, charity funds brought in expense to aiding construction companies... I think it's sickning, Carlyle own Voight who manufacture B1 and B2, first you bomb them with carlyle plains and Carlyle Bombs and clean it up with carlyle infrastructure...I can see them count the money already

In short, we need a war so they'll pay for our invested resources, with they I refer to the american taxpayers and to those who lost someone over there.

 

[The Konductor]

I just can't stand the injustice that is forced upon us by people who think they're better than us just because they can buy what they want including power. Money and power is one in the same. tHERE IS POWER IN NUMBERS AS IN W/ NUMBER OF DOLLARS. Too bad society can't come together on the same page. I actually think that most people rich or poor get off on seeing someone in a less fortunate state than themselves. Thats a problem that exists in the hearts/heads of man.

 

[The-Shadow]

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

This wisdom works for me; we dance on this subject all the time. I'm not the President. I'm not Jesus, I can't turn the water into wine. Therefore let the powers that be do them, you do you. Focus on the music and getting that cheddar. Save these discussions for when the dutchie is passed around.

On a final note...read the book of Proverbs and you'll that corrupt government, like empires, won't last forever.

 

[Formant024]

Oke, but some peeps have interest in such, so I get your point but the topic which is here and which shall be here remains here, with or without the dutchie.

I've seen Spaceballs II, "let's comb the desert!" and it was done.

 

[o-a-ksavage]

Philosophy of the rich you mean, and america doesn't get the beating for it, your republican government does, not the republican voters but the politicians. I dunno if you've read my former post but it's all economie, philosophy was something we did halfway past the last century. If you read it and understood you'd also understand that the republicans didnt even initiated most of the crap were talking about today...It's not political anymore but industrial driven politics and at the current situation one dominates the other. I might be mistaken on the philosophy thing here so you might want to elaborate.

No, the philosophy is not philosophy of the rich, what even is that? The philosophy is a combination of subjectivism/mysticism/intrincism which leads to a morality of altruism, which leads to a politics of collectivism, which leads to the oppression and destruction of the human mind, which leads to poverty, crime and every other evil in the world. When people believe that truth is unknowable, or only in some higher demension, reason becomes useless as a means of persuasion and physical force is the only alternative.

Elaborate please, what do you mean "the right" principles ? The consititution ? And based on what do you think that the US is the only country that has proper principles, indiviual or not. Furthermore it would be very naieve to rely on them for being the proper or correct principles because lots of harm has been done under your flag and the law and rights devoted to mankind didnt help jack shit, overruled by government priorities.

"The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of soceity to moral law. The principle of individual rights represented the extension of morality into the socal system--as a limitation on the power of the state, as man's protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man's life belonged to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means, by moral principle and by nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights."

The theme of Atlas Shrugged is that independent, rational thought is the motor that powers the world but the things right now are far from being rational, not even starting on independent perspectives since were talking about a hive of "politicians" (read corporate business men). He also states by this book that humans act/create when human interferance is absent under force, thus releasing themselves from the leeching source ( refered to as "looters" ( which in this case would be the consensus behind the republican party). Again, this book isnt about america, its a world philosophy that covers the whole consensus but there are considerations that make the book appear political regarding socialism and communism.

You are correct about the fundamental theme of the book. However, although the book's theme is not primarily political, the book is highly political, basically serving as a moral case for laissez-faire Capitalism. The quote above about America is from the author of Atlas Shrugged, so I'm well aware of her stance on the issue. I think you might have misunderstood me as claiming that the Atlas in the title refers to America, I know that it doesn't, it refers to the independent rational-minded individuals in any society. I am amazed though that you have read that book and still seem to have statist leanings, I thought the case made by the book is pretty irrefutable.

I think you're living upon ancient facts, which are partly correct but lots has happened in the last 70 years, especialy the last 40 which makes a lot of those old facts stand outside the current context.

No, I speak and think in terms of principles. I realize that the governments in the U.S. for the past century have been horrible, but I also realize that they have become more like the rest of the world, and that's what has been horrible about them. Usually the things the rest of the world criticizes the U.S. for are the opposite things they should be getting critized for, and our cowardly government appeases the world and conforms to their standards, instead of sticking to the principles our country was founded upon, the same principles that lead the most amazing growth in prosperity in the history of mankind, and the longest run of peace as well.

 

[Formant024]

No, the philosophy is not philosophy of the rich, what even is that? The philosophy is a combination of subjectivism/mysticism/intrincism which leads to a morality of altruism, which leads to a politics of collectivism, which leads to the oppression and destruction of the human mind, which leads to poverty, crime and every other evil in the world. When people believe that truth is unknowable, or only in some higher demension, reason becomes useless as a means of persuasion and physical force is the only alternative.

You mean dumb people can only act physicaly, not interact mentaly. I know what you're saying here, but philosophy vs. politics is not the issue here, I just dont see the connection or the need for philosophy on this subject to point out the issue. You're statement's like Alexander the great who wants to find Diogenes to eventualy do him a favor for his wisdom, who tells him to move aside as he's standing between him and the sun...That's philosophy but politics has no need for such degrees of explainations.

"The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of soceity to moral law. The principle of individual rights represented the extension of morality into the socal system--as a limitation on the power of the state, as man's protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man's life belonged to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means, by moral principle and by nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights."

I think politics and those concerns stretch much further than the protection of individual rights. I again have the impression you live your perspective from the past, cuz If I look at it correctly, then they lack a lot care towards the public. If you polute the air and deny the fact that the air is poluted then you're neglecting that people are being exposed to contaminations of all sorts, thus not protected. Having the right the be armed with a gun doesnt give me impression of the right protection of individual rights. Actions by the US government that harm citizens outside the US that are not Americans then have no individual rights ? So let me ask you this, what is an american more then any other human on the planet ? It's a bit hypocrite to talk about morals and protection of individual rights when that would only imply on americans but would hurt other people around the globe. Thusfar to US politics these are non existent because it's not america, thus not relevant.

You are correct about the fundamental theme of the book. However, although the book's theme is not primarily political, the book is highly political, basically serving as a moral case for laissez-faire Capitalism. The quote above about America is from the author of Atlas Shrugged, so I'm well aware of her stance on the issue. I think you might have misunderstood me as claiming that the Atlas in the title refers to America, I know that it doesn't, it refers to the independent rational-minded individuals in any society. I am amazed though that you have read that book and still seem to have statist leanings, I thought the case made by the book is pretty irrefutable.

I dont have time to read books, I do what you do, read the summing on wikipedia to see what its about and make my conclusions, you gotta love the digital era (cuz I never even heard of the book befor you mentioned it). Again, this bla die bla about the book isnt relevant, I've stated god knows how many things and you're talking about this crappy book and missing the issue here.

No, I speak and think in terms of principles. I realize that the governments in the U.S. for the past century have been horrible, but I also realize that they have become more like the rest of the world, and that's what has been horrible about them. Usually the things the rest of the world criticizes the U.S. for are the opposite things they should be getting critized for, and our cowardly government appeases the world and conforms to their standards, instead of sticking to the principles our country was founded upon, the same principles that lead the most amazing growth in prosperity in the history of mankind, and the longest run of peace as well.

Peace ? and where have you seen that lately ? the longest runn ... Okay, other countries are no rolemodels either and all of em are western countries. Western countries only had problems with eastern or southern countries because they invaded those countries because greed and power makes them bigger than those "poor" other countries and fellt to give them the right to exploit a country that did not belong to them. You say that you realize that the US has been horrible but also realize that it due to adapting to the rest of the world...I say they are horrible and also realize it due adapting the world to the US system and globalization, most of the other western governments are all dickriding the republican government of Bush and those before him. You should look at all this quite simple and less bookwurm style because I get the impression you're naive upon the all that what happens outside the US, none of that makes sense for someone who doesnt live out side the US, since all our governments are dickriding the US.

Again, forget about the book and keep with context of the thread.

 

[The Bastard]

cash rules everything around me