Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You wouldn't have so many chavs if you had more guns.

No, you just have to wear black clothes.

At 10/16/05 04:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Also, morning after pill = abortion and maybe dangerous.

No, it stops the pregnancy in exactly the same way the pill does. You are greatly misinformed.

At 10/11/05 10:31 PM, bcdemon wrote: HAHAHA, you were gloating about the richest country in the world offering some hardware and $100,000 to an area with 20,000 casualties? LMAO you rock dood. Bushy must have seen how pathetic you looked and raised the aid to $50 mil.

Lol.. Yeah, Bush actually planned on giving only that, nice one. Ignoring the fact that Bush doesn't even have the authority to dish out money like that, and that the money isn't even actually sent like that (they don't get the bulk of it until much later), it's still clearly obvious that what he sent was directly for response to the emergency, and that was pretty much the most money he has the authority to send.

At 10/9/05 06:07 PM, lapis wrote: A course in corporate ethics is included in every economics major. I've seen plenty of utility curves for a society being drawn in macro economics classes, where the maximum utility is achieved when the society finds a balance between efficiency and equality - the difference between left and right here is that leftists value equality more and vice versa. Free trade is not a necessity; macro economics is about the impact of government regulations on the economy. If trade was completely free then there would be no need for the subject.

Right, what exactly did you just say? Equality and communism are two very different things, its almost universally accepted that free trade will in the end make the global economies more equal than any amount of tarrifs could.

There was even a talk about corporate morality during marketing classes, and about how non-profit organisations can satisfy their customers. "Economics" doesn't mean making as much money as possible.

Thats bullshit. Economics means exactly that, only when the government gets involved is it ever meant to be different. You would have to be retarded to call yourself an economist and then say that corporations need to think less about money and more about people. The corporation is a model for only making money, nothing else can really be done well using it.

Economics is about the production, distribution and exchange of goods, and this also happens in a communist society. Government restrictions are heavy though, and state companies can't be analysed the same way as 'normal' companies. But it's still economics. One can argue that a communist regime will have a devastating effect on economic growth and innovation, but communism and economics aren't each other's opposites by nature.

In a communist society, the economy is completely controlled, so there is no economics. All of the facets of economics, supply, demand, capital, all mean nothing, there is no economics because all of that is controlled by the government.

At 10/7/05 12:27 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Not true. I have heard economists that actually think while yes business wise they are good things, that overall its not socially benificial. I have seen some advocate for some restrictions on the market because they market cannot provide everything.

I've heard of them too, theyre called communists. They're the same 'economists' that talk about how corporations need to be more moral and that economic growth is bad because it just makes the poorer farther behind. They're very few in number and always seem to have taken economics after thier political science degree.

It just depends on what side of the spectrum the economist is on. I have an economics prof who is more of a right wing economist (money makes teh world go round) but is socially left. Its all about balance of trade and market with social progression.

I was under the mistaken impression that in order to be an economist you actually had to talk about the economical aspect of things. Economics in itself will always be right ring because its very nature goes against that of communism, an economy doesnt exist in a communist nation, the economy is something that only exists in a market system.

At 10/6/05 11:45 PM, BeFell wrote: But a flat or streamlined tax code could still go a long way toward restoring public trust in the tax system by wiping away loopholes and cutting out mounds of red tape

What of any of that had anything to do with promoting growth? Maybe the expatriate thing, but really thats not as much a flat tax issue as it is a high tax issue, you could promote alot of growth if you eliminated tax altogether but that doesnt really make a flat tax better.

Yes they lowering the taxes but that could be just the begining. Big changes like these don't happen over night and they got the motivation to do so from flat-tax countries. Lowering taxes and simplificationg if I'm not mistaken are all steps twoards a flat tax system.

No not at all. You can have a very high flat tax, and they are lowering taxes across the board progressively which isnt making thier taxes more flat. And a complex tax system isn't neccesarily less flat either, you could have a very complex system with only a 3-5% difference in tax paying, or a very simple system (one equation instead of brackets) with a 50% difference.

No it isn't, it hinders competition which is the driving force of all capitalist economies. It is so complex that it requires large beuracracies to maintian it (the IRS, accounting firms) and motivates those with wealth to take it somewhere else.

How does it hinder competition?

The wealthy will go wherever taxes are low, that doesn't make a flat tax good at all, if you really want the wealthy just have the poor pay taxes.

You can't base your system around not pissing rich people off. We espescially cant do it. The third world will always be able to pay less and tax less than us, we cant win that battle. It's pointless to try. But that doesn't mean the rich people will always leave, our tax system is almost the same as many European countries, ones that are experiencing no economic growth.

I've not heard of a single economist that thinks outsourcing, and free trade, is bad. In the end we all benefit.

The jobs go to India, India makes things for cheaper, more people can afford the products and so more people buy them, market for higher quality parts of product goes up, America fills in with highly educated workforce.

The trick is getting them highly educated. If we cant do that, we don't deserve to have such a standard of living, and no amount of tarrifs would give us it anyways.

At 10/6/05 12:43 AM, BeFell wrote: I'm not the one connecting the dots here guys, it's economists and writers at Business Week and the Wall Street Jounal, I just summarized. If you want to argue try addressing some of the points made in the source I linked for everyone's conveniance. Those are the words with the pretty gold color and the underline.

The problem is there are no points or arguments that support that a Flat tax promotes economic growth more than a progressive one does. Theres some that lowering taxes promotes it, but everyone knew that already. The only possible one is that a progressive tax, being so complicated, confuses people enough so that they are too scared to buy things or make money.

The fact is many western European countries are simplifying their tax systems and they are doing it in a large part due to the success of their neighbors to the East with flat tax systems. You can ignorantly bitch and moan about tax cuts for the rich all you want like some kind of Marx worshiping pundit but that doesn't change the fact that these countries are really and truly looking to promote growth in their economies through simplifying the tax system.

Find me one argument that simplifying will promote growth, if an argument is too hard to compile, just state some evidence.

What I really see, is that Western Europe is LOWERING THIER TAXES to promote economic growth. The simplification is more to cut out loopholes the rich are using, which says more about the writing abilities of the senators than the idea of a progressive tax system.

Progressive tax is fine, the best system there is, both for equality and economic growth.

At 10/3/05 01:39 AM, bcdemon wrote: Bin Laden declared Jihad on USA when USA placed troops in Saudi Arabia just before Gulf War 1. Which as night_watch_man18 stated, he has the religious right to do. It's really no different than Bush declaring war over "national security" issues.

Thats the most asinine shit I've ever heard. A threat to religious traditions and a threat to the lives of people are two completely different things.

The growth of Eastern Europe ahs nothing to do with a flat tax. The growth of Eastern Europe has obvious reasons, Eastern Europe already had hte infastructure, they just needed stable governments again, and now they have it. Theres no evidence that a flat tax is the reason for it.

And at that, there is absolutely no evidence nor an argument that a flat tax increases economic growth. None at all. Theres no reasoning in the slightest. Okay, so its a tax cut for the rich, so the rich spend more, but on that tame token its a tax hike for the middle class and poor, so they spend less. If anything, giving more money to the poor and middle class will promote economic growth better than giving it to the rich, because the poor and middle class are much much more likely to spend it than the rich, the rich are more likely to save it.

I really want to hear how you could justify a flat tax under the guise of promoting economic growth, really.

At 10/1/05 01:43 PM, red_skunk wrote: I'm not sure what you mean, but there are significant differences between the EU and other free trade agreements. The EU goes a step farther than any free trade zone by helping to develop the lower partners (while things like NAFTA seem to be a one-way gravy train for the US). Is developmental aid binding? I don't know the nitty gritty details, but it's not as if the EU will accept new countries, and then screw them over. But of course, I'm no economist. On the other hand, qualifiable economists in the countries of both EU-15 and EU-25 are wholly supportive.

Qualifiable economists supported FTA too. So there is no obligation to give developmental aid, exactly. It's exactly the same as FTA, the only difference is they use aid to get the countries to join up. However, I do believe the same happened with FTA.

You seem far to willing to accept the EU and far to unwilling to accept something nearly the same, NAFTA. The US gives more aid to Mexico than all of the EU gives in aid to all its coutries. And you know what? The year NAFTA was signed was the same year Mexico got a 50 billion dollar bailout from the US.

But, of course, the US was involved, so they must have been doing bad things.

At 10/1/05 07:55 AM, red_skunk wrote: Additionally, people seem to be really confused about the economic implications of these Eastern European (& Turkey) nations joining the EU. It is a plus for all-sides. The Eastern European nations benefit as they are tied into EU economic policy, the EMU. Just look at Ireland as a prime example of an underdeveloped nation joining. And the established powers like Germany, France, also benefit -- these new member states are new markets for their goods. There won't be all of these doomsday scenarios of massive immigration, and Western European nations' economies will not be ravaged either. Get a grip.

I'm curious, are these economic policies of giving money for development binding in any way? If not, I see no difference between the EU and FTA.

The US pays its UN dues, it always does, it just doesn't pay the amount the UN wants it to. The US pays it's percent of the world GDP into UN dues, the UN wants something like 10% more than that.

Also, this is an old old story, which was resolved long ago.

At 9/27/05 05:23 PM, Elfer wrote: Mercury has never hurt anyone. Ever.

Oh, good point. Shoot me up then.

It actually happens majority of the time. More than two thirds of the time I believe the zygote fails to attach to the Uterine wall.

Do you have any idea how much mercury is in water? Fuck that.

At 9/26/05 02:10 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote: There's also statistics out there showing that the dicline of pirates causes globle warming, the point being that you can link the rise of one thing with the decline of the other, yet the two are totally diffrent. If you look at crime in general it's no just rape that's declining but all other violent crimes are as well

Thats beside the point, I'm not trying to claim Internet porn lowers crime, thats entirely possible but as you pointed out above statistically we can't prove that beyond a doubt. However, using the statistics you CAN prove that porn doesn't cause crime to rise, as the rate of decrease for rape did not slow at all or reverse despite the porn.

I have heard of a few cases were porn was the cause, I'll see if i can find them.

I'd be interested to see these, I doubt that the crimes were actually caused by porn.

At 9/24/05 11:15 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Yes, we all know that change requires action. That isn't a method, that's just something that determines the resolution behind a method. I want to hear a simple, effective method that could achieve Unionization of a multi-billion dollar company.

Any method. More workers have been unionized in the past with not only threats of being fired but also threats of violence from both the company AND the government.

Usually workers are motivated by money. If you give them more money, they are likely to work harder to earn it. You -may- see an increase in productivity.

No, it doesn't work that way. You can't give someone money and then hope they work harder. They work harder so you will give them money, not the other way around. Thats like paying someone and hten hoping they will work for you, it's not going to happen.

So if there have been multiple strikes, wouldn't that be sufficient warning to the CEO's that, "hey, if we don't listen, we could go out of business". Aaaand yes, my uncle works for Air Canada, which does have a Union.

They have been listening, thats the problem. They keep raising the pay of the employees and then they just strike again. The employees are striking themselves out of a job, thier own greed bankrupted the company.

And which demographic are you looking at? Are you looking at the people who are fairly well off, young/middle aged, and healthy (ie. Teenagers). What about those who do need that work at Walmart for years, and who would actually benefit?

What demographic are you lookin at? 50-80?

Jim... wtf are you talking about? You said, "That doesn't neccesarily hurt the cause for human rights, but its annoying and retarded because we will have to make new words just because some dumbshit wanted to make a point by being 'edgy'." That is your opinion. What am I supposed to back up here? I'm supposed to back up your opinion, or back up the fact that you feel that way? Tell you what, when I read a book titled, "Jimsween and his opinions and views on politics", I'll have something to back up this "rebuttal". (??? lol)

Lol indeed, espescially considering the post after that I explained it in detail. And that the post you are citing is 5-6 posts back.

With what plan??? You say "oh, it's so damned easy they must be lazy", and yet attempts have been made in recent history, and so far, none of them have worked. Since you're such a brainchild and can see the simplicity of the situation, I want to hear a game-plan that will work for them.

I don't know, there are too many simple strategies for it. Perhaps employees from one store could talk to employees from another store, yeah I know that sounds crazy but it might work.

And did you ever take the time to consider that single mothers are usually BUSY AS HELL trying to raise a family on their own? I was in such a family, and the reason why we ended up in that situation was not my mother's fault whatsoever, aside from the fact that she married a man who ended up having to leave (notice how I said "had to", not "chose to"). Sometimes, things happen in people's lives that worsen thier life condition, and it's out of their control. You'll find that out when you age a few more years young man.

LOL!!! So now your argument has become, "They're too busy with other things to start a union, so we penalize wal-mart." Please, I'm sure Chavez had things he wanted to do too.

Enh, been in politics (BBS) for about a year and a half. I guess that's new compared to the mods and regs. New to politics though? Not quite. Ever since I was of age to vote, I did vote. And, even before that, I was a bit of a political observer. If you're talking about the recent thread that was made on the civil war, you'll see that even people from the south agree that the war had to happen, due to the fact that negotiations were of no avail.

I'm not arguing that the war could have been stopped, I'm arguing that it would have been better if there was no war.

You, kinda contradict yourself. You say that trends were changing, even though the ones who were fighting for the cause (the North) relied on slavery.

How is that a contradiction?

As for the slave trade, of course it was coming to an end... there were no more need for slaves in the US, they were already abundant. That doesn't stop them from selling the product or using it for themselves.

Thats simply not true. There were not enough slaves, America was constantly expanding, slaves were needed everywhere. And if there were enough slaves why were slaves such a valuable resource.

You're the one who linked up "slavery" to "American civil war". Not me buddy. I never said anything about sucessions. That has more to do with economics than Human Rights IMO.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Please explain how what you just said relates to the conversation.

And where would they be if there was no aid at all? Is it aid that creates the wars, or were they there to begin with.

Aid creates the wars, and cripples the countries (just look back to American-Soviet times). Without aid, dictatorships would not be able to fund thier armies, they would need to develop the country in order to make money, but with aid they can just leave the country to get worse and worse. The armies are what is stopping development. If there was no army, new leaders would arise, ones who didn't do it for power but rather because they wanted to help the countries. And it's the same for the democracies too, of which few can be considered legitimate.

I'm not. I never made that comparison. I said human rights envellops many aspects, from small to large issues. Ending poverty is a human rights issue, no? I'm simply making a correlation that could explain the rise in the poor populace in America. If you can find hard evidence that goes against my theory, then my theory could be wrong (that's what theories are for, to offer an explanation that may or may not be true).

Ending poverty is not a human rights issue. It's a humanitarian issue, but not a human rights issue. To say that you have a right to not be poor is just bullshit, you don't have a right to that, you have to work for that.

At 9/26/05 03:40 PM, opposing_forces88 wrote: any country should be allowed to make it's own nuclear energy. The united states is the country i would least trust with any kind of fire arm, let alone nukes. Someone should get rid of Americas nukes, All of them for that matter, but America first.

Wow, just wow. Okay, so you think all countries should get rid of thier nukes, but your perfectly okay with another country getting nukes. Hmm...

And for some reason you think America can't be trusted with thier nukes. I'd really like to hear your explaination for this one, really. The US was repeatedly asked by other countries, ones who now have nukes, to use a nuke for them. France, for example, was begging us to drop two atomic bombs on the Vietnamese army at Diem Bien Phu. Yet we didn't, and even when we faces nearly the same situation at the Chosin reservoir (and Khe Sahn for that matter), we didn't drop a nuke.

We are pretty much the only country who could have dropped a nuke at one time or another and faced no retaliation, but didn't.

So are firearms illegal in Ireland?

He's just going to put it on the deficiet.

"Hey, I don't like taxes.... is there any way I can make my kids pay my taxes?"

At 12/8/04 05:13 PM, BeFell wrote: Placing a real child's head in a pornographic film is not illegal even though it obviously encourages people to think of children as sexual objects.

Not so obviously. It's rather outlandish to think that one can be taught to be a child molester so simply.

It is commonly claimed by evangelical christians and even just many conservatives that pornography causes rape. Now, nobody would disagree that the availability and use of pornography has skyrocketed with the invention of the internet. So logically, we would have more rapes. However, looking at the statistics.

In 1994 (before internet porn) there were 39.2 rapes per 100,000 population.

In 2002, there were 33.0 rapes per 100,000 population.

In 2004, there were 32.0 rapes per 100,000 population.

There is a decreasing rate, despite the massive increase in use of pornography. It would seem to debunk the whole theory that one can learn to become a rapist.

At 9/25/05 12:11 PM, TimeFrame wrote: If we were to pay it ourselves, then you or someone else would be complaining that we could get money from someone else instead of wasting all of ours.

I actually remember a thread here where they were calling the US dumb for not accepting aid from other countries.

At 9/24/05 01:08 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Jim, if that were true, then why have there been attempts to form Unions? What happened to the stores that ended up facing a Union on their hands? If you know incredibly efficient methods of making a solution, do share; I would like to hear them.

Half assed attempts, attempts quickly given up at any sign of resistance. You don't need an efficient method, in all of history you have never needed an efficient method, you just need some motivation on the workers part.

No, don't try and change your own argument. Why would unions make the employees more lazy?

Thats exactly what I just explained.... They demand more money for the same amount of work.

Could the airlines be going out of business for other reasons? You don't suppose it's because of the economy or society, do you? The fact that the travel industry in general has taken a huge hit? The fact that there are so many airline companies that there simply isn't a large enough demand for the available supply? No, you're right. The huge focus should be on Unions. THAT'S what was one of the major causes.

Yes it is. Northwest was just under threat of a strike when it went bankrupt. Northwest has had several strikes in the past. Anyone who knows anything about the airline business will tell you the biggest obstacle in turning a profit is the unions.

Making an income reach over the poverty line is considered a luxary? Having health benefits that allow you to take the time off of work in case of serious injury/illness to get better, which enables you to return to work faster, without going bankrupt is a luxary? These sound more like means of aiding the american public/society to maintain rather than providing them luxaries. Maybe that's just me.

Yes they are luxuries. You can live without them, very well often at that. I know several people below the poverty line who have lots of luxuries. And there are several million people without healthcare who are living perfectly fine.

You were the one who was bitching and complaining. And reading a politics thread on NG is very much like moving out of a country, thanks for sharing that perfect resemblance. And I don't mind having my views criticized. I enjoy it. I learn new things, and adapt new ways of viewing the world when I might have the wrong idea about something, or just didn't know about it before.

Thats not even a rebuttal. You just basically said 'no you are incorrect' with no argument to back it up.

Oh phew... so in order to work at WalMart you have to live with no financial burdens and responsibilities. Well then, I'm sure that makes up a huge chunk of the full-time employees that work there (and thank goodness for that, because if a single mother needs to take up a job, and one of the only places to hire her is WalMart, she'd be pretty screwed!... but that would never happen in real life).

Wait so now wal-mart has to be responsible for other peoples mistakes? No, that makes no sense at all. If a single mother is having problems living on her wage, wal-mart shouldn't be forced to give everyone a better salary because of that, she should apply for welfare. And again, obviously people with financial burdens are in short supply at wal-mart, since if they weren't they would have got off thier ass and made a union by now.

.... LMFAO!!!!! First guy I have EVER met that thinks the civil war was a bad idea.
And to think that you believe that a war is going to resolve long-standing bigotry and resolve all issues revolving around that... LOL!!!!!!
Ah Jimbo, that had to be the dumbest/funniest thing you have ever said. Thanks for the laugh.

You must be very new to politics, because this is a very prolific opinion, I'm not the only one to share it, espescially not on this forum.

.... *happy sigh* Alright. In all seriousness, what makes you believe that things would have naturally gotten better for slaves without the intervention of other groups? Sure, the North disapproved of slavery, but the South relied on slavery to keep it afloat, and was making big profits.

The north relied on slavery too, cotton was 60% of all exports. What makes me think things would have gotten better is the fact that things were getting better, the slave trade was stopped, several new laws were passed which reduced slavery across the country. Eventually it would become too expensive to have slaves, sharecropping was much more cost efficient, which was proven post-civil war.

However, in the end, negotiations were of no avail, and action had to be taken. And in the present day, you think that things would be better had there been no war whatsoever, or any action taken on behalf of the North to intervene? Well, that's hard to disprove, so I guess it's all opinion.

I never said that. It would have been better if the south never seceeded, the secession was in itself an intervention. And as for that, the north didn't intervene, the south attacked the north.

Ah, so no aid is better than some. Gotcha.
Improvements mean absolutely nothing of course. Only when something is perfect, has it truly made a difference.

What improvement? I don't see things really getting better. The money we give often just ends up funding the next war. So now instead of people living in shacks and shanties we have people living in buildings but now fighting wars over who controls them.

Thanks Jim, anytime I hear something about "these people are dying" or, "there are mass genocides happening in this country", I'm just gonna turn my head and pretend it's not there. That way, I can just go about living a happy, ignorant, little life. I assume that's working well for you?

This isn't about genocide, genocide, just like secession, is in itself an intervention. However, I do find it funny your comparing wal-mart employees inability to form a union with genocide.

At 9/24/05 01:49 AM, Jerconjake wrote: It's definately concerning, that's been my point exactly. Way more concerning than Iran possibly getting them. And I don't find it comforting that they don't know where all of them are because that means that there are undefended nuclear weapons just sitting out there that anybody motivated with money could get their hands on.

Well, thats assuming there is a paper trail. There isn't most of the time. It's not as if the Russian government knowing where they are gives that huge of a disadvantage to anyone willing to steal it, really. It's alot easier to bribe a few soldiers then to go on a massive excavation.

However, this is off the point. Yes it is disturbing that Russia has nukes, but we can't do anything about it, because Russia has nukes. That doesn't mean we should just give up on trying to keep nukes out of the hands of everyone else, however.

At 9/23/05 09:34 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Yeah, I never said it was a good idea for Iran to have nukes. I just mean that we're getting all worked up over somebody trying to build plants that could theoretically allow them to build nuclear weapons, while as we speak there are thousands of WMDs in Russia.

Russia having WMD's doesn't scare the fuck out of you? The only comfort I get out of that is that they probably forgot where most of them are. In all actuality, it's not just that we don't want them to have the nukes, it's that once they get the nukes they are untouchable, and a revolution is almost impossible.

Because you can buy anything on the black market in Russia. The mob is (or at least was) more powerful than the government. It has been a largely overlooked issue for over a decade that Russia has a ton of weapons that aren't as secure as they should be.

The mob makes so much money that they wouldn't bother risking selling a nuke. If they sold a nuke and we found out you could gaurantee they would be gone.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that a nuke was stolen from Russia. Maybe some smaller ones.....

At 9/22/05 01:35 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote: There have been many programs listed on the WalMart issue. There have also been many books/articles written as well. As for the internet, how many employees will surf the net to find sites where a few employees posted, "Let's make a Union!" IMO, these methods are not efficient.

If the employees aren't going to try to start a union, why should they get one? Obviously they lack to motivation. The methods are incredibly efficient, they just depend that some employees will take a little bit of initiative. Clearly the wal-mart employees are paid well enough so that they don't care enough to start a union.

Again... lose cashier jobs to people outside the country? Now, as the Beef-ster pointed out, the stores might close down and open shop in these countries. What would be so wrong about that? It would make room for the stores with Unions to expand and fill the void once more people shop at their stores.

You ignored the point entirely. I can only assume you conceed that the unions will make the workers much more lazy. However, thats beside the point. Look at airlines. Northwest and Delta both just went bankrupt, unions paid a huge part of that. Northwest workers were just getting ready to strike AGAIN when they went bankrupt. Unions have to exist independantly, they have enough power as it is.

Human Rights cover so many aspects of a society, you can't make them mean nothing. So are we only to talk and strive to conquer the "major human rights issues"? I'm trying to find a resolution or possibly an explanation to our countries poverty rate. Is that not important?

What? Thats not even a reply. You can too make the term mean nothing. If some day car insurance is considered a human right, nobody will pay attention to the word anymore, and rightfully so, being that it now comes to mean even luxuries.

If you find it annoying and retarded, then do yourself a favour. Don't post/read these threads. I'm not forcing you to read my opinions, am I? If you don't like the topic, go to another thread.

Eh? That sounds alot like 'if you don't like America, leave it." If you can't handle your use of words being critisized, then why don't you leave? Hmm?

Yeah, you're right. Let's do nothing about it. That way, we can ensure that things will never change for the better. I also find it humorous that you say "I never said it was bad", but then go on to explain why it's a bad thing. lol

Wow, it's like your not even reading. If the wal-mart employees only have enough motivation to get 20 employees together at a time to start a Union, things are fine. Wal-mart doesn't need to be changed for the better, other things do, but wal-mart doesn't. The employees are paid crappy because the work they do requires no skill. Anyone not supporting a family can live very well off of wal-mart salary.

Also, your attitude of "they need to do it themselves" is pretty lame. There are so many positive changes that have happened in the past, because people outside of the circumstance stepped in. Anything from slavery to international poverty. Apathy is the worst enemy to human advancement.

Oh yeah, no backlash came from starting a war to stop slavery. Besides the south being economically crippled for 100 years, and even after that having continued problems. And besides the overpowering racism that continues to this day because of the above. Yeah, besides that, everything turned out great. Slavery was declining, it would have been much better for it to have diminished without a war.

And international poverty? Hmm... nope, can't think of a single country that has been taken out of poverty by international aid. In fact, I can think of several that are given several times thier GDP in aid every year.

At 9/23/05 01:59 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Iran isn't much of a threat to the west. Russia has fuckloads of weapons that are far more accessible to anybody with money, and so far none of them have been used. In fact, if Iran wanted nuclear weapons, it would be more cost-effective for them to just buy them on the black market than to openly build the plants and all. Maybe they're distracting our attention from the real objective! *gasp!*

It doesn't matter if they are a threat to anyone. To let anyone aquire nukes when you could do something is irresponsible. Your just adding another person to the list of people who can destroy the world.

And at that, what makes you so sure there are nukes on the black market? It would seem completely opposite to that, since no terrorist group has used or claimed to have a nuke yet.

At 9/23/05 01:06 AM, bcdemon wrote: Nor should I, but considering your age, I don't really have a choice now do I. I did quote your claims (apparently you missed it), and you have yet to back them up. Considering you have yet to back up any of your claims, arguments, statements or whatever you choose to call them (cost, cleanliness, recycleability etc etc etc) they can and will be considered as hot air you blow from your ass. Now either back up your claims, arguments or statements (whichever you choose to call them) or drop it.

You didn't quote my claims at all. You did attempted to, but all of the 'claims' you quoted were already questioned and refuted. Your allegations of innacuracy were so outlandish that they didn't even need to be refuted with proof, a logic argument was more than enough. Now, if my logic argument is incorrect, quote it and prove it so.

I've already shown you where I did this twice. All of the claims mentioned are here, and the logic arguments. I won't accept them in any other format, because that would complete the purpose of your pathetic stall tactic.

At 9/20/05 12:32 AM, bcdemon wrote:

I never said it was did I?
But since you mentioned it, nuclear is cleaner than natural gas.

Woah wacky, who would have guessed that the IAEA would downplay the problems with nuclear power.

And no, thats not any cleaner. The sulfur produced in natural gas sweetening can handled, but radioactive waste can't. Your comparing apples and oranges.

Actually about 335 years, providing they don't export any of it.

355 years with thier proven reserves. Nevertheless, I don't see what your getting at, you just reinforced my point.

Nuclear waste can be recycled.

No, it can't. That is a complete lie and I'm offended that you would think I would fall for it.

According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, nuclear power cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour in 2003, while gas and oil cost above 5.5 cents. Coal cost about 1.8 cents.

Thats for America genius. And not even correct. Nuclear costs more than 2 cents, and thats just to run the plant not to build it. The government pays more than 1.8 cents per kilowatt to subsidize nuclear power. Find a study that actually exists next time.

US coal plants collectively emit over 85 percent of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the nation's entire electric power industry. Good enough reason to stop using coal I would say.

Iran doesn't use coal. Thats the point. DUH

You can speculate all you want on how Iran only wants nuclear power to build a bomb, but at the end of the day, it is still just speculation.

Youre a fucking moron. It's not just speculation, it's speculations with FACTS and EVIDENCE to back it up. According to you it's just speculation that Hitler killed the jews, none of us really saw it.

You never cease to impress me with your boundless idiocy.