OT - why are we at war? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Yao Sing

10-29-2007, 02:02 PM

James A. Garfield
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."++

Daniel Webster, speech in the Senate, 1833
“We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors and a ruined people.”

Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816
“I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Daniel Webster
"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money."

John C. Calhoun, Speech 5/27/1836
"A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interest, combined in one mass; and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks."

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."++

Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of Exchequer, England
"Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."++

Sir Josiah Stamp, former President, Bank of England
"Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back."++

Irving Fisher, 100% Money
"Thus, our national circulating medium is now at the mercy of loan transactions of banks, which lend, not money, but promises to supply money they do not possess."++

xcakid

10-29-2007, 02:30 PM

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-29-2007, 02:43 PM

We are at war so I can make a fortune in the Crude Oil market as prices continue to rise out of controll.

Yao Sing

10-29-2007, 02:44 PM

Why are we at war?

Two reasons really.

1) Well apparently, unless Christians convert to Muslim, we are infidels and need to die. Cause all we do is corrupt non infidels. This has been going on for ages by the way. Has really come more to the forefront due to advent of modern travel, weaponry and media.

2) While the other people think we are too big for our own britches and we need to be knocked down an peg or two.

Number 1 I agree they want everyone converted but I don't agree that's why we are currently at war. Like you said it's been like that for ages.

Number 2 sounds suspiciously like they're jealous of our freedom which is totally ridiculous. Again, not the reason we are currently at war.

These are the public reasons, like the WMD argument. Used to placate the masses.

Mas Judt

10-29-2007, 04:08 PM

David Jamieson

10-29-2007, 04:09 PM

I don't know about where you are, but the major chartered banks in my country are regulated by rule of law and they have to lobby the same as anyone else.

Shouldn't there be a mechanism whereby I can borrow money for a fee? A fee that I agree upon and which is not completely outrageous. Say a mortgage where i buy a house and actually pay 1.5 times it's actual value, but in return I get to pay for it with someone else's money and I can take 25 years to pay it back with the interest. Which in turn allows the bank to not only profit from the deal, but to have another loan available for someone else who cannot for whatever reason come up with the full price of a piece of property.

Shouldn't I have a place that is safe and secure and where I can put my money AND have insurance that no matter what, my money will be there? Between bank service agreements, insurance and government assurance (65,000 is protected funds in a canadian bank), I can be assured that I will not lose my money.

In a credit union, an organization can use it's own wealth as a mechanism to grow funds for the contributors. These are also banks, they are not centralized and they are regulated.

In short, while I think there are unscrupulous bankers to be sure and there are corporate banking decisions that put other peoples funds at risk, overall it is better to have banks than to not have them.

Black Jack II

10-29-2007, 04:17 PM

You misunderstand, no.2 is not about resenting us for our freedoms, whatever, it is about others wanting to be no.1. Russia, China, india, france, etc... all want our pole position in the world.

If those countries are the way they are because they don't have central banks - well give me that good 'ol central bank, cause I do NOT want to live like they do.

Mas Judt just summoned up the worm-eaten, emaciated, undead corpse of Lee Marvin and had it pimp walk over to the Correct's house, kick down the door, and tea bag the family Basset Hound.

Mr Punch

10-29-2007, 04:42 PM

Mas Judt just summoned up the worm-eaten, emaciated, undead corpse of Lee Marvin and had it pimp walk over to the Correct's house, kick down the door, and tea bag the family Basset Hound.LOL, there's something horribly wrong with that image! :D

That's it: of course it's emaciated - you don't get worm-eaten fat zombies now do you!?

eomonroe00

10-29-2007, 05:00 PM

"Shouldn't I have a place that is safe and secure "

from what i know fo the savings and loans scandal, one bank goes under and it nearly wiped out all the insurance the govt had to protect americans, by that logic if multiple banks go under here we will be up blank creek-

and what many people here are refering to with the banking industry is a very deep complicated argument that is best explained through a google video

search for

money masters

we all know politicians are in the pockets of businessmen, well , this video argues, businessmen are in the pockets of bankers, who can expand and contract the amount of currency in circulation, putting people out of business, i.e. the crash of the 1920's
really fasinating video,

but my theory is , we are at war, bc there is more fear and hate in this world than love-and bc most people are at war with themselves, war is an outmoded, barbarian model, we have the war on drugs, and poverty, on hunger, and all it does is create more problems--

lets get naked and start the revolution

Mas Judt

10-29-2007, 05:22 PM

The problem is who do you trust? The problem we see in America is the lack of transparency with the central bank - which by law must be transparent, plus the growth of 'trade organizations with their own courts - effectively eliminating self-rule.

There are plusses and minusses to both sides, however, I prefer some liberty.

The Willow Sword

10-29-2007, 06:50 PM

Mas Judt

10-29-2007, 07:02 PM

Willow you need some help with your history - the crusades were a response to hundreds of years of war, conversion by the sword, slavery and murder - all in the name of Islam.

To think the muslims, and their warmongering theology was 'made that way' by pope urban demonstrates not only a stunning ignorance of history (particularly Islamic history as taught by the muslims themselves) but a complete lack of critical thought.

Take a crack at reading the source material.

It will scare the self-hate right out of you.

Mas Judt

10-29-2007, 07:08 PM

Actually there is a direct correlation to decisions made during the cold war and the problems we have today. Islam has been at it's greatest when it was the least, well islamic. This is the great lie the caliphate utopianists fall in to. Frankly, we need to step away from that part of the world.

But to say Pope Urban caused this is simply fatuous.

And yes, Clinton does deserve some blame, but I'm fairly confident that prior to 9/11 I would have made the same decision. It's funny, a big government democrat made a decision that was untrusting of the government, and it burned him.

specialed

10-29-2007, 07:21 PM

the only conspiracy is the one to spread conspiracy theories.
personally, the next time there's a major disaster in any one of these countries that hates the big bad mean USA, i hope we don't send a single penny in aid. let them call upon the generosity of thier own bretheren. see how far that goes.

Mas Judt

10-29-2007, 07:31 PM

I'm writing a book right now on that very topic...

Black Jack II

10-29-2007, 08:20 PM

Willow,

Make a New Year's res, try and at least attempt to get an education next year on your typical knee-jerk bullsh!t.

Listen, if you don't think Islam is in deep need of some serious public critical analysis, then you need to open your eyes.

The Willow Sword

10-30-2007, 07:27 AM

I know quite a bit about the Crusades. it is a subject that i have been studying for some time now.

The truth of it is that BOTH sides of the religious spectrum be it Muslim or christian are as retarded as you can get. The amount of prosalitizing and pontification on both sides is enough to warrant a straight jacket and lithium and a locked padded room. Religion is retarded and i will always feel that way about it

The crusades was NOT about responding to the mean ole muslims war mongering. At that time EVERYONE was trying to expand their empire, so it goes without saying that both sides were equally as fuked up in their religious diatribes and expanding their territories(this is a natural condition of the human mindset,unfortunately) No the CRUSADES(which it wasnt called that back then, in fact the word "crusade" is what we use NOW to explain what those people were doing) back then they called it something along the lines of "taking up the cross" or " a pilgrimage to the holy land". No, Back then there was a great divide between the Roman catholic church and the eastern byzantine orthodox church(that is still evident today) and there was an attempt by the holy roman catholic church to re-unify themselves with the byzantine empire because europe was in the throws of poverty and economic dissarray. Pope Urban II saw an opportunity to rally people to a cause that would benefit the church and help strengthen and unify themselves with the byzanine empire. Of course it did the EXACT OPPOSITE.
The War Mongering was 10 times as brutal and insane on the xtians side because many of those people were starving and poor and desperate and having been manipulated into thinking that if they took up the cross and made the pilgrimage to jerusalem that their sins would be forgiven and that they would have a place in heaven if they took up the "Crusade". They slaughtered hundreds of thousands and alot of them were byzantine christians as well as muslims AND JEWS. Even the byzantine emperor at the time got sick and tired of them.

No we are at War with the middle east because we are desperately trying to stabilize and secure our resource interests in the region. If we were REALLY over there to fight terrorism and Al queida we would have focused ALL our efforts in afghanistan,we would have sanctioned the saudis and attacked THEM since it was saudis and arab emirates that hijacked those planes, we would have done the same thing we did in WW2 and we would have cleaned house and then left in less than 2 years. All the predictions about iraq were WRONG, the bush think tanks were all WRONG in their predictions and assumptions about iraq. This is NOT a war on terrorism it is a race to secure fossil fuels.
you know Saddam Hussein was going to sell his oil to the european market and use the euro currency to sell it at. That would have fuked the USA royally. Sure saddam was a b@stard, but he was OUR b@stard, we trained him, we trained al queida to fight the russians back in the 80's we trained iraq to fight iran in the late 70's. We created this monster and are again setting the stage for a war with IRAN. NOT A GOOD IDEA KIDS. You think it is bad now over in Iraq, just wait when we try to encroach on Iran. They arent some backwoods rag tag army like the bathists were in iraq. This is the fuking persian empire and they have been dealing with invaders since BEFORE the time of the "crusades".
Its time for a fresh perspective on things regarding the middle east and it is DEFINATELY TIME(past due) for a new leader to run our country in a decent way that promotes peace and diplomacy and not the current IDIOCY that is going on within our government. You Neo con repubs have backed the wrong horse in so many ways, why dont you guys get behind Ron Paul? He seems like an okay guy for a repbulican( i dont agree with alot of what he says but he seems far more intelligent and LOGICAL than who you guys have got now).

Peace,TWS

Mas Judt

10-30-2007, 08:22 AM

Willow, your an angry guy, we all get that. But, uh, both Black Jack and I are active Ron Paul supporters. It's all over this forum.

Now, I am not saying that the motives of the west were 'pure' - but it is ignorance, a blindness created by self hate to ignore the rapacious nature of the Islamic empire, the cruelty exhibited with the Arab imperialism, and the slow, long-delayed response by the West to defend themselves from it.

Did attrocities occur? You bet. It was the f@cking dark ages you dolt. Two hundred ears ago, slavery was a 'peculiar custom.' Today, only the Islamic world approves of it. Times change, but unfortunately for your world view, most of those positiver changes were made by those mean 'ol white men. Heck the British fought tooth and nail to end slavery - fighting uthlessly against the Arab imperialists and Asian countries. Were their motivations all-good? - of course not. No one's is, don't be a dolt.

Personally, I find the 'fundamentalist movements' to be frightening too. They bear little to no resemblance to historic Christianity, and are prone to violence to support their ignorance. However, to group all Christians into the fundamentalist camp is just stupid - as we can thank Christians for the development and evolution of our society. I look at all the good my Christian neighbors and the good work they do, and I thank them.

For that matter, I know quite a few Muslims who do not follow the 'orthodox' line and are wonderful people.

Religion can be a tool for kindness or cruelty. But oddly enough, it is the angry, self-hating, left wing types who seem unwilling to take any action themselves to help their fellow man, and exhibit the most intense selfishness, intolerance, and hatred.

Mas Judt

10-30-2007, 08:24 AM

BTW - do you know Jeff Dee? I knew him back in his comic book days, before he became the host of 'athiest TV' down there in Austin.

Drake

10-30-2007, 08:44 AM

We are at war with Afghanistan because they did not give up the masterminds behind 9-11.

We are at war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein had us convinced that he had WMDs. Hussein even admitted he tried convincing us because he thought it would deter us. Bad judgment call there. We forget that Bush got his info from George Tenet regarding the uranium, and Tenet had a public apology for his advice on the CIA web page for a time. I was serving in Germany, and Hussein had us pretty convinced too. Oddly enough, everyone forgets about the lines of supply trucks on the Syrian border prior to invasion, and the missile launch pads they confiscated in Lebanon. My only issue with Iraq is how it was handled, the lack of oversight, and the fact that all I gained from my time down there was an unease whenever I hear loud booms, knowing the danger of bullets fired into the air, and picking up some Hindi from the 3rd country nationals working down there.

sanjuro_ronin

10-30-2007, 08:55 AM

Drake

10-30-2007, 08:57 AM

The masterminds were Saudi and Saddam had no else convinced he had WMD.

Saudi-born. Big difference. Bin Laden was also Saudi-born, and he was in Afghanistan, so that means little. Where were they trained in terror tactics? Not SA.

Saddam most certainly had many people convinced of his arsenal. You think the UN weapons teams were vacationing there? You think Hans Blix was suspicious for the heck of it?

Oh, and you know a couple of Soldiers were poisoned down there a while back by residual nerve gas, right? Or shall we conveniently forget that too?

Black Jack II

10-30-2007, 09:05 AM

As far as I know, and I am new to this thing, Jesus never raped or owned a slave girl, he never assassinated his critics, and he seemed a tad more interested from the writing's available in saving people on a spiritual level, than killing them on a physical one.

Can we say the same about the Muslim prophet....:confused:

I just don't see the two spiritual paths as anywhere close to the same, I think it's only your own left-wing anger than can make that kind of a connection. You should remember that a good deal of what is now the Western part of the Muslim world was at one time Christian.

Christianity was the adopted and generally accepted religion in Assyria in 23 A.D., which was more than 500 years before the Muslim conquests. The native language was not Arabic for any of those countries at this time, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Turkey are good examples. Take a good look at the history of the Coptic Christians of Egypt, the Maronites and Assyrians in Iraq as examples.

Or crack open a history book and take a gander at the ChaldoAssyrian Holocaust in which Muslims murdered over one million Armenian Christians or the destruction passed onto the Maronities by the Muslim Druze in Lebanon.

Trust me I am not even CLOSE to a born again anything, check out your history and stop with the emotional delinquency.

Gru Bianca

10-30-2007, 09:22 AM

Today, only five countries in the world are without a central bank: Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba and Libya. All of these just happen to be on George Bush's "Evil of Axis" list. Coincidence?

I'm glad to see that there is someone out there pointing the finger in the right direction.

Unfortunately not many (if not nobody) see or understand what you are pointing your finger at.

Kudos to you Yao Sing

Black Jack II

10-30-2007, 09:30 AM

I'm glad to see that there is someone out there pointing the finger in the right direction.

Unfortunately not many (if not nobody) see or understand what you are pointing your finger at.

Maybe people just don't buy into Rothschild banking conspiracy laced bunk.:rolleyes:

sanjuro_ronin

10-30-2007, 09:36 AM

Saudi-born. Big difference. Bin Laden was also Saudi-born, and he was in Afghanistan, so that means little. Where were they trained in terror tactics? Not SA.

Saddam most certainly had many people convinced of his arsenal. You think the UN weapons teams were vacationing there? You think Hans Blix was suspicious for the heck of it?

Oh, and you know a couple of Soldiers were poisoned down there a while back by residual nerve gas, right? Or shall we conveniently forget that too?

Where were they trained in terror tactics?
How far back do we wanna go ??

I can say this about Hans Blix, if he had bigger balls none of this would have probably happened.

As for soldiers poisoned by residual nerve gas, yes, what's your point? that Saddams's regime had never gas and had used it before?
Yes, what's your point again?
None of that was new or overwhelming cause for an invasion.

The Willow Sword

10-30-2007, 09:41 AM

well i feel that YOUR self hatred and hatred of the muslims is the reason why we have the conflict we do today. all you guys in your self riteous all knowing bullsh!T can cram it back up your fundamentalist @ss crossways. Yeah im angry but only to the extent of how that anger is generated within me when i read judeo neo con christian BULLSH!T that you and Blow Job II spout on a constant basis.
Mas Judt and i may have a commonality that we despise SD yet we are NOT political nor are we spiritual allies.

you cant even see past your OWN prejudgements of what is real. you feel your religion is all high and fukin mighty and when someone comes along to challenge it you wag your finger and get all moral superior when you and your christian history have NO leeway to talk about all the "good work" you people do. give me a fukin break DOLT!!!

Slavery is evident in ALL forms and has gone on in ALL facets of society and religion, EVEN THE PAGANS so dont give me that christians love everybody and tried so desperately to stamp out slavery horsesh!t. The portugese were christian through and through and yet they were also scumbag pirates who were slave traders and brought MOST of the slaves here to america. And the BRITISH,even though they woke up on the slavery issue, STILL Had it going strong within their country and the other countries they enslaved due to their Emperical conquests of India and china.

This is a moot subject, the original question was WHY ARE WE AT WAR. i gave you my opinions on the subject. you gave yours. i believe what i believe and you believe what you believe. i think you are wrong and full of sh!T and you think i am wrong and full of sh!t, you thin you are right and think that i am right. its the same ole fukin diatribe and off topic BS that permeates this whole **** website.

Angry Peace, TWS:D

sanjuro_ronin

10-30-2007, 09:57 AM

The portugese were christian through and through and yet they were also scumbag pirates who were slave traders and brought MOST of the slaves here to america.

Correct about the slaves and incorrect about being Pirates.

golden arhat

10-30-2007, 10:10 AM

1. Because,in my opinion,christian fundamentalists are just as mentally ILL as the muslim fundies are(mainly because the xtians made them that way). Of course this ALL Started back in 1095 when a radical mentally disturbed Pope thought it would be fun to reclaim the holy land in jerusalem and kill all infidels that stood in their way. Yes folks, it was pope Urban the II we have to thank as to why things are the way they are in the middle east today.

2. oh yeah and also because radical muslim fundies hijacked planes and crashed them into our buildings(which wasnt a very nice thing to do) and its clintons fault it happened:rolleyes:

Peace,Yeah muther fuker i said Peace. TWS

9/11 was an inside job

its simple science

steel girders need 3000 degrees centigrade to give way and bend about etc
the temperatures were never that high

there was a scraper in spain that burned for 3 DAYS ! at higher temperatures and didnt collapse

look at the video in slow motion it looks like every other demolition of a building

not to mention that the designer built it with air attack in mind
it was an excellent pretext to invade the middle east

think about it
when u look at it the solid evidence for it being pulled is overwhelming

golden arhat

10-30-2007, 10:11 AM

Correct about the slaves and incorrect about being Pirates.

no but most kingdoms employed pirates
or privateers as they were called
they could rob any ship or plunder any town providing they werent from there patrons country

sanjuro_ronin

10-30-2007, 10:15 AM

no but most kingdoms employed pirates
or privateers as they were called
they could rob any ship or plunder any town providing they werent from there patrons country

Yes, but considering that the spanish and portuguese were the targets of pirates more than the other way around, calling them scumbag pirates it inaccurate.

Lucas

10-30-2007, 10:18 AM

Correct about the slaves and incorrect about being Pirates.

Bartolomeo Português ??

David Jamieson

10-30-2007, 10:22 AM

Afghanistan has been teetering for most peoples lives here. They have been in a state of war of about 30 years or so and are THE example of a failed state right now.

Rather than let it be overrun with the Talban and fundamentalist Isalmic crazies that did give it a try, it is probably better to have boots on the ground, rebuild the infrastructure and trust of the people and destroy the enclaves of fundies, terrorists, druggies etc etc that the country is rife with.

Afghanistan is a worthy cause and in need of all the countries that are trying to set it right.

Iraq is a whole different ball of wax and has more to do with the agenda of President Bush than anything else.

In fact, no one in the Bush administration can table any legitimacy on the continued war in Iraq. In my opinion, what needs to happen is that the Bush admin needs to open the door to other countries to step in and start helping to rebuild while withdrawing the military from the country. By keeping all the infrastructure work for American companies only and locking out other countries who want to help put Iraq on the road to recovery and returned sovereignty, The Bush admin has put themselves into a position where their motivations are highly suspect.

After you make a huge mess, you should really clean it up, but it seems that it is always the truth that many hands make light work is the solution.

If not for Greed, iraq may never have happened. It certainly has nothing to do with the saudi terrorists from 911, or the hide outs in afghanistan or the worldwide war on terror which is mostly a scam and a way of taxing us and contreolling us. There is already resistance to these ideas that are present in national security policies everywhere.

People just wanna shop and watch TV. Problem is that the idealists are the ones who want to use the guns they have all the time.

golden arhat

10-30-2007, 10:32 AM

As far as I know, and I am new to this thing, Jesus never raped or owned a slave girl, he never assassinated his critics, and he seemed a tad more interested from the writing's available in saving people on a spiritual level, than killing them on a physical one.

Can we say the same about the Muslim prophet....:confused:

.

he also didnt have a wife during his life which at his age was unthinkable at that time
considering the average lifetime which must have been -2 years old or sumthing stupid

large parts of his life are missing from the bible so u cant paint a realistic picture of him very easily

also didnt abraham (the very saintly person that he is) marry his sister produce children then sell his sister/wife to the pharoah

all religions based around gods/god are deluded these days in my opinion too caught up in dogma and prejudice without adressing the central ideas behind it
love
god
etc

look at the catholic church for instance it owns more gold and material wealth than america in the vatican ALONE
and yet still preaches about giving and not being selfish :rolleyes:

i see buddhism as being the only religion that is in fact actually concerned with helping people rather than controlling them

Lucas

10-30-2007, 10:54 AM

Tyr rules it, then we can get some Odin action.

fall on down to Zeus, then maybe a bit of jupiter.

How about maybe try out a little bit of Ra

Amateraseau is another we can call on.

but see, what ive noticed through out all the histories beliefs and religions....they all think they are right.

I put them all in the same light.

everyone is right whilst everyone else is wrong right?

Everyones faith is correct while everyone elses is wrong?

Anyone else see the cr@p mindset here?

Black Jack II

10-30-2007, 11:01 AM

9/11 was an inside job

its simple science

steel girders need 3000 degrees centigrade to give way and bend about etc
the temperatures were never that high

Your trying to read between the lines when their is nothing to see but the simple and honest truth. Muslim terrorists used a low-tech idea and made it work very well, they captured and drove airplanes into effective and momentous targets and it caught a lot of people off guard, including our own vast Intel network who due to communication issues, dropped the one of the biggest balls in our collective history.

As for science, well then that is something you need to bone up on. Steel melts at 2750 degrees and jet fuel itself burns between 800 and 1500F. Contractors in the business have agreed over and over again that for the twin towers to come down, their frameworkd didn't need to melt.

All that needed to be done was for those massive buildings to lose some of their structural fortitude for it to come crashing down. The main culprits being the jet impact itself, the jet fuel, and any and all combustible goods in the building, all of that brought on a seriosu heat transfer to weaken the structure, sag the metal, and start cracking its foundation.

Lucas

10-30-2007, 11:06 AM

I'm not trying to stir anything up, but what about the pentagon?

ever see a real plane crash on video or pictures? There is SOOOO much debree, you cant just make it all dissapear.

where was all the debree that accompanies EVERY other plane crash in all of history?

there was no way the debree that would have, and should have been there if a large airplane were to crash.

luggage, dolls, seats, people....

really suspicious.

Mas Judt

10-30-2007, 11:46 AM

Read the book: "Debunking 9/11 Myths" by Popular Mechanics, or review the Purdue University study on the subject.

I realize we have a tendency to not trust the government, and that is a GOOD tendency to have. But if 9/11 was a conspiracy, the only way our government could be involved is if they just stood back and let it happen. The concept of a conspiracy involving shooting missles, unloading planes elsewhere and planting explosives in the towers, is so f@cking stupid that it serves as a testament to just how poorly the education systyem has performed. Perhaps the heads of the EDU department and the teachers union should be shot to make an example of them ;)

Honestly, the problem behind not just the improbability of it, but the impossibility of the task - complete with no leaks or mess ups is mind boggling.

Sometimes I think these tools that call themselves 9/11 truthers are witting or unwitting plants to the fact that all the government had to do was look the other way.

But, I don't believe that either. Our government is a lot of things, traitors - I doubt it. There would be an uproar from within.

Mas Judt

10-30-2007, 11:57 AM

Lucas,
Two things: One the fellow who was quoted as saying 'like a cruise missle' was edited. He said he saw an American Airlines jet hurtling down the street 'like a cruise missle.'

As far as debris goes, you probably haven't seen any crash where a plane hit such a heavily reinforced structure. It's like a coke can being flattened on a wall. A fast moving, flexible object hitting a solid, heavily reinforced forest of columns. The back became the front instantly.

Try researching the actual events, not just reading nutbag ideations of what happened.

I appreciate your suspicion, but for goodness sake, use some common sense and do your homework.

Mas Judt

10-30-2007, 12:01 PM

David,
The reason many governments have been shut out is because they did not help at the beginning. Some of those governments actively supported Saddam Hussein through illegal payments to the tune of billions: France, Germany and Russia come to mind. Then we had Koffi Annans son getting huge payouts...

There are reasons that the left-wing French and German governments were ousted.

Frankly, f@ck'em if they want to play now. We broke it, we can pay ourselves to fix it.

There was also solid legal reasons for the war. However, none of them are really WORTH going to war for. When this happened I said they better be right about the WMD thing.

Still no definitive word on that.

Mas Judt

10-30-2007, 12:05 PM

rogue

10-30-2007, 12:07 PM

We beat the 9/11 conspiracy to death on this thread.

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42550&highlight=loose+change

Lucas

10-30-2007, 12:07 PM

whos to say we shot the missle at the pentagon ourselves?

if it was a missle....but where is the debree? Evidence of a plancrash?

we could also jsut be covering up the fact we let a missle get through our defenses? who knows.

Im not a conspiracy guy, but its still strange.

I still question what magic trick was done to remove all the debree that would be at a plane crash.

Lucas

10-30-2007, 12:09 PM

Lucas,
Here's a quote from structural engineer Allyn E. Kilsheimer, who was on the scene of the Pentagon on 9/11:

"It was absoloutley a plane, and I'll tell you why. I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the stone on one side of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I stood on a pile of debris that we later discovered contained the black box....I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

gotcha. my post i just made was sitting there for a while, while i was working.

I dont really look into this stuff that much, cause i dont really care.

Its a concerning event to have people pulling our citizens in so many different directions, if there is straight forward fact and evidence....this needs to be in the forefront and quash any conspiracy's out there.

the media sucks.

Mas Judt

10-30-2007, 12:14 PM

there was a scraper in spain that burned for 3 DAYS ! at higher temperatures and didnt collapse

While not familiar with this case, that building did not get hit by a plane at 800mph and have thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel pouring through it. For that matter you are going to tell me that bridge in Oakland could not have collapsed from the fuel truck fire, because the fire wasn't hot enough?

You guys are such tools. Of course it is simple science, but you need to understand science first before it is simple. When did you drop out? The third grade?

For that matter, just look at the weeks of work it would take to prepare the building, the hundreds of workers. Are you telling me no one noticed people drilling into the support structure? That not one of these guys have spilled the beans yet? It drives me crazy how f@cking stupid you 9/11 'truthers' are. Please, please, move out of your mothers basement and get a job.

Mas Judt

10-30-2007, 12:15 PM

Hey Willow, you may be a left wing nut, but yer still all right man. But, you don't know Black Jack, some of your statements are pretty funny as you are drawing conclusions based on, oh I don't know, your own frustration and lack of understanding. He's not even close to what you think he is.

rogue

10-30-2007, 12:17 PM

I still question what magic trick was done to remove all the debree that would be at a plane crash.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/yarddebris.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/yardparts.html

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

The Willow Sword

10-30-2007, 03:15 PM

well its all tit for tat here and BJ II rubs me the wrong way and i do the same to him. its the nature of the internet. It is brilliant that we have such a medium of communication because if this were a bar and this was reality, it would be a two fisted saloon brawl and nothing would ever get accomplished and people wouldnt be able to get their points across or vent their frustrations or be able to get points across without a glass mug being buried in some forehead. So i thank the internet that protects BJ II from my mug of Beer and vice versa.

Disgruntled Peace, TWS

Black Jack II

10-30-2007, 04:00 PM

Whatever, Willowsword.....you keep fooling yourself, in the meantime I will end on a simple note that is perfect for All Hallow's Eve, if you can dig it.

I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand
Walking through the streets of Soho in the rain
He was looking for a place called Lee Ho Fook's
Going to get himself a big dish of beef chow mein
Werewolves of London

If you hear him howling around your kitchen door
Better not let him in
Little old lady got mutilated late last night
Werewolves of London again
Werewolves of London

He's the hairy-handed gent who ran amuck in Kent
Lately he's been overheard in Mayfair
Better stay away from him
He'll rip your lungs out, Jim
I'd like to meet his tailor
Werewolves of London

Well, I saw Lon Chaney walking with the Queen
Doing the
I saw Lon Chaney, Jr. walking with the Queen
Doing the
I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's
His hair was perfect
Werewolves of London
Draw blood

Yao Sing

10-30-2007, 05:34 PM

If those countries are the way they are because they don't have central banks - well give me that good 'ol central bank, cause I do NOT want to live like they do.

Nobody said they were that way because they don't have central banks. But it could point to the reason they're in our crosshairs. Can't have a world financial system with some of the players opting out and you can't control a country without controlling the money.

Shouldn't there be a mechanism whereby I can borrow money for a fee?

No, why would you need that? And the real issue is a fractional monetary system where money is created from nothing and is backed by nothing.

Say a mortgage where i buy a house and actually pay 1.5 times it's actual value, but in return I get to pay for it with someone else's money and I can take 25 years to pay it back with the interest.

Why are you buying anything with someone else's money? And if X amount of dollars are 'created' but you're required to repay it with interest then where does that interest come from?

Shouldn't I have a place that is safe and secure and where I can put my money AND have insurance that no matter what, my money will be there?

That's a fair service to offer but is it really necessary?

In short, while I think there are unscrupulous bankers to be sure and there are corporate banking decisions that put other peoples funds at risk, overall it is better to have banks than to not have them.

Sorry, I don't agree and don't see the positives as worth the negatives. Maybe you should read up on the words monetary system. It might change your mind.

We are at war with Afghanistan because they did not give up the masterminds behind 9-11.

Or, we needed their land for an oil pipeline. Or, we wanted the opium production back online because it's big money. Or other non-talked about reasons.

We are at war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein had us convinced that he had WMDs.

Or, we knew he had them because we sold them to him. Or, we needed to redirect 9/11 focus away from Saudi Arabia (a good portion of the troops still believe Hussein was involved in the attack).

Kymus

10-30-2007, 08:14 PM

[B] It drives me crazy how f@cking stupid you 9/11 'truthers' are. Please, please, move out of your mothers basement and get a job.

ROFLMAO! You invoke conjecture, and obviously know next to nothing about the subject, and yet you call others stupid? THAT is hilarious. Please, research something independently for once... please. I know it's hard, but maybe (maybe) you'll learn something. :)

Mas Judt

10-30-2007, 08:59 PM

Wow Kymus, you just made my point for me.

The sad part is, your probably too lacking in critical skills to understand that. (and you assume I HAVEN'T investigated this? What a tool...)

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-30-2007, 09:48 PM

I have to chime in here and say that I really do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I have been working with metal all my life, and I can tell you it is an absolute FACT that metal loses it's resilience when heated.

You don't even need to melt it, just get it 400,500 degrees and it is already bendable. The hotter it gets, the more bendable it is.

Also, High tensile strength steel is brittle. It is very strong, and resists bending, but sudden shock shatters it...a sudden shock like the floors of the upper building crashing down for example.

This is what took the titanic down. The steel was an excessively high carbon steel, so much so that when it hit the ice burg it actually shattered. The Irony is that a weaker steel would probably have held up because it would have bent, but held it's integrity rather than shattering a huge gaping hole in the side of the boat and the titanic would have survived.

As for the Twin towers, they got hit by airplanes fully loaded with enough fuel to go intercontinental. In addition to that, the air being sucked INTO the fire would have acted the same as adding oxygen to acetylene, and made the fire super hot.

For those of you that do not know, acetylene is a gas that is used to melt, weld, and cut steel. Unfortunetly it is not really hot enough to do so on its own, but if you mix it with oxygen, it make the acetylene flame like 10 times as hot. Now it can cut, melt or weld all the steel it wants. The fresh air being drawn INTO the fire would have done the same thing because the building's interior would have acted as the mixing chamber used in the acetylene torch.

Acetylene btw does not burn very hot on it's own. Only the addition of the fresh oxygen makes it hot enough to melt steel.

There was no need to pre wire the building with explosives, it got hit by a frikn' Jumbo jet traveling at full speed. Everything else was due to the limitations of metal.

Drake

10-31-2007, 01:47 AM

First off, I won't even address the "Black Copters over my farm" conspiracy theorists, because the logic is flawed from the ground up, and I haven't the 3rd grade elementary school teacher patience to explain things that should be common sense by now.

Secondly,
We can say all we like about an oil pipeline/opium trade, because it's all "what if" fabricated scenarios based on paranoia of the government. Afghanistan was hosting terrorists, and you have a serious disconnect with reality if you don't follow that. I have buddies who have helped bomb them out. Secondly, it wasn't like the terrorists bombed US, and then the pres was thinking "Wow, what a great time to build that completely nonprofitable oil pipeline and kick up the opium trade!" Let's be reasonable here. Secondly, who decided this was the case? Is there a single shred of evidence supporting this, or was it the shoot from the hip logic that Pres Bush must have done this because he wanted more oil, because that's what Texans do?
Odd how so many thought Saddam had WMDs back in 2003, and now everyone is acting like they never thought such a thing. And can we blame the right people for the mess up? I'm no Bush fan, but it was George Tenet who gave him bad data.

Kymus

10-31-2007, 06:25 AM

Wow Kymus, you just made my point for me.

The sad part is, your probably too lacking in critical skills to understand that. (and you assume I HAVEN'T investigated this? What a tool...)

Rofl. Typical answer from someone without a clue. Ad Hom attacks supported by conjecture coming from someone that obviously (based on your previous theorizations) knows next to nothing about the subject. Anyone that has spent even just a few hours researching 9/11 can demonstrate more - accurate - knowledge than this grasping for straws you have resorted to. If you're going to comment on something, at least have an inkling of a clue as to what you're talking about. Is it really so hard?

Kymus

10-31-2007, 06:46 AM

There was no need to pre wire the building with explosives, it got hit by a frikn' Jumbo jet traveling at full speed. Everything else was due to the limitations of metal.

1) The towers were designed to take an even bigger hit and stand.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
- Frank A. Demartini (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7796162640538269955&q=Frank+A.+Demartini&total=36&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0), WTC Construction manager

2) Some like to take this and then spin it that they didn't factor in the fuel, but that's not true:

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.
- John Skilling (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227), WTC head engineer

3) I've said for years now, based on evidence I have seen, that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel. A new report by the NIST (http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf) agrees with this, thus annihilating their previous theories (the pancake theory and the "buckle and bend" theory). The fires never reached over 250C (482F).

4) This doesn't even touch WTC7 - which was not hit by a plane and after 6 years we are still waiting for an official report to come out explaining its collapse.

There is ample reason to question the government's official conspiracy theory. It can be seen easily when one studies the evidence and see the massive holes in the official story. Contrary to what some knee-jerk reactionaries like to conjure up from their own self indulged ignorance, there are many prominent people who support the notion that there is a massive cover-up about:

A 2,000 word article, Seven CIA Veterans (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/20) Challenge 9/11 Commission Report — Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up", appeared September 23 in OpEdNews. The article details severe criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by seven CIA veterans and their calls for a new investigation. A brief quote from each of the individuals featured in the article appears below.

Raymond McGovern, former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and 27-year CIA veteran, "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke."

William Christison, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political, and 29-year CIA veteran, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all."

Melvin Goodman, PhD, former Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs and Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990, "The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it."

Robert Baer, 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, who was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997, "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation …, we will never know what happened on 9/11."

Robert David Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. Second ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992. Member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. "I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war. … I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers."

Lynne Larkin, former CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence Center. There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which coordinated intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement agencies. One of twenty-five signers of a letter to Congress expressing their concerns about "serious shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws" in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation.

David MacMichael, PhD, former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served for four years as a civilian counter-insurgency advisor to the U.S. government, and prior to that was a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years. One of twenty-five signers of a letter to Congress expressing their concerns about "serious shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws" in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation.

Fire Engineering (http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225) has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 07:01 AM

No one was more surprised that the Towers fell than those that designed and built it.

That said, governments and conspiracies have been synonymous since the dawn of government.
Anyone that has ever worked with the government at any level can tell you have silly that is.

Drake

10-31-2007, 07:07 AM

1) The towers were designed to take an even bigger hit and stand.

2) Some like to take this and then spin it that they didn't factor in the fuel, but that's not true:

3) I've said for years now, based on evidence I have seen, that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel. A new report by the NIST (http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf) agrees with this, thus annihilating their previous theories (the pancake theory and the "buckle and bend" theory). The fires never reached over 250C (482F).

4) This doesn't even touch WTC7 - which was not hit by a plane and after 6 years we are still waiting for an official report to come out explaining its collapse.

There is ample reason to question the government's official conspiracy theory. It can be seen easily when one studies the evidence and see the massive holes in the official story. Contrary to what some knee-jerk reactionaries like to conjure up from their own self indulged ignorance, there are many prominent people who support the notion that there is a massive cover-up about:

Just keep looking for those black helicopters and UFOs. I'm done with this.

Kymus

10-31-2007, 07:45 AM

Just keep looking for those black helicopters and UFOs. I'm done with this.

You're the only one talking about UFO's and Black Helecopters, not me :rolleyes:

Mas Judt

10-31-2007, 07:52 AM

Kymus, don't forget your tinfoil hat.

Unfortunately Kymus, you are the sort of person not particularly impacted by facts, so there is no point in trying to sway you from your religion. Yes, a religion. You have 'faith' in your beleifs, and no dose of reality will sway you from how 'special' you feel that YOU have seen through the 'secrets' of what is going on. I know your type. There are plenty of real conspiracies out there, but you are too ignorant to notice.

Go buy the popular Mechanics book. Try talking to some actual engineers. Then move out of your mothers basement, and maybe, just maybe, take the tinfoil hat off.

Kymus

10-31-2007, 08:17 AM

Kymus, don't forget your tinfoil hat.

Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose but an attempt to degrade this conversation to an immature level.

Unfortunately Kymus, you are the sort of person not particularly impacted by facts, so there is no point in trying to sway you from your religion. Yes, a religion. You have 'faith' in your beleifs, and no dose of reality will sway you from how 'special' you feel that YOU have seen through the 'secrets' of what is going on. I know your type.

Right, because you know so much about me and my research :rolleyes:. Already I have demonstrated much more knowledge on this subject than you have (you are still relying on conjecture). Unlike you, I do not stick my head in the sand, take the first piece of information that agrees with my preformed opinion, and run with it.

There are plenty of real conspiracies out there, but you are too ignorant to notice.

The ignoramus is calling me ignorant.... hmmm...
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/1637/6197459e648b5e2bchc5.gif

Go buy the popular Mechanics book.

already read it. Popular Mechanics poor yellow journalism published by Hearst falls flat on its face. Popular Mechanics still believes the now withdrawn pancake theory. Further, they have missed NIST's own studies that show the fires weren't hot enough to even weaken the steel.

Try talking to some actual engineers.

:rolleyes: so you're telling me that the statements I quoted are false? Or - let me guess - did you pull a Bush!te move and not read it at all?

Then move out of your mothers basement, and maybe, just maybe, take the tinfoil hat off.

More attempts at disinformation. You're funny man, you really are. To everything presented, you reply with ad hom attacks and conjecture. I think you're the one that needs to grow up a little, get some education, and look at the world with two eyes. Who knows, maybe you'll learn something new? :eek:

Kymus

10-31-2007, 08:33 AM

Uh-oh, looks like I found your secret manual (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/how-win-any.php) on winning arguments Mas Judt :eek:

1) NEVER DEFEND YOUR OWN POINTS. Don't forget this monumental Internet argument cornerstone even if you fall down a well and get amnesia and learn you're pregnant with your mother's son's evil twin. Never, under any circumstance, attempt to defend what you've said; just attack the other person's argument over and over and over until one of you dies of old age or some legislative branch agrees to shut down the Internet forever. Defending yourself or your argument is a weak act of desperation which informs your enemy that you're completely open to attack. The grizzled Internet debater will never address the validity of their previous claims, instead opting to forge ahead and stay on the offensive despite any erroneous or outright false statements they said in the past, effectively keeping the enemy on their toes. You should view Internet arguments as a really crummy fighting game: only the utter idiots bother pressing the "block / defend" button. While your enemy cowers in a corner with their arms raised above their face to futilely protect them, real men pull off complex 408-move combos that involve transforming into a fiery phoenix of doom and releasing unrelenting waves of liquid napalm Satan clown death upon them.

Funny how even I can form and back my arguments, but oddly, you just keep relying on insults, figuring that maybe eventually if you call me enough names, you'll be right :confused:

I can already see there's no need to discuss any subject with you further. I like to have discussions with people that can - you know - back their arguments, do their own research, are more concerned with the truth than defending their feeble theories (which are of course based on theory and conjecture themselves)... Oh and let's not forget about that pesky thing called having a base of knowledge in something that you decided to talk about. If you can't do that, I can't help you. Sorry :rolleyes::D

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 08:46 AM

3) I've said for years now, based on evidence I have seen, that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel. A new report by the NIST agrees with this, thus annihilating their previous theories (the pancake theory and the "buckle and bend" theory). The fires never reached over 250C (482F).

Reply]
Dude, I have worked with metal my whole life, and as I stated in my previous post, raising the temperature of steel just 400-to500 degrees is MORE than enough to weaken it enoght to make it bendable and distortable....ESPECIALLY with **TONS8* of building laying pressure down on it from above.

Also, structural steel is more brittle than regular steels becasue of the high tensil strength factor. An impact (like tons of mulitple floors suddenly crashing down on it) will not bend the colder unheated steel below, it will SHATTER it, which would then cause the collapse to be EXACTLY what we all saw.

Your clinging to this theory that the planes did not take the towers down shows nothing more than your gullibility AND your total lack of metallurgical understanding.

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 08:54 AM

Dude, I have worked with metal my whole life, and as I stated in my previous post, raising the temperature of steel just 400-to500 degrees is MORE than enough to weaken it enoght to make it bendable and distortable....ESPECIALLY with **TONS8* of building laying pressure down on it from above.

?
Common design for pressure vessels and piping is 150 PSIG @ 450 deg F.

For both Carbon Steel and SS.

None of them get weakened or distorted, matter of fact I just finished one unit rated at 1500 psig and 850 F.

Kymus

10-31-2007, 08:54 AM

3) I've said for years now, based on evidence I have seen, that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel. A new report by the NIST agrees with this, thus annihilating their previous theories (the pancake theory and the "buckle and bend" theory). The fires never reached over 250C (482F).

Reply]
Dude, I have worked with metal my whole life, and as I stated in my previous post, raising the temperature of steel just 400-to500 degrees is MORE than enough to weaken it enoght to make it bendable and distortable....ESPECIALLY with **TONS8* of building laying pressure down on it from above.

The pancake theory has already been retracted from the source. Even NIST's previous theory of how the steel "buckled and bent" and gave way has been retracted by them.

Also, structural steel is more brittle than regular steels becasue of the high tensil strength factor. An impact (like tons of mulitple floors suddenly crashing down on it) will not bend the colder unheated steel below, it will SHATTER it, which would then cause the collapse to be EXACTLY what we all saw.

See what I said before. The pancake theory doesn't hold water; not even with the official story.

Your clinging to this theory that the planes did not take the towers down shows nothing more than your gullibility AND your total lack of metallurgical understanding.

Are you telling me that The designers of the WTC had no clue what they're talking about? Fire Engineering too?

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 09:34 AM

Common design for pressure vessels and piping is 150 PSIG @ 450 deg F.

For both Carbon Steel and SS.

None of them get weakened or distorted, matter of fact I just finished one unit rated at 1500 psig and 850 F.

Reply]
There is a compensation by increasing the thickness of the steel. If you could keep your temp down to room temps, you could hold that much psi with less than half the thickness.

As for the Engineers comments, I don't distrust them, only the numbers being reported by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists...they just don't jive with my experiences.

If you heat metal, it softens LONG before it is red hot. We do ti all the time in the fabrication business, adn even more so in the autobody business (I have experience in both)

A car is made out of a structural steel. The frames cannot be heated beyond a certain point or they are perminantly weakened. This is why we have to measure the heat with a heat crayon so we do not over heat the buckled steel when pulling a bent frame back to position.

What we do is put pressure on the bent frame with a 10 tom pulling devise connected to it with a chain. We then apply pressure, and heat the buckled frame. But with the structural steels cars are made of, we have to use only the minimal amount of heat that will soften the metal *Just* enough to release the strength so it can be pulled back into position. If we use too much, we cook the strength out of the frame and it must now be replaced.

That minimal heat is not even red hot, and can be anywhere form 400 to about 800 degrees. Again, it's just barley enough to soften the metal so it moves.

Now, the twin towers are made out of a similar steel, with similar characteristics, so the addition of tons of jet fuel, and enough air being sucked in to super heat it would defenetly have gotten the structural beams to a temp where they would have failed..no question about it.

And again, structural steel is brittle, so shocking type impacts, like tones of concrete from the floors above crashing down would shatter the beams. We even see this in cars when they are hit in severe accidents. The frame rails actualy rip, or split in two after they bend to a certain extent...and cars have crush zones (points where they are designed to bend to absorb impact). A building like the Twin Towers is not going to have crush zones in it's structure, so it will just shatter under the shock of collapse. Especially when you consider the wall thickness (Thicker walls tend to rip, and tear rather than bend).

ALSO, the towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707? Correct me if I am wrong, but those are quite a bit smaller panes than the huge intercontinental planes that it was hit with. Planes with the size, weight and power of the planes that hit the towers did not even exists when they were built.

I am sure if they had been hit by a 707, the jet fuel would have burned out before structural failure occurred, AND there would not have been anywhere near as much damage because a 707 is smaller than what actually hit the buildings.

The problem is that the planes that hit the towers were much bigger and more powerful, and had a LOT more fuel than the 707 they were designed to withstand. This cause more structural damage, which left fewer structural members in place to hold the weight, which inturn meant that even a minor amount of weakening would bring down the building becasue there was not enough structure to spread the load around due to the impact causing much more damage than it was designed to sustain.

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 09:37 AM

Are you telling me that The designers of the WTC had no clue what they're talking about? Fire Engineering too?

Reply]
I am not saying that at all...they designed it just fine...to withstand an impact from a 707...which is a smaller plane than what actually hit them.

What I am saying is that all the conspiracy theorist are full of it, and spreading disingenuous facts and faulty data around out of sheer ignorance.

Take the Thernite thing for example...it's used in welding. I don;t know much about that type of welding, but if it's a type of welding used in scyscraper construction, then it was probably there snce the building was built. We'd have to look into that.

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 09:43 AM

There is a compensation by increasing the thickness of the steel. If you could keep your temp down to room temps, you could hold that much psi with less than half the thickness.

Dude, you can hold 200 psig at 500 f with 1/4" pl with no destortion or compromise of the metal.

As for structurals, do you even know what types of I beams and such were used in the WTC ?

Gru Bianca

10-31-2007, 09:55 AM

Maybe people just don't buy into Rothschild banking conspiracy laced bunk.:rolleyes:

Fair enough, I can respect that, however it does really beyond that, It's more how much you know about Banking system and who really owns the money and who should own the money.
Really that simple, still, 99% of the people fail at that very basic understanding cause they all fear of being labeled as Big conspiracy buyers.:eek:

Be well

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 09:56 AM

Dude, you can hold 200 psig at 500 f with 1/4" pl with no destortion or compromise of the metal.

200 PSI can almost be contained in my fric'n hand...it's nothing. A hom Air compressor can generate it and contain it in a rubber hose. Hell, my ****s make that kind of pressure.

As for structurals, do you even know what types of I beams and such were used in the WTC ?

Reply]
that is the real question, but in the end it's still going ot be with in the ball park of what I described. Maybe it was tougher stuff and it took 800 degrees to make it more pliable, I don't know....800 degrees is stil pretty hot, and no steel on earth will not be weakened by it.

How hot were the flames? Can they even know without measuring it? How could they possibly take into account the air intake effect? Mixing in air in a concentration like that gets normally cool burning sooty acetylene up to 5000-6000 degrees F That is hot enough to even melt glass.

I think the real question is how hot was it? Based on what I see it is highly unlikely it stayed a nice safe cool temp, and highly improbably that it would have been so cool that it would not have compromised the beams.

Hell, anyone who is into monster truck rallys knows a jet engine will melt a metal car. and that is basically the SAME jet fuel that was burning in the towers. It even had air intake to fule it, s you know it just HAD to be insanly hot in there. It's hard to fathom it not being hot enough to damage the beams.

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 09:59 AM

Dude, you can hold 200 psig at 500 f with 1/4" pl with no destortion or compromise of the metal.

200 PSI can almost be contained in my fric'n hand...it's nothing. A hom Air compressor can generate it and contain it in a rubber hose. Hell, my ****s make that kind of pressure.

As for structurals, do you even know what types of I beams and such were used in the WTC ?

Reply]
that is the real question, but in the end it's still going ot be with in the ball park of what I described. Maybe it was tougher stuff and it took 800 degrees to make it more pliable, I don't know....800 degrees is stil pretty hot, and no steel on earth will not be weakened by it.

How hot were the flames? Can they even know without measuring it? How could they possibly take into account the air intake effect? Mixing in air in a concentration like that get normally cool burning sooty acetylene up to 5000-6000 degrees F That is hot enough to even melt glass.

I think the real question is how hot was it? Based on what I see it is highly unlikely it stayed a nice safe cool temp, and highly improbably that it would have been so cool that it would not have compromised the beams.

Hell, anyone who is into monster truck rallys knows a jet engine will melt metal car. and that is basically the SAME jet fuel that was burning in the towers. It even had air intake to fule it, s you know it just HAD to be insanly hot in there. It's hard to fathom it not being hot enough to damage the beams.

I think you are making too many assumptions to counter consipracys just as they make to many to create conspiracys.
Neither is the way to go.
Localized and focused heat is one thing, generalized is another.
Fires follow the path of least resistence like explosions.

All in all, we may never know everything about what happened, other than 3000 are dead.

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:04 AM

No, we are not going to know exactly what happened, but an basic understanding of how things work, like how a blacksmith furnace operates, and how structural steel behaves, and the fact that jet fuel can melt structural steel cars at truck rallys gives us a foundation to at least be reasonably sure that two intercontinental planes had the capacity and probability to drop the twin towers.

Infact, an understanding of the nature and principals of such thing has to make one wonder how they could have possibly stood...which makes the conspiracy theory's extremely uncredible.

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:07 AM

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:08 AM

Localized and focused heat is one thing, generalized is another.

Reply]
Ok, don't think oxy/acetylene then, think a blacksmith's blast furnace.

The steel beams he would be the metal stock he is softening to make his sword.

The black smith is not even using a modern high power jet fuel to melt soften his steel stock, hes just using wood, and air....of which the towers had both (paper) and in addition, frik'n JET fuel to further heat things...ur tell'n me those beams didn't get soft in an almost perfect blast furnace like THAT?

Commonsense people!!

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:14 AM

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:15 AM

And yes, you example of steel distorting and all that, at 500F is wrong and you put it out there like it was gospel and that is why conspiracies come to be, people voicing misinformed info as fact out of context.
better to say nothing at all.

Reply]
It won't distort on it's own at that temp, but it is EASIER for an outside force to distort it, like a metal fabricator or collision tech (Me) who has used cooler heat temps to ease the movement metal becasue we cannot heat structural frame rails past a certain point without perminant damage (As measured by the heat crayons).

In the building's case,maybe the intact structure would have been strong enough to withstand the weakening of the beams as would be caused by 500 degrees, but a damaged structure where less beams are now shouldering more load, 500 degrees is plenty to weaken them enough to buckle, and eventually break.

Not to mention that 500 degrees is fairly cold for a jet juel, fueled fire. It's almost un thinkable that the fire was THAT cool.

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:19 AM

A furnace is over powering a small piece (relative size) of metal, to compare apples with apples, the WTC would have have to been emcompassed in flames totally.

Commonsense indeed.

Reply]
LOL no, only the beams that failed and caused the chain reaction would need to be encompassed completely, and from the looks of it they had to be.

Not to mention it's probably the joining plates that connect the beams together are what took the worst damage, and it's more likely THEY failed and shattered when the top part of the building fell more so than the beams themselves (although they too would have been softened up, just not as much).

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:23 AM

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:26 AM

I doubt they would tell me any different...metal is metal. It all gets soft when heated.

The weakest point is still going to be the jointing plates that connect the beams. That is what will give first.

These huge buildings are not one support beam ground to roof, it's more like an erector set.

Under extreme stress and shock, it's the joints that will break first.

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:27 AM

I doubt they would tell me any different...metal is metal. It all gets soft when heated.

The degree may surprise you, but what do I know...;)

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:33 AM

That has to do with the thickness of the steel, and how saturated it is with heat. 500 degrees for 20 minutes won't fully saturate the metal, but an hour or more would.

Also, the connecting plates are not anywhere near as thick as the beams themselves, so it would not take as much duration for them to fail.

Mas Judt

10-31-2007, 10:34 AM

Kymus,
I'm always happy to defend a point - however, your inability to grasp what is conjecture and what is fact, your fervent 'faith' in a conspiracy that is untenable means that your grasp on reality is as loose as Monica Lewinski.

I'll talk to adults, but not tools.

Back up your claims with something other than conjecture and unsupported statements. I find it ironic that you exhibit the very behaviors you accuse me of.

Enjoy your mother's basement. Someday you might get to kiss a girl ;).

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:35 AM

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:40 AM

Spending most of my life working with metal.

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:42 AM

Spending most of my life working with metal.

Funny, being a certified ASME welder and working on my PENG for mechanical engineering, I don't see your info as adding up.

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:45 AM

I don't see how not. It is a simple fact that metal softens with heat. even lower amounts make it easier to shape, or re shape...and certainly the heat in the tower fires was not a *Low* amount.

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:46 AM

I don't see how not. It is a simple fact that metal softens with heat. even lower amounts make it easier to shape, or re shape...and certainly the heat in the tower fires was not a *Low* amount.

I know you don't see it, that is why I suggest you take it up with some P engineers.

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:47 AM

Funny, being a certified ASME welder and working on my PENG for mechanical engineering,

Reply]
Ahh, you are an engineer. That explains everything. What you boys send us NEVER works the way you say it will on the blue print.

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:49 AM

RD'S Alias - 1A

10-31-2007, 10:50 AM

Not if you are following tradition! Only if your training is live, and in the cage!

Mas Judt

10-31-2007, 10:53 AM

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:54 AM

Not if you are following tradition! Only if your training is live, and in the cage!

LOL !!

So true !

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 10:58 AM

Hmmm, maybe the engineers at Purdue or Northwestern might be a help - oh wait, the disproved the conspiracy bunk. So they must be secret agents, eh? oooh, so scary.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Then ask yourself why a fuel truck burning on an Oakland bridge caused a bridge collapse. I know, **** Cheney secretly planted explosives first. :rolleyes:

Then read the Popular Mechanics book - despite Kymus's CONJECTURE that it is 'yellow journalism' - it may prove illuminating to go through it point by point.

I don't follow any conspiracy theory, what ever they may be, my point to Rd was that the 400-500 F was way off.
Just that simple.
I deal with government, they couldn't pull off anythign more than a sticky booger from their sleeve, even then it would be quite a task.

TaiChiBob

10-31-2007, 10:59 AM

Greetings..

We are at war to intervene in geo-political alliances that would act to the detriment of US ideologies. Those ideologies are funded and suppported by political money laundering organizations (AKA banking interests).

If anyone watched Glenn Beck interviewing Gary Casparov, a great truth was revealed.. Mr. Casparov indicated that Putin (Russia) has no interest in direct conflict with the US (Bush's "WW III" comment).. he indicated Putin's satisfaction that the US would deplete its resources, funds and good-will in so many minor incidents like Iraq/Iran/Korea..

Since WW II the US has steadily evidenced a lack of willingness to "complete the mission".. that is the reason we are at war.. the enemy smells weakness.. and we will be tested..

Be well..

Mas Judt

10-31-2007, 11:00 AM

My point exactly.

It goes back to Sherlock Holmes - once you have the evidence, the simplest answer, no matter how improbable (Like 19 inbred islamists) is the logical solution.

Mas Judt

10-31-2007, 11:01 AM

Which Taichibob, is why I say: www.RonPaul2008.com

sanjuro_ronin

10-31-2007, 11:10 AM

My point exactly.

It goes back to Sherlock Holmes - once you have the evidence, the simplest answer, no matter how improbable (Like 19 inbred islamists) is the logical solution.

Pretty much, though I am sure there is much gray in this, it is still, at its core, the truth.

SPJ

10-31-2007, 07:56 PM

TCB;

just want to say you have a cool avatar.

:D

SPJ

10-31-2007, 07:59 PM

war is a means and not an end.

some would say we are always in some sort of conflict.

peace is only a pause between the previous and the next conflict.

--

I tend to look at the things in the other way.

peace is always achievable.

war is b/c we give up on peace.

--

:D

OdderMensch

10-31-2007, 08:00 PM

Today, only five countries in the world are without a central bank: Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba and Libya. All of these just happen to be on George Bush's "Evil of Axis" list. Coincidence?

Now I'm no Economist but The reason I've always believed in Capitalism over Communism is that in a Capitalistic world there is no need to control "Everything" (Ie all the money) so Capitalism should work fine with a minority of communistic neighbors.

Communism on the other hand must control everything (Ie all the money) in order to effectively distribute it equally (Each according to his needs) To a Capitalist, a Communist is a curiosity, to a Communist a Capitalist is a traitor who holds on to resources that other people might need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
Shouldn't there be a mechanism whereby I can borrow money for a fee?

No, why would you need that? And the real issue is a fractional monetary system where money is created from nothing and is backed by nothing.

Because, in simplest terms I may not have enough salt to buy a cow. But If I had a cow, and my neighbor went out and made salt everyday, I might let him have the cow, and take bags of salt from him as he had them until he had given me enough salt for the cow. I ask for more salt than i would if he had enough salt on hand to trade, but i think it would be a fair thing for me to do. I get the salt I need, he gets the cow he needs, we both profit and we both lose, but we each give up something we could afford to give up, while getting something we needed in return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
Say a mortgage where i buy a house and actually pay 1.5 times it's actual value, but in return I get to pay for it with someone else's money and I can take 25 years to pay it back with the interest.

Why are you buying anything with someone else's money? And if X amount of dollars are 'created' but you're required to repay it with interest then where does that interest come from?

Because this world is larger than neighbors with salt and cows! However let me stick with the metaphor. Lets say I can get 100lbs of salt for my cow in the market. My salt farming neighbor needs a cow and offers me a pound of salt a week for 100 weeks for me to give him a cow. Yes, I will get this salt in the future, but I have a pressing need for 100lbs of salt now! So we involve my other neighbor, the salt merchant, who has large salt reserves. My Neighbor promises him 150lbs of salt over three years and I get 100lbs of salt immediately. The interest comes from the time needed to farm the salt, more time more salt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
Shouldn't I have a place that is safe and secure and where I can put my money AND have insurance that no matter what, my money will be there?

That's a fair service to offer but is it really necessary?

no its not necessary, but little is. We need a bit of air, some food, some sunshine, somewhere to go in a storm or to sleep. Society is created not because it is needed, but because it is wanted

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
In short, while I think there are unscrupulous bankers to be sure and there are corporate banking decisions that put other peoples funds at risk, overall it is better to have banks than to not have them.

Sorry, I don't agree and don't see the positives as worth the negatives. Maybe you should read up on the words monetary system. It might change your mind.

I agree the money system is F'ed up to the Nth degree, but it is better to have one than not, better still is to admit its shortcomings and work to avoid them, instead of a fantasy where people give each other salt and cows out of nothing more than the goodness in our hearts.

Capitalism is the bare, honest, unvarnished truth of the world, enlightened self interest is more the backbone of human existence than love, family or friendship. All of these qualities exist only because we dragged ourselves far enough up the food chain to allow them to exist.

Please point out my ignorance wherever you see it, don't shy away from arguments! If you are more learned than me show me the errors.

Mr Punch

10-31-2007, 09:27 PM

It goes back to Sherlock Holmes - once you have the evidence, the simplest answer, no matter how improbable (Like 19 inbred islamists) is the logical solution.LOL, I'm nitpicking and way off thread, but I think William of Ockham would have had something to say about that had he not died about 500 years before Conan Doyle...!

TaiChiBob

11-01-2007, 04:42 AM

Greetings..

Humble thanks, SPJ..

Capitalism is a self-defeating policy.. the rewards are subjectively distributed and it is fertile ground for corruption.. it does not account for the perceptions of those that have less vs. those that have more.. US capitalism is disguised corruption, it feeds on third world impoverished peoples while distancing itself from their issues.. Democratic Socialism has the most promise as a viable system but, as a civilization, we seem to be less evolved than the process requires.. the current evidence suggests we are only slightly better off than well-dressed animals.. but, it's a start...

We are at war because we cannot convince a majority of the planet's inhabitants that cooperation is more beneficial than conflict. That there are sufficient resources to balance everyone's need for a secure existence.. we are at war because some people believe they "deserve" more than others (capitalism)..

We are at war because some people's "imaginary sky-daddy" empowers them to impose their "sky-daddy's" demands on others.. Respect and co-existence are nice talking-points but there is littele evidence that people believe in those concepts.. the detailed nuances of banking and government manipulation are symptoms of dysfunctional belief systems.. it is the beliefs of people that drive everything else.. and, the primal drive for a secure existence..

Be well..

golden arhat

11-01-2007, 04:55 AM

at base attachment leads to suffering

if u want to avoid war get everyone to stop giving a ****
and not get too attached
and to just live life

if no one cared and just got on with it no one would have to get all riled up

money
beliefs

etc

just be yourself by yourself
if people dont like it tell em to calm down and just carry on doing what ur doing as long as ur not hurting anyone else no one should care

that should be way more easier

everyone should just chill out

the world would be nicer then

i wish i could be like that :/

TaiChiBob

11-01-2007, 06:01 AM

Greetings..

at base attachment leads to suffering
Not really, i am "attached" to improving my condition in Life.. i do not suffer from it, though.. It is when we let our desires define "who we are" that we degrade our perspective.. like, when we desire to win a competition, then when we don't we perceive ourselves as less for it.. "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional".. life is an opportunity, and if someone chooses to suffer, it serves them in some way..

Attachment can also lead to accomplishment..

Be well..

eomonroe00

11-01-2007, 07:14 AM

tai chi bob,

u say you are attached to improving your life condition, but dont see this as an issue, on the surface you would be right
but buddhism would say how would you feel, act, if you you could not imporve your condition, or if your life condition decreased, some act of god, and auto accident, god forbid, takes your legs, some health issue empties your bank account, and you are forced to move in with family, somehting forces your life condition to decrease tremendously, being attached to improving might create suffering when the opposite occurs

buddhism would argue that even attachment to good things can be setting you up of future disappointment, and anger and suffering,

just my tow cents

golden arhat

11-01-2007, 07:34 AM

hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment

eomonroe00

11-01-2007, 07:34 AM

and on this whole 9-11 issue, sure i believe something fishy happened. what was it ? im not sure. but please dont call me a conspiracy theorist, or i will call u a coincidence theorists.

How many of you trust our govt? not me
How many of you think they look out for the best interest of us? not me
Have they covered up stuff in the past? absolutely
Who beleives the official story on the JFK assassination? not me
Who believes we went to war with vietnam bc they attacked us? not me

So 9-11, her are points i cannot wrap my head around

1. how did we, the most powerful nation, and military in the world, not stop an attack on the pentagon, the heart of our national defense? I find it impossible to fathom that any object can get close to it, and yet were not able to stop a plane from flying into it? we are to strong. JEts were scrambled, but way too late,
CONCLUSION-either we are not as strong as i thought, or everyone went to lunch break at the perfect time

2. if terrorism is such a big threat, so big that the govt is now allowed to spy on americans, why is the mexican border so open as to allow any terrorist to sneak in?
CONCLUSION= the war on terror is a farce, a political tool

3. In retaliation for an attack, carried out by almost all saudi's, we choose to strike the nation of IRAQ, i mean, we didnt attack south africa after pearl harbor.
CONCLUSION=the war on terror is a farce, a political tool, so they can pass many laws, and do many things that they could not do pre 9-11

monji112000

11-01-2007, 07:37 AM

1. Because,in my opinion,christian fundamentalists are just as mentally ILL as the muslim fundies are(mainly because the xtians made them that way). Of course this ALL Started back in 1095 when a radical mentally disturbed Pope thought it would be fun to reclaim the holy land in jerusalem and kill all infidels that stood in their way. Yes folks, it was pope Urban the II we have to thank as to why things are the way they are in the middle east today.

your understanding of the middle east is very juvenile. I would suggest really looking at history, without any colored glasses. The crusades are only 1 in a complicated history, you fail to understand many factors such as the Mongols. Even before the "change" in Islam things were not at "peace". All religions have a past that people would like to forget. Even Buddhists... and if the Buddhists have something to hide then everyone else by default is in trouble. Even the religion of "science" has many things people would like to forget.

If we stop fighting do you think the war will end? The picture is more complicated than anyone really understands.

TaiChiBob

11-01-2007, 07:59 AM

Greetings..

eomonroe00: LOL.. yep, i understand the situation quite well.. and i have had my share of set-backs.. but, Life is way too cool to let things get in the way of celebrating it.. it is when we feel diminished for nor not acquiring our desires that we chose suffering.. i have few, if any, expectations.. that way everything is a gift.. even my "desires" are not expectations, i simply think, "that would be cool if _______", not i'm gonna do that or else.. if i acheive my desires, then it's cool.. if not, i'm no worse off that before the desire..

In the US war is a social program for those with limited vision.. a tool for power for those with high aspirations.. and, a chess board for those actually in control..

Be well..

Black Jack II

11-01-2007, 09:07 AM

Mas you know can't win against the black helicopter crowd. Commonsense and logic don't really go hand in hand with that crowd. To be honest, your right, some of these responses really do showcase how f@cked the American education system has downgraded itself.

As for capitalism. The best road to any kind of peace is through free trade and capitalism. Capitalism is about freedom and your own ability to take advantage of those freedoms.

Just thinking of social based economic distribution makes me sick, it's about taking away choice, which in the end means taking away someone else's freedom.

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 09:28 AM

sanjuro_ronin

11-01-2007, 09:38 AM

No, the reason things are the way in they are in the middle east today is because the Moslems stormed into the Holy Land through lying, cheating and murder to begin with. It is not theirs by right and never was.

Religion my by an excuse, but it is rarely the reason.
Making it a "christian VS Muslim" issue is counter-productive and incorrect.

RD'S Alias - 1A

11-01-2007, 09:43 AM

Mas Judt

11-01-2007, 10:01 AM

The area now known as Saudi Arabia. The rest got converted by force.

Mas Judt

11-01-2007, 10:03 AM

With the exception of Indonesia - the only now-Muslim region that was not converted by entirely by force.

Mas Judt

11-01-2007, 10:06 AM

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 10:19 AM

Religion my by an excuse, but it is rarely the reason.
Making it a "christian VS Muslim" issue is counter-productive and incorrect.

I didn't make it about religion, Willow did. I merely stated the fact that the Muslims do NOT have an inherent right to the area and their claims that it was taken from them wrongfully by Christians ignores the method in which they acquired it in the first place, which was by doing the same thing they later complained about.

No, the reason things are the way in they are in the middle east today is because the Moslems stormed into the Holy Land through lying, cheating and murder to begin with. It is not theirs by right and never was.

Reply]
where did they come from?

Saudi Arabia

sanjuro_ronin

11-01-2007, 10:21 AM

I didn't make it about religion, Willow did. I merely stated the fact that the Muslims do NOT have an inherent right to the area and their claims that it was taken from them wrongfully by Christians ignores the method in which they acquired it in the first place, which was by doing the same thing they later complained about.

It was a general comment against the view that these things are about religion.

eomonroe00

11-01-2007, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by The Willow Sword
"It is not theirs by right and never was."

oh boy, we humans, always getting into sticky situations bc of the way we like to group together to seperate ourselves-

i like to consider myself as a human being before anything else, and as a human dont we all have a right to live on any peice of land on the planet earth-the land belongs to(or should )belong to no one and everyone,

Black Jack II said

As for capitalism. The best road to any kind of peace is through free trade and capitalism. Capitalism is about freedom and your own ability to take advantage of those freedoms.

Just thinking of social based economic distribution makes me sick, it's about taking away choice, which in the end means taking away someone else's freedom.

Free trade and peace in the same sentence is like saying martial artist and tiger shulmans together-So how do explain the USA leading the way in free trade and capitolism, yet one of our biggest exports is our military and its weaponry. does not sound to peacful to me . And how do you explain how we continously by more from the world than we sell to it, which forces us to borrow more and more money from the world, and then coincidentally we find ourselves in another money making war. So what part of this captiolistic american free trade world you live in sounds peacefull.

And just to clarify, what part of social based economics dont you like, is it the way we subsidze corn farming monopolies in this country, or how we subsidizes the oil companies who made record profits last year, or how we refuse to prosecute monopolies like microsoft?

capitolism might sound good, and maybe one day we can actually do it-
and you talk about the lack of education, seems like you were tudored at the bush school of bombing and borrowing-

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 10:29 AM

Earlier it was mentioned how capitalism tends toward corruption - I would argue this this is even more true for command economies due to the loss of freedoms - no checks or balances. The worst black markets existed in Socialist countries - they were the only place to get goods the government was supposed to supply. The worst ecological disasters too. Totalitarianism is criminal.

Capitalism has it's challenges - but only a tool would believe in utopia anyhow.

When I was in high school I worked with a man who had defected from Communist Poland. He told me the only way the economy functioned was through the black market. What is a black market other than Capitalism.

He told me he was an engineer at a manufacturing company. He used company time, company materials and company tools to make furniture in order to provide a means of trading for life's essentials. He said that you couldn't get anything in the stores. So for example, if you needed a new toilet you had to find a plumber and provide him with something he needed to trade for what you needed. The stores were virtually empty.

Capitalism works because it is in accord with man's Nature (Tao), which is to to be inclined towards one's own self interest. When you work to provide benefits for yourself you will tend to work harder when you want more. When you get the same amount of benefit whether you work or not humans tend to work less. This is very evident with communist/socialist economies and with unions as well. Anyone who has worked in a union will find that there are many individuals who do not do their share of the work because they will get paid whether they work hard or whether they do not work at all. I have direct experience with this.

This was made self-evident during the first Thanksgiving.

My following post explains:

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 10:33 AM

According to the story as is currently taught:

[The] first Thanksgiving ...came about because the Pilgrims, incompetent farmers that they were, nearly starved to death in that first winter on the hostile shores of the new continent. The following spring, the kindly local Indians showed them how to plant crops and hunt wild game, and when the fall rolled around and the harvest was gathered, the Pilgrims were so pleased with their bountiful crops that they held a celebration to thank the Indians for saving their lives.

That thanks, as the tale unfolds, soon turned to genocide as, in later years, the evil white Europeans turned their firearms on the Indians who, being peace-loving and unfamiliar with such fearful weapons of destruction, were driven from the ancestral lands which they had tended in supreme harmony with nature. The history of our nation was all downhill from there. Very satisfying to the politically correct, hitting all the high points which children must know: ungrateful white intruders from Europe, malicious use of firearms, and peaceful and magnanimous Indians victimized by religious zealots. Nice and satisfying to some. And for the most part, incontrovertibly false.

The Pilgrims, of course, were not the first Europeans to venture onto this continent. Columbus came here more than a century earlier, and the natives he first encountered were the Carib tribe, who were cannibals. And evidence discovered several years ago points to a European presence on this continent which may have dated back 9000 years before that (pre-dating, incidentally, today's self-proclaimed "Native Americans"). Later, European fishing vessels and fur trappers and traders made frequent visits to these shores and gave the Indians, among other things, a knowledge of firearms.

According to the diary of William Bradford, the sometime governor of Plymouth Plantation (Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647), the Pilgrims encountered many Indian tribes when they landed here; some friendly, some not so friendly, and some hostile and perfectly willing to attack the Pilgrims — which they often did — with the firearms they had obtained from the earlier traders. Bradford wrote that some of the tribes were already hostile to each other when the Pilgrims arrived, and some had been engaged in inter-tribal warfare for years. Often it was because the Pilgrims allied themselves with one tribe that they were attacked by another, hostile to the first. There was in fact an excess of barbarity on all sides. But now to that first deadly winter at Plymouth Plantation, and the subsequent feast of thanks.

Before leaving Europe the Pilgrims entered into a contract, dated July 1, 1620, with the merchant investors (called the "Adventurers") who financed the trip. That contract provided,

"The persons transported and the Adventurers shall continue their joint stock and partnership together, the space of seven years…during which time all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remain in the common stock until division."
The contract further provided,

"That at the end of the seven years, the capital and profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt the Adventurers and Planters; which done, every man shall be free from other of them of any debt or detriment concerning this adventure."

In short, the Pilgrims agreed to establish a commune, with all property and the fruits of all labor contributed into a common pool to be divided equally among the Pilgrims for their daily survival, and between the Pilgrims and the financiers at the end of the seven year contract. They called their arrangement a "commonwealth", because all wealth — the product of their labors — was held in common, and there was no private property to speak of. The modern term for this is socialism. Even back then they had a word for it which we know today, derived from the concept of commonly owned property: communism. The arrangement was no more successful in the 17th century than it has been in our own century. Human nature being what it is, even among the pious Pilgrims, those who work and produce grow resentful when the fruits of their labor are taken and given over to those who do not work, in shares equal to their own, with no reward for their own hard labor.

The first winter was indeed a time of privation and death for the Pilgrims, for the simple reasons that they had landed in the new continent too late in the season for planting crops, and without sufficient time and energy following their debilitating voyage to construct housing adequate to protect them from the fast approaching New England winter. Half of them died.

The following spring they planted, hunted, and fished to provision the small colony. Their harvest that fall was barely sufficient to meet the needs of the frugal Pilgrims. Every day they looked to God for salvation, and following that first harvest they gave thanks for their survival. But they did not give thanks to the Indians — even contemplating such an idea would have been a sacrilege to such devoutly religious people — they gave thanks to their Lord who had spared them and provided for them. Bradford wrote, "And thus they found the Lord to be with them in all their ways, and to bless their outgoings and incomings, for which let His holy name have the praise forever, to all posterity."

Bradford, writing in 1621 regarding their first harvest (and his only commentary on the first Thanksgiving),

"They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterwards decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports."

One Pilgrim, Edward Winslow, wrote to a friend in England describing the celebration of that first harvest, by letter dated December 11, 1621,

"Our harvest being gotten in, our Governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a more special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruit of our labours. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king, Massasoit with some 90 men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted. And they went out and killed five deer which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our Governor and upon the Captain and others."

The Pilgrims did invite friendly local Indians to join in their feast, and those Indians, as any courteous guest would do at that time of meager provisions, and as we often do today when we are invited to someone's home, brought food to contribute to the feast.

But the harvests were not as abundant as they might have been, and Governor Bradford and the leading citizens were troubled. They still depended on trade and supply ships for a significant portion of their provisions, and given the nature of seaborne travel in those days, the arrival of those ships was erratic. They barely produced enough food to sustain themselves, and much of their labor went into hunting and fishing, so as to supplement their own needs and to be able to send some furs and salted fish back to pay the debts owed to their financiers in Europe. So the leaders of the colony gathered together, and after much debate they decided to make a fundamental change in the way their colony was organized. They had found the system of communism to be terribly harmful, and so they replaced it with a system of private property.

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 10:34 AM

In 1623 Bradford wrote a lengthy passage into his diary describing their momentous decision to allow, as he put it, every man to work "for his own particular", to work his own crops on his own land:

"All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves ...

This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times, that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God. For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could, this was thought injustice.

… And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them."

More than a century and a half later, in 1790, an American named James Wilson wrote a treatise titled Lectures on Law. Wilson was a signer of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and was later appointed by President George Washington as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his 1790 work, Wilson wrote,

"…all commerce [in Plymouth] was carried on in one joint stock. All things were common to all, and the necessaries of life were daily distributed from the public store… . The colonists were sometimes in danger of starving; and severe whipping, which was often administered to promote labor, was only productive of constant and general discontent... . The introduction of exclusive property immediately produced the most comfortable change in the colony, by engaging the affections and invigorating the pursuits of its inhabitants."

The benefit of private property and the destructive effects of socialism were quickly recognized by the Pilgrims, and they survived because of those discoveries. Those lessons were taken to heart by our Founders and enshrined in our Constitution. Yet too many people today continue to ignore those lessons. The persistent attempts to impose socialist plans and welfare-state wealth redistribution in our country, attacks on private property and individual achievement, the provocation of class envy, and the efforts to instill those ideas in our children through mis-education and demagoguery, continue to cause untold damage and mischief. All spawned by those ideologues who consider themselves smarter than anyone else; those who, as Bradford put it, have the "vanity of that conceit…as if they were wiser than God".

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Insights/plymouth_experiment.htm
(http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Insights/plymouth_experiment.htm)

TaiChiBob

11-01-2007, 10:43 AM

Greetings..

As for capitalism. The best road to any kind of peace is through free trade and capitalism. Capitalism is about freedom and your own ability to take advantage of those freedoms.
Just thinking of social based economic distribution makes me sick, it's about taking away choice, which in the end means taking away someone else's freedom
I disagree.. Capitalism breeds competition, and.. competition leads to conflict.. merit based incentives under democratic socialism works quite well.. Under capitalism there will always be a caste system, regardless of the mechanisms.. it will always breed disharmony between the haves and heve nots.. The haves will enforce their "right" to superior lifestyles, alienating the less fortunate.. Capitalism gives us multimillion$ sports figures and poverty-line public servants.. Socialism and freedom are complimentary.. Capitalism subjugates through purchase power..

Be well..

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 10:50 AM

Greetings..

I disagree.. Capitalism breeds competition, and.. competition leads to conflict.. merit based incentives under democratic socialism works quite well.. Under capitalism there will always be a caste system, regardless of the mechanisms.. it will always breed disharmony between the haves and heve nots.. The haves will enforce their "right" to superior lifestyles, alienating the less fortunate.. Capitalism gives us multimillion$ sports figures and poverty-line public servants.. Socialism and freedom are complimentary.. Capitalism subjugates through purchase power..

Be well..

bob,

You can believe anything you want, however socialism doesn't work and it has never worked. Competition is good, it isn't bad. It is through competition that things become better in society. To think that communism or socialism does not foster their own caste system is to ignore the demonstrated history of these systems.

There is nothing wrong in a system where the non-producers get less. if you get something for nothing you have no incentive to produce anything for yourself. This is demonstrated over and over again to be a fact of life. Socialism is in fact not in accord with Tao because it seeks to impose artificial structures on human nature.

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 10:56 AM

Addendum to Bob,

Your view is the glass half empty view of human nature. Any social system may be abused if taken to excess, just as any other GOOD in life. Too much is unhealthy, balance must and will be maintained. It is part of human nature and Tao.

When Capitalism exceeds itself there will be social unrest and the pendulum will swing back until somewhat of a balance occurs. Then when too much socialism occurs there will be a return the other direction. That is in a free society. Tyrannies will seek to maintain the domination of the upper caste, just as they have and do in all socialist and communist systems. This is because humans are by nature self interested. Therefore, those in power and with advantage will seek to maintain their advantage.

Within a democratic capitalistic system there is a greater opportunity for change to occur that allows individual's to move up in the social and economic strata.

TaiChiBob

11-01-2007, 11:04 AM

TaiChiBob

11-01-2007, 11:07 AM

Greetings..

Within a democratic capitalistic system there is a greater opportunity for change to occur that allows individual's to move up in the social and economic strata.
I believe Lao Tzu addresses this issue with clarity..

Be well..

brothernumber9

11-01-2007, 11:32 AM

What would one argue contributes more to this 'war' in Iraq, and Afghanistan; Capitalism, or Socialism?

Mas Judt

11-01-2007, 12:01 PM

Socialism. Particularly corporatist/Keynesian policies that drive this kind of nonsense.

It is also not really relevant. Capitalism, for all its flaws tends not to murder it's own citizens. It is the corparatists and socialists who have slaughtered tens of millions of their own in the 20th century.

The socialists/communists made the Nazis look like pikers, yet we still have people who think they were great. (The Nazis were corporatists, which is really just another flavor of socialism, it just includes more of the society into the elites.)

Astounding.

TaiChiBob

11-01-2007, 12:15 PM

sanjuro_ronin

11-01-2007, 12:18 PM

Dictatorships are so much less complicated.
:D

TaiChiBob

11-01-2007, 12:20 PM

Greetings..

Mas Judt: I have no favor for the misrepresented forms of socialism or communism you refer to.. but, i am keenely aware of what breeds discontent.. people criticize the social system for distributing wealth to the most needy.. but, the fact is, if someone has to choose crime to feed their children, they will.. rather than shoulder the burden of crime and enforcement and the other social ills it fosters.. the common sense approach is to share compassionately..

Be well..

brothernumber9

11-01-2007, 12:23 PM

TaiChiBob

11-01-2007, 12:39 PM

Greetings..

A critical analysis of the middle east would reveal it to be of minor importance to the US except for its capitalistic contributions to the oil market.. there would be little interest in this region if it weren't for the oil $$.. certainly not enough interest to risk the politically suicidal march to war..

Be well..

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 01:10 PM

Greetings..

Scott: As you know (or should) i deeply respect your contributions, perspectives and wisdoms.. What i hear in your passionate reply is the voice of experience, not the voice of reason.. what i hear is a member of the group that has benefitted from capitalism defending the right to live a superior lifestyle on the backs of those less fortunate.. like those that are born into poverty and little chance of advancing beyond their station in life..

Do not rationalize capitalism as "being in accord with Tao", that is without merit.. observe the brilliant workings of ant colonies or bee hives.. no, most defenders of capitolism are those that have been fortunate to reap the harvest.. and as for getting something for nothing, capitalism beats the snot out of socialism in that venue.. capitalists simply are better at dressing it up..

Socialism seeks to raise the civilization as a whole.. capitalism separates by subjective criteria...

Be well..

Hi Bob,

You are you incorrect. I have not rationalized; I observe the processes of Tao, history and human nature and learn from the experiences of others who have observed history and human nature. It is human nature to be self-interested. This is directly observable; it is universal to all men of all times in history and every culture. Therefore it is in accord with Tao. It is the way (Tao) of human nature. There are no human actions, including seeming acts of altruism, which are not motivated by self-interest.

Socialism is nothing more than another form of self-interest. Its major flaw is that it attempts to impose behaviors on humans that go against human nature and this is why it is NOT the optimal system of social organization. Socialism is an idealist dream that is completely impractical, because it goes against human nature; because it goes against human nature most people will resist it. Socialists attempt to IMPOSE un-natural behaviors on humans. Socialism must be IMPOSED in order to get freedom loving people to accept it. Humans with freedom of choice simply do not accept it, it is only accepted when it is imposed by force, indoctrination or coercion. Those who have lived in communist countries understand this, just as my acquaintance from Poland understood this.

The idea of human equality is an artificial construct that is assumed to be a greater GOOD! If it were a greater GOOD it would have occurred according to the natural process of Tao. It doesn’t, therefore it isn’t. It is a false and artificial construct of humans who seek to impose THEIR OWN idea of fairness onto Tao, Life; this is hubris.

There will never be a society of equals; this is the reality of it. In the 7,000 years of human culture it has never been so and it will never be so. It is assumption to presume that it is the greater GOOD to begin with. All socialist and communist systems have their own caste systems. Even primitive, indigenous tribal cultures have a system of castes. It is human nature to divide into groups and to be separate from other groups. This provides individuals with social status and other benefits found within their favored group. This is a natural process of Tao. It is common, universal and unavoidable. To not accept this is to attempt to force what we think is the greater GOOD upon Tao.

Direct observation of everything in nature and man demonstrates equality is a fantasy. Humans are NOT created equal; if we were we would all have identical abilities, appearance, intelligence, etc. We don’t therefore inequality is a proper an acceptable manifestation of Tao that occurs for a purpose. To presume that we can improve upon the natural order of things (Tao) is a hubris that will create greater negative consequences than our artificial constructs were designed to avoid. This is the nature of Tao. Any attempt to improve Tao according to artificial constructs will create greater calamity because they are not in accord with Tao.

The question then becomes, how do we create as balanced a society as possible without transgressing the principles of Tao. The key word here is BALANCE, NOT equality! To impose a social construct that goes against human nature is NOT the way to go. To establish a social construct that closely adheres to the principles of Tao IS the way to go. This will create the least number of negative consequences. To do this we must first accept that under natural law, that is the principles of Tao, all men are NOT created equal. All that needs to be done then, is to create a system where all men (“men” being the neuter noun which includes women) are provided with the closest thing to equal “opportunity” as possible. As equal opportunity as possible provides each individual with the opportunity to create the life they want according to their own desires and inherent abilities. This is the fairest and most beneficial system. This is NOT socialism; it IS capitalism, within a democratic republic. It will be an imperfect system just the same, but this form of system allows for improvement and modification. Therefore, the population is never eternally confined to a system that is imposed from without that is merely another form of tyranny.

It is the inequities of capitalism that must be mediated. It is when the powerful become so powerful that they will not allow others to succeed that Tao becomes out of balance. One must accept that this excess is, of course, human nature too and thus occurs in all social systems. It is the social system wherein the common man is not allowed to succeed that is the greater evil and this occurs more frequently within socialist/communist social systems. This is because these systems force men into compliance. You would not like it if I came to your house to take what I needed without you freely giving it to me, how can you accept that a government should have the power to do so? Suppose you worked at a job wherein you were part of a team, but you did all the work, while those around you lounged around and did nothing at all and got all the credit and the financial benefits. You would not find this acceptable. How can you accept this from a government?

Your bee hive analogy is insufficient. Humans are not bees. However, cooperation is also an inherent human characteristic and therefore in accord with Tao as well. Humans cooperate because it is in their own self-interest. When they perceive cooperation to no longer be in their self-interest they will cease to cooperate. Humans have the choice to cooperate or not, bees do not. Bees are not even forced to cooperate; they are genetically programed to cooperate. Humans are genetically programed to chose freely, they always choose freedom when given the choice between freedom and tyranny. When tyranny becomes to great for the population they rebel. This is evident within all social systems throughout the 7,000 year history of man. Humans will freely risk their lives in order to have the "choice" to live in the manner the choose.

It is when humans are forced to comply with a system against their will that the greater negative consequence occur, this is because people do not want to have taken what is not freely given and therefore this not in accord with Tao. Socialism must force, coerce and indoctrinate others to participate and this is why it doesn’t work. This was made very evident to me in my conversation with my acquaintance from Poland. Also about the same time period (when I was in high school) there was a rather lengthy article (5 or 6 full pages) in the L.A. Times outlining how the black market of Communist China allowed its economy to function. This article confirmed what I learn from my Polish acquaintance, the stores were empty and to get anything done private barter and trade was the means used. This again demonstrates that a capitalistic system accords with the principles of Tao. This is evident because even when socialism is imposed from without, it is the inherent nature of humans to form a capitalistic system underneath the imposed system. Socialist societies cannot function without an underlying capitalist system to keep it afloat!

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 01:13 PM

Would either Afghanistan or Iraq be considered Socialist and/or Communist ?
(Bye the way, I am only asking for myself as I really don't know much about different kinds of government and each government's effects on the regions where they are or have been most prominant, but have been quite intrigued by this thread, since it has inferenced history or even at worst heresay that I never knew about)

Afghanistan was a religious tyranny under the Taliban, Iraq was a secular tyranny under Saddam. They are now both democratic republics, more or less. Time will tell how long this lasts.

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 01:23 PM

Greetings..

It is irrelevant to argue about flawed systems of purported socialism or capitalism.. the errors overwhelm the philosophy..

Philosophically, socialism and communism are superior to capitalism.

US capitalism depends on socialism and communism to flourish.. social security, healthcare, taxation and distribution.. it simply sets up a profit system for managing these services.. wealth is distributed by the wealthy, it is no different than tyranny.. just dressed prettier..

Be well..

Actually Bob,

These do NOT support capitalism, they weigh it down. It is the socialistic interference in Medicine by the government and individual State's laws concerning health insurance that create the exorbitant medical costs of our society. There is NO free market in medicine and because of this medical costs increase.

When hospitals and Doctors have to compete for patients costs reduce. This is why competition is good. When two or more from any group must compete to succeed services increase and quality improves. This is a demonstrable FACT of capitalism.

It is when competition ceases that improvements stagnate and quality deteriorates. This occurs because there is no self-interest in innovation or exceeding others in the same field.

If most people can get paid the same exact amount by working 10 hours a day or by working 4 hours a day self-interest will incline people to work the 4 hours. If people are paid more to produce more or to innovate then they are motivated to do so and production goes up and innovations occur.

It is the LAW of self-interest!!

WinterPalm

11-01-2007, 01:59 PM

Hi Bob,

You are you incorrect. I have not rationalized; I observe the processes of Tao, history and human nature and learn from the experiences of others who have observed history and human nature. It is human nature to be self-interested. This is directly observable; it is universal to all men of all times in history and every culture. Therefore it is in accord with Tao. It is the way (Tao) of human nature. There are no human actions, including seeming acts of altruism, which are not motivated by self-interest.

If you believe in evolution, some of the very earliest signs of "culture" in neanderthal and other groups, is the presence of altruism...including individuals with severe injuries that are healed, suggesting a group taking care of them.

Socialism is nothing more than another form of self-interest. Its major flaw is that it attempts to impose behaviors on humans that go against human nature and this is why it is NOT the optimal system of social organization. Socialism is an idealist dream that is completely impractical, because it goes against human nature; because it goes against human nature most people will resist it. Socialists attempt to IMPOSE un-natural behaviors on humans. Socialism must be IMPOSED in order to get freedom loving people to accept it. Humans with freedom of choice simply do not accept it, it is only accepted when it is imposed by force, indoctrination or coercion. Those who have lived in communist countries understand this, just as my acquaintance from Poland understood this.

Social programs for people are great! Welfare is a backdrop for people if life gives them a shake-down...some abuse it sure, but I'd rather have it there, than not. Free medical attention blows away in alternative. Further, many programs in the U.S. are social...postal service and public education to name but a few.

The idea of human equality is an artificial construct that is assumed to be a greater GOOD! If it were a greater GOOD it would have occurred according to the natural process of Tao. It doesn’t, therefore it isn’t. It is a false and artificial construct of humans who seek to impose THEIR OWN idea of fairness onto Tao, Life; this is hubris.

There will never be a society of equals; this is the reality of it. In the 7,000 years of human culture it has never been so and it will never be so. It is assumption to presume that it is the greater GOOD to begin with. All socialist and communist systems have their own caste systems. Even primitive, indigenous tribal cultures have a system of castes. It is human nature to divide into groups and to be separate from other groups. This provides individuals with social status and other benefits found within their favored group. This is a natural process of Tao. It is common, universal and unavoidable. To not accept this is to attempt to force what we think is the greater GOOD upon Tao.

Human culture stretches back way, way, way further than that, but whatever to that point. Second, you are only observing one piece in the process...the human experience is an ongoing thing and for most of our earlier history, minus the last 10,000 years, we have lived in relatively small groups...often referred to as egalitarian. The problem is not a differentiation of individuals across different occupations but the relative merit given to the different occupations. This is similar to the gender inequality issue. It is not that men and women do different things, but rather the relative value that is placed on what it is they do.

Direct observation of everything in nature and man demonstrates equality is a fantasy. Humans are NOT created equal; if we were we would all have identical abilities, appearance, intelligence, etc. We don’t therefore inequality is a proper an acceptable manifestation of Tao that occurs for a purpose. To presume that we can improve upon the natural order of things (Tao) is a hubris that will create greater negative consequences than our artificial constructs were designed to avoid. This is the nature of Tao. Any attempt to improve Tao according to artificial constructs will create greater calamity because they are not in accord with Tao.

There is no "natural" order of Tao. Taoism is a human construct that attempts to give a way of life and an approach towards understanding. It is not exempt from criticism or from misusage. Humans are definately created equal...we are all born and we are MADE unequal via the social systems in place.

The question then becomes, how do we create as balanced a society as possible without transgressing the principles of Tao. The key word here is BALANCE, NOT equality! To impose a social construct that goes against human nature is NOT the way to go. To establish a social construct that closely adheres to the principles of Tao IS the way to go. This will create the least number of negative consequences. To do this we must first accept that under natural law, that is the principles of Tao, all men are NOT created equal. All that needs to be done then, is to create a system where all men (“men” being the neuter noun which includes women) are provided with the closest thing to equal “opportunity” as possible. As equal opportunity as possible provides each individual with the opportunity to create the life they want according to their own desires and inherent abilities. This is the fairest and most beneficial system. This is NOT socialism; it IS capitalism, within a democratic republic. It will be an imperfect system just the same, but this form of system allows for improvement and modification. Therefore, the population is never eternally confined to a system that is imposed from without that is merely another form of tyranny.

Do some research on capitalism. There is a reason why much of the world is rotting from the inside and it has nothing to do with the Tao. Capitalism depends on expendable and cheap resources and has a history of colonial and post-colonial government intrusions in various countries to extract these resources.

It is the inequities of capitalism that must be mediated. It is when the powerful become so powerful that they will not allow others to succeed that Tao becomes out of balance. One must accept that this excess is, of course, human nature too and thus occurs in all social systems. It is the social system wherein the common man is not allowed to succeed that is the greater evil and this occurs more frequently within socialist/communist social systems. This is because these systems force men into compliance. You would not like it if I came to your house to take what I needed without you freely giving it to me, how can you accept that a government should have the power to do so? Suppose you worked at a job wherein you were part of a team, but you did all the work, while those around you lounged around and did nothing at all and got all the credit and the financial benefits. You would not find this acceptable. How can you accept this from a government?

Your bee hive analogy is insufficient. Humans are not bees. However, cooperation is also an inherent human characteristic and therefore in accord with Tao as well. Humans cooperate because it is in their own self-interest. When they perceive cooperation to no longer be in their self-interest they will cease to cooperate. Humans have the choice to cooperate or not, bees do not. Bees are not even forced to cooperate; they are genetically programed to cooperate. Humans are genetically programed to chose freely, they always choose freedom when given the choice between freedom and tyranny. When tyranny becomes to great for the population they rebel. This is evident within all social systems throughout the 7,000 year history of man. Humans will freely risk their lives in order to have the "choice" to live in the manner the choose.

It is when humans are forced to comply with a system against their will that the greater negative consequence occur, this is because people do not want to have taken what is not freely given and therefore this not in accord with Tao. Socialism must force, coerce and indoctrinate others to participate and this is why it doesn’t work. This was made very evident to me in my conversation with my acquaintance from Poland. Also about the same time period (when I was in high school) there was a rather lengthy article (5 or 6 full pages) in the L.A. Times outlining how the black market of Communist China allowed its economy to function. This article confirmed what I learn from my Polish acquaintance, the stores were empty and to get anything done private barter and trade was the means used. This again demonstrates that a capitalistic system accords with the principles of Tao. This is evident because even when socialism is imposed from without, it is the inherent nature of humans to form a capitalistic system underneath the imposed system. Socialist societies cannot function without an underlying capitalist system to keep it afloat!

Capitalism has been forced on all of humanity...peoeple are made ruthlessly greedy.

.....................

golden arhat

11-01-2007, 02:02 PM

Would either Afghanistan or Iraq be considered Socialist and/or Communist ?
(Bye the way, I am only asking for myself as I really don't know much about different kinds of government and each government's effects on the regions where they are or have been most prominant, but have been quite intrigued by this thread, since it has inferenced history or even at worst heresay that I never knew about)

no the government of afghanistan(under the taliban) and taliban controlled areas would be considered retarded among other things

they stone just about everyone
if u can drive 100 metres without stopping or crashing u can have a driving license
u can own an ak47 and shoot at whatever you like
wanna kill a woman thats cool
tell her dad first tho
however you cant drink alcohol or come out of the house in anything less than a tank

Ultimatewingchun

11-01-2007, 02:09 PM

Why are we at war?

Two reasons:

1) OIL

2) The biggest consequence of making the insane profits that come from OIL our overwhelming reason to be in the Middle East: MURDEROUS AND POWER-HUNGRY JIHADIST FANATICISM.

Fueled even more by the fact that we have not acted as an honest broker within the Isreali-Palestinian conflict since the days of Jimmy Carter's presidency - which ended in January, 1981. That's close to 27 years now.

So we prop up/do business with/occasionally even install (or help install) oppressive Mid East regimes that abuse their citizens as part of the overall political economy that allows us to buy their oil while they (the rulers of these regimes) get wealthier and more powerful from the oil profits while the great, great majority of their citizens live in poverty.

Which oil, in fact, along with the burning of all other fossil fuels, is killing us.

Mother nature is really upset about that.

What a friggin' mess.

Scott R. Brown

11-01-2007, 03:07 PM

Hi WinterPalm,

If you believe in evolution, some of the very earliest signs of "culture" in neanderthal and other groups, is the presence of altruism...including individuals with severe injuries that are healed, suggesting a group taking care of them.

The group cares for them because they perceive some benefit from it. The benefit may not necessarily be economic or material, it may be emotional, spiritual or philosophical. All actions are performed for a reason. That reason provides the perceived benefit which is the self-interest.

Social programs for people are great! Welfare is a backdrop for people if life gives them a shake-down...some abuse it sure, but I'd rather have it there, than not. Free medical attention blows away in alternative. Further, many programs in the U.S. are social...postal service and public education to name but a few.

It is not a question of whether we should have social programs or not. This is a mischaracterization that is imposed on those who are against Governmental confiscation of property for the assumed benefit of a greater social good. The private sector performs all functions with greater efficiency than government. This is because when competition is in place companies are motivated to improve services and lower prices in order to acquire and maintain market share. When competition is absent service and quality deteriorate.

The public school system is a shambles. They waste money and provide a poor return on our investment. This is because they are not required to compete for students. If the public school system functioned like it should you would find the financial and political elite sending their children to the public schools instead of private schools. The private schools provide better education because they must compete with other private schools for market share. This motivates them to provide a better product for the money. Public schools have a captive audience therefore the quality of education is lesser.

FedEx and UPS provide better service for they money because they compete with each other for market share.

Human culture stretches back way, way, way further than that, but whatever to that point. Second, you are only observing one piece in the process...the human experience is an ongoing thing and for most of our earlier history, minus the last 10,000 years, we have lived in relatively small groups...often referred to as egalitarian. The problem is not a differentiation of individuals across different occupations but the relative merit given to the different occupations. This is similar to the gender inequality issue. It is not that men and women do different things, but rather the relative value that is placed on what it is they do.

I am referring to systems of government; large social/political organizations. The earliest documented is Sumer circa 5,000 B.C.

There is always a differentiation of groups within these early small tribal groups of 20-100 or more. This is established through the anthropological study of indigenous tribes. There are organizations within the tribe that provide for social stratification. So you are right in one manner, but this is not the context to which I am speaking.

There is no "natural" order of Tao. Taoism is a human construct that attempts to give a way of life and an approach towards understanding. It is not exempt from criticism or from misusage. Humans are definately created equal...we are all born and we are MADE unequal via the social systems in place.

You are incorrect here. Taoism is defined by humans according to the observation of the natural patterns of Life. Our understanding of Tao is determined by our ability to perceive it without bias.

I agree it is subject to criticism, however, a rock falls when it is dropped. This is a repeatable, observable and measurable phenomenon of physics. There are well defined patterns to all phenomena of nature/Tao and these are perceivable. As such, there are well defined repeatable, observable and measurable patterns to human behavior that occur within a bell curve of variation. It is these patterns that we are compelled to conform too. There is some variation that occurs within the system that allows for choice and differences. The results of any accepted system of living will be constrained by certain unalterable facts of human psychology. These patterns of thought/behavior are observable, universal and occur across all human cultures. An inability to directly perceive these patterns by some does not exclude them existence, nor does it exclude the individual from being affected by these patterns, just as x-rays exist and affect us whether we may measure or perceive them or not. The universality of the patterns of these human psychological characteristics was noted by Buddha, Christ, Socrates, and many Taoists.

Do some research on capitalism. There is a reason why much of the world is rotting from the inside and it has nothing to do with the Tao. Capitalism depends on expendable and cheap resources and has a history of colonial and post-colonial government intrusions in various countries to extract these resources.

I believe it is you are the one that would benefit from more research. It is NOT capitalism that is causing your idea of ROT (a perspective I do not adhere too) to occur, it is ONE form of consumerism. It is the consuming of non-renewable resources that cause a problem. This will be worked out eventually according to the LAW of self-interest.

The colonial intrusions of which you speak are NOT due to capitalism, they are due to the LAW of self-interest. All powerful cultures throughout the history of man have sought to take advantage of the less-powerful. It is irrelevant whether the power is capitalistic, communistic, monarchial, democratic, tyrannical, etc. This is again the LAW of self-interest. It is an inherent LAW/principle of Tao. It occurs in the animal kingdom as well. This too “evens out/ finds balance” over time. The powerful eventually weaken to become preyed upon by the new powers. This too is in accord with the principles of Tao.

It is that you do not like it or accept it that is causing you distress. I perceive it; I understand it; and I accept that it is unavoidable, so I do not fight against it. However, your struggle against it is in accord with Tao as well. What you do not realize, as well as all other idealists, is that your ideal system of how you think the world SHOULD be will behave according to the very same principles.

It is hubris, foolishness and/or arrogance that makes one think they or their system of government/thought would be above taking advantage of the powerless. What do you think taking from the rich and giving to the poor is? It is taking from those who cannot stop to you to give to those that bestow you with an advantage. This is no different than what you claim to abhor. You will become what you abhor if the power and advantage were bestowed upon you or on the system of thought you wish to impose on others. It is the way to Tao. I perceive it, I understand and I accept it.

Capitalism has been forced on all of humanity...peoeple are made ruthlessly greedy.

You are once again incorrect. Humans are inherently self-interested/greedy first. Greed is inherent within all humans and exists in all economic, philosophical, religious, governmental systems. Capitalism does not created it. Capitalism is the method that best makes success possible for the greatest number of people. It works everywhere it is tried. It is when it is interfered with by those in power that it manifests itself in abhorrent ways. It is interference with the natural order of things, the TAO of things, that cause the greatest inequities in Life, NOT capitalism.

Black Jack II

11-01-2007, 03:25 PM

RD'S Alias - 1A

11-01-2007, 03:45 PM

"Capitalism isn't fair, the minority always end up with everything while the majority have nothing".

Reply]
This is a false statement. In reality, the Majority have roughly the majority of the wealth. There is a minirity that is super wealthy, and a minority that is poor. But over all, the wealth is distrubuted out to those who apply themselves to aquire it.

The actual majority are in the middle and are *FAR* from having nothing.

Also, in a free capitalistic society, people are free to move in and out of various levels of wealth, and do so all the time.

A Stock trader who looses his edge may suddenly go from being super rich, to poor. A poor person may be dealing drugs on the side to pay for an education...which he puts to use by quitting dealing and entering the workforce...eventually working his way up to the point where he gives the failed stock trader a job as a market analyst and thus elevates him back to a position of middle class.

In both cases, our hero's started at one end of the spectrum, and spent time at each level. This happens ALL the time in this country. People are NOT stuck at ANY level, and the idea that they are is just Liberal propaganda designed to justify thier existence.

Mr Punch

11-01-2007, 05:15 PM

Hi Bob,

You are you incorrect. I have not rationalized; I observe the processes of Tao, history and human nature and learn from the experiences of others who have observed history and human nature. It is human nature to be self-interested. This is directly observable; it is universal to all men of all times in history and every culture. Therefore it is in accord with Tao. It is the way (Tao) of human nature. There are no human actions, including seeming acts of altruism, which are not motivated by self-interest. LOL at your constant assertions that other people are incorrect because they disagree with YOUR OPINION. Your opinion here on what the Tao is is so far from what many people (like er, most real Taoists I would think...!) think of the Tao.

You are talking about observing nature and history as though you are impartial and therefore any other thinking on the matter is incorrect. This is pretty much the stereotypical Christian viewpoint, and nowhere near Taoist. Everything you 'observe' is already affected by your perspective. That is human nature. And yet you think it is an absolute.

Direct observation of everything in nature and man demonstrates equality is a fantasy. Humans are NOT created equal; if we were we would all have identical abilities, appearance, intelligence, etc. We don’t therefore inequality is a proper an acceptable manifestation of Tao that occurs for a purpose. To presume that we can improve upon the natural order of things (Tao) is a hubris that will create greater negative consequences than our artificial constructs were designed to avoid. This is the nature of Tao. Any attempt to improve Tao according to artificial constructs will create greater calamity because they are not in accord with Tao. Medieval metaphysical Christian babble imposed on Tao. Interesting.

The question then becomes, how do we create as balanced a society as possible without transgressing the principles of Tao. The key word here is BALANCE, NOT equality! To impose a social construct that goes against human nature is NOT the way to go. To establish a social construct that closely adheres to the principles of Tao IS the way to go. This will create the least number of negative consequences. To do this we must first accept that under natural law, that is the principles of Tao, all men are NOT created equal. All that needs to be done then, is to create a system where all men (“men” being the neuter noun which includes women) are provided with the closest thing to equal “opportunity” as possible. As equal opportunity as possible provides each individual with the opportunity to create the life they want according to their own desires and inherent abilities. This is the fairest and most beneficial system. This is NOT socialism; it IS capitalism, within a democratic republic. It will be an imperfect system just the same, but this form of system allows for improvement and modification. Therefore, the population is never eternally confined to a system that is imposed from without that is merely another form of tyranny. No, Tao suggests that the best form of political system is in fact as close to little system as possible: no govt or as little govt as possible whilst seeming to have none. So now we will have the capitalists saying, well that's laissez faire, and the libertarians saying that's the principle of the small govt, and the socialists saying social norms are as close to natural patterns of non-government as you'll get. Politically, anarchism is as close to the Tao as you'll get. Read Malatesta. And that's BS as well, another idealistic non-workable system just like capitalism and the rest. Laissez faire does not leave anything alone - that ideal is already corrupted, and capitalism does not exist any more - any more than communism in anywhere near a pure form.

Actually Bob,

These do NOT support capitalism, they weigh it down. It is the socialistic interference in Medicine by the government and individual State's laws concerning health insurance that create the exorbitant medical costs of our society. There is NO free market in medicine and because of this medical costs increase.

When hospitals and Doctors have to compete for patients costs reduce. This is why competition is good. When two or more from any group must compete to succeed services increase and quality improves. This is a demonstrable FACT of capitalism.Again you're talking about facts. These are not facts, and not demonstrable as such. Show me the data that backs up your 'argument'.

You're forcing my hand here to say that your opinion is totally wrong! :D Your simplistic model of doctors and patients in a rosy competitive society omits the overwhelming corruption and venality of the drug companies (and their mutual support system with govts through enormous campaign contributions and taxes etc).

I am referring to systems of government; large social/political organizations. The earliest documented is Sumer circa 5,000 B.C.I love this kind of statement... so, Scott, tell us what YOU have learned from YOUR study of the Sumerian civilization in relation to capitalism and the Tao. I'll get the popcorn.
You are incorrect here. Taoism is defined by humans according to the observation of the natural patterns of Life. Our understanding of Tao is determined by our ability to perceive it without bias. Again with the 'incorrect'! LOL. Is that your unbiased opinion? Sorry, that means an objective fact...? Go back to the Tao of Physics for your hokum. Without bias I can honestly say it is a fact that you are an idiot. You are the Anti-Tao - you have read a lot and understand nothing. Ther you go - there's the human ability to be unbiased for you. But I know from previous discussions with you you don't get satire so that's that ****ed.

I agree it is subject to criticism, however, a rock falls when it is dropped. This is a repeatable, observable and measurable phenomenon of physics. There are well defined patterns to all phenomena of nature/Tao and these are perceivable. As such, there are well defined repeatable, observable and measurable patterns to human behavior that occur within a bell curve of variation. It is these patterns that we are compelled to conform too. Substitute 'criticism' with 'ridicule' and you're halfway there. You are once again attributing some nebulous notion of natural law to a perceived lack of behaviourial volition in human nature. How very Christian.

It is that you do not like it or accept it that is causing you distress. I perceive it; I understand it; and I accept that it is unavoidable, so I do not fight against it. However, your struggle against it is in accord with Tao as well. What you do not realize, as well as all other idealists, is that your ideal system of how you think the world SHOULD be will behave according to the very same principles.

It is hubris, foolishness and/or arrogance that makes one think they or their system of government/thought would be above taking advantage of the powerless. What do you think taking from the rich and giving to the poor is? It is taking from those who cannot stop to you to give to those that bestow you with an advantage. This is no different than what you claim to abhor. You will become what you abhor if the power and advantage were bestowed upon you or on the system of thought you wish to impose on others. It is the way to Tao. I perceive it, I understand and I accept it.LOLORAMA! It would take me far too long to address this bilge seriously. Just suffice it for me to sum up with one word: 'hypocrisy'.

Mr Punch

11-01-2007, 05:19 PM

This is the main point I keep hearing, "Capitalism isn't fair, the minority always end up with everything while the majority have nothing".

I disagree with that on a number of levels. First, and this is the MAIN point people need to get in their heads, is that life is not fair. Life never was fair and never will be fair.

It's that simple.I agree life isn't fair. However, this statement doesn't disagree with the statement that 'capitalism is unfair'!

Reply]
This is a false statement. In reality, the Majority have roughly the majority of the wealth. There is a minirity that is super wealthy, and a minority that is poor. But over all, the wealth is distrubuted out to those who apply themselves to aquire it.

The actual majority are in the middle and are *FAR* from having nothing.

Also, in a free capitalistic society, people are free to move in and out of various levels of wealth, and do so all the time.This fits in perfectly with the opinions of a man who believes that the Middle East is in the US's back yard and surrounded on all sides by a vastly outnumbering army. :rolleyes: Consistant if nothing else.

BTW, couldn't be bothered reading the thread - has Merryprankster popped up to kick Kymus's conspiracy-theory f@rting arse yet? I mean, I love Kymus's ideas, but Merry hits it so well from the non-fantasy perspective. And again, all you WTC conspiracists: if you're not doing anything about it, it's all just wind. Good luck.

David Jamieson

11-01-2007, 06:41 PM

Reciprocity and courtesy are pretty good foundations for a social construct.

Even if founded in self interest and ultimately survival.

Scott R. Brown

11-02-2007, 03:59 AM

Hi Mr. Punch,

LOL at your constant assertions that other people are incorrect because they disagree with YOUR OPINION. Your opinion here on what the Tao is is so far from what many people (like er, most real Taoists I would think...!) think of the Tao.

You are talking about observing nature and history as though you are impartial and therefore any other thinking on the matter is incorrect. This is pretty much the stereotypical Christian viewpoint, and nowhere near Taoist. Everything you 'observe' is already affected by your perspective. That is human nature. And yet you think it is an absolute.

You should be laughing at your own foolishness, not mine. You missed that Bob’s comments were in reference to a conclusion he had drawn about what he thinks was a flaw in my argument. Since it is myself to which he refers, it follows that I know myself, how I think and what I mean better than he. Therefore, my assertion that he is incorrect has more credibility than his assertion that I arrived at a false conclusion and more credibility than your empty ridule.

Second, my assertions were demonstrated through example and argument. This gives them greater validity than an assertion without any foundation provided to support them. Comments like your fall into this second category.

Third, I have given a cursory definition of a Taoist perspective. If you disagree then provide your own definition demonstrated through argument and illustration that will be subject to criticism. Empty criticism without support is without inherent value because it provides no foundation for its conclusion. I can and have supported my assertion through argument and illustration and I have done so many times in the past on other threads. Bob knows this because we have interacted for years. If you wish to criticize provide an argument the supports your position or your opinion provides little educational value.

I have addressed the inherent biases in all personal perspectives many times in the past on threads on this forum. Your ignorance of this fact is illustrated by your response. You have drawn your own conclusion based upon your own biases as well, but have not provided any valid argument to support your opinion, therefore I will disregard it.

My conclusion is that it is your own foolishness that requires a hearty laugh!

Medieval metaphysical Christian babble imposed on Tao. Interesting.

Your second slur against a Christian perspective, and also incorrect. You have not supported your assertion with an argument or example. You have assumed according your own negative biases which you have also demonstrated to be severely flawed. This leads you to false conclusions. So far your comments indicate you have little understanding of Christianity or Taoism. If you wish to assert a point it provides educational value to demonstrate the reasoning behind the conclusion. It is empty meaning to laugh and ridicule without supportive evidence.

What is interesting is your continued ignorance of your own lack of understanding.

Scott R. Brown

11-02-2007, 04:01 AM

Mr. Punch continued,

No, Tao suggests that the best form of political system is in fact as close to little system as possible: no govt or as little govt as possible whilst seeming to have none. So now we will have the capitalists saying, well that's laissez faire, and the libertarians saying that's the principle of the small govt, and the socialists saying social norms are as close to natural patterns of non-government as you'll get. Politically, anarchism is as close to the Tao as you'll get. Read Malatesta. And that's BS as well, another idealistic non-workable system just like capitalism and the rest. Laissez faire does not leave anything alone - that ideal is already corrupted, and capitalism does not exist any more - any more than communism in anywhere near a pure form.

The least amount of interference by government IS one of the desires of capitalism. We must avoid the expectation that a system must be perfect in order for it to be implemented. No system is without flaw. It is in the best interest of humans to follow a system that is most in accord with man’s inherent nature and this system is capitalism, this because it is based upon the LAW of self-interest to which all humans adhere.

All systems have flaws; it is the nature of things and is in accord with the principles of Tao. Because of the flaws that occur within the capitalistic system many are inclined to throw out the baby with the bath water. The error here is the misunderstanding that the flaws are due to the system and not due to the inherent nature of humans. The flaws are NOT inherent to capitalism; the flaws ARE inherent to human beings. Therefore, the excesses of capitalism occur within all systems, whether political, economic, religious or other. Herein also lays one of the errors of those who are excessively critical of Christianity. The flaws of Christianity are NOT the flaws of Christianity; they are the flaws of HUMANS. These flaws occur in all religions, political systems, etc. To not understand this is to allow oneself to be manipulated by social indoctrination.

Self-interest has the tendency to motivate individuals to overreach, or over compensate for emotional insecurities. This again is an inherent characteristic of humans. It is a benefit to understand this and transcended it in order to avoid its negative consequences.

It is because of the LAW of self-interest that capitalism sometimes exceeds its overall benefit, this is also the flaw of every other system whether religious, economic, philosophical or political. It is the tendency of most humans to pursue things until an imbalance results. Some say this is due to greed, but greed occurs because of an inherent emotional insecurity that has not been resolved in the individual. One of the inherent emotional needs of humans is emotional security and physical security. When an individual seeks beyond their basic needs they are motivated by a fear. Power is sought to avoid being preyed upon. If I am more powerful than others I am protected from being preyed upon by others. If I have exceeding wealth I am protected from starvation and the elements. It is attachment to fear that motivates accumulation beyond a healthy balance. A mature and secure person is not motivated to exceed balance in these areas because they have no attachment to fear. This, by the way, is a well established and understood principle of Buddhist philosophy.

Just what constitutes excessive wealth is determined by personal biases. There is nothing wrong with making as much as the market will pay. If a person can provide a service and the market will pay exorbitantly for that service there is nothing wrong with that. This is what motivates individuals to perform better. Better performance provides better quality service. The better quality the service the greater the benefit provided. This is capitalism.

Those who have large amounts of money spend the money and invest the money.

When they spend the money it benefits others who make less. If a rich man buys a yacht, many are conditioned through social indoctrination commonly termed “class envy”, to resent the appearance of excessive opulence. This is foolishness. When a rich man buys a yacht, it benefits innumerable people. We want the rich to spend their money. A yacht is made by those who are NOT rich. The fact they can build a yacht and sell it provides them with their own living. Those involved in the manufacture of a yacht are too many to enumerate. You have those that manufacture all the raw materials, the wood, the metal, the plastics, you what those who assemble the yacht itself, those who assemble the electronic equipment, carpenters who manufacture and install the cabinets, those who manufacture the paint and those who do the painting, those who manufacture the carpeting and those to install the carpeting. You have plumbers, electricians, architects, designers, engineers, etc. You have the gasoline used to transport the materials as well as all of those involved in the manufacture, sale and transporting of the gasoline in order to manufacture sell and transport the materials for the yacht. All these individuals benefit directly and materially from the rich man buying a yacht.

Once the yacht is complete you have those hired to maintain and operate the yacht. The list can go on and on. To ban the sale of yachts to a wealthy man is to deprive thousands of individuals of an income all in the name of class envy. When a rich man spends his money everyone benefits. When the government confiscates a rich man’s money he has less to spend and those who would have benefited from the work provided by his spending make less and their economic situation deteriorates. It is preferable to earn your own way than to have the government take from the rich to in order to give to you. Once you receive from the government in order to live they have control of you and your behavior and your freedom becomes limited.

No one is hired by a poor man. Only a man with money spend has the means to hire and pay another man for his services. The quality of the services the worker provides are influenced by the perceived benefit he will receive from the employer. The more productive a worker is the more benefits generally received. Whenever two people receive identical benefits for different quality of services provided an imbalance occurs and this imbalance causes resentment. This imbalance is inherent to a socialist system. Those who tend to produce are not motivated to do so when they will receive the same benefit whether they work or not. This is a well established fact. If you are not aware of this then it will behoove you to educate yourself more effectively in order to transcend your social indoctrination.

Capitalism is NOT a political system it is an economic system that works because it is founded upon the natural inclinations that are inherent within all men, which is self-interest. BECAUSE it works within man’s natural inclinations it is in accord with the principles of Tao.

Socialism is a political system that confiscates the personal property of those who have and gives to those without in order to accomplish an intended benefit. Its inherent flaw is that is takes what is not freely given. This is the key. To take what is not freely given from those who produce to give to those who do not produce creates resentment and a decline in productivity; the higher the productivity of an economic system the greater the overall benefits to the greatest number of people. The greater the productivity the more jobs are available; the more jobs available causes more money to be available; the more money available to spend and the higher the quality of life provided for the greatest number of people. Any actions that reduce productivity are harmful to the overall system. Confiscation of the property (wealth) of others reduces productivity which reduces the number of jobs and this reduces the overall quality of life of a greater number to people.

The optimal condition is one where individuals provide for the needy out of free choice because they understand it is in their best interest, NOT to have it confiscated by those with power. This is applying the LAW of self-interest. It is always preferable to have individuals behave in a GOOD manner because they understand it is for their greater benefit than to impose conformity.

This was clearly demonstrated in the article I posted above about the Plymouth settlement. When all possessions were held in a collective, anger festered and those who produced resented those who were lazy. Less was produced because motivation was low and the result created a situation where survival was endangered. When individuals were permitted to keep what they produced more was produced and a greater benefit to all occurred through the availability of surpluses. This worked because they learned to apply a principle of Tao, that of self-interest.

Scott R. Brown

11-02-2007, 04:02 AM

Mr. Punch continued

Again you're talking about facts. These are not facts, and not demonstrable as such. Show me the data that backs up your 'argument'.

You're forcing my hand here to say that your opinion is totally wrong! Your simplistic model of doctors and patients in a rosy competitive society omits the overwhelming corruption and venality of the drug companies (and their mutual support system with govts through enormous campaign contributions and taxes etc).

These are facts and are demonstrable by educating yourself properly about economics and human psychology. If you are suffering from social indoctrination that disallows you to educate yourself don’t put the onus on me or anyone else to educate you. You are responsible for your own education, take responsibility and learn to think independently and stop conforming to your social indoctrination.

The venality and corruption of the drug companies is a biased and inaccurate presumption that is common social indoctrination used to manipulate the ignorant into allowing the government to control your life. If you presume that the government has your best interest in mind you are allowing yourself to be manipulated by social indoctrination.

As I have previous discussed:

Self-interest is an inherent quality of ALL humans and not just drug companies/capitalists. Governments are just as corrupt and venal as you presume the drug companies, religions and capitalists to be and that INCLUDES socialists! This is because venality and corruption are HUMAN qualities and NOT capitalist, Christian or whoever else you are hostile against qualities ONLY! A major difference between a drug company and a socialist government is that a drug company does not force you to take their medication. They make medication because people WANT it and will PAY for it. If no one paid for it they wouldn’t make medication and they would go out of business. They provide a perceived benefit to others that others WANT! The price they receive is influenced by the manufacturing costs, demand for the medication and the supply available.

Venal corrupt governments CAN force to you do things you don’t want to do. You don’t have to take the medication manufactured by a drug company, but you do HAVE TO DO what your corrupt government requires of you or you will suffer for it. So where is the greater evil to be found? In a medication manufacturing company whose product you may chose to take or not or a government that has the power to enforce upon you whatever they choose??

Educate yourself and learn to think beyond your social indoctrination. I will only be a benefit to you!

I love this kind of statement... so, Scott, tell us what YOU have learned from YOUR study of the Sumerian civilization in relation to capitalism and the Tao. I'll get the popcorn.

It would be beneficial if you would follow the entire argument before you choose to ridicule.

My comment in regards to Sumer and early tribal social groups was in reference to caste systems and NOT capitalism specifically. Bob made a comment about the caste system inherent in capitalism and I stated that caste is inherent within the nature of man and occurs as a result of this inherent characteristic NOT because of capitalism. Caste divisions occur within all social systems including communist and socialist systems; this is directly observable through the study of history, therefore his conclusion was not true. I used Sumer and early tribal societies to illustrate the point.

Because caste divisions are inherent within the character of man and occur in all times, all cultures and all social systems it is in accord with the principles of Tao. “Principles of Tao” are repeatable patterns of cause and effect that occur within all phenomena. The ones we discuss are the ones that are directly measurable/observable. We may directly observe that within all social systems, all cultures, and all time periods social divisions (caste divisions) spontaneously occur, therefore we may conclude that it is natural and inherent within the character of man, since it is inherent, that means it occurs as part of the nature design of man, it occurs according to the principles of Tao. To fight it creates greater negative consequences than to ignore it.

Misunderstanding occurs when one is of the opinion that to understand it and accept it as a principle of Tao is the same thing as accepting ones lower or higher status within the social system or to accept the arbitrary classification of that the system as inherently fair and equitable. This is NOT the case, but to explain why involves a more lengthy discussion which I am not willing to go into it at this time.

Suffice it to say that acceptance that something occurs and is natural according to the principles of Tao is not the same thing as believing it is fair, equitable or preferable. A caste-less social system will never occur because it is within the nature of man to divide himself into groups. Even those here who consider themselves above or beyond caste considerations do not perceive the inherent caste-like consequence of their attitude. By presuming that those who accept the reality and inevitability of caste systems are inferior or wrong or foolish creates a separation, a division according to belief and this division is the same things as a caste system. Caste systems are about “us and them”. As long as a person has the least bit of recognition of “us and them” in their attitudes they are participating in a caste system. So, to believe oneself or ones system of thought to be beyond or above caste considerations is to be blinded by ones own ignorance. This person IS what they detest.

Scott R. Brown

11-02-2007, 04:04 AM

The End of the reply to Mr. Punch

Again with the 'incorrect'! LOL. Is that your unbiased opinion? Sorry, that means an objective fact...? Go back to the Tao of Physics for your hokum. Without bias I can honestly say it is a fact that you are an idiot. You are the Anti-Tao - you have read a lot and understand nothing. Ther you go - there's the human ability to be unbiased for you. But I know from previous discussions with you you don't get satire so that's that ****ed.

Such repeated hostility reveals your attitude to be exactly what you are criticizing in me. It would behoove you to concern yourself with your own hypocrisy before you attempt to criticize others in such a manner.

You continue to provide no argument or illustration that my comments are inaccurate while I provide reason and illustration for my conclusions. Continued vituperative comments reflect negatively on your own ability to participate in an adult discussion. To pretend your hostile comments are meant to be satire is infantile.

Substitute 'criticism' with 'ridicule' and you're halfway there. You are once again attributing some nebulous notion of natural law to a perceived lack of behaviourial volition in human nature. How very Christian.

I have not “attributed a nebulous notion of natural law to a perceived lack of behavioral volition” in human nature. Do you understand anything about human psychology?

Humans MUST conform to certain behaviors according to the inherent make up of human psychology. If this were not a demonstrable fact we would have no knowledge of anything, including knowledge of human psychology. Science, and indeed the study of psychology, IS the study of the patterns of nature/Life/Tao. A person who seeks to understand and conform to the principles of Tao seeks to observe the natural patterns of life (nature) and follow those patterns as closely as possible to their own benefit. This is because it was OBSERVED the when one follows the natural patterns instead of working against them, benefits occur. It is the same with all forms of science. Scientists seek to observe the patterns of nature and make them work to the benefit of man.

If there were no patterns that determine behavior there could be no conclusions drawn about any human behavior and all behavior would occur randomly and without personal responsibility. Do you even think before you make your comments?

Your hostile and negative bias against Christianity appears to reveal an attitude of zealousness against Christianity. Zealousness negatively influences ones ability to arrive at true conclusions through valid reasoning. If you calm down and try pay attention to the overall argument presented and attempt to think with less hostility and emotion your comments will be more reasoned and your conclusions more accurate.

LOLORAMA! It would take me far too long to address this bilge seriously. Just suffice it for me to sum up with one word: 'hypocrisy'.

Once again this is an empty comment because it is absent any supporting argument. My comment does not reflect hypocrisy.

One of the reasons that socialist thinkers are bothered about my comment that all human behavior is motivated by self-interest is the presumption that self-interest is BAD. They do not want to think of themselves as being inherently selfish because they define selfishness as BAD while to think of benefiting others is GOOD.

What they do not recognize is that they are thinking of others to make them feel GOOD about themselves because they believe that thinking about others is GOOD. In their minds, if they think something GOOD, by extension they ARE good. Their attitude of socialism makes them feel good about themselves. Feeling good about ourselves is a self-interest. They avoid recognizing their attitude is based upon self-interest because they have a false idea of what is GOOD and what is Bad. This belief occurs as a result of social indoctrination. If they never question their indoctrination they will find it difficult to transcend the false values they have blindly accepted. If we are unable to admit a reality we suffer for it. It is of greater benefit to understand that all behaviors are motivated from self-interest and move beyond the socially indoctrinated negative associations that attend to it. Self-interest is GOOD, excessive self-interest creates negative consequences and this creates detrimental effects. This is BAD.

That which is BAD is BAD for a reason, that which is GOOD is GOOD for a reason. That which provides an overall benefit is generally considered GOOD, that which provides an overall detriment is generally considered BAD. If we do not think more deeply than our social indoctrination we are more easily manipulated by those you refer to as venal and corrupt, except that those who are truly venal and corrupt are the ones manipulating you through social indoctrination without you recognizing it.

Socialist thinkers believe themselves to be motivated for the benefit of others when in actuality they are motivated for their own benefit. Their attitude merely has the possible consequence of benefiting others as well. I say possible consequence because believing we are doing a good and actually performing a good are often two different things. A Chinese saying, states, “If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for his whole life!” The socialist who gives the man the fish believes he is doing a GOOD, but if there is no long term benefit then is it really all that good? It is better to teach the man to provide for his own needs. Within the capitalistic system this is a principle that is preferred. Not that the needy should be ignored. The needy should be provided for in all societies. It is the manner in which it is accomplished that is often questionable. It is better to allow others the opportunity to provide for themselves than to do for them what they can do for themselves.

This is accomplished by providing equal opportunity for all to succeed according to the talents and desires, NOT by confiscating what belongs to one in order to provide of those who will not provide for themselves.

America is the richest country in the world because of capitalism. The greatest benefit to others less fortunate is to provide them with their own opportunities to succeed for themselves. This is not accomplished by oppressive governments. It is venality and corruption by those in power that oppresses populations, NOT the capitalism. Do not fault the incorrect administration of capitalism with the deleterious effects of capitalism, just as principles of Christianity should not be condemned when it is venal and corrupt HUMANS that distort its principles to their own benefit that cause the deleterious effects. It is a characteristic of humans to abuse power that causes these negative consequences. These negative consequences are greater under socialist and communist governments because the opportunity for individuals to succeed reduced and limited by these forms of government.

Drake

11-02-2007, 04:13 AM

Holy cow that is some serious dedication to an internet message board thread, but let me toss in my $.02 regarding christianity.

Christianity is flawed because it was documented, written, and conducted by men who claimed to hear the voice of god. In the end, a human being wrote down what god allegedly said, it was a human being stuck to the cross unless there is compelling evidence other than faith and conjecture, and it is human beings that shaped the very nature of modern christianity. The only degree of mysticism in christianity is based on the notion that you must believe in order for you to see the truth, which once you believe in, will naturally be existant to your imagination. It's reversed scientific method... come up with a conclusion, ie, Jesus was the son of god, reverse research, then attack the question. Now, please do not write ten 5 paragragh posts responding to this because I know full well it's a lost cause, because it is truth to you, and there is no evidence that will EVER cause you to believe contrary to that. The reverse scientific method already solidified that one.

Finally, I do enjoy the selective belief system, and the liberal interpretation of scripture. For example, is a god that wants to get his message across by making people smear blood on door posts, lest he kills their children really a good role model? Now, I don't care what happened with Jesus and all of that nonsense, because if that happened, their ain't no sacrifice-my-kid-for-you guilt trip that's going to align me with that mindset.

sanjuro_ronin

11-02-2007, 04:20 AM

Afghanistan was a religious tyranny under the Taliban, Iraq was a secular tyranny under Saddam. They are now both democratic republics, more or less. Time will tell how long this lasts.

Democratic republics under the control of foreign powers.

Scott R. Brown

11-02-2007, 04:28 AM

Democratic republics under the control of foreign powers.

Your statement reflects a glass half empty attitude. I would rather state it,

Under the SUPPORT of foreign powers.

If you reflect on the history of American support for democracy abroad you will find America has never maintained control of the society it supports once it may stand on its own. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in Germany, France, Korean, Japan and the Philippines.

Try looking at the glass as half full as demonstrated by history.

sanjuro_ronin

11-02-2007, 05:12 AM

Your statement reflects a glass half empty attitude. I would rather state it,

Under the SUPPORT of foreign powers.

If you reflect on the history of American support for democracy abroad you will find America has never maintained control of the society it supports once it may stand on its own. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in Germany, France, Korean, Japan and the Philippines.

Try looking at the glass as half full as demonstrated by history.

Hmmm, when the leaders of a country tell you to leave and you stay, its called "support" ?
I don't think I like whats in your glass.

TaiChiBob

11-02-2007, 06:08 AM

Greetings..

Oh boy.. not what i intended with my commentary.. Tao is Tao, nothing more, nothing less.. there is nothing that is not in accord with Tao. Whether it be capitalism or communism, it is Tao.. and, please, do not continue with the mantra of "LAW" of self-interest, there is no "LAW" of self-interest.. there may be an observed principle, but.. i have witnessed far too many altruistic behaviors to accept the notion of a "LAW" of self-interest..

It is without exception that we project our personal perspectives onto whatever discussions we engage in, it is the nature of language and communication.. Scott: i notice that you leave no room for evolution into an altrustic society, it seems that you project your personal perspectives onto humanity's potential.. it has the appearance of manipulating others' perspectives of Tao, excluding certain potentials.. is that your intent?

Scott: We have interacted on these boards for years, and.. over time i have witnessed you become more and more comfortable with absolutes.. a condition i believe to be inconsistent with your stated preference for Tao.. again, that's just my observation, but it has become a consistent observation, and.. i would ask you to re-evaluate your perspectives.. your current line of dialogue has a certain fatalistic flavor, inconsistent with earlier versions of "Scott"..

Now, back to Capitalism vs. altruism.. the core issue.. i have no issue with "altruistic capitalism", a workable social construct.. Capitalism, alone, is as unworkable as is any other single system.. my perspectives are rooted in the belief that the "greater good" is served from an altruistic perspective.. that altruism as a guiding principle is served by self-interest, where self-interest is accompanied by the awareness that we are not separate and individually isolated.. rather, that we, as a civilization, are a symbiotic organism that depends on altruistic guidance.. Capitalism, like "survival of the fittest", ultimately leaves "one man standing".. Capitalism, by its very nature, subjugates and enslaves the weaker and less fortunate.. and, while this is perfectly in accord with Tao, it is contrary to human nature to be enslaved or subjugated.. but, Tao has no interest in the survival of humanity, that is left up to us...

In the mechanical workings of the human experience, altruism can be served by capitalist processes, but.. the contrary not so much, capitalism will suffer from altruistic influences. Altruism is a guiding principle, capitolism is a mechanical process.. Much has been said regarding socialism and communism as "taking by force" or redistribution without consent.. but, i suggest that the visionaries, the altruists, recognize that magnificent social and technical achievements are not necessarily in the interest of the "greater good", certainly Lao Tzu held to that perspective.. the assertion that human nature is inherently "self-interested" is supported by conditions manipulated to favor that notion.. that notion is the fundamental cog in the capitalistic perspective, the elitist element of capitalism utilizes this self-interest notion to ensure the heirarchy of capitalist processes remains viable.. yet, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the self-interested competition for ever greater accomplishments has mutually arising consequences that will subvert the entire process.. i will point to over-population, global climate influences, and global economic situations for reference.. of course, capitalists will rationalize these references and assert that competitive markets will find solutions.. time will tell..

Lengthy dissertations on Tao and presumptous descriptions of the nature of Tao are without merit.. they represent a personal experience held in high regard by the experiencer. Those highly regarded experiences are unique to the experiencer and not very relevant to "why we are at War".. the proximate reason for the war in the middle east is capitalist interests.

Be well..