Stalins Organ
-
Posts
1,972 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Stalins Organ
-
-
Gunneroz - sorry - it's clearly not self evident, and if you look at your own post you shuld see why - using wealth, or any amount, to INFLUENCE VOTERS cannot possibly be ANTI_democratic.
Influencing voters (as opposed to coercing them) is part of the democratic process.
Using wealth to persuade people to vote how you want them to is pro-democratic, not anti.
Actually buying votes, or using wealth to force people to vote one way or another - that I can see as anti-democratic.
But not persuasion - regardless of whether you use perjorative terms such as propaganda or not.
-
how do yuo figure concentration of wealth is anti democratic? should the population be allowed to vote on who gets rich, or what?
I can certainly see that extreme wealth can be used to influence democracy via propaganda, editorial slant, lobbying, etc.
But is that actually _anti_-democratic? Or part of the democratic process where those with teh wherewithall get to spend it to persuade those without to vote 1 way or the otehr?
-
Final world cup rankings - feel free to add comments.....
Fifa 2010 World Cup standings:
1 Spain,
2 Netherlands,
3 Germany,
4 Uruguay,
5 Argentina,
6 Brazil,
7 Ghana,
8 Paraguay
9 Japan,
10 Chile,
11 Portugal,
12 United States, <----shades of 1956 (was it 1956?)
13 England, <---unlucky for some, beaten by the Yanks....again
14 Mexico,
15 South Korea,
16 Slovakia
17 Ivory Coast,
18 Slovenia,
19 Switzerland,
20 South Africa,
21 Australia,
22 New Zealand,
23 Serbia,
24 Denmark
25 Greece,
26 Italy, <----won the last one
27 Nigeria,
28 Algeria, <----scored no goals
29 France, < ---- 1 place below a team that scored no goals!
30 Honduras, <--also scored no goals, but failed to be higher than France - gutted!
31 Cameroon,
32 North Korea <---ruh roh.....new squad next week?
-
This one will probably appear in pub quizes for years....
What was the only team in the 2010 FIFA World cup that was unbeaten?
Ans: New Zealand
So you all have an advantage over the rest of the world now....assuming you choose to remember it! lol
-
You guys are wearing me down, I don't know if I can spit into the wind much longer, but consider this - I'm sure the Greeks thought their social spending was "reasonable" right up until the prevent day, when nobody would lend to them anymore and they needed a bailout.
Individuals clearly did - same with the Spanish.
And their protests against spending cuts aer about as stupid as you can get - where do they think the money for it all is going to come from? They've been living fat off borrowings for years...now they can't do that any more......
You aren't arguing with communists here....despite what some people may label others as.....you are arguing with centrists, or perhaps pragmatists - people who think that there is a role for taxation and social welfare and a role for the free market.
But not too much of either.
-
Interesting graph that SO linked to showing the ratio of debt to GDP for each presidential term. What was particulary illuminating was that under the Reagan, Bush & Dubya regimes the ratio increased significantly with the trend continuing ever upwards each time, when their reign finished. This is for Republican presidencies where the free market is king.
Tax cuts and higher defence/war spending go hand in hand don't they?
What could possibly be wrong with spending more to make a stronger USA, while also "earning" less to do it with?:cool:
-
As I understand it, there was a policy to encourage people into housing that gave interest rate breaks somehow, and it was the end of those breaks that precipitated the crash - people on low incomes who could barely afford the reduced rates could not afford full market rates?
And again, as I understand it, this was entirely predictable, was pointed out by many, but was glossed over with "the market will correct itself by then" or similar nonsense that ammounts to nothing more than vague hope that something will come along?
and it was an election bribe...sorry..promise?
-
I knew they'd come out of the closet (or roaster?) sooner or late.....must admit I'm surprised it's the Italians who prefer machinery to warm blood
-
More important to look at debt to GDP I think. Those bounced between 20 to 40 percent except for the WW2 years. Since the 1980s however, the story has been nothing but a steady climb.....
not quite - the Clinton years saw a substantial decrease.......:cool:
-
US top marginal tax rates from the early 1900's are here.
Not the whole story of course since it doesnt' tell you anything about the lesser rates or the relationahip to things like average wage, etc. - but it does look a bit like you are wrong except for 6 years 1925-31.
Federal debt to GDP is here - you would proably have liked the period from 1840-1860!
And here's one since 1940 by presidential term.....
-
Having a hard time finding a coffee machine that'll go out with you are you? Yeah, sure, we've got one here that appears to be single....would you like me to put in a good word?
-
I think it is a better way to go than saying that you are not entitled to "every good or service required to sustain life".
But in real life you get all those entitlements mostly without the direct action of the state - but via it's indirect actions. For example it makes laws controling commerce so that you can obtain food and shelter and have your property protected.
there is no need for it, at he moment at least, to actually grow and distribute food. none-the-less in an emergency situation it will provide food - how is that something that you can argue against??
-
ASL are you arguing that one is entitled to life, but not to the healthcare that might allow it?
I agree there is a philosophical difference between the 2 - 1 is a goal, an objective. the other is the means to achieve it.
It seems nonsensical to me to say that you are entitled to the objective, but not to the means to attain (or retain) it.
-
And yet not as much fun for a night out.......be it on the turps, a game or, I guess, a shag.
-
Why are you worried about the plane?
-
Dunno what regulation might go to - but fighter seats are currently 32g and forward facing so there is plenty of potential.
Yes blackout are well known - but the point is that that is all that was suffered at 46g - ie that massive deceleration didn't actually kill the guy, so again there is plenty of potential.
there's another interesting little discussion here - by the Aussie defence forces.
-
I believe 46.2g deceleration is the record to date - resulting in unconsciousness & temporary blindness
-
Therreason for more weight with rearward facing seats is that the passengers can stand a higher loading, so regulatory authorities (and the public) are almost guaranteed to insist that the seats be capable of withstaning that higher loading - hence stronger seats, stronger mounts, and stronger structure supporting it all - and stronger = heavier.
-
Passenger seats (or accomodations....) are required to withstand a 16g deceleration - if yuo can design a hammock that'll do that go for it!
Seiously tho - survival chances are much better if passengers face backwards so that any deceleration load can be spread across their entire back rather than jsut across a seat belt....but airlines refuse to do so because such seats taking greater loads require stronger frames to support them (not much use having a strong seat if it rips out of the floor!), which increases weight & lowers the payload they can carry - ie fewer passengers.
Having some seats facing forwards & some back apparently allows more to be squeezed in.....
the "standing seats" don't look like they're such good publicity for Ryan - there's already a facebook page slagging it off!
-
AFAIK the rights of US Citizens are actually granted by the constitution and the founding fathers aren't they? There is no mention of god/creator in the constitution.
And even in the declaration of indepandence the statement that all men are equal and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is just their statement of what they hold to be self evident, and anything that one person holds to be self evident can be argued by another, and invariably is.
Those "self evident" rights in the DoI are listed as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - and there's plenty of argument about just what those mean!
Unarguable rights granted by a creator? Not while there's 2 people left in the world with differing agendas!
-
-
Thanks for your rational input Jon.
-
Yes John - I expect it to "continue to the point..." - ie I do not think we are there yet, and hence your comment about "SO's...belief in the latest uber technology" is something that does not yet exist - it is something I hope for.
If ther is something I believe in it is the progress of technology. If ther eis something I _expect_ it is that it will enable many more cases to be determined with certainty. But that is an expectation - a hope - I do not claim to predict the future - merely have some belief in where it is going - as I believe we all do.
And as I mentioned there is plenty of room for absolute guilt to be known with or without technology in many cases - why do you have no comment about that? Perhaps because it does not fit you simple pigeon holing of an idea you don't like?
-
Are you deliberately stupid Jon, or is here a charitable explaination for yuuor continued lack of comprehension?
I'll state my position again, just for your benefit because everyone else seems to get it, even if they disagree.
I am in favour of the death penalty where there is no doubt as to guilt for what the American call "1st degree murder" - ie it is premeditated and all those other bad things.
It does not take "uber technology" - is there any doubt about Manson's guilt? or McVeigh's?
DNA evidence is good - much better than what we used to have....but I've never said that it is infallible.
Diesel you have to understand that Jon makes a practice of misquoting people who he disagrees with. I think it is probably genetic and perhaps how he gets his jollies so there's not much can be done about it.
California leads the way
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
No more than you are being deliberately rgumentative.
What is democracy? It is the people chosing their own representatives. As long as they are free to do so then I cannot see how you can call something ANTI-democratic.
You can rail against money allowing "excessive influence" or whatever .....and I have no trouble at all seeing that more money = better chance of winning an election, and that forcing parties to spend an = amount of money and restricting lobbying changes the equation.
But that's not ANTI-democratic - that's a completely predictable set of stimlae & responses within a democratic system.
ANTI-democratic is something that destroys democracy......and whether you like it or not, being allowed a "free vote" for lobby/money-influenced/corrupt politicians is still democracy.....as long as it is actually a free vote & they can actually be voted out of office.......if the vote is ignored, or it is coerced, or ballots are stuffed - THAT is anti-democratic.
No amount of propaganda or influence, on its own, is anti-democratic.