OT: Al Franken

[R. Steve Walz]

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message

But it seems irrelevent to
this disscussion. As I've pointed out there are multiple forces in
play in
China today including the marketplace. Also what does dictator have to
do with
anything? The issue was despot. Try to keep up.

The issue was Communism. It doesn't always have despots, but it always
had dictatorship.
---------------------

NEVER did, because there wasn't any such "communism".
There were just lying dictators.
And there are lots of previous communisms, humans lived in them
for 100,000 years.

Dictatorship does not imply one person.

I'm not sure, but in any case despot does which was the subject.

"Despotism is the only outcome of Communism", JL said. In that context
he obviously wasn't using the word that literally.
--------------------------------

He was just regurgitating the crap he was brainwashed with.
It isn't true. We lived in communism for 98% of human tenure
on this planet.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 03:34:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:38:24 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 02:30:30 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:


Gosh Steve, I thought you were a Communist. What a dissapointment to
find that you are merely a Democrat.

John
---------
Same thing. Communism is the ultimate outcome of Democracy.

-Steve

Despotism is the only outcome of Communism.

John
-------------------
Only if you rich shit mislabel the final triumph of equality and
fairness as unfair to you who imagine your proper station in life
would be to be rich parasites who enslave the rest of us.

-Steve

My station in life is to work about five times as hard as anybody
else, solve the real problems whichever way it takes, and to provide
paychecks to 22 people who expect get them every two weeks on a
regular basis.

Is that fair?

John
----------------
Gee, aintcha kind? You're so full of yourself it's pukey. You couldn't
work even half again as hard as anyone else in your employ, it would
kill you. And we can tell from your attitude that you actually don't
even manage ANY more than the rest.

On the other hand, if you actually worked more hours and claimed the
wage due those hours, all you're doing is stealing hours from other
workers that should be divided more equitably!

-Steve

Uh, Steve, just hang on to that resume for a while longer, OK?

John
----------------------

Yours? Round-filed it.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 03:34:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Gee, aintcha kind?

Not really. I make deals with people for our mutual benefit, on an
entirely voluntary basis. A world that consists of purely voluntary
agreements is my vision of Utopia.
------------------------

Sort of like when you threaten their livelihood and they decide
"voluntarily" to not get wages you don't want to give them.

There is no voluntary agreement where people are not equal.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 03:41:53 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Me neither, but if you make more than another man for an hour of
labor, or your non-labor, then you're a thief, and nothing else.

Pretending you deserve more if you do one job over another is
merely a connivance to steal.


Granted, but I'm stealing from myself, so it's OK.

John
--------------

Nope, you aren't. That's just a lie you tell yourself, based on
finders-keepers-muggers reasoning you've been brainwashed with,
like telling yourself no one will notice if you steal. One one
raised in a tribe could ever think that way without spontaneous
desperate guilt and shame. You are merely a collector of funds
because the rich thieves do that so they can lie about where
the money all goes.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <4088913E.5ADD@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:

Me neither, but if you make more than another man for an hour of
labor, or your non-labor, then you're a thief, and nothing else.

But, your labor is so much less productive, and is a net liability
if you are paid more than the historical minimum wage.
-----------

Not mine, you must mean yours. But you're wrong. Anyone whose
labor we need, as in: We'd have to do it ourselves if they didn't,
then they are worth precisely the same per hour as anyone, YOU
simply wish to CHEAT them because YOU imagine they are less educated
and thus "less able to know they've been cheated", it doesn't make
you any less of a thief! In fact it makes you a coward as well!

Also,
those (like you) who are paid more than the value of your work
(on a resale/overhead basis),
------------------------

Bullshit, I carefully keep my wage at an American average as an
issue of conscience.

or are paid from the government
dole -- from taxation, are the true thieves and parasites.

John
--------------------

Nonsense. Doesn't happen, quit deluding yourself.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Bill]

"Tom Del Rosso" <tdnews01@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:n5Zhc.11784$_o3.383587@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news5Xhc.919$S_.468@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

If the person with power is not you, then it makes no difference how
many people it is.

This makes absolutely no sense. You are saying if I don't have all the
power
it does not make any difference if I live in the USA or Cuba.

I didn't say "all".

OK. You mean to say if I don't have the power it does not make a difference if
I live in Cuba or the USA. Is that your view?

The idea of separation of powers is to have no group
with all the power. A group with all the power is a dictator, no
matter
how many people it is.

That makes no sense either. Seperation of powers implies an entity
should not
have all power - [...]

An entity...a group...whatever you want to call it. Changing that word
doesn't make the difference between sense and no sense.


[...] a set of entities would be OK.

You are contridicting yourself again. A set of entities can be the same as a
group of entities which you say is OK here. But you said is not OK above. What
do you mean?

Yeah, like a congress, an executive, and a court. That's what I said.


But it seems irrelevent to
this disscussion. As I've pointed out there are multiple forces in
play in
China today including the marketplace. Also what does dictator have to
do with
anything? The issue was despot. Try to keep up.

The issue was Communism. It doesn't always have despots, but it always
had dictatorship.


Dictatorship does not imply one person.

I'm not sure, but in any case despot does which was the subject.

"Despotism is the only outcome of Communism", JL said. In that context
he obviously wasn't using the word that literally.

I was assuming he meant what he said. You seem to have deeper insight and make
up your own meanings.

If I was a rude asshole I might say something like, "Try to keep up".

Should it not be if I "were" a rude asshole?

Bill

And now you can have the last word because I'm not interested in your
search for disputation.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:408843CE.3D66@armory.com...

The proper definition of Communism is that of a system where there
are NO privileged rich people, and in both Russia and China that
wasn't true, there were and are very rich people at the top running
it, which makes both of them merely varieties upon the same theme
we see in the USA, rich shit thieving and stealing from those who
labor in their place so they don't have to work, and who make less
than they should so that the rich can live large instead of the
laborer's families living just decently, having health insurance,
and having the full measure of what they have earned.

Can you cite a recent example of a successful Communist state?
-----------------------

It's a small planet, not big enough for fair statistical examples,
and history was just invented last week. Grow up. We lived in a
Communist State of Nature in tribes of 30-50 for 100,000 years,
or we wouldn't be here.

We didn't used to be nearly so accomplished, not fleet of foot,
sharp of tooth, powerful of muscle, nor could we smell or see worth
a damn, nor did we have petroleum or metallurgy, we had to survive
by our social ability to organize and run toward ANY danger to the
VERY LEAST of us in order to to seal the social contract and live
as the FIRST species with a Shared Awareness.

And we had to do so with nothing but rocks and sharp sticks and
attitude!! And still we made every other predator terrified of
us by 100,000 years ago.

Now THAT'S one VERY powerful Communist Social Contract!

Nobody said, I don't wanna defend your ass, just mine!
They would have found themselves ALONE and then DEAD!

We have quite literally EVOLVED to live Communistically.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <zC0ic.28464$ab3.23598@fed1read02>,
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> writes:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:408843CE.3D66@armory.com...

The proper definition of Communism is that of a system where there
are NO privileged rich people, and in both Russia and China that
wasn't true, there were and are very rich people at the top running
it, which makes both of them merely varieties upon the same theme
we see in the USA, rich shit thieving and stealing from those who
labor in their place so they don't have to work, and who make less
than they should so that the rich can live large instead of the
laborer's families living just decently, having health insurance,
and having the full measure of what they have earned.

Can you cite a recent example of a successful Communist state?

Walz is probably thinking about the mature Communist system
"paradises" like NKorea or Cuba.
---------------

Nope, they differ from the design markedly.

Those are obviously the epitome
of the standard of living that he aspires to.
---------------

And you're a lying disingenuous piece of crap.

(The
ONLY thing that maintains those states is a force of personality,
which is certainly inadequate and such dictatorships are the
logical result of the Communist system that definitely disregards
reality.)
-------------------

That's what Capitalism does, why do you imagine that another cult
of personality could ever be a communism. Ridiculous.

Trying to impose that set of theoretical ideas (Communism) conflicts
with reality, and will eventually degrade into one of several kinds
of messes.
--------------------

That's only your lie, what YOU MEAN is that shit like you will SEEK
to degenerate any such system into a dishonest opportunity to enhance
your personal wealth. This only proves that such as you should be
dealt with by summary execution if they step out of line.

People like Walz keep on trying and trying -- while
ignoring reality, and their 'theory' will continue to effectively
politically support despots.
-----------------------

All honest fair systems will attract criminals who need killing.
That is the phenomenon of which you refer, and none other.

As they try to apply their 'theory',
the people will continue to die, without hope (until Communism and
most of its anti-human-nature goals are expunged.)
John
---------------------

You mean till all the thieving criminals like you are eliminated as
opposed to the current society that permits them to breed like rats.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <4088913E.5ADD@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:

Me neither, but if you make more than another man for an hour of
labor, or your non-labor, then you're a thief, and nothing else.

But, your labor is so much less productive, and is a net liability

if you are paid more than the historical minimum wage. Also,
those (like you) who are paid more than the value of your work
(on a resale/overhead basis), or are paid from the government
dole -- from taxation, are the true thieves and parasites.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <zC0ic.28464$ab3.23598@fed1read02>,
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> writes:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:408843CE.3D66@armory.com...

The proper definition of Communism is that of a system where there
are NO privileged rich people, and in both Russia and China that
wasn't true, there were and are very rich people at the top running
it, which makes both of them merely varieties upon the same theme
we see in the USA, rich shit thieving and stealing from those who
labor in their place so they don't have to work, and who make less
than they should so that the rich can live large instead of the
laborer's families living just decently, having health insurance,
and having the full measure of what they have earned.

Can you cite a recent example of a successful Communist state?

Walz is probably thinking about the mature Communist system

"paradises" like NKorea or Cuba. Those are obviously the epitome
of the standard of living that he aspires to. (The
ONLY thing that maintains those states is a force of personality,
which is certainly inadequate and such dictatorships are the
logical result of the Communist system that definitely disregards
reality.)

Trying to impose that set of theoretical ideas (Communism) conflicts
with reality, and will eventually degrade into one of several kinds
of messes. People like Walz keep on trying and trying -- while
ignoring reality, and their 'theory' will continue to effectively
politically support despots. As they try to apply their 'theory',
the people will continue to die, without hope (until Communism and
most of its anti-human-nature goals are expunged.)



John

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:4088A50E.75F9@armory.com...

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:408843CE.3D66@armory.com...

The proper definition of Communism is that of a system where there
are NO privileged rich people, and in both Russia and China that
wasn't true, there were and are very rich people at the top running
it, which makes both of them merely varieties upon the same theme
we see in the USA, rich shit thieving and stealing from those who
labor in their place so they don't have to work, and who make less
than they should so that the rich can live large instead of the
laborer's families living just decently, having health insurance,
and having the full measure of what they have earned.

Can you cite a recent example of a successful Communist state?
-----------------------
It's a small planet, not big enough for fair statistical examples,
and history was just invented last week. Grow up. We lived in a
Communist State of Nature in tribes of 30-50 for 100,000 years,
or we wouldn't be here.

We didn't used to be nearly so accomplished, not fleet of foot,
sharp of tooth, powerful of muscle, nor could we smell or see worth
a damn, nor did we have petroleum or metallurgy, we had to survive
by our social ability to organize and run toward ANY danger to the
VERY LEAST of us in order to to seal the social contract and live
as the FIRST species with a Shared Awareness.

And we had to do so with nothing but rocks and sharp sticks and
attitude!! And still we made every other predator terrified of
us by 100,000 years ago.

Now THAT'S one VERY powerful Communist Social Contract!

Nobody said, I don't wanna defend your ass, just mine!
They would have found themselves ALONE and then DEAD!

We have quite literally EVOLVED to live Communistically.

O.
K.

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Guillaume]

Unfortunately, I almost have to agree with you here.

 

[Chuck Harris]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 03:41:53 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:


Me neither, but if you make more than another man for an hour of
labor, or your non-labor, then you're a thief, and nothing else.

Pretending you deserve more if you do one job over another is
merely a connivance to steal.


Granted, but I'm stealing from myself, so it's OK.

John

--------------
Nope, you aren't. That's just a lie you tell yourself, based on
finders-keepers-muggers reasoning you've been brainwashed with,
like telling yourself no one will notice if you steal. One one
raised in a tribe could ever think that way without spontaneous
desperate guilt and shame. You are merely a collector of funds
because the rich thieves do that so they can lie about where
the money all goes.

-Steve

I see it all now Steve: In your view, the only reward for working
verrrrry hard for the collective is to get lots of food, and become
verrrrry fat.

No other form of compensation is acceptable. Right?

-Chuck

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:22:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 03:34:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Gee, aintcha kind?

Not really. I make deals with people for our mutual benefit, on an
entirely voluntary basis. A world that consists of purely voluntary
agreements is my vision of Utopia.
------------------------
Sort of like when you threaten their livelihood and they decide
"voluntarily" to not get wages you don't want to give them.

There is no voluntary agreement where people are not equal.

-Steve

But in my Utopia everybody is strong and confident, everything is
competitive on a friendly, sports-like basis, and everybody *knows*
they are equal, even though some people are acknowledged to have
management skills (like the person I work for) or just worker-skills
(like me.) This vision is far beyond worries about class and
economics: it's about everybody knowing themselves for what they
really are, and liking it.

The thing I don't like about Communism is that is must be coercive to
enforce a vision of equality without addressing the realities of
equality. Hence the necessity for killing.

John

 

[Chuck Harris]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Steve wants a pay-check too, but he doesn't think he should have to
work for it.

--------------
You've never read a single thing I've said then, lying asshole,
I believe that people who don't work should be denied access to FOOD!


-Steve

Who decides how much work I have to do to be *allowed* to be fed?

Does the amount and quality of work I do have any relationship to how
well I will be *allowed* to live?

If your answer is yes, you are describing capitalism.
If your answer is no, I will work the barest minimum
amount I can to get by. The quality of my work will
suck.

-Chuck

 

[Chuck Harris]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:

No, they feared the "mob" because the mob is almost always
wrong. The mob (aka the majority of citizens) is very mercurial
in what they "believe". All it takes to cause them to over
react is a cataclysmic event, or a highly charismatic leader.

-Chuck

--------------
Sure, but the People aren't some mob, that's baloney.


-Steve

Oh, but they are!

Put a large group together, after some cataclysmic event
and give them a charismatic leader to help them to *decide* what to
do, and you will have murder in the streets. It has happened
time and time again through out history.

If the US were a true democracy, we would have nuked the middle east
after 9/11.

-Chuck Harris

 

[Product developer]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in message news:<nfci80trm3d3htokamauu0a8o28is0ofjv@4ax.com>...

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:22:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 03:34:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Gee, aintcha kind?

Not really. I make deals with people for our mutual benefit, on an
entirely voluntary basis. A world that consists of purely voluntary
agreements is my vision of Utopia.
------------------------
Sort of like when you threaten their livelihood and they decide
"voluntarily" to not get wages you don't want to give them.

There is no voluntary agreement where people are not equal.

-Steve

But in my Utopia everybody is strong and confident, everything is
competitive on a friendly, sports-like basis, and everybody *knows*
they are equal, even though some people are acknowledged to have
management skills (like the person I work for) or just worker-skills
(like me.) This vision is far beyond worries about class and
economics: it's about everybody knowing themselves for what they
really are, and liking it.

The thing I don't like about Communism is that is must be coercive to
enforce a vision of equality without addressing the realities of
equality. Hence the necessity for killing.

John

This may sound really simple but the perfect model is natural law. The
only collectives you see in nature is in the ant, termite, and bee
species. You don't see chipmunks collecting nuts for a winter
collective for redistribution to the lazy chipmunk's front. It's every
chipmunk for himself.

When children bust open a pinata at a birthday party the kid with the
fastest gathering skills gets the booty of candy! The commie kid sits
back lazily and complains that he got nothing because the system was
unfair and favored the rich.

When fish start acting helpless or lazy they get attacked and eaten.

If everyone just took care of themselves ala Ayn Rand everything would
be fine.

I would bet it all that if our resident commie wasn't a frustrated
underacheiving misfit and earned a real income, all the goofy, blame
the rich, diatribes would dissapear.

 

[Tim Auton]

jdurban@vorel.com (Product developer) wrote:
[snip]

This may sound really simple but the perfect model is natural law. The
only collectives you see in nature is in the ant, termite, and bee
species. You don't see chipmunks collecting nuts for a winter
collective for redistribution to the lazy chipmunk's front. It's every
chipmunk for himself.

That's why the chipmunks are still living in the trees.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

 

[Chuck Harris]

Tim Auton wrote:

jdurban@vorel.com (Product developer) wrote:
[snip]

This may sound really simple but the perfect model is natural law. The
only collectives you see in nature is in the ant, termite, and bee
species. You don't see chipmunks collecting nuts for a winter
collective for redistribution to the lazy chipmunk's front. It's every
chipmunk for himself.


That's why the chipmunks are still living in the trees.

What's wrong with living in trees?

-Chuck

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:18:37 +0100, Tim Auton
<tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY]> wrote:

jdurban@vorel.com (Product developer) wrote:
[snip]
This may sound really simple but the perfect model is natural law. The
only collectives you see in nature is in the ant, termite, and bee
species. You don't see chipmunks collecting nuts for a winter
collective for redistribution to the lazy chipmunk's front. It's every
chipmunk for himself.

That's why the chipmunks are still living in the trees.


Tim

The bees and the termites live in trees, too. Sorta nullifies the
point.

John