d9cfdee1   
   XPost: az.politics, or.politics, dfw.politics   
   From: nospam"@cox.net   
      
   Yer Pal Al wrote:   
   > On Aug 22, 12:26 pm, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:   
   >> Yer Pal Al wrote:   
   >>> On Aug 21, 8:53 am, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:   
   >>>> Al wrote:   
   >>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:   
   >>>>>> Al wrote:   
   >>>>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>>>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Al wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Cheney hasn't suggested nationalizing anything, has he? If he had,   
   you'd   
   >>>>>>>>> be   
   >>>>>>>>> talking nice about him.   
   >>>>>>>> Worse than that, he is insisting that the people of Iraq virtually   
   give   
   >>>>>>>> away their oil assets to multinational corporations.   
   >>>>>>> They call this "selling their oil". Outrageous.   
   >>>>>> It is. Have you read the "Hydrocarbon Law" that the Iraqis are   
   >>>>>> considering at the urgent insistence of the Bush Administration?   
   >>>>> Capitalism is an ugly, ugly thing.   
   >>>> Left unregulated, it truly is as our history has demonstrated time after   
   >>>> time. Child labor, slavery, political corruption, wage slavery, murder,   
   >>>> pollution, shoddy and unsafe products, poisons passed off as medicines,   
   >>>> ... the list is near endless.   
   >>> Life is anything but simple for you lefties. So many conspiracies, and   
   >>> so little time.   
   >> I'll accept that as an admission of the obvious truth that unregulated   
   >> capitalism is evil.   
   >   
   > Not as evil as communism.   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> Why loot just a   
   >>>>>>>> country when you can loot the world from the platform of a   
   multinational   
   >>>>>>>> corporation?   
   >>>>>>> Perhaps the Iraqis, and the world, would be better served if Iraq came   
   >>>>>>> under   
   >>>>>>> the umbrella of China and Russia.   
   >>>>>> Why come under any influence except their own?   
   >>>>> To develop fields and market their oil.   
   >>>> We managed to do that for ourselves here in this country. Are you saying   
   >>>> that the Arabs are too stupid to do that themselves?   
   >>>>>>> After all, the left is upset Iraqis get to vote, now they're pissed   
   Iraqis   
   >>>>>>> get to sell their oil   
   >>>>>>> When you get over the shock of western capitalist imperialism, actually   
   >>>>>>> look   
   >>>>>>> at the numbers, and who are the big players in oil. Hint: your enemy   
   is not   
   >>>>>>> Exxon-Mobil.   
   >>>>>> They are all multinational corporations. Roses by any other name.   
   >>>>> The largest players in global oil are state-owned concerns, that's gotta   
   >>>>> make you feel pretty good.   
   >>>> State owned concerns just own the mineral. These days, they have very   
   >>>> little to do except cash the checks and determine how much to allow to   
   >>>> be pumped. They don't even set the price, allowing speculators in the   
   >>>> world's various oil markets to do that. It is the Exxon's of this world   
   >>>> that extract, process and market the products.   
   >>> If Exxon didn't then who would? Will the communists get in the oxcart   
   >>> business after the collapse too?   
   >> What communist?   
   >   
   > The communists that would, if they could, take over Exxon.   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> BTW, don't you think it is time for more tax cuts (credits, breaks,   
   >>>>>>>> kickbacks, deferments, etc.) for Exxon-Mobil? They  haven't quite   
   toped   
   >>>>>>>> their record setting profits from last quarter yet.   
   >>>>>>> Close to 50% of Exxon-Mobil is owned by the public.   
   >>>>>> That's nice. A collective effort.   
   >>>>> No, a Public corporation.   
   >>>> Those are collective by nature.   
   >>> But obviously there isn't collectivism when there are millions of   
   >>> different corporations.   
   >> Why is that? What difference does the number of corporations have with   
   >> their collective nature?   
   >   
   > Most of us have a nature that we want to live forever, but it's not   
   > going to happen. You can say corporations want to take over the world,   
   > but it's an impossibility. The large number of corporations indicates   
   > that possibility.   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> Of course true communist don't lie at all. Why would they?   
   >>>>>>> Since they have a lousy track record?   
   >>>>>> What track record?   
   >>>>> The one in world history, not your private world.   
   >>>> Why don't you list some examples?   
   >>> Soviet Union - 70M of their own people killed by their government.   
   >> The Soviet Union was a fascist society.   
   >   
   > They tried to be communist. It is an impossibility. The closest they   
   > could get to communism was to kill as many people that were in their   
   > way as possible and it still failed.   
   >   
   >>> PRC - 40M of their own people killed by their government.   
   >> Red China is a fascist society (and where many of the goods are made   
   >> that are sold in American markets).   
   >>   
   >>> Vietnam - 1.5M of their own people killed by their government.   
   >> Vietnam is a fascist society.   
   >>   
   >> All you have demonstrated is how awful right wing governments are.   
   >   
   > Most of the world wouldn't call those countries "right wing."   
      
      
   They would if they understood the term. It seems like most of the world   
   can't find Antarctica on the globe. You have no monopoly on ignorance.   
      
      
   >   
   >>>>>>>> If, on the   
   >>>>>>>> other hand, you were to catch them in a lie while you were waiting in   
   a   
   >>>>>>>> line for your excellently prepared free fish and beer, I'd start   
   looking   
   >>>>>>>> for an escape route.   
   >>>>>>> Politics is not personal when there's a meal involved.   
   >>>>>>>> Coming around. Good for you! One critique. Communism is not defined as   
   >>>>>>>> "that which works" precisely because it has never worked nor even been   
   >>>>>>>> tried on a large scale.   
   >>>>>>> Actually, it has been tried on small and large scales.   
   >>>>>> Please list the large scale examples.   
   >>>>> Just to have you deny that all communist governments in history were not   
   >>>>> communist?   
   >>>> That's right. You see, there have been no communist governments, ever.   
   >>> There have been no true democracies ever.   
   >> Some historians will argue that ancient Athens hosted a (near) pure   
   >> democracy, but it is difficult to prove.   
   >   
   > It's easy to prove that they didn't since women didn't get to vote.   
   > Still, every country has age limits and other limitations. You are   
   > just blustering BS now.   
      
      
   I did say near.   
      
      
   >   
   >> Today, most political scientist   
   >> consider a democratic society to be one where the majority of the people   
   >> have the ability to have the last word in how their society is run. Is   
   >> that "pure" democracy? No. Is it "true democracy? Yes. Under that   
   >> understanding, there are many "true" democracies, including even the US.   
   >> So, you see, your statement is false.   
   >   
   > Of course what I said is true.   
   >   
   >>> That doesn't mean that   
   >>> people don't set out to create a society with an ideal in mind and due   
   >>> to reality can not make it perfect. The USSR meant to be a communist   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)