Former VP Al Gore on Apple board of directors

[serpicolugnut]

With regards to fact 1, during the first WTC case and trial al Qaeda was not named, and bin Laden's links were not strong enough to bring him into the trial as a name conspirator.

Yes, Al Qaeda wasn't name in the trial, but the CIA had fingered them as the culprits almost immediately. It's funny though - Terrorists attack us and attempt to bring down the twin towers the first time, and all the Clinton admin. does is handle it through the courts.

Now to my favorite fact of your list, the attack on the Cole. When did the attack occur? October of 2000. When did we first suspect that al Qaeda was involved? Mid December 2000. When did we have evidence of al Qaeda's involvement? The end of January 2001. When did Bush take office? January 22, 2001.

Actually, no. We knew within DAYS that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole. There was no doubt. But nice try on dumping it on Bush.

The Clinton administration had al Qaeda very high on it's priority list, and the Bush administration (even in light of the bombing of the USS Cole) put it very low

Really. So the Clinton admin had Al Qaeda "high on their priority list", yet their only action towards neutralizing that threat was to throw a few cruise missles at an Aspirin factory. What an effective leader! And Clinton didn't need any support in the House or Senate. He had the power at any time to launch whatever force he deemed appropriate to take care of Al Qaeda. The problem is Clinton couldn't even buy a dog without a focus group or a poll taken, so doing something politcally risky, while clearly the right thing to do, was never an option.

Bush sleep walked through his first 8 months in office leading up to September 11, 2001. Maybe those 3000 people didn't need to die, Gore would not have treated policies by the Clinton administration as low priority just because they were "Clinton" policies.

I love it! So your assertion is that if Gore were elected, he would have immediately addressed the Al Qaeda threat and prevented 9-11? That's the funniest thing I've heard all year. Even close friends of Gore were relieved after 9-11 that Gore didn't get elected, because they knew he was not the right man to deal with the crisis at hand. But that's a good one - I'll have to remember that for my next party.

Who didn't do a single thing about al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole with full knowledge of who was responsible? At least Clinton tried to respond to the embassies with some show of force. Bush did... what?

Hmmm. Let's see. Number of Al Qaeda operatives captured/killed during Clinton admin = 1 (93 WTC conspirator). Again, remember that the Sudan offered bin Laden on a SILVER PLATTER in 1996, and he refused. Nice call. State of Al Qaeda under Bush administration = Over a dozen high level ops. killed/captured. #2/3 leader captured. Al Qaeda is decimated, and now spends more time looking over their shoulder in fear of reprisals than able to plan attacks. But sure, <sarcasm>Clinton did a great job dealing with them </sarcasm>

And the fact that many Bush administration officials were part of the arming of Iraq in past administrations was a smart move?

Actually, yes. You see, it was the Reagan admin. that were part of arming the Iraqis during the Iranian war. At that time, Iran was a much larger threat. That admin obviously didn't know what a threat Hussein would become on his own. But it's not like Reagan gave Hussein guided missle tech or Nuclear capability, which is what Clinton gave to the North Koreans (Nuclear) and China (guided missle tech).

So you get to save $5K on $80K earned, Cheney is going to save $300+K if the next tax cut goes through. I would not call either of you hurting.

OK, I hate to resort to name calling, but *personal attack deleted* You really think a family of 3 can live comfortably on $80K/year - which after taxes really works out to around $50k/year? Not here in Atlanta pal. But regardless, it's not the Governments job to decide who gets to keep their money and who has to fork it over to the Govt. Cheney, or any other multimillinaire has the right to keep as much of his money just as much as I do, or you do, regardless of how much he has. Who are you (or the gov't) to decide who deserves to keep how much of their money? I work hard for it. I'm sure people who make millions work hard for theirs too. Nice way to encourage success - work your ass off all your life so the Gov't can take more of your money! What a motivational slogan!

Are your self interests that much more important then our collective interests?

Actually, yes they are. You see, America was founded upon capitalistic principles, not, as you put it collective-ist principles. Now the shroud has fallen and your true, heart felt interests are shown. Sounds a lot to me like you're either a communist, collectivist or socialist. If you are not, I apologize for the allegation, but your above statement frames your argument in that manner.

The Government needs to return to pre-Bush taxation and start investing in internal job creating projects.

The best "job creating project" any government can take part in is to give the small business owner more of their own money, and reduce their tax burden. But that's where we differ - I believe this country works because of the people, you seem to think it works because of the government.

Hardly. Respect is earned, and we haven't earned any respect. We have generated fear and distrust. To the rest of the world 5% of the population is telling the other 95% how to do their business. That is as far from democracy as I think you can get.

Bullsh!t. I think you've got a different view on respect than I do. You probably view respect as "Do these countries beileve we are right? Do they understand why we do what we do?". I view respect from these countries as their understanding that when push comes to shove, we get the job done. If France were attacked, do you think they are going to head to the UN to get permission to fight back? Do you think they are going to enlist help from Belgium? Hell no. They are going to ask for military assistance from the US because they respect US.

Like it or not, we are the world's lone superpower. Certain smaller, insignificant countries (you know who I mean) feel a great resentment towards us because of that. So what? As I've said, when crunch time comes, these countries know who is fair, just, and strong enough to help them out. The left cries that this war is for oil. Yet, we aren't the country with $60 USbillion in oil contacts with the Iraqis. They claim that we are imperilaists. Yet, in every conflict that we have taken part in, we do our job, setup a democracy, and leave. Hardly sounds imperialistic to me.

Next?

 

[ksv]

Yes, there is a whole lot of cold and unemphatic people out there.

 

[serpicolugnut]

Yes, there is a whole lot of cold and unemphatic people out there.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I'll espouse some PC mantras...

End Racism Now! No Blood for Oil! Stop Global Warming!

Don't worry KSV, I feel your pain...

 

[Randman]

Does anyone know if the rumors are true that VP Dick Cheney (who didn't invent the Internet, but has reportedly used it) was also elected to the Apple board, but it's just that most people in the company don't expect him to make many public appearances on Apple's behalf.

 

[ksv]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
End Racism Now! No Blood for Oil! Stop Global Warming!

Don't worry KSV, I feel your pain...

Nice to hear I was wrong. I'm sorry
But I don't believe you feel my pain - I don't have any. Feel with the innocent people of Iraq and brainwashed American soliders

 

[banjo_boy]

Originally posted by ksv
Feel with the innocent people of Iraq...

Yeah. Me too. All the innocent men women AND children who have been tortured just because Saddam can. Those who were place on metal bed frames that were hooked up to electric wall outlets. Those women who have been hung upside down throughout their full menstration cycle or hung by their hair. The innocent who have been thrown into industrial brush mulchers. Most of this is done in front of their family. The same thing Hitler did to his people didn't follow him or even slightly disagreed. The same thing Stalin did to his own people. All of this to keep their ideology alive. Saddam has taken to an all time low by involving children unlike any other sadist. Hitler tortured and killed children but only Jewish ones. Anyone who would do this should be wipe from this earth.

So let's all oppose getting rid of someone who would do something like this. Let's all support killing people for killing sake.

Bush is condemned for attacking with a purpose and Clinton got applauded for bombing the Serbs for no reason and bombing an asprin factory in Iraq for no reason but "maybe it's a bomb factory". What! There was a reason for the latter. Move the news of his impeachment to something else.

Serpicolugnut, I guess we would be considered "Mean People". And if the bumpersticker "Mean People Suck" means us, hand me a straw. I would rather fight evil people than let them continue on with their insanity.

 

[banjo_boy]

Originally posted by ksv
...and brainwashed American soliders

American Soldiers brainwashed? I guess defending our country and other countries is brainwashing. Having terrorists blowing up the towers means we should do nothing.

The military is not the ones I am worried about being brainwashed...

 

[RacerX]

by serpicolugnut :
OK, I hate to resort to name calling, but *personal attack removed*

If you hate to resort to name calling, and it is against the board's policy, why do it? All it does is show that you don't have what it takes to actually debate the facts. I feel no need to resort to such tactics because I have the facts on my side.

It is sad that you have fallen in this way. You seemed like you thought you had something important to say. I guess you really didn't.

At any rate, maybe you can reply to this without name calling.

Yes, Al Qaeda wasn't name in the trial, but the CIA had fingered them as the culprits almost immediately. It's funny though - Terrorists attack us and attempt to bring down the twin towers the first time, and all the Clinton admin. does is handle it through the courts.

Not true. If this were the case it would have been part of the states case against the people charged. I have the court documents to back up my statement, what do you have?

Actually, no. We knew within DAYS that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole. There was no doubt. But nice try on dumping it on Bush.

This is incorrect again. Actual dates:

• October 12, 2000: USS Cole attacked
• December 8, 2000: first links to al Qaeda in Cole bombing
• January 22, 2001: Bush becomes the 43rd president of the US
• January 27, 2001: al Qaeda links to Cole bombing confirmed
• September 11, 2001: World Trade Center and Pentagon attacked with over 3000 people lost

Please show us where Bush did anything... at all, about al Qaeda after taking office and before September 11, 2001. Even if we assume that Clinton could have done something, that doesn't mean Bush should have done nothing.

I love it! So your assertion is that if Gore were elected, he would have immediately addressed the Al Qaeda threat and prevented 9-11? That's the funniest thing I've heard all year. Even close friends of Gore were relieved after 9-11 that Gore didn't get elected, because they knew he was not the right man to deal with the crisis at hand. But that's a good one - I'll have to remember that for my next party.

Make sure you print this out completely for that party, we wouldn't want you missing any of the facts.

Also, please name the close friends of Gore of which you speak. You must have a list of them, right? That is not just something you made up or are repeating without checking your facts, right? We would hate for you to have the facts wrong.

Hmmm. Let's see. Number of Al Qaeda operatives captured/killed during Clinton admin = 1 (93 WTC conspirator). Again, remember that the Sudan offered bin Laden on a SILVER PLATTER in 1996, and he refused. Nice call. State of Al Qaeda under Bush administration = Over a dozen high level ops. killed/captured. #2/3 leader captured. Al Qaeda is decimated, and now spends more time looking over their shoulder in fear of reprisals than able to plan attacks. But sure, Clinton did a great job dealing with them

Five people were convicted in the the WTC bombing of 93, three more were convicted in later terrorist attempts, an additional two people involved in the embassy bombing were caught, in 98 three more are caught, and the 2000 attempt on LAX was stopped when yet another was taken into custody coming across the Canadian boarder.

Bush had only one al Qaeda terrorist caught between the time he took office and September 11, 2001. The person was one of the people who was supposed to be part of the attacks, but this was not found out until afterwards because evidence was not allowed to be collected while he was in custody.

Actually, yes. You see, it was the Reagan admin. that were part of arming the Iraqis during the Iranian war. At that time, Iran was a much larger threat. That admin obviously didn't know what a threat Hussein would become on his own. But it's not like Reagan gave Hussein guided missle tech or Nuclear capability, which is what Clinton gave to the North Koreans (Nuclear) and China (guided missle tech).

So wait a second here. You are saying that it was a good thing to help Iraq even though it later turned out very badly. Further you are saying that it was not a good thing to help out North Korea (at South Korea's request) even though that has not turned out nearly as bad. So if a Republican administration does something it is always right, while when a Democratic administration does something it is always wrong.

Also Clinton didn't give North Korea any nuclear technology. But I'm sure you have facts that must show this, right? You must because making a statement like that without them would be completely irresponsible. And missing the fact that North Korea had nuclear weapons before the Clinton administration would be just down right embarrassing.

Interesting, and you called me left leaning? You have no perspective at all. At least I take all sides into account. You dismiss anything that doesn't meet with your propaganda.

You really think a family of 3 can live comfortably on $80K/year - which after taxes really works out to around $50k/year?

Most Americans have to make do with far less. But you don't care about other Americans.

Actually, yes they are. You see, America was founded upon capitalistic principles, not, as you put it collective -ist principles. Now the shroud has fallen and your true, heart felt interests are shown. Sounds a lot to me like you're either a communist, collectivist or socialist. If you are not, I apologize for the allegation, but your above statement frames your argument in that manner.

I am not a communist, collectivist or socialist. I'm an American. I have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of this country and protect it citizens. The people of which I speak are citizens of the United States of America. The services of which I speak have been part of this country for most of it's history.

And don't apologize to me, I frame my statements in the manner of which the government of the US has operated for most of it's existence. I would never turn my back on my country to add to my comfort level (specially if it was as far above what others have to survive on as yours is).

Call me what ever you want, but I help out people when ever I can. I am an American, and I stand for what made this country great (and for the things that it is actually respected for).

Like it or not, we are the world's lone superpower.

I have no problems with that. I do have problems with power drunk leaders who forget that being the biggest and most powerful means that we should be humble with our place. We were never the bullies of the world before Bush. No other president had treated the rest of the world with such disrespect as he has. Being the most powerful means taking the responsibility to act with others in mind (something I know you don't understand).


Your turn. Maybe this time you could stick to actual facts and leave out the name calling (unless you find that you really don't have a leg to stand on, then call me what ever you want ).

 

[bolindilly]

Do you care about this country? Do you care about your fellow citizens? Is that $.06 per dollar earned to high a price for the health of the United States? Are your self interests that much more important then our collective interests?

...As a small business owner I would love to see people both back at work and feeling comfortable that they are going to still have a job a month from now. People spend when they feel that they are in a good position. When jobs are being cut and government services are disappearing at the same time to help those people if they do need them, people don't spend money.

RacerX, that is the most socialist thing i've ever heard. i guess the government should just control the economy and force companies to pay for jobs they don't need right now. heck, the government should just nationalize all industry and make the minimum wage $40, and then everybody would pull in $80,000 a year, no?

and the thing that's even funnier, you're whining about unemployment, but the tax cut to business owners is what creates employment. it's that simple. giving money to joe shmoe won't get him a job, but giving money to his potential boss will make the boss want to hire more people...

c'mon...

"who is john galt?": that phrase has gotten dated. what i wanna know is: "where is john galt?"

 

[serpicolugnut]

Name calling? Hardly. A certain moderator got a little trigger happy with a non-lethal insult. But I am back again to further highlight your communist ways...

Further you are saying that it was not a good thing to help out North Korea (at South Korea's request) even though that has not turned out nearly as bad.

Sending humanitarian aid to N. Korea was one thing. Giving them the means to achieve nuclear weapons is another. Clinton allowed US companies to work with the N. Koreans to put in to production a 5MW reactor. The defense dept. told him a reactor this size would be of little to no benefit in producing electricity, but it would give them the means to develop the spent fuel rods in to nuclear weapons. At the behest of Jimmy Carter, he went ahead with the deal.

We all know about Clinton and the Chinese, but if you need a refresher, let me know.

Even if we assume that Clinton could have done something, that doesn't mean Bush should have done nothing.

No need to assume, we know Clinton did nothing. Former Clinton presidential advisor Dick Morris has stated that Clinton, at odds with the Pentagon, would not put serious resources in to attacking Al Qaeda because he thought it wouldn't resonate with the American public.

We know that the Sudan, acting through their liason Monsoor Ijaz, offered Clinton bin Laden - no strings attached. Clinton declined!

On to your assertion that Bush didn't do anything about Al Qaeda. You are right. The man had been in office about 8 months, had his transition seriously delayed due to the Florida 2000 debacle and Clinton not turning over the transition resources until well in to Dec, and he didn't automatically go in and invade Afghanistan. Yeah, the communist peace niks who are marching now and can't see the righteousness of libertaing Iraq would have really loved that.

While I'm not making excuses for Bush, the fact remains that Clinton had 7 years to seriously pursue Al Qaeda, and instead spent more resources on attacking the Branch Davidians than he did Al Qaeda.

I'll give Clinton credit though - he didn't waste his time with the UN when it came to Kosovo. I'm still not really sure where our national interests were in that conflict, but the peaceniks must have felt it was a just war. After all, there weren't any protests during that conflict.

Yours, and other anti-Iraq libertation supporters, colors are quite easy to read. You hate Bush. Plain and simple. The man speaks plainly, is wildly popular, and keeps out-foxing the opposition at every turn. I thought my disdain for Clinton was bad, but man - you Bush haters have me beat by a mile.

Come next week at this time, Iraq will be liberated, and the people of that country will be externally grateful. The stock market will have risen another 500-750 points (it's already risen close to 1000 in 8 days - the biggest 8 day jump in 20 years), oil prices will be in the low-30's a barrel and dropping, and Bush's popularlty will have surged another 10 pts. to around 80%. God - it must make you sick. (But, hey I'm a realist and realize that his reelection is still very much in doubt).

Also, please name the close friends of Gore of which you speak.

http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/observer/archive/vol11/issue2/obiter.html

This is just one source. Hit google and find many others...

Most Americans have to make do with far less. But you don't care about other Americans.

Ah, but I do. You socialists love to to bandy about this class warfare. Where in the constitution does it say that the Government has the right to rob Peter to pay Paul? It doesn't. Income redistribution is one of man's most evil concepts. Republicans are quite guilty of this too. But it's the Democrats who act like they are entitled to it, and constantly wage class warfare to state their case. Luckily, I believe most Americans see through this now. Hell, it's easy to buy in to it. When I was 22, I bought it hook, line and sinker. I even <gasp>voted for Clinton in 1992</gasp>. So what happened? Well, as I started to become more successful and make more money, I realized how much more of the it the gov't takes. The dems constantly cite rich people who will get a disproportionate amount back. But they consider someone who makes $75K a rich person! It's amazing.

But since you are such a compassionate person, and feel you aren't taxed enough, why don't you send some of your money my way? We could really use it right now, and you seem to have some guilt built up, so send it my way. I'll be sure to put it to good use.

 

[edX]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Name calling? Hardly. A certain moderator got a little trigger happy with a non-lethal insult. But I am back again to further highlight your communist ways...

... Yeah, the communist peace niks who are marching now and can't see the righteousness of libertaing Iraq would have really loved that.

.. the peaceniks...
... You socialists love to to bandy about this class warfare.

you seem to really like calling names and labeling people. i wish you would just learn to get them right and to understand a bit of what they mean since you seem to throw them about as if they were insults. people who subscribe to these philosophies would obviously not get dinner invitations from you.

1st - i am an Administrator, not a moderator. i put that little description under my name to make it easy for you to distinguish. and continue to call anyone an idiot an you'll be moving your free speech somewhere else.

2nd - communism and socialism are 2 different things. one cannot be both. so why don't you toss a coin and decide which one to use for some consistency at least.

you should be aware that these are economic systems, not forms of govt. - just like capitolism. very few pure forms of these exist. america is not a true capitolistic system, although i'm sure you would like it that way. we are a very socialized form of capitolism. Chances are that if we weren't, we would have been defeated by civil war between the haves and have nots long ago. the decison to move that direction has been the choice of our people and their elected leaders. that was done under a govt system known as a republic which uses democratic processes.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Government has the right to rob Peter to pay Paul? It doesn't.

well, what it says is that ther will be no taxation without representation. since the system of economics we have chosen is predominantly captiolististic, it stands to follow that there will always be more have nots than haves. thus there are more of them being represented.

Income redistribution is one of man's most evil concepts.

LOL war is evil. torture and oppression are evil. i'd like to know how making sure everybody got enough to eat and proper medical care got to be evil.

gee, with people who think like you in the world, i can't imagine how Robin Hood ever got to be so popular of a story

Luckily, I believe most Americans see through this now. Hell, it's easy to buy in to it. When I was 22, I bought it hook, line and sinker. ....So what happened? Well, as I started to become more successful and make more money, I realized how much more of the it the gov't takes. The dems constantly cite rich people who will get a disproportionate amount back. But they consider someone who makes $75K a rich person! It's amazing.

actually , i think most americans still live under the dellusion that they can make the american dream come true. look at you. you got just a little taste of it and now you're ruthless in the pursuit of it. hope you enjoy every bit of you manage to grab.

But since you are such a compassionate person, and feel you aren't taxed enough, why don't you send some of your money my way? We could really use it right now, and you seem to have some guilt built up, so send it my way. I'll be sure to put it to good use.

so, are you saying here that you aren't compassionate? sure sounds like that's what you want to communicate. but it sounds like you neither want nor give charity. charity isn't about being forced to give. it's about doing so because of your concern for others. it's about humanity.

btw - from your rhetoric - i would picture you as an 70-80 yo man with close ties to Jerry Falwell.

 

[bolindilly]

edx: read "atlas shrugged," it explains very well how evil robin hood is:
"rob the rich to feed the poor." i don't even want to get into how unjust that is.

and your whole income redistribution and free medical care thing: any system of income redistribution ensures that people go hungry and ensures that medical care is terrible. in canada, sure, everyone has health care, but look at the quality. the point is, in your whole crusade for the working man to make sure he eats, you wage war on the productive, the man that actually produces the food, the man that actually provides the medical care. if you rob the rich to feed and treat the poor, the rich won't want to do it anymore. let those who know how to create wealth create it, and everybody will be richer, more full, and healthier in the process...

oh, and:

charity isn't about being forced to give. it's about doing so because of your concern for others. it's about humanity.

if that's true, why force income redistribution on people? if you don't want to force anyone, why not let people decide how much charity to give? why tax the rich more (percentage-wise) than the poor if, in your own words, they shouldn't be forced to pay?

 

[edX]

greed

 

[Ugg]

The founding fathers were adamant that the US not be like England and France, where titles, government postitions, property and wealth were passed down from father to son. Therefore, they created an inheritance tax so that this wealth would be "partially" redistributed.

We could spend hours debating the validity of how it is being redistributed today, but if we look back in history we see some pretty amazing effects.

Compulsory free education allowed many of the working class immigrants a chance out of the poverty they were forced into by the Industrial Revolution. Social Security brought hundreds of thousands of elderly Americans out of the poorhouse. The Eisenhower Interstate system did more to break the monopoly of the railroad and lower transportation costs than the Supreme Court ever could. The GI bill was without a doubt the greatest social equalizer of the last century.

So rather than say that you don't want to pay taxes, why don't you say what you don't want to pay for. All income redistribution is not bad.

 

[serpicolugnut]

btw - from your rhetoric - i would picture you as an 70-80 yo man with close ties to Jerry Falwell.

Nice attempt at name calling EdX. I prefer the direct approach. But I'm sorry to disappoint. 32 year old handsome young atheist here. From your age, rhetoric and geographic location, I would picture you as an aging "no-nukes" hippie with a picture of Karl Marx hanging above your bed. Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong.

communism and socialism are 2 different things. one cannot be both. so why don't you toss a coin and decide which one to use for some consistency at least.

From the statement Mr. X made, it was impossible to determine which of the above philosophies he subscribed to. But both have at their heart the collectivist ideology that he espoused. Obviously they are two different things. Did I say they weren't?

gee, with people who think like you in the world, i can't imagine how Robin Hood ever got to be so popular of a story

And with people like you, it's no wonder "the Little Red Hen" (the childrens story) got to be so popular. Touche.

i think most americans still live under the dellusion that they can make the american dream come true. look at you. you got just a little taste of it and now you're ruthless in the pursuit of it. hope you enjoy every bit of you manage to grab.

The DELLUSION? Hello, the American dream is alive and well brotha. The only problem is most Americans are too fat, lazy and apathetic to realize it. They'd rather blame their ills on someone else, instead of their own bad decisions they've made in life. The ironic part is that the largest segment of the US population who still believe in the American dream are immigrants who have come here from under priviliged countries. They have no problem working 60 hours a week in pursuit of the American dream.

All I'm hearing from you and Mr. X is how bad America is, how bad Bush is, how it's so bad that we don't pay enough taxes to take care of our poor. And then you have the gaul to accuse me (and others here) of being greedy and uncompassionate because we feel we deserve a tax cut. Nice attitude.

You know, this whole thread started over the topic of Al Gore joining Apple's board. This thread (and the deep divisiveness it's exhibited) makes it pretty clear that it's going to create some real animosity.

 

[edX]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Nice attempt at name calling EdX. I prefer the direct approach. But I'm sorry to disappoint. 32 year old handsome young atheist here. From your age, rhetoric and geographic location, I would picture you as an aging "no-nukes" hippie with a picture of Karl Marx hanging above your bed. Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong.

i just said you sound like that from the words you choose. i don't think describing what you appear to be, as being any different than your attempts to label people based upon beliefs. at least i didn't pressume that what was what you are. btw - i'm not a hippie. i feel more comfortable in an armani suit than tie dyes and jeans, but i own both. i don't espouse marxism nor admire him. i'm more of a Jungian. I actually have a sword hanging over my bed. but i do subscribe to "no nukes".

From the statement Mr. X made, it was impossible to determine which of the above philosophies he subscribed to. But both have at their heart the collectivist ideology that he espoused. Obviously they are two different things. Did I say they weren't?

well, then why not just use collectivist. again i'll point out that you mean to demean people who subscribe to any type of collectivist philosopie by using these terms in the way you do. actually, RacerX has espoused no communistic nor socialist philosophies. Communism would presume that there is no one with any more than anyone else to take from and give to. Socialism attempts to create that system from a pre-existing embalance with the recognition that some people do suffer more hard ships than others in a specialized industrial society. he is actually just in line with what has been american economics since you were born - a socialized form of capitalism. i would be the last to argue that it doesn't need work, but the first to say we shouldn't revert to some reactionary pure form of capitalism.

And with people like you, it's no wonder "the Little Red Hen" (the childrens story) got to be so popular. Touche.

this is a popular story? you'll have to excuse my ignorance, i've honestly never heard of it i don't think. was this a recent book?

The DELLUSION? Hello, the American dream is alive and well brotha. The only problem is most Americans are too fat, lazy and apathetic to realize it. They'd rather blame their ills on someone else, instead of their own bad decisions they've made in life. The ironic part is that the largest segment of the US population who still believe in the American dream are immigrants who have come here from under priviliged countries. They have no problem working 60 hours a week in pursuit of the American dream.

well, we're in agreement on the state of the average american at least. i don't think working 60 hrs a week is really part of the american dream. one does need time to enjoy what one brings to oneself. the fact is that only a small number of people will ever climb economically. some will fall down, others will rise, but the pyramid of wealth will stay constant. the system is designed to ensure it.

All I'm hearing from you and Mr. X is how bad America is, how bad Bush is, how it's so bad that we don't pay enough taxes to take care of our poor. And then you have the gaul to accuse me (and others here) of being greedy and uncompassionate because we feel we deserve a tax cut. Nice attitude.

well, if you make 80k a year in atlanta, you certainly don't need a break. if you're really concerned about not wanting to get so much that you gain little, then get yourself a good accountant and figure out how much you should ceiling your income at. then take the rest of the year off after you've made it. there are americans who do this you know. as for greed, i was answering someone else's question as to why voluntary and unsupervised redistribution of wealth won't work. if you felt that was meant for you personally, then you might want to look at why. and well, about the compassion thing, you made it sound like being compassionate was somebody else's job and that just hits a few of my buttons. still, i didn't accuse - i asked if that was what you meant. oh, and i think this arguement started when RacerX and others tryed to point out the things we like about Al Gore and the America he represents - which is the majority of individuals, even if it's not the majority of electoral votes.

You know, this whole thread started over the topic of Al Gore joining Apple's board. This thread (and the deep divisiveness it's exhibited) makes it pretty clear that it's going to create some real animosity.

perhaps this is another way we differ. i respect your right to disagree with me, and with anyone else for that matter. hell, i wouldn't have a sounding board for presenting my side if someone like you didn't provide it. as far as i'm concerned this is just a discussion in a thread. i'll still be willing to help you with your next issue with os x without even considering any of this. any issues we bring up here are decided at the polls or in real life by others. all you and i have are our opinions (well, ok, you've got $80,000 that i don't ) and we should respect our mutual rights to them. that is part of freedom and american values, is it not?

actually you sound a lot like my dad and my stepdad. and i love them both dearly.

 

[edX]

oh, just one little irony about this that occurred to me serpico - you're pro war and complaining about taxes. without a good solid tax base, there would be no war. we wouldn't be a military power. the war is probably the biggest reason a tax cut didn't go thru. it takes money, lots of it.

RacerX and I are against the war. against having our money spent to finance this action. we should be screaming about not having taxes lowered.

of course, i'm sure we like to think our share is going into social programs.


so yea, i think Gore will add a lot of diplomacy in overseas negotiations. i think he'll be making lots of govt. oriented 'switch commercials' after this was announced.

hey, he might even get Bush to invest more of our govt's money into macs & os x . now wouldn't you be even happier if you knew your tax dollars were being spent on macs?

 

[serpicolugnut]

of course, i'm sure we like to think our share is going into social programs.

Yeah, that Liberty Tattoo removal program in SF was a real example of tax dollars being used badly.

Are you really anti-war? Were you just as vocal about your opposition during the Somalia conflict, the Kosovo conflict, or Operation Desert Fox in 1998?

This is what bothers me. It is complete hipocrisy, in my view, when the vast majority of antiwar people never batted an eyelash when Clinton sent troops in to harms way. Their main opposition to this conflict is that there is a Republican in the White House.

As for your assertion that $80K /year is enough to live on in Atlanta. Phooey.

First of all, that $80K was a combined family income before taxes. That's $80K for a family of three. Second, with that combined income, we are in a tax bracket that is close to 40%. Add in property taxes, sales taxes, small business taxes, etc., and the reality is that my wife and I have to work from Jan. 1 through June 10 just to pay the tax burden. It is very near 50%. That is borderline slavery. When you exist to support the state, it's getting real close.

And yes, I am aware that taxes go to fund the military. The Bush 2003 tax cut isn't finished yet. Actually, the House passed a version of it this week. It's going to be tougher in the Senate, but my guess is about 75% of it will get passed.

Another misconception - I'm not pro war. I hate war, but realize that the only way to neutralize a threat from a murderous dictator is to remove him by force. This mission, at least to me, seems a heck of a lot more legitimate than Kosovo, or even Op Desert Fox. But as I said, since a Republican is in the WH, the antiwar crowd (who are being funded by serveral American Communist outfits, btw) are against it.

hey, he might even get Bush to invest more of our govt's money into macs & os x . now wouldn't you be even happier if you knew your tax dollars were being spent on macs?

Not gonna happen, and I'm glad. I love Macs, and want Apple to succeed and capture a larger chunk of market share. But I really don't want my tax dollars being spent on buying Macs for the Gov't, unless they are appropriate for a specific task.

Gore will have little to do with day to day stuff at Apple. Look at what the other board members have done for Apple, other than sit in on meetings... Not much. The last thing Apple wants to do is use Gore as a visible "face" for Apple. I would guess, judging from the makeup of this country, that 50% of Mac users are right leaning, and do not have a favorable opinion of him. If Apple is crazy enough to alienate these users, then they deserve their fate.

Don't worry Ed, next time you have a Mac OS X question, I'll be here for you too.

Finally, the Little Red Hen is a popular childrens story. You can refresh your memory here- http://www.ri.net/schools/Central_Falls/ch/heazak/hen/hen.html

Ed, it's always a pleasure...

 

[serpicolugnut]

This will be my last post on this thread. I want anyone who thinks this war isn't just to read the below story courtesy of UPI.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

Keep in mind this is from someone who was so antiwar that they packed their bags and went to Badhdad to be a human shield.

Vive le Iraq!

 

[Sirtovin]

Um... I support the War on Terror etc... but What does this have to do with Al gore and Apple?