Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

A critical mass of educated buyers of products most certainly can hold
corporations in check. They control the profits of the corporations,
so companies *HAVE* to listen or perish. A market forces arguement
really. The buyers demanding this or that.

The problem is that educated people are a threat to those who want
power. They are especially a threat to those who seek power by making
the populace dependent upon government. This is why the answer becomes
government control rather than educating people to stand on their own.

 

Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.

 

Oh good heavens no. Education should be dispassionate and fair as much as
possible. It should not be afraid of making judgements, but to me, the US
is special in history and has been such a force for good in the world that
it stuns me that people can want to transform education of the US into a
long list of evil deeds.

The mistakes the US has made should be taught in context of the truth.
There is evil in the world. Tyranny and despotism is worth fighting and a
fight is never clean.

It works both ways. Why was there such a hatred and distrust of blacks?
Does anyone ever talk about that? It almost always starts with white racism
as a given.

You might be suprised to know that people like me believe that it was a
mistake for the Europeans to go into the world (colonialism) to exploit the
natural resources of Asia, Africa and America only looking after only
profits and power instead of the welfare of local populations.

But again, one HAS to remember the context of the time. Almost every place
the Europeans went, the local populations were barely, if at all, out of the
stone age. That mattered. There was also the political realities inside
Europe with wars and threats of war occuring. That mattered.

You can't just start with "whites are racist, therefore...", or "the
Europeans selfishly exploited their colonial subjects, therefore...".
Wrong? Mistakes? Sure, but people move on. The bad things we try to fix,
the good things we try to keep.

The middle east problem would be different or less without oil to be sure.
But the politics of the middle east are "as much" about the failure of
middle east countries in to develop their own selves. One reason Israel
came to be is that there was no prosperous Palestinian nation or culture.
The whole place was sleepy and backwards. Jews came for years and began to
use the land prosperously. The nomadic Arabs had no use for oil... at least
at the time. The power shifted to outsiders. Terrorism is about
re-acquiring power. They aren't lunatics, but they turn otherwise normal
people into suicide bombing lunatics. Islam and xenophobia is the hold on
the people, but if they were solely interested in Islam, in religion, there
wouldn't be this terrorism.

 

You're wrong about these countries having ever been free democratic

The British and US supported the shah over the PM. One of them was going to
prevail over the other. The Soviets were behind the other side. Cold war
politics for certain.

They can try. Our enemies have been funding these groups for years. The
Chinese certainly did what they could to make sure Clinton was re-elected.

The Soviet threat was bigger and badder than SAVAK. Again, cold war
politics. Would all be well in Iran had the Shah not been allowed to seize
power in 1952? I'll bet you think you know. Would the Soviets have left it
alone?

 

How do you know that?

 

sure they did. his name was bill clinton.

now, go die bitter, cold, and alone.

 

Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
needing to perform for those funds?

What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
instead.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather require foreign nations to
work in spies to get low-level information than have the top people
hand stuff over for cash.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Hell, the idiots didn't even have AMERICAN spies on the payroll! Or at
any rate they didn't pay attention to them, or else they'd have captured
Bin Laden when the Sudanese tried to *give* him to us in 1996.

 

"Guess America currently is not really a democracy either"
Never the intent... you should have learned this in grade school:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the USA, and to the REPUBLIC for which it
stands...

 

They didn't need a Chinese spy when Klinton was in, he handed them
anything they wanted straight out of the safe. Don't need a spy when a
Komrade holds the office.... Especially when your paying for the guys
election...

 

They didn't need one w/ your hero giving them all the technology they
wanted.

 

The French are a weird bunch. They were thinking of using nuclear weapons in
Vietnam too.

Communism is a economic system. It should have nothing to do with how a
nation is governed. A socialist country can be democratic like Norway. A
capitalist society can be a totalitarian society. Witness current China or
what it tries to become.
Soviet Union was not democratic not because of communism. It was because
they did not have a man named George Washington during the revolution.
America is democratic not because we embrace capitalism, but because George
Washington relinquish his power to let the people rule themselves.

The US government was using a single example, the Soviet Union, to
illustrate how communism means totalitarianism. Part of the problem was that
the general public can only understand simple concepts. By the way, the US
is quite socialistic today with our minimum wage, labor unions, health care
and wellfare. We in a way are turning into an example of socialistic
democracy. The ultimate goal of any labor unions is to do nothing all day
while making the same wage as the CEO. That sure sounds like communism.
A popular misconception is that socialism equals misery. We have enough
production capability for everyone to live a comfortable life while working
half the time we are now. All it takes is for the rich to share their wealth
with the rest of us. If everyone made about the same wage, we would all be
pretty comfortable. With such a large underclass in America, the gradual
trend towards socialism may be inevitable. All it takes is for them to
realize they have voting power too, or somebody to motivate them.

 

The point is that the Soviets were so aggressive it scared everyone. Even
the French. Kennedy felt that nuclear war with the Soviets was inevitable.
They were practically daring us to use nukes, because they didn't think we
had the guts to use them and knew they outgunned us otherwise. The Soviets
showed very little restraint in pushing for revolution in third world
countries worldwide.

People mock the US for believing in the domino theory. But, the Soviets
themselves gave everyone every reason to believe in it. So to dismiss US
policy as centered on a "phobia" of Communism is trite and shows a complete
lack of understanding of the times.

Wrong. The means of production is owned by the government. The economy and
the government are one. Property is owned by the government. Wages are
paid by the government. People who seek to enrich themselves above others
are punished by the government.

If Socialism is the means of production owned or controlled by the workers,
then I'm not so sure the nordic countries qualify because corporations and
business are privately held. However, they do highly tax themselves and
provide cradle to grave services. It's a choice they make. The profit
motive is still there, dampened by high taxes. You can also bet there is an
active and thriving secondary economy to get around the high taxes.

Democracy always flourishes in at least one form inside Communist countries.
People flee.

You may be able to separate Communism and the police state in your mind, but
they go hand in hand.

Cambodia, North Korea, Albania, Eastern Europe, Cuba, USSR, China, etc. No
the public is quite informed of how Communism and the police state go hand
in hand. I can't think of an example to the contrary.

Be careful how you throw the world "socialistic" around. A society that
chooses to tax itself to this degree is not socialistic. That happens when
benefits become rights and society can't vote to untax itself.

That's the mistake socialists always make. The presumption that wealth is a
constant and must be redistributed equally to be fair. If the profit motive
is killed by taxing too high, production diminishes, unemployment rises, or
underground markets emerge.

Who do you think would be paying this equal wage?

Where've you been? Under a rock? The so called underclass isn't so large
as you think it is. It's the middle class who's votes carry the most
weight.

 

At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on their payroll.

Not to the average Iranian. And all the US support for the shah is in large
part responsible for the mess in the Middle East today. "I shot an arrow in
the air..."

 

I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.

Bought how?

 

Urban myth. A Sudanese man claimed he could deliver bin Laden. Turned out he
couldn't.

 

If you're referring to missile and defense tech, I suggest you read the Cox
report.

 

Two words, right-wing fundamentalist: Cox Report

 

I accepted none of your lies.