Missing bird-dinosaur link found?

[Tom Kazansky]

Another valid point from Avatar. They have less people to deal with Eon, as well as a significantly lower land area. The United States is the fourth or fifth(I don't remember exactly which) largest country in the world. Cuba is a tiny island.

 

[Mr_Eon]

You're sick of the world blaming America for everything? Tom, America is 30 miles away from Cuba and is TOTALLY embargoing it - and then you laugh about how much better your economy is than theirs? Duh!!

Cuba basically has a shortage of foreign markets for the goods that they produce - this happened because their largest neighbour blocked off the entire American Continent to them! Once the USSR collapsed (because of an attempt to compete in Economic Output with a Consumerist Capitalist society, which was never going to be possible!) Cuba lost the only major trading partner it had. So boasting about how Cuba is short of things like fancy medical supplies, consumer goods and mass produced food is like nailing someone's feet to the floor and challenging them to a sprinting competition!

America is the largest economy in the world. It's not only a large, rich, nation - but it's actually GEARED towards excess consumer spending. It's markets are focused on selling more so you can make more so you can sell more so you can make more! What? Where's your big achievements - do you have any idea what America could accomplish if it was focused on any goal besides ripping resources out of the earth and cramming them into it's mouth?

The reason why no Communist economy has lasted longer than 80 years is because America hasn't LET one. The moment a country has gone communist, it has been destabilised, invaded or economically pressured by the United States.

I don't want to lay the burdens of the world on the US doorstep - partially because you don't deserve them, and partially because a lot of your solutions tend to be worse than the original problem itself. You aren't responsible for the Middle East - you're just the last in a line of nations who despairingly tried to help before realising that a lot of these people don't seem to WANT to be helped. You're not responsible for world Terrorism. You're not responsible for the Israel/Palestine thing - although you do contribute. In a lot of cases I think smaller countries take rotten advantage of the US's good nature. I think a lot of European countries criticise your attempts to do something about the worlds ills without having anything valid to offer in return.

Most European armies are a joke - frankly they're 1970's in equipment, methodology and training, and roughly the same size and tactical utility as a strip mall security team. France seems to have no decent Armour, no decent airforce and no decent Navy. Ditto Germany. I feel France and Germany are needlessly anti-US, given their own track record as world powers.

But the above doesn't mean I won't say you're wrong when I think that is the case!

Eon

 

[Ultima Avatar]

I think America, and every country has got problems, and of course debts. Everyone's in debt to us, and we're in a big debt ourselves.
However, just because America can boss over some countries that it beats in battle doesn't negate that country's self-surviving skills. Look at Israel. Dang, no one can keep them down. You punch them, they kill you and your kids. Don't screw with Israel, for sure. They never die. You wanna know why? They're God's people. If you have God on your side, then who is against you?
America is a wishy-washy nation when it comes to God. WE say we're based on a Bible-believing founding, and now we're here: when well over half our nation's leaders are antichrist and anti-God. In fact, today, God is a nuisnace more than anything else. It all sounds like some kind of a nightmare, if you sit down and think about it heavily. But it's happening today. ANd it will continue. This is not fiction: this is God's word unravelling.
No one has any right to be mad against us: we've done nothing but help nations, even if they didn't want it. After kicking German tail, what did we the beneficial nation do? Why we handed over a few billion to rebuild their crumpled country, only to have them hate us now, but give us free tours and come live in our nation. What happened when we wasted Korea? Why, we helped build them back up and given them funding, only to find out now that they're been building nuclear weapons with it! What happened when we gave freaking Iraq 12 years to quit screwing around and obey us? Why, they have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons! And more hate against us. Yea!
What does America get for all its efforts to unite all nations? We get the UK. And while that's not bad, it's not great.
So what if Cuba's poorer than us? They may have less population, smaller land mass, but let's compare it to Israel! A sliver of land! Everyone wants to see it demolished! Why not Rhode Island? Why not unite against the citizens of Rhode Island? "Death to the American Fingernail!"
Geez, guys, because some nation is poorer than us (Honduras for example) doesn't mean they're any less or better off than we are.

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]You're sick of the world blaming America for everything? Tom, America is 30 miles away from Cuba and is TOTALLY embargoing it - and then you laugh about how much better your economy is than theirs? Duh!!

I think you're running out of ammunition on your little theory so you're going to start blaming the Americans as a way out. Was the Soviet Union a paradise? They were trying to emulate the stupidity we know as Communism. Sorry Eon, but the system you so zealously support is completely idiotic. It's never worked when people try to implement it, and it's impossible to work as it was written up because of human nature. I think it's a bad economic system anyway, even if it could be implemented. But, as we have all seen, the Capitalist states have thrived while the Commie-wannabies are not the paradises the lefties think they are.

Quote[/b] ]Where's your big achievements - do you have any idea what America could accomplish if it was focused on any goal besides ripping resources out of the earth and cramming them into it's mouth?

You're a radical supporter of Communism, and you're questioning what America has achieved? Did you check over your post before you added that statement to the thread?

Quote[/b] ]The reason why no Communist economy has lasted longer than 80 years is because America hasn't LET one. The moment a country has gone communist, it has been destabilised, invaded or economically pressured by the United States.

Yup, continue blaming the Americans for it! If Communism is so great it should have been able to put up with the evil Americans and their love for freedom!

Quote[/b] ]In a lot of cases I think smaller countries take rotten advantage of the US's good nature.

That's true.

Quote[/b] ]France seems to have no decent Armour, no decent airforce and no decent Navy. Ditto Germany. I feel France and Germany are needlessly anti-US, given their own track record as world powers.

On top of this, French and German companies sold nuclear reactors to Saddam, or so his former top worker for his nuclear program claims.

You still didn't answer my question. Where would you rather live, the United States of America, or the Cuban Communist paradise?

 

[Kohael <PC>]

Wow.. that was an impressive post on Tom's part.

I don't think I've ever seen anybody manage to simultaniously include 3 quotes and totally ignore every single point a person's made. Seriously.. reading this thread I'm beginning to wonder if he's actually a bot.

#include &lt;iostream.h&gt;
int main()
{
cout &lt;&lt; quote.random() &lt;&lt; endl;
cout &lt;&lt; "Eon, you " &lt;&lt; insult.Eon() &lt;&lt; endl;
cout &lt;&lt; "Communism " &lt;&lt; insult.Communism() &lt;&lt; endl;
}


Could you at least PRETEND you're responding to the points he's making, and not just bash communism with a few statements you learned in high school World Government class?

 

[Mr_Eon]

It's true - I'm asking which is better and Tom's hearing me ask which is stronger... The answer is that the "Communism" applied in the Soviet Union (and even in Cuba) is poorly applied and corruptly managed.

Would I rather live in Cuba or America - well, that depends. Some parts of America would make me want to live in Cuba, but given the ability to live in a part of America commensurate with my earning potential I'd live there.

I DON'T defend Communism zealously. BUT I do believe that once our economic production has grown to a certain point we're going to need more than "Grow. Consume." Making sure everybody gets what they need and only contributes what they can is a good aim - and one that would put us further forward than we are now.

Eon

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]Could you at least PRETEND you're responding to the points he's making, and not just bash communism with a few statements you learned in high school World Government class?

I don't recall asking for your opinion on anything, so if you're not going to add anything remotely relevant to the discussion than I suggest you stay out of it. Personal attacks do nothing but lower your own standing and ravage your credibility. Keep it coming, because I find people's attempts at insulting me to be rather amusing.

And I did respond to his points if you would pay any attention.

Your attempt at humour with those lines of code makes little sense because, you see, I never insulted Eon. I stated what appeared as obvious based upon what he was saying to me, but I never insulted him, unless you consider me saying that he zealously defends his position as an insult.

Quote[/b] ]It's true - I'm asking which is better and Tom's hearing me ask which is stronger...

Oh come on man! I've been telling you Capitalism is better, so I don't know how you understood that I'm interpreting you asking which is "stronger".

Quote[/b] ]I DON'T defend Communism zealously. BUT I do believe that once our economic production has grown to a certain point we're going to need more than "Grow. Consume." Making sure everybody gets what they need and only contributes what they can is a good aim - and one that would put us further forward than we are now.

Well, you seemed to be defending Communism fairly zealously, so I must have gotten the wrong impression, sorry about that. When it comes to this, I believe people should work for everything and earn what they get.

 

[Mr_Eon]

Well, I believe everybody should get a fair crack of the whip. Whilst it is entirely fair to determine the things a man can buy based on how hard he works, and his abilities, I don't agree with you that it is unfair to limit or improve the chances of his children in life based on how hard he works.

So I support full healthcare support. Fully funded education. Total law enforcement, not law enforcement based on district. Equal educational standards across the board. Everyone should have clothes to wear, food to eat and shelter.

Other than that though, a man should make his own way.


Eon

 

[Ultima Avatar]

What about controlled education? Should the government be in charge of what kids are allowed to learn, and subtract any education at all of God from all forms of learning?
What about religion? Should the government make a state-sponsored religion again?
What about law enforcement? What is law enforcement to you Eon? What laws would be enforced? TO have total law control, one would need to have a complex spy system set up to monitor ALL people. I don't know if you ever read 1984 but that idea is very reminescent of that.

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Interesting that you believe in giving everyone their fair crack at the whip but you are also a strong supporter of Affirmitive Action.  Tell that to the University of Michigan law student who wasn't allowed to attend university there because of her skin colour.  Is that racist?  Well, yes, but most lefties will tell you no because her skin colour was white.  Did she get her fair crack at the whip?  How can you then say that you believe in fair chance and AA simultaneously?  The two are mutually exclusive.

Kohael, before you attempt to rip another shot at me, this isn't an insult, it's an honest question.

For the purposes of discussion we'll pretend that AA doesn't exist.  Without AA standing in the way of people getting jobs and university placements, everyone does get a fair shot.  Why?  Well, unemployment insurance and subsidized housing is avaliable for those who are having difficulty getting a job.  There is enough there to supply them with "the basics" until they can get a job.  Public education is avaliable to everyone who wants to go to school, and is also sufficient for advancing to post-secondary study.  Post-secondary education, while brutally expensive, is not out of everyone's reach because if you're in the lower earning bracket you can get a student loan.  And notice that I say POST-SECONDARY and not UNIVERSITY?  Colleges here cost between $2000 - $4000 per year, which, particularly with a student loan and a decent co-op program, is affordable.  This means that it is YOUR responsibility to work hard.  If you don't it's not the fault of the system, it's YOUR fault for not working hard enough.

Ok, so some people have had parents that didn't make a lot of cash.  This is true, but do you think that these people can't do it because they didn't get the start that other people have?  I believe the guy who started Magna Corp. came to Canada with very little.  He's now got a successful company.  He did something that everyone can do.  He worked hard and didn't quit.

 

[Mr_Eon]

What a beautiful picture of the American Dream you paint, Tom. I notice you refuse to address the issues of unfair privilige I raised - I mean, could anybody look at George Bush, a guy renowned for being dumber than a sack of rocks, and say that obviously he merited the opportunities he got?

Money talks - and that's fine to an extent that money is provided for goods/services and exchanged for the same so - theoretically - the more value you provide, the more value you are allowed to consume. It just seems that the free market has some strange ways of deciding what things are worth, sometimes.

I would have thought, by now, that even the most ardent Capitalist would have accepted that unrestrained Capitalism just doesn't work. It requires a complex web of restrictions, agreements, safety nets - and it lets too many people slip through the cracks.

And I'm sure you know the difference that rich and poor experience in their "college" experience. Poor students have tighter schedules (at least one job to worry about, in addition to studies), poorer housing, poorer facilities and a potentially crippling debt to look forward to at the end of it all. How long does it take to pay off the debt accumulated during college on an average graduate salary?

Compare that to the elite who swan through with none of the above problems, plus whatever advantages can be garnered by attending a better school, based on nothing but their parents abilities to afford a higher tuition fee.

 

[Guest]

Is it just me or this discussion just went ENTIRELY pear-shaped?

I refuse to sort it out. Ultima, don't worry, I'll beat you up in other threads.

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]I notice you refuse to address the issues of unfair privilige I raised - I mean, could anybody look at George Bush, a guy renowned for being dumber than a sack of rocks, and say that obviously he merited the opportunities he got?

You think my father arrived in this country with the silver spoon in his mouth?  Immigrants to Toronto at the time he came had to have a job, so his dad had to sign a contract to work on a dam for three years.  You think that job brought it a boatload of cash?  Heck no!  However, my dad still became very successful in pursing his desired career!  You can succeed only if you want to, and if you're not going to put out the effort than you deserve no freebees.  And anyone can do anything if they want it badly enough, I don't care who your parants were.

And who is the executor in deciding who has unfair priviledge?  You think there are no poor white people out there?  Why is it right for them to get the shaft from Affirmitive Action?  Would you like to explain that to me?

Quote[/b] ]I would have thought, by now, that even the most ardent Capitalist would have accepted that unrestrained Capitalism just doesn't work. It requires a complex web of restrictions, agreements, safety nets - and it lets too many people slip through the cracks.

Not very many things do work by the reference board.  You do have to set up restrictions.  Even then, I still believe that Capitalism is superior.

Quote[/b] ]And I'm sure you know the difference that rich and poor experience in their "college" experience. Poor students have tighter schedules (at least one job to worry about, in addition to studies), poorer housing, poorer facilities and a potentially crippling debt to look forward to at the end of it all. How long does it take to pay off the debt accumulated during college on an average graduate salary?

Even middle class kids work while they're at school Eon!  My friend's dad is in the upper bracket of society, do you think he just sits on his rear all day because "daddy's got all this money"?  He works, and he has an excellent job, and he's still going to school.  As for debt, getting a co-op program can pay you an insane amount, and you should net a profit attending college.  Even if you don't, the amount you'll have to pay off for college if you received a student loan is relatively small, and you can pay it back over time, and you don't start until 6 months after you're finished your schooling(or it might be after employment, I have to check).  If people work like they're supposed to and not goof off, they'll have their debt payed in no time and will be very successful.

Quote[/b] ]Compare that to the elite who swan through with none of the above problems, plus whatever advantages can be garnered by attending a better school, based on nothing but their parents abilities to afford a higher tuition fee.

Kids who have mommy and daddy pay for everything tend not to have the grit and determination of the students who have to work hard to earn their education.  You think they're going to last long in the workforce if they have never had to work for anything they get(unless they work through connections from they insanely rich parents)?  They'll be out of there faster than a French surrender unless they learn some work habits!  Sometimes they do, but it doesn't always work that way.  However, if some kid has a 95% average, excells at everything he does, but has rich parants are you going to deny him a job because of something he can't control?  And you want to discuss fairness?

 

[Mr_Eon]

Somehow, every discussion we have about the disadvantages of the poor turns into you suggesting I'm biased because what I'm suggesting might be taken too far into becoming a penalty on the rich.

I'm trying to EVEN the odds, not reverse them!

Still, if you can't see the advantages that the right school, the right friends, the right accent and the right background bring you - I don't see how this debate can go anywhere meaningful.

I'm glad your father worked hard and did well - there is certainly that possibility in a capitalist society. But there is ALSO that possibility in a Communist society. Poor factory workers or farmers sons became politburo members, Generals or Doctors. Of course we're talking about the difference between Socialist and Consumerist as opposed to Communist and Capitalist here...

As regards AA - your inability to perceive AA as RECTIFYING an existing imbalance is the root of our inability to come to terms on this issue. Somehow you seem to have managed to score a residents permit to some Utopia, where AA is unneccesary.


Eon

 

[Tom Kazansky]

Quote[/b] ]I'm trying to EVEN the odds, not reverse them!

By trying to "even" the odds, you ARE reversing them! Idiotic policies like AA do just that!

Quote[/b] ]Still, if you can't see the advantages that the right school, the right friends, the right accent and the right background bring you - I don't see how this debate can go anywhere meaningful.

And liberals assume that only white people have all these advantages, particularly white males, and therefore they believe they should be descriminated against for jobs and schooling. That's disgusting! You think that there aren't any rich or qualified minority groups? Why don't you think they can do it on their own without stupid liberal policies? I do, I think they can make it on their own, and they shouldn't stand for people telling them that they require extra help. As a matter of fact, some of them are speaking out against it! Tucker Carlson put up a poll on Crossfire that said 86% of African Americans were opposed to Affirmitive Action. Why do you think that is?

Quote[/b] ]As regards AA - your inability to perceive AA as RECTIFYING an existing imbalance is the root of our inability to come to terms on this issue. Somehow you seem to have managed to score a residents permit to some Utopia, where AA is unneccesary.

If you don't recognize denying qualified white people jobs based solely on their race as racism and descrimination that should be stopped than, I'm sorry, there is simply no way that I can help you. Let's switch AA around for a second. Let's pretend the policy was invented to give white people unfair advantages in the workforce. Is that racism or is it justice Eon? Why is it any different when the gun is pointed in the other direction?

You think minority groups can't make it? Want to know how many Chinese and East Indian people populate the engineering field? They can do so without stupid policies like AA! Sorry dude, they don't need garbage like that, so why do you believe they do?

Finally, what have I, an 18 year old white Canadian male, EVER done to deserve being denied a job because of my race, something which I cannot help? How is that justified? Why is it that it's not racist if it's committed against me? You mind explaining that to me? And don't give me any of this "advantages" garbage, I work bloody hard to get where I do! I am just as "advantaged" as everyone else who applies for engineering jobs!

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Ummm.......I note none answered my questions.
But that's cool. I have no clue what you mean Damar...and I wouldn't cross mental paths with a 15 year-old. You might get whiplash.
As for the rich affording more of everything: it is so. Capitalism allows for the rich to roam, as much as an oligarchy, or a communistic state would, but rather more restricted, in a sense. The rich people tend to be born into it, after an ancestor working for it. These people get the best of everything, education, food, housing, entertainment, service and all such things.
The fact that GEorge Bush stumbles over his words often and looks like an old monkey does not negate the fact that he is our president. Look at Abe Lincoln. Boy chopped wood for his life, wrote on the back of a shovel. Whoo! ANd he was our president til Assassination Day. And he was good.
But as for this, the rich have one thing the poor in common do not: money and status. Money is status. The more you have of it the more important you are. The less you have of it, the less important you are. Now I know the Christians deny that, but it is true. Success, according to Chuck Colson, is living your life according to God. Success, as defined by the world, is this: who you marry, how rich you are, and what movies you've been in. If you married no one important (i.e. a girlfriend from high school), or are in the rat race, or are not an actor, then you are not worth the time of the world.
And that is capitalism: rich people are it.

 

[Mr_Eon]

AA (should) work like this...

Let's say your population is 60% white, 30% Black and 10% Hispanic. (I know that's a simplification, but for argument). Let's take a look at a mythical 80's workforce where there are 10 Executive jobs, 100 Management jobs, 1000 Supervisor jobs and 10000 Shopfloor jobs.

In 1980 let's say the numbers break down like this

Executive jobs - 10 White
Management jobs - 99 White, 1 Black
Supervisor jobs - 900 White, 75 Black, 25 Hispanic
Shopfloor jobs - 8000 White, 1500 Black, 500 Hispanic

The government comes along and says that this pattern of employment is creating populations of angry, unemployed minorities. Now, it's clear that they can't FIRE people who already have jobs in order to give them to other people so, instead, they institute a practice of Ethical Hiring, or Affirmative Action. Generally AA is set at an achievable goal, for example let's say each ethnic group should be represented to at least half its population percentage weight. That would mean that the company would need to shape it's workforce as follows:

Executive Jobs - 3 White, 1 Black
Management Jobs - 30 White, 15 Black, 5 Hispanic
Supervisor Jobs - 300 White, 150 Black, 50 Hispanic
Shopfloor Jobs - 3000 White, 1500 Black, 500 Hispanic

The remainder of the positions could go to ANY qualified applicant, no matter his ethnicity. Surely, accounting for statistical variation, if ABILITY and not RACE is the issue when hiring, then there will already BE those sorts of numbers in place? Note that once you hire Hispanic supervisor number 50 then there IS no further bias towards Hispanics, they're represented in the workforce, so there's no further pressure on management. The same with Black supervisor number 150. If both those slots are filled then there is no LONGER any Affirmitive Action in play when it comes time to fill a job, the succesful candidate will be the most qualified and the one who sparkles the best in front of the review board.

That's why your argument is wrong - if there IS no racism, then Affirmative action isn't even an issue. If Affirmative Action plays a part in the hiring of a candidate, it's because the company in question has been unfairly discriminating, and AA simply counters that.

Eon

 

[Tom Kazansky]

So your idea of a utopian society involves Harvard graduates cleaning toilets for a living because they're white and the company needs to meet their quota?  Oh, I see how this is fair!  And it's not racism because the only people losing out are the evil white people who are scheming to steal all the jobs from everyone else!

Quote[/b] ]Surely, accounting for statistical variation, if ABILITY and not RACE is the issue when hiring, then there will already BE those sorts of numbers in place?

Not neccessarily.  In some cases, a certain job appeals to white males with very little appeal coming in from other groups.  For example, most rap music artists are black, most alternative artists are white.  You want to start having AA there too?  You have to give time for changes to take place.  The problem that you liberals have is that you don't want to allow things to adjust on the natural timeline, but you want everything to change instantly.  That's rediculous!

Quote[/b] ]Note that once you hire Hispanic supervisor number 50 then there IS no further bias towards Hispanics, they're represented in the workforce, so there's no further pressure on management.

Even if the best supervisor to choose from was white?  Sounds like a winning business strategy there bud!  Hire on race and not ability to make your business succeed!

Quote[/b] ]If both those slots are filled then there is no LONGER any Affirmitive Action in play when it comes time to fill a job, the succesful candidate will be the most qualified and the one who sparkles the best in front of the review board.

It should be that way right now.  You don't need some rediculous liberal policies enforced by the PC police to make sure everything is "fair" (by making it unfair for qualified white people).

Quote[/b] ]That's why your argument is wrong - if there IS no racism, then Affirmative action isn't even an issue. If Affirmative Action plays a part in the hiring of a candidate, it's because the company in question has been unfairly discriminating, and AA simply counters that.

That's wrong you know it!  First of all, I'm not wrong, because you simply don't want to recognize your little double standard that you seem to enjoy pulling for whatever reason.  AA IS unfairly discriminating, and if you don't think so you're either repeatedly kidding yourself because you don't want to admit it, completely blind on matters of descrimination, or a politician looking for votes.

And you STILL havn't answered my questions(and I know you've read them and don't want to answer them because it requires you to compromise your position if you want to remain consistant with equality), so I'm going to make them unaviodable here.

1.  How fair was it for that white girl in Michigan to be denied a spot in university BECAUSE OF HER RACE?  If she was a member of the minority she would have been admitted because she fully met the requirementsAnd don't tell me that's not racism, because you bloody well know it is!  If you think it was fair, than why does the Supreme Court of the United States believe that it's unconstitutional?

2.  What have modern day white people done to deserve being denied jobs because so idiots think there's not enough "representation"?  What have I, an 18 year old white Canadian male, EVER done to deserve unfair treatment because of my race?  I have never exhibited racist behaviour, nor have I ever descriminated against another human being because of their race.  So why should I be denied jobs Eon?  How is that justified?  Why is it right?  Why is it not racism?

 

[Ultima Avatar]

It's racism, simply, Tom Kazansky, because the government says it is. If some minorities union together and make a unified complaint about a few blacks being mistreated, and a few Mexicans being fired, and a few fat people being made fun of, and a few women being fired for pregnancy, and that all the white people get all the jobs, then the government has to act on it. BUT, suppose all the whites came together and griped that Mexicans are the lucky ones being fired all the time, or that Mexicans and blacks are the ones being promoted all the time, no one would listen.
BEcause of something called the Civil War, people are stupid now. White people=bad, mean, brutes. Black people=poor, mistreated, underestimated angels. Mexicans=those dudes from the South who deserve a chance.
IF some white people are all successful, BECAUSE THEY'RE RICH and could afford the education at Harvard and the good schools to get them Harvard-worthy, then it's bad, because it was money that got them there in the first place. Is it fair that some black dude from the ghetto was born into the ghetto, and his dad was a drunk who spent every penny on beer, and the kid quit after eighth grade, and got work as a janitor? I dunno. I don't believe it: but it's what America says. If that's broken, then you're sued. They'd rather be "FAIR" than sued.

 

[Tom Kazansky]

I'm anxious to see the responses my questions.