Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Things not looking too good for Iranian president
Topic Started: Jan 18 2007, 05:31 AM (3,702 Views)
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
DirkNL
Feb 6 2007, 04:05 PM
Let's sum up all you've said on this forum which had a so-called point:
"Christianity is the best if you ain't christian damn you and if you're a communist go to fucking hell." There ya go.

-Dirk

Dirk, you forgot "if God ordered me to stone all his enemies(you non-believers) to death, I'd be on the front lines".


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
Feb 6 2007, 05:21 PM
DirkNL
Feb 6 2007, 04:05 PM
Let's sum up all you've said on this forum which had a so-called point:
"Christianity is the best if you ain't christian damn you and if you're a communist go to fucking hell." There ya go.

-Dirk

Dirk, you forgot "if God ordered me to stone all you non-believers to death, I'd be on the front lines".

And "Our problem is we haven't shooted everything that moves yet".

-Dirk
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
But, his reasoning is "logic based" on "historical evidence" and "generally accepted". But, his reasoning lacks "kindness" "compassion" and any other word that shows you're not a Republican cyborg.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And his views aren't generally accepted - 99.8% of the forum (that is, all of the forum 'cept himself) disagrees with him.

-Dirk
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
But, everyone else outside of him is dead wrong. Delusions of Grandeor?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maybe just Fregoli's.

-Dirk
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Stop the flaming. If you are responding to a post then it is fine but don't make a new post to take a shot at him.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Sorry Pierce. Won't happen again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Have you by chance noticed what forest fires do to the natural surroundings?


Yes, and it's a whole lot better than what a logging company does. With a forest fire you don't have large gashes left in the ground from the logging trucks and bulldozers sinking into the ground. And forest fires burn away the underbrush to let other plants and young trees grow.


Like I said, burn down the underbrush once you've removed the useful trees (taking out old large trees help new ones grow too). I haven't seen any indication that material damage is done to the ground by trucks and removal equipment.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Something more than cheap prices on quality goods?  BTW, I hope you give back to your community in some form (or is giving back only something corporations need to do?)



Actually, I do. But, there's more to give than cheap prices on quality goods.



I don't agree and you've not articulated what those things are or why corporations should be compelled to give these other mystry things.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Even when their personal agenda is good for the community and the nation?  The free market is predicated on the realization that when someone sets out to look out for their own interest they are a positive force.  You go to work because you need money, but incidental to your selfish goal of money earning you provide a valuable service to society.  Your greed is helping those around you.



It's funny how you confuse "greed" with "survival".


How strange, I was just about to say the same thing to you. Feel free to keep making vague arbitrary statements though.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
The community shouldn't be investing in a company (a lot of communities give tax breaks, industrial parks, etc, to get companies in).


Shouldn't be and are doing are two different scenarios. Giving large tax breaks is in a way investing money into a corporation.


Which we shouldn't be doing. The government should tax everyone just enough to perform its vital functions, not use the tax system as a backdoor wealth redistribution mechanism.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
We really need to get over this idiotic notion that people "owe" each other something merely because they're successful or have some amount of money.


We need to also get over this idioc notion that the extremely wealthy shouldn't give back to their community just because they are successful. And I never said anybody rich or successful "owes" anyone anything. So, don't put words into my mouth. I was just saying that because they have more resources than most, would it hurt to give something back?


I don't think that the wealthy shouldn't "give back" just because they are successful. I think that they shouldn't be forced to "give back" more than they want to because its their right as a free person to dispose of their own wealth (property) as they see fit. I'm not here to sit in judgment over whether it would "hurt" them to "give back," but rather to make a policy statement that it is anti-liberty to coerce anyone to "give back." If they want to "give back" then they can do so to the extent their desire to do so leads them to give.

DirkNL
Quote:
 

Basically, you're now saying that people have always been cappies.
I disagree - ever heard of primitive communism?


I love it how you expect me to make your argument for you and of course to ignore that you didn't even really respond to my point, but rather just picked up and moved to your new argument since the old one was busted. You claimed that humanity couldn't join communities if it were egotist. I assume you've abandoned that claim?

I'm not saying that people have always been capitalists, but I am saying that capitalism is the economic system which is most compatible with human nature. Read your own source and take note of a few critical differences between the small hunter gatherer tribes of our distant ancestors and modern society. They had no private property because they had no surplus; the entire effort of the tribe was consumed in providing food. All of the members of the tribe were critical to the survival of each other member of the tribe, plus many of the tribe members were family most of the time. If one hunter slacked off on his hunting the effects were immediate and obvious. If one worker slacks off in a huge manufacturing system the effects are not so immediately apparent. Since the communist worker doesn't get to keep his surplus he has no reason to put forth his full effort, unlike the hunter who has no choice but to put forth his full effort or starve because his full effort is the bare minimum needed for survival.

Quote:
 
Did you even have a fucking point? I'm not going to kill myself, of course not. But that doesn't mean I ain't going to give something back to society and help the poor.


I didn't mention you killing yourself; what are you reading? You said that there hasn't been a communist state. My reply is that it isn't for the lack of trying, but rather because the implementation of communism ideology inevitably requires tryanny and repression to make people work, but even then that work is substandard because there is no incentive to work if you don't get to keep your surplus value.
You complained that I wouldn't work for free, letting someone else steal my value, but rather simply work to some minimal standard which would inevitably be required at the point of a gun. You claim that you're going to give something back to society and help the poor, but you don't say how much or how we should decide how much. What if I think you should give back more to society and help the poor more than you do? Should I have the right to compel you to give back to society and help the poor more than you want to? You presume to take upon yourself the power to sit in judgment that other's are not giving enough, but what if someone decides to judge you?

Quote:
 

Oh, so you actually like having to work yourself nearly to death in order to be able to live (unless of course, you lied about the social class you're in and you are the upper class snob I assumed you are). And BTW, you don't even have a fucking point. Let's sum up all you've said on this forum which had a so-called point:
"Christianity is the best if you ain't christian damn you and if you're a communist go to fucking hell." There ya go.

-Dirk


I don't like having to work hard to be able to live and better myself, but it is the only just thing to do. I'm not going to steal from my neighbor like some common thief just so that I don't have to work as hard. Likewise, I want to be able to dispose of the things I earn at my own discretion without being compelled to by the government to dispose of them in a way unproductive to the government's legitimate function of securing liberty. You still didn't address my points and even more laughably you drug a wholly unrelated topic, religion, into the matter.

Killer Bee post #2
Quote:
 

But, his reasoning is "logic based" on "historical evidence" and "generally accepted". But, his reasoning lacks "kindness" "compassion" and any other word that shows you're not a Republican cyborg.


Isn't it kind and compassionate to seek to respect human autonomy and individual liberty? Isn't that the purpose of our government, to keep the people free to live their lives as they see fit and not to be forced to live their lives according to someone else's wishes? I'm for charity, just not coerced charity.

Finally, don't forget the old cliche; "What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
Like I said, burn down the underbrush once you've removed the useful trees (taking out old large trees help new ones grow too).  I haven't seen any indication that material damage is done to the ground by trucks and removal equipment.


Well, I've personally walked through areas where these logging companies have ruined land. But, I guess my reasoning doesn't fit your logic, so just forget it.

Quote:
 
I don't agree and you've not articulated what those things are or why corporations should be compelled to give these other mystry things.


Do I owe you a direct explanation, Falcon. Didn't think so. But, maybe investing some of their resources (money, incase you couldn't figure it out) into a struggling community to make sure it's a decent place to base a business would fit your logic, but I doubt it.

Quote:
 
How strange, I was just about to say the same thing to you.  Feel free to keep making vague arbitrary statements though.


Oh really, how do you figure.

Quote:
 
Which we shouldn't be doing.  The government should tax everyone just enough to perform its vital functions, not use the tax system as a backdoor wealth redistribution mechanism.


*GASP* My God, we agree.

Quote:
 
I don't think that the wealthy shouldn't "give back" just because they are successful.  I think that they shouldn't be forced to "give back" more than they want to because its their right as a free person to dispose of their own wealth (property) as they see fit.  I'm not here to sit in judgment over whether it would "hurt" them to "give back," but rather to make a policy statement that it is anti-liberty to coerce anyone to "give back."  If they want to "give back" then they can do so to the extent their desire to do so leads them to give.


I'm not saying to force them to give to anything. All I'm saying is maybe investing in their sorrounding may work to their advantage. The rest of this bullshit is what you've brought into it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katastrof
Member Avatar
One Of The Four Horseman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I first want to start with the global warming issue.

Falcon
 
This is an entire other thread, but I can give you a few tips. As to why people make it up? To use as a vehicle for an agenda that seeks to redistribute wealth from the first to third world, mainly, and to get unlimited funding for their "research." Anyone who objectively examines the data can see its riddled full of so many holes as to be highly doubtful. Don't buy into the big corporate media scare-fest.

Wikipedia comes through

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...dex.html#000631

http://www.heartland.org/archives/studies/gwscience.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm


Wikipedia -
Quote:
 
This page lists scientists, not necessarily involved in climate research, who have expressed doubt regarding the current scientific opinion on global warming. The mainstream position of the climate science community has been summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:

  1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and 0.17°C per decade in the last 30 years.
  2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
  3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures increasing by 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100. Related to this will be sea level rise and increases in some types of extreme weather. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

These main points are accepted by most climate scientists
and those doing research in closely related fields; however, a small number of scientists actively disagree. This article lists scientists who have, since the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above.

This list includes only scientists with a record of scholarship in the natural sciences (not necessarily climate science) who have stated their opposition in specific, attributable statements, not in a petition or survey. For a general list including non-scientists, see global warming skeptics. This list is intended to be comprehensive, but may be incomplete. Each scientist's views are stated without comment as to their factual accuracy.


This is the introduction of the article you presented me with from wikipedia.org. It speaks for its self. I bolded important parts, so Wikipedia didn't really come through for you.

http://www.heartland.org/archives/studies/gwscience.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

Both of these links are 9 and 7 years old respectivly. They are out dated.

In the first one it said,"Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate." Unfourtunatly most scients do believe in global warming, showing the horrible gap in time that has passed since then and the publication date. I read more but this point showed the glarring falsehood of this document...and that it called heartland.org

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

This one is very new but even though it satarted to sway me I came upon this paragraph:
Quote:
 
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?


Ha...it made me laugh becaue David Suzuki has not been paid by Greenpeace or supported by governments. He has worked for years to tell global warming to deaf ears. Why would getting paid by Greenpeace after you already had an opinion like their's, would make you have an agenda? If anything this Dr. <insert name> has been paid off to spin global warming as bad...

Here are my links:
Fingerprints
I love the quote on this one...
Shows the IRCC reportSome pics of GLacier retreat...

Falcon
 
Try reading these two cases.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma (1955)


The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955).


Try reading my quote that showed you 288 cases of corporations gaining through loopholes in the 14th amendment. 2 are not greater than 288...and again they weren't in the same timeframe that i expalined in my post...

Falcon
 
What's your point and why should I care about karma or your unfounded, unproven claim that the wealthy have "plundered" the poor. It seems that the poor have plundered the rich to the tune of 5 trillion dollars since the Great Society (as of 1997), with no improvement in the poverty rates. http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-24-97.html


My point is that per person corporation get more money than an ordinary citizen.

Falcon
 
How many deserved to be fined into oblivian? You haven't offered a shred of evidence to establish a general pattern. You haven't offered a shred of evidence to show that corporations are generally in violation of the law. You're the one trying to claim that corporations are continually violating the law, but you can't or won't offer any evidence, just ancedotal examples from which no inference can be made. Sorry, but the burden is on you to make a case.


I have offered eviedence accept you refuse to accept it. Hey Falcon, why didn't you refute my fact about corporations being psychopaths? Wait I know why! Because I proved it....You've been nitpicking my arguements, but haven't been refuting them...

Eviedence:

Monsanto

This is the one on the Privitization of Water

Plot to plan a coup to overthrow FDR by industrialists

Falcon
 
It depends on which nation you want to talk about. Rome had corporations. European nations during the middle ages had corporations. Persons wanting to go to the far east to get spices, for example, didn't want to take risks by themselves so they joined together in early corporations. Good grief, do I have to educate you on every tiny historical detail that comes our way?


Name one. Is that easy enough? Because corporations weren't invented till the early 17th century...Which corporation did Rome have? Seriously explain. Because I have never heard of one. Making olive into olive lamps is not a corporation...

No I already know history, I just need you too explain your view point because you're not making any sence...

Falcon
 
Corporations used to be formed by a charter from a king so the idea that they have extra protections now is false. Your assertion that corporations currently enjoy 14th amendment protections is also false as shown above.


Again name one corporation that was made by a king. Columbus was given permision to go and find the West Indies by the King along with backing but that was a sole person. It wasn't a buissness ethier...also it wasn't shown false...

Falcon
 
No, I don't see the paradox, not the least because there is no paradox. The corporation acts for the collective shareholders, not for the individual shareholders who may be employed with the company in an obsolete job.
How is it cold hearted to fullfill your moral obligation as a steward over someone's investment? Would you like it if someone took money that you invested and squandered it? That money is someone else's hard earned property; they need those investments to succeed to support their families. Who are you to decide that one person's family (the stockholder's) is less important than someone else's (the laid off employee's)? Sounds pretty, ahem, cold hearted of you.


Yes there is a paradox. Again:

Maximum profit for shareholders but will cut shareholders for maximum profits.

For instance say a corporation was involved in digging out oil. Now this oil lay on the houses of some shareholders of this company. The corporation seeing that if they moved these citizens away from this place they could make tons of profits for their shareholders. If the corporation does this the shareholders who lived there will obviously be mad with the company and in turn probelly not profit from this venture. So to put this simply, maxiumum profit for shareholders means that if the shareholder hamper maxiumum profit that means they must be cut, which defeats the whole purpose of a corporation. This shows that the corporation doesn't even care for its shareholders just its profits, cutting the last moral fiber it had left.

Who am I to decide? Who are CEOs to decide that they need 3 more cars over a couple thousand workers jobs that they need to have 3 more meals on the table? I'm pointing out the injustice, not deciding anything. I wish I could but I can't...

Falcon
 
Sure it is, someone else may be going behind because you greedily decided to break even. For shame. It's also pretty greedy of you to only work enough to break even. You should be working as hard as possible to turn as big a profit as possible because in order to make a big profit you'll have to maximize the value that you are producing for society.


I hope this is a joke...anyways def of greed:
Quote:
 
Greed: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves


Check!

Falcon
 
Corporations have to follow the law like everyone else. What is unethical is lawbreaking. Maximizing profits within the law is the moral obligation of corporations because they are entrusted with other people's money for that purpose. Their duty is to the shareholders, to all of the shareholders. As an aside, you just can't help but tossing in little propagandistic barbs like "killing the planet" into every other sentence can you?


Thank you Falcon for again agreeing with me. Breaking the law is unethical. Corpations break the law. Hence they are unethical. Propaganda? I don't represent a political party now do i? You however smell like a republican...
Posted Image

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero"(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow)
~ Horace
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
Quote:
 

Well, I've personally walked through areas where these logging companies have ruined land. But, I guess my reasoning doesn't fit your logic, so just forget it.


I've seen areas that have been cleared off too. Then I've seen them a few years later. The land doesn't have any scars, you can't tell it from some other field. If the trees had of been replanted then it would look like a five year old forest (I've seen those too).

Quote:
 
Do I owe you a direct explanation, Falcon. Didn't think so. But, maybe investing some of their resources (money, incase you couldn't figure it out) into a struggling community to make sure it's a decent place to base a business would fit your logic, but I doubt it.


If you want to advance an argument then I hazard you need some form of explanation. Again, how many resources, who decides, who compels who, how do you make this a viable enforceable public policy? If we talk with such vagueness we sound like politicians stumping for votes in some crummy place that they never want to visit again.

Quote:
 

Oh really, how do you figure.


You don't know what you may need to survive in the future so you should save up for the proverbial rainy day. Some would see that fat bank account as greed, I just see survival.

Quote:
 

I'm not saying to force them to give to anything. All I'm saying is maybe investing in their sorrounding may work to their advantage. The rest of this bullshit is what you've brought into it.


You're saying that they should do it, not that we should force them to do it. I have no problem with that, though I'm not convinced of the merits, but as long as no coercion is involved I won't object.

Katastrof
Quote:
 

  1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and 0.17°C per decade in the last 30 years.


Please, quote accurately or don't quote at all.

Scientists in this section hold that the the Earth is not warming or has warmed less than the 0.6 ± 0.2°C estimate given by the IPCC.

Most of that happened before large scale industrialization. If we were causing it then one would expect the warming to accelerate, not slow down just as all of our cars, factories, and power plants were coming online.

Quote:
 
  2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.


I don't see where you got this from the wiki page I gave you at all. Don't tell me you went to the wiki page containing the other side. Here's what it does say:

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites support this."


Quote:
 

  3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures increasing by 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100. Related to this will be sea level rise and increases in some types of extreme weather. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.


Continued from Chris de Freitas:

"The atmosphere may warm because of human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be much more than 1 °C, and probably less, in the next 100 years. ... Warming, from whatever cause, is more likely to produce economic benefits than economic losses."

Quote:
 
This is the introduction of the article you presented me with from wikipedia.org. It speaks for its self. I bolded important parts, so Wikipedia didn't really come through for you.


I don't know what you were reading, go back and try again.

Quote:
 

http://www.heartland.org/archives/studies/gwscience.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

Both of these links are 9 and 7 years old respectivly. They are out dated.


No they're not, they help establish a scholarly history. Unless their findings are overturned by better or additional data then they still stand.

Quote:
 

In the first one it said,"Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate." Unfourtunatly most scients do believe in global warming, showing the horrible gap in time that has passed since then and the publication date. I read more but this point showed the glarring falsehood of this document...and that it called heartland.org


Their poll may be out of date, but the science is not.

Quote:
 


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

This one is very new but even though it satarted to sway me I came upon this paragraph:

QUOTE 
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Ha...it made me laugh becaue David Suzuki has not been paid by Greenpeace or supported by governments. He has worked for years to tell global warming to deaf ears. Why would getting paid by Greenpeace after you already had an opinion like their's, would make you have an agenda? If anything this Dr. <insert name> has been paid off to spin global warming as bad...


He was using an analogy; science isn't bad because its funded by either Greenpiece or an oil company. Science stands or falls on its merits.

Quote:
 

Here are my links:
Fingerprints
I love the quote on this one...
Shows the IRCC reportSome pics of GLacier retreat...


I can't see how fingerprints or the quote have anything to do with science. Glaciers come and go; net glacier volume is what matters.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which advises governments on the causes and consequences of climate change, was accused by Lord Lawson this week of operating “an environmentalist closed shop that is unsullied by any acquaintance with economics, statistics or, indeed, economic history.”* This view is upheld by a new report from International Policy Network, which assesses the way in which the IPCC predicts future climate change.** Lord Lawson, a former British Chancellor, has described the situation as “potentially a major scandal”.

According to the IPN report, the IPCC, which meets next week in Geneva (28-30 May 2004), appears to have intentionally exaggerated its estimates of temperature increases by using highly implausible scenarios of future growth in emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’. The IPCC uses sloppy assumptions for its estimates of economic growth and the technologies that are likely to be available in years to come. Worse, the IPCC’s reports are used as justification for taking actions – such as the Kyoto Protocol – that will have little or no effect on our climate, but will deeply affect our economic, social and environmental development.

In spite of a stream of criticisms from some of the world’s most highly regarded economists, the IPCC continues to utilise the same flawed methodology. It is now time for the governments that fund the IPCC to call it to account.

The evidence suggests that it will be difficult to reform the IPCC. Short of scrapping the organisation, then, the best governments can do is to require their economic ministries evaluate its work and to require the IPCC to rely more heavily on the work of economic historians and economists who understand how to use statistics."

http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=5

Quote:
 

Try reading my quote that showed you 288 cases of corporations gaining through loopholes in the 14th amendment. 2 are not greater than 288...and again they weren't in the same timeframe that i expalined in my post...


Your time period was between 1890-1910, right? My cases come from 1937 and 1955, respectively. New Court rulings overrule past decisions. Thus the current state of the law is as I described, unless you have some newer case overruling those that I produced.

Quote:
 

My point is that per person corporation get more money than an ordinary citizen.


So? Corporations produce more per person than ordinary citizens.

Quote:
 
I have offered eviedence accept you refuse to accept it. Hey Falcon, why didn't you refute my fact about corporations being psychopaths? Wait I know why! Because I proved it....You've been nitpicking my arguements, but haven't been refuting them...


I went through and addressed your accusation of corporations being pyschopaths point by point. You replied to my response once, then I replied back again. Now you're claiming that I didn't address your argument? Come on, everyone can see for themselves that I did. What are you playing at? I've also addressed the substance of each of your posts head on so your charge of nitpicking is similarly false (unless you call demanding factual accuracy a nitpick).

Quote:
 

Eviedence:

Monsanto

This is the one on the Privitization of Water

Plot to plan a coup to overthrow FDR by industrialists


Which changes nothing; you've got to demonstrate that it is something general in order to draw inferences. One of those examples isn't from America. The FDR bit isn't about corporations, but powerful and wealthy men (assuming that its true). The committee that investigated the supposed coup attempt was the forerunner of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and Samuel Dickstein New York, Vice Chairman. Evidence was later shown from the Soviet archives that Dickstein was a Soviet spy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

So that's lovely, one bit of evidence is from outside the US (where laws are different), one is regarding a plot that was never proven in court, from which no one was ever charged with a crime, and was investigated by a committee that would become the House Committee on Un-American Activities, a member of which was a Soviet Spy. That leaves you with one ancedotal example which I matched with my Tylenol exmaple. Great evidence there kiddo.

Quote:
 

Name one. Is that easy enough? Because corporations weren't invented till the early 17th century...Which corporation did Rome have? Seriously explain. Because I have never heard of one. Making olive into olive lamps is not a corporation...

No I already know history, I just need you too explain your view point because you're not making any sence...


"Corporations have been present in some forms as far back as ancient Rome]]. Although devoid of some of the core characteristics by which corporations are known today, they nonetheless were enterprises with a form of shareholders who invested money for a specific purpose. Such corporations in the Roman Empire were sanctioned by the state." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

"In the later days of the Roman Republic corporation was used in documents relating to public law in the same sense as collegium. The word societas seems to have been used as a term corresponding to our word partnership. A collegium possessed the legal right of holding property in common. Its members had a common treasury and could sue and be sued by their syndicus or actor. According to the Roman law, that which was due to the collegium was not due to individuals composing it; that which was an indebtedness of the collegium was not the debt of individuals. The property of the collegium was liable to be seized and sold for its debts." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04387a.htm

Quote:
 

Again name one corporation that was made by a king. Columbus was given permision to go and find the West Indies by the King along with backing but that was a sole person. It wasn't a buissness ethier...also it wasn't shown false...


The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

The Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie or VOC in Dutch, literally "United East Indies Company") was established in 1602, when the Estates-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company (Parliament created, rather than king created)

Quote:
 

Yes there is a paradox. Again:

Maximum profit for shareholders but will cut shareholders for maximum profits.


That isn't a paradox; maximum profit for shareholders is the maximum value for all the shareholders and maximum profit in the value of their stocks (measured in the vitality of the company), not some absolute maximum profit for the individual shareholder. It isn't a paradox just because you don't understand what maximum profits means.

Quote:
 

For instance say a corporation was involved in digging out oil. Now this oil lay on the houses of some shareholders of this company. The corporation seeing that if they moved these citizens away from this place they could make tons of profits for their shareholders. If the corporation does this the shareholders who lived there will obviously be mad with the company and in turn probelly not profit from this venture. So to put this simply, maxiumum profit for shareholders means that if the shareholder hamper maxiumum profit that means they must be cut, which defeats the whole purpose of a corporation. This shows that the corporation doesn't even care for its shareholders just its profits, cutting the last moral fiber it had left.

Who am I to decide? Who are CEOs to decide that they need 3 more cars over a couple thousand workers jobs that they need to have 3 more meals on the table? I'm pointing out the injustice, not deciding anything. I wish I could but I can't...


The shareholders get the profits, all of them, not just one or two, depending on how many shares they hold, etc. A company cannot throw people off of their property, only the government can do that. Corporations have to purchase the land that they want, or else get the government to turn people off for them, but then you need to blame the right party, the government. Again, maximizing profits is for all the shareholders and its accomplished by making the company as efficient as possible.

The board of directors, which can be made up of top shareholders, usually hires the CEO, but of course the people who create and own the company can structure it however they want. The CEO doesn't decide what he is paid, but rather his bosses decide (whoever they are in a particular company's governance structure). The CEO is just another employee typically who is attracted to his job just like anyone else, via pay and benefits. If having a good CEO that makes a company profitable and successful is worth what the company decides to pay then so be it, no one is coercing the company to pay the CEO more than it wants to. How would you like it if someone busted in and told you that you were getting paid too much?

Quote:
 

I hope this is a joke...anyways def of greed:Greed: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves 

Check!


Who decides what you need or deserve? Do you need a computer? Do you need any more food than bread and water? Is the drive to work hard to acquire more wrong if you're providing services or goods that society demands?

Quote:
 
Thank you Falcon for again agreeing with me. Breaking the law is unethical. Corpations break the law. Hence they are unethical. Propaganda? I don't represent a political party now do i? You however smell like a republican...


When corporations break the law they're punished just like everyone else; by the law. Not all corporations break the law, nor has it been shown that they frequently break the law. There isn't a shred of evidence that corporations as a whole tend to act less ethically than anyone else.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
I've seen areas that have been cleared off too.  Then I've seen them a few years later.  The land doesn't have any scars, you can't tell it from some other field.  If the trees had of been replanted then it would look like a five year old forest (I've seen those too).


If these logging companies would follow the rules and guidelines that the state sets up then I would agree with you 100%. But, I've only seen this followed rarely, most of the time it looks like a small nuclear bomb has been set off and the land looks utterly destroyed.

Quote:
 
If you want to advance an argument then I hazard you need some form of explanation.  Again, how many resources, who decides, who compels who, how do you make this a viable enforceable public policy?  If we talk with such vagueness we sound like politicians stumping for votes in some crummy place that they never want to visit again.


I'm not saying force anything, merely as a show of good faith these companies should(not have to) give something back to the community.

Quote:
 
You don't know what you may need to survive in the future so you should save up for the proverbial rainy day.  Some would see that fat bank account as greed, I just see survival.


If you're someone like Bill Gates or Donald Trump, you're more than likely never going to have concerns about the proverbial rainy day. They have rings worth more than you and I put together.

Quote:
 
You're saying that they should do it, not that we should force them to do it.  I have no problem with that, though I'm not convinced of the merits, but as long as no coercion is involved I won't object.


Again, I totally agree with you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I've seen areas that have been cleared off too.  Then I've seen them a few years later.  The land doesn't have any scars, you can't tell it from some other field.  If the trees had of been replanted then it would look like a five year old forest (I've seen those too).


If these logging companies would follow the rules and guidelines that the state sets up then I would agree with you 100%. But, I've only seen this followed rarely, most of the time it looks like a small nuclear bomb has been set off and the land looks utterly destroyed.


When are you talking about; a day after logging ceases, a month, a year? The land generally heals itself just fine after logging to the best of my knowledge.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
If you want to advance an argument then I hazard you need some form of explanation.  Again, how many resources, who decides, who compels who, how do you make this a viable enforceable public policy?  If we talk with such vagueness we sound like politicians stumping for votes in some crummy place that they never want to visit again.


I'm not saying force anything, merely as a show of good faith these companies should(not have to) give something back to the community.


As long as it isn't compelled it doesn't matter to me. Whether someone should do "good works" with their resources is a moral consideration for them to make for themselves.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
You don't know what you may need to survive in the future so you should save up for the proverbial rainy day.  Some would see that fat bank account as greed, I just see survival.


If you're someone like Bill Gates or Donald Trump, you're more than likely never going to have concerns about the proverbial rainy day. They have rings worth more than you and I put together.


Eddie Cantor was one of the era's most successful entertainers, but the 1929 Stock market crash suddenly took him from multi-millionaire status to being broke and deeply in debt. That's just one example of a millionaire that was ruined. Obviously most people with a great deal of money don't have to worry, but that isn't our decision to make. It isn't our place to say what is "too much." Nor is it just to take what someone has, no matter how much they have.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
When are you talking about; a day after logging ceases, a month, a year?  The land generally heals itself just fine after logging to the best of my knowledge.


I've seen land that was timbered four or five years that still show scars of mis use. If the logging company does what their suppose to do when they're done, it recovers rather quick. But, if they don't, the land never is the same.

Quote:
 
As long as it isn't compelled it doesn't matter to me.  Whether someone should do "good works" with their resources is a moral consideration for them to make for themselves.


True.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.