News Stories

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

The sad thing is people actually believe this bullshit. First off, your taxes go to benefit everyone, including yourself.

Those people on welfare you deride? Without it, they add nothing to the system. With it, however, they can spend money. That money spent will be used to benefit businesses in your community. Even you benefit from them getting welfare, and likely by more than you pay in tax, though indirectly. You said you owned a construction or roofing company right? I could be mixing you up with someone else. Regardless, with the welfare recipients being paying customers of local businesses, said businesses will be better able to afford your services. This isn't as obvious as your taxes coming out, but it is a real effect. Without welfare, your business would probably take a hit.

Also, that guy's remark about his faith? The bible quite specifically tells you to pay your taxes. Trust the word of the lord? The lord has spoken, and he said to pay up. Mark 12:14 - 12:17, Luke 20:22-20:25, Romans 13:17

Uh... Not to speak for Justin, but I don't think "they can spend money" is a great argument. I mean, the middle class doesn't need people on welfare to spend money. We can do that on our own without help. And we'll use it on restaurants and houses and stuff rather than cheap imported goods.

I prefer to think welfare is something we do because
- ultimately, the alternative is to put the poor out of their misery. If you're not ready to do the latter, you'd better resign yourself to do the former.
- they will, eventually, produce wealth. Not all of them, obviously. But a lot of people have low points in their lives. It doesn't mean they'll be stuck there forever. That goes double for students.

I know welfare is never perfect (in whatever country), and I'm aware some people try to game the system. Doesn't mean I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Ithekro]

Cynical and yet more cynical...on both ends of the spectrum no less.

It is oddly entertaining...but then it is late here and I'm probably tired.


I can say that some of the fustration people have with Medicare is that it doesn't really cover all that much. Especially when you get really old. It covers medications and about 30-90 days of medical treatment. If you are really old, it takes a long time to heal, upwards of half a year or a year for something as simple as a bedsore and a urinaty tract infection. Then the costs go way, way up...enough to drain a lifetime of saving in just a few months.

Add to this the general view that our tax dollars at work is basically spinning its wheels and not really doing anything but fix potholes (poorly I might add), replacing half a bridge that took about five years to build in the span of 25 years, and generally seeming incompetent at every turn. At which point you generally decide that the various governments really don't deserve any of your tax dollars, and begin buying things from out of state because said states don't have sale's tax.

Also when one's degree actually does nothing effectively since there are no jobs in your field that you can find. It just gives you the basic bottom rung to work because hey, everyone needs a B.A. to do anything now.

About the only actual advantage I have is my Boy Scout rank as that seems to impress people (or it use to anyway). Eagle Scouts are suppose to be 2% of all scouts, so it is suppose to mean something.

[Xion Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Bringing up a post from a moderator I greatly respect, and who is far more eloquent and to the point than I've ever chosen to be. And a link to the actual post from months past.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/1576610853-post128.html

We have a very, very different view of things, and there will never be agreement between us on these issues. It is like fire and ice. The two views cannot co-exist in the same space.

I think the fundamental difference between our viewpoints is that I don't believe in natural rights at all. Life, liberty, and property are socially definted constructs that do not exist outside of a society bound by the social contract. They are only as universal as the government has the means to enforce them. You only have to look at areas like Somalia to see how absent any strong central government, all you have is survival of the fittest.

The tax increases would definitely not be levied on someone in your tax bracket. They'd be for people making at least $250k or more. Although I could make do with a 2-3 % increase in my bracket without really sacrificing too much.

Also, despite how bloated the government programs are, they are very necessary even if you don't use much of it. Social nets, even though they are abused as they are, are very necessary to keep the overall levels of crime down, especially when unemployment gets higher. Even if the parents don't contribute to society at all, every child should get the opportunity to get a decent education and become contributing members of society. Otherwise, we'd only perpetuate a cycle that will just lead to the eventual degeneration of society. This actually hurts people like you and me the most, since this rise in crime and lawlessness would seep into where we live/work first rather than the areas where the upper echelons live.

Of course, the most logical solution would be to sterilize a certain percent of the population, since population is a contributor to this problem., but I guess for some people that's considered "unethical". I personally believe having children is a privilege, not a right, especially if you can't provide for them.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

- they will, eventually, produce wealth. Not all of them, obviously. But a lot of people have low points in their lives. It doesn't mean they'll be stuck there forever. That goes double for students.

Yeah, the big reason that governments spend money on social programs is to ensure that poverty is a temporary condition. These things have a return on investment. (Hopefully - last I heard, pretty much all income increase in America from 2000-2007 went to the top ten percent, and I'm going to guess its not just because the bottom ninety percent didn't work hard enough.)

(As for charities, they're of limited use during a recession because their budgets tend to be impacted by the economy as well.)

[Ithekro]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-now?gt1=43001

Soyuz epoch indeed......

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-now?gt1=43001

Soyuz epoch indeed......

In Soviet Russia, the Soyuz takes you to space, whether you like it or not!

[Ithekro]

It is fortunate that we have Federal Russia now than isn't it? Were you will take the old spacecraft and you will like it..

And can almost relate to that since my car is 40 years old and it is fairly reliable. But somehow I'd like my spacecraft to be spaceships at some point rather than a little capsule that bounces on impact with the ground.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It is fortunate that we have Federal Russia now than isn't it? Were you will take the old spacecraft and you will like it..

And can almost relate to that since my car is 40 years old and it is fairly reliable. But somehow I'd like my spacecraft to be spaceships at some point rather than a little capsule that bounces on impact with the ground.

Russia is run by oligarches. In fact, most people only trade Russian stocks when they start haranguing the Caucasus state for oil, otherwise, their stock market doesn't gyrate as much as Putin's fangirls to his photos.

US is different. It is run by anyone who has money.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Echoes

That's not going to happen, though I would be lying to say that I don't share your sentiment deep down.

Edit: Against the death penalty in general, but yes, exceptions are tempting when dealing with monsters who indiscriminately slaughter over 80 young people.

There's still at least 2 thing than might happen; he might have a little ''accident'' or he might end up openly killed by someone, most likely a parent of one of the teenager. Both scenario may sound interesting at first but I belive it would be a bad idea. Of course the fact than I am a outsider, not as much touched by this even might discredit my opinion on this subject, like other as well.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-now?gt1=43001

Soyuz epoch indeed......

Soyuz is like the Chevy small block performance engines... both are cheap, effective, and still marching on 50+ years later.

respect!

[Ithekro]

Interestingly enough, the Russians are working (or at least they were in 2009) on replacements for Soyuz. Kliper and the PPTS (Rus). But like the American stuff, they won't be ready for a while either.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I work 60 hours a week or more, depending on the work load. I've had one vacation in over 6 years, and have one day off a week through-out. Hell I was working before I had my driver's license 15 years ago. And I'll be working until I'm 80 the way our Government is fucking everything up for the rest of us. So pardon me if I don't feel sorry for you and your story. Yes keep calling us names if it makes you feel better. Must make you feel like a big man using the words tea baggers, douche-bags, etc. Meanwhile, the people you support keep ripping the rest of us off, then keep wanting more of what we've worked for every year. Because you obviously are entitled to our labor.

Heh, if you lived in some European countries you'd only have to work 30-40 hours a week!

But more seriously, you guys in the US need to look at other countries for a bit. Your tax levels, such as they are, are really low. Someone quoted earlier a sales tax of 10%. In Ireland we pay 21%! Income tax? We pay 20-40 (depending on your bracket, scandinavia it's over 50%!). Obviously, I don't want to parade Ireland as a model of fiscal wisdom, we're one of those European countries on the verge of default, though during the boom times we were actually paying down debt. Our problem was that our economy was too dependent on an inflated property market facilitated by government goons...

I generally agree that government should be fairly minimalist, however I wouldn't ever completely do away with government programs like healthcare, welfare and public infrastructure. You americans might complain that all that money spent on public transport is wasted, but that's because you guys don't spend enough to do a decent job. In Europe we have fantastic public transport, that doesn't break the bank. It's a pleasure to travel on. Comparitively, in the US I rode on greyhound buses and it definitely left something to be desired... America doesn't even have a decent train network.

And if you look at the American budget the big spending is on Social Security, Medicare/Aid and the Military, the very things most americans will never touch. Spending decreases can only go so far. I've said it before, but if the US properly overhauled their healthcare model to a european one they'd save a lot of money...

With Taxation the US could solve all it's fiscal problems. America is not a poor country, and I see nothing wrong with taxing rich people more.

In fact, the wealthy owe the existence of their wealth and status to the state. If the United States collapsed tomorrow, and everything lost it's value (a Somalia scenario, if you will), everyone would lose everything, but the vast majority of working and middle class people would lose relatively little. They could probably maintain control of their property (EG, their house), and could probably seize other's property by force if they wanted to. Meanwhile all the stocks, bonds and land deeds owned by the wealthy would be just that, scraps of paper.The wealthy are dependent on the existence of the state, they should pay for it.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Bringing up a post from a moderator I greatly respect, and who is far more eloquent and to the point than I've ever chosen to be. And a link to the actual post from months past.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/1576610853-post128.html

We have a very, very different view of things, and there will never be agreement between us on these issues. It is like fire and ice. The two views cannot co-exist in the same space.

Please let me analyze that post, because obviously this person prefers to live in the middle ages where he'd pay a lot of money to the church and not to the government.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

I equate my freedom to how little my natural rights are violated. Those natural rights, inherent to me from conception, given to me by my Creator are life, liberty and property (the right to own it and not have it taken from me by force and do with it as I choose). Medicaid, like all welfare, takes from me by force, at gunpoint and against my will, and gives it to another. For that person to benefit, I must suffer, and I have no choice. In effect, I am the recipient's slave by virtue of nothing more than being more productive.

He declares his natural rights being based upon a creator. In fact he can be lucky that his natural rights are enforced by secular real world institutions. Then again, a demagogue of his caliber might have been a good oppressor in the old days himself. According to this person he will never use medicaid himself, he will only support others with medicaid and it is taken against his will.
Now the funny thing is, that in an orderly society, many things are against one's own will (because usually people have no idea in which way they benefit from it).

I don't know if this person prefers to be ripped off by health insurers in a deregualted market instead. Then he doesn't need to give some money to support those who cannot effort meaningful health care otherwise, but throw even more money down the rich, derugalted insurers throat.

How this concept of giving those who really have more than enough is preferable to giving those who are in need, is going to build a stable and peaceful society that he can safely live in, is beyond me. I suppose that a functional economy does not need healthy workers, but cheap labor that can be worked to the bone. Technically that gives the financial overlords more freedom to exploit others, but your freedom as a worker drone will be pretty much non existent.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

The less that happens, the less my natural rights are violated, thus the more free I become.

Only if he is born into the upper echelons of such a society. I mean lets be honest, he is basically describing monetary feudalism here.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

Easily. Find me the verse in the Four Gospels or any letter written by St. Peter or St. Paul that says if I am not willing to be charitable, the Lord will send tax collectors and centurions to enforce His vision of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Now that would be funny. And honestly if the taxes are so high that you cannot effort a decent way of living, one could argue against that system. But in reality its just luxury lamentation. Something I despise over everything else, especially when the same person is talking about charity in the next sentence.
This is way beyond being hypocritical or cynical this is outright arrogant.
Of course maybe there is a twisted understanding of charity. That it must come with reducing the freedom of the person who receives help as much as possible.
I suppose some sort of robbing the recipients dignity is perfectly fine with him. If he actually has to be charitable at least he can dictate how much and at what conditions, priding himself to be so charitable... excuse me, now I almost had to throw up, thinking I was at the mercy of such a person.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

I am called by my faith to charity. Government welfare is not charity. It is theft.

Maybe he perfers real thieves instead of the government (the difference is that the real thieves will take everything he owns and maybe his life). I wonder how long he can defend his wealth in a rioting society. In most democracies welfare is a means to stabilize the society. Because giving someone the means to live without resorting to crime is a good way to prevent crime.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

The good Lord forces us to do nothing. He asks us to do things for our fellow man.

The problem is, that Mr. Hill wants to define in the name of his good lord, who is a fellow man, and at what conditions things are done for that receiving clientel. That this in the same time massively interferes with the freedom of the recipient, and even robs the recipients dignity is not mentioned. However, with his own behaviour he would shape the scoiety around him... and who can rule out that this could not force people to rather rob/kill Mr. Hill and take his money instead of begging for it at his conditions... I mean his plan might not work his way.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

That's what that whole free will thing is about. Did He say to his disciples that they should cast off their earthly wealth to follow Him? Sure, but did He force them at the tip of the centurion spear? Did He enlist Pilate as his regional tax collector to force his Apostles to properly redistribute their wealth, just in case they weren't charitable enough? No.

As far as I know he died anyway at the end. Seems like not all people have charitable thoughts and believe in the same thing. Therefore secular laws exist, that force everyone in a society to follow certain rules and practices. Usually these practices are proven over time and can be considered best practices. Of course that does not prevent people from turning best practices into something else where a few gain power/wealth at the cost of society.
But I like to go out on a limb and claim that this is most often done in a way that the already powerful and wealthy benefit most from it.
While it is economically logical for the person in the middle to condemn the lower classes in favour of the higher ones (because one tries to enter these higher circles too), there is a limit to which extent this actually makes sense. Because the higher classes look at the middle with the same worries as the middle classes look at the lower classes. Technically for the higher classes it is beneficial to pit lower classes against middle classes. At the moment this approach creates more lower class from the middle class instead higher class. Which is logical, because there is only a fixed amount of money that can be distributed. And if a few people get a lot more money, many people will get less money.
The question is, when is such a system working... what amount of separation of classes is healthy. At which point will it be most efficient to get the most out of social competition, and when does it starts to actually hinder such competition (classes where you are born in - and cannot leave... that concept is known from India and is called the caste system).

Originally Posted by mhill0531

The slaves who made bricks for Pharaoh's pyramids were not being charitable. Seems to me they were forced by the lash to make and move those bricks. And as I recall, G-d the Father sent Moses to liberate them from forced labor to the benefit of the state.

Actually scientist today agree, that it wasn't forced labor. More like cheap labor for those who could not effort life any other way, because there were not enough charity people and no system that would support a better distribution of wealth, so that these people could be forced by a money/power elite to do labor at their conditions. Pretty much the world Mr. Hill wants to live in it seems.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

I do give to charity. Every week to my parish, every payday to Catholic Charities of Cleveland, and every year to St. Judes. In my adult life, I have either given or helped raise over $80,000 for St. Judes alone. I don't need a lecture on being charitable.

Now if I didn't knew he wasn't merely doing this just so he can direct his money to where he thinks it is better used (according to his own selfish understanding of who is eligible to receive his funding) instead of the state (that tries to be more unbiased in that regard) that gives him tax breaks for doing this (and basically allows for diverting money that was meant to be for the whole of society to an organization that clearly has a bias of whom to help and whom not - only one example for the restriction of the recipients freedom, that I was talking about before)

Originally Posted by mhill0531

Acquiescing to a mugger who robs me is not something I am commanded to do according to faith, and I could care less how corporate religious bureaucrats of any faith wish to define the abomination called social justice, the Holy Father included. I can read the Four Gospels, and I'll trust the word of the Lord over the word of a man.

I bet he trusts anything that he believes is more beneficial for him. But maybe I am wrong, and he really believes what he is saying. ^^'

Originally Posted by mhill0531

basically, my stance makes more sense BECAUSE of my faith, not independent of it.

Actually, it makes precisely no sense because of his faith being twisted by his own selfish thoughts.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

Someone's survival relies upon harm being done to me. They survive solely through the fruits of my involuntary servitude, which are taken from me by force. I am forced to toil for the benefit of others, and have no choice in the matter. There's a word for people like me in this scenario, and the 13th Amendment is supposed to have outlawed the practice.

Okay this is another part of luxury lamentation, I fail to see something with substance in it, that is new with regards to what has already been said.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

PS - I don't post my thoughts on this forum seeking approval, admiration, or agreement. I post them because a) the fine folks of IB and CF allow me to, and b) because I feel like. Your disappointment is noted, but totally irrelevant to me. As a libertarian, I am used to the shock and horror people express when I do nothing more than remain consistent, regardless of ends/means appeals to emotion.

Still sounds like a justification to me... I almost feel unworthy to be allowed to know his oppinion.

[Tiberium Wolf]

91 dead in Norway attack

Who is the suspect in Norway's attacks?

Can we start calling Norway the Christians terrorist heaven?

[Anh_Minh]

Didn't some islamist organization try to claim the attacks, because of Norway's presence in Afghanistan? Wonder what they were thinking.

[Jinto]

Its certainly a tragedy. Though I am somewhat relieved that it wasn't another islamist terror attack, because europe grows more and more islamophobe in the recent years. This could have raised tensions, and intensified the situation which might have led to even more home grown attacks.

The only good thing about this attack is, that the killer did not do his cause any good (in the contrary I hope the european countries will now focus more on the right wing nuts we have here).

Still, so many dead... its a hefty price for being blind on the right eye. :/

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Its certainly a tragedy. Though I am somewhat relieved that it wasn't another islamist terror attack, because europe grows more and more islamophobe in the recent years. This could have raised tensions, and intensified the situation which might have led to even more home grown attacks.

The only good thing about this attack is, that the killer did not do his cause any good (in the contrary I hope the european countries will now focus more on the right wing nuts we have here).

Still, so many dead... its a hefty price for being blind on the right eye. :/

Indeed. Though what scares me is that this attack really shows the undercurrent of islamophobic xenophobia running through Europe at the moment. The only thing that makes me feel at all secure is that they haven't yet unified in any meaningful way.

We have to push things towards cosmopolitanism, am I right?

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Didn't some islamist organization try to claim the attacks, because of Norway's presence in Afghanistan? Wonder what they were thinking.

Yes, they did, almost immediately after it happened, and before the true nature of the shootings at Utøya came to light. The group's name is Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, which translates to "Helpers of the Global Jihad" from what I've read. They might have just been betting on the perpetrator(s) being Islamists like themselves, and wanted to steal credit. They came forth with the usual spiel of this only being the beginning of a much larger terror organization and so forth. Of course, they look extremely petty and silly in light of the facts of the case.

Originally Posted by ganbaru

There's still at least 2 thing than might happen; he might have a little ''accident'' or he might end up openly killed by someone, most likely a parent of one of the teenager. Both scenario may sound interesting at first but I belive it would be a bad idea. Of course the fact than I am a outsider, not as much touched by this even might discredit my opinion on this subject, like other as well.

It's not impossible given the monstrous dimensions of this crime, but I assume he will be kept under maximum security for quite some time.

Originally Posted by Tiberium Wolf

Can we start calling Norway the Christians terrorist heaven?

Where is this information that he is a "Christian terrorist" coming from? I have read absolutely nothing about his religious convictions on any Norwegian news site or newspaper, but it's all over the English-speaking ones. I'm not saying that it isn't true, (given what else we know, it doesn't seem out of place) but I suspect that this is at best conjecture at this point. Unless I've missed something completely, of course, which is why I'd really like a specific source of the claim.

Even if it turns out to be true that he is indeed a Christian, he has already shown that he was primarily motivated by his strongly held political convictions. So no, please hold your horses on declaring Norway a heaven for Christian terrorism.

Originally Posted by Jinto

The only good thing about this attack is, that the killer did not do his cause any good (in the contrary I hope the european countries will now focus more on the right wing nuts we have here).

I can't imagine he did, no. Anyone who is even remotely associated with his ideology will distance themselves from him as much as possible, and that event this will scare many people who were on the fence away from, at least, the far-right.
I find it hard to comprehend how he thought this could possibly benefit either Norway or his case. I guess speculation is pointless at this stage, his own explanation will probably be all over the news soon enough.


----

Some other new facts have surfaced about the case.

I: Sifting through the criminal's posts on a forum he was a member of shows that he was spouting classical right-wing extremist views. He was critical of multiculturalism/Islam, Marxism, the Norwegian political milieu in general, and many Norwegian politicians specifically.

II: More thorough interviews with the survivors reveal that there might actually be a second shooter after all. This is not a certainty yet, and the police are working at their full capacity to discover if a second perpetrator was indeed present.

III: As was already been mentioned, the death toll has risen to 91. 84 from the shooting and 7 from the bomb blast in the city center. Around 20 people are also in critical condition from injuries sustained during the two events. The numbers of dead may still rise, reports say.

IV: Records show that he bought around 6 metric tonnes of artificial fertilizer, and that the bomb that was used in Oslo probably would have taken no more than around 500 kilograms to assemble, a mere 1/12 of that. What has become of the rest of it is unknown at this point, though some of it was probably used for the bomb he intended to detonate at the youth camp.

EDIT: 3 tonnes of the fertilizer was found lying on the farm he had rented.

My deepest condolences go to the parents who are as we speak waiting for confirmation of the deaths of their children. It's still hard to fathom that the bomb went off less than 15 minutes walking distance from where I live. The streets were eerily empty as I went out for groceries and an evening stroll by the river. I'll inspect the damages downtown myself today.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

We have to push things towards cosmopolitanism, am I right?

I don't know about Ireland, but in Germany we have an ageing population. This itself would not be a problem. But the ageing population votes primarily for conservative politicians. These politicians have a very conservative appraoch with multiculturalism or cosmopolitism. Basically, who wants to come to Germany must be integrated (which basically translates into cultural assimilation). This atmosphere and rhetoric is not helping multicutluralism and cosmopolitanism.
Another contributing factor is that the education system erodes somewhat. This produces more undereducated citizens that can be easily influenced by all sorts of radical elements.
How thin the acceptance of multicutlural things is, one could see very well when certain dirt papers (e.g. Bild) used the lowest possible populist and instigation tactics to stir up resentment against the greeks. What worried me most is how easy it is to influence the people's minds.

[Tom Bombadil]

This is pretty unfortunate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14262276

Express Train derails in China.