Capitalism... why so bad?

The Social Worker is in da house....

Homeless Rates:
For those who were interested in the point about homeless rates in the US, the best approximation is from an Urban Institute study which states that about 3.5 million people, 1.35 million of them children, are likely to experience homelessness in the US [or houselessness as the UN and I call it] in a given year (as at 2000).

Capitalism:
Capitalism is not to blame for social problems. I'm sure the most successful communist communities have domestic violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide, child abuse, etc etc.

What causes more people to suffer social problems than there should be is the people in power (politically) make decisions about the allocation of national resources that either comes from a place of: not understanding the social problem or not really caring.

Pissweak Leaders:
I think the problem most countries have is fucking pissweak leaders. Politicians who are more concerned about getting re-elected and worrying about public perception to get in and do what needs to be done.

What's gonna rock the world is when a country elects a leader that after being elected says: you have me for the next x years. I'll consult the top advisers and experts and find out what needs being done in each area and make a decision. If you don't like it, I don't give a crap - I'm here to make a difference, not get re-elected.

 

Yes, I do. I was merely pinpointing that IMO in San Francisco the problem is not about the lack of money given to those who are in need. It is the housing issue and the fact that money is given without any accountability for those who receive it. Liberal government = chaos.

 

Geeze, Mike!

And to think that just two days ago you were moaning about all of the political discussions here @ DP.

 

Didn't Minstrel tell you ... it's not my fault. I'm being dragged into this

 

I will celibrate the day it happens.

 

As usual you did not put the source for your quote and is a mix of facts and wrong conclusions. Here are the relevent quotes with the source:

prisoner of war

(DOD) A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy. As such, he or she is entitled to the combatant's privilege of immunity from the municipal law of the capturing state for warlike acts which do not amount to breaches of the law of armed conflict. For example, a prisoner of war may be, but is not limited to, any person belonging to one of the following categories who has fallen into the power of the enemy: a member of the armed forces, organized militia or volunteer corps; a person who accompanies the armed forces without actually being a member thereof; a member of a merchant marine or civilian aircraft crew not qualifying for more favorable treatment; or individuals who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces. Also called POW or PW.

Source of above definition: US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words, 2003

Geneva Convention definition

A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.

The laws apply from the moment a prisoner is captured until he is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners, and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, guerrilla fighters and certain civilians.


Guerrilla (also called a partisan) is a term borrowed from Spanish (from "guerra" meaning war) used to describe small combat groups. Guerrilla warfare operates with small, mobile and flexible combat groups called cells, without a front line. Guerrilla warfare is one of the oldest forms of asymmetric warfare. Primary contributors to modern theories of guerrilla war include Mao Zedong and Che Guevara. While "asymmetric warfare" is the military term for guerrilla tactics, it is often referred to in the pejorative as "terrorism."

Guerrillas are often characterised as terrorists by their opponents. Guerrillas are in danger of not being recognized as combatants because they may not wear a uniform, (to mingle with the local population), or their uniform and distinctive emblems my not be recognised as such by their opponents. Article 44, sections 3 and 4 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, "relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts", does recognise combatants who, due to the nature of the conflict, do not wear uniforms as long as they carry their weapons openly during military operations. This gives non-uniformed guerrillas lawful combatant status against countries that have ratified this convention.

encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Prisoner_of_war

Even if I agreed with you that Geneva convention does not apply in certain case, it only means that it should be handled by civilian courts, it does not mean that government employee can freely imprison people and for indefinite time. As I asked before, do you want a country without courts or any laws?

 

As usual, you are guilty of derailing the thread. If you wanted a source you could have just asked.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html

I know you wont agree with anything that comes from our evil white house so I'll go ahead and assume that you refuse to be open minded in that maybe, just maybe you could be supporting killers instead of a government who is trying to rid us of them.

So, do you have any comments on the topic of the thread?

 

Press release from white house and I was thinking that it must be from fox news. Do you expect me to believe the news release from white house when the original text of Geneva convention and US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military words contradicts them?

The more important question that you still haven't answered, Do you want a country without courts or laws, when government employees can imprison people for indefinite time?

I answered you before, first you have to define what you mean by Capitalism before I can answer is good or bad but I fully support your right to work with Internet projects to buy a house or a car and don't worry the Russians are not coming to USA to take away your car.

 

I want a country with courts and laws and a country where government employees CAN imprison KNOWN TERRORISTS for indefinate times. Gives those who intend to saw heads off a little incentive not to do so.

Say g, the terrorists must really like having people like you around to protect them.

 

Nope, but I sure as fuck don't want to live in a country where a person to cowardly to fight outright hides within the confines of laws made to protect the truly innocent. A good example of what you are referring to as "Justice" happened several years back when a famous ex-football star slaughtered his ex-wife and her new boyfriend and hid behind the law to walk. You preach your legal rhetoric that can easily be found online. You quote the Geneva Convention for which our enemy has absolutely NO respect for, did you see that guy get his head sawed off? I am almost postive I learned that was against the Geneva Convention when I was serving as a combattant in the military, as is flying an airplane into a building and strapping a bomb under your coat to attack civilians. This is not a conventional war, it is not conventional combat and these people are around us everyday. If it means I lose a few freedoms or liberties to make sure my daughter is not blown to pieces by some jackass who believes god will give him virgins, I will gladly sacrifice that to make sure she is safe.

 

Damn fine post! My rep tank is empty.

I totally agree. I find it a bit confusing that people still want to defend these filth.

 

Wherever there is terrorism gworld is there.

Gworld, no one likes you here and everyone hates your tirades so why are you still here?

You have been correctly labeled a fanatic and a hypocrite. Yet you continue to argue. No one’s buying what you have to say.

 

How are they KNOWN, was he your neighber or your friends and confined in you that he was a terrorist? The base of our law system in North America and rest of civilised world is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I asked you before, how about people that are suspected of murder, bank robbery, theft or cheating on taxes, can we impriosn them too because a goverment employee thinks that they are KNOWN criminals?

So what is your solution? We should close the courts and just execute anybody that we think is guilty. I think you are referring to OJ Simpson case, is it your opinion that police should have shoot him dead when they arrested him after the chase instead of taking him to custody and court?
How about terrorists, should we start to saw off their heads to prove that we are as bad as them? Don't you think after a while it will be very hard to distinguish between terrorists and government, if we start to act like terrorists and do not respect laws?

It is funny that you mention this because while I get red rep from anonymous losers with little reputation, I am getting green rep from respected members, so my reputation is more than double of what I started with, I suppose you are wrong and many agree. The only problem is that not everyone has as much patient as me to argue with morons that only can repeat what they heard on fox news and that is the reason they don't post

 

How are they NOT KNOWN?

Still defending them I see.

Dude, get a grip.

 

You tell me how are they KNOW. I don't know and have no idea what you are about but if the government arrests you tomorrow and tell us that you are a KNOW right-wing terrorist and they want to imprison you for indefinite time, should I believe them because a government employee said so?

 

I make sure I sign my red rep, which I’m sure you can’t say the same.

Yes that is a problem. Not everyone has as much patient to argue with a moron. You do know that in an indirect way you called yourself a moron, right?

And why even bother with America. You hate the government and politics so bad leave and never come back. Don’t let the proverbial doorknob hit you in the ass.

 

Gworld, you really need to get a clue man. You have been exposed time and time again as a sympathizer of the terrorist cause and you act like it never happens. People can read. You'll get your little green reps from those who also do not like America and what she stands for but that doesnt change the fact that people are out to kill us and you are trying to protect them under the disguise of "law".

How are they known? Well, because they kill. Because they were in the battle field when they knew coalition forces were coming. Common sense would say that you should get your ass indoors and hide until it is over. Not be staning in the battle field with a weapon in your hands.

Seriously, it doesnt take a genious to figure that one out.

You are right. You dont know me. I am not at all a right winger. In fact I cant stand a lot of what right wingers and Republicans are on about. I hate a lot of what Bush does and have a hard time grasping his reasons for some of his policies.

Now, your little comparison is absolutly rediculous.

Just to make sure that it isnt easy for you to ignore like you always do...

TERRORISTS SAW PEOPLES HEADS OFF. TERRORISTS WALK AROUND WITH WEAPONS WITH THE INTENT TO KILL IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR.

I dont see that happening here in the states. However, if it did then YES, they should be detained. I dont think a single person who commits these terrible acts should be allowed to walk free and get a taxpayer paid defense in the legal system. We are talking about brutal beheadings and loss of life here you know.

Call me a meaney or whatever the fuck you want to say, but I do not believe we should tolerate this BS.

You on the other hand want to cater to them. You want to pretend that they are not bad. You want to see them win because that would mean America loses.

You are anti America and it is as clear as day.

To further on this conversation. I went back and looked at a few threads and almost every thread that you jump into gets derailed from its topic and ends up in you squirming and grasping for a way to say that terrorists should not be held or punished. You pretend we dont know that they are terrorist when anyone with a head on thier shoulders knows they are.

You want a society where anything goes and the government pays for the results.

That society is not America.

 

so how are "known" again?

I'm not sure I heard the answer to that in there

 

IT IS AS CLEAR AS DAY!

There were soldiers in uniform. Those soldiers now for the most part serve in the Iraqi military. I know because my sister is there with the Air Force right now. The ones we have are the ones who were dressed as regular people and were out there trying to kill us.

Think about it. Dont want to pinned as a terrorist? Then dont fucking act like one.

 

Way to side step what I said exactly like you always do. Misdirection is the first tool of those who don't know what they are talking about.