sexual_chocolate

Ah comrade, let me re-educate you right now: 27' does not attain yacht status; alas, it fails the yacht test by a measly 12 inches! What kind of a proud wealthy urbanite capitalist can I be with (oh excuse me my banker called, for reals! they can get it down to 6.37 on a 30 with 10% down; not as good as I was hoping for, but I have two more leads. Plus, i really can't complain, since any rate will have full coverage, plus a return.) ummm where was I? oh yes, an almost-yacht? Oh the agony!

That is a great idea. I didn't even think of it, quite honestly. Maybe next winter, this will be something to consider.

or was it kissinger?

Hey, freemarket reforms didn't bring liberty swinging into Chile either - and plenty of people emigrated during that time - but I've never heard you talk bad about economic reforms because of that. Dude, surely you are joking right? There would have been perfect liberty if everyone had simply agreed with pinochet.

Retarded people! Classic. Capitalism is not a car. It never was and never will be, even though you seem to view it as such. It is a myth of the given to assume that somehow capitalism is a purely objective functionally complete machine, needing only the proper driving lessons for anyone and everyone to enjoy the ride. I think you misunderstood my point: I do not long for a romanticized past, nor do I think of private property as a vestige of the past in the sense you think above. I think of the notion of "private property" more as a way that a select few learned to protect territory and themselves. I think literacy is hardly a minor accolade, nor housing and health care for all. remember that without a major influx of cash, the capitalists would probably have lost the mid-nineties elections in russia. funny that those so oppressed by communism would have voted the communists back into power! (if I remember correctly, the communist candidate at one point had over fifty percent support in pre-election polls.)

prolly mainly cuz face lends itself better to hard climbing, and few cracks in limestone, home of most hards. and it's harder to chip a trad line into existence!

I would rather you justify your choice of comparison before answering. Yes, with broad brush strokes one may lump both mugabe and chavez into the same camp, but enough differentiation exists that these must be accounted for in order to validate a comparison (this comes from someone who is not, mind you, an unequivocal chavista). I would define "reality" as something a little more than "naturalistic capitalism", so a political or economic response to ANY prevailing system isn't so much an argument against "reality" as it is a response to a given set of circumstances developed and adopted by a grouping of human organisms. Having said that, my only concern with your suggestion above is that no room is given for a future outcome other than one based on your presumption about chavez's intent. I won't make such a presumption myself. I'm curious to see where things go down there, and what kind of choices chavez etal make. With his emphasis on education, trade, agriculture, etc, along with what I believe to be a sincere concern for the inequities in latin countries (his family history is pretty interesting), I would think that he knows the future of oil dependency, and is gearing towards the day when oil will no longer provide what is needed. The idea of "private property" fascinates me. I believe it's a vestige of a primitive past, a codified response to the historic struggle for survival we as humans presumably underwent. Unfortunately, in my eyes it keeps that past alive in the present, inculcating its peculiar brand of subtle oppression on every new generation that comes along. Your graph above needs some disection (not only for source!). There have been socialist countries that have done better than most free-market countries in literacy and health-care (certainly cuba), as have there been devastating failures when some countries have adopted free market systems.

Of course they are land seizures; is anyone denying this fact? It can be called "reappropriation", "removal from the hands of the wicked(!)", "egalitarianization", etc etc, but the government, as an agent of the peoples' will(!), are "seizing" land. Now is this any different than land seizure under capitalism? With capitalism, land seizure occurs when those with money bribe others with money(!) for a deed to a piece of this earth of ours. This happens to be the framework that most of this earth is living under, and it's such an ingrained framework that it rarely gets a fair hearing (I struggle with it myself, being a land-owner and looking to invest further). And then there's rent! Legalized extortion! I'll let you stay on my property, but only if you give me something in return! Then look at Venezuela, where poverty is so endemic, and the rich own huge tracts of land that they sit on, often doing nothing with them while the poor can't even get a piece of land to grow their own food! Is this fair? "Respect for property rights", some whine about; what about respect for HUMAN rights?

I would imagine it's been tried by a few already. As has Akira.

now when the hell's he gonna go give Akira a shot?

hey doc, that was a good one!

I imagined that is what you meant by "we", although "stability" is not an aim I am completely convinced that this "we" desires if the price is too high. As far as the bombing goes, I was simply responding to your comment below: And again, I don't know if this would be the case. As far as the following goes: How do you think the Israeli/Palestinian situation would be affected by a nuclear Iran? _________________________

I think the good doctor misunderestimates the american public's capacity for following (falling for) the arguments presented by our current "leadership". A recent poll I was exposed to rather unwittingly showed a strong support for any and all methods to keep Iran from becoming a nucular power. By god, bombing was one option explicitly mentioned and condoned, by 70% or so. Also, I believe the point of any air strike would be to defunctionalize Iranian nuclear capacities, which wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the strength of their will, only the strength of their facilities. Furthermore, I am not a'tall certain that "we" (who do you speak of?) "share" the common aim of a "stabilized" Iraq.

A rather ruthless rolling of the dice, no? It seems to me that games should remain at the casinos, and questions of life and death shouldn't be approached so blithely. It seems the information was pretty good, if one listened to those working on the ground as weapons inspectors. The situation was stable, and with continued inspections would have remained stable. now of course if one listened to ideologues.... Agreed. The analysis justifying the war was so flawed that no bad outcome was needed to inalidate it. Grab one of the most powerful representatives for the local majority? That's a good way to make friends! I would think the US would have had a bigger problem on their hands. Because "we" can't! We can't do it! Do you really think we could load up Iraq with 200,000 more troops? How would that go over in the region? How would that work with our already stretched forces? Time for the draft? And even if we loaded the country with a million troops, we'd suppress opposition, but only until we left! Only if we created the same type of repressive security apparatus that Saddam had (this time run by the Shias!), complete with absolute disregard for human rights, fair trials, open torture, etc., would there be a semblance of stability in Iraq. (I use "we" colloquially!) Because he knew that if he asked for sacrifice at home for a speculative war built on the most untenable foundation, he wouldn't have been able to execute the war! Any support would have been questioned and eroded. Anyways it's pointless to rehash crap that you will see one way and I will see another. What's done is done, and pretty much every prediction I made has come to fruition, so what else is there to say? The situation now is ugly, and honestly I don't see any hope right now. I'd like to, but boy it just keeps getting worse and worse.

there are still a few here. peter puget, jayb, kaskadhfsafjadf, a few others. They were at one time pretty unequivocal in their support for the US invasion.

jeez, is there anyone who thinks the US is winning? You don't have to spin anything to tell the truth: The US isn't just losing, the US has LOST. Plain and simple. And now the right clutches at straws on their long ride down... I remember some at this site so in favor of the war, and how the noble US had brought "democracy" to Iraq; how silent they are now....

Can you substantiate your charges in the first paragraph? Inre second paragraph: I believe his popularity is based a bit more on actual changes in the living conditions for the majority of people in Venezuela instead of being simply a personality issue. A notable drop in poverty, access to health care, affordable food and water, literacy programs, affordable housing.... Such terrible things, really? Especially in a country with such vast natural resources and previously such endemic poverty. I applaud his attempts to redress these gross inequities, and I applaud his success.

interesting study published in the Journal of Anatomy. link

aw shit they aint doing nuthin to merit being banned. banning them would be an ego issue, nothin else.

and can you speed up the active topics search delay? i'm having to wait quite a while between searches.

and i need a magnifying glass to read it.

man, the "you cannot make another search at this time. Please try later." feature really sucks.

bump.

So I was thinking of renting my Catalina 27' sailboat for the winter, as a LIVE-ABOARD ONLY! as in not for sailing.... in ballard, $375 plus electricity (Heating), starting now through march or april or so. 6'+ headroom, front berth, rear quarter berth, and spacious main cabin (for a 27 footer!). new upholstery, stove, cd player, heater. pm if interested!

yeah what's up with buckethead. i feel like i'm on a very pleasant elevator ride.