Dustbin wrote:
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:

> > I don't understand the Oz reference.  What I am saying is
> > that despite the claims of "metro" advocates, feminism
> > relies upon very unhealthy environmental practices to survive
> > in the states: disposable diapers, SUV driving to daycare centers,
> > commutes for career women to cities that have become
> > nothing more than office complexes, etc.
> >
> Mark, now you are banging against the damage
> being done by capitalisnm! Ugh!
>
> Okay, I know you think you are banging against
> feminism but it really doesn't make much
> difference whether it is a career woman who is
> commuting into the Office complex or a career
> man. If *she* wasn't doing the job *he* would be!

Hello Dustbin,

Have you seen "Die Hippies Die!" on South Park?  Pretty funny.

The damage I'm talking about specifically is due to urban
sprawl created by white flight and two working parent
families (whether the mother and father live together or not.)
The working mother spends a lot of time driving around
that a SAH mother would not.

Work needs to be done whether in a commie society or a
capitalistic one.  But less would need to be done
in a non-feminist society: Less daycare centers, restaurants, etc.

> > I always found it amusing how the treehugger set tried
> > to encourage people to use cloth diapers or the bus
> > when most leftist elites or double-dippers wouldn't
> > be caught dead on a bus.  It takes a capitalistic
> > environmentally harmful infrastructure to make
> > "blue" possible. :-)
> >
> I have no problem in principle with busses. I
> would like them to be clean; I would like them
> to be safe; I would like them to be on time;
> and I would like them to be cheap (even
> subsidised) but I have been banging on for
> thirty years about getting rid of cars in favour
> of a very very very good public transport system
> But that, of course, is socialistic nonsense -
> isn't it mate?

See what I said about suburban sprawl above: People left
the high density cities to be more safe and not
deal with bus passengers who cry "racism!" if someone
asks them to turn down their radio.

The fundamental problem with socialism is that it's usually
supported by people with nasty agendas typically
anti-western civilization, anti-male, anti-white etc.
So unless immigration is tightly controlled and the
population is somewhat homogenous, socialism turns
into a system to bash the native population (ask
former eastern bloc nations about a policy of
"Russificiation".

Capitalism often does seek to exploit people.  Socialism
often seeks to extermine them.

> > If it wasn't for illegal immigration, California would still
> > be considered conservative.  Illegal immigration transformed
> > California into a leftist state (it also trashed it's
> > economy and educational and roads system.)
> >
> Nonsense. It is the damned capitalists that
> trashed California's economy. Reagan privatised
> the electricity system (at least I think it was
> reagan)

Yeah, do try to get it straight.

Actually, it was the leftist tree huggers who refused
to build power plants and pretended that magic
was going to somehow keep the grid going.  Then,
when the grid began to have blackouts, the democratic
government panicked and bought power at the highest
rates of the time plunging the california economy
into debt.

How is this the fault of the evil capitalists again?
It was hilarious how Malibu was getting rolling blackouts.

> then the capitalist filth manipulated
> the electricity supply forcing the State to pay
> hideous amounts of money to the capitalist vomit

Er, no.  They didn't force the state.  It was the commies
who didn't want to give the permits to build new plants
and then the evil capitalists couldn't magically
summon the tree goddesses to produce it for 'em.

The loonies in California are running out of time to
blame the evil capitalists: The jobs are fleeing the
state while immigrants going on social services
are rising.  It's going to be a socialist paradise!!! :-)

> in order to keep the lights on. What was it? A
> 200% price rise in a year or something.
>
> Yeah! Right! It was those horrid commies who did
> it wasn't it. (Watch out, they're under the bed
> mate.)
>
> D.

If Gray hadn't panicked and just let the rolling blackouts go
for a month or so (while the air conditioner fanatics curbed
their habit) the whole thing would have worked out.

This is a perfect example of government interference
creating a huge mess from start to finish.

> > The 'dog' lived quite well for centuries long before Marx
> > hit the scene, yes?  We only know for sure that pure
> > communism doesn't work.
> >
> We also kow that pure capitalism doesn't work
> either.

I guess you have a point there: When it comes to
trashing birthrates and creating trillion dollar
pension boondoggles, capitalism cannot do the job
alone. :-)

> Capitalism is guarranteed to fail. It ios a
> mathematical certainty.

Er, it's capitalism that PAYS THE BILLS.  That's
why California suddenly discovered that a whole
bunch of new welfare recipients weren't a good
replacement for jobs that flew across the state
to Nevada and Arizona...

> The problem is that the inevitable failure of
> capitalism is less obvious than the failure of
> command economy. When I first heard about the
> command economy it didn't take seven decades to
> realise that it had to fail. It took about seven
> seconds. It takes about 70 seconds to realise
> that capitalism can't work.

You mean the capitalism that's combined with socialism?

If pure capitalism didn't work, how come it increased
standards of living for hundreds of years as we define
it today?

> The only question is how long will we have to
> put up with this shit before it does.

You're free to move to Sweden anytime.  Really.

It would appear that most of the world's immigrants
want to come to the most capitalistic country in
the world.  Jobs mate, jobs...

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/25/05 8:45:59 PM ---