Conquer Club

Don't forget paying Mafia hit-men to try to kill Fidel Castro.

Or spending over a million to kill Amil Cabral of Guinea Bissau before that country gained independence because he was so popular he would have won the election.

Shame you missed poverty and abortion rate- out of developed countries we kick some serious ass there too.....

I'm not sure how it was measured, but I'm actually IMPRESSED we're all the way at 22 for corruption



Yay for highest child poverty rate out of 24 countries! We win!!!

Relative to the median of your average income. Considering that in the US, it's almost twice what it is in most of those other countries, that isn't bad.

Still, I'd be interested to see what happened when you isolate the statistics to Caucasians.

mpjh wrote:Truth: We have not stopped. We still steal the resources of the reservations leaving most native Americans destitute. The government refuses to give an accounting of the billions in timber, oil, uranium, and grassing land that have been stolen from the reservation Indians. In fact, the assimilation program in which we took young children away from their families, beat them for speaking their own language, and tried to make them act "white" ended only in the 1970s. No restitution has been paid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDgIhjAJNuE

Free Peltier motherfuckers

Napoleon Ier wrote:Relative to the median of your average income. Considering that in the US, it's almost twice what it is in most of those other countries, that isn't bad.

Still, I'd be interested to see what happened when you isolate the statistics to Caucasians.

Thing is- the poverty is determined through a relative method, hence 'relative income poverty'. It's based per the nations income, not a broad statistic.

Isolating caucasians our rate would drop, as the racism in our poverty is absurd.


-Only one area, of course, but I've studied it enough to know it's sadly a pretty broad statistic.


-Relative poverty. Note the formula used

"Relative Poverty"

Not a bad thing when the standard of living of those in "poverty" in your country is better than the standard of living of those in other countries that are living near the median income.

This is just twisting statistics to try to make a point.

But the proof is in the pudding. People in Canada making 40% of the national median income can live quite comfortably.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Sometimes, you need a little realpolitik to deal with geopolitical situations. Yeah, sure, it isn't always perfect, but frankly, what do you expect? Do you really think we should not fund whoever is immoral because of that fact? Sure, it would be lovely if we could: but guess what, my PC chum, we don't live in a happy world of rainbows and dancing elves and gay fairies and happy social workers and muslims living peacefully with their fellow man. We live in a brutal, dog-eat-dog, Darwinian world, and you have to sometimes accept and work within the parameters of that fact.

What otherwise do you do? Say that Reagan ought to have fought against the Taliban and the Soviets simultaneously? Say that Bush ought to invade half the Middle-East because it's currently under less-than-pleasant rulers? That FDR was wrong not to wage a war against Hitler and Stalin at once?

The reductio ad absurdum follows rather quickly.

You're missing the point of the actual argument. Aside from the fact that it is obviously wrong to fund terrorists (but maybe you disagree with that) there is also the hypocritical nature of the Iraq-war and the "war on terror" in general. I mean, even if they weren't hypocrites it would still be stupid, but the whole mentality of "we're going to fight terror and we're the good side!!yeehaw!" is just fucking retarded.

TheProwler wrote:"Relative Poverty"

Not a bad thing when the standard of living of those in "poverty" in your country is better than the standard of living of those in other countries that are living near the median income.

This is just twisting statistics to try to make a point.

But the proof is in the pudding. People in Canada making 40% of the national median income can live quite comfortably.

Actually not true. The use of relative income is correct because the cost of living varies generally with the income. Thus a higher income country usually has a higher cost of living.

When you think about it this is easy to understand. if the median income is about $40,000 then 40% of that is $16,000. After taxes that is about $13,000. Try and survive in Chicago on $13,000 a year. That is approximately $1,300 a month. Last time I tried to rent an apartment in Chicago, which was several years ago, I couldn't find anything for less than $2,000.

That is exactly why I used the term "standard of living" which takes into consideration the cost of living.

But this does mean that someone who is living on a fixed income should move to areas where the cost of living is lower. Which is certainly what happens in Canada. The largest retirement communities are normally just outside of the commutable distance to the larger cities.

Oh, and if the median income in America is $40,000 I'd be very surprised. That seems quite low to me.

TheProwler wrote:That is exactly why I used the term "standard of living" which takes into consideration the cost of living.

But this does mean that someone who is living on a fixed income should move to areas where the cost of living is lower. Which is certainly what happens in Canada. The largest retirement communities are normally just outside of the commutable distance to the larger cities.

Oh, and if the median income in America is $40,000 I'd be very surprised. That seems quite low to me.

As of January 2007 the medium household income was $46,242. That is HOUSEHOLD income, so it includes families with more than one person working or with more than one job.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Sometimes, you need a little realpolitik to deal with geopolitical situations. Yeah, sure, it isn't always perfect, but frankly, what do you expect? Do you really think we should not fund whoever is immoral because of that fact? Sure, it would be lovely if we could: but guess what, my PC chum, we don't live in a happy world of rainbows and dancing elves and gay fairies and happy social workers and muslims living peacefully with their fellow man. We live in a brutal, dog-eat-dog, Darwinian world, and you have to sometimes accept and work within the parameters of that fact.

What otherwise do you do? Say that Reagan ought to have fought against the Taliban and the Soviets simultaneously? Say that Bush ought to invade half the Middle-East because it's currently under less-than-pleasant rulers? That FDR was wrong not to wage a war against Hitler and Stalin at once?

The reductio ad absurdum follows rather quickly.

You're missing the point of the actual argument. Aside from the fact that it is obviously wrong to fund terrorists (but maybe you disagree with that) there is also the hypocritical nature of the Iraq-war and the "war on terror" in general. I mean, even if they weren't hypocrites it would still be stupid, but the whole mentality of "we're going to fight terror and we're the good side!!yeehaw!" is just fucking retarded.

Does fighting with Stalin against Hitler in a War on Oppression make FDR "retarded and fucking stupid"?

As I say, sometimes, you need realpolitik. What's fucking retarded is ignoring that.

Was the fire bombing of Dresden terrorism? Was the fire bombing of Tokyo terrorism? Of course it was. It was purposely designed to kill civilians, lots of them, and terrorize a nation. So was Stalin wrong for fighting with us?

mpjh wrote:Was the fire bombing of Dresden terrorism? Was the fire bombing of Tokyo terrorism? Of course it was. It was purposely designed to kill civilians, lots of them, and terrorize a nation. So was Stalin wrong for fighting with us?

That's an irrelevant question. Asking whether or not some immoral acts were committed within the broader moral umbrella of fighting Hitler is confusing the issue: is Realpolitik necessary? Is Realpolitik immoral? Yes, and no. I've tried to give you theoretical underpinning of the theory. You ignored it. I've provided you with examples. You dodge the question. Now, whether that's malevolence or stupidity, I don't know, but for you to be take seriously, you're going to have to give me some answers.

mpjh wrote:

TheProwler wrote:That is exactly why I used the term "standard of living" which takes into consideration the cost of living.

But this does mean that someone who is living on a fixed income should move to areas where the cost of living is lower. Which is certainly what happens in Canada. The largest retirement communities are normally just outside of the commutable distance to the larger cities.

Oh, and if the median income in America is $40,000 I'd be very surprised. That seems quite low to me.

As of January 2007 the medium household income was $46,242. That is HOUSEHOLD income, so it includes families with more than one person working or with more than one job.

I looked it up and found this regarding the United States:

"In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau."

So somewhere between $46K and $51K it seems.

I will say, that is lower than I expected. Of course, my exposure to USA is generally in larger cities, where the average income would be higher (along with cost of living).

Those numbers are not surprising to working stiffs throughout this country.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Does fighting with Stalin against Hitler in a War on Oppression make FDR "retarded and fucking stupid"?

OH SHIT YEAH I TOTALLY IMPLIED THAT!

Listen you moron, when I say "[the iraq war] would still be stupid,...fucking retarded" I mean exactly that. Unless you really have the reasoning skills of a brainless monkey, it is obvious that I never implied that FDR was "retarded and fucking stupid". Hell, even if you just read the words without understanding them you would've seen that.

Jesus, french boy, try to come up with an actual argument that isn't fallacious.

As I say, sometimes, you need realpolitik. What's fucking retarded is ignoring that.

Yeah, but what Bush is doing is actually not an example of realpolitik. Hell, it's almost the opposite. Hence why your argument is completely ridiculous.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

mpjh wrote:Was the fire bombing of Dresden terrorism? Was the fire bombing of Tokyo terrorism? Of course it was. It was purposely designed to kill civilians, lots of them, and terrorize a nation. So was Stalin wrong for fighting with us?

That's an irrelevant question. Asking whether or not some immoral acts were committed within the broader moral umbrella of fighting Hitler is confusing the issue: is Realpolitik necessary? Is Realpolitik immoral? Yes, and no. I've tried to give you theoretical underpinning of the theory. You ignored it. I've provided you with examples. You dodge the question. Now, whether that's malevolence or stupidity, I don't know, but for you to be take seriously, you're going to have to give me some answers.

It is not at all confusing. In fact it is very simple. As my dad used to say, "You sleep with dogs, you get fleas." By the way, I am taken very seriously.

TheProwler wrote:

mpjh wrote:

TheProwler wrote:That is exactly why I used the term "standard of living" which takes into consideration the cost of living.

But this does mean that someone who is living on a fixed income should move to areas where the cost of living is lower. Which is certainly what happens in Canada. The largest retirement communities are normally just outside of the commutable distance to the larger cities.

Oh, and if the median income in America is $40,000 I'd be very surprised. That seems quite low to me.

As of January 2007 the medium household income was $46,242. That is HOUSEHOLD income, so it includes families with more than one person working or with more than one job.

I looked it up and found this regarding the United States:

"In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau."

So somewhere between $46K and $51K it seems.

I will say, that is lower than I expected. Of course, my exposure to USA is generally in larger cities, where the average income would be higher (along with cost of living).

The median household income doesn't mean shit when the top 5% of wealthy individuals in the United States hold 80% of the wealth in the country. We have the worst poor out of these countries also. If you're poor in this country, you're fucked. Poverty in one of these others nations you may still have a feasible chance at moving up/surviving.

mpjh wrote:When you think about it this is easy to understand. if the median income is about $40,000 then 40% of that is $16,000. After taxes that is about $13,000. Try and survive in Chicago on $13,000 a year. That is approximately $1,300 a month. Last time I tried to rent an apartment in Chicago, which was several years ago, I couldn't find anything for less than $2,000.

Not that I don't believe everything you say , but it didn't take long to find an apartment in Chicago for well under $1000...$725 all inclusive to be exact.

http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/apa/962780651.html

lgoasklucyl wrote:The median household income doesn't mean shit when the top 5% of wealthy individuals in the United States hold 80% of the wealth in the country. We have the worst poor out of these countries also. If you're poor in this country, you're fucked. Poverty in one of these others nations you may still have a feasible chance at moving up/surviving.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

I just think your opinion is wrong. I think it is the attitude of a defeatist. I think when enough people have that attitude and opinion, you will definitely see it affect the effort people make. In other words, anyone living in the USA in poverty who shares your opinion will not have the desire to change their situation. Because they will think it will not make a difference. It is a self-defeating attitude.

I think there are plenty of opportunities to work in the USA and earn enough money to enjoy a decent standard of living. But the reality is, it takes hard work.

Everybody loves the stats! I'd be very interested to see how many people in poverty have several children. And at a young age (the parents I mean). I know it is a high percentage.

We all know caring for children takes time and money. So when an American, raised in poverty, who is just reaching his/her late teens/early twenties goes out and makes themselves a parent, they are putting a major obstacle in their way. They should be getting a job and working to get themselves in a good financial position and then have a kid or two. But too often they don't do that - they become parents at a very young age. They increase their expenses and decrease their flexibility they would have regarding time and travel (relocation) by having a kid - and often several kids. And because they did that, they are digging a hole that is difficult to climb out of. They often start out as unmotivated and lazy people, and they make their situation worse. So how do you blame that on the government?

Too many people look at the stats and it is like they see an easy way out. "I got no future because I was born poor." Nice, easy, and convenient excuse to be a poor and lazy slob who is another burden on the rest of society. It is bullshit. People need to take some ownership of their situation. I think that is worth repeating. People need to take some ownership of their situation.

I am not saying it isn't generally easier for those born wealthy. It is obviously easier for them in many ways. Are they in a better position to make large amounts of money? Sure. But a motivated, hard-working person born into poverty can prove themselves and earn a decent living. And they can get the next generation of their family on the right track. And in several generations, they could also be part of "the wealthy". But somebody's gotta get off their asses and make the first move. Don't get pregnant. Don't smoke crack. Don't carry a gun. Don't be a lazy asshole.

But that's only my opinion.

lgoasklucyl wrote:

TheProwler wrote:

mpjh wrote:

TheProwler wrote:That is exactly why I used the term "standard of living" which takes into consideration the cost of living.

But this does mean that someone who is living on a fixed income should move to areas where the cost of living is lower. Which is certainly what happens in Canada. The largest retirement communities are normally just outside of the commutable distance to the larger cities.

Oh, and if the median income in America is $40,000 I'd be very surprised. That seems quite low to me.

As of January 2007 the medium household income was $46,242. That is HOUSEHOLD income, so it includes families with more than one person working or with more than one job.

I looked it up and found this regarding the United States:

"In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau."

So somewhere between $46K and $51K it seems.

I will say, that is lower than I expected. Of course, my exposure to USA is generally in larger cities, where the average income would be higher (along with cost of living).

The median household income doesn't mean shit when the top 5% of wealthy individuals in the United States hold 80% of the wealth in the country. We have the worst poor out of these countries also. If you're poor in this country, you're fucked. Poverty in one of these others nations you may still have a feasible chance at moving up/surviving.

Wait, what??? The poor in this country would be considered WEALTHY in several others. We don't have people living in shanty towns, picking through trash dumps to find recyclables to buy a little food for the day. Our infant mortality rate is very good, unlike most of the third world, and even with our "horrible" health care system, people aren't dying enmasse from the plague or malaria etc...We have one of the most upwardly mobile societies in the world.

lgoasklucyl wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Relative to the median of your average income. Considering that in the US, it's almost twice what it is in most of those other countries, that isn't bad.

Still, I'd be interested to see what happened when you isolate the statistics to Caucasians.

Thing is- the poverty is determined through a relative method, hence 'relative income poverty'. It's based per the nations income, not a broad statistic.

Isolating caucasians our rate would drop, as the racism in our poverty is absurd.


-Only one area, of course, but I've studied it enough to know it's sadly a pretty broad statistic.


-Relative poverty. Note the formula used

Precisely. So the statistics tell you nothing about the absolute living conditions since they aren't measured against an objective standard.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Does fighting with Stalin against Hitler in a War on Oppression make FDR "retarded and fucking stupid"?

OH SHIT YEAH I TOTALLY IMPLIED THAT!

Listen you moron, when I say "[the iraq war] would still be stupid,...fucking retarded" I mean exactly that. Unless you really have the reasoning skills of a brainless monkey, it is obvious that I never implied that FDR was "retarded and fucking stupid". Hell, even if you just read the words without understanding them you would've seen that.

Jesus, french boy, try to come up with an actual argument that isn't fallacious.


.

Well, yes. That's exactly what you implied. You say that having unpleasant political movements as your allies in a war against another makes you, and quote, "stupid and fucking retarded". Rather than being sat there going "ha...you're monkey...and french" to dodge the fact that that is verbatim what you said, why don't you withdraw gracefully now to avoid further humiliation.

No one's been arguing about Iraq until you came out the blue and decided that support of Reagan's Afghan policy in the 80s was synonymous with supporting the Bush doctrine in application in Iraq.

Smoke and mirrors snorrarse.

Now answer the damn question: is it wrong to ally with potentially unsavory people in the interest of realpolitik?

mpjh wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

mpjh wrote:Was the fire bombing of Dresden terrorism? Was the fire bombing of Tokyo terrorism? Of course it was. It was purposely designed to kill civilians, lots of them, and terrorize a nation. So was Stalin wrong for fighting with us?

That's an irrelevant question. Asking whether or not some immoral acts were committed within the broader moral umbrella of fighting Hitler is confusing the issue: is Realpolitik necessary? Is Realpolitik immoral? Yes, and no. I've tried to give you theoretical underpinning of the theory. You ignored it. I've provided you with examples. You dodge the question. Now, whether that's malevolence or stupidity, I don't know, but for you to be take seriously, you're going to have to give me some answers.

It is not at all confusing. In fact it is very simple. As my dad used to say, "You sleep with dogs, you get fleas." By the way, I am taken very seriously.

Yes. But this has f*ck all to do with Dresden and the A-Bomb. Hence why you're not taken seriously.