why arent liberals going after china , they are worse on global warming

[onedomino]

*sigh*...you do get the difference between totalitarianism and communism, right?

And the statement that "no one can buy a house and own the ground" is incorrect.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1112110,00.html

China is communist and totalitarian. And my statement about property rights in China is correct. Your bogus citation was from 2003 and did not negate the assertion that "no one can buy a house and own the ground." Your citation referred to the fact that the communists were "debating" property rights. A new property law was not passed until March 2007 and it did not codify private ownership of property. From 2006:

The country still lacks private-property rights. Chinese cannot legally own land. They can only obtain land-use rights—for 70 years in cities and 30 years in the countryside. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12667617/site/newsweek/.

And this was verified in the 16 March 2007 China Property Rights Law. It should have been called the Lack of Property Right Law:

Collectives were organizations created in the early years of the Communist Party’s rule of China...The ownership of the collectives and the farmers over their agricultural land and homesteads are legally incomplete, in that there are various legal restrictions on the transfer, mortgage or leasing of these properties...While the Law has not made much change to the existing urban land regime, there are a few notable points. First, Article 149 provides that the land use rights underlying their residential properties will be automatically renewed at the expiry of their current term. Although the detailed procedures and payment, if any, for such automatic renewal still await further legislation http://www.cre-china.com/info.php?id=81&cid=7

No one owns land in China. The best you can do is obtain "land use rights."

 

[onedomino]

The US leads in the total dollar amount given. When you combine the money from the US taxpayers, private donations, and corporate giving - we lead the world

To self centered libs it is never enough - much like how much people pay in taxes

That is correct and the US also leads in the amount given as a percent of GDP:

Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year, setting a new record and besting the 2005 total that had been boosted by a surge in aid to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and the Asian tsunami.

Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/25/americans_set_record_for_donations_in_2006/

 

[red states rule]

That is correct and the US also leads in the amount given as a percent of GDP:

The US is the most generous nation on Earth - yet those who get our money spit in our face and libs continue to rant how cheap we are


It is like living in the Twilight Zone

 

[mattskramer]

The US is the most generous nation on Earth.

The USA is in there somewhere but we are not at the top when it comes to giving as a percentage of our wealth. See http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html

 

[red states rule]

The USA is in there somewhere but we are not at the top when it comes to giving as a percentage of our wealth. See http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html

Once again, IN TOTAL DOLLARS we lead the world

I wish you people would stop constantly finding fault with your country. If it so bad here - leave

and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Are you stupid? You asked a question that I already anwsered that you quoted already. And who the hell am I "pushing around"?

What's the matter? Can't you explain why you think you have the higher moral authority?

I got your sarcasm, I also got that it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. You are like Domino in that if you say something false about something and I point out that falsehood you think I am defending them.

Not stupid at all because I was making a point. If anybody is saying stupid things, I suggest you take a look in the mirror…

And I really think you should be required to experience living in an African refugee camp

Why? So I'd be more willing to send more aid to Africa? More U.S. aid to Africa is not going to solve Africa's problems. Sending money to corrupt governments (which abound in Africa) is like flushing money down the toilet. What Africa really needs is capitalism. It needs to get rid of its dictators and its socialist regimes. It needs the rule of law and the respect for individual rights. Until freedom exists in Africa, Africa will remain in poverty. Capitalism is the answer.

Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems
http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=2342

by Andrew Bernstein (March 1, 2003)

A specter is haunting Africa-the specter of starvation. At least 2.5 million Zambians currently face famine, as do millions more across southern Africa-in Lesotho, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The United Nations estimates that more than 14 million Africans face possible starvation this March.


According to the comprehensive 2001 Index of Economic Freedom, sub-Sahara Africa "remains.by far the poorest.area in the world." In Ethiopia, per capita GNP is estimated at $108. In Sierra Leone the figure is $146; in Mozambique $178; in Tanzania $180. By contrast, the per capita GNP in the United States exceeds $30,000.

Most people forget that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa and had a much lower life expectancy. Even a relatively well-off country like France is estimated to have suffered seven general famines in the 15th century, thirteen in the 16th, eleven in the 17th and sixteen in the 18th. And disease was rampant. Given an utter lack of sanitation, the bubonic plague, typhus and other diseases recurred incessantly into the 18th century, killing tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands at a time.

The effect on life expectancy was predictable. In parts of France, in the middle of the 17th century, only 58 percent reached their 15th birthday, and life expectancy was 20. In Ireland, life expectancy in 1800 was a mere 19 years. In early 18th century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age five.

Then a dramatic change occurred throughout Europe. The population of England doubled between 1750 and 1820, with childhood mortality dropping to 31.8 percent by 1830. Something happened that enabled people to stay alive.

What did that early period lack that the later period had? Capitalism. What does Africa lack that the West has? Capitalism. It is capitalism that enabled the West to rise to great prosperity. The lack of capitalism is responsible for Africa's crushing poverty.

What is capitalism? It is an economic system in which all property is privately owned, a system without government regulation and government handouts. It is a free economy, a system in which individuals are free to produce, to trade, and to make-and keep-a profit.

Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights, the right of every individual to his life, his liberty and the pursuit of his own happiness. The thinkers of the Enlightenment, including John Locke and the Founding Fathers, brought these ideas to the forefront in Europe and America. The result was an economic revolution, which-in a relatively brief time-transformed the West from a poverty-stricken region to one of great productive wealth. This system of freedom liberated the most creative minds of Western society, resulting in a torrent of innovations-from James Watt's steam engine to Louis Pasteur's germ theory to Henry Ford's automobile to the Wright Brothers' airplane and much more. This new freedom, and the Industrial Revolution it spawned, resulted in vast increases in agricultural and industrial production.

Creative minds-from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs-flourish only under freedom. The result is new products, new jobs, new wealth, in short: the furtherance of life on earth, in length, quantity and quality. Under the kings, theocracies, military dictatorships and socialist regimes that dominate Africa, such minds are stifled. The result is stagnation, poverty and death.

Africa has the identical natural resource fundamentally responsible for the West's rise: the human mind. But it has neither the freedom nor the Enlightenment philosophy of reason, individualism and political liberty necessary for creating wealth and health. Africa is mired in tribal cultures that stress subordination to the group rather than personal independence and achievement. All over the continent brutal dictators murder and rob innocent citizens in order to aggrandize themselves and members of their tribes.

What Africa desperately needs is to remove the political and economic shackles and replace them with political and economic freedom. It needs to depose the military dictators and socialist regimes and establish capitalism, with its political/economic freedom, its rule of law and respect for individual rights. And to accomplish that, it first needs to remove the philosophic shackles and replace tribal collectivism with a philosophy of reason and freedom. The truly humanitarian system is not the Marxism espoused by Western intellectuals but the only system that can establish, as it historically has, the furtherance of life on earth: capitalism.

 

[Larkinn]

we continue doing the inuendo crap or we can stop and debate the issue. Your choice.

I am really not that interested in debating with someone who constantly uses ad hominem attacks, and refuses to really consider the issues.

And I believe you have more power right now than you give yourself credit for. If this your life's calling, hey good for you. I could be so lucky to know what that is for myself. If you found something you really want to do and can make a living at it, great. that should be enough for you. You shouldn't need to come onto some right wing message board claiming the moral high ground and telling everyone else how much more moral you are then they are.

For the THOUANDTH time, YOU brought up my personal life NOT me. And yes I do give now, despite the fact that the only income I've had in a year has come from the past week, but that doesn't help that much.

You have no clue as to my morals. If you meat me on the street tomorrow not knowing it was me do you think you would consider me the son of satan or generally a decent guy?

Yes, actually I do have a clue as to your morals. You've stated some of them on this board. And generally people on the street don't talk about IL and IHR which is where I think most peoples morals fail them. And no, this does not mean you are the son of satan. I have started to dislike you, not because of your views, but because of your arguing style. Constant ad hominem attacks, constant generalizations, constant "libs this, libs that". Its boring, annoying, and immature.

I don't believe I ever claimed greed was all good. What I claim was that greed has lead to many inovations that have saved many lives.

No, actually you said that greed was actively better than charity. I pointed out numerous situations where greed has killed millions and millions of people.

Then answer the question.

I think that freedom is a combination of things. It is a combination to live your life however you see fit. This means that not only do you have freedom from government interference, but you have freedom TO things. Those things include a decent education, healthcare, civil liberties, fair and impartial trials, etc, etc.

[/quote]
If you believe the path you are on is the one that will most effectively meet you goal, fine. I'm not so sure.
[/quote]

You also don't know very much about IL, IHR, or have very much interest in helping the third world.

If your gonna stay in law school you may want to brush up on your word definitions a hair. Especially lieing. that's an important one for lawyers I hear.

You made a claim that was false. Either you lied about it (told an untruth on purpose) or were stupid about it (told an untruth by accident). So, no, I don't think I need to brush up on my word definitions.

Funny I ask libs to do that all the time. Which are you for?

Equal opportunity.

There really isn't anything that amazing about it.

Rub elbows with both cultures...the difference is pretty amazing.


thanks just curious

understanding arguments is important for lawyers as well

*sigh*. Actually, lawyers themselves make a test in which they judge the things that they believe are "important for lawyers". Its called the LSAT. If you take it and score higher than I did, I will give you $1,000. I am serious about this. I will need to see your score. For reference, I scored a 175.

 

[red states rule]

I am really not that interested in debating with someone who constantly uses ad hominem attacks, and refuses to really consider the issues.

Libs do accuse others of doing what they do

 

[Larkinn]

What's the matter? Can't you explain why you think you have the higher moral authority?

Yes, and I already did. What do you want me to do, quote what I already said so you can ignore it again?

Not stupid at all because I was making a point. If anybody is saying stupid things, I suggest you take a look in the mirror…

I'm aware that you were making a point. It was a stupid one. Get it now?

Why? So I'd be more willing to send more aid to Africa? More U.S. aid to Africa is not going to solve Africa's problems. Sending money to corrupt governments (which abound in Africa) is like flushing money down the toilet. What Africa really needs is capitalism. It needs to get rid of its dictators and its socialist regimes. It needs the rule of law and the respect for individual rights. Until freedom exists in Africa, Africa will remain in poverty. Capitalism is the answer.

[/quote]

Most of Africa is capitalist. They don't have the resources to be socialist. Zimbabwe is attempting to be socialist, and doing it incredibly badly. But there is also a racial problem there. It was considered a problem that whites owned almost all of the land while being a small fraction of the population.

 

[red states rule]

The Eco-Hypocrisy of Another Green Advocate; This Time Rolling Stone Owner
Posted by Lynn Davidson on July 7, 2007 - 13:41.

As NewsBusters noted, in June Rolling Stone published a “green” issue that still didn't please the enviro-left. Well, now Radar Online exposed the magazine's founder and publisher Jann Wenner's not-so-green lifestyle which contrast with his ecological stunts and stances.

Radar's July 3 article and July 6 update about Wenner's high-living, carbon-spewing lifestyle which is filled with globe-spanning Gulfstreams, big SUVs, lending his evil Global Warming Inducing Death Plane to high-profile friends (like John Kerry) and staffers ferrying lunches back and forth should really tick the green crowd off. Oh, and he doesn't even recycle. Bad environmentalist, bad!


Wenner is reportedly planning to spend his summer jetting between Europe and his vacation home in the Rocky Mountains. How much carbon dioxide would this add up to for, say, just one get-away trip? Let's count. Wenner flies to his son's wedding in Greece and back to New York, then speeds off to Sun Valley, Idaho with his family. Counting just one round trip in each direction, the miles total to about 14,000.

Wenner's Gulfstream jet has an optimal cruising speed of around 493 nautical miles per hour. (That figure, and the ones that follow, are based on calculations for a Gulfstream IIB, Wenner's longtime ride. In fact, according to sources, these days he may fly the slightly larger Gulfstream IV; a Wenner spokesman did not reply to calls for comment.) At that speed, the plane would produce around 80 tons of carbon dioxide during the 20-hour round-trip voyage between New York and Athens, and another 33.6 tons flying between New York and Sun Valley. Fun fact: According to the Environmental Protection Agency's emissions calculator, you'd have to drive a Hummer H3 200,000 miles to generate the same amount of carbon.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13949

 

[Larkinn]

China is communist and totalitarian. And my statement about property rights in China is correct. Your bogus citation was from 2003 and did not negate the assertion that "no one can buy a house and own the ground." Your citation referred to the fact that the communists were "debating" property rights. A new property law was not passed until March 2007 and it did not codify private ownership of property. From 2006:

Hmm interesting. You are correct...if you read the article it strongly implies that you can buy a house and own it. China IS implementing market reforms and become less and less red every year...and the debate over property rights is just another example of that.

That is correct and the US also leads in the amount given as a percent of GDP:

Yes and no. The US leads in the amount given to charities. Once we look at how much the US gives to other countries, the amount plummets and we become almost last in terms of GDP.

 

[red states rule]

Hmm interesting. You are correct...if you read the article it strongly implies that you can buy a house and own it. China IS implementing market reforms and become less and less red every year...and the debate over property rights is just another example of that.



Yes and no. The US leads in the amount given to charities. Once we look at how much the US gives to other countries, the amount plummets and we become almost last in terms of GDP.

Yes and no?

Sound slike Kerry saying he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it

The US leads the world in charitable giving and the left is still not happy

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yes, and I already did. What do you want me to do, quote what I already said so you can ignore it again?

You did? Can you give me the post number?

Most of Africa is capitalist. They don't have the resources to be socialist. Zimbabwe is attempting to be socialist, and doing it incredibly badly. But there is also a racial problem there. It was considered a problem that whites owned almost all of the land while being a small fraction of the population.

For capitalism to really work it needs to include the community, not just the state, the dictators, and the elites.

Structural Adjustment Neoliberalism and the African Reaction

African recommendations between 1976 and 1980 set the scene for a protracted debate between African intellectuals and the Bretton Woods Institutions over the terms of capitalist development on the continent. In 1981, the World Bank rejected the LPA in its famous Berg Report (Towards Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa), which attributed economic stagnation to poor government policies rather than external factors. In pursuing Import-Substitution Industrialization, Africa's leaders had turned their backs on the continent's comparative advantage in raw materials, in favor of propping up inefficient domestic industries and a bloated public sector. The Berg Report recommended returning to an outward-oriented program of raw materials exports, to be accomplished by rolling back state intervention and freeing up market forces. Specific recommendations promoted under the rubric of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) included eliminating subsidies and controls (on imports, wages, and prices), devaluing local currencies, and letting the market determine the prices for raw materials exports.

In 1989 UNECA responded to the Berg Report by reaf-firming the Lagos Plan through the African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment (AAF-SAP). This rejected the outward-oriented, market-based strategy of structural adjustment in favor of an inward-looking, state-led program of African self-reliance. The report also recommended subsidies for exports, bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, and debt forgiveness. Finally, the AAF-SAP stressed the importance of human development, especially the provision of basic social services and education. In short, it advocated a modified version of ISI, with a greater emphasis on the export sector.
The World Bank accepted the need for human-centered development in its 1989 report, Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth. Citing the LPA and UNECA, this accepted the need to consider human-centered development in creating an environment to enable sustainable economic growth in Africa. The report, however, clung to the bank's commitment to structural adjustment and export-led development. A subsequent bank report emphasized SAPs even more strongly, claiming that "adjustment is working" in countries that followed its prescriptions, in agriculture as well as industry. In 1999, African critics countered once again with a systematic critique of structural adjustment entitled Our Continent, Our Future: African Perspectives on Structural Adjustment, which modified earlier calls for African self-reliance by accepting the need to compete in the global economy on the basis of comparative advantage. This was not to be achieved, however, through SAPs and raw materials exports; instead, the study recommended a modified version of ISI in which African governments would nurture high–value-added, labor-intensive industries producing manufactured exports for the world market. Thandika Mkandawire, coeditor of Our Continent, Our Future, subsequently argued for the creation of developmental states in Africa—along Asian lines—which he believed could be socially engineered by political actors and civil society within the context of African democratization.

The World Bank has not accepted ISI in the early twenty-first century, but recent bank initiatives have made more concessions to African participation and social development, particularly through the new Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF). This moves beyond structural adjustment to focus on poverty reduction and social development; it also emphasizes local ownership of the development process. African leaders have responded to this shift by creating the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), led by Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. NEPAD accepts the BWIs' neoliberal program for capitalist development as well as the need for peace, security, and good governance. To guarantee that Africa will benefit from globalization, however, NEPAD also seeks to reform the rules of globalization to guarantee equity as well as economic growth, by reducing Western protectionism and providing for African social needs. Separating itself from UNECA, the OAU (now reconstituted as the African Union) came out in support of NEPAD in 2001.

Several prominent African scholars have criticized NEPAD for rejecting the programs proposed by UNECA in favor of the neoliberal model of the Bretton Woods Institutions. This acceptance of neoliberalism threatens to reproduce African dependence on Western donors, which is especially dangerous in an age of shrinking Official Development Assistance. African critics of NEPAD argue that any concessions to Western donors must not compromise the principles of the LPA. Some of these critics call for a return of the developmental state. Other African scholars, such as Claude Ake, have tried to find a middle ground between this position and the neoliberal program. Ake proposes a populist alternative, drawing on "the energy of ordinary people" and geared toward the development of smallholder agriculture underwritten by popular democracy. Driven by farmer participation, this approach would increase the efficiency and productivity of small farmers and provide the basis for rural industries such as food processing and packaging. The result would be a bottom-up process of endogenous economic and human development. This process would have to involve African women, who appear to have been left out of the NEPAD blueprint, in what some critics consider a step backward from the LPA on the issue of gender and development.

Claude Ake's work illustrates that the debate over capitalism in Africa in the early 2000s revolves around three poles—the market, the state, and the community—rather than two. It remains an open question, however, which of these will emerge as the preferred trustee over African capitalism in the twenty-first century.

 

[mattskramer]

Once again, IN TOTAL DOLLARS we lead the world

I wish you people would stop constantly finding fault with your country. If it so bad here - leave

and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

Do you recall the Bible story of the widow’s mite? Shucks. I guess that she did not give much to the church. Whole dollars do not impress me. That is not true charity. With the opportunity that America has had throughout history, I would expect it to give many whole dollars. Giving a percentage of what you have is a measure of true charity and generosity.

I did not say that America is a bad country. Don’t put words into my mouth. I think that America is great. I am simply pointing out pesky little facts. America is not perfect but I think that it is one of the best places on earth.

 

[Annie]

Do you recall the Bible story of the widow’s mite? Shucks. I guess that she did not give much to the church. Whole dollars do not impress me. That is not true charity. With the opportunity that America has had throughout history, I would expect it to give many whole dollars. Giving a percentage of what you have is a measure of true charity and generosity.

I did not say that America is a bad country. Don’t put words into my mouth. I think that America is great. I am simply pointing out pesky little facts. America is not perfect but I think that it is one of the best places on earth.

I do understand your point. How about the government isn't a church? It should do what a government should do, leave the rest to churches, private charities, etc. I'd especially like to see that regarding foreign aid.

 

[red states rule]

The US gives more then any other country

http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Feb2205foreignaidDF.pdf

 

[Annie]

The US gives more then any other country

http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Feb2205foreignaidDF.pdf

But why? For what?

 

[red states rule]

But why? For what?

When ever there is a probelm or a disaster, the US is there with moeny and help

Yet, what do we get in return? Very little and we are told we are cheap on the amount we do give

Go figure

 

[Annie]

When ever there is a probelm or a disaster, the US is there with moeny and help

Yet, what do we get in return? Very little and we are told we are cheap on the amount we do give

Go figure

So again? For what?

 

[red states rule]

So again? For what?

For all we have gotten in return - I would like your question answered as well