Bush fails a global test

Microsoft is a real lightning rod for many people, and it's my opinion that they in the past they have weilded too much influence in the OS market by using illegal advatages (had they conducted their business legally, I would have no arguement with their success. Then again, they wouldn't have had to pay DrDos 150+ million either.)

Apple took the GUI OS from Xerox Doc University, Gates stole it from Apple (Jobs), leased it to IBM and history was born. Since then Microsoft has produced a product that people (generally) like to use and they have marketed it exteremely well.

This guy sums it all up pretty well:
http://www.around.com/microsoft.html

The govenment is too late to bust up a monopoly, as increasing public scrutiny is forcing Microsoft to give up many of it's old illegal gambits and play fair.

As a result, Microsoft is about to face competition once again from some unexpected sources (the miracle of capitalism in action!). Sony is creeping into households, pushing convergence with the PS2 (hence the sudden appearance of the Xbox). Linux, the "free" OS, is really going to give Microsoft a run for it's money. If Microsoft beats it into the ground, it is only a matter of time before a better, cheaper to maintain free OS will arise (Sorry Bill :twisted: )

In our smaller, interconnected, global world, smart evolutionary giants like Microsoft will need to transform themselves in new and interesting ways to stay alive. "Dumb" giants like the record labels that are supporting the RIAA will die under the crushing weight of their own stupidity.
 
[quote name='camoor']...
As a result, Microsoft is about to face competition once again from some unexpected sources (the miracle of capitalism in action!). Sony is creeping into households, pushing convergence with the PS2 (hence the sudden appearance of the Xbox). Linux, the "free" OS, is really going to give Microsoft a run for it's money. If Microsoft beats it into the ground, it is only a matter of time before a better, cheaper to maintain free OS will arise (Sorry Bill :twisted: )

In our smaller, interconnected, global world, smart evolutionary giants like Microsoft will need to transform themselves in new and interesting ways to stay alive. "Dumb" giants like the record labels that are supporting the RIAA will die under the crushing weight of their own stupidity.[/quote]

See? The free market will take care of itself with no real need for government intervention. It's not like you to provide evidence contrary to your own argument, but there it is.

...I am not an anarcho-capitalist who believes that govenment should play no role in the economy, especially when other issues (such as general public health and the defense of the country) are at stake. IMO it is naive and ultimately foolish to support a form of capitalism that does not possess a well-defined and strictly limited amount of government intervention.
Click to expand...

I think most people, including myself, would agree with that statement. I know the founding fathers would also agree. General welfare and common defense are the only legitimate functions of government as a necessary evil. That well-defined, limited government intervention begins with the phrase "Congress shall make no law..."
 
Well, I do think that the recent OS competition is at least in part due to worldwide pressure from people and governments who viewed Microsoft's past business practices as anti-competitive and illegal. Microsoft actually spent a ton of money recently in settling up past lawsuits for this very reason, they knew that all eyes were on them.

Now captialism is spurring faster innovation and I look forward to seeing what is achieved in the near future.
 
And Microsoft was being investigated for unfair business practices in the US until Bush took office and let them off the hook completely.

It's not that MS was driving other companies out of business that got them in trouble, it's how they were doing it. They claimed that software like IE was so integrated into Windows that they couldn't make it easier to remove it if you wanted to use a different browser. JAVA is another example. Sun Systems wrote JAVA as a language that would work across multiple OS's. MS tweaks it in Windows so that JAVA programs have to be written specifically for Windows.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']And Microsoft was being investigated for unfair business practices in the US until Bush took office and let them off the hook completely.

It's not that MS was driving other companies out of business that got them in trouble, it's how they were doing it. They claimed that software like IE was so integrated into Windows that they couldn't make it easier to remove it if you wanted to use a different browser. JAVA is another example. Sun Systems wrote JAVA as a language that would work across multiple OS's. MS tweaks it in Windows so that JAVA programs have to be written specifically for Windows.[/quote]

Thanks Mr. Bad

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='MrBadExample']And Microsoft was being investigated for unfair business practices in the US until Bush took office and let them off the hook completely.

It's not that MS was driving other companies out of business that got them in trouble, it's how they were doing it. They claimed that software like IE was so integrated into Windows that they couldn't make it easier to remove it if you wanted to use a different browser. JAVA is another example. Sun Systems wrote JAVA as a language that would work across multiple OS's. MS tweaks it in Windows so that JAVA programs have to be written specifically for Windows.[/quote]

Thanks Mr. Bad

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.[/quote]

But there's nothing wrong with that practice, IMO. You are not forced to use windows. You are free to run your favorie version of linux or any other OS. MS tweaking windows to ave java specifically optimised for it is analogous to Sony requiring the use of betamax tapes in their betamax players. Why should they have to make a VCR that accepts a regular VHS tape? They own the Betamax copyright so you have to pay a fee to make Betamax tapes in the first place, big deal - no one needs a VCR to begin with.

What's the difference between that and the fact you have to buy a license to make games for the PS2 ? You need to purchase the op-code that boots the PS2 so that your game will run on the system. Should MS be able to sue Sony to make Xbox games run on their platform ?
 
Did those people contibute to the world in a "unique and compelling way?"

Most of 'em did - although I might argue against London and Welles.

But hey, so did Stalin, and so did Mao, and so has Kim Jong Il - and so on. Socialism, in practice, has forced more human beings to meet thier unnatural and untimely deaths than any disease or natural disaster. It continues to do so to this day. Just do some quick research about how rampant famine is in North Korea, and your heart will ache.

None of the people you mentioned were leaders of socialist nations. They were simply proponents of the idea - and I might add - it is arguable that some of them were in it for the pussy.

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='The_Continental']This bio was all I wanted - thanks.

To answer your question - I don't think socialists have ever been "intelligent, compassionate people" - do you?
[/quote]

I guess it depends on what you think of the following socialists:
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Albert Einstein
Jack London
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nelson Mandela
Orson Welles

I think that each of these individuals contributed to the world in a unique and compelling way, making it a better place through their vision. Do I believe in socialism? No. Doesn't mean I'm going to disparage everyone who does not share my ethos.[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']To answer your question - I don't think socialists have ever been "intelligent, compassionate people" - do you?[/quote]

[quote name='The_Continental']None of the people you mentioned were leaders of socialist nations. They were simply proponents of the idea - and I might add - it is arguable that some of them were in it for the pussy.[/quote]

Note that you are now changing the arguement, suddenly it's gone from "socialists" to "socialists who are leaders of nations".

On this point I would be more inclined to agree, I can think of no compassionate national leader that used the facade of being a socialist.

However were these leaders truly socialists, or just dictators claiming to be socialists?

And BTW, exactly which one was "in it for the pussy"?
 
I don't consider there to be a difference. Socialism is a killer, whether Stalin or Einstein is adminstering it. When the ag industry has zero incentive to make food, food doesn't get made. When the energy industry has zero incentive to create heat, the populace suffers in the cold. And when the populace has no incentive to live - millions die, it doesn't matter who the "leader" is. The leader isn't the problem, expecting human beings to be innovative and productive in a zero-market environment is the problem.

[quote name='camoor']

However were these leaders truly socialists, or just dictators claiming to be socialists?[/quote]

Welles, London, and Einstein were easily in it for the tang (London and Welles especially). Each of the three of them would have been nothing if they actually lived thier lives under socialism. They were aware however, of how easy tang is to get if you label yourself a Socialist.

As Ali G would say - loose hippie bitches.

[quote name='camoor']
And BTW, exactly which one was "in it for the pussy"?[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']I don't consider there to be a difference. Socialism is a killer, whether Stalin or Einstein is adminstering it. When the ag industry has zero incentive to make food, food doesn't get made. When the energy industry has zero incentive to create heat, the populace suffers in the cold. And when the populace has no incentive to live - millions die, it doesn't matter who the "leader" is. The leader isn't the problem, expecting human beings to be innovative and productive in a zero-market environment is the problem.

[quote name='camoor']

However were these leaders truly socialists, or just dictators claiming to be socialists?[/quote]

Welles, London, and Einstein were easily in it for the tang (London and Welles especially). Each of the three of them would have been nothing if they actually lived thier lives under socialism. They were aware however, of how easy tang is to get if you label yourself a Socialist.

As Ali G would say - loose hippie bitches.

[quote name='camoor']
And BTW, exactly which one was "in it for the pussy"?[/quote][/quote]

Well that's your opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that you have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader.

Canada is pretty leftist (you might even call it a social democracy) and it seems like a pretty nice place to live. So are most of the west European countries.

As for the "being socialist so they could womanize" part, that's so damn silly. These were men who wanted to be recognized as great artists and/or prolific thinkers, they were famous in their time and had no need to resort to spouting off things they didn't believe in order to get attention.

If you want to talk womanizers, at least pick someone like T. Kennedy or O'Reilly...
 
You're not seriously saying that socialism just hasn't been given "it's fair shake." How many dead will convince you?

20 millions Russians isn't enough?
2 million Koreans isn't enough?

You're one sick and hateful bastard.

[quote name='camoor']Well that's your opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that you have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader.
[/quote]

I couldn't disagree more, In grad school I worked with a Canadian woman who refused to be employed in her own country. Why? Because she only took home 35% of her paycheck. She could never own a home, her own car, or even have a private retirement plan. She opted to move here instead - as did my parents, who came from a Muslim country.

If the Canadian "governement as my daddy" program sounds appealing to you, I invite you to please, move there.

Me, I'm grateful to live in the U.S. - My mother slept on a dirt floor for the first 18 years of her life. Indonesia's forced 20 year Socialism policy put my mother's family into a state of peverty and hunger they are still living in 40 years later.

To hear you say I "have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader" just makes my skin crawl. It's disgusting.

[quote name='camoor']
Canada is pretty leftist (you might even call it a social democracy) and it seems like a pretty nice place to live. So are most of the west European countries.
[/quote]

Sure they were. Why in the hell do you think men seek recognition anyway? Grow up.

[quote name='camoor']
As for the "being socialist so they could womanize" part, that's so damn silly. These were men who wanted to be recognized as great artists and/or prolific thinkers, they were famous in their time and had no need to resort to spouting off things they didn't believe in order to get attention.

If you want to talk womanizers, at least pick someone like T. Kennedy or O'Reilly...[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']You're not seriously saying that socialism just hasn't been given "it's fair shake." How many dead will convince you?

20 millions Russians isn't enough?
2 million Koreans isn't enough?

You're one sick and hateful bastard.

[quote name='camoor']Well that's your opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that you have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader.
[/quote]

I couldn't disagree more, In grad school I worked with a Canadian woman who refused to be employed in her own country. Why? Because she only took home 35% of her paycheck. She could never own a home, her own car, or even have a private retirement plan. She opted to move here instead - as did my parents, who came from a Muslim country.

If the Canadian "governement as my daddy" program sounds appealing to you, I invite you to please, move there.

Me, I'm grateful to live in the U.S. - My mother slept on a dirt floor for the first 18 years of her life. Indonesia's forced 20 year Socialism policy put my mother's family into a state of peverty and hunger they are still living in 40 years later.

To hear you say I "have no empirical evidence of how a nation would work under a truly socialist leader" just makes my skin crawl. It's disgusting.

[quote name='camoor']
Canada is pretty leftist (you might even call it a social democracy) and it seems like a pretty nice place to live. So are most of the west European countries.
[/quote]

Sure they were. Why in the hell do you think men seek recognition anyway? Grow up.

[quote name='camoor']
As for the "being socialist so they could womanize" part, that's so damn silly. These were men who wanted to be recognized as great artists and/or prolific thinkers, they were famous in their time and had no need to resort to spouting off things they didn't believe in order to get attention.

If you want to talk womanizers, at least pick someone like T. Kennedy or O'Reilly...[/quote][/quote]

Wow, you really have an open mind don't you.

Good for your grad school friend.

I love how when someone points out that Canada and Western Europe are not bad places to live, or they don't have evil social policies, a conservative is there with the catchline "Why don't you move there. Get out of my country..." jumps up. What a load of :bs:

I think capitalism gives the US a competitive edge, and I don't like paying high taxes either. However I'd rather see the tax money I do pay go to causes such as needed foreign aid (for which the money is depleted in 2005) versus unnecessary foreign wars.

It must have been tough on your mom, but that doesn't change the fact that Indonesia was run by some pretty inept dictators.

Yeah, and you believe that all men are seeking recognition so they can be attractive to women. There are obvious exceptions such as the Dalai Lama that refute your point, but I tend to think that there are many more men out there that want to make the world a better place. It is not mature or healthy to have a sexual motivation for everything that you do, you have to see outside yourself and realize that many people actually think about these issues instead of always trying to show off about how much of an independent badass (or in your case party conformist) they are.
 
Camoor,

This is has been a relatively good discussion, but I am bowing out of it at this point.

To hear you talk about human life as though it is some sort of expendable variable - something it's okay to waste just becuase a given leader wasn't "truly socialist" - just feels awful. I consider human life to be one of the most precious of things.

When I read your shallow disragard for human life, it makes both my stomach turn and my eyes fill with tears of anger. I cannot, out of self-respect, continue this discussion with you.

Please feel free to take the last post.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Camoor,

This is has been a relatively good discussion, but I am bowing out of it at this point.

To hear you talk about human life as though it is some sort of expendable variable - something it's okay to waste just becuase a given leader wasn't "truly socialist" - just feels awful. I consider human life to be one of the most precious of things.

When I read your shallow disragard for human life, it makes both my stomach turn and my eyes fill with tears of anger. I cannot, out of self-respect, continue this discussion with you.
[/quote]

Wow, way to get emotional over nothing.

Take a look at the Ukraine if you want to see atrocities committed by a "Democracy" in name only.

Just because a system of government or leader claims to be socialist, doesn't mean that it is actually socialist. I'd never justify the actions of a so-called socialist leader like Mussolini as an indictment against socialism, just as I'd never justify the actions of a dictator who won a "democratic" election by rigging the votes as an indictment against Democracy.

I find your hypocracy hard to swallow, apparently you have muslim parents however you applaud PAD every chance that you get. Did you forget that this was the guy who put the swastika in the word "Islam"? How can you justify his equation of your parent's religion to a fascist totalitarian ideology that endorses genocide? And just because I claim that I am not going to indiscriminately hate and deride each person that has endorsed socialism, I have no respect for human life?

[quote name='The_Continental']Please feel free to take the last post.[/quote]

This is another cheap debate tactic. You realize that you can't win the arguement so you try to make it look like you're taking the "high road". You need to reexamine your philosophy on life, you might realize that it's not "all about the womanizing" and that maybe half of America has a good reason for caring about the less fortunate.
 
Yeah, you never have to invite camoor to take the last post, because he'll do it anyway.

Camoor believes that socialism is like the last cookie on a plate in a room of starving people. He thinks everyone will leave the cookie alone because there are always more needier people than himself. The cookie will stay there indefinitely in case of emergency, then get cut up into equal pieces for everyone. The truth is that the cookie would disappear before he even had a chance to think about taking it. The one with the most authority would take it and give a portion of it to the one who displayed the most loyalty.

Socialism can work wonderfully in a family, a clan, or other small group of people. However, when a hierarchy evolves, the ones with the most influence, resources, power will always use it to their advantage and not bow out gracefully (leave the cookie). When it gets big enough, someone has to run the clan, and you just can't depend on that person not to take the cookie for himself. This is why capitalism is more equitable. We make and keep our own cookies.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yeah, you never have to invite camoor to take the last post, because he'll do it anyway.

Camoor believes that socialism is like the last cookie on a plate in a room of starving people. He thinks everyone will leave the cookie alone because there are always more needier people than himself. The cookie will stay there indefinitely in case of emergency, then get cut up into equal pieces for everyone. The truth is that the cookie would disappear before he even had a chance to think about taking it. The one with the most authority would take it and give a portion of it to the one who displayed the most loyalty.

Socialism can work wonderfully in a family, a clan, or other small group of people. However, when a hierarchy evolves, the ones with the most influence, resources, power will always use it to their advantage and not bow out gracefully (leave the cookie). When it gets big enough, someone has to run the clan, and you just can't depend on that person not to take the cookie for himself. This is why capitalism is more equitable. We make and keep our own cookies.[/quote]

Blah blah blah.

There's nothing that you said that I don't agree with (besides the requisite false accusations).

Socialism would work if everyone would play fair, sadly there's always at least one asshole at the party that's going to ruin it for everyone. However maybe some day some genius will come up with a system that *forces* it to work. I'm not going to rule out that possiblity.

I'm sure the Ancient Greeks, 2000+ years ago, would have thought our idea of Democracy was completely insane and unrealistic (only 1/7 of their "democracy" could vote, the rest were slaves, foreigners, women or poor people).

Pure anachro-capitalism also has it's problems. For our current society, there needs to be a balance of humanistic social policy and darwinistic "survival of the fittest" capitalism/democracy.

As for the last post comment, that's just weak. Surely the PAD fan club can make a better excuse for why their arguements always come up short on this board.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Socialism would work if everyone would play fair, sadly there's always at least one asshole at the party that's going to ruin it for everyone. However maybe some day some genius will come up with a system that *forces* it to work. I'm not going to rule out that possiblity.[/quote]

capitalism works because everyone is forced to play fairly or meet demise in the marketplace. You keep holding out for that endless cookie supply, you'll be waiting until the second coming of the Jesus.

I'm sure the Ancient Greeks, 2000+ years ago, would have thought our idea of Democracy was completely insane and unrealistic (only 1/7 of their "democracy" could vote, the rest were slaves, foreigners, women or poor people).
Click to expand...

We don't have a democracy. Locally, yes, we rely on majority rule for day to day local statute and ordinance. Yet we are still beholdent to the constitution that restricts all governments from treading on individual rights. So I guess you're right, the greeks would not have accepted the concept of unalienable rights for all individuals.

Pure anachro-capitalism also has it's problems. For our current society, there needs to be a balance of humanistic social policy and darwinistic "survival of the fittest" capitalism/democracy.
Click to expand...

You keep associating free market capitalism believers with anarchy, as if we believe government doesn't even have a right to exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government is a necessary evil and should be regarded as such in all aspects. The founders had just as much contempt for corruption in the hands of the powerful, but understood it's necessity to protect and mediate between citizens.

As for the last post comment, that's just weak. Surely the PAD fan club can make a better excuse for why their arguements always come up short on this board.
Click to expand...

The only ones coming up short are the pseudo-intellectual 'thinkers' here who believe government is the beginning and end of all things good, that socialism can work if everyone could just get along, and admit in the same sentence that this is impossible.
 
I think this thread is the perfect example of why a 2 party system is a bad idea...

There are really only two things that Republicans and Democrats can agree on. Agree to disagree and crush any competition before it can become a threat to either party.

The Democrats are a party of people with no ideas... and the Republicans are a party full of bad ideas.

Its like they're having a competition to see who can run the country into the ground the fastest. While they're busy bickering like a couple of 13 year olds try to show off whos got the largest vocabulary the country is pretty much going to hell on its own. [note] Use the word because it says what you're thinking. Not because you want to sound smart. Using many, large multi-sylabic words in excess just makes you look like you don't really have a point and are just covering up that fact with grandoise terminology. [/note]

These guys are so busy spewing the same socio-political crap thats been slung about for decades that they have totally missed the point of what they're arguing about. They (the posters and the parties) get so wrapped up in trying to show how they're the 'best' that its all they do. For example:

Congress-y Guy #1- Ok, and now well discuss the recent power shortage in Bumfuq, CA.
Congress-ish Guy #2(R)- Well, as we all know, if Democrats weren't money hating fags, we could tear up all the national parks to rip out the coal to burn for energy!
Congress-type Guy #3 (D)- Yea? Well if Republicans would stop giving the rich tax breaks we could afford more nuclear plants!
Congress-noob #4(I)- If you both would stop wasting so much time searching for depleting fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power, we could come up with clean, renewable power that would let us heat our homes and run our cars off water for a fraction of the price!
Congress Guy #3- Shut the hell up!
Congress Guy #2- Yea, you stupid ass, tree huging, clean air loving, nature saving homo!
*CG2 and 3 then proceed to beat CG4 until he is a horribly disfigured and crippled for life. Being so repulsive, his constituents don't re-ellect him.*

I forgot where I was going with this... but I think we should all probably be ashamed. The ignorant, the intollerant, the selfish, the immature...

Personally, I don't really give a damn about the tsunami. Maybe I'm cruel... or maybe I'm sick of this country being demonized for helping some and then being ostricized for not helping others. If I called the shots I'd say fuck all! We have enough poor and starving people locally, why should we ship wealth abroad? I say we make a global compromize. We don't go where we aren't wanted, and in return we won't do anything when we are. These double standards need to end. Why are Americans called racist or intollerant of all the foreigners that don't speak English in America, yet we are called arrogant when we go elsewhere and expect to converse in English. Call me crazy... but if I was going to move to Japan I would make sure I knew Japanese... If I went to France I'd probably want to know French. Why am I in-turn labled a bad guy for expecting people to speak English in America!? I know the US is supposed to be a melting pot and other such things... I have no problem with blending. However, there needs to be a common language for things to go smoothly. I mean, look at the UN, 100 some odd countries and langauges and they can't get shit done!

I think I'm probably diverging here... but now I don't really care. It's late, I'm tired and I wanna rant.
I recently watch a comedy special by Louis Black that really made me think. America is the only country in the world that feels it neccisary, on a near constant basis, to remind the whole world that were the best country on the planet. Thats a very common sentiment if you frequent almost any forum with even a minor American population. Yet, the fact of the matter is, most of these people have no grounds for comparison. It is true that we have the most money... but how does that really translate into greatness? Nation-wide we've been making cuts to education... and it really shows on forums >_< We're spending billions to perpetuate a war that there is no valid basis for that, additionally, the world hates us for. Weapons of mass destruction... ok, I'll set asside the arguements of whether or not such ass backwards places could aquire them, or if they had their desire to use them... Assuming that there were WMD (like we did) shouldn't this whole fucking think ended when they weren't found? Frivolous military spending.... check! Thats just the economical part of the equation. What about all the people that died, the teenage sons and daughter, all for the sake of the fucking retard in office's personal agenda? The American people don't want us over there, the Iraqis don't want us there, the soldiers sure as hell don't want to be there... pretty much the world over, WE AREN'T WANTED THERE... So I ask... why are we still there? For more money? Does the heartless sacrifice of your nations young for money equate to greatness? Then we must truly live in the greatest country with our greatest of leaders...
 
I just love all of those "cool-as-hell" people who state that they're independent for the instant street-cred and the superior feeling that they are above all of this "2 party" nonsense.

If someone states that they are independent, and goes on a rant about how the 2 party system sucks, then they should also have the decency to explain how they plan to change it.

If you aren't Ventura, Nader, or Perot (and he's a maybe), then what have you done for the Independent party lately?
 
I didnt say I was independant... I'm saying you're all insane. You can group people into any number of groups that satisfy everyone unless they numbered in the thousands or better.

A lot of people say they're a Democrat or Republican but they just dissagree with a few core components like gays or abortion... You have people that are supposed to follow the same ideology that can't tollerate each others view points. Its almost as bad as religion... How many Christain sects are there? They all piss and moan about how the other group is doing it wrong. If they all like the same god why the hell does it matter? Personally, I'm an atheist, so I think they're all insane :p

And as for me saying I'm independant for street cred? Thats just as assanine as PAD saying you're a socialist to get laid.

As for what we can do to change it... Ok, say I do draft up some elaborate plan that covers hundreds of pages.... big freaking deal, no one really cares. Sure, the constitution says I have the right ... or actually the responsibility to stand up and right wrongs, but if I try and fail I'm hung for treason. I don't care what they say in school, one person can't make a diffence. Atleast, not a lower middle class guy from Bumfuq, Minnesota. Also, what incentive is there for the entrenched government to change? You're certainly set in your ways, I'm willing to bet PAD would tell me to blow myself. The senators that are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on their asses sure dont want things to change...

When it comes down to it, I'm poor, can't change shit and am just left to piss and moan about how the little guy gets the shaft.

But if you want a plan I'll give you a quick little one that you're sure to tear apart because its a foolish thing that could never work that Im only proposing for 'street cred'

I think its pretty well proven that Democracy doesn't work. Atleast, not at this scale. You can't have one set of standards that fairly applies to everyone where everyone is satisfied and gets to be heard. Representatives only represent the interests of those that can pay them the most. There-in lies the problem. Democracy is just as good of an idea as socialism, but they both have the same flaw. Socialism gets the bad wrap because its much more evident. You give one guy total control of a country and it goes to his head... people notice when a whole country is devoted to serving one man's needs. In a democracy this corruption is less noticed because its done on such a wide scale that everyone is covering up for everyone else and this crookedness apears to be the norm.

Its kinda sad that if I said all we need is honest people that I would be called a fool hoping for a utopian ideal. Is it really that bad to want people to be honest? I'm not saying be nice with rainbows and puppies... I'm saying respect others... ya know that little thing that the Jesus fella said, treat others they way you want to be treated.

What we either need is leaders we can trust or break the country into smaller areas in which everyone could be heard. What we really need is a dictatorship... but with out the dick. If we could get one person to be in total control that wouldn't be corrupted, then wed be set. The system does work... I mean, look at families... granted it may be a bit dated, but it did work. You have the dad, he makes the money, he makes the rules and acts in the best interests of everone. He gets the mom to cook so everyone has food and the kids to go to school so they get smart. The problem is, when its scaled up to a whole country, dad makes mom cook just for him and then he sends the kids to the coal mines to pay for his new plasma tv...

"Now you're complaining that the human race is essentially bad... thats such a hippy thing for you to say and you're only doing it to get sex"

What ever.. The human race isn't neccesarily bad... but we do a lot of twisted shit that we don't have to just to line our pockets with a little green. Its pretty fucked up that we're so willing to trash our planet for a few bucks. Maybe I am a hippy, maybe I am a dreamer, what if I'm foolish, what if I want the impossible? Is it such a bad thing to want a world where people don't have to be afraid to be one of those who is raped, murdered or otherwise wronged every 30 seconds? Wouldn't it be nice to not need police? I just think its sad that its considered foolish for people to just get along. Most of the world worships the same god, but they kill each other because they don't do it "properly". Wars are fought over finite resources that we don't really need, but keep around because theres still money to be made... Call me a hippy, a liberal, a socialist or an egaltarian... I really don't care. The one thing you can call me for sure is sick of humanities shit.
 
Kayden was floating in the embrionic universe observing the incomprehensable when she called to him. His world immediately materialized into view as he rose his head and opened his eyes. He saw her dark form silhouetted by the sun at her back. The outlined curves of her body sent waves of feeling through him, the numbness subsided and he was now concious of his own body. Now fully aware of her impending arrival, he strained to discover her identity. Her head bobbed and he was temporarily blinded by the flash of light revealed each time she made contact with the sand. She was running.

The lustful life force pulled him erect and he rose to meet her. It was then he realized his shameful condition. He was naked, she was still coming fast, yet she was receeding. He felt another force from behind. Engulfing and warm, he was powerless to resist. He watched as her visage , frozen in time, shrank to infantessimal proportions and he became part of the blackness that swept him back into oblivion.

He awoke in a pool of his own drool, a lock of dread caught between the tilde and #1 key. He yanked it free as he lifted his heavy head. "Damn, that shit was good." He looked at the clock, realizing he'd been gone for 12 hours or maybe more. Desperately he tried typing what he had witnessed in his hallucination, but the keys weren't displaying the right letters. "I'm typing backwards," he screamed, "let me go goddamnit!"

The straight jacket was drawn tighter yet again and the nurses all made a collective frown at his condition. "He was so young," one of them said, "and he had so much potential." The party leader dismissed them as members of the third shift had just started their duties. They casually filed past the large sign that adorned the entrance to the ward which read: "FLOOR #9 OCEANA DRUG REHABILITATION AND REPROGRAMMING"
 
..... I don't think I'm alone when I say.... huh?

Did you type that up just for me or is it some kind of 'insert fool's name here' burn? Like the anti flamer rejection letter... seriously... I'm confused
 
[quote name='Kayden']I think its pretty well proven that Democracy doesn't work.[/quote]

BWAHAhaha! Do you know anything, ANYTHING about history, particularly the history of the 20th century? Obviously you don't if you make just downright stupid statements like that. I'm anti-Democrat and anti-Republican too, but that is just dumb.
 
ya if the president gave money right after the disaster then, the OP would be bullshiting like a fucking idiot that we gave to much money before we could survey the damage. Also the presidents Texas Ranch has a full fledged office similar to the white house we're he can run the country. So get your facts straight.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I think its pretty well proven that Democracy doesn't work.[/quote]

Democracy works and usually lasts. Communism you can say works for the goverment but it never last for centruries, it usually always comes to an end.
 
I hate when people sit there and say how dare the US not donate more money. All of these foreign countries are chastising us for daring not to give quadruple the amount of every other country. I have only one question for those diplomats....

Where were you when the US was attacked on 9/11?
Where were you when hurricanes were demolishing Florida?

I'm tired of this country being guilt-tripped because we don't give enough money to other countries. When did they help us? I know this is a selfish attitude, but everyone complaining about the aid amount also complains about all of the problems in this country, i.e. taxes, social security and such.
 
[quote name='rbigfis']I hate when people sit there and say how dare the US not donate more money. All of these foreign countries are chastising us for daring not to give quadruple the amount of every other country. I have only one question for those diplomats....

Where were you when the US was attacked on 9/11?
Where were you when hurricanes were demolishing Florida?

I'm tired of this country being guilt-tripped because we don't give enough money to other countries. When did they help us? I know this is a selfish attitude, but everyone complaining about the aid amount also complains about all of the problems in this country, i.e. taxes, social security and such.[/quote]

The people in southeast live in huts. Many have sold a kidney to support their family. What do you expect those people to give to the U.S.?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='rbigfis']I hate when people sit there and say how dare the US not donate more money. All of these foreign countries are chastising us for daring not to give quadruple the amount of every other country. I have only one question for those diplomats....

Where were you when the US was attacked on 9/11?
Where were you when hurricanes were demolishing Florida?

I'm tired of this country being guilt-tripped because we don't give enough money to other countries. When did they help us? I know this is a selfish attitude, but everyone complaining about the aid amount also complains about all of the problems in this country, i.e. taxes, social security and such.[/quote]

The people in southeast live in huts. Many have sold a kidney to support their family. What do you expect those people to give to the U.S.?[/quote]

Well, if they really cared they'd have their 8-year-olds sew up some Air Jordans for free and send them here instead of getting paid 10 cents a day. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top