Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/11/10 12:40 AM, JoS wrote: I am reading a book on terrorism right now and the author presents a very good argument.
Suicide attacks are actually very logical...

For what purpose are you reading a book written by an Islam sympathizer? Or is the author, perhaps, even a muslim himself?

At 1/8/10 09:28 PM, Patton3 wrote: Where in the constitution are the actions taken in the New Deal (specifically) outlined against? I realize the Constitution is meant to be broad in scope so as to be relevant for many years in many situations, yet I think it's a bit too large of a stretch to say that the New deal was completely unconstitutional.

Mayhaps, then, the would 'completely' should be removed from my argument. You are correct because, no, it is not 'specifically' outlined. Oh wait! Yes it fucking is!

The Ninth Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that the rights of the people are vastly numbered. So numbered, in fact, that the draftsman of the constitution realized that not every one could be named. The right to privacy is included under the ninth amendment. As is the right to get married, the right to produce offspring, the right to own land.

The Tenth Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

This, in regards to the federal government, means just the opposite. It means that powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution are retained by the people.
Again? The ninth amendment says that the powers of the state (the people) are enumerated and are open to interpretation and common sense. The tenth amendment says that powers not mentioned in the document are notgranted to the federal government, but instead to the people.

The Federalist papers put the purpose of the Constitution best; "If men were angels, no government would be needed. If angels governed men, no checks on government, internal or external, would be necessary".

If you're attempting to sway me with any argument made in the federalist papers, you are so barking up the wrong tree.

:The Constitution is not purely to protect the rights of the citizens. Not even all of the Amendments serve that purpose. That is in no way to say that this is a major function of it, but it is not the sole purpose. Much of it is too establish how the U.S. is to be governed, and to grant certain powers to the government. The right to collect income tax for example.
The constitution protects the liberty of individual Americans, while defining and specifically listing federal powers. This issue was never something meant to be 'interpreted' to mean something else. The reason the ninth and tenth amendment were put into the constitution by our founding fathers was the same reason we recognized brittain for what it was, and what it had turned into.

At 1/8/10 07:09 PM, Patton3 wrote: As for the last 50 years, I assume you mean approximately, I think a lot of that can be traced to the Cold War. For example, one of Reagan's biggest... fuck-ups for lack of a better word, was the Iran Contras situation which was directly tied to the Cold War. Not to mention Vietnam. What with the draft consisting largely of poor Americans, contracting uncountable numbers of companies, the lives lost, a country almost irreparably damaged, and Cambodia falling to the Khmer Rouge... it was a bad time for anybody, but you can see how a lot of the expansion of government powers can be traced back to this. This country was at odds with another world power, in a race of arms and more importantly, ideas. It's pretty clear why there was so much government expansion. Not that it was good, and not that it was the only time this happened...
And most recently, you have the terrorist attacks and the resulting government actions relating to expansion of federal power. Referring of course to the Patriot Act.
Also you have to remember the relaxing and removal of government influence. Most notably getting rid of the draft, self explanatory, and NAFTA which relaxed trade tariffs and barriers, and led to greater income for all nations involved.

How about Roosevelts completely unconstitutional (IMO) 'New Deal'? Or Johnsons dark hearted 'Great Society'? Then Nixon builds on that 'Great Society'. Long before The Patriot Act, our government was expounding federal power, and leeching away state rights. And look now. Federal agents raid states who change laws on marijuana. States that do not set the drinking age at 21 and the age of sexual consent at 16 receive substantially less tax dollars than those that do.

The constitution has been inverted and transformed as a weapon against the people, instead of a shield against the government.

At 1/7/10 08:08 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 1/7/10 07:00 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Oh, I read it. I just disagreed with it. Washington DC and the federal government have spent decades chipping away at constitutionality, and liberty. Everything they touch turns into a red tape maze or bullshit and failure.

What led me to think you didn't read it was that you implied I'm trying to say everyone on the hill are just the most competent people to ever walk the earth. But if you disagree with it, as in you think everything they touch just becomes royally fucked up, by all means elaborate.
Know, however, I'm not saying they're choices are always good; just that when they make a bad choice, it's not because they're trying to destroy our values, or some vague, widely open to interpretation idea like that.

I would not imply there's a group of evil men meeting at three AM in a smoky secret room. I'm simply saying the federal government's only priority for the last fifty years or so has been the widening of federal power and the maintaining control.

At 1/8/10 09:55 AM, bcdemon wrote: If you had bothered to check out the information provided you would have seen that they are being built in Arab neighborhoods in the West Bank, which goes against the UN resolutions and the 2002 Roadmap for Peace about more settlement construction.

I was not disputing that. Simply making the point that you kind of people, when it's a country you're not totally against in every aspect for no reason (as you are with Israel), act like defying a UN resolution is no big deal most of the time.

At 1/7/10 10:43 PM, Imperator wrote: While I may be the only example of this:
I drive a Ford Escort. Used to drive a Honda Accord.
And in my experience, Honda can kiss my ASS!
I've only driven 3 cars for any significant amount of time but let me say that given the choice, I'll buy : Ford for the quality, reliability and generally low maintenance of the vehicle.

It's not that I contest the quality and craftmanship of any one brand over the other. As you said, I'm sure piece of shit automobiles roll off the lines of car companies all over the world, on occasion. All vehicles of all brands, due to market manipulation and inflation, cost thousands of dollars more than they should. That was the only point I was making. The federal government exerted much energy to make sure that such a company remained viable, even when it wasn't.

At 1/8/10 11:26 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: If banks were once too big to fail, wouldn't that be an admission of guilt for lack of government oversight? Shouldn't these businesses have been broken up by anti-trust laws, if that were truly the case?

Exactamundo.

At 1/8/10 02:49 PM, Elfer wrote: In reality, contractionary policy should have been used for years now when you guys were running that big inflationary gap, but the fed kept acting expansionary. The solution, however, is not to continue making the same mistakes until the market collapses in on itself. The solution is to do the hard thing that will fix your problems in the long run.

The powers that be in the American government know that there is only one solution. The deep collapse that our economy is requiring is what they government is trying to prevent - not because they give a good fuck about anyone losing their jobs or their homes or their lives, but because that collapse would strike a deep and permanent blow to their grip upon the private sector.

At 1/7/10 06:50 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 1/7/10 05:52 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: So, they're alright guys? Really? Well, hell. If you say they're alright, maybe all my criticism was unfounded. Good sell!

I'm not saying criticism is unfounded, or altogether bad. Hell, it should be encouraged. But it should be based in rationality, and not the McCarthyism, "they're tearing apart America!" shit I mentioned earlier. I'm not saying they're great guys worthy of undying affection. They're just not evil, or altogether bad.... at least not the majority of them. I get the feeling you didn't read the entire thing.

Oh, I read it. I just disagreed with it. Washington DC and the federal government have spent decades chipping away at constitutionality, and liberty. Everything they touch turns into a red tape maze or bullshit and failure.

So, they're alright guys? Really? Well, hell. If you say they're alright, maybe all my criticism was unfounded. Good sell!

At 1/7/10 05:03 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/7/10 03:47 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: I'm not taking the side of idiot businessman who couldn't even follow basic principles of business.

Well they did something right because they're at the head of multi-billion dollar conglomerates :o
They just got greedy because laws enable it.

Well I would agree with you, on that point. The federal government enabled greed in the private sector to such a ridiculous point that they all started to believe it would remain viable. It did not, however.

No one is being 'punished'. It's simply a logical consequence to an event that happened.

Yeah you're punishing Americans for the greed of a select few.

I personally don't feel losing your job because a company shuts down in a gigantic atrocity that requires the federal government to throw their weight around enough to write and enact brand new laws dictating what private business can and can't do. I don't think losing your job because a business ceases to be viable is so effing horrible that the federal government needs to buy up the private sector 'for the good of the working American'. The fed doesn't, last time I checked my history, do anything to help anyone other then their own selves and own power. The depression that a non-invasive government would have allowed would have been a wonderful restructuring of the market. It would have been the end of decades of corrupt business decisions and enabling federal laws.

Those companies were not economically viable. That's why they failed.

That's why they have to change the laws, not just let the companies die.

They were not justified. The entire reason the bail outs were pushed was because it allowed the federal government to circumvent and manipulate the natural flow of the market - which is exactly what they had been trying to do for decades anyway. The market was fucked up by the federal governments policy on what the private sector was 'legally' allowed to get away with...only to have the federal government step in to 'save' the economy.

All they've done is preserve the system that allowed it to happen in the first place, and establish a precedent that encourages and requires market manipulation to avoid a massive depression.

Just preserve them for the sole reason that they're big?

They employ a lot of people and so it's kind of like welfare to bail them out, except you keep people working on... something.
Something not very productive from what I gather.

Oh, they're working. On producing bullshit goods and services that no one wants, with a price tag no one can afford. Thank you so much for saving gm! Thank god I still have the opportunity to purchase a vehicle that costs twice what I make in a year! God forbid the company below GM pick up the business and the customers and the employees.

The money might be better spent turning a couple of investment bankers into pothole-fillers but hey, whatchagonna do?

Rickshaw drivers, employed by pothole-fillers.

At 1/7/10 03:26 PM, poxpower wrote: It's not "just".
It's bullshit. It's just Enron again. You have a bunch of greedy guys running a company and when it fucks up, they don't care because they're already rich beyond measure.
So everyone under them takes a hard hit and they walk away unscathed.

I'm not taking the side of idiot businessman who couldn't even follow basic principles of business. Don't get me wrong. Personally, I think the idiots should be tried and jailed. They operated on a system of non-value, and that's what they received. The point that I am making is not one of defense, but of consequence. Not on an emotional level, but a logical one.

A company existed. It's owners and operators made poor and often unethical business decisions, leading to the financial collapse of the company. Shitty investments and idiot practices made once economically viable companies into just the opposite. That is what happened, and that's allthat happened. Happens every day. Dozens of times a day, probably. It's the cycle of a business, and also an economy. The only thing that makes this any different is that the companies that failed were very big companies, and that some of the shitty decisions these companies made were influenced and encouraged by tax incentives.

It's a huge mess that was brought about LEGALLY but a bunch of dudes at the head of huge companies. You can't suddenly punish hundreds of thousands of employees for these guy's stupidity.

No one is being 'punished'. It's simply a logical consequence to an event that happened.

They've chosen to bail them out to buy some time so they change their habits, but that hasn't worked too well as they've just payed back the money with more imaginary money and some are raking in huge bonuses.
Bankers in any country have way too much power given the nature of their business.

So would you say the bail outs have not achieved the recourse that were promised, when they were first presented?

It is impossible to support the bail outs and also support personal responsibility and accountability.

Well they did irresponsible things under a legal system, what can you do?

You could let their companies face a free market. Hey, even better would have been if Corporate America and the federal government had not worked hand in hand to make that kind of market impossible. Those companies were not economically viable. That's why they failed. You can mark it down to any reason you want. Poor leadership, bad investments, ignorant ideals.

All the bailouts did, in my opinion, was sustain and preserve the political and economical infrastructure that will allow companies to bloat and rot all over again. Only now, the federal government has a vested stake in ensuring, no matter what, that these companies stay afloat. They have demonstrated outright defiance against the will of the market, and the ideals that made us a first world country to begin with. What of competition? Nothing at all? Just preserve them for the sole reason that they're big? Preserve them because they once held the hope and image of a successful company? No matter how many new laws you have to write, or how much it costs?

Who gives a crap? I thought the media was one-sided when Bush was in office. Now, it's as if the entire realm of network news has turned into a twenty four hour episode of TMZ. And personally, I'd rather be watching clips of nipples falling out of red carpet dresses. As opposed to the clips of a middle aged black man walking around his front yard and getting a newspaper and drinking a fucking cup of coffee. Jesus Christ. At least Network News was exciting when Bush was in office.
"Scandal Unveiled!"
"New lies exposed!"
"Cronies finally fucking busted for corruption!"

Now it's about how awesome Barack looks in cashmere, and how he likes dark roast better than french roast, and that he really digs kites but not big kites and look he got a haircut!

Kill yourself.

What I love is these backwoods idiots that expound the virtues of 'OMG PROTECT OUR YOUNG FROM REAL LIFE' is that they always lose. The words your kids don't learn from tv, they're going to learn from their friends. The sexual jargon and lingo and everything else you block from your kids internet, they learn from the guys up the street. It satisfies me so very very much that censorship is a losing battle. It tickles me pink and causes a smile to cross my face every time I think about parents trying to hide their children from the real world.
Try all you might. Go ahead. You're kids are still going to curse, and fuck, and smoke cigarettes. Just like you did, when you were their age.

A shame, really. It is disgusting what the belief in magic and religion convinces groups of people to do. Surely, this bill should be discouraged by both American officials and the officials of other first world countries.

I do not, however, see any reason to become involved in this country. For all the crying and outrage about Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq....I feel it would be hypocritical for anyone who disagrees with any of those things to support using American force to prevent Uganda from passing their own laws and enforcing them as necessary. It's a shame, you know. If more people had supported American action in the past, I would express the opinion that we SHOULD be over there stopping this.

Too bad. People should get what they ask for, and America should stay out of other countries unless they are a direct threat to us.

Careful what you wish for, America =)

Oh I love it. I hope he keeps shoving more boys into the desert. I hope he keeps devaluing the dollar. I hope he beefs up socials programs until they're bloated and obtuse and cumbersome. I hope oil keeps rising and rising and rising.

Above all, though, I hope he keeps pouring us into the middle east. I want this government to go completely bankrupt. I love Obama so much, because he's going to set us up for The Great Correction.

Go Obama! Yes you can! =)

At 1/6/10 10:21 PM, bcdemon wrote: Israel defies UN resolution and 2002 Roadmap to Peace by building new Israeli apartments.

OMFG! Apartments?!?! Goddamn them! I bet they're living in them, too! Those evil anti-terror bastards! How dare they?!?!

You've always made me laugh, bc.

Look I can see all three sides. I understand the on-the-fence position of Britain, sure. They've two different sides both clamouring for two different things. I understand Pro-Terror groups crying and whining about The Gaza Correction. I also empathize with Israel not wanting to serve up heroes and innocent men because some special interest group talked some idiot sympathizing activist judge to blame Israel for defending itself.

Solution? Israel should cut all ties with Britain until they can provide a written and public guarantee that no Israel citizen will be arrested for anything.

Easy enough.

All companies, corporations, and individuals should be held accountable for every decision made and every will enacted. The bail outs should not have happened. Those companies who made poor business decisions and unsound investments should have failed miserably. And yes, every single employee who worked for those companies should have lost their jobs and pensions and 401k. I know it's rough, but it's also just. The right thing is often not easy. It's even harder when we live in a culture that, for fifty years now, has encouraged failure and punished success; even harder when we are run by a government who knows that a deep depression would free our nation from the grips of ever widening government control. Do not forgot that the reason our government proposed the bailouts is the same reason our government proposed the patriot act - to expound and widen federal power and control.

It is impossible to support the bail outs and also support personal responsibility and accountability. If one chooses the side of socialist ideals and supports the bailouts, then so be it. That same person, however, cannot pretend that they support logic, responsibility, or justice. It's one or the other, baby.

At 1/6/10 05:57 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 1/6/10 03:04 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 1/4/10 07:05 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

2. Search and treat every single passenger as if they were a potential terrorist, while paying special attention to those who fit the demograph of the kind of people who (almost 100% of the time) attempt attacks on planes.

Why not treat every passenger with special attention?

Sure, why not. As I said, search each and every passenger as if they were a potential terrorist. Those who fit the bill (be it country of origin or whatever) of previous terrorists would be given and extra special search, though.

At 1/4/10 07:05 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: What's sad about this whole situation is how much crap Muslims are getting, and how now apparently your nationality now has an effect on the amount of time you spend on security.

The thing is you can't generalize about these guys. This guy was a Nigerian who went to Oxford, so well, that breaks a mold now, doesn't it?

Of the two examples I am soon to propose, I would like everyone to choose which would be more logical and efficient.
1. Search and treat every single passenger (ignoring race, culture, creed, age, sex, race, and country of origin) as if they were a potential terrorist.
2. Search and treat every single passenger as if they were a potential terrorist, while paying special attention to those who fit the demograph of the kind of people who (almost 100% of the time) attempt attacks on planes.

Don't answer with any emotions at all. Answer with simple logic.

For countries that are in a third world condition, we should stop giving 'charity' to. How about if we leased them an infrastructure? We go into their country, build their water lines and power lines and power facilities. We loan them the technology and the manpower and the capital. We would sign a leasing contract to the countries, requiring them to pay back every cent that we spent in building their infrastructure. This is far better than the false idea of western charity, and would actually be an investment on both parties. The third world country in question would receive a functioning infrastructure, on credit. We, on the other hand, would raise a savage little country into something that produced economically viable goods and services (as well as a full payment for every cent we spent on that country).

Seems like a sound investment, as opposed to the fruitless and unprofitable idea of 'charity' that we operate on today.

There's no need to strip away their human rights and treat them like dogs. I say this completely devoid of emotion and based purely on logic. It is not logical or efficient to go out of our way to treat them like shit. What do you suggest? Airport security executing them right there on the tarmac? It's not efficient. Much smoother to simply process them like everyone else. They stand no chance before a judge, or a jury, or in the public's or media's eye. They stand no chance of appeal.
It's easy. Just use the system we have already against them. We convict people like Scott Peterson on nothing but circumstantial evidence, so how effing hard could it be to convict guys like this?

Charity is a fraud, yes. At least, what society has transformed Charity into is. For the reasons you listed and a dozen others. The very idea of a charity is, in itself, not so terrible. Folks that have voluntarily helping out those who do not. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would disagree or debate you on that premise, if it were worded as such. Only, that's not how they word it.
Charity is presented in western society as a heavy burden of obligation. As a virtuous and unavoidable part of life. It is presented in a context that defines the word not as an act of kindness on the part of the one who gives, but a deserved and justified recourse for the one who receives. It is built upon the false premise of 'selflessness'. It only fits their definition if the one receives nothing for their volunteer time or donated money, and the other gets something for doing nothing other than not possessing food or shelter or productivity. If it is done in any other way, then it is not charity but instead compensation. And considering most that cry and perpetuate and expound charity are also the ones against just compensation and capitalism, it cannot be compensation.
The trick is that everyone that gives to charity is buying something. Everyone who volunteers in a soup kitchen is being compensated for their time. Just because it isn't tangible does not mean it is not payment. Folks that give to charity (along with claiming it on their tax return every year) are buying peace of mind and satisfaction. Volunteer workers are being paid the same thing. This sentiment is wildly unpopular, because it means that charity isn't virtuous. It means that charity is just another exchange in capital.
Have you ever stopped to think that not all problems can be solved with money? Maybe giving Africa tens of billions of dollars will never help. Maybe paper money from America isn't able to build an infrastructure in a desert?

I will not say that the airlines are doing 'everything they can'. Not by a long shot. I will say, however, that numeric probability dictates that there are no impossibilities. I mean to say that even if airlines bumped their security up tenfold, you would still have thwarted attempts - and every once in a while you'd have successful attempts. Even if we stripped searched and deloused every single airline passenger, and pulled and tested and inspected every single scrap of clothing and every single bottle of hairspray in every piece of luggage - people would still try. Statistically, some of those people would succeed in getting insidious devices inside of passenger planes.
Now, I'm surely not (again) saying that more could not be done in order to reach a safer air transport operation in the united states. It's just that Richard Reid failed. So did Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Security has become so tight that would be terrorists have been forced to resort to using low grade materials and less than tactful methods.

We can do a lot better, sure. This isn't, though, the big 'OMG I KNEW AIRPORTS WERENT SAFE!' deal that some would make it out to be.

Fuck the dead. Seriously. There's not a joke, or a witty comment here. Fuck 'em. If you believe in magical fairly tales, then the dead go to heaven or hell - in either case, I don't think they give a good goddamn about what the mortals are saying about their decomposing pile of skin. If you don't believe in magical fairy tales, then 'life' ends at the last link of conscious mind - and the dead still don't give a fuck about what is said.

At 6/26/09 01:38 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: It's just affecting big business. It's not going to heavily affect the normal population, just the big factories that spew out this stuff.

"It's simply going to restrict successful business growth, and encourage mediocrity and stagnation in the American Market. How could it possibly affect everyday life for us everyday citizens?"

Fucking genius.

At 6/26/09 03:06 PM, ReiperX wrote: In all honesty, if it's going to help decrease pollution I don't mind paying a little more in taxes or in higher prices.

As were many folks in Boston perfectly ok with paying higher tea taxes. More power to you.

I, personally, want to see this bill pass. I want to see all Barack's bills pass - every single one. I want him to plummet this country into a time of total economic stagnation and death. I want him to topple America - then we'll see how many hundred of years it takes before this nation's idiot citizens choose socialism and altruism again.

I think America and her citizens should decide, consistantly, if we're going to be isolationists or not. Everyone wants super powers to 'help the poor and needy and enslaved and genocided' - until we do it. Then we're 'world police' and 'war mongers'. I'm advocating niether, at the moment, by the way. Just saying the American populace is all over the map on most issues (especially foreign ones), and we seem to not even be able to spell 'consistant foreign policy'.

At 6/18/09 12:37 PM, Non-existant12 wrote: Personal freedom is a beautiful thing that most Americans either don't understand or don't know how we could ever obtain it. The notion of freedom has been so twisted by our educational system and government. How can you ever truly understand and learn about democracy and freedom if the system you learn in is a fascist system? With no personal privacy or rights for their students. You can't unless you pursue it in your own time. Many children don't have either the means or the mentor to learn about other ways of life. They are only fed the same ideas over and over. That isn't teaching. It's brainwashing.

I would agree, but for different reason (or rather, more 'specific' reasons) than you. They don't teach real history. I mean, they teach you things that happened. They teach them, though, in this altruistic Robin Hood kind of mediocrity, though. Downplayed is the framing of the constitution. Downplayed is the reasons behind the civil war. Cast aside are the victories of mandating that our government relinquish their control. Ever so fucking briefly, they mention the industrial revolution, and the railroad. And when they do mention the railroad - as when they mention the industrial revolution - they never fail to, in the next breath, remind you that it was slavery and explotaition that built those things. Triumphated, though, is Christopher Columbus - a state paid pirate and slaver that brought death and destruction to every little shithole culture her found. Expounded is the murdering of indians, sure. Every notch in the belt of 'anti-constitution thinking' is raved as a step in the best interest of America.
Everything's fine. Go back to bed. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Promise.

At 6/3/09 03:57 PM, yinyangman wrote: Okay. Read this carefully.

Commencing the strapping-in of self.

He's cutting $5.2 billion from schools.

Maybe schools should not be utterly and entirely dependent on government scraps, eh?

He's eliminating CalWorks and Healthy Families.

Because they're overfed, overpromoted, and altruistic social programs which a government has no right to implement in the first place?

Worst of all, he's lowering income rates, no matter how hard employees work!

I'll agree with you on that. A government agent has no right to mandate the minimum or maximum wage a private sector institution pays it's employees.

I'm not arguing for the ol' Arnold now, don't get me wrong. He's yet another ho-hum-don't-worry-go-back-to-bed-Americ a politician. It's just that you're reasons for not liking him suck.

At 6/16/09 03:50 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: They still deserve help. It would be the emotional, irrational and illogical side that would say "No, they don't deserve any study or help."

Do both. Study them while they rot on death row, and on the day of execution, find someone else to study.

At 5/28/09 03:26 PM, Asteraith wrote: One area that I think America has made a huge mistake NOT socializing is health care. By making health a consumer item, we have sacrificed a great deal of our humanity. We are one of very few industrial, 1st world nations where people with life-threatening illnesses can be turned out on the street untreated because they can't pay for care.

If the medical sector were truely exposed to the free market, with no controls or puppet strings or funding from the government, they would be forced to offer prices that people could actually afford. If a hospital had the choice of lowering prices and wages or going bankrupt - guess what they'd do.

The private sectors of business are another matter. The problem, again in America, is that free trade has consistently led to the development of monopolies, which in turn destroy free trade far more efficiently than government can. It is nearly impossible to start and be competitive in any industry or consumer goods service other than the trade of illicit drugs, largely because huge corporations already have done so and completely control the market.

That's not a bad thing, though. That's what a 'free market' is. A company that does it better, faster, and cheaper is not suppossed to suffer competion from people with higher prices and lower quality. Why would they? Isn't the most efficient business the one that deserves to be at the top?

In that sense, I feel that more government control is appropriate in many areas, so long as that government is controlled by people's best interest, not the best interest of whoever has the biggest wallet.

And which way do you feel America is leaning, today?

At 5/31/09 09:14 PM, RDSchley wrote:

At 5/23/09 01:51 AM, animehater wrote: I agree also. Government is too incompetent and power hungry to do any good in most cases.

and a privately owned business is not? what is the difference between a corperation and a government? think about it.

A corporation is subject to the direct dollar vote of a free market (assuming the government doesn't get involve and limit trade, punish success, and abolish failure), while a government is subject to nothing but their own arbitrary laws.

At 6/16/09 02:34 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/16/09 01:32 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: An full-on invasion of Iran by Israel would be swift and, assuming Israel shows the neccessary lack-of-mercy, logistically simple. The could carpet bomb major military targets, roads, bridges, and barracks. Then easily clean up the resistance. Iran is not a third world nation, no. In fact, they have one of the largest armies in the middle east, sure. They pale, however, when held to the scale and training of Israels army.

Logistically they can't invade Iran. They don't have a direct shot at it, and they don't have any allies in the area that would be willing to allow them to set up base. So in order for it to work, they would have to carpet bomb Iran (flying through other enemy airspaces and assume that they won't ally with Iran), and then airlift military over enemy airspace again. This would also drastically decrease their ability to counter any military attack made on Israeli soil by neighboring hostile nations. And they wouldn't have the backing of the US or any of its current allies because the invasion is, well, warrentless.

Well, why would anyone fear them using a nuclear device, then? If the premise is they have no right or ability to attack conventionally, why the hell would they have the right or balls to drop a nuke?

And if they have no right to defend themselves against invaders, what are they to do? Surrender?