There are lots of neat ways to save money and raise the spending power of your salary by about 50%. If you want more than that you need to do a little more than just buy shares over the internet. Most people who become multimillionaires through shares do so through obtaining options in the business as part of their salary due to their role in administration, usually a business they started themselves. If you attract shareholders or an investor they will want you to be motivated and options are the best way to achieve this since your wages are dependant on the success of the enterprise.

He was a coward to allow himself to be taken prisoner. I for one would have died a glorious death in battle rather than live at the mercy of a tyrant.

The thing is white people were mean in the past so they are afraid it might happen again and they are touchy about anything resemblng it. I think fascism is ok though.

Ok I will find a subtle way to let my sociology teacher know that I am a hardcore fascist and tell you how it goes.

K so i frequently see "celebrate diversity" or "strength through diversity" in college logos and on public libraries and things, but it seems the only people who are willing to do so are hippies, progressives and those of the general leftist crowd. Now I'm not one to shun an excuse for a celebration even though I'm not entirely sure why they think diversity is such a great thing, I'm also not very "diverse", I am white, male, anglo saxon, protestant, I am part of the majority ethnically and culturally.

The only way I can be diverse is to have a diverse political opinion and since most of these people are leftists it would be most diverse to hold the most right wing view possible which would be some kind of hardcore fascism. What do you think?

At 8/11/08 09:45 AM, donkey1233 wrote: I believe communism in one nation can't work.

However, if there were worldwide revolutions as Marx theorised then true communism could actually occur: nation states would dissolve and people would live in communes, no wars would occur and there would be equality. Just saying that this is the only way I could ever see it working.

Still, I'd much rather sit here in my cushy middle-class lifestyle. Workers of the world, stay down!

What would the revolutions achieve exactly? If you think all of a sudden people will turn their guns into ploughshares and dance hand in hand you are sadly mistaken. The state is a monopoly over power, whether it's good or bad depends on the state. A polyopoly over power is always the same, a patchwork of gangs and tribes with nothing to stop them from attacking each other like Somalia or the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Obviously you are obsessing over equality to the point that you ignore the reality of power structures like I said.

I don't think any of you have stumbled apon the answer. Furthermore I don't see the obsession with creationism, you don't have to argue with them ad nauseum and create your own extremist counter-creationist ideology of your own. Just say "no because I believe this" and quit crying so hard. Jeez.

At 8/11/08 02:55 PM, catman03 wrote: Communism works well in concept but the problem is that just as capitalism relies on the (nonexistent) morality of the corporations that supply necessities, communism relies on the morality of the governing party. People corrupt rather easily, and communism and capitalism both require additional checks and balances that don't exist in any existing system of government or economy. Capitalism can degenerate into economic-recession-fueled anarchy, but communism can degenerate into a totalitarian dictatorship. Russia, for instance, had the right idea when the revolutionaries installed a communist state, but then Stalin messed it up and screwed everybody over. And then Reagan had to save the day, and Reagan was just as bad. So yeah, it works on paper, but it doesn't really turn out well. Honestly the only real system that has any chance to succeed is one in which the people are moral, and then it wouldn't matter what system it was. I know my opinion is probably not unique but that's it. Communism has too many ways it can go wrong.

What are you talking about? Reagan was awesome and so was Margaret Thatcher. Our economy underwent the transition from industrial to services under them. You only think it was bad because you don't understand the service sector or something.

omg lorkas you're so stupid!! There are more important things than making everyone 100% perfectly equal.

I thought you weren't allowed to post 2 times in a row. hm..

At 8/11/08 07:38 AM, positively-negative wrote: Great, I thought Joesph McCarthy died in 1957.

Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

At 8/11/08 07:59 AM, ThePretenders wrote:

At 8/9/08 07:05 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Perhaps social democrats?

Social democracy has nothing to do with communism. Social democracy was a reaction to communism and aims to reform capitalism democratically by creating social programs to remove excess inequality and promote social justice.

Sweden is an example of social democracy.

Well it's a start if they at least accept they can only make social changes through consent, but it's still a waste of time to obsess over one outcome. The only reason it's not a failure is because they have to listen to the people who suffer or benefit from their policies.

Sorry it's this double post thing I can't post 2 times in a row... had to wait until someone else posted before posting this xD

At 8/9/08 07:09 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: You can never kill an idea, even if all the Communists are gone by next year and the philosophy forgotten. There will always, always be at least one person who is dissatisfied with their current economical or government stucture no matter how many times you tell them it's "wrong."

By "died" I meant no one takes it seriously. Like the phlogiston theory of fire it will become history.

Also since when has being non-conformist meant being communist? I disagree with the government on many things but I don't have to be a communist to do it.

At 8/9/08 07:17 PM, Saruman200 wrote: While I agree Communism is a failed ideology, and that they go by many names (Leninists, Trotsyites, Maoists, Marxists), your comparision to liberalism, socialism, and progressivism if flawed. Communism is more authoritarian/statist than liberal, because in communist society, both economic freedom and personal freedom are undermined. However, modern liberals, progressives, and some socialists favor greater personal liberty. As for "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", liberal/progressives are not at all opposed to liberty and unity. They better represent personal and individual freedom than their right-wing opponents. Unity is actually a strong-point of Communism, as it encourages the end of class-conflict. While I am not arguing in favor of Communism, I think you are wrong to compare it to modern liberalism and it's offspring, because this is based soley (like Communism) on economic factors, ignoring personal factors.
Otherwhise, I agree with taking a stand against communism, this can be done by people from both sides of the modern political spectrum.

Well I focused on their similarities for the sake of argument, but yeh, socialism is a toned down version of communism, democratic socialism is a toned down version of socialism, social democracy etc... Also they can obsess over different things like collectivism or state intervention. Though the things they have in common and the obvious link to marx set them apart from the rest of politics.

Liberalism is a very ambiguous term. Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US are considered liberal yet are supported by both market liberals and progressives, the 2 groups are generally distinguished by the point decide to stop pushing for more equality. Paying extra tax so the government can step in when orphans are being thrown out into the snow is one thing, considering 350 lb welfare queens to be in "poverty" is another.

At 8/9/08 10:54 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

At 8/9/08 07:05 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Communists come in many shapes, names and sizes and you need to be on the look out for them. Have you heard of socialists? Perhaps social democrats? Democratic socialists? Leninists? Trotskyists? Maoists? Marxists? Anarchists? Social communists? Anarcho-capitalists? Anarcho-communists? Anarcho-liberals? They like to say they are all different but they all follow the same line of thought stemming from one man, Karl Marx, and they are all based on the same logical fallacy.

you have some problems understanding some economic basics so i'll try to explain it using a very simple method...Cows.
Economics 101: Models explained - with Cows

SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows, so you give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

hahaha oh wow xD

At 8/10/08 09:36 AM, SpartanMartan wrote: I was a LT. back in Nam. I killed many comunists and amish
also i killed many fascist's as well

That's the spirit.

At 8/10/08 01:29 PM, drDAK wrote: Stalin wasn't a communist. He was a military dictator.

It was communist ideology that got him there. Stalin used it to justify a dictatorship of the "proletariat", effectively sacrificing liberty for equality.

At 8/10/08 04:26 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I think comunism would be pretty good only if the few people with actual power couldn't launder the wealth n keep it from the citizens.
That would cure the whole big business thing too I bet, most of the money made by them will go into expansion+advertising+pay workers+enough money to keep the owner alive, n the rest would go back to the comunity to help wherever its needed. Sure there will be rich n poor people still, poverty is commone for people too lazy to get off their asses n work.

So in conclusion I agree with whoever said they cannot kill the comunism idea, what sohuld be done is fabricate the idea into something doable, something that will benifit the people more than the government, they are the ones who are supposed to be the searvants of the people, not the other way around.

That brings me to another topic, why the fuck do we have to die for our country?
The frigin government should be the ones fighting, here's my idea, all countries abd togather in alliance, at least all the most powerful ones, so now if one or two people get out of line they'll simply deconstruct their government n set up a new one hopefully without any struggle. Eh whatever.

You are right in saying they should fabricate a doable idea, but the trouble is communism's entire basis is non-scientific. Scientific method requires that you base your assertions on facts and evidence, communism only looks at the evidence that proves equality is the best thing ever and ignores everything else. For example property rights allow the rich to own the means of production and exploit workers, however they also allow those workers to have some sort of claim to what few property they have making it more difficult for them to be evicted and pushed around, if property rights extend to the right to bear arms then it makes them extremely difficult to oppress. I'm not saying property rights solve all the world's problems, I'm just looking at the pros aswell as the cons.

At 8/9/08 07:36 PM, Kurt-1 wrote:

tl;dr

At 8/9/08 07:46 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Anyone saying anarcho-capitalism and communism being the same thing isn't worth even facepalming.

Fuck you.

They are both obsessive. Communists obsess over equality. Anarcho-capitalists obsess over liberty.

At 8/9/08 08:08 PM, freddorfman wrote: normally i would think your a troll but that was far too long and detailed for trollige so in that case i must heartily say this you are a complete failure for not realizing how fucked things are and no one can kill communism you can only kill communists but that will only strenghten our numbers it kinda remindes me of a quote i once heard (not sure of the source ) i dont care if i am killed so long as there is a man behind me to pick up my un and keep fighting . now then i am also trying to figure out if you are nothing more than some ultra right christian extremist or some greedy full blown capitialist swine . now then

GOOD NIGHT AND MAY YOURE GENITLES TURN TO STONE AND FALL OFF

Hahahaha. So my logical argument doesn't exist and I dont like communism because i am an evil capitalist. Communists will never be better trolls than the nazis. Keep trying.

At 8/10/08 03:24 AM, CheGuevara72 wrote: Join the fight against capatalism which can be just as bad as any stalinist system. As long as their is an upper calss the lower class will be oppressed. As long as there are the oppressed the beliefs won't die and the fight won't stop so fuck you asshole and. RASH for life.

Ok so you think equality is so important, but why must everything be sacrificed for it? There are other considerations.

Communists come in many shapes, names and sizes and you need to be on the look out for them. Have you heard of socialists? Perhaps social democrats? Democratic socialists? Leninists? Trotskyists? Maoists? Marxists? Anarchists? Social communists? Anarcho-capitalists? Anarcho-communists? Anarcho-liberals? They like to say they are all different but they all follow the same line of thought stemming from one man, Karl Marx, and they are all based on the same logical fallacy.

There are many practical policies and normal political parties choose which ones to use based on the outcomes they deem desirable, but communists, or whatever they called themselves nowadays, choose only one outcome and keep beating the drum about how that outcome is the only thing that could make the world a better place and how every other consideration is evil for getting in the way. For instance a socialist would look at the motto of france "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" meaning liberty, equality and unity and say "by liberty they mean the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor and by unity they mean united under control of the ruling class" and argue that we should only work for equality!

Ever since marx such groups have been progressively toning down their message so less people view them as insane, nowadays they call themselves "progressives". Fancy that! Claiming to be the sole political group in the world that is "progressive". Looks like they've got a while to go yet.

How can you help? Spread a meme. Just tell someone in your own way what I told you in the second paragraph and possibly the last paragraph. They will be reminded of socialism from time to time and will remember the fatal flaw you told them, they may then feel the need to bring it up in a discussion thus immunising others to the DISEASE of COMMUNISM. Think of it as geology, just as mountains are formed over 100s of years so are hearts and minds. Eventually socialism will die out like it's supposed to. What exactly are they fighting nowadays anyway? Evil capitalists with top hats, monocles and cigars?

Souls exist, the proof is my own existence. Perhaps not a soul that can jump out of my brain and fly around as a ghost, but I am certainly sapient.

Whatever happens when a neutron star collapses will happen on earth today.

Trolling is beneficial, it reveals subjective feelers who's arguments are illogical and makes them waste their time. It's no fun trolling an objective automaton. It also culls out those who support objective arguments but for subjective reasons whom might corrupt the just cause, for example anti-racism stirs up a lot of emotions but the only way to effectively fight racism is to be objective. People who troll anti-racists help divide the subjective feelers from the objective thinkers/

Sure it's evil etc.. But that world sounds a lot cooler than the one we're in now.

Anarchy and communism and everything in between are all hypothesis', not theories. You need to obtain as many facts as possible, analyse them and calculate the best course of action from your findings. The "success" of an israeli commune in the 70s just doesn't cut it as proof that getting rid of the police and property rights will make the country a better place.

I think a culture is worth much as the amount people are willing to pay for it.

I think the most important thing here is taxpayer money. Some people said that we should wait till they are rusting before we replace them and I agree. Anyone who doesn't care about money is an extremist in my opinion.

Considering the vast distance between us and the nearest solar system and the low possibility of life occuring on one it is likely that there is an interstellar civilisation somewhere, but they are so far away they are unlikely to reach us let alone find us any time soon.

Get an old tennis ball and hide it, then next time you see him walk past and if he follows you suddenly turn around and throw the ball at him then turn around and keep walking like nothing happened.

Uranium's everywhere, it's just expensive to extract.

The federal reserve has the same definition as state capitalism. A select few private institutions are so intertwined with the state that they are for all intents and purposes one entity. This is not to say that the federal reserve does not serve a purpose and should be gotten rid of, this would be a disaster if just because they have a monopoly over a major sector of US finance, neither if the federal reserve part of an illuminati conspiracy. No one is trying to deny the relationship, everyone transaction is open to public view and all potential conspirators are human beings you can lay your hands on.

The solution to this problem would be slow reform to make the federal reserve more accountable to market forces whilst not eroding the state's power to enforce necessary checks and balances.

You say no n0obs, but clearly you are a n0ob. So what if they are indoctrinating their kids to be killers? We have been indoctrinated by moral tv and movies to never kill innocents in pursuit of our goals, no matter how righteous we think they are, so it might be difficult for you to understand why they do this. Firstly the could simply not care, secondly they may believe it is for the greater good, the pursuit of their islamic utopia.

What's with all this "OMG REPUBLICANS R BLOWING TERRORISM OUT OF PROPORTION FOR FEARFMONGOERINGS"? Terrorism is so 2004, ancient history, no one cares anymore.

I am pluralist and support universal suffrage, so while I believe religion has a place in politics I do not believe the state should be constitutionally jewish or muslim. I support those who are working towards peace and democracy and oppose those attempting coercion.

There is no justification for feeling proud of something you did not contribute to entirely, but there is nothing wrong with this as long as you don't take it seriously such as feeling proud for a football team. If you take it seriously it's highly likely you have some self-esteem issues.

OP: Why not simply declare everyone else is wrong, ignore their arguments and create a benevolent tyranny? Democracy works because people like you cannot force their beliefs on everyone else unless they can convince others through the power of argument that their ideas are right. You are flawed, you are lazy and do not think things through properly, maybe tax cuts are bad, but to think you are always right and know everything is pretty bad.

This quote has probably been posted over 9000 times already but it seems some people have not come across it yet.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Winston Churchill