Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

No, the UN Security Council is not a democracy. Do you or I have any say in the decisions the security council makes? Do we elect representatives to the security council? Just because a bunch of people get together and vote doesn't make it a democracy. A democracy means that the people have a say in it too.

It's not even a democracy in the sense that 5 countries have veto power. However, it can be argued that the UN is a democracy. The people elect the Government, the Government sends representatives to the UN, those representatives have to represent the will of the government, which is the will of the people.

Wrong again. See my above remark about the UN not being a democracy, and remember that the US is a sovereign nation with the right to declare war.

Although you didn't allow Iraq such a right.

The US is a democracy

Hah, the US is no where near a democracy.

and if the people don't like the idea of war, then they can voice that opinion at the polls in 2004.

"If they don't like this war, they can show this after the war!"

Ladies and gentlemen, Slizor, the guy with a typo in his own signature.

Where's the typo?

Your point is assinine.

Actually my point is that a "private citizen" can only act within the confines of the law, therefore we should make discriminatory hiring illegal.

What you are saying is that you don't care how much you violate one persons right to control their property (in this case their company) as long as it benefits the common man. You are a hypocrite....why is the common man deserving of rights that the wealthy and educated are not?

To be a hypocrite I would have to say that a person has a right to property. As I don't I'm not. However, you agree that people have a right to think how they want without recrimination? Clearly, to allow someone to have such discriminatory hiring policies would go against this right. Ergo, you are the hypocrite.

Disabled people don't work, should they be "cut off"?

They don't work because they can't work. Not because they don't want to. The disabled deserve my pity because they were born into a state in which they cannot work. If you merely decide that you don't wish to work despite having the ability you do not deserve my pity nor my charity and you can starve for all I care.

So you don't value human life?

No? So the dominated people in Iraq who live under Saddam Hussein's Iron boot and who are forced to espouse Saddam's opinions represent the Iraqi people?

Yes, surprisingly the Iraqi people represent the views of the Iraqi people.

Thanks for clearing that up Slizor.

Anytime.

thanks for admitting your opinions don't matter

This doesn't follow this.

Just like the English don't represent American citizens

Unless what you are trying to say is that only American opinions matter in a policy which effects the world.

Damn Americans with their superiority simplex.

Yes and without management their work would be extremely inefficient.

What's this about management? Are you saying that the more skilled would run off to the rightist side?

You're too stuck in the system. He didn't "earn" the money, he was given it. Bah, Bill Gates is not a good example, you can sell a program, yet still have it.

people didn't just hand him money. he made something that people paid for.

Now, what about the programs that Microsoft currently produces? Does Bill Gates make all those programs? No, he probably doesn't do squat, yet he stills get rich off them...how is that fair?

So they can't do what they like? They can't act how they want?

Your point is assinine.

Actually my point is that a "private citizen" can only act within the confines of the law, therefore we should make discriminatory hiring illegal.

Why yes I can. If an animal does not gather food it starves.

So we are not experiencing nature? We do not have to gather food to survive, you could say we are above nature. So why the hell should what happens in nature effect us?

Man is an animanl we are ruled by the same laws. If a majority of the members of society didn't work then there would be mass starvation. If you don't work you are a cancer on society...a cancer that should be cut off.

Disabled people don't work, should they be "cut off"?

I like the much more subtle "Peace Protesters". There's also "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" why can't anyone be anti?!

So swayside is the most right-wing and Mr Nemmy-poo is the most authoritarian.

Hmm, we need more right-wingers. And we should get Wade to do the test.

1. They refuse to accept that inspections don't work and have never worked.

I'm not sure if they had inspectors, but I think they did...and they being...South Africa.

2. They can't seem to grasp the fact that Iraq is not a peaceful nation that seeks the weapons for peaceful purposes.

I seek peace, so I will get weapons of awesome destructive capability.

I can't stand it when people say that "If Iraq can't have them, then the US shouldn't have them either." This is SADDAM HUSSEIN we're talking about, people!

This is GEORGE BUSH we're talking about, people!

3. They are very quick to make the "it's all about oil" accusation, despite the fact that there is NO GROUNDS WHATSOEVER for that ludicrous claim.

Iraq has 1/10th of the World's oil reserves. America's entire economy is dependent on oil. Most of Bush's cabinet have/do work for oil companies. A big sponser of the republican party are oil companies.

I just thought I'd put some general ground there.

I think it's time that these people received a nice dose of Reality™. Quit living in a dream world and realize that Saddam is a threat to global security.

Despite the CIA claiming in 2000 that he wasn't a threat to global security?

She says she believes that America stands for intolerence and big business.

Well, where is her money for her FULL RIDE SCHOLARSHIP coming from? Thats exactly right, big business.

I think that proves her point. Anyhow Big Business always finds a way around taxes.

Secondly, she says shes just expressing the other side of things, well those things happened many many years ago, like slavery and the running out of the Native Americans.

She was protesting a war against Iraq..... And I would like to point out that it was the slaughtering of the Native Americans, not running out.

Where is her tolerence for the people who serve this country and give her a place where she can express her opinion eh? Thats right, the men and women of the US armed forces that are fighting for her stupid ass right now.

Hah, they will not fight for her, but against the Iraqis. To take their oil.

I think she should really just have some respect and grow the fuck up. Shes a little whiney brat with nothing better to do than cause trouble.

I think you should get reading glasses.

Wait, you're only allowed WMD if you don't use them?

And what other system would you rather they use?

There are hundreds of systems which are far more democratic than the one they use. I can't really be bothered to explain, but look up AMS (additional Member System) which is used in the Scottish Assembly. You have to remember that theoretically a person with no votes can win an American election.

I just gave the opposite of my own answers and got
Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 9.54

So you can get there.

Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.

bill gates isn't evil because he's rich. i don't know why you think that.

I never said he was evil..

it's not unfair, either. he came up with a product that was very inginuitive for it's time and worked it's way into a majority of homes in america. the public bought HIS product.

They bought the program, which was on a disk, which was made by someone else.

he can retire and still be paid because he has the right to continue reaping the benefits of his company.

He should continue to get paid, even when he is not working?

what do you suggest he do? give up most or all of his money becuase some people weren't as successful as he? give up his fortune because others are misforunate? why sould he? you have no right to tell him how to run his buisiness. neither do i.

You're too stuck in the system. He didn't "earn" the money, he was given it. Bah, Bill Gates is not a good example, you can sell a program, yet still have it.

Heh, it's like a trick of the media. When you want to say how bad a country is, you talk to dissidents and people who have ran away from the country. When you want to show how great a country is you talk to pro-government activists, people in the country.

It's as simple as this, most of the people who left Iraq will have left because of Saddam, they do not represent the Iraqi people.

If you work harder in a Communist society, you get paid more unlike in Capitalism.

I mean look at Bill Gates, he earns more than most nations in the world. Does that mean that he works harder than whole nations of people?

Communism pays you for what you do, Capitalism pays the rich for what others do.

Meh...it was an old topic, it crops up occasionaly on most boards I inhabit. Always fun.

I did actually read the left-wing libertarian thing and unsurprisingly I read a lot of Chomsky. Really great guy, even if you're not really left-wing. I suggest reading "Manufacturing Consent" it's about how the media manipulate public opinion.

Heh, here's a topic on it from some time ago.
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=10011

I end up doing this test every few months or so, and currently I am....
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -9.79

Which makes more more left wing than I was
Economic Left/Right: -8.16
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -8.59

On a sidenote, they have changed some of the questions. On another sidenote, how did you get it so you could get the like the whole picture, my last attempt is documented on the other topic.

However these protestors thinking this war is about oil are dead wrong. They really need to do their home work. I don't think the US even gets much oil from Iraq.

Exports - commodities:
crude oil
Exports - partners:
US 46.2%, Italy 12.2%, France 9.6%, Spain 8.6% (2000)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

Do you trust the CIA?

want to remove Saddam because he has a horrible human rights record, has horrible weapons which he has used on his own peoople and wouldn't hesistate using on someone else if he had the chance.

Because he attacked countries 12 and 23 years ago? My god, with that sort of record he should be having another war soon!

And as for the killing of his own people
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm

e are not dependant on Iraq.

Now this took me quite a while to refind, so you best appreciate it!
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html

Enough homework for you?

In the right country I wonder if you'd have defined classes. Like super rich, rich, well off, middle class, low income, poor, etc. However the poor people wouldn't complain and they would make the best of it.

The poor people would see that they could do better under the leftist system, so they'd all leave. Then, without the working classes, the rightist system crumbles.

Well said Slizor! Now let's go into Iraq and use our natural right to take their oil! ;)

Then I'll have to use my natural right to go and take Bill Gates bank account. Woo hoo!

Both countries would be in complete disarray until a dictator arrived. Because frankly both wings have in-fighting. No-one could ever agree on anything.

You Slizor! :) You act like Bush is the only one wanting this. Not true. There are many world leaders and citizens around the world that agree that we need to deal with Iraq.

But sadly they are in the minority. Damn pseudo-democracy!

Maybe you should move to France. :)

Pfft, all western democracies suck. I'll never get represented anywhere. All governments only take a stance on this due to their own economic interests. America wants to control the oil and to stop OPEC changing to the Euro, France, Germany, etc don't want to see their trade agreements with Iraq cut (These are export agreements btw, not import.)

I have two views, one idealist and one realist.

You could have all nations giving up all nukes and all attempts to get nukes. With about 500 kept as a deterrent by the UN, and any such "Star Wars" device under UN control.

My other view is that we should let people get as many nukes as they want. They are such devestating weapons that no-one would use one first. It worked in the Cold War, why not now? The other advantage is it would foster a multi-polar world where other nations are actually consulted.

The quite depressing thing is that the US (read West) wants it both ways. They want to have as many nukes as they want, yet they don't want any other country to have them.

Well in my experience they like to go into personal tales about how thier wife can't vote over here because she's Italian, or their experience when they used to work for a local MP. You'll probably get a counter-essay in response.

Bush is so convinced he is right and everyone else is wrong that he will risk hundreds of thousands of lives. Who's more idiotic?

I think people have every right to not vote, but as long as they don't, they don't have any right to complain about the government.

They have every right to complain about the Government, even more that the people who did actually vote. If you vote then you accept the system, but if you don't vote then you are rejecting the system and the results of it.

And since the other voting topic was locked, something I don't think should have happened, I would like to point out that America also uses a First past the post system, ie the one with the most votes in an area wins.

No, Ratbert thought that the people who experienced the most died the quickest. Therefore he was going to experience nothing, thus he would be immortal!