Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

But once Russia came under the Bolsheviks and the Communist regime, the products that were made's quality plummeted.

Is this a "should have" or do you have actual proof of this?

Countries that have communism have greed too. There is no incentive to have innovation or work well, so production just collapsed.

Despite the fact that the USSR was one of the most innovative countries ever...

Why do people think that the USSR collapsing was anything to do with the economic system. The USSR collapsed because they tried to change from the Stalinist structure of absolute power to a more democratic one. They also said that the Eastern Bloc countries could have their independence. The then pent-up anger against the system was unleashed, pent up due to the lack of free speech. Which then brought down the system. And Russia was all the worse for it, not that I liked Soviet Russia, or even thought it was communism, but you have to admit, it got the job done.

Russia before the Bolsheviks = Divided weak state
Russia during the Bolsheviks = World Superpower
Russia after the Bolsheviks = Divided weak state

Will the political board start to see a rash of "WADE PLZ BAN" topics?

Like "WADE PLZ BAN GEORGE BUSH"
"WADE PLZ BAN SADDAM"

Not unlike what it is now actually.

Greed us the result of capitalism. It is a system which rewards greed. And society is controlled by the most greedy, who then tell you greed is good.

Thats been tried and has had rather unfortunate results...such as in Germany circa 1935.

I dout you will be able to qualify this statement since you don't even know when Hitler got into power.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html

contextualise:- they were the thieves (Palestines) that took over the owners' (Jews) land while the owners is "spending vacation" in other continuents.

The Canaanites were the earliest known inhabitants of Palestine (3rd millennium BC). Egypt was the first adjacent power to conquer the region (3rd millennium BC). During the 2nd millennium BC Egyptian hegemony and Canaanite autonomy were challenged by various invaders. However, these invaders were defeated by the Egyptians and absorbed by the Canaanites. As Egyptian power began to weaken after the 14th century BC, new invaders appeared: the Hebrews (Semitic tribes from Mesopotamia) and the Philistines (an Aegean people of Indo-European stock).

The Israelites, a confederation of Hebrew tribes, defeated the Canaanites about 1125 BC but were defeated by the Philistines about 1050 BC. The Israelites united for protection, and their king, David, finally defeated the Philistines after 1000 BC. David established a state, with its capital at Jerusalem. In 722 BC the new state fell to Assyria, and Judah was conquered in 586 BC by Babylonia, which destroyed Jerusalem and exiled most of the Jews.

When Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylonia in 539 BC, he permitted the exiled Jews to return to Judea, a district of Palestine. Persian domination was replaced by Greek rule under Alexander the Great in 333 BC. Alexander was succeeded by the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria. In the 2nd century BC the Jews revolted and set up an independent state (141-63 BC) until Pompey the Great conquered Palestine for Rome.

Roman emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in AD 313, and Palestine became a focus of Christian pilgrimage. Roman rule ended when Muslim Arab armies regain Palestine and captured Jerusalem in AD 638. This conquest began 1300 years of Muslim presence. Palestine flourished during the first Muslim dynasty, but when power shifted to Baghdad in 750, Palestine became neglected. The region suffered successive domination by Seljuks, Fatimids, and European Crusaders.

Fucking idiot.

The Israelis did keep the Gaza Strip, I've never heard of people refusing land before...

Welcome to the crazy world of the middle-east... The Eygptions didn't want to control the Palestinians of Gaza, because the PLO had already starting doing trouble there.

Can I see some evidence on this?

That's bullshit, Israel CLAIMED it was the base of the PLO. And, as a matter of fact Israel was bombing Southern Lebanon before the war.

Southern Lebanon was a PLO base, Arafat ruled it, of course also did other organizations (it was in the middle of the internal war in Lebanon). Israel bombed the places from where the PLO sent terrorists over the border, for terrorist attacks.

The PLO were in Lebanon, but they weren't using terror tactics. The PLO had begun to negotiate peacefully...which is why Israel attacked.

The official reason why Israel went to war in Lebanon was the attempt-murder of her embassedor in Britain.

Despite the fact that that was carried out by the Abu Nidal organisation. An organisation not in Lebanon and against the PLO.

That's not true, he nationalised it. Israel then invaded so Britain and France would have a pretext to attack to defend the Canal.

He nationalised it and then banned Israeli ships from the Canal, and thats why Israel did the "Kadesh Oporation", envading Sini, to reopen the Canal for Israeli ships. Britain and France joined Israel because they had precentage in the Canal, and wanted it back.

That's still not right. Nasser nationalised it and compensated the owners, Anthony Eden was unhappy about this so he made a plan with France and Israel.

ps: No group that (eclusively) fights for Palestinian independence can be called a terrorist group as they are fighting for the right of "self-determinaton freedom and indpendence, as deverived from the Charter of the UN, of peoples forcily deprived of that right."

This brings up an interesting possiblity, the only reason that the US has not collapsed in on itself from it's overwhelming stupidity is because of cell phones. Maybe cell phones aren't as bad as we thought.

Or, maybe the reason people haven't been quite able to say that cell phones cause brain damage is because they play classical music!

You're asking the wrong question. It's not what makes someone human, because the only thing thing that determines whether your human or not is if you belong to the genus Homo and especially if you belong to the species H. Sapiens.

What makes Human Life morally significant?

also let's say that there is some hermit bozo that lives just outside my property line. now let's say i tilled the ground, while hermit bozo sat and watched. say i planted seeds while hermit bozo slept. i water the seeds while he runs through the woods. i harvest the crops of this labor and store them while hermit bozo sits there. why should he have just as much claim over what i have grown as i do?

You have more of a claim, but not to more than your fair share. The person doesn't deserve to be lavished, he could have worked, but he was a lazy bastard. I'm not saying that everyone should be given everything equally, but there is a base line. The land you took denies people of the land, and thus the fruits of it.

if i did all the work, why should have a right to any? if he just sat there while i grew food, why should i have to feed him? because he's there? because he has the "right to life"? no! the right to life is the right to live. you can do as you want with your life, including not grow food (or make money to buy food). why should someone who works have to feed someone who doesn't? they shouldn't. while (according to you) i may not "own the land, i do own my actions, do i not? i tilled the ground. i planted seeds. i watered them. i harvested them. i own all of my actions, and it was my actions, my labor, that made the food ready to eat. therefore, i own the "fruits of my labor".

No no, you own yourself, and you are responsible for your actions but you do not own what you make. Clearly, or it would mean that your parents own you.

Paul: How about the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

I don't think Palestine should exist. The world is ruled by the strong. The Palestinians are weak.

Actually the Jews were the weak, they were given a state by an supranational force. They didn't earn it.

Israel should wipe them off the face of the planet.

You're actually saying there should be another holocaust?

The founders didn't intend to have political parties at all thus there is no mention of them in the consitution. Political parties evolved because there are to many people in the U.S. too have a canidate present himself as an individual.

The two party system evolved because political partoes combined to make themselves more powerful until there were but two.

Actually the two party system evolved because they adopted First past the post, a system in which the person with the most votes wins the seat(or whatever you call it over there.)

2) It has the electoral college

That is a minor point....its a relic of the past any way

Kinda screwed Gore.

3) It is an elective dictatorship

I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to say here.

The party which is in power generally has total control.

4) It is dominated by the rich

That is your opinion and what the fuck does that have to do with it not being democratic anyway?

It's not my opinion, it is a fact. In the past 20 years, the person who spent the most money in the presidental primaries became the Candidate for the party. Then the party which spent the most money on the election won. And having only the rich dominate it kinda has problems with the issue of representation.

And why is that?

because greed is inherent

(Not that I agree with your completely unqualified statement.) So...? What if greed is inherent...what do the companies do?

They gave back the Sinai peninsula to make peace with Israel, but they kept the Gaza Strip.

The Israelis didn't kept the Gaza Strip, they wanted to give it back but the Egyptions didn't want it.

The Israelis did keep the Gaza Strip, I've never heard of people refusing land before...

Apart from the 1948 war Israel has started the wars.

You're forgetting the Yom Kippur (October) war of '73, in which the Egyptions, Syrians and Jordenians attacked Israel by supprise on the most holy day to Judeism...

Ah, fair enough.

The war in Lebbenon had started after countless attacks on the Israeli northern border and on the attempt-murder of the Israeli embassedor in England.

That's bullshit, Israel CLAIMED it was the base of the PLO. And, as a matter of fact Israel was bombing Southern Lebanon before the war.

And if we were talking about the war in '56 - the Brittish, French and Israelis attacked Eygpt because Natzer, the Eygption PM closed the Suez cannal for Israeli ships.

That's not true, he nationalised it. Israel then invaded so Britain and France would have a pretext to attack to defend the Canal.

So in other words, according to you, there is no such thing as ownership? No one owns anything? Everything is produced on land, even you, and you said just because something is produced on land doesn't mean people own it, because they don't own the land.

The only thing anyone owns is theirself.

I followed you up until you said that. The land stuff makes sense, but if grow your crop with your blood, your sweat, and your tears, I'm sorry but it's YOURS until conquested or given away.

Crops grow on blood and sweat? Jesus, I thought it was nutrients sunlight and rain. Silly me!

The United States is as Democratic as is possible for a coutry of its size Slizor. I can't see how the fuck you can make a claim that the United States isn't democratic.

Hahaha. Okay then, what about these points
1) It is an unrepetant two-party system, historically and by design
2) It has the electoral college
3) It is an elective dictatorship
4) It is dominated by the rich

I do like laissez faire economics but a totally unsupervised economic system will lead to corporate exploitation.

And why is that?

I'm just wondering, who here thinks that the Palestinians should have a state? Regardless of the current circumstances.

Hell yes they pushed beyond their own borders. The arab nations declared war on them and the Israelis won.

Are we talking about 1948? Because the Palestinian's land was taken even when they didn't declare war on Israel.

In the process they took some more land. Are you aware that the Israelis took over the entire Sinai penninsula in addition to what they own now. You know why they don't own the Sinai penninsula anymore? Because they gave it back.....the Sinai penninsula is as big as there whole fucking country and they gave it back. "Turning the other cheek" is not a wise answer to military agression.

Military aggression? Israel started then war! They gave back the Sinai peninsula to make peace with Israel, but they kept the Gaza Strip.

If the Israelis had just given everything back then the Arab nations would walk all over them. You have to make your enemy feel loss in order to dissuade future agression.

The aggression...like when Israel attacked Lebanon in the 80s? Or when Israel attacked Egypt in 1956?

Apart from the 1948 war Israel has started the wars.

I am aware that this idea, especially recently has been kicking around, but I think we should seriously address it here. I think these forums should have a moderator and a set of rules. With the increase of popularity of this board there has been an increase in irrelevant(as in should be posted in the general forum) or pointless(as in "ghey ppl r sik!). Therefore I think this place, to facilitate open and real debate needs a moderator and rules.

And if it should be anyone I think it should be P-Chan or Freakapotimus. A) They've both been here a long time, B) they're mature and respected, C) I find them impartial.

I would also like to point out that if rules were pulled up, I do not think we should stop racist comments, I think offensive words should be partially censored, but I do not think we should delete posts that are racist as it violates freedom of speech.

See, exactly why I love P-Chan!*starts to hump P-Chan's leg*

I claim this as proof of the greatness of these forums, complete and utter speculation will be countered with an informed(and qualified) response.

Although, on the other hand, it did take 5 pages...hmm.

What do you mean by 'real' americans.

I'm not sure, I don't keep up with politically correct terms. Which is why I used that.

My parents were born in the United States, as were my grandparents and my great grandparents, and great great grandparents. I think after about 6 greats, they were immigrants, but I haven't done my geneology that far back.

Heh, why is that a big thing in America? Especially since it's considerably harder. Mine geneology is easy "Potato farmer, potato farmer, potato farmer" or "miner, miner, shepard, miner".

I wonder how many generations my 'people' have to have been living in the United states to become 'real americans'

Give it a few more years, people will stop looking at you and thinking of you as a dirty immigrant.

I personally would like them to become independent. Less money out of my pocket. I wonder how long they would last before they come begging for help.

It depends what land you give them.

You wouldn't die for Democracy?

He said he would not die to "protect democracy", not die for the democratic idea(although he probably wouldn't.) The idea that America(and pretty much anywhere) can be called a democracy is laughable. It is not democratic in its systems and its reality.

The idea of ownership.
Over the years people have tried to blur the semantic line between the words "possess" and "own". To possess something is to have something, but does not by definition mean you own it. For example if I pick up a box in a store, I am in possession of it, but I do not own it.

When you own something you have the rights over it. It is yours, why should you not be allowed to use or abuse it?

Now this is the point where the arguements start, ownership can not be derived from possession. Yes that's right, possessing something, even if it is for many years, does not mean you own something. This is recognised by the law, if you steal a gold bar 50 years ago, the bar does not become yours, it is still stolen. This (not in the law) applies with things taken where there is no owner. Just because no-one else has a right over it, it doesn't mean you do.

This effects the idea of land. Land has not always been "owned", it was taken a long time ago, after the dinosaurs roamed the earth. People have merely being possessing land, not owning it. But, our world and systems is based on the idea that people do actually own land, making this myth that surrounds ownership.

So, what of the "ownership sovereignty", the idea that if you own something, then what it produces is yours too. Well, as people can not own land(only possess it) they obviously can't own the produce of the land, but only possess it, they have no rights over it. Apart from one, that is the natural right to what is needed to survive. For example, a lioness attacks and kills a wilderbeast, then eats it, she had no ownership of the animal, she ate it because she needs to, as does every animal. We as humans also need to eat, and we have a right to. So, while the person who possess the land has the right to take what he needs, he has no right to deny people of their natural right.

Most nations have based their economy on sweatshops at one stage or another.

You have a very warped view of history

I disagree.

They exist everywhere but they are prevelent only in nations with corrupt governements.

Are you saying that the definition of a corrupt government is one that lets Corporations have sweatshops in their country?

No. If I say that all Jehova's Witnesses are dumbasses it does not neccesarily follow that all dumbasses are Jehova's Witnesses. If a government allows legal sweatshops it is corrupt, but that is not the only way that a government can be corrupt.

So you think it is the duty of a government to stop sweatshops? You think that there should be restrictions on business?

Something sound, instead of pure speculation.

goverments are always ineffecient...there is so much beuracrcy that much of what is put in is always lost.

Please qualify this.

That is a monopoly, not a dictatorship.

Aside from semantics whats the difference? In either system you have no choice...that is all that matters.

Well, a monopoly has different connotations to a dictatorship, something you were trying to play on.

Legal sweatshops are a symptom of corrupt governments not capitalism.

Despite the fact that practically every country in the world has had sweatshops...

Yes but to how great a degree?

Most nations have based their economy on sweatshops at one stage or another.

They exist everywhere but they are prevelent only in nations with corrupt governements.

Are you saying that the definition of a corrupt government is one that lets Corporations have sweatshops in their country?

it is natural for it to grow, but it is partially unnatural when humans purposefully alter growing conditions. and what would nature do with a harvest? it would reproduce and die. humans harvest it and plant more crops.

When I say it is nature's I mean it belongs to all things of nature, such as humans.

And he CAN starve.

true, that's his choice though.

It's not a viable choice though.

They deny people of their natural right to share in the wealth of the Earth.

there is no such right. you don't have a right to what you don't have a hand in making.

Everything is made by the Earth, directly or indirectly. The Earth belongs to everyone equally.

in order to attract workers, busnesses have to make the working environment pleasant, but they don't have ti, just like no one has to work there.

I disagree, people HAVE to work there, they are just not forced to work there by the companies, but y their situation.

wrong. no one has to work for anyone. we could all very well have self sufficing farms.

And WHERE would people get the land?

the only reason people "have" to work there is because a) they don't want to be self sufficient or b) they din't know how to farm. is it the corporations fault for either of these two possibilities? no.

Do they take advantage of it? Yes.

"Their expense" hah.

i'd like to see you back up that "hah". caring for someone is an expense. anyone can tell you that.

Caring for someone in the way of looking after a disabled person is an expense. Giving someone what they deserve is not an expense.

"deserve"? if you don't work you don't deserve anything. why should other people care for someone if he won't work to support himself? you don't deserve anything if you don't work.

Rehash of natural right above.

he who works little deserves little.

So if you work for an hour a week you deserve the pay for an hour a week? So you don't agree with say a sweatshop worker who gets paid $0.50 a day and works a 70 hour week and a CEO who works say a 30 hour week and gets paid $10'000(some big figure.)

so, yes, if you don't work, you should be allowed to starve. there are plenty of oppertunities.

I'd like to see this plenty of oppertunities thing qualified, since there are unemployed people in every country.

another thing is this, suppose i had something to do that i could very easily pay someone else to do. would i be wrong for doing it myself and "depriving" someone else of a paying job?

No.

I think the Natives should do what most Natives do and start a fight for independence. Like the Irish and the IRA, they were a conquered people, but they fought for their land, as should the real Americans.

The world spends three-quarters of a trillion dollars a year on military spending, America spends 276.7 billion dollars. Now although 276.7 billion dollars is an extreme amount, 276.7 billion dollars simply can not combat three-quarters of a trillion.

MC not that I would go against you on most of your views, it's just these statistis. $276.7 billion is a a third of the 3/4 of a trillion, plus the 1/2 a trillion is dispursed between all the other countries, plus only a little difference is exhaggerated by time.