So should Nick Cage be in the movie?
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
So should Nick Cage be in the movie?[/quote]
Only if we could somehow get that French dude from Matrix 2 and 3 to be the villain. And he’s gotta have a barely-dressed, hot wife again. And this time, the kiss is with another hot girl – not Keanu Reeves.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Tin foil hat or not…
Money buys you access and no one that posts on this board has that kind of money unless someone want to tell me how they became a ‘Ranger’ or a ‘Pioneer’.
[/quote]
You become a ranger by joining the army and joining one of the three ranger battalions. You can also attend ranger school if you like to stay awake for days on end and think about food all of the time.
I would guess you could become a pioneer by packing up all of your belongings and moving somewhere with few people (like the artic tundra)
over all this is quite the loony toons thread. They’re coming to take me away hoo hoo… They’re coming to take me away ha ha…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
“Give up, just quit, because in this life, you can’t win. Yeah, you can try, but in the end you’re just gonna lose, big time, because the world is run by the Man. The Man, oh, you don’t know the Man. He’s everywhere. In the White House… down the hall… Ms. Mullins, she’s the Man. And the Man ruined the ozone, he’s burning down the Amazon, and he kidnapped Shamu and put her in a chlorine tank! And there used to be a way to stick it to the Man. It was called rock 'n roll, but guess what, oh no, the Man ruined that, too, with a little thing called MTV! So don’t waste your time trying to make anything cool or pure or awesome 'cause the Man is just gonna call you a fat washed up loser and crush your soul. So do yourselves a favor and just GIVE UP!”
– Jack Black as Dewey Finn in School of Rock[/quote]
Wow. Great call on the Jack Black reference!
[quote]Psycho Therapist wrote:
Nowadays, 3% of the world’s population own and control 70% of it’s wealth. Why is that?
[/quote]
Same reason 3% of the population has 70% of the muscle, or 3% of the population has 70% of the intelligence.
Now as far as this democracy thing, that means you are in charge. That means it is up to you to learn, understand, and influence the government.
If you don’t, you become sheep. Right, left, conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, does not matter. They all contain idiots, ideological loons, and selfish bastards.
But that is not everybody, and each and all of these groups do have intelligent people, and people who care.
Too often people are on the lookout for the evil person. “Bush is Evil!” or “Kerry is Evil!” The fact of the matter is that neither one is evil, and anyone who thinks so is ignorant.
But I will say there is ignorance, and ignorant people in politics. Nobody can be right all the time, but some seem to be wrong all the time. Most people want to do what is right. But they too often get caught up into all the crap and bs of it all. Not willing to actually spend the time looking at facts, or actually using their brain.
This thread started with Henry Makow, Ph.D, making the statement, “Yoo, hoo, Mr. Bush, you lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.” And at that point I began dismissing anything he had to say. Why? Because that one statement showed he is either a liar, or too lazy to think for himself, and actually look into whether or not Bush lied.
The whole statement that Bush lied is a complete farce. Maybe he was wrong, but being wrong does not make you a liar. If you kid gets 80% of the questions right on a test does that mean he lied on the other 20%? And it is not even possible to prove that there were not WMD’s at the time.
Back to Democracy, it is only an illusion if we allow it to become an illusion. Too many people don’t even understand what it, and freedom is. They mistakenly think it means the government is supposed to take care of you, and prevent you from getting hurt. The Big Brother scenario.
This is very dangerous territory to go down, but the PC crowd has embraced this line of thought. Like the woman who is upset her doctor told her she was fat. Oh no, you can’t hurt a person’s feelings. That should be against the law, shouldn?t it?
Another problem is the tabloid thinking. The Bush statement is exactly that. No facts, just trash talk, rumor and innuendo. Want more? Bush scored real low on an IQ test. Bush said God told him to go to war. Guess what, neither statement is true. Somebody make it up, and it spread like wildfire.
Democracy and freedom is about personal responsibility. The more responsibility people take, the better it works. The less, the worse.
We can discuss later about true democracy, or republic, which is preferable.
It’s always been like that.
Roman empire: Ceasar and cronies has everything, the poulous suffers.
Egyptian empire : Pharo’s vs the slaves.
Hell even in most african tribes the chief owns everything and the others merely line his pockets.
This fact predates banking (or for that matter the Queen of England) by 10 000 odd years.
Love them or not I wouldn’t give the bankers THAT much credit.
[quote]gadget wrote:
Psycho Therapist wrote:
Nowadays, 3% of the world’s population own and control 70% of it’s wealth. Why is that?
It’s always been like that.
Roman empire: Ceasar and cronies has everything, the poulous suffers.
Egyptian empire : Pharo’s vs the slaves.
Hell even in most african tribes the chief owns everything and the others merely line his pockets.
This fact predates banking (or for that matter the Queen of England) by 10 000 odd years.
Love them or not I wouldn’t give the bankers THAT much credit.[/quote]
This is true, and you get no arguement from me, but since democracy is the new religion and freedom for all our new mantra, shouldn’t the figures be less skewed and more fair?
Reality does not reflect the political intentions we hear from our elected leaders. Is it really that farfetched that those who have power are there to maintain that power instead of working towards a future where everyone has, more or less, the same standard of living?
Mage,
I’m not claiming it is so, but purely a point of logic, if Bush knew that there was credible intelligence countering the idea that Iraq had WMD’s, but he chose to only present evidence supporting his views, knowing it wasn’t factual, then he would have been a liar.
Whether or not anything like that has happened is of course subject to endless and mind-numbing debate.
[quote]Psycho Therapist wrote:
working towards a future where everyone has, more or less, the same standard of living? [/quote]
If you wish socialism, I hear there are some openings in Vroom’s country.
[quote]Psycho Therapist wrote:
…but since democracy is the new religion and freedom for all our new mantra, shouldn’t the figures be less skewed and more fair?
… instead of working towards a future where everyone has, more or less, the same standard of living?
[/quote]
What does democracy have to do with everyone having the same standard of living? Democracy is about being free to work towards the standard of living you wish to attain.
[quote]Psycho Therapist wrote:
This is true, and you get no arguement from me, but since democracy is the new religion and freedom for all our new mantra, shouldn’t the figures be less skewed and more fair?
Reality does not reflect the political intentions we hear from our elected leaders. Is it really that farfetched that those who have power are there to maintain that power instead of working towards a future where everyone has, more or less, the same standard of living?
[/quote]
As Mage pointed out, it has become that way, because the vast majority of the populace is ignorant of the facts. The media has done a terrible job of getting the facts to the people, and it takes too much work for most people to sort through the BS. So, yes, most politicians are primarily worried about staying in power, the wishes of the people come second.
Democracy & freedom means the freedom to rise to level of your choosing & abilities, it has nothing to do with “fairness”.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Psycho Therapist wrote:
…but since democracy is the new religion and freedom for all our new mantra, shouldn’t the figures be less skewed and more fair?
… instead of working towards a future where everyone has, more or less, the same standard of living?
What does democracy have to do with everyone having the same standard of living? Democracy is about being free to work towards the standard of living you wish to attain.[/quote]
Yet democracies generally have the highest standards of living in the world.
Quit worrying about what your neighbors have. Worry more about what you have.
Life is not fair. Everyone is not equal. Democracy is not to blame.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Psycho Therapist wrote:
Are our political leaders truely serving the people?
Yes, but only the people who bribe them alot.
Who does control the flow of money?
Those who have it.
Is the democratic system really working, or does it merely give that impression?
Yes.
Are you immune to suggestion?
Yes, because I always buy the best brands of stuff I don’t need at the most expensive stores.
Nowadays, 3% of the world’s population own and control 70% of it’s wealth. Why is that?
They need more time to get it to 100%[/quote]
That…was…awesome!
Democracy isn’t “about” your right to compete with others for artifically scarce wealth/resources.
Simultaneously, capitalism isn’t “about” your right to be involved in the decision making process of your government.
This seems to be a common confusion in these threads, the blurring of capitalism and democracy. These are fundamentally different things. That said, the rise of representative democracies occurred concurrent with the rise of capitalism and industrialism. This is not a coincidence. Industrial capitalism, unlike earlier economic forms, is profitable for the upper middle class, who also form the pool from which the government is formed (99% of the time, yes there are rags to riches stories, but they are exceptions, not the rule).
Representative democracy, unlike direct democracy, has, as its fundamental act, the renunciation of individual involvement. That is, the act of voting is effectively an act whereby the individual gives up his power to someone else.
The Western representative democracy, creates a tightly circumscribed sphere where the majority is briefly involved in the decision making process. For over 8 hours a day, 364 days a year you aren’t involved in a democratic process. It is only at the time of an election, that the “people” exert some control over the selection of authorities. At no point does the economic life of the individual involve democratic principles.
Like it or not, fair or not, this is the reality. Capitialism is not synonymous with democracy and vice-versa.
Why wouldn’t you want a direct democracy? To keep the grubby masses away from politics? That reasoning is pretty old hat.
[quote]battlelust wrote:
Democracy isn’t “about” your right to compete with others for artifically scarce wealth/resources.
Simultaneously, capitalism isn’t “about” your right to be involved in the decision making process of your government.
This seems to be a common confusion in these threads, the blurring of capitalism and democracy. These are fundamentally different things. That said, the rise of representative democracies occurred concurrent with the rise of capitalism and industrialism. This is not a coincidence. Industrial capitalism, unlike earlier economic forms, is profitable for the upper middle class, who also form the pool from which the government is formed (99% of the time, yes there are rags to riches stories, but they are exceptions, not the rule).
Representative democracy, unlike direct democracy, has, as its fundamental act, the renunciation of individual involvement. That is, the act of voting is effectively an act whereby the individual gives up his power to someone else.
The Western representative democracy, creates a tightly circumscribed sphere where the majority is briefly involved in the decision making process. For over 8 hours a day, 364 days a year you aren’t involved in a democratic process. It is only at the time of an election, that the “people” exert some control over the selection of authorities. At no point does the economic life of the individual involve democratic principles.
Like it or not, fair or not, this is the reality. Capitialism is not synonymous with democracy and vice-versa.
[/quote]
You’re too right. And ‘freedom’ is all too often confused with ‘freedom to consume’.
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Why wouldn’t you want a direct democracy? To keep the grubby masses away from politics? That reasoning is pretty old hat. [/quote]
Have you ever been to Wal-Mart?
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Why wouldn’t you want a direct democracy? To keep the grubby masses away from politics? That reasoning is pretty old hat. [/quote]
There’s that, and there’s the fact that taking a vote on things is expensive and inefficient. Imagine if we had to have nation-wide elections on each bill that came before Congress…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Mage,
I’m not claiming it is so, but purely a point of logic, if Bush knew that there was credible intelligence countering the idea that Iraq had WMD’s, but he chose to only present evidence supporting his views, knowing it wasn’t factual, then he would have been a liar.
Whether or not anything like that has happened is of course subject to endless and mind-numbing debate.[/quote]
Nice theory, but your are only saying it is possible this happened. But there seems to be no mention of a possibility, nor a statement that this is their belief. That they believe he lied. No they ignore Russia, Great Britton, and other countries telling Bush Saddam had WMD?s, as well as the CIA telling him the same thing. And using your logic by calling Bush a liar without presenting the overwhelming information to the contrary, they are all liars.