Jump to content

-Demosthenes-

Senior Members
  • Posts

    2471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by -Demosthenes-

  1. He doesn't seem dishonest, tho. He came clean about his past drug use, and compared to Hilary "scandal-gate" Clinton, he seems pretty squeaky to me.

     

    6 years ago we wanted honest stupid, we don't anymore. Didn't turn out so well. Obama doesn't seem dishonest, but that's not what I was saying :P He's an attractive candidate because he is inexperienced in Washington and he's young.

  2. Obama's inexperience could prove an asset. I think people are tired of "politicians" and want change. They're probably too dumb to figure out what that change is, so that may translate to voting for someone inexperienced.

     

    I think that's why Bush was so popular back in the day. Coming off Clinton, who was charismatic but dishonest; seeing a regular guy who didn't seem too smart or charismatic was nice. At least we could know he was honest.

     

    As we saw charismatic and/or intelligent people as dishonest, for 2008 we see experienced politicians as dirty, and old politicians as senile. Obama doesn't have too much experience, and is young.

  3. my point was just that it's not as simple as 'communism doesn't work, capitalism does'. capitalisms have failed before, communism has never, imo, been given a 'fair run'. there are problems with both, but also ways to circumvent these problems (eg: minimum wage laws)

    Neither work gosh dangit.

     

    The point being that in my opinion the compromise between left-leaning social consciousness and right-leaning capitalist profit motive is alive and working very well in our society. It certainly isn't a perfect situation and we read every day about failures and problems. But I think the back-and-forth nature of these dilemmas has brought about a unique kind of innovative spirit that keeps driving us forward.

     

    I whole-heartedly agree.

  4. communist russia was a despotic communism ... I could dig out a few links of despotic capitalisms if you want, to prove that it's the despotism[/u'] -- and not the comunism -- that caused the nastyness.

     

    Our culture is not capable of communism without despotism. This is why communism has failed and will fail.

     

    Ok, I didn't say that. That's not my quote.

     

    My copy/paste mistake.

     

    Both Russian and Chinese experiments in socialism failed, not because of despotism, but because when you take away someone's incentive to work then they stop being productive and your business stops being competitive. Sure China's going strong now, because they've chucked economic socialism and embraced a capitalistic approach.

     

    I disagree. Communism (which is not exactly the same as socialism) takes away the motivation of gain -- money. You work, and trust that you will be taken care of. In all cultures that have tried it, despotism (in some form) was required to take the place of the motivation of gain.

     

    It's human nature to simply not do what they are not motivated to do. When they don't do what they are supposed to the government can give up and bring back the motivation of gain, or they can force them (despotism).

     

    China has succeeded because their culture is more susceptible to communistic ideas. They are more collectivist in nature. But no so much as to allow communism to rule unhindered, without the farmer's markets (to create the motivation of gain -- a reason to grow food) and letting western businesses do business there, there would be no communist government in China. So we actually have a communist government putting capitalist measures into their country because communism can't work on it's own.

     

    I think capitalism works better than communism, especially in western cultures, but neither works on their own.

     

    If you have a family to feed, then why on earth are you getting jobs like these? I'll tell you why, because it's an easy job to obtain. It will maintain a certain money level, pay for rent, food, drugs, enough to idle. Trying for more takes effort, drive and will - qualities lacking among the poor, which is, in my opinion, why they stay generally poor.

     

    Everyone who works minimum wage takes drugs, and isn't motivated, so they don't deserve enough money to live on?

     

    I work in unskilled labor, when your young and you have no skills you have to. But if it paid $2 an hour I couldn't go to school, I couldn't get ahead. Making 60 dollars a week after taxes, that can barely afford a really cheap apartment with maybe a hundred left over a month to get food, some warm water, and clothes. How should I move ahead from there? Save $50 a month and take a semester of school every 2 years? Or is college only for the rich?

  5. Because you have a basic ethical obligation that if you're going to expect someone to give you full time work, you'd better give them enough to live off. Exploiting the desperation of those who will work for less and try to scrape by is no different morally than employing sweatshop labor: you're taking advantage of someone's bad position for your own financial gain at their expense.

     

    In some respects the free market has failed us. Our society (and many others) cannot govern themselves on this issue. People will be taken advantage of. I don't see any other way to fix it.

     

    And what if you don't have enough options to say 'screw him'? If there's a hundred other workers who are willing to work for less than you, they'll all get hired and you'll be getting evicted for not making rent.

     

    Many homeless people should be in government care medical/mental heath facilities anyway, most should be aided in some way in a society that takes care of the mildly or otherwise mentally ill.

     

    You're right, I'm sure they're *choosing* to get sick.

     

    Is it acceptable for a family to become homeless because of the sudden illness of a working family member? Because if it isn't, what alternative do we have?

     

    Children can be given up for adoption.

     

    I have to believe that you neither have siblings nor children.

     

    Socialism is a preference, not a requirement. And it is mutually exclusive to freedom, not complimentary to it. It's just a different set of people getting the shaft.

     

    Socialism is the little bit of legislation that that protects us from the failings of capitalism, as capitalism is the piece of freedom that shields us from government over-control.

     

    There's a reason why you drive in the middle of the road -- the sides are just gutters.

     

    We *tried* the market-based solution' date=' lasiez faire capitalism, and it FAILED.[/quote']

     

    Miserably.

     

    No, I don't. That's entirely your creation based on the assumption that money grows on trees or created out of thin air or something. A strange position for someone who ostensibly follows the path of science.

     

    Does money have to grow on trees for reasonable money to be paid for full time work?

     

    What I have are moral qualms about taking people's hard-earned money away at the point of a gun and giving it to people who haven't earned it just so they can buy an XBox 360.

     

    Then the systems broken.

     

    I read my Upton Sinclair. Did you read your Ayn Rand? If we're talking about extremes it seems only fair to look at both sides of the coin before we meet in the reasonable middle.

     

    Quote of the day.

     

    ROFL' date=' right ok. Now the truth comes out -- you're not really looking out for the disadvantaged, you're just obsessed with the requirement that everyone make the same amount of money, regardless of the value of their work or the amount of treasure that work actually generates.

     

    Haven't we tried that as well? And didn't it also fail? Duh.[/quote']

     

    I don't think Moleke was suggesting totalitarianistic communism, I think he was arguing for the small measures put in place that are socialistic, but are required to protect from the failings of free market capitalism.

     

    Your position is that everyone should make the same amount of money, regardless of the value of the work or the amount of effort they put into it. Because what's "fair" is more important than the monetary equivalent of basic physics.

     

    Brain not comprehend -- is there a post that I didn't read? No one said that.

     

    We are a capitalist country...

     

    The Gilded Age America was a capitalist country. We are a socialist-capitalist hybrid -- we are talking about minimum wage aren't we? One of the US's socialist measures?

     

    Employers who take good care of their people can avoid Unions and many do, just for that reason.

     

    Why do Employers have reasons to take care of employees ParanoiA? In a real capitalist country an employer could pay your MBA degree holding friends $2.50 and hour if he could make a deal with other companies who employed similar people. I agree (as an employer) not to hire people for more than $3 an hour, and so will you, then our company makes more money. Are you saying that if there were no law regarding economic (ie were were "capitalist") then there would be no businesses doing this? By agreeing to hire people for less they could make more money? Is it even possible to believe that no one with get screwed?

     

    I agree. That's why we don't let them operate unrestricted.

     

    Hence: capitalism without socialism has failed.

  6. meh some good things have happened, if you check the new york times today you'll notice that the dems dumped about a billion dollars into financial aid grants, inceaseing the grant per student by up to $4300 (depending on familial curcumstances)

     

    D@#$ my familial circumstances :P

     

    The whole business is an irrelevent waste of time that has completely sucked the oxygen out of much more important issues before congress. The minimum wage hike failed last week *and nobody noticed*. What about the rest of the "100 Hours" legislation?

     

    It's psychological. Iraqis feel like they need to take charge of the country because America officially pulls out (with advanced warning). Iraq can do well for themselves if they choose. It's psychological, if they want to, they will. War has gotten many of the barriers out of the way, all that's left now is social change. Can't do that with soldiers.

  7. Tried it lately? Sure, it can be budgeted for...until you get sick. Or your car needs $3000 worth of repairs. And the landlord raises the rent every year but your wage remains the same. Tried raising kids on it? What happens when they get sick? I mean *really* sick, meaning $20,000+ hospital bills. What happens if *you* get sick, enough that you can't work? No health insurance to pay the bills, and you can't work when you're sick, but you still need shelter and food. Poor people get cancer too, you know.

     

     

     

    So you'd rather support them on welfare? Because your choices are either that jobs *are* a right, that welfare is a right, or that people don't have a right to live. Those are the only options, because last time I checked, food and shelter cost money.

     

    Mokele

     

    Is minimum wage the answer?

  8. Heroes is already dynamically much better than the 4400 ever was, having all the mystery and character depth of the latter, but also having a more obvious direction, bearing down on you like a ton of nuclear shockwave/temporal anomoly, whereas the 4400 was always just going to be a wooly (woolly?) drip-feed-forever-with-no-payoff-just-like-Lost type affair.

     

    Hence Heroes is much more engaging, immediately, with more payoff-scenes per episode, and so very worth watching if you even slightly liked the 4400, and dream of what it might have been.

     

    Dan

     

    Lost is amazing. They're deciding how long to make the series, and they're starting to plan the end. Soon they can start closing plot lines, we can finally get some answers.

  9. The Iraq war is one big mess. The problem (one anyway) is limited war. The Korean and Vietnam wars went badly because we could only use so much of our power before we pissed off some other communist country and start a world war.

     

    The Iraq war was limited because those who planned it didn't want to use to many troops as to alarm the public, or to create bad feelings towards the administration.

     

    Combined with the population's (Iraqi population) unwillingness to cooperate with the invasion (:D), it's not going so well.

     

    At first an end to the war sound disastrous, but a six month time period to get out (all but peace keeping I suppose, we still have peace keeping troops in WWII axis countries :P) sounds reasonable. A date on the calender would motivate all parties involved to set goals and try to get the country back in order in time for a withdrawal.

     

    I had a C++ class last fall, and all the labs were due at the end of the term. So naturally I didn't do any of them until the last two weeks of the term, until I knew: It has to be done RIGHT NOW. Putting a date on the calender for the Iraq war could do this for the Iraqi people, and maybe they'll get a better grade than I did :D.

  10. It's not that much more complex, merely a limited war. A limited war is one where you limited (:P), such as in Vietnam where they couldn't use so much power as to threaten other communist powers. Here we can't use so much power as to frighten Middle Eastern countries. It's a bad idea to get into one of these wars, if you win you have to barely win, or the surrounding countries will get spooked and attack. It's a horrible situation, and sending more troops is mostly a morale booster, it's only a 15% increase -- over time.

     

    In WWII the whole world was already at war, you didn't have to worry about other countries joining. War isn't like that anymore. Most future wars will be similar (limited), what can you do?

  11. Actually I take that back it's already begun!!

     

    It's started taking the potatoes under my kitchen counter. At the rate it's doubling we'll likely loose the east coast in about a month....

     

     

    On a more serious point I'm pretty sure before we can makes something like that from scratch we'll figure out that it'd have to be just about as complicated as a living cell and we'll already be manipulating those to do the same thing...

     

    Yeah, there are already millions of species on the earth that already replicate themselves, and yes, they are too small to see with the naked eye. Why would a metallic version be scarier?

  12. Although of course, Linux was essentially just an imitation of Unix.

    I'm sure it could be argued that there are only two significant families of Operating System.

    Unix based and Windows based?

     

    Just to clarify, shipping with source code does not make software non-proprietary or open source.

     

    Open source software under the GPL is different that "free" software that might cost nothing or might have their code public. If not under the GPL license the code may be still "locked down". You probably can't use it in your own programs, reverse engineer it, or modify it and distribute it. Open source code you can do almost anything with.

  13. I suspect the MAC Croud would object to you trying to piginhole macs into being a type of linux.

     

    Their both derived from Unix, rather than OS X being a type of Linux.

     

    Unix > BSD > Darwin > Mac OS X

    \/

    Linux

  14. When I started majoring in history (only lasted one summer semester) I thought of being a high school teacher. Looking into it, the best way to get into a high school as a history teacher (at least around here) was to minor in science or math and teach some science/math classes as well as history. So I think with science your in a pretty good position to try for a high school teaching job.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.