ClumsyMonkey.net

I don't know. But I do know that to leave things up to ignorant masses is stupidity at its best.

I guess that includes you. So maybe a dictatorship is more your speed?

Axtech wrote:

Corey wrote:Spoken like a true man who has been to war and back.

Yes, because I have to have killed before to justify (or not justify) the killing of innocent people.

No, but maybe you should try being shot at.

We basically have that now anyways. Ask any elitist if it matters who wins the next election, and they'll tell you it doesn't matter because no matter what they know one of them (another elitest) will win. Political parties are just a sham really. They sound different around election time, or on CNN but when it comes down to it they're all the same. The only difference between that and a dictatorship is the face changes from time to time, despite the fact that what's behind the face remains the same.

You didn't answer the question.

My answer (as I said in the very first sentence of my post above) is that it wouldn't matter. If you had a dictator who ran the country properly then I'd be pro-dictatorial rule, while the same could be said about democratically elected rulers. A permanently bad dictator is just as bad as constantly electing bad leaders. The only difference is the democratic leader has someone to blame for all of his problems (i.e. well it wasn't our govt who caused the deficit...blah blah blah).

also your first post in months

hpdfk wrote:also your first post in months

not true. check the Questioned by Doubt forum.

J-Neli wrote:My answer (as I said in the very first sentence of my post above) is that it wouldn't matter. If you had a dictator who ran the country properly then I'd be pro-dictatorial rule, while the same could be said about democratically elected rulers. A permanently bad dictator is just as bad as constantly electing bad leaders. The only difference is the democratic leader has someone to blame for all of his problems (i.e. well it wasn't our govt who caused the deficit...blah blah blah).

Ok, so you don't like democracy because it is run by "stupidity", and you don't like dictatorships because you can't ensure the leader will run the country "properly" (read: to J-Neli's liking only). So what is your suggestion? Or is this an empty gripe where you start talking in circles?

Axtech wrote:You have got to be kidding me. You're justifying killing everyone in Iraq because the US is invading? That's ridiculous! There's no logic there! No tactic! Hell, why don't we just nuke them, then?
If you're afraid of American soldiers dying, don't go in.
But then, of course, there is a "reason" for going in; to "liberate" the country.
But if you kill everyone who comes near the invading Americans, you can't really liberate them.

no, i'm justifying the killing of anyone holding a gun, or throwing stuff at solders. those people are usually a threat, why else would you hold a gun or throw something if you wern't asking for trouble? however, if anyone tells me there are bad guys over the hill, and i see a guy comming toward me from the hill yes i'm shooting. call it trigger happy, call it bad intel, call it a tragedy, that's not my problem, that's the guy telling me there's bad guys over that hill problem. that usually doesn't happen because people with binoculars can check the guy out from a distance and see if he's a threat.
if you notice, some Iraqis do go up to the tanks and humvees and cheer or ask for assistance or what have you. if we were an actual invading force, as in the modern day version of the scourge of god like you like to think we are, they'd run like hell wouldn't they? so obviously, there are people that feel safe around this heavy machinery in certain places. so it's not like were killing everyone and putting them on a pike. that's atila the hun, you must have the US and the Huns confused.
soldiers signing up should know that if war breaks out, they are putting their lives in danger. this isn't a program for college money, this is to join an army, that may require you to kill/be killed for a cause you may or may not like. anyone that tells you otherwise, you stick your finger in their faces, and call them "a no good godamn liar". that's what i do frequently, everytime i see a recruiter or get called by a recruiter.

Joe Cool wrote:First off this war is not going on in an open desert, its going on in a city. With humvees constantly patrolling the city it would be pretty hard to keep away from them. No one is gonna buck and and move every time a humvee drives by their house or by a market. Therefore if one explodes innocents are gonna get hurt whether they are holding a gun or not. Secondly your right about the soldiers becomming completely trigger happy. But that in no way justifys 10,000 deaths. Just because a soldier is in a hostile situation doesnt mean everyone is fair game.

I'm constantly hearing reports of 100 civillians dying within a week. Do you think those who died wanted to be around that humvee, or in that gunfight? They were probably just caught within the crossfire. The US is literally trying to squash an ant with a sledge hammer resulting in huge collateral damage. Strafing buildings with helecopters is not exactly accurate. They have no idea who's inside besides a group of militants trying to get away. It is after all a city.

if you live in a bad part of town, as in you know damn well your neighbor is gonna get his A-K and start shooting at a tank, then yes, you better get the hell away from the tank. one of two things is going to happen, that vehicle is gonna blow and your going to get hurt/possibly killed, or it'll cause a dent, and a soilder is going to spray, shooting you in the process. these are 18-25 year olds that only signed up for money for college, they didn't want to go to Iraq to go fight for a cause they don't like, so yeah, when they are getting fired upon they're gonna spray like crazy. is it right? no. does it happen, yes. who's to blame, both sides. you said it yourself, this isn't open desert, this happens in cities, so 10,000 innocent people getting killed is just a tip of the iceberg, i'm gonna go out on a limb and state that that number will be up to 50,000 by the time we get out of there. (by your sources estimation) you will never be able to differentiate the number killed by the US and by the fighters, but they are both killing people. i will tell you this, usig a helicopter to fire upon a building is alot better then completely slaughtering every man/woman/child in the block. your complaining about using a helicopter, when other armies will just wipe the whole block off the face of the earth. what would you prefer?

Corey wrote: Ok, so you don't like democracy because it is run by "stupidity", and you don't like dictatorships because you can't ensure the leader will run the country "properly" (read: to J-Neli's liking only). So what is your suggestion? Or is this an empty gripe where you start talking in circles?

Why is democracy the answer? It's done nothing but give people the idea that they actually have a say in things when it's quite obvious they haven't a say in anything. If that's the case then we might as well not vote for anyone, and just let the top 20% decide who will lead a country. They're really the only ones that matter anyways.

My suggestion? I don't know. I'm sure if I had some new amazing political theory I'd be winning prizes all over the world. In the mean time I can only critique what we currently have.

You see, democracy would be a great thing if who was elected really mattered. Obviously you can't have the local town drunk voted in as the leader of a country, but the only thing that makes a leader in modern society is money. Why do you think only 2 real parties exist in the USA, and 3 (debatably 2 in national politics) exist in Canada. There's no competing with these parties because they'll just outspend you 500 to 1.

Listen, I've never claimed to have the answers, but right now things aren't right, and from people I've talked to, at least in the university setting, there seems to be a lot of disgust with the way countries are being run. I wish I had an answer, but right now I'm just trying to educate myself about politics. So far some things seem intriguing, but of course there's flaws to every system.

hpdfk wrote:also your first post in months

you know what? fuck off. He can post whenever, and wherever he wants to. Thanks.

J-Neli wrote:I don't know. But I do know that to leave things up to ignorant masses is stupidity at its best.

i find this amusing. ok, so you want the stupid people to leave the republic, and go to anarchy, which requires more self control and dedication that the stupid masses have yet to show, when they had in your opinion the man holding them by the hand and telling them what to do.

example wrote:But even if it did, this assumes that how a boss treats "his" employees is entirely up to him. In the sense that a boss, being a person, has free will, okay, that's true. But as long as the boss is competing with other companies to satisfy consumers in the most efficient way, he'll have to weigh a number of factors, one being how much to pay the employees. In order to have anyone work for him, he has to provide compensation similar to or better than the competition, or else they'll all go work for the cometition. On the other hand, he can't splurge on worker salaries, or else no one would buy his product (since it's so expensive).

Probably the hardest pill to swallow in the above is the idea that no, they can't go work for the competition, because all bosses work together to keep wages down. That's almost true, in that they'd like it to be that way. But as long as a free market exists, in which - potentially - every other person on earth could enter the field and offer better wages, any such conspiracy would quickly collapse.

this is all banking on the fact that the market is going to keep him straight. lets face it, this is an absolute free market, with no restrictions. lets say, he plays fair for a while and he becomes a big part of the market, as in he does everything, has everything you need under the roof of his company. he's the monopoly, the competition has been eliminated because he's a giant. this is allowed in this absolute free market. so once he's this big, he can diliberatly cut pay to the point that he's working them for free. and they can't leave because there's no competition. they themselves cannot create competition because they don't get paid enough to start up a company of their own.

this is the wal-mart syndrome. without anti-trust laws in place, this can and would have already happened. maybe not one person but several. assuming that the mom and pop store next door can keep it in check is not correct to say the least.

Bandalero wrote:

J-Neli wrote:I don't know. But I do know that to leave things up to ignorant masses is stupidity at its best.

i find this amusing. ok, so you want the stupid people to leave the republic, and go to anarchy, which requires more self control and dedication that the stupid masses have yet to show, when they had in your opinion the man holding them by the hand and telling them what to do.

Whoa, hold up, when did I say anything about anarchy?

Bandalero wrote:
this is all banking on the fact that the market is going to keep him straight. lets face it, this is an absolute free market, with no restrictions. lets say, he plays fair for a while and he becomes a big part of the market, as in he does everything, has everything you need under the roof of his company. he's the monopoly, the competition has been eliminated because he's a giant. this is allowed in this absolute free market.

This could never happen. There is no possible way a company can become so big that it sells every possible product. It's unrealistic, because not only would this guy have to sell the product, he'd have to be making every product as well. Furthermore, in modern day society hundreds of things are invented daily. To say that he's going to be able to control daily inventions as well is unrealistic.

Bandalero wrote:[so once he's this big, he can diliberatly cut pay to the point that he's working them for free. and they can't leave because there's no competition. they themselves cannot create competition because they don't get paid enough to start up a company of their own.

Who's going to buy this guys product if no one has money? That my friend is a depression. Also, as mentionned above, people can invent things, or provide their own services. The possibilities are endless.

Corey wrote:

Axtech wrote:

Corey wrote:Spoken like a true man who has been to war and back.

Yes, because I have to have killed before to justify (or not justify) the killing of innocent people.

No, but maybe you should try being shot at.

If going to war, you have to expect to be shot at. If going to war in a city, your soldiers have to be trained to control themselve to NOT KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Axtech wrote:

Corey wrote:

Axtech wrote: Yes, because I have to have killed before to justify (or not justify) the killing of innocent people.

No, but maybe you should try being shot at.

If going to war, you have to expect to be shot at. If going to war in a city, your soldiers have to be trained to control themselve to NOT KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Ok, before you say another word, go out and dig up all the information on what the exact circumstances were that the "10,000 innocents" were killed. Then formulate how it could have been prevented and where the troops went wrong. Also provide why they are innocent because that is just a subjective term. All I know, is that if there are bullets flying at me from one direction, I'm returning fire. Maybe you would stand there with your thumb up your ass, but don't expect extremely well trained soldiers to do the same.

J-Neli wrote: Why is democracy the answer? It's done nothing but give people the idea that they actually have a say in things when it's quite obvious they haven't a say in anything. If that's the case then we might as well not vote for anyone, and just let the top 20% decide who will lead a country. They're really the only ones that matter anyways.

You are clearly singling out the case of presidency. There are several other branches in big and small government where "ignorant" people play huge roles. The president doesn't control everything.

And how do you figure only the top 20% matter when deciding the president. Last I checked everyone only had 1 vote. And top 20% of what? Income? Age? Please don't make such sweeping statements.

What happened to your pokemon avatar? It just doesnt have the same effect...

Lando wrote:What happened to your pokemon avatar? It just doesnt have the same effect...

Pokemon....POKEMON...GAGAHAOSIGAOIGHIOHSSTUPIDCRAPTHINGYSIKILLTHEMALL!!

*head blows up*

It's true, he really is dead...