Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
even if he`s not, he still screams creepy old man, whose bitter about life
hon- 1. he`s 18-29. 2. yes, it is. 3 sorry you have to find out on the internet.
dont stop fighting, i guess. but to be honest, complaining about mens` behavior isn`t gonna change our behavior.
Angillion... doesn`t this sound like objectification to you? And really, if ur correct in ur thinking that sexuality is an acceptable means of getting ur message across, then, as a 14 year old female, i`ll make sure next time i need to talk to a male teacher about a mark, i`ll wear a low cut top and lean over as i speak. Because as your saying, that would be totally acceptable because i`ll be getting what i want. correct? Thanks, I`ll deffinately take into consideration that this is what 40 year old males want me to do.
Democracy is a political system
Yet Capitalism is an economic system.
There`s no way in hell that they`re equal.
Pure Capitalism= Greedy men, who would chop off their right nut for money and put children to work in terrible conditions.
Pure Socialism= Equality for everyone in every way for better or worse.
Pure Socialism won`t work, the same as pure Capitalism won`t work, America is about 85% Capitalism. America as a country is beginning to fall apart. Now what we should be doing, is what many European countries are doing and try to balance between Socialist and Capitalist ideas. But because Americans as a people are stubborn and ignorant when in groups (sometimes individually) I couldn`t see that happening, this is why I plan to move to Canada.
Oh really? I think it is a constitional republic. And you would be aware that most educational texts refer to the American government as a Democracy only. Our Founding Fathers instituted a form of government guided by the rule of law rather than the desires of a majority of voters. They understood that a democracy is always in flux and given to “mob rule,” while a republic is fixed and stable, resting on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Many of the references to America as a democracy are harmless, being made out of ignorance by people who are just repeating what they were told in grade school or on the evening news, some of the references betray a desire to change the very fabric of the nation.
Is anyone advocating this? If not, your argument is made of straw.
I was watching The Apprentice UK last night. The UK is far more "socialist" than anyone is advocating for the USA. Sir Alan Sugar started with £150, flogging cheap stuff from a council flat. He`s built that up to about £800M. So what`s that about "socialism" again?
Think about it, in a true 100% government ran country, they could tell you to produce an electric spatula, a completely useless device, and you have no say whatsoever. No one would try to better the device because more than likely the idea will get turned down. And if the government told everyone that they will get $50,000 a year, no matter what they did, well I`m going sit on my butt and watch my flat screen, eat popcorn, and play video games all day.
A guy came into my store the other day, and started playing scratch offs. He said he didn`t care if he lost because it wasn`t his money, and it was going back to the government. AKA, he`s on welfare/SS/disability/etc spending it on lotto.
If the US goes to a true socialism, then more people like him are going to pop out of the woodworks because they can benefit from laziness.
The closest I know of to a capitalist state ever existing in reality would be early feudal England, in which 90% of people didn`t even own themselves and were very lucky if they lived to 40. Even that wasn`t pure capitalism, because the serfs had some labour rights.
If you have pure capitalism, you have pure oppression in a totally rigid class structure. Rich = nobility, poor = commoners. A bit less capitalism gives a slight amount of class mobility.
The opposite to capitalism is communism, not socialism. Socialism is neither extreme.
Corporatism doesn`t exist in ANY economy system, by the way. It can only exist in statism, where the government has a legal possibility for violence. The only answer is to privatize all means of production, including defense. But I only have 125 characters left, so if someone wants me to explain THAT, I`ll use a
Lets just gatter around with pitch-forks and torches to hunt down and violently kill DuckBoy87
Capitalism is selfish. Society will end on it`s knees in unfairness and burn. Socialisme makes society work together for a common purpose and as i see it, only bring it up. how can people NOT go for something that in total will benefit EVERYONE? because they are greedy. greeeeeeeed my frieinds are the two enemies! as displayed by these two hot girls with posters :)---------------Well, it depends on what kind of socialism you want: statist socialism or anarcho-socialism. Statist socialism is incredibly greedy because the bureaucracy involved and the oligopolies created cause enormous shifts of wealth that would never happen with solely the will of the people. Anarcho-socialism is somewhat voluntary, but it restricts people by excluding capitalism. An anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist society would allow people to be socialist if they want to.
Capitalism is selfish. Society will end on it`s knees in unfairness and burn. Socialisme makes society work together for a common purpose and as i see it, only bring it up. how can people NOT go for something that in total will benefit EVERYONE? because they are greedy. greeeeeeeed my frieinds are the two enemies! as displayed by these two hot girls with posters :)
A free people is not equal, an equal people is not free.
In a capitalistic society you have the freedom to succeed. You also have the freedom to fail. You have the freedom to suck on the teat of the government you hate so much.
And as for hotness, I`d have to go for the one on the right.
Lonley girl: The truth is, people like to look at attractive people. Girls like to look at attractive guys just as much as guys like to look at attractive girls. Personality is what matters in the long run, but there is nothing wrong with looking. Further, there are plenty of people on here who actually are considering the political point that is brought up. And this is supposed to be a joke anyway. Most people don`t really take protesting seriously, so these girls are just poking fun at it.
Since I live in a country (England) that has had both for 800 years and in which the power of the monarch has never been absolute, it made me laugh. The power of a monarch is never really absolute anyway. Even in feudal times, the monarch needed the support of the nobility.
According to the definitions in this thread, the UK is a republic because it`s a representative democracy. That throws a spanner in the definitions.
If no-one is considering the political message at all, why are there so many posts in this thread about the meaning of democracy? Obviously, you are wrong - the message is being seen and is therefore being considered.
However, that wasn`t my point. My point was that you are wrong to say that women in a sexual context are objects.
A) Has a non-monarchy chief of state (i.e. a President)
B) Representative democracy (technically, a body of voters who exercise authority through elected officers, whose governance duties/responsibilities are defined in law.
If the sign said "Corporatism," that would be correct.
There`s a good number of people who think that any change towards `socialism` or any idea that may challenge the free market works directly against freedom to do as they want or make money, which is how view democracy.
Explain why all the fuss about offering affordable health care to citizens in the US? There are a lot of folks who equate a public option with an "end to democracy".
Explain the almost "witch hunt"-esque views taken on communism during the MacCarthy trials.
The fact is, there are just some versions of government that work better with certain economic systems. It`s hard for a communist state or a monarchy to have pure capitalism. The first has issues with information freedom, which I think is necessary in a good democracy. The second has issues with aggregation of money and power.
So yes, you`re right, but you mi
Republic is "rule by law." We elect lawmakers. Like you said, we don`t vote on every detail. Therefore republic not democracy. Similar but different.
What the hell do you think a republic is?Its a representative democracy. i swear people dont pay attention in school. If we had a direct democracy it would never work. having 225 million people voting on everything and we would never get anything done.
Three cheers for sluts! They`ve done more for sexual equality than most people have, by rejecting sexed roles about sex.
Right now, they get more respect from me than you do.
They`re using sexual attractiveness as a tool to promote a political ideology.
You`re using a political ideology to promote the idea that women in a sexual context are objects.
I dislike both, but I dislike your approach more.
That`s like saying chairs don`t equal guitars. They are from different categories.
But yeah, on the whole left vs right debate, definitely the right one.
Aren`t they both on the left? Rimshot
If you wanna make a change get an education, put on a suit, and get your ass in there and make a damn difference. Some smelly, dreadlocked pot head holding up a "clever" sign isn`t gonna do jack crap.