I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Michael Moore Explains His Support for Wikileaks

Hits: 23525 | Rating: (2.4) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: madest
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
yusterdai
Female, 18-29, Western US
 126 Posts
Friday, December 17, 2010 4:32:27 PM
@mchunt
Thanks for the list. Im always looking to rent books on different political perspectives. Ew I even read a Glenn Beck book, I wish I could un-read that one.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Friday, December 17, 2010 4:01:54 AM
"Yet, to release lists of locations the U.S. government considers crucial to national security is irresponsible to say the least. Governments sometimes must do dirty rotten nasty things to protect it's people. Assassinations, funding the enemy of your enemy and the like."

Wikileaks partnered with professional organizations recognized around the world; utilized their resources to remove/redact information (names, locations, etc) of serious gravity.

Wikileaks reached out to every major government organization that would be effected and requested official resources to help determine the information to be with-held, virtually every government refused to participate. Rather than do damage control 70+% of everyone involved said: "Screw you."

As a side note, I disagree; Governments do not need to do "nasty things" to protect us.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Friday, December 17, 2010 3:55:57 AM
Only when you have examined an issue from its every facet and understand all of the perspectives it can be viewed in can you begin to draw a valid and realistic conclusion.

It would be like making a sculpture of a man- on one side it is incredibly detailed and accurate, but the back is entirely flat... it's an outline of a man. Because if the artists doesn't walk around back and see the rest of the man he can't sculpt it.

Being informed from ANY perspective is better than being ignorant, but one must, as you have said, have an open mind and indulge even perspectives that you disagree with. Once you are so informed then you can fathom and develop your own whole and complete philosophy.

I'm only about 3/5 of the way through that list, so don't think i'm an expert, or that I think of myself as an expert.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Friday, December 17, 2010 3:51:30 AM
"If you have an open mind I'd recomend reading one of her novels."

I have, you should try reading:
"Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and the theft of human rights"
Upton Sinclair's "Jungle "
"One Market Under God"
Thomas Paine: "The Rights of Man" and "The Age of Reason"
"Cutting Corporate Welfare"
"The Best Democracy Money can Buy"
"The Wealth of Nations"
Ron Pauls "Pillars of Prosperity"
"Whatever Happened to Justice ?"
"Globalisation and its Discontents"
"The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality"
"The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century"
"The Ethics of Liberty"
"The Virtue of Selfishness"

You may have noticed one of Ayn Rands books in there. The list I detailed is critical reading from many political perspectives. Only w

yusterdai
Female, 18-29, Western US
 126 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 9:57:28 PM
@Gerry1of1
exactly.

yusterdai
Female, 18-29, Western US
 126 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 9:53:56 PM
@DickenMcHunt
I agree you have some great points about todays modern American capitalism! But I should clarify that I am referring to Ayn Rand's system of capatalism, which also has alot to do with her philosiphy as well. It is by far the most efficiant design of a conservative system ever made. (To me it is the most efficiant and ideal way to have an economy). The focus of her philosiphy is logic, reason, individualism, the persuit of happiness and selfishness.
Now that I have mentioned Ayn Rand, I'm possibly the most hated among liberals in this forum. yippee!

If you have an open mind I'd recomend reading one of her novels. Just for a good read :) Not for my sake, and not to simply read it and argue with every bit of information either, although it is difficult to argue with cold logic.

Kalimata
Male, 30-39, Canada
 660 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:35:41 PM
I'm a little torn on this issue.

Primarily, I applaud Wikileaks and their efforts to air the "dirty laundry" the government would rather us not see. The lying, the abuse of public trust, the two faced diplomatic dealings. What Moore says about Iraq is true, the soldiers of the U.S. went to die in a war initiated by lies.

Yet, to release lists of locations the U.S. government considers crucial to national security is irresponsible to say the least. Governments sometimes must do dirty rotten nasty things to protect it's people. Assassinations, funding the enemy of your enemy and the like. The average citizen does not have the capacity to understand the far reaching ramifications of many aspects of the "shady dealings" that are sometimes necessary.

A terrorist, psychopath, and deserving of a shadow death, no. Guilty of lack of discretion, perhaps.

The government must be accountable to it's people. It is the responsibility

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:39:29 AM
"Either this is all true... or I'm talking out my ass. Even I'm not sure."

It's actually mostly true: The reality is that the "Free Market" is controlled by conglomerates and major corporations- who often associate and function cooperatively. On the bottom end, however, it's nearly impossible for a start-up to gain any kind of major momentum in the traditional marketplace- typically the ideal for these start-ups is to either fill a niche, remain local or to be acquired by some larger entity.

The internet is more similar to a free-market, however, it also has limitations and is quickly being dominated by a handful of organizations, and it is increasingly difficult to remain viable or boom digitally as well.

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33910 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:44:59 AM
How did we move off topic to "Capitalism" ?

No bother, I'll bite.

Capitalism in U.S. is gone. What has developed is a type of Corporate-Socialism where a few mega-corporations control all of the resources. This prohibits a true free market where a little guy and build up a business.

the internet is an exception. 1 average guy can create FaceBook or similar product and make a billion. This is possible because he does not require traditional resources for his product and can therefore compete with mega-corporations.

Either this is all true... or I'm talking out my ass. Even I'm not sure.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:04:53 AM
@yusterdai

“Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”

Actually capitalism is an economic system which values private profit, private gain and private value; Capitalism has no problem infringing upon your individual rights, your privately owned property, your property rights or even you- if it makes another private individual a profit. (See privatized prisons, patent/trademark monopolies and private investigation firms.)
Capitalism is NOT a social policy- it is a market policy. Confusing the two is dangerous.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:04:23 AM
@yusterdai

“Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion.”

Capitalism does not separate the state from economics- it simply ensures that a private individual/entity profits. If the state wants to get involved and make that private entity more profit- that’s entirely okay with capitalism. (See Subsidies of Agribusiness: Archer Daniels Mid-land, Monsanto, Phillip Morris, etc.)

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:03:50 AM
@yusterdai

“Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire.”

Which, if true (and I agree with that it is,) by definition means that the only drive/responsibility of a capitalist market is to make money, regardless of the consequences or the activities. (See credit default Swaps, High-Frequency Trading and Corporate Pollution)

“It is the system of political freedom. “

Capitalism has nothing to do with Politics- it is a market policy.

(Continued Below)

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:03:12 AM
@yusterdai

“I value individual rights, therefore I promote capitalism.”

If you valued individual rights you would value Liberty and Freedom which, as stated, have nothing to do with capitalism.

It is also important to note that America was never founded as a Capitalist society- it is the confusion with the false concept that Capitalism equates to Liberty which has led us to believe this. This is one of the reasons that we are in the current economic crisis: When companies and private entities are predicated on existing for the sole purpose to profit, we lose more Liberty than we gain.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:49:13 AM
"Also: Being 18 means that you morons and your bad decisions are f*cking up MY future. See how this works?"

Well, you're f*cking up our present, and trust me; without any further development and based on what you've exhibited so far- you'll f*ck up your own future, all by yourself, just fine.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:46:30 AM
“Christ, why does it take an 18-year-old poor kid working at a Gamestop to point out things that should be obvious? Seriously, I'm not even planning to go into psychology in college, yet for some reason I know more about how the human mind thinks than most of you retards.
I'm NOT altruistic. I don't give a F*CK about you people, I only care about myself. However, I can see that the world is like a building.”

We haven’t drawn these (flawed) conclusions because we’re not foolish enough to pretend like we have the answers for problems of epic proportions. We’re not arrogant enough to assume that we alone have the knowledge required, or the capability of cracking a global issue.

I would also assume that most of us have moved past our youthful, romanticized and simplified world-views and dropped our narcissistic attitudes in order to examine the issue and realize that its scope and ultimately its solution is complex and intricate.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:42:04 AM
“So you give X an incentive to do Y. ...company grows, hires more workers, and their productivity grows...”

That’s not capitalism & that’s not the free market. Either you want a Free Market or you want a regulated market. The government doesn’t get to pick and choose who succeeds or how they succeed. Incentives that do not benefit Nationally (i.e. Equal Opportunity Employment, Emissions Regulations, etc.) is against our fundamental marketplace structure.

Also, that ability would be a portal for nepotism and corruption.

What is best for companies has no direct correlation with what is best for people; it is not the governments job to care for the welfare of business- their job is to care for the welfare of citizens. Directly aiding business at a whim will cause more issues than it solves.

Lastly, a particular incentive for an action does not equate to a success- but that’s outside the scope of this debate.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:27:00 AM
"2) If you just GIVE them the money for no reason, YEAH, they're gonna f*cking keep it. That's why you give them incentives (in the form of tax breaks and the like) to make their business bigger and better, and employ more people."

So you're saying that rather than increase their taxes we should DECREASE their taxes? Well, the reality is giving tax cuts on the individuals will not lead to any of the benefits that you imply- The people that make the most money from businesses do not base the decision to expand business based on their personal wealth- it has to do with corporate financing.

(Continued Below)

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:26:46 AM
Steve Jobs makes a salary of $1 per year; he is able to do this because of the amount of money he makes off of other investments, rather than relying on an earned income. He is than able to use the residual money to pour back into Apple (and his other ventures) which indirectly makes him more money- you see when Apple does well, so does his Apple stock. Giving Steve Jobs "incentives" wouldn't matter much- he's paying lower taxes than a 17-year old cashier. However, if you granted Apple incentives and encourage Apple to grow Steve Jobs (not to mention Apple and everyone associated with Apple) would benefit FAR MORE than if we awarded individual incentives to the wealthy, in this example: Steve Jobs.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:19:51 AM
@Altaru
“Why do you think China has all the jobs now, eh?"

Largely because of government subsidies, cheap (essentially slave) labor, and fewer restrictions and regulations.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:18:24 AM
@Altaru
"1) If you're just going to take those rich people's money and give it to everyone else, then what are they going to do? Sit there and accept it? NO, they're going to take their money and go elsewhere. Why do you think China has all the jobs now, eh?"

Taxation take money from everyone, the difference is that the richest people in America pay lower taxes than the upper middle class and below. There illusion of fairness is simple: the tax rate is X% and everyone pays X%, right? Yes; undeniably- yes. Seems fair right? Until you understand how the Rich get Richer: for example, on paper Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have incomes below the poverty line, in America. Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than a 25 years old university student working two jobs, or a 6-figure income lawyer. Why? Because rich people don't get paychecks- they have very small taxable income; their money is based on assets. While coal workers and retail workers...

(Continued Below)

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:18:08 AM
While coal workers and retail workers are busting their asses off to earn a paycheck, while plastic surgeons and litigation professionals are actually earning their money the richest 2% of American's probably qualify for food stamps because they don't get paychecks- and in the eyes of the government they're poor. Stocks, Corporate Equity and Ownership, Property and Real Estate investment, Venture/Private Investment, etc...

Most people live off their paychecks and moderate investments and wealthy people live off of other people. So it's easy to believe that if the tax rate is X% for everyone it's fair, but when you are aware of how to become wealthy you realize that the most effective ways of making an increasing your wealth have absolutely nothing to do with "getting paid" and co-incidentally, paying taxes; so an average person pays X% of taxes on 100% of their wealthy, while a wealthy person pays X% of taxes on 1% of their wealth because of HOW they are wealthy.

yusterdai
Female, 18-29, Western US
 126 Posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 6:40:33 PM
chill bro. no need to go saying ppl dont know how the dominoe effect works, as it is a popular theory and a flawed one. i dont see it nessacary to bring it into debate as it is sort of irrelavent. may you have more rational arguments in the future. lol im out

Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 3500 Posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 6:30:26 PM
I'm NOT altruistic. I don't give a F*CK about you people, I only care about myself. However, I can see that the world is like a building.

Every beam holds up quite a few others, and if too many fail, the entire thing collapses. Even if one fails, it puts stress on another. If that other can't handle the stress, it will fail, which will put even MORE stress on another. The pattern continues, until it's either fixed or it all falls down.

The Domino effect, man, obviously you don't know how the f*ck it works.

Also: Being 18 means that you morons and your bad decisions are f*cking up MY future. See how this works?

yusterdai
Female, 18-29, Western US
 126 Posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 6:26:30 PM
@sPrinkZ
It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

Sacrifice is the primitive ideal of savages. You can find great examples of why its never done any good in the bible and mayan history, or any civilization in the ancient times.

Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 3500 Posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 6:10:23 PM
(in the form of tax breaks and the like)

I should clarify this: In the form of tax breaks WITH CONDITIONS.

Example: Company X is looking at putting some money into Y. The company realizes that Y would be beneficial to their productivity (which would make the company grow and provide more jobs) if it were done, but has never really followed through Y because it's absurdly expensive.

So you give X an incentive to do Y. They do Y, they get the tax break/whatever, the company grows, hires more workers, and their productivity grows i.e, they get a Return onInvestment, both immediate and long-term.

Christ, why does it take an 18-year-old poor kid working at a Gamestop to point out things that should be obvious? Seriously, I'm not even planning to go into psychology in college, yet for some reason I know more about how the human mind thinks than most of you retards.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.