I hate thought crimes, I hate when people punish thoughts.
Look, I dont like the KKK, the Nazis, and so on, and they should be public enemy #1, but they have every right to make a website and teach hate because this is what freedom is all about, its what our country is about.
I dont think all Democrats are socialist, some are, but not all of them, yes they are left wing, yes they like to spend, but Republicans like to spend as well.
The only difference is in where the money is spent, Democrats spend the money on our people, Republicans spend the money overseas on Africa, Iraq, and anywhere but over here.
If you compare the budgets, Republicans actually spend more trying to have this police state, than Democrats spend providing public schools, and other programs.
I dont have a problem with spending, I mean the rich pay most of the taxes right? Thats what all you republicans love to say, so if the Rich pay most of the taxes it means I benefit when they pay taxes which support Public Schools, Police, and other federal programs, in fact these taxes often help me get a job.
Its not just in state, federally as well!
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 1
Listen to actions not words. Is the government bigger now than it was under Clinton? YES!
Are we spending more now than we spent under Clinton? YES!
The military is about 100 billion dollars bigger, then you have trillions of dollars that Bush spent, then theres the money to bailout the airline industry twice, which equals to about 40 billion dollars, plus our troops are spread all around the world as we build infastructure for other countries. The new department of homeland security another 80 billion dollars at least, the missle defense system, the new spy technology created to take advantage of the patriot act.
Tell me how anyone can say the Republicans dont want big government, Look at how big government got when Reagan was in charge during the cold war.
The republicans spend more money than the left wingers, Bush has spent more money in these 4 years than Clinton did in 8, Clinton balanced the budget, cut down spending, sure he did spend money but the money that was spent was at least spent on this country.
Bush has us providing welfare for the whole third world!!! Afganastan,Iraq,Africa, Who is next? North Korea? Iran?
We are spending money building schools, paving roads, and providing healthcare for people WHO ARENT EVEN AMERICANS!!!
This is why we need software like Freenet, the government is turning into the soviet union. These crazy maniac right winged pro mililtary republicans want to make government so big and so powerful that they can rob us of our freedoms and we can do nothing about it.
I dont like terrorism, but I dont think being anti government is any more terrorism than running a nazi or kkk website, so why is our government selecting certain people to arrest and put in jail for 20 years?
You have luis farakhan, david duke, all these others who hate large amounts of people and who hate the government.
Then why do you even care that it's not fair? If it shouldn't play a role in deciding, don't bring it up.
Someone else brought it up.
You can be greedy without wanting money. Some greedy people just want to be given stuff and not money. They want you to provide everything for them instead of working for it. That's just as greedy as the guy who wants money for his lack of work.
Thats just it though, everyone works, every single person on this planet works, who gives you the right to decide how much their work is worth? shouldnt their jobs worth be equal to the worth they are to society? Which means a teacher, doctor, policeman, etc should be making more than the CEO right?
I agree totally! So, let the people who want to work harer do so. Let the people who want to just get by do so. Definitely provide the basics to someone who can't provide it for themself. On the other hand, people should have the freedom to starve if they so choose. If they're able, but too damn lazy to work, why should they be greedy and think I should support them? That's rediculous!
Thats impossible though, Mc Donalds does not pay enough to even get by. Look someone has to do these jobs, everyone should have a living wage, EVERYONE.
Let me solve this one real fast. Instead of giving people money to pay the doctor who charges more than he should just because all the doctors agree to do it, let's make the doctor charge less so the poor people can afford his services. Isn't that more fair?
No because a doctors worth to society is greater than your CEO, The doctor has one of the most difficult jobs on this planet, if not the single most difficult, the CEO should charge less, and then people would have more money to give the doctor.
Then we, as members of the community, should compensate them. Everyone who works to help others, in any capacity, deserves compensation. This is why I support capitalism over socialism. I think people should give to charities because it's the right thing to do instead of being greedy and hording their money. Just because you're a not-for-profit organization doesn't mean you shouldn't make money to use for operating expenses and for paying your employees. Frankly, I think a community service person should make more money because of their contribution.
Capitlaism doesnt support this in its current form, this is why we need to take ideas from socialism. The reason is, its not always profitable to do certain things, I mean look at music, you cannot make money from using using the traditional capitalist model, this is why theres the current problems. The whole script must be flipped, we must take ideas from socialism and apply them to certain situations, pure capitalism cannot exist just like pure socialism cannot exist.
I think about others. I give to others. I just don't want to be told who I have to give to.
Neither does Bill Gates, instead he will hoarde his Billions in cash and not give it to anyone but who he wants to give it to. Why should we allow people like him to choose who to give it to when all the evidence says they will give it to people who benefit their business and not give it to society? I think if society makes you rich, you MUST give back and I'd rather have a group of people (decentralized) decide how the money gets used, than one guy who might be greedy as hell and decide not to give it to anyone.
I support raising the taxes through the roof on guys like Bill Gates, and people like you and I, should not pay taxes at all, the tax burden should be placed on those who benefit most from society, and that money should go to improving society for everyone.
Currently this doesnt happen because there are no laws in place telling government what they can and cant spend money on, perhaps if we made a law that everything we spend money on must improve society for everyone would solve the problem.
Because she'll get it if he's alive, so why shouldn't she get it just because he's dead? Piece of shit that he is, Bill Gates can do whatever the hell he wants because it's HIS money.
Thank you for making the arguement for reparations, The slaves did the work, companies stole their money, so now what do you do about it? Alot of rich people are inherting money they stole.
That seems fair to me. If they had losses due to segregation and discrimination, then the people who hurt them owe them. However, I don't. Neither myself nor my family was part of the problem, and I don't feel any need to clean up other people's messes. Let the companies who stepped on minorities pay reparations because they owe them. Not we.
What about the government? The government stepped on them too, no appology? No money? I mean even native americans have casinos and reservations, sure its not much but its better than affirmative action.
Good plan. You get it on the ballot and I'll vote for it.
IF I tried to put that on the ballot the KKK would be burning crosses i my yard. We need to rid the country of terrorists before we can make the world fair. Everyone who tries to make the world fair from kennedy to martin luther king, seems to get shot in the head, am I the only one who notices this?
But see, how about, Thomas Payne and John Locke had the theories right on paper, and everyone for the last 200 years has fucked it up.
Yeah thats because no theory on paper is realistic . I think it will be realistic in the future when our technology reaches that point, it already is realistic enough to work on the internet, this is why peer to peer works, peer to peer is socialism but it works, open source is socialism but it still works, my P2P idea to improve the situation for musician is simple, make P2P capitalism again, give music a value again, you see the idea on my journal.
But you see we can have pure socialism on the internet, and when we have nano technology, we should be able to have pure socialism, if we dont go to pure socialism the class warfare and terrorism will rip this country apart, the rich and poor are being divided so much that there will someday be a war over this if we keep favoring the rich in all areas of government, corperate life, and education.
Dude, that's not socialism. That's fairness and justice. That shouldn't require socialism as long as the woman or minority does the same job, and does it as well as I do. I think you should get paid based on 1. what job you do, and 2. how well you do it. That seems fair to me. Though, I also think it should just be setup in Pay Grades in each company (like the military has, so you can have ranks/titles at the same pay grade). Then, companies can compete, and people can choose whose salary/benefit package fits them best.
Ok I actually agree with you. I just dont like when I hear that my mother (single parent) makes less money than you do, just because shes a woman. When women are making only 75% of the salary of a male when they have the exact same title, something is wrong.
I agree! I just think that everyone who does something useful (including art, music, etc... anything that benefits society in any way) should be paid enough to take care of their needs. I think people who help more should make more, actually. I know they don't really want it necessarily, but they deserve it. We owe it to them!
But the world is not like this, I'd love to be a musician, but guess what, its not a very profitable field, and until our government uses tax dollars to fund these kinds of fields, alot of people who would be musicians will be poor and homeless.
I agree people who help more should make more, but the current system is ridiculous, you see I'm motivated by how much I help and I would agree with capitalism if it rewarded people based on how much they help, the problem is lawyers and CEOS make millions when they usually dont help an
Money is worthless ink-on-paper (or pressed metal). The way it's a reward however is that you can buy the things you want or need.
I think "needs" should not be earned, why should a person have to starve just because they get paid less than you? Everyone should get the basics.
For example, for those with kids, people tend to want to have nice things for their children.
Only about half the population has kids and this population shrinks every year due to the birth rates going down. I do not have kids, I have no problem with you working hard and making more money for your kids, but what about the world for those who do not have kids? What use is money to us besides to pay bills which seem to inflate based on our salary?
Reward the action, not the motivation. I don't care if you work hard because you're greedy or if you work hard to pay for your grandma's surgery, you deserve to be compensated for your time because it's the most valuable thing you have.
Thats nice in theory and on paper but you know this isnt what happens just like I know socialism never usually happens like it does in theory or on paper. Hard work is not the basis for salary, the people who work the hardest usually make the least amount of money. Its like like egypt, the ones who built the pyramids got crumbs while the ones who designed the pyramids and who lived in castles had 40 wives and all the money. They did the least amount of work but had all the resources so lets not try to pretend that capitalism fairly distributes resources based on merit or how hard a person works.
Bill Gates did work to earn his wealth. He worked as a sleazy lying son-of-a-bitch and stole his money. Sure, he did it within the law, but he used and abused people, knowingly. People like Bill Gates are why I hate our implementation of Capitalism. He's one of the hijackers who fuck it up for everyone else.
Yeah because Bill Gates is a greedy bastard and this is why I say the world rewards greed. Other people who work just as hard making an honest living as a construction worker, they dont make 40 billion dollars.
First, to answer as you expect, I don't believe we should get rid of inheritance because if you earn your money you ought to be able to do with it as you damn well please. Now, to elaborate and show you why I don't have to believe what you want me to to remain consistent, I believe inheritance should be vastly altered. I don't have a problem with a parent paying for their child's schooling, for example. If the parent dies before the child graduates from college, the parent's estate should be able to pay for that college (undergraduate). I also think that if those people have a low-paying job where they work hard, they ought to get some money from the estate. I mean, you want to redistribute the wealth anyway, so let's just distribute what's not in circulation, to the people who you would give it to anyway. (Those with high-paying or low-effort jobs would obviously not need their parents' money.)
Thats not capitalism, thats unfair. You see we arent talking about what I want or my opinions, we are talking about you and your opinions. You believe that no one should be entitled to anything, that everything should be earned, now if this is the case why should the daughter of Bill Gates get a free education when other people have to work to pay for school? Bill Gates daughter should not get a dime because she didnt earn it.
HELL NO! Slavery does not put them in the situation they're in.
They did all the work for around 200-300 years and recieved not a penny! No land, NOTHING. How fair is this in your pure capitalist world for someone to do all the work and never recieve a dime, when someone else, like Bill Gates can do work and his daughter inherits the wealth. If Bill Gates can pass his wealth down, decendents of slavery should be paid. If you think slavery is too long ago due to the fact that all the original slaves are dead, you can sti
If money doesn't motivated you, and you aren't greedy.. What problem do you have with capitalism?
Capitalism is Darwinistic and I am not. Also Capitalism rewards greed.
In a capitalist society you have the ability to choose a lax job where you can use the skills you've learned to make a half decent living. The problem seems to be that you are in fact greedy, and that you are very jealous. Really, what difference does it make if Bill Gates has a lot of money to you?
I'm not greedy or jealous, I just refuse to pretend like Capitalism was "fair" and I think fairness should not play a role when deciding if y ou are a Capitalist or not. If I were greedy I'd be focused on making money, but thats not my focus.
What you must understand is greedy and non greedy cannot easily co-exist. The greedy want to hog all the resources essential for survival, just because they are greedy, when a person such as a teacher or fireman cannot afford to pay their rent, shouldnt they blame the greedy Capitalists for not distributing the wealth fairly?
You apparently believe you're entitled to a lot, but you hide behind socialism and say oh I'm not greedy, it should just be mine! Yeah yeah..
I believe every living thing is entitled to the right to survive. IN Capitalism many people die so a few can live like kings, you have people starving to death in 2003, you have people dying of sickness, and you have people in this country who work at mc donalds or places such as this making minimum wage, living in trailers, and practically starving to death.
Everyone should havw the basics, thats all I'm saying, I'm not saying everyones entitled to a big screen TV, or a nice car, or even a house, but everyone should have the basics, meaning a bed to sleep in, shelter, food, education, water and health coverage.
Even these video games start people off with a backpack filled with a few things, the reason I dont like Capitalism is because I dont agree with Darwins theory that life is one big competition, I mean sure it was when we had limited resources, before we had computers and machines to do all the labor, but in 2003 theres no reason for any American to starve, there is no reason for any American to die because they cant afford a doctor.
I'd rather live in a world thats equal because everyone would have the basic rights, including the right to live. IN your world, people must earn every single thing including the right to survive and this is what I dont agree with.
What if someone wants to do community service and does not want to be a business man? they shouldnt have the right to survive? You think the mc donalds worker isnt just as important as the CEO?
Its not about being jealous, its not about greed, thats your thinking and because you can only think about yourself and your mind does not allow you to think about other people, You'll never understand my point of view.
I believe those who work hard in life deserve to be rewarded whereas those who sit around lazily deserve to be treated like the parasites they are. Some people are worth more in a given situation than others because everyone has different talents. The problem with "equality" is that for everyone to truly be equal, everyone would have to have exactly the same qualities.
Rewarded how? Money isnt a reward for everyone, not everyone can gain happiness from money.
The problem with "equality" is that for everyone to truly be equal, everyone would have to have exactly the same qualities.
Why reward Greed? You see I believe everyone is priceless, people dont have a specific "worth", everyone is worthy of survival. Sure if you work hard maybe its ok for you to make more money, but Capitalism doesnt work like that, alot of people who work the hardest have the least money, and people who sit on their ass have the most money.
I may do the most important job, but because I'm not greedy, I wont be rich, you think a teacher or fireman is important? What about construction workers and police? These are some of our most important jobs and they pay the least amount of money, so why do people do it? Because not everyone is motivated by money.
The problem with Capitalism is, its designed for the greedy and not everyone is greedy.
I also believe that everyone should be given an equal opportunity. That is to say, everyone should have a chance to work hard and get ahead. That way, the industrious are rewarded and the lazy fall behind.
The rich usually are the laziest though, why should a person be allowed to work less hard because they have money? If you truely believe what you say you also believe we should get rid of inheritance because most people who are rich were born rich, very few people actually start at the bottom and make it to the top.
I hate how people act like the poor should be propped up by the not-so-poor (because we all know the rich sure as hell won't do it!). If you want to give your money to those less fortunate than yourself, feel free, and congratulations to you. I, on the other hand, would rather provide a comfortable existance for my family than to provide that for some stranger.
Because greed is destroying the world, look the world is never going to be fair, capitalism isnt fair and socialism isnt fair, if you object to socialism because it isnt fair, you should object to capitalism for the same reason.
So are you going to support giving reparations to people whos ancestors were slaves? or how about instead you get rid of inheritance so people like George Bush and Bill Gates have to work and earn their wealth?
In my opinion money is only useful for survival, people should have strict salaries, meaning all doctors make the same, all lawyers make the same, all CEOs make the same, etc, and I also think that inheritance should be abolished, the death tax should be re-implemented to make sure people cannot inherit wealth, perhaps in this world Capitalism would start to be fair.
Right now its not fair, women and minorities make 50-75% of what white males make even when they have the same education and job title, why is this?
Why is it that white males make up 90% of all CEOs? Why do CEOs get paid such an insane amount of money when they do the least amount of work? Why do those who do the hardest most difficult work get paid the least amount of money? The construction worker should be making millions of dollars, but instead some guy in a suit in tie who sits on his ass giving orders and having meetings is making millions, is this fair?
Your Capitalist world is racist, sexist, and completely unfair, those who work the hardest always make the least amount of money under Capitalism and this is why I prefer Socialism.
We have the technology for Socialism now, everyone in America could have a home, food, healthcare, legal, you know, the absolute basics, and th
You cannot sell open source software, you sell the service of creating the software.
IF its the other sell however, I think people DO understand the concept of open source. You have all these people using Gnutella and Kazaa who understand the concept when its applied to music, so whats so hard to understand if we simply phase this into software?
introduction algebra is nothing, my problem is when you get to intermediate algebra, I just cant remember all the formulas.
Geometry is easy because you can apply this to the real world, you can even apply trig to some extent.
Upper level Algebra is the math I hate. If they'd let me pick out the math class I want to take, I'd take statistics, discrete math, combinatorics, or at least something I can actually use.
I hate intermediate algebra and precalculus, so I will avoid it at all costs, I know I'll have to eventually take it, thats why I purchased the book calculus made easy.
On the graduate level, many people do transfer from regular colleges into elite universities.
I'm not claiming to go straight to Harvard from Community college, but at the graduate level? Why not?
I'm not on an admissions committee so I don't know, but I imagine what they are looking for in a transfer applicant is one who took a heavy load of hard classes and came out with a high GPA. Those are the types of transfers who can compete on a level playfield with their current students.
What exactly is a "hard" class? Some people consider math to be an easy class. If I take a shitload of computer classes and get As in them, to me its easy but to everyone else its a "hard" class.
I dont know, I could take hard classes but I need to know which classes people consider to be hard, the only thing I have a problem with is math.
Anyway, to transfer into a state school you dont really need to worry about this, and thats where I'll most likely be after community college, and from state school I'll go to a mid level private school such as north eastern or boston university, from boston university I could transfer into havard on the graduate level.
Ok, Mechanics, but theres a limited number of mechamics in this country, the number grows smaller every year, and eventually only mexicans and people from other countries will be doing these kinds of jobs.
Truckers? Nurses? Ok I admit those jobs will be needed, but like I said before eventually there wont be a shortage or nurses or truckers as we lose more jobs, more people with degrees will become nurses and truckers.
Like I said, yes you can get a degree from a community college, you can get certified, but when it comes to actually having job security, this is where your professional degree beats out the cerfication from the community college.
The correct path, is to go to a highly regarded 4 year school, and then transfer into the private university from there.
Heck, you could get a 4.0 GPA and not transfer into any of those schools from a community college. Elite private universities take fewer than a hundred transfer students a year, and they usually get many thousands of qualified applicants - many of those from highly regarded 4-year schools. If your goal is to go to an Ivy League school, go right after high school or not at all. It's still hard, but you're probably 10x more likely to get in.
You dont go from community college straight to Harvard, you go from community college, to a state school, to an elite private school and then you go to Harvard on the graduate level.
Not trying to discourage you, just being realistic. If you don't believe me, look up the statistics for transfer students at one of those schools and see how different they are from first-year acceptance rates.
I know people who have gone to Harvard on the graduate level. You dont need to go as an undergrad, sure going as an undergrad makes it easier but on the graduate level you can transfer into most of these schools easily because not alot of people actually go to graduate school.
You can transfer into an elite private school from a state school, that stuff happens all the time, yes you need very good grades, but its a step by step process, you move up the ladder piece by piece and step by step.
You start in a community college, you do well and you transfer into a state school, you do well there and then you transfer into a private school, you do well in the private school and then you can transfer into an elite private school.
My sister has done this, so it does happen and its fairly common, its not common however to be accepted into Harvard on the undergraduate level and most people who get degrees from Harvard or any of these ivy league schools are graduate students.
The average undergrade GPA in Harvard Business School is 3.5, this is Harvards most elite school next to their law school. There around 2000 enrolled.
The Law school is extremely difficult to get in, the average GPA is 3.7 or 3.9. 13% of those who apply are accepted.
This means I have a 13% chance of getting in, if my GPA is above 3.7.
Harvard Medical school, under 1000 enrolled, EXTREMELY difficult to get into, with only 5% being accepted. Average GPA of 3.8.
So its not impossible to get into Harvard, if you have a GPA of over 3.5, like I said over and over in many of my posts. You have about a 13% chance of getting in, I think I'm one of that 13%, it may sound unrealistic, but self esteem is not one of my flaws.
Suit yourself, Hanzo. Those elite schools will pass you over for avoiding math much quicker than they will looking at your overall GPA. There is a sure-fire way to avoid that C...HARD WORK. If you aren't good in math, rather than dance around it, get some help! Tutoring and other services are usually available at Community Colleges.
According to the admissions, based on whats on their websites and documentation, a Philosophy or Liberal Arts major is not required to take calculus as a prerequisite, so why should I take it if its not required? Would it really boost me up that much ?
There is a sure-fire way to avoid that C...HARD WORK. If you aren't good in math, rather than dance around it, get some help! Tutoring and other services are usually available at Community Colleges.
I cant get tutoring because I dont have a car yet, and I dont live on campus because its community college, so this isnt an option, when I live on campus then I can get tutoring.
Perhaps you might have an undiagnosed learning disability that prevents you from "grokking" math. Again, find out about resources available to you and use them.
A learning disability is an excuse, the reason I dont get math is because math is useless, to actually suggest that someone has a learning disability because they dont get math is like me claiming anyone who cant use Linux or anyone who doesnt understand C must have a learning disability.
It is utterly impossible to get a degree, anywhere, without math. That is, unless you answer one of those many spams for U.N.I.V.E.R.S.I.T.Y D.E.G.R.E.E.S F.A.S.T. You know the ones...the ones you get in the same batch as the Nigerian Scam and "free porn passwords."
Math is a prerequisite for SCIENCE degrees only. Show me where it says you MUST take math to be accepted into any of these schools for a philosophy degree? At most I'll need to take an a linear algebra class or a pre calculus class, thats it.
One class is all you must pass in order to get a degree, and I can take this class during the summer and get a C, and get my degree. So tell me why you think it would be a good idea to take it now if none of the schools say its a requirement for acceptance?
If the schools DID say its a required class for acceptance into their philosophy program, I'd take the class, but that would delay me from transfering for another semester so I dont see a point, I think instead i will transfer out of community college into one of the 4 year colleges on the list I showed you, and then take the mathclass, when I actually LIVE on campus and no longer have to worry about traveling for over 2 hours to get to school via public transportation.
Hard work can avoid a C? Actually no it cant, it depends on how good you are at what you are doing. You can work hard and get a C, or you can breeze through a class and get an A, if you are doing something you never were taught in highschool, such as say a student who comes from another country and decided to take a college level english class, theres no way in hell they'd get an A, because they never learned English before, math is the same way, its unrealistic for me to believe I can make up for 12 years of not being taught something, simply by cramming 12 years of work into one semester.
Sure I can pass with a C, but I dont think I'd truely underst
Hahaha, your line "Buy my product" reminds me of video professor begging people to PLEASE buy his software and then trying to convince everyone how useful it is.
I've been told by my older and wiser elders that drinking a guinness per day provides protection from impotence.
I also notice that people who drink a couple of glasses of beer each day live longer. I know people who are 80, 90, 100 years old and still drinking, so it must be healthy if people can drink for 100 years with no side effects.
I know its playing a long shot but honestly its the only shot I have. "My old classmates are now moderately succesuful doctors, business people, and professors, but certainly nobody with "juice", or who could bankroll me in a business venture."
Yes but if you were lucky enough to have known Bill Gates for that one semester he was at Harvard you would be working for Microsoft right now along with his other classmates.
Luck plays a role, but Luck is all about putting yourself in situations where you can actually be lucky. My chances of being lucky increase x100 at Harvard.
I do know that maybe I wont be lucky and if I'm not at least I'll know alot of people with jobs, plus I'll have a degree from Harvard, this would help me get jobs alot easier at least.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate thought crimes, I hate when people punish thoughts.
Look, I dont like the KKK, the Nazis, and so on, and they should be public enemy #1, but they have every right to make a website and teach hate because this is what freedom is all about, its what our country is about.
Lets outlaw these sites first since both these groups have proven records of actually doing what they say in text.
I dont think all Democrats are socialist, some are, but not all of them, yes they are left wing, yes they like to spend, but Republicans like to spend as well.
The only difference is in where the money is spent, Democrats spend the money on our people, Republicans spend the money overseas on Africa, Iraq, and anywhere but over here.
If you compare the budgets, Republicans actually spend more trying to have this police state, than Democrats spend providing public schools, and other programs.
I dont have a problem with spending, I mean the rich pay most of the taxes right? Thats what all you republicans love to say, so if the Rich pay most of the taxes it means I benefit when they pay taxes which support Public Schools, Police, and other federal programs, in fact these taxes often help me get a job.
Listen to actions not words. Is the government bigger now than it was under Clinton? YES!
Are we spending more now than we spent under Clinton? YES!
The military is about 100 billion dollars bigger, then you have trillions of dollars that Bush spent, then theres the money to bailout the airline industry twice, which equals to about 40 billion dollars, plus our troops are spread all around the world as we build infastructure for other countries. The new department of homeland security another 80 billion dollars at least, the missle defense system, the new spy technology created to take advantage of the patriot act.
Tell me how anyone can say the Republicans dont want big government, Look at how big government got when Reagan was in charge during the cold war.
The republicans spend more money than the left wingers, Bush has spent more money in these 4 years than Clinton did in 8, Clinton balanced the budget, cut down spending, sure he did spend money but the money that was spent was at least spent on this country.
Bush has us providing welfare for the whole third world!!! Afganastan,Iraq,Africa, Who is next? North Korea? Iran?
We are spending money building schools, paving roads, and providing healthcare for people WHO ARENT EVEN AMERICANS!!!
I'd rather at least benefit from the spending.
This is why we need software like Freenet, the government is turning into the soviet union. These crazy maniac right winged pro mililtary republicans want to make government so big and so powerful that they can rob us of our freedoms and we can do nothing about it.
I dont like terrorism, but I dont think being anti government is any more terrorism than running a nazi or kkk website, so why is our government selecting certain people to arrest and put in jail for 20 years?
You have luis farakhan, david duke, all these others who hate large amounts of people and who hate the government.
This is the problem with censorship.
Then why do you even care that it's not fair? If it shouldn't play a role in deciding, don't bring it up.
Someone else brought it up.
You can be greedy without wanting money. Some greedy people just want to be given stuff and not money. They want you to provide everything for them instead of working for it. That's just as greedy as the guy who wants money for his lack of work.
Thats just it though, everyone works, every single person on this planet works, who gives you the right to decide how much their work is worth? shouldnt their jobs worth be equal to the worth they are to society? Which means a teacher, doctor, policeman, etc should be making more than the CEO right?
I agree totally! So, let the people who want to work harer do so. Let the people who want to just get by do so. Definitely provide the basics to someone who can't provide it for themself. On the other hand, people should have the freedom to starve if they so choose. If they're able, but too damn lazy to work, why should they be greedy and think I should support them? That's rediculous!
Thats impossible though, Mc Donalds does not pay enough to even get by. Look someone has to do these jobs, everyone should have a living wage, EVERYONE.
Let me solve this one real fast. Instead of giving people money to pay the doctor who charges more than he should just because all the doctors agree to do it, let's make the doctor charge less so the poor people can afford his services. Isn't that more fair?
No because a doctors worth to society is greater than your CEO, The doctor has one of the most difficult jobs on this planet, if not the single most difficult, the CEO should charge less, and then people would have more money to give the doctor.
Then we, as members of the community, should compensate them. Everyone who works to help others, in any capacity, deserves compensation. This is why I support capitalism over socialism. I think people should give to charities because it's the right thing to do instead of being greedy and hording their money. Just because you're a not-for-profit organization doesn't mean you shouldn't make money to use for operating expenses and for paying your employees. Frankly, I think a community service person should make more money because of their contribution.
Capitlaism doesnt support this in its current form, this is why we need to take ideas from socialism. The reason is, its not always profitable to do certain things, I mean look at music, you cannot make money from using using the traditional capitalist model, this is why theres the current problems. The whole script must be flipped, we must take ideas from socialism and apply them to certain situations, pure capitalism cannot exist just like pure socialism cannot exist.
I think about others. I give to others. I just don't want to be told who I have to give to.
Neither does Bill Gates, instead he will hoarde his Billions in cash and not give it to anyone but who he wants to give it to. Why should we allow people like him to choose who to give it to when all the evidence says they will give it to people who benefit their business and not give it to society? I think if society makes you rich, you MUST give back and I'd rather have a group of people (decentralized) decide how the money gets used, than one guy who might be greedy as hell and decide not to give it to anyone.
I support raising the taxes through the roof on guys like Bill Gates, and people like you and I, should not pay taxes at all, the tax burden should be placed on those who benefit most from society, and that money should go to improving society for everyone.
Currently this doesnt happen because there are no laws in place telling government what they can and cant spend money on, perhaps if we made a law that everything we spend money on must improve society for everyone would solve the problem.
This you could use this money to create jo
Because she'll get it if he's alive, so why shouldn't she get it just because he's dead? Piece of shit that he is, Bill Gates can do whatever the hell he wants because it's HIS money.
Thank you for making the arguement for reparations, The slaves did the work, companies stole their money, so now what do you do about it?
Alot of rich people are inherting money they stole.
That seems fair to me. If they had losses due to segregation and discrimination, then the people who hurt them owe them. However, I don't. Neither myself nor my family was part of the problem, and I don't feel any need to clean up other people's messes. Let the companies who stepped on minorities pay reparations because they owe them. Not we.
What about the government? The government stepped on them too, no appology? No money? I mean even native americans have casinos and reservations, sure its not much but its better than affirmative action.
Good plan. You get it on the ballot and I'll vote for it.
IF I tried to put that on the ballot the KKK would be burning crosses i my yard. We need to rid the country of terrorists before we can make the world fair. Everyone who tries to make the world fair from kennedy to martin luther king, seems to get shot in the head, am I the only one who notices this?
But see, how about, Thomas Payne and John Locke had the theories right on paper, and everyone for the last 200 years has fucked it up.
Yeah thats because no theory on paper is realistic . I think it will be realistic in the future when our technology reaches that point, it already is realistic enough to work on the internet, this is why peer to peer works, peer to peer is socialism but it works, open source is socialism but it still works, my P2P idea to improve the situation for musician is simple, make P2P capitalism again, give music a value again, you see the idea on my journal.
But you see we can have pure socialism on the internet, and when we have nano technology, we should be able to have pure socialism, if we dont go to pure socialism the class warfare and terrorism will rip this country apart, the rich and poor are being divided so much that there will someday be a war over this if we keep favoring the rich in all areas of government, corperate life, and education.
Dude, that's not socialism. That's fairness and justice. That shouldn't require socialism as long as the woman or minority does the same job, and does it as well as I do. I think you should get paid based on 1. what job you do, and 2. how well you do it. That seems fair to me. Though, I also think it should just be setup in Pay Grades in each company (like the military has, so you can have ranks/titles at the same pay grade). Then, companies can compete, and people can choose whose salary/benefit package fits them best.
Ok I actually agree with you. I just dont like when I hear that my mother (single parent) makes less money than you do, just because shes a woman. When women are making only 75% of the salary of a male when they have the exact same title, something is wrong.
I agree! I just think that everyone who does something useful (including art, music, etc... anything that benefits society in any way) should be paid enough to take care of their needs. I think people who help more should make more, actually. I know they don't really want it necessarily, but they deserve it. We owe it to them!
But the world is not like this, I'd love to be a musician, but guess what, its not a very profitable field, and until our government uses tax dollars to fund these kinds of fields, alot of people who would be musicians will be poor and homeless.
I agree people who help more should make more, but the current system is ridiculous, you see I'm motivated by how much I help and I would agree with capitalism if it rewarded people based on how much they help, the problem is lawyers and CEOS make millions when they usually dont help an
Money is worthless ink-on-paper (or pressed metal). The way it's a reward however is that you can buy the things you want or need.
I think "needs" should not be earned, why should a person have to starve just because they get paid less than you? Everyone should get the basics.
For example, for those with kids, people tend to want to have nice things for their children.
Only about half the population has kids and this population shrinks every year due to the birth rates going down. I do not have kids, I have no problem with you working hard and making more money for your kids, but what about the world for those who do not have kids? What use is money to us besides to pay bills which seem to inflate based on our salary?
Reward the action, not the motivation. I don't care if you work hard because you're greedy or if you work hard to pay for your grandma's surgery, you deserve to be compensated for your time because it's the most valuable thing you have.
Thats nice in theory and on paper but you know this isnt what happens just like I know socialism never usually happens like it does in theory or on paper. Hard work is not the basis for salary, the people who work the hardest usually make the least amount of money. Its like like egypt, the ones who built the pyramids got crumbs while the ones who designed the pyramids and who lived in castles had 40 wives and all the money. They did the least amount of work but had all the resources so lets not try to pretend that capitalism fairly distributes resources based on merit or how hard a person works.
Bill Gates did work to earn his wealth. He worked as a sleazy lying son-of-a-bitch and stole his money. Sure, he did it within the law, but he used and abused people, knowingly. People like Bill Gates are why I hate our implementation of Capitalism. He's one of the hijackers who fuck it up for everyone else.
Yeah because Bill Gates is a greedy bastard and this is why I say the world rewards greed. Other people who work just as hard making an honest living as a construction worker, they dont make 40 billion dollars.
First, to answer as you expect, I don't believe we should get rid of inheritance because if you earn your money you ought to be able to do with it as you damn well please. Now, to elaborate and show you why I don't have to believe what you want me to to remain consistent, I believe inheritance should be vastly altered. I don't have a problem with a parent paying for their child's schooling, for example. If the parent dies before the child graduates from college, the parent's estate should be able to pay for that college (undergraduate). I also think that if those people have a low-paying job where they work hard, they ought to get some money from the estate. I mean, you want to redistribute the wealth anyway, so let's just distribute what's not in circulation, to the people who you would give it to anyway. (Those with high-paying or low-effort jobs would obviously not need their parents' money.)
Thats not capitalism, thats unfair. You see we arent talking about what I want or my opinions, we are talking about you and your opinions. You believe that no one should be entitled to anything, that everything should be earned, now if this is the case why should the daughter of Bill Gates get a free education when other people have to work to pay for school? Bill Gates daughter should not get a dime because she didnt earn it.
HELL NO! Slavery does not put them in the situation they're in.
They did all the work for around 200-300 years and recieved not a penny! No land, NOTHING. How fair is this in your pure capitalist world for someone to do all the work and never recieve a dime, when someone else, like Bill Gates can do work and his daughter inherits the wealth. If Bill Gates can pass his wealth down, decendents of slavery should be paid. If you think slavery is too long ago due to the fact that all the original slaves are dead, you can sti
If money doesn't motivated you, and you aren't greedy.. What problem do you have with capitalism?
Capitalism is Darwinistic and I am not. Also Capitalism rewards greed.
In a capitalist society you have the ability to choose a lax job where you can use the skills you've learned to make a half decent living. The problem seems to be that you are in fact greedy, and that you are very jealous. Really, what difference does it make if Bill Gates has a lot of money to you?
I'm not greedy or jealous, I just refuse to pretend like Capitalism was "fair" and I think fairness should not play a role when deciding if y ou are a Capitalist or not. If I were greedy I'd be focused on making money, but thats not my focus.
What you must understand is greedy and non greedy cannot easily co-exist. The greedy want to hog all the resources essential for survival, just because they are greedy, when a person such as a teacher or fireman cannot afford to pay their rent, shouldnt they blame the greedy Capitalists for not distributing the wealth fairly?
You apparently believe you're entitled to a lot, but you hide behind socialism and say oh I'm not greedy, it should just be mine! Yeah yeah..
I believe every living thing is entitled to the right to survive. IN Capitalism many people die so a few can live like kings, you have people starving to death in 2003, you have people dying of sickness, and you have people in this country who work at mc donalds or places such as this making minimum wage, living in trailers, and practically starving to death.
Everyone should havw the basics, thats all I'm saying, I'm not saying everyones entitled to a big screen TV, or a nice car, or even a house, but everyone should have the basics, meaning a bed to sleep in, shelter, food, education, water and health coverage.
Even these video games start people off with a backpack filled with a few things, the reason I dont like Capitalism is because I dont agree with Darwins theory that life is one big competition, I mean sure it was when we had limited resources, before we had computers and machines to do all the labor, but in 2003 theres no reason for any American to starve, there is no reason for any American to die because they cant afford a doctor.
I'd rather live in a world thats equal because everyone would have the basic rights, including the right to live. IN your world, people must earn every single thing including the right to survive and this is what I dont agree with.
What if someone wants to do community service and does not want to be a business man? they shouldnt have the right to survive? You think the mc donalds worker isnt just as important as the CEO?
Its not about being jealous, its not about greed, thats your thinking and because you can only think about yourself and your mind does not allow you to think about other people, You'll never understand my point of view.
I believe those who work hard in life deserve to be rewarded whereas those who sit around lazily deserve to be treated like the parasites they are. Some people are worth more in a given situation than others because everyone has different talents. The problem with "equality" is that for everyone to truly be equal, everyone would have to have exactly the same qualities.
Rewarded how? Money isnt a reward for everyone, not everyone can gain happiness from money.
The problem with "equality" is that for everyone to truly be equal, everyone would have to have exactly the same qualities.
Why reward Greed? You see I believe everyone is priceless, people dont have a specific "worth", everyone is worthy of survival. Sure if you work hard maybe its ok for you to make more money, but Capitalism doesnt work like that, alot of people who work the hardest have the least money, and people who sit on their ass have the most money.
I may do the most important job, but because I'm not greedy, I wont be rich, you think a teacher or fireman is important? What about construction workers and police? These are some of our most important jobs and they pay the least amount of money, so why do people do it? Because not everyone is motivated by money.
The problem with Capitalism is, its designed for the greedy and not everyone is greedy.
I also believe that everyone should be given an equal opportunity. That is to say, everyone should have a chance to work hard and get ahead. That way, the industrious are rewarded and the lazy fall behind.
The rich usually are the laziest though, why should a person be allowed to work less hard because they have money? If you truely believe what you say you also believe we should get rid of inheritance because most people who are rich were born rich, very few people actually start at the bottom and make it to the top.
I hate how people act like the poor should be propped up by the not-so-poor (because we all know the rich sure as hell won't do it!). If you want to give your money to those less fortunate than yourself, feel free, and congratulations to you. I, on the other hand, would rather provide a comfortable existance for my family than to provide that for some stranger.
Because greed is destroying the world, look the world is never going to be fair, capitalism isnt fair and socialism isnt fair, if you object to socialism because it isnt fair, you should object to capitalism for the same reason.
So are you going to support giving reparations to people whos ancestors were slaves? or how about instead you get rid of inheritance so people like George Bush and Bill Gates have to work and earn their wealth?
In my opinion money is only useful for survival, people should have strict salaries, meaning all doctors make the same, all lawyers make the same, all CEOs make the same, etc, and I also think that inheritance should be abolished, the death tax should be re-implemented to make sure people cannot inherit wealth, perhaps in this world Capitalism would start to be fair.
Right now its not fair, women and minorities make 50-75% of what white males make even when they have the same education and job title, why is this?
Why is it that white males make up 90% of all CEOs? Why do CEOs get paid such an insane amount of money when they do the least amount of work? Why do those who do the hardest most difficult work get paid the least amount of money? The construction worker should be making millions of dollars, but instead some guy in a suit in tie who sits on his ass giving orders and having meetings is making millions, is this fair?
Your Capitalist world is racist, sexist, and completely unfair, those who work the hardest always make the least amount of money under Capitalism and this is why I prefer Socialism.
We have the technology for Socialism now, everyone in America could have a home, food, healthcare, legal, you know, the absolute basics, and th
I am a communist yes, whats wrong with communism or socialism? I believe everyone should be equal, I am not a darwinist capitalist pig.
Why dont you go to college campuses and give out Linux?
Anyway I dont thin linux is something you "sell" as a product though.
You cannot sell open source software, you sell the service of creating the software.
IF its the other sell however, I think people DO understand the concept of open source. You have all these people using Gnutella and Kazaa who understand the concept when its applied to music, so whats so hard to understand if we simply phase this into software?
I wonder why theres no P2P Linux Operating System
introduction algebra is nothing, my problem is when you get to intermediate algebra, I just cant remember all the formulas.
Geometry is easy because you can apply this to the real world, you can even apply trig to some extent.
Upper level Algebra is the math I hate. If they'd let me pick out the math class I want to take, I'd take statistics, discrete math, combinatorics, or at least something I can actually use.
I hate intermediate algebra and precalculus, so I will avoid it at all costs, I know I'll have to eventually take it, thats why I purchased the book calculus made easy.
On the graduate level, many people do transfer from regular colleges into elite universities.
I'm not claiming to go straight to Harvard from Community college, but at the graduate level? Why not?
I'm not on an admissions committee so I don't know, but I imagine what they are looking for in a transfer applicant is one who took a heavy load of hard classes and came out with a high GPA. Those are the types of transfers who can compete on a level playfield with their current students.
What exactly is a "hard" class? Some people consider math to be an easy class. If I take a shitload of computer classes and get As in them, to me its easy but to everyone else its a "hard" class.
I dont know, I could take hard classes but I need to know which classes people consider to be hard, the only thing I have a problem with is math.
Anyway, to transfer into a state school you dont really need to worry about this, and thats where I'll most likely be after community college, and from state school I'll go to a mid level private school such as north eastern or boston university, from boston university I could transfer into havard on the graduate level.
Ok, Mechanics, but theres a limited number of mechamics in this country, the number grows smaller every year, and eventually only mexicans and people from other countries will be doing these kinds of jobs.
Truckers? Nurses? Ok I admit those jobs will be needed, but like I said before eventually there wont be a shortage or nurses or truckers as we lose more jobs, more people with degrees will become nurses and truckers.
Like I said, yes you can get a degree from a community college, you can get certified, but when it comes to actually having job security, this is where your professional degree beats out the cerfication from the community college.
The correct path, is to go to a highly regarded 4 year school, and then transfer into the private university from there.
Heck, you could get a 4.0 GPA and not transfer into any of those schools from a community college. Elite private universities take fewer than a hundred transfer students a year, and they usually get many thousands of qualified applicants - many of those from highly regarded 4-year schools. If your goal is to go to an Ivy League school, go right after high school or not at all. It's still hard, but you're probably 10x more likely to get in.
You dont go from community college straight to Harvard, you go from community college, to a state school, to an elite private school and then you go to Harvard on the graduate level.
Not trying to discourage you, just being realistic. If you don't believe me, look up the statistics for transfer students at one of those schools and see how different they are from first-year acceptance rates.
I know people who have gone to Harvard on the graduate level. You dont need to go as an undergrad, sure going as an undergrad makes it easier but on the graduate level you can transfer into most of these schools easily because not alot of people actually go to graduate school.
You can transfer into an elite private school from a state school, that stuff happens all the time, yes you need very good grades, but its a step by step process, you move up the ladder piece by piece and step by step.
You start in a community college, you do well and you transfer into a state school, you do well there and then you transfer into a private school, you do well in the private school and then you can transfer into an elite private school.
My sister has done this, so it does happen and its fairly common, its not common however to be accepted into Harvard on the undergraduate level and most people who get degrees from Harvard or any of these ivy league schools are graduate students.
The average undergrade GPA in Harvard Business School is 3.5, this is Harvards most elite school next to their law school. There around 2000 enrolled.
The Law school is extremely difficult to get in, the average GPA is 3.7 or 3.9. 13% of those who apply are accepted.
This means I have a 13% chance of getting in, if my GPA is above 3.7.
Harvard Medical school, under 1000 enrolled, EXTREMELY difficult to get into, with only 5% being accepted. Average GPA of 3.8.
So its not impossible to get into Harvard, if you have a GPA of over 3.5, like I said over and over in many of my posts. You have about a 13% chance of getting in, I think I'm one of that 13%, it may sound unrealistic, but self esteem is not one of my flaws.
Suit yourself, Hanzo. Those elite schools will pass you over for avoiding math much quicker than they will looking at your overall GPA. There is a sure-fire way to avoid that C...HARD WORK. If you aren't good in math, rather than dance around it, get some help! Tutoring and other services are usually available at Community Colleges.
According to the admissions, based on whats on their websites and documentation, a Philosophy or Liberal Arts major is not required to take calculus as a prerequisite, so why should I take it if its not required? Would it really boost me up that much ?
There is a sure-fire way to avoid that C...HARD WORK. If you aren't good in math, rather than dance around it, get some help! Tutoring and other services are usually available at Community Colleges.
I cant get tutoring because I dont have a car yet, and I dont live on campus because its community college, so this isnt an option, when I live on campus then I can get tutoring.
Perhaps you might have an undiagnosed learning disability that prevents you from "grokking" math. Again, find out about resources available to you and use them.
A learning disability is an excuse, the reason I dont get math is because math is useless, to actually suggest that someone has a learning disability because they dont get math is like me claiming anyone who cant use Linux or anyone who doesnt understand C must have a learning disability.
It is utterly impossible to get a degree, anywhere, without math. That is, unless you answer one of those many spams for U.N.I.V.E.R.S.I.T.Y D.E.G.R.E.E.S F.A.S.T. You know the ones...the ones you get in the same batch as the Nigerian Scam and "free porn passwords."
Ok, check out some of these sites, look under "philosophy" as the major, and tell me where it says you need to take calculus to get a degree in philosophy.
http://www.bu.edu/
http://www.northeastern.edu/
http://www.bc.edu/
http://www.tufts.edu/
http://www.hampshire.edu/flash/index.php
http://www.amherst.edu/
http://www.umass.edu/
Math is a prerequisite for SCIENCE degrees only. Show me where it says you MUST take math to be accepted into any of these schools for a philosophy degree? At most I'll need to take an a linear algebra class or a pre calculus class, thats it.
One class is all you must pass in order to get a degree, and I can take this class during the summer and get a C, and get my degree. So tell me why you think it would be a good idea to take it now if none of the schools say its a requirement for acceptance?
If the schools DID say its a required class for acceptance into their philosophy program, I'd take the class, but that would delay me from transfering for another semester so I dont see a point, I think instead i will transfer out of community college into one of the 4 year colleges on the list I showed you, and then take the mathclass, when I actually LIVE on campus and no longer have to worry about traveling for over 2 hours to get to school via public transportation.
Hard work can avoid a C? Actually no it cant, it depends on how good you are at what you are doing. You can work hard and get a C, or you can breeze through a class and get an A, if you are doing something you never were taught in highschool, such as say a student who comes from another country and decided to take a college level english class, theres no way in hell they'd get an A, because they never learned English before, math is the same way, its unrealistic for me to believe I can make up for 12 years of not being taught something, simply by cramming 12 years of work into one semester.
Sure I can pass with a C, but I dont think I'd truely underst
So why care about copyright law that only a few people (usually not even the creators) own.
Hahaha, your line "Buy my product" reminds me of video professor begging people to PLEASE buy his software and then trying to convince everyone how useful it is.
Or so I've been told.
But even if it doesnt, drinking alcohol also lessens your chance of heart attack.
I've been told by my older and wiser elders that drinking a guinness per day provides protection from impotence.
I also notice that people who drink a couple of glasses of beer each day live longer. I know people who are 80, 90, 100 years old and still drinking, so it must be healthy if people can drink for 100 years with no side effects.
Just dont drink too much.
I know its playing a long shot but honestly its the only shot I have.
"My old classmates are now moderately succesuful doctors, business people, and professors, but certainly nobody with "juice", or who could bankroll me in a business venture."
Yes but if you were lucky enough to have known Bill Gates for that one semester he was at Harvard you would be working for Microsoft right now along with his other classmates.
Luck plays a role, but Luck is all about putting yourself in situations where you can actually be lucky. My chances of being lucky increase x100 at Harvard.
I do know that maybe I wont be lucky and if I'm not at least I'll know alot of people with jobs, plus I'll have a degree from Harvard, this would help me get jobs alot easier at least.