I want to add something to yours too... going for quick short bursts of money is what brings the downfall of a lot of people. Take school for an example, there are people who have the flexibility to choose to work in low paying jobs and work your ass off in school in the hopes for a better future and yet they choose to find a "well" paying job right away and pretty much dump school aside. Sure, at the moment they may seem on top of the world as they do little work to make more money than their fellow peers, but in the long run, these people would still be close around the bottom and the people who worked hard both ways would make a lot more money when they finally graduated and worked over 15 jobs before. Besides that, there is a better benefit from working smaller jobs, you seem to meet interesting people who actually care and remember you and are also on their road to success. If you opt for big business, most likely they won't care about you or the job you are doing as long as you finish it and fast. Where as in smaller businesses, you are usually in contact with someone higher up. Who knows if in the next ten years the person with the smaller print job may become a significantly larger company. If I were to choose to work on 5 new very potentially positive companies or one large one, I would choose the small ones. For the large ones, they would just automatically switch to another firm if they offered better prices no matter how long you worked for them; in the smaller cases, these people would just stay with you cause you helped them out and there may be other personal side benefits(scratch my back, scratch your back). In my personal example, I was reluctant to work in a small pharmacy with relatively lower pay compared to my other friends but then I found out the networking of people that I met in the pharmacy was far greater: there was a lifer who worked there when he was in school and despite now working fulltime with Merrill Lynch, he still works in the pharmacy. Also, most of the sons, daughters, nieces and nephews are students coming out of Med school or Pharm school or already out and I have been in close contact with them from the small and comfortable atmosphere in the pharmacy. Not only that, these people are fresh out of University and show amazing potential on becoming something bigger; knowing these people in the beginning of their slow accent upwards. Also, the customers that I talked to and who regularly frequent the pharmacy also have links.
Who knows what they will be when I finally graduate from university 10 years from now out of Med school. I like throwing my chips into a bunch of small highly promising people then one large and ignorant client. Who knows if your small job regular customer eventually became a CEO of a corporation.
P.S. where do i find a mechanic like you around my neighbourhood
You put up a great point. Look towards Hong Kong's music industry, for instance. Piracy has become a very strong industry in Hong Kong and pretty much the counterfeit capital of the world. In dealing with that, the music industry there sells CDs with a bunch of other things in it too. Along with your standard CD case and CD you get thick picture books (sometimes), huge as artistic boxes and usually a compiment of music video on either DVD or VCD and something I wish N. American music industry would do, legitimate Karaoke with legitimate music videos on the background. Most of the consumers are fans who love the artists enough to buy everything and anything that is associated with it. I am pretty sure you know these crazed fans and probably been on yourself. Most mp3 dls are for artists who have a few songs you like and not all. Once you love most of there songs and appreciate the artist, it becomes an almost ritualistic fan reflex to buy everything with their name on it.
So put a lot of BS along with the CDs and fans will buy it, but regular one or few songs listeners won't.
um... i am not sure, but what about the fact that everyone can get the common cold but not everyone can get a car (or be around one long enough to get killed by it).
ohh.... that was what you meant, but from your last paragraph the phrase:
"...Second Amendment was to protect the regime both from outside and inside dangers, that it's worked for over two centuries so far and that it's something unheard of in modern history."
made it sound like the 2nd amendment has protected the U.S. citizens threats in the past wonderfully and that simple fact made the U.S.A.s history far more superior then other countries' because of the addition of the 2nd Amendment.
Besides that, I have been reading up on U.S. history and found a list of U.S. conflicts in the past, which gave me the basis in searching for the events of the U.S.-Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. From what I have read so far the U.S., having the ideology of a "manifest destiny", was close to a colonial state as it tries to "embrace other countries into its loving arms" so to speak. With this in mind, it seems that the U.S. had no direct outside threat that needed protecting against, in which the 2nd amendment was put to use but an inside conflict: the civil war. Some can say that the Civil war might not have been as long and bloody as it was if the there wasn't a 2nd amendment since in this case the 2nd amendment was used to protect the citizens from the same threat which strenthened because of the 2nd amendment. That meant that the 2nd Amendment was "improperly" from what the Founding Fathers intended it for by being used by people who benefitted from the tyrannical control of slaves, which was abolished by the government, instead of being used to defend against a tyrannical government.
If what I wrote was true (and please correct me if I am wrong) the 2nd amendment did not "work" to protect the U.S. from outside threat because it did not have an outside threat to protect itself against. In the Civil War's case, the 2nd amendment protected people from itself which makes it seem more redundant and being worst instead of superior and helped lengthened what could of been a shorter war if the citizens did not have a strong bond to own a weapon because it was a constutionally protected right. This is all based of course on your original statement that it "...it's worked...." before protecting the U.S.
I am interested in your point of view being a resident (I believe) of the U.S. Thanks.
BTW, I just like to say that I dislike the post which are not insightful and has an insulting, close-minded mood. This devoids the purpose of a debate.
Heh, this is funny, here in Canada the left wing parties are so far left that the right wing parties here are more left then your left wing party. Although have more then two official parties, it actually allows us more range and gives people a chance to pick a middle of the two farthest sides.
I know your post was a intended as sarcasm but I just wanted to point out something, how come Americans use the word "liberal" as though it meant supremely biased people, when if you look it up in the dictionary, the word liberal means "free of bigotry", and "tolerant of the ideas and behaviour of others". Why so is it usually used as and insult by most Republican supporting Americans in the U.S. as an insult? Being outside of the U.S., I am a little confused.
hmm... you have a good point on your second to last paragraph. If a looter didn't have the right of arms and was not allowed to keep a small, portable, concealable, point-blank pistol, it would make it harder for the person to obtain the weapon lowering the percentage of break-ins (in theory) because it becomes more difficult to for a looter to hold or invade a property with a melee weapon than a weapon such as a pistol. The looter would have to get up close to enforce their will give the defender a better chance of disarment then would a gun since the looter does not have to be very close to enforce their will.
hmmm... and also... it is a lot easier to get into a property with a gun then a knife. If a looter knocks on the window and someone takes a look the homeowner is already held at gunpoint, whereas, if a looter knocks on a window holding only a knife, the homeowner would just laugh and call the police after laughing.
Imagine the U.N. giving the right to malevolent states to bears relatively the same arms as benevolent states (comparing in context to a malevolent person versus a benevolent person), those malevolent states would have access to the same nuclear warheads as the U.S. along with the same type. Even though there may be more benevolent states with more money, (like benevolent people with more money) the whole world would be under very tense and stressful situations a lot worse then now with weak innocent states already invaded.
This makes me wonder, does an average American feel the same tense situation knowing that their invader has the same access to the same weapons like how the U.S.A. would feel if Saddam had equal rights to the same weaponry the U.S.A. has just so that Saddam can defend against the huge threat of an Alien invasion.
Since I am not American and obviously did not learn about America history (besides what I persue to learn), what were the outside threats to the U.S.A. in it history after the signing of the constitution. I've heard of the civil war and the U.S.A.s couple of invasion plans of other countries but no threat outside of the country.
If you can give a brief history lesson, I'll appreciate learning a little about my neighbour to the south. Thanks.
Thanks for the information about after the first Gulf War and I haven't heard of it since I was still pretty young when the Gulf war started and ended but if possible, can you provide a link on the internet for an article about the evidence of WMD after the first Gulf War. BTW, personally I have no problem getting rid of Saddam but the reason that was first use for his removal and the style was a little drastic. I am just suspicious that the current administration went after Iraq stating that it was to go after terrorists at first and then stating that they are going after the WMD second and then finally saying that it was to liberate the people when most of the world disagree with it. Also, I find it pretty odd that Iraq could pose a larger threat to the United States, since its armed froces was and is greatly inferior to the U.S. (which is hard to find an example of a country that isn't),and has its own internal problems, when compared to another country such as North Korea which has a stronger armed forces, admitted having WMD and threatened the U.S. with it, and has been caught shipping SCUDs to the Middle East under "suspicious" conditions. North Korea already has the direct capability of spreading WMDs and has not heeded a single bit to any warnings from the world, whereas Saddam did let the inspectors go in, and yet Iraq was the worlds largest threat to peace. Saddam should be removed and was but... it is the hidden motives of the current administration that worries me and a lot of other people.
"The guerilla actions taking place in Iraq are Baath party "security" or Republican Guards forces with nothing to loose, they will probably be the first lined up and shot by the new government once it get's established. Or they desparate people who will do anything for some money"
Isnt haven't nothing to lose and being a desperate person a pretty good description of an extreme terrorist? Saddam's regime has fallen already so technically speaking, they are either rebels or terrorists. Thus, terrorists are created.
They found WMD? When? From what I am reading so far the U.S. is no closer to finding WMDs then it was before. From what I have read, unless you can provide us with a link stating the justification, most, if not all, the Iraqi scientists interrogated have totally denied of a WMD program by the Baath regime. You'd think being interrogated for a long period of time with the assistance of the CIA would squeeze something out by now.
Also, when will the U.S. invade Russia, it already has nuclear weapons and are in a very large threat of going into the wrong hands with Russia's state right now.
BTW, this is to both sides of the argument: insulting someone doesn't help out the argument.
The last I checked, the U.S. was needed and was wanted by the Europeans to help them and finally got into the war after waiting until most of Europe was destroyed, in both cases.
Also.... Germany was a real and immediate threat to the U.S. being the world's most industrialized nation before the war and full out invasion capabilities and remember... the "treaties" and foreign policies after WW1 created dissent and hatred for the rest of the world, just like less aggressive yet strong foreign policies now by the U.S. help spread dissent, which allow for Hitler to manipulate Germany to start WW2.
Germany was left to rot and die after WW1 and look what happened as a result. If we can learn anything... letting poorer countries suffer doesn't help the richer countries. If money was spent beforehand to support the country, void of war, dictators would not have risen and a strong capable economy would be sustain just like Germany and Japan after WW2.
yes, that way they can make you pay more if you want faster access. Notice the prices for internet access?
If a private company was willing to spend thousands of dollars just to dig a fibre optics line to a single farmhouse in the middle of nowhere to provide very low priced service in nearly unlimiting, high bandwidth ways, I'd love it. Oh, wait that would mean that they would not be making the money back until over a century later. Then again, they wouldn't make much back at all since by about 30 years later the government might provide everyone with free cheap basic WiFi just like the countless highways.
Oh ya, the Canadian government was planning to connect all of Canada with broadband connection but it didn't go forth due to people insisting on tax-cuts. (no link at the moment since Industry Canada's is no functioning properly at the moment)
yes... and all the children will be ignored and drown in the butter as both invading and defending forces duke it out with there ever deadly butterknives.
Just to repeat the echoes of past posts... when presenting facts, please provide us with links and resources. You might be right about what you are talking about but without the references... it just sounds like you BSing... no offence.
It usually depends on how you use them. A lot of countries actually have there weapons for self-defense and rarely having any military confrontation. I don't disagree with using it for self-defense but I haven't of attacking someone first as a form of self-defense. That is why I don't like the idea of pre-emptive strikes. If you take the scenario of getting them before they might slightly or rarely has a chance or thought of attacking the us to a schoolyard scenario, it would be like walking around and punching or beating the crap out of every kid who either dislikes you, gave you a bad look, or has the capability to just hurting you a bit just to "eliminate the eminent threat". For some reason that sounds more closer to a bully then a peacekeeper.
Living life with fear is mostly a good thing that can protect us and prepares us for trouble, when it comes but living with paranoia.... thats a different story.
I didn't see that, since probably I was not born yet, but then it seems very funny that the US would then support Saddam with money, weapon and training during the Iran-Iraq war, in turn, giving him more power by force.
First of all.... if possible, provide a link to your argument about the premium clinic
In your paragragh about freedom, you must certainly realize that freedom is not absolute and the freedom and rights goes as so far as to not infringe on others freedom and rights and... how is regulating a certain private business endeavors power hungry when most other endeavors in business are allowed. I am not sure about your view but usually when the operating something to create a profit and making money seems closer to being controlled by the power hungry not a scientifically literate. The only way to making more money provides more power and power creates more money, e.g. monopolies. I have no problem with companies starting up to provides goods and services to peoples' "wants" but when it becomes less positive when it effects your "needs".
In the case of goverment of Canada not allowing a private clinic to start up... the government just does not want the risk of opening the floodgates in allowing healthcare and a lot of it basic a larger services to be available for people with a lot of money. Also... this takes away trained professionals from an already shortstaffed medical community which could of provided free basic service for the entirety of the public and place them to provide premium service for the monetary and social elite. IMO, it seems more that the government fears of losing professionals and furthur lengthening the waiting process for everyone, so that a few people with the money can get their needed (and sometimes unneeded) sevices done quicker and faster (such as MRIs) then brutally flexing its power hungry muscles.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to add something to yours too... going for quick short bursts of money is what brings the downfall of a lot of people. Take school for an example, there are people who have the flexibility to choose to work in low paying jobs and work your ass off in school in the hopes for a better future and yet they choose to find a "well" paying job right away and pretty much dump school aside. Sure, at the moment they may seem on top of the world as they do little work to make more money than their fellow peers, but in the long run, these people would still be close around the bottom and the people who worked hard both ways would make a lot more money when they finally graduated and worked over 15 jobs before. Besides that, there is a better benefit from working smaller jobs, you seem to meet interesting people who actually care and remember you and are also on their road to success. If you opt for big business, most likely they won't care about you or the job you are doing as long as you finish it and fast. Where as in smaller businesses, you are usually in contact with someone higher up. Who knows if in the next ten years the person with the smaller print job may become a significantly larger company. If I were to choose to work on 5 new very potentially positive companies or one large one, I would choose the small ones. For the large ones, they would just automatically switch to another firm if they offered better prices no matter how long you worked for them; in the smaller cases, these people would just stay with you cause you helped them out and there may be other personal side benefits(scratch my back, scratch your back). In my personal example, I was reluctant to work in a small pharmacy with relatively lower pay compared to my other friends but then I found out the networking of people that I met in the pharmacy was far greater: there was a lifer who worked there when he was in school and despite now working fulltime with Merrill Lynch, he still works in the pharmacy. Also, most of the sons, daughters, nieces and nephews are students coming out of Med school or Pharm school or already out and I have been in close contact with them from the small and comfortable atmosphere in the pharmacy. Not only that, these people are fresh out of University and show amazing potential on becoming something bigger; knowing these people in the beginning of their slow accent upwards. Also, the customers that I talked to and who regularly frequent the pharmacy also have links. Who knows what they will be when I finally graduate from university 10 years from now out of Med school. I like throwing my chips into a bunch of small highly promising people then one large and ignorant client. Who knows if your small job regular customer eventually became a CEO of a corporation. P.S. where do i find a mechanic like you around my neighbourhood
You put up a great point. Look towards Hong Kong's music industry, for instance. Piracy has become a very strong industry in Hong Kong and pretty much the counterfeit capital of the world. In dealing with that, the music industry there sells CDs with a bunch of other things in it too. Along with your standard CD case and CD you get thick picture books (sometimes), huge as artistic boxes and usually a compiment of music video on either DVD or VCD and something I wish N. American music industry would do, legitimate Karaoke with legitimate music videos on the background. Most of the consumers are fans who love the artists enough to buy everything and anything that is associated with it. I am pretty sure you know these crazed fans and probably been on yourself. Most mp3 dls are for artists who have a few songs you like and not all. Once you love most of there songs and appreciate the artist, it becomes an almost ritualistic fan reflex to buy everything with their name on it. So put a lot of BS along with the CDs and fans will buy it, but regular one or few songs listeners won't.
umm.... Canada has nuclear plants and I don't think we have any military use for them...at the moment
I am pretty sure that not all people can afford the choice of buying an SUV.
um... i am not sure, but what about the fact that everyone can get the common cold but not everyone can get a car (or be around one long enough to get killed by it).
lol, being the 2nd largest land mass (second to Russis) with the worlds longest coastline, how can anyone possibly find Canada?
"...Second Amendment was to protect the regime both from outside and inside dangers, that it's worked for over two centuries so far and that it's something unheard of in modern history."
made it sound like the 2nd amendment has protected the U.S. citizens threats in the past wonderfully and that simple fact made the U.S.A.s history far more superior then other countries' because of the addition of the 2nd Amendment.Besides that, I have been reading up on U.S. history and found a list of U.S. conflicts in the past, which gave me the basis in searching for the events of the U.S.-Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. From what I have read so far the U.S., having the ideology of a "manifest destiny", was close to a colonial state as it tries to "embrace other countries into its loving arms" so to speak. With this in mind, it seems that the U.S. had no direct outside threat that needed protecting against, in which the 2nd amendment was put to use but an inside conflict: the civil war. Some can say that the Civil war might not have been as long and bloody as it was if the there wasn't a 2nd amendment since in this case the 2nd amendment was used to protect the citizens from the same threat which strenthened because of the 2nd amendment. That meant that the 2nd Amendment was "improperly" from what the Founding Fathers intended it for by being used by people who benefitted from the tyrannical control of slaves, which was abolished by the government, instead of being used to defend against a tyrannical government.
If what I wrote was true (and please correct me if I am wrong) the 2nd amendment did not "work" to protect the U.S. from outside threat because it did not have an outside threat to protect itself against. In the Civil War's case, the 2nd amendment protected people from itself which makes it seem more redundant and being worst instead of superior and helped lengthened what could of been a shorter war if the citizens did not have a strong bond to own a weapon because it was a constutionally protected right. This is all based of course on your original statement that it "...it's worked...." before protecting the U.S.
I am interested in your point of view being a resident (I believe) of the U.S. Thanks.
BTW, I just like to say that I dislike the post which are not insightful and has an insulting, close-minded mood. This devoids the purpose of a debate.
Heh, this is funny, here in Canada the left wing parties are so far left that the right wing parties here are more left then your left wing party. Although have more then two official parties, it actually allows us more range and gives people a chance to pick a middle of the two farthest sides.
I know your post was a intended as sarcasm but I just wanted to point out something, how come Americans use the word "liberal" as though it meant supremely biased people, when if you look it up in the dictionary, the word liberal means "free of bigotry", and "tolerant of the ideas and behaviour of others". Why so is it usually used as and insult by most Republican supporting Americans in the U.S. as an insult? Being outside of the U.S., I am a little confused.
Imagine the U.N. giving the right to malevolent states to bears relatively the same arms as benevolent states (comparing in context to a malevolent person versus a benevolent person), those malevolent states would have access to the same nuclear warheads as the U.S. along with the same type. Even though there may be more benevolent states with more money, (like benevolent people with more money) the whole world would be under very tense and stressful situations a lot worse then now with weak innocent states already invaded.
This makes me wonder, does an average American feel the same tense situation knowing that their invader has the same access to the same weapons like how the U.S.A. would feel if Saddam had equal rights to the same weaponry the U.S.A. has just so that Saddam can defend against the huge threat of an Alien invasion.
If you can give a brief history lesson, I'll appreciate learning a little about my neighbour to the south. Thanks.
SCUD shipment
Isnt haven't nothing to lose and being a desperate person a pretty good description of an extreme terrorist? Saddam's regime has fallen already so technically speaking, they are either rebels or terrorists. Thus, terrorists are created.
Also, when will the U.S. invade Russia, it already has nuclear weapons and are in a very large threat of going into the wrong hands with Russia's state right now.
BTW, this is to both sides of the argument: insulting someone doesn't help out the argument.
Also.... Germany was a real and immediate threat to the U.S. being the world's most industrialized nation before the war and full out invasion capabilities and remember... the "treaties" and foreign policies after WW1 created dissent and hatred for the rest of the world, just like less aggressive yet strong foreign policies now by the U.S. help spread dissent, which allow for Hitler to manipulate Germany to start WW2.
Germany was left to rot and die after WW1 and look what happened as a result. If we can learn anything... letting poorer countries suffer doesn't help the richer countries. If money was spent beforehand to support the country, void of war, dictators would not have risen and a strong capable economy would be sustain just like Germany and Japan after WW2.
Also... by using aggression (e.g. profanity) makes you seem very accepting to others opinions, which is probably why people hammer you down.
yes, that way they can make you pay more if you want faster access. Notice the prices for internet access? If a private company was willing to spend thousands of dollars just to dig a fibre optics line to a single farmhouse in the middle of nowhere to provide very low priced service in nearly unlimiting, high bandwidth ways, I'd love it. Oh, wait that would mean that they would not be making the money back until over a century later. Then again, they wouldn't make much back at all since by about 30 years later the government might provide everyone with free cheap basic WiFi just like the countless highways. Oh ya, the Canadian government was planning to connect all of Canada with broadband connection but it didn't go forth due to people insisting on tax-cuts. (no link at the moment since Industry Canada's is no functioning properly at the moment)
Just exactly that, since all the money are being spent on guns, warships, and rockets.
Don't forget, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden was funded and trained by the US to fight the USSR
yes... and all the children will be ignored and drown in the butter as both invading and defending forces duke it out with there ever deadly butterknives.
Just to repeat the echoes of past posts... when presenting facts, please provide us with links and resources. You might be right about what you are talking about but without the references... it just sounds like you BSing... no offence.
It usually depends on how you use them. A lot of countries actually have there weapons for self-defense and rarely having any military confrontation. I don't disagree with using it for self-defense but I haven't of attacking someone first as a form of self-defense. That is why I don't like the idea of pre-emptive strikes. If you take the scenario of getting them before they might slightly or rarely has a chance or thought of attacking the us to a schoolyard scenario, it would be like walking around and punching or beating the crap out of every kid who either dislikes you, gave you a bad look, or has the capability to just hurting you a bit just to "eliminate the eminent threat". For some reason that sounds more closer to a bully then a peacekeeper. Living life with fear is mostly a good thing that can protect us and prepares us for trouble, when it comes but living with paranoia.... thats a different story.
I didn't see that, since probably I was not born yet, but then it seems very funny that the US would then support Saddam with money, weapon and training during the Iran-Iraq war, in turn, giving him more power by force.
First of all.... if possible, provide a link to your argument about the premium clinic In your paragragh about freedom, you must certainly realize that freedom is not absolute and the freedom and rights goes as so far as to not infringe on others freedom and rights and... how is regulating a certain private business endeavors power hungry when most other endeavors in business are allowed. I am not sure about your view but usually when the operating something to create a profit and making money seems closer to being controlled by the power hungry not a scientifically literate. The only way to making more money provides more power and power creates more money, e.g. monopolies. I have no problem with companies starting up to provides goods and services to peoples' "wants" but when it becomes less positive when it effects your "needs". In the case of goverment of Canada not allowing a private clinic to start up... the government just does not want the risk of opening the floodgates in allowing healthcare and a lot of it basic a larger services to be available for people with a lot of money. Also... this takes away trained professionals from an already shortstaffed medical community which could of provided free basic service for the entirety of the public and place them to provide premium service for the monetary and social elite. IMO, it seems more that the government fears of losing professionals and furthur lengthening the waiting process for everyone, so that a few people with the money can get their needed (and sometimes unneeded) sevices done quicker and faster (such as MRIs) then brutally flexing its power hungry muscles.
Read this article about the weapons industry