Aileron

hey, you are beginning to get this post back on topic, please stop.

Well, in a literal sense, if I really wanted to I could find time to watch any single movie. What I meant was that between college, work, and the tasks I have to do at home, I don't have time to do much else, and that time is devoted to Subspace.

Look, I didn't get "Veteren Member" placed under my name by debating whether or not my posts are new and informative. I just post for the heck of it.

Dang, I didn't know that you could see objects that small from a satelite image.

I only have time to get on the forums at school

I meant aerial photograph.

btw, I challenge anyone here to post a picture of my house.

I don't have time to watch movies.

Actually, I think they have the download for .39 on subspacehq.net

omg, I am agreeing with madhaha. ~must...get...clean...feel...so...dirty~ I will only go a slight step further. The goal of the media is not to inform the public. Its goal is to sell newspapers or get higher ratings. Don't take that situation too far; if a newspaper company goes too far away from reporting unbiased information, they will lose customers in the long term. Typically, what they do the best is to make out a situation as if it is suspensfull and up in the air. Take for example American elections, or any elections most likely. Every time they keep saying how close it is and how the results could go either way. They are even doing this for 2004, even though the most likely outcome will be the Republicans absolutely slaughtering the Democrats. Why? Because if they reported the news as it really is, less people are going to buy tommorrow's newspaper if the winner has already been decided today.

Why is silk feminine? Because no guy in his right mind wears anything made out of silk with possible exception in rare cases to underwear. Yes, I made an !@#$%^&*uption, but I figured that 70/30 I was right and if not 90/10 that you heard it before.

So ur a guy who named himself Silk. You know, after a while I just don't get suprised by these kind of names.

It works both ways actually. The media has considerable power to manipulate candidates. They can give one sided coverage enough to hurt political figures.

Well, I can't argue with the media being incompetent. I think the problem with it is HOW they criticise leaders. Instead of attacking of reasonable fronts, they try to come up with the most ridiculous arguement possible. Take Iraq for example. When they criticised President Bush, they leaned towards that conclusion that he attacked for oil. That is ridiculous, as a matter of fact the only outrage from that statement comes from it being ridiculous. What they SHOULD have done was say that it was to compensate for a weak domestic policy. I support the the action in Iraq, but would seriously have liked to see that issue come up. Also, the fact that they are biased also hurts. Every civilian hurt by coalition forces got covered, whereas they never discussed those killed under Hussein's rule. Because they do this, people simply don't believe them anymore. Overall, the media is weak because they make radical inferences. If they were more reasonable in their judgements, they would be a lot stronger politically.

Oh wait, I get it now. Silke's point is that provided pure governments could exist, anarchy would still not exist. Her point is that it cannot exist not because of the lack of a completely pure system but because anarchy contradicts itself, even in pure form.

Nobody here is disagreeing.

Actually, everyone here does, it is just that the statement is a matter of technicality and therefore irrelevent.

That in itself is false, in my opinion. Although pure democracy would be impractible (spelling) nowadays, democracy (as in the people's voice) is still very much in use even if those "people" voices aren't as strong as they used to be. A democracy is only a way to exercise executive power, the structure of which is determined by the people (a cons!@#$%^&*ution), some chooses a republic (with a head of the nation, a president), other chooses a Tory democracy, or a representative democracy where a party have power but vote on a representative. I was being technical. Quite a lot actually...most of europe, US, canada, etc. democracy wasn't done as it is nowadays...but those were still democracies. That second part was my point. Try putting bush out of power, or Swcharzie ...:wink: It worked for Davis. Also, Bush has a reelection coming up next year. Republics are democracies, only a one of its many incarnations. And representative democracy, or social democracy, or Tory, or pure democracy, have something a republic doesn't have. if you're interested in McAulay's work, here it is: McAulay's work -Bacc No, I'm not interested really. All he does is criticise democracy, he doesn't offer anything constructive. He doesn't have any real idea of his own, he is merely content in bringing down somebody else's.

that's a llama?

First off, let me point out that this guy was a noble in the ninetenth century. He had a very vested interest in bashing democracy, even if it was a little late. Secondly, note that democracy doesn't exist, republics exist. That creates slight differences that increase the life span. Third, I would like to point out that not all Americans are Bill Gates, and Bill Gates didn't do nothing to nobody except his compe!@#$%^&*ors. Even that was in a fair manner except were he has violated anti-trust laws, which he has already been punished for btw. Basically, Enron was greedy, Microsoft was merely successful. That said, I think that his statements were based on historic examples where they did not exist. How many democracies were there before 1857? Not many. However, the reason that republics work so well has nothing to do with the citizens putting people into power. What makes them good is that the citizens (or at least somebody) has a legal means to take people out of power. Prior to 1857, most democracies were positions in which a person was elected and he then ruled for life. This didn't work well because when someone was put in office, you couldn't get rid of him. This doesn't refute Macaulay's point though. His arguement is that democracy is no good because groups will try to get the government to serve their good before the common good. First off, in most cir-*BAD WORD*-stances a government should cater to its people. What he is referring to in reality is when the interests of the country conflict with what is popular. Yes, in this cir-*BAD WORD*-stances, any other system works better. However, first off note that this type of cir-*BAD WORD*-stance is rare. Secondly, note that a republic is not cripled. The leader, knowing what is in the best interest of his country, can try to persuade the citizens. He could also simply go against their wishes at the cost of his career. Overall, my point is that there are options open to republics, which democracies do not have, that can prevent this situation from happening.

Again, i don't mean to sound rude but please get your facts straight, or have a reality check...that's not how it works. Or you're living in an altruistic world whereas i'm living in a capitalist world. In either cases, demand/offer law contradict what you're saying. A poor nation is poor because it has nothing to trade atm of the trade or in a relatively near future. Thus, there's no demand for what it has to offer, hence it sells its stocks for nothing. consequently, the richer nation will make good business. Don't tell me the poorer is making cash, it isn't. Actually, you proved my point quite nicely. If a nation has nothing to offer, no one in their right mind wants to trade with it. Thus, if a nation as such were put in trade with a nation that has something to offer, it cannot lose on the macro scale. Besides, your example is flawed. Companies INCREASE their holdings by selling stock. Yes, 1st world countries can buy stock for cheap. However, that itself increases the value of the stock. Thus, the company is profiting. Maquiladoras are amongt the worst type of factories in the whole world. Wages are "slave-wages", women and children (starting at 4, ending at death) are being abused. Health care isn't adressed, body parts are litteraly flying off the work stations. And a lot of Mexicans just can't afford to cross the borders. If the situation is so bad, then why is there currently a migration towards these factories? People are moving towards this situation. It is unlikely that that many people could be misinformed or "forced out of their farms". Face it, demographic movements says that the Maquiladoras are an improvement of the previous situation, otherwise people wouldn't be moving towards them. Besides, these conditions are appaling only by first world standards. In third world standards, where the factory is mind you, this is acceptable. You really should open up your horizons a little, go backpacking somewhere back country, you could see things very differently in a very short while. In their opinion, we're a cancer. In their opinion we're rich and avaricious, in their opinion we deserve being screwed, in their opinion..well...it's only justice to fly a plane in a tower...Ok, that was extreme, but i just want you to notice how wrong this statement of yours is considering the recent events and the War US is waging on terrorists. First off note that terrorists are religious fanatics. They aren't motivated by reason. While the US is oppressive in some people's opinions, to get a rational person to have that much hatred would require us to gangrape their mother or something like that. As for the first part, you really don't understand poor people. Somebody who is truly poor does not care about people richer than them. They don't care about how much money someone else has, the poor only care about how much money they have. Basically, somebody who is truly poor will exert more energy towards getting what they want or need before worrying about what someone else has. It is the near-rich who show envy. The poor are not ticked off that the rich exist. They really don't want to overthrow the world's social structure. They just want to make what they can for themselves. Yes, often times they may like the idea of taking the rich down a peg. However, they do so provided that in the end they move up a peg. They only care about what happens to them, not the rich. You are wrong, it is YOU who need to go backpacking in the back country for a while. You claim to advocate for the poor, yet you clearly do not know what motivates them.

True, but that is after they got power in the first place. They needed to make money off of trade to get the power. It was after they got the power that they exploited lesser nations. Yes, during their peak, most empires were mercantilists who exploited lesser nations. However, during their rise they had to make money off of trade. All in all, it seems that trade between two nations averages their economies. For the empires example, they start as a weak nation which traded with stronger nations. Then, as they became strong, they stopped trading with weaker nations. Generally, trade between a rich and a poor nation usually benefits the poor nation. Also, this situation is only exploitation when looked at it a certain way. In the view of third world nations, this is not exploitation at all. In taking the US-Mexico example, while a Maquiladora may pay piddly by our standards, it pays great by Mexican. Most Mexicans prefer to go to Maquiladora than to cross the border. If an American goes to a foreign country and pays a twenty five cents for a pineapple, the American feels he is exploiting the farmer. However, the farmer feels this is a great deal, especially since he or she most likely doubled their price for the American. Overall, you got to realize that the third world cost of living is so much lower than ours. Christian Childrens Fund advertises that they can feed, shelter, school, and give medical care to a kid for cents a day. In the US, that is the cost of a soda. Your view of this as 1st world exploiting 3rd world is an ethnocentristic view from the top, quite similar to the at!@#$%^&*ude held by movie stars that they won't get out of bed for less than $100,000. If someone offered you or me $100,000 dollars for a day's work, we would jump on it. Note only that, but we probably would not really care if some person in a far off country was making $1,000,000 a day. Yes, we would consider that better, but $100,000 a day would be enough to make us rich by our standards in our environment. Yes, maybe it would be even nicer to distort the situation towards the 3rd world nations. However, first off note that it is already distorted in their favor. Secondly, note that it is only viewed as exploitation from our point of view. In their opinion, they are exploiting the first world nations. Couple that with the fact that they will eventually catch up economically because of this, and you would see that the current situation isn't exploitation at all.

Wait a minute, you first start out by saying that we should promote self sufficiency in poor nations. Then, you say that we should give them infrastructure "out of the kindness of our hearts". That is a direct contradiction. Self sufficient nations don't require that other nations build capital, political, and social infrastructure for them. Self sufficient nations don't require that other nations give them food and shelter. Gifts, particularly, persistant gifts, increase dependence. Either go one way or the other. You make the distiction between giving a usable gift and giving something that last longer that can be sustained. However, if they cannot afford to build it on their own, they probably cannot afford to maintain and/or sustain it. Take for example the Indian Railroad built by the British. It has been declining since World War I. Now, customers pay to sit on top of a boxcar which btw is falling apart. Basically, there is a reason other than selfishness to demand repayment. If a country cannot offer the world something of value, they would not be able to compete with it. Also, you are forgetting who makes these decisions. Government leaders have a responsabilty to their country alone. The people of Ethiopia did not put the US President in power. Those in the did not elect the British Prime Minister. Government officials have a responsability to their country first and others second. It would be irresponsable for them to ransack their own country for the benefit of another for this reason. They have a duty to seek a buck out of it. All in all though, you must understand two things. The first is that while the present plight of third world nations is sad, it is still better than what they had before. The second is that the current situation is merely a stepping stone to a better one. As third world workers make their money off of factories, money flows into their country. The workers will spend money on things in their country, and the wealth will be distributed throughout. The new wealth will bring more stability, and soon, the workers will be able to ask for a higher wage. Provided that there is no other compe!@#$%^&*ion, such as a poorer nation, the 1st world countries will have to accept. Eventually, when they have enough money, they will begin to build the schools, and the hospitals and such. Put it this way, take all of the major empires in history, no matter whereever they were. Then, see how many made money off of trade. See how many cities happened to spring up near major trade routes. Then see if there was any power that grew by being isolationist, and see how many cities sprung up in the boondocks. Face it, trade build economies.

Yes, Religion is merely a piece of culture. However, it is at least in some amount essential. Basically, if there is NO religious concensus, there can be no culture. There has to be some sort of religious agreement, even if it is merely to "agree to disagree".

A religion is essentially a group of people with similar beliefs, and a culture DOES have to be based on similar beliefs. In order to have a culture with multiple religions, there has to be a national belief in that religious tolerance is a good thing. Thus, you have a belief and since it is on a national scale, you have a group. Since you have both, you have a religion. In this case, all the national religion includes is that one should tolerate other beliefs. Yes, a culture doesn't have to include any RECOGNIZED religion. However, it order for people to consider themselves members of the same community, they have to share some form of common belief, even in its simplest form.