Aileron Posted March 26, 2004 Report Posted March 26, 2004 plz, stop it this is becoming a bit ridiculous... US citizen: hey, i'm stronger than youEU citizen: hey, i'm more profoundUS citizen: oh, i thought i was more profoud. btw, you're arrogant!EU citizen: look who's talking?! You are arrogant AND selfish!US citizen: yea so what? you are also, why couldn't I? look at you...a...pffoa...socialist!EU citizen: so, ew...a capitalistUS: you make the richer poorer! EU: you suckUS: no you firstEU: you tooUS:bah, anyway i'm stronger than you. ok kids, behave now plz. tks.Let me start off by agreeing that this argument is stupid. That said, please note that nobody from the US started this topic. Also note that it was the EU side that kept this topic going for 4 pages and kept reviving it. That isn't an excuse for lashing back. However, I request you forgive me for suc-*BAD WORD*-ing to the temptation after 4 pages of US flaming in this topic and about a dozen more in other topics. I am only human, and after a while I get tired of all this mindless criticism, especially when the source of them is in no position to talk. Well, both the US and EU are selfish internationally. However, so is everyone else. Actually, I don't think such behavior is wrong. It is the role of governments to seek the best for their people. If another people has to suffer, it may be wrong, but it is not the role of a government to decide. The governments of nations are not in a position to be moral agents. What I was referring to was domestic policy, which should be the polar opposite. In domestic policy, governments should try to make the most people wealthy. That was my criticism of Europe. I view it as okay for a nation to rob the rest of the world of resources, it is after all their role in life. However, it is wrong for them to take that wealth and then not distribute it among their people. The US has a problem with doing this. The capitalist system does not contain a theory on social justice. However, Europe is worse. US billionaires are well known, and there is no secret to the power they posses. European billionaires aren't given such open power, but rather wield hidden power behind the scenes. That is why the US grew and Europe receded. The US admitted we have hawks and doves, and tried to favor the doves in every decision. Europe denied the hawks existed, and favored them behind the scenes.
Yupa Posted March 26, 2004 Report Posted March 26, 2004 stfu all you stupid 12 year old re-*BAD WORD*-s go get laid or something
Dav Posted March 27, 2004 Report Posted March 27, 2004 plz, stop it this is becoming a bit ridiculous... US citizen: hey, i'm stronger than youEU citizen: hey, i'm more profoundUS citizen: oh, i thought i was more profoud. btw, you're arrogant!EU citizen: look who's talking?! You are arrogant AND selfish!US citizen: yea so what? you are also, why couldn't I? look at you...a...pffoa...socialist!EU citizen: so, ew...a capitalistUS: you make the richer poorer! EU: you suckUS: no you firstEU: you tooUS:bah, anyway i'm stronger than you. ok kids, behave now plz. tks.Let me start off by agreeing that this argument is stupid. That said, please note that nobody from the US started this topic. Also note that it was the EU side that kept this topic going for 4 pages and kept reviving it. That isn't an excuse for lashing back. However, I request you forgive me for suc-*BAD WORD*-ing to the temptation after 4 pages of US flaming in this topic and about a dozen more in other topics. I am only human, and after a while I get tired of all this mindless criticism, especially when the source of them is in no position to talk. Well, both the US and EU are selfish internationally. However, so is everyone else. Actually, I don't think such behavior is wrong. It is the role of governments to seek the best for their people. If another people has to suffer, it may be wrong, but it is not the role of a government to decide. The governments of nations are not in a position to be moral agents. What I was referring to was domestic policy, which should be the polar opposite. In domestic policy, governments should try to make the most people wealthy. That was my criticism of Europe. I view it as okay for a nation to rob the rest of the world of resources, it is after all their role in life. However, it is wrong for them to take that wealth and then not distribute it among their people. The US has a problem with doing this. The capitalist system does not contain a theory on social justice. However, Europe is worse. US billionaires are well known, and there is no secret to the power they posses. European billionaires aren't given such open power, but rather wield hidden power behind the scenes. That is why the US grew and Europe receded. The US admitted we have hawks and doves, and tried to favor the doves in every decision. Europe denied the hawks existed, and favored them behind the scenes. I believe the spreading of weth through a population is an issue in all nations. In every country you have thesuper rich and super poor. It seems that the problem is with big business gathering much money from the population, and adding it to thier profits and ultimaty in tha wages of the already super rich. Govenments can give money to the poorer people and assist them but thay cannot give the poor that much as they need to spend money elsewhere.
Bacchus Posted March 27, 2004 Report Posted March 27, 2004 ~They are coming for us~Â~THEY!!~ aaah! ~runs off a cliff~ *** sry, i had to do it. They made me
Dav Posted March 28, 2004 Report Posted March 28, 2004 ~They are coming for us~Â~THEY!!~ aaah! ~runs off a cliff~ *** sry, i had to do it. They made me stop spamming political.
Aileron Posted March 29, 2004 Report Posted March 29, 2004 Yeah, we are trying to have an intelligent conversation here. I think governments are rather unsuited to the job. It used to be that religion and organised charities would take care of the poor. Now, that role is gradually being replaced by the government. It shouldn't be as such. Also, there is a problem with the upper-class' social status dependancy. It used to be that judgements on who is the richest were dependant on how much money they spent. The richest had the biggest house, the nicest car, and several buildings such as colleges and libraries were named after them. Now, it is based on how much they make. The former enabled the money to quickly leave their hands into the construction worker, !@#$%^&*embly line worker, and student. Today, it just ends up rotting in their bank account.
Dav Posted March 29, 2004 Report Posted March 29, 2004 i guss foign polocy is not included in peoples viewes when voting either, im an election they go for how it will benifit the voter and to keep those promises other countries sometime pay the price.
Aileron Posted March 29, 2004 Report Posted March 29, 2004 I wouldn't worry too much though. Smaller countries can actually fend for themselves. Most or our current problems come from the fact that many people think they can't, and get a larger country to play charity organization.
Dav Posted March 29, 2004 Report Posted March 29, 2004 that is true but many nations do suffer at the expence of the west. We pay very little for raw materials and produce and gladly give a lone they will never pay.
Recommended Posts