View Full Version : Bad English
I know I've become famous on this forum for posting without proofreading very well. Remember the whole badon and Amy debacles? Anyway, I had to share two sentences lifted from one of my wife's college English students' papers. The paper was full of errors like this, and this is only the tip of the iceberg:
"The sun set is many yellows and oranges and as it barley peaking over the moutons."
And my favorite:
"The soccer couches are yelling commands at the children as they blow their wassails."
Brent
10-10-2003, 09:23 AM
Yes, but are you sure you didn't misspell their misspellings? Did you proofread??
America today seems to be full of kids that can't spell. After taking a peek at that whole DBZ forum thing on Something Awful, I'm beginning to see why... Hell, I both speak and write better english than some people who were actually BORN in your country! Makes you think...
No it doesn't. We don't think in America. Everybody from other countries is always attacking us because we have the freedom to not think and choose to exercise that right. Buy all y'all, like in Sweden, your fascist, communist, evil-doing dictators make you guys think. It's horrible! And it goes against everything our made up God stands for.
Oh! Our new, more colorful twenties went into distribution yesterday. My favorite thing right now is how newscasters have to remind everyone that the old twenties are still good. How dumb are we that we need reminding of that?
Freedom! It's the Murican Way!
They have to remind you that the old money is still good when they introduce new bills? For real?! They do the same thing in our country! Hey, wow! It IS a small world after all!
EDIT: Oh yeah; I'd hold off the unamerican criticism if I lived in the states, or otherwise my freedom-loving government might have me dragged into an alley and shot.
Brent
10-10-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
Freedom! It's the Murican Way!
Braveheart!
The Grinch
10-16-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
No it doesn't. We don't think in America. Everybody from other countries is always attacking us because we have the freedom to not think and choose to exercise that right. Buy all y'all, like in Sweden, your fascist, communist, evil-doing dictators make you guys think. It's horrible! And it goes against everything our made up God stands for.
But remember, its government schools that are teaching people not to think. They teach you to be good little drones, shut up, pay your taxes, and defer to your superiors. Let your superiors take care of you with all those nifty government programmes, and let them think for you.
Which is why thousands of free-thinking Americans move to Europe every year - they don't have a mind-numbingly paternalistic welfare state or an arrogant elite that crams their values down everyone's throats.
:Q
(Woohoo! That was my 100th post... I'm glad it was something profound, instead of that stupid prosthetic testicle thing:rolleyes: )
Brent
10-16-2003, 09:36 AM
I'm a free thinker! My diploma tells me I am!
Which is why thousands of free-thinking Americans move to Europe every year - they don't have a mind-numbingly paternalistic welfare state or an arrogant elite that crams their values down everyone's throats.
Woohoo! Europe rules! 'specially Sweden! Nevermind the fact that we have rampant trafficking and drug smuggling from the former USSR and baltic states, or the fact that the climate in our country is rapidly degenerating because of the greenhouse effect caused by industrial emissions from said former USSR states during the 60's 70's and 80's! After all, we're free! Yiipiee!
Or maybe not. Maybe there is no real "freedom" left anymore. You know, Grinch, the world today is so incredibly fucked up that it really doesn't matter where one chooses to move. The place you move to is bound to be as bad as the one you just left, just in a different way. Dig?
Of course, I'd still rather live in Sweden than the US of A. At least here I can write what I want without fear of being censored or silenced because of my opinion.
'course, this is just the opinion of this one herring-eating mead drinker... The world today is so messed up that it really don't matter where you live. That's my two cents, anyway...
The Grinch
10-16-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by zer0
Or maybe not. Maybe there is no real "freedom" left anymore. You know, Grinch, the world today is so incredibly fucked up that it really doesn't matter where one chooses to move. The place you move to is bound to be as bad as the one you just left, just in a different way. Dig?
Of course, I'd still rather live in Sweden than the US of A. At least here I can write what I want without fear of being censored or silenced because of my opinion.
Zer0 my lad, I'll let ya in on a little secret - the world's ALWAYS had a lot about it that's been fucked up. Go back a couple centuries, and you had poverty, disease, slavery, and brutality. Sure, those things still exist now, but they were a lot more widespread in the past. You may think things are worse now than they've ever been, and in some ways maybe so, but they're also better than they've ever been. So, you can either agonise about what's wrong, or enjoy what's right. I know which way I'd rather spend my limited time in this world.
As for being censored or silenced in the US, I have no clue where you get that idea... You got the right to say what you want here. And everyone else has the right not to listen to you, or to call you an idiot for saying it... Unless you want to talk about some kind of gross sex shit that people don't want their kids to hear or something. I'll bet Sweden's got rules about that too.
Two more cents from a Southern-fried bourbon drinker...;)
As for being censored or silenced in the US, I have no clue where you get that idea... You got the right to say what you want here.
Amusing link #1 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020121&s=tattle20020110)
Amusing link#2 (http://www.unknownnews.net/)
:)
'It's government schools teaching people not to think.'
Man, that is so funny. It's actually American politics that teach people not to think. Are you saying that private schools (most based on religion) are teaching people to think? Home schooling teaching people to think?
Dude, they're all about programming. Just depending on the what you want your machine to do, you're either for the specific type of schooling or not.
Not thinking isn't even taught. It's an individual choice. Does television cause you not to think? No. Every one on this board can have an intelligent conversation about any show on television because we can think about it. Yes, this includes Maury Povich.
If you think government schools suck ass, then don't send the kids there. But also, don't ask to be re-imbursed with some crazy ass voucher because of it. I don't and will never have kids and I'm sick of paying taxes to support what is basically subsidized day care. And further more, people with kids get a fucking tax break. And then they complain there isn't enough money for schools. You want money for schools? Stop accepting the tax breaks for your shitty shits. But don't tell me I'm responsible for helping make your kids think.
And, how exactly, does a welfare state have anything to do with not thinking? And I'm pretty damn sure that every place in the world has an arrogant elite that crams their values down everyone's throats. France is so not like that!
And I won't be happy until I live in a country where I can talk about that gross sex shit without being reminded about all those god-damned kids and how they'll be fucked up forever. Aren't you all sick of the 'Kids'll be hurt' argument? Don't we live in a society composed mostly of adults? I say we rebel against those nose mining carpet trolls! I've been ruled by Laws Protecting Children for far too long! Kill the children! Viva la revolucion!
YAY JEFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! W00t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D
The Grinch
10-16-2003, 01:11 PM
I wouldn't take anything you read in The Nation too seriously. They have a political agenda that gives tham an interest in presenting things a certain way (just like any other media)... And so does that Unknown News thing - a quick glance and I can tell that they're just grinding an anti-capitalist axe. If you're gonna look at these sources, at least look at some others like World Net Daily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/) to get a different perspective, and then make up your own mind.
But look closely at what's being reported, and also pay attention to what's not being reported. Sure, we had some protestors arrested here, because they were blocking the streets and sometimes vandalising, not because of what they were saying. Same thing would happen to pro-Bush groups if they acted like that. Someone may claim he was smacked over the head by a cop with a billy club at a peace protest, but left out the part where he was throwing bricks at cops and shop windows.
And sometimes someone say things that get him blackballed for it where they live or work, but it's really rare, and it's not the government doing it, it's neighbours, co-workers or employers thinking the guy's an idiot. Mostly these are people just looking for someone to blame for their own failures. Yeah, we have a problem with political correctness here, but I'll bet it's the same in Europe and anywhere where people think and speak outside the mainstream. Whoever gave you the impression that you'd be censored or silenced gave you a false impression. The Nation is an American magazine, after all, and there are dozens like it, and if there was censorship here they wouldn't be what they are.
Youre naïve, mr Grinch...
I suppose one sees things very differently when one does not live in the USA.
I'm beginning to accept Jeff's theory about programming right now...
The Grinch
10-16-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Jeff
'It's government schools teaching people not to think.'
Man, that is so funny. It's actually American politics that teach people not to think. Are you saying that private schools (most based on religion) are teaching people to think? Home schooling teaching people to think?
Yes. At least they teach critical thinking skills better than do most government schools.
Originally posted by Jeff
Not thinking isn't even taught. It's an individual choice. Does television cause you not to think? No. Every one on this board can have an intelligent conversation about any show on television because we can think about it. Yes, this includes Maury Povich.
You got that right. But it ain't politics teaching people not to think. Bottom line is so many people are spoiled, lazy, and want everything done for them NOW without having to exert themselves. Participating in politics is a responsibility that requires effort. You get garbage out of the system because people are too lazy to inform themselves.
Originally posted by Jeff
If you think government schools suck ass, then don't send the kids there. But also, don't ask to be re-imbursed with some crazy ass voucher because of it. I don't and will never have kids and I'm sick of paying taxes to support what is basically subsidized day care. And further more, people with kids get a fucking tax break. And then they complain there isn't enough money for schools. You want money for schools? Stop accepting the tax breaks for your shitty shits. But don't tell me I'm responsible for helping make your kids think.
I agree. If you don't make me pay for the sucky government school in the first place, I don't need a voucher. Let parents pay tuition to the government schools if they send their kids there. What's wrong with paying for services you use? Maybe if they had to write the check every month they'd give a rip if their kids are cutting school or blowing off the work. I'll go you one better, Jeff - how about not making us pay for kids other people can't afford to have?
Originally posted by Jeff
And, how exactly, does a welfare state have anything to do with not thinking?
Easy - you don't have to think about where you send your kids to school, how to plan for your retirement, how to shop around for healthcare... or even how to eat right. You can sit on your fat ass for 40 years eating cheese puffs and milky ways, and when you need a quadruple bypass, it's taken care of. Big mommy government makes all the big decisions for you. All you have to do is shut up and pay for it.
Originally posted by Jeff
And I'm pretty damn sure that every place in the world has an arrogant elite that crams their values down everyone's throats. France is so not like that!
;)
Originally posted by Jeff
And I won't be happy until I live in a country where I can talk about that gross sex shit without being reminded about all those god-damned kids and how they'll be fucked up forever. Aren't you all sick of the 'Kids'll be hurt' argument? Don't we live in a society composed mostly of adults? I say we rebel against those nose mining carpet trolls! I've been ruled by Laws Protecting Children for far too long! Kill the children! Viva la revolucion!
:p
The Grinch
10-16-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by zer0
I suppose one sees things very differently when one does not live in the USA.
Yeah, funny how you see things when yer lookin' at it yerself, instead of hearing someone tell you about it.. ;)
<b>"Yes. At least they teach critical thinking skills better than do most government schools."</b>
Wrong. Critical thinking can't be taught. It's a Catch-22. You either come to it or it comes to you. To think critically is to be able to see past your own prejudices and pre-conceptions. You can't teach people to think past previous programming. People get to choose what schools to send their kids if they choose the private school route. This means, parents are generally going to choose a school that best fits with their current belief system. Child learns all of the things they're supposed to learn.
The main reason a lot of parents dislike the public school system are the things the kids learn not the things they don't learn.
<b>"You get garbage out of the system because people are too lazy to inform themselves."</b>
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
are full of passionate intensity.
People into the political system like to believe that those of us who have opted out are either ignorant, lazy or apathetic. It's because I'm informed, aware and care about my country that I will not participate in the sham we currently have as an institution.
<b>"What's wrong with paying for services you use? "</b>
Oh, just imagine if we could state what are tax dollars are funding. Give me a little Excel sheet to place every dollar I pay where I want it to go. I wonder if anything would be different or if we have enough people thinking a variety of ways that the money would pretty much fall toward where it currently lays. Um, did that make sense?
<b>"I'll go you one better, Jeff - how about not making us pay for kids other people can't afford to have?"</b>
I agree that I hate giving my money to other people because of their kids. But this is one of those things I can't quite figure out. Fairly conservative families will begin every anti-Something campaign with how it affects the welfare of the children. And yet, these same families couldn't care less about poor children born into poverty if it means spending their tax money. But they're also the group most opposed to abortion. Am I not correct in my generalities?
<b>"Easy - you don't have to think about where you send your kids to school, how to plan for your retirement, how to shop around for healthcare... or even how to eat right. You can sit on your fat ass for 40 years eating cheese puffs and milky ways, and when you need a quadruple bypass, it's taken care of. Big mommy government makes all the big decisions for you. All you have to do is shut up and pay for it."</b>
That, essentially, is political rhetoric. That was pure programming spewed forth from the machine. Most of what you're saying depends on the belief that people are wholly unlike you. That people don't care, don't think, don't want something better in their lives, ad infinitum. The argument dehumanizes your fellow Americans.
Here's a shocker: I don't think about where to send my non-existent kids to school. I am not planning my retirement. I have no healthcare. I don't eat right. Welfare is non-existent in my life.
":p"
Hey! Does that mean you're on board for the Kill the Children Revolution!?
Stupid system that tends toward doing things the way the system wants things done.
Just pretend my fucking Bold Tags work!
It's a Gangster-ghetto-communist CONSPIRACY, I tells ya!
Brent
10-16-2003, 02:55 PM
Fun project:
Let's right a new constitution for the freeest country on Earth! First, let's select a country. Then we'll committe the thing to death amongst ourselves. Then we'll send it to that country!
My nomination:
Niue (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ne.html)
Everyone, nominate a country, then we'll put it to a poll vote.
How about we left a new Constitution?
Brent
10-16-2003, 04:22 PM
Ha! I didn't get it, then I did. Cuz I'm a free thinker!
Nicole
10-16-2003, 04:55 PM
Boy am I glad that we don't have school here in Alstralia. And also, we have sheep in government instead of people, which makes things easier. Living in Alstralia is TEH BEST.
But being poisonous, you don't need no learnin'.
Nicole
10-16-2003, 05:41 PM
It does get hard to count how many people you've poisoned when you don't know what is past 5.
But we're happy anyhow! *sharpens claws*
I nominate Tuvalu (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tv.html). It's the small group of islands which are slowly sinking beneath the waves (http://www.zipworld.com.au/~cpa/garchve4/1072tuv.html) like a latter-day Atlantis, due to climate changes. This could lead to some pretty hilarious constitutional amendments about fishing in someone elses living room or double-parking your jetski.
Brent, what's the country you are always giving facts about in the now-defunct NA!P Newsletter? We should write a new constitution there. Aren't we already like their official sponsor or something?
The Grinch
10-17-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
Wrong. Critical thinking can't be taught. It's a Catch-22. You either come to it or it comes to you. To think critically is to be able to see past your own prejudices and pre-conceptions. You can't teach people to think past previous programming.
Gotta disagree. Critical thinking CAN be taught, because I teach it. Humans inherently have the capability; you just have to get them accustomed to using it and applying it. The catch is it takes practice and *shudder* effort.
Originally posted by Jeff
People get to choose what schools to send their kids if they choose the private school route. This means, parents are generally going to choose a school that best fits with their current belief system. Child learns all of the things they're supposed to learn.
The main reason a lot of parents dislike the public school system are the things the kids learn not the things they don't learn.
Sure some parents object to what their kids are being taught, and there are certainly schools and teachers with agendas they want to push. But that's only a part of the equation. When kids graduate with diplomas they can't read, the problem isn't what they've been taught, it's what they haven't been taught. And that plays back into the political agendas of some of these teachers and schools - graduate students who are incapable of learning independently and thinking for themselves, and you'll keep them dependent.
Originally posted by Jeff
People into the political system like to believe that those of us who have opted out are either ignorant, lazy or apathetic. It's because I'm informed, aware and care about my country that I will not participate in the sham we currently have as an institution.
Maybe you've made an informed decision to opt out, but you're in the minority. I ask my students basic questions about politics and current events, and a large majority don't know and don't care. Personally, if people can't be bothered enough to inform themselves, I'd rather they DON'T vote. But informed non-participation only goes so far. If you care, then what are you gonna do about it? If you don't like what we have, what alternative do you propose?
Originally posted by Jeff
Oh, just imagine if we could state what are tax dollars are funding. Give me a little Excel sheet to place every dollar I pay where I want it to go. I wonder if anything would be different or if we have enough people thinking a variety of ways that the money would pretty much fall toward where it currently lays. Um, did that make sense?
Yes it does. But once again, that would require effort, understanding what each budget item is, and how much it's costing, and to set priorities. Most of us are too busy trying to earn a living to learn that much detail. Supposedly we elect people to do that for us, but they're too busy using our money to buy votes to keep themselves in office. But to get back to your question, I think the money would be spent differently, and in smaller amounts. People are a lot more careful with their own money than someone else's.
Originally posted by Jeff
I agree that I hate giving my money to other people because of their kids. But this is one of those things I can't quite figure out. Fairly conservative families will begin every anti-Something campaign with how it affects the welfare of the children. And yet, these same families couldn't care less about poor children born into poverty if it means spending their tax money. But they're also the group most opposed to abortion. Am I not correct in my generalities?
It depends on what you mean by "conservative". Religious conservatives think spiritual corruption is worse for a person than poverty. But look at them closely and a lot of them are control freaks just as much as big-government liberals. Fiscal conservatives, on the other hand, are more apt to be concerned that welfare spending doesn't actually fix poverty - it just keeps people locked in.
As for abortion, the basic disagreement is when human life starts. People that are against abortion think it's killing a person, and that's wrong. Most of them don't want to take away anyone's rights or punish someone for having sex. Until we can all agree on when human life begins, the issue isn't going to be settled, no matter what the laws and the courts say. It is for our generation what the slavery issue was 150 years ago - a conflict of constitutionally-protected rights (life vs. liberty).
Originally posted by Jeff
<b>"Easy - you don't have to think about where you send your kids to school, how to plan for your retirement, how to shop around for healthcare... or even how to eat right. You can sit on your fat ass for 40 years eating cheese puffs and milky ways, and when you need a quadruple bypass, it's taken care of. Big mommy government makes all the big decisions for you. All you have to do is shut up and pay for it."</b>
That, essentially, is political rhetoric. That was pure programming spewed forth from the machine. Most of what you're saying depends on the belief that people are wholly unlike you. That people don't care, don't think, don't want something better in their lives, ad infinitum. The argument dehumanizes your fellow Americans.
First of all, I am self-programmed, thank you. Secondly, I think you may have misinterpreted my meaning. What I was saying is that the welfare state is intended by those who build and promote it to keep people dependent, so they keep voting the right way for the politicians who toss them occasional tidbits. I know very well that most people DO care, and DO want something better, but the welfare state makes the pretext of providing it, while in reality of robs them of it. It's the welfare state that dehumanises my fellow Americans, not my argument.
Originally posted by Jeff
Here's a shocker: I don't think about where to send my non-existent kids to school. I am not planning my retirement. I have no healthcare. I don't eat right. Welfare is non-existent in my life.
If you pay any taxes at all, it's part of your life. You're paying for it whether you use it or not.
Originally posted by Jeff
Hey! Does that mean you're on board for the Kill the Children Revolution!?
Nah, someday I'm gonna retire and suck the federal teat. That means we'll need lots of little kids to grow up, pay their taxes, and feed the great brood sow. :p
The Grinch
10-17-2003, 10:58 AM
The constitution idea sounds fun. I nominate Nauru (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107816.html). It's an entire island made up of guano.
Brent
10-17-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Ken
Brent, what's the country you are always giving facts about in the now-defunct NA!P Newsletter? We should write a new constitution there. Aren't we already like their official sponsor or something?
That'd be Ghana. And it's not defunct. I'm just taking a break. Sorta.
Brent
10-17-2003, 01:24 PM
Alright! This shaping up -- Monday I'm posting a poll, so if you want to add your nomination here, that's the deadline.
1) Nauru (you got to like an island nation made of shit)
2) Tuvalu (you got to like the idea of a constitution for a doomed country)
3) Niue (you got to like a country whose main source of income is phosphate and Internet porn)
4) Ghana. Enh, Ghana's check bounced, but why not?
Brent
10-17-2003, 01:25 PM
First of all, I am self-programmed, thank you.
Well, you may well have been Grinch, but the day I learned HTML, all independent thought disappeared as I uploaded files onto the Universal Server.
And Jeff's lying about not eating right -- he only turkey burgers! TURKEY BURGERS!!!
Has anyone seen the movie "Tuvalu?" While technically a non-English film (hey, this suddenly fits the thread, sort of), it purposefully only used words from multiple languages that would generally be understood by most folks globally (i.e. No, si, schnell, etc.). Other than that, there was no dialogue and a lot of pointing. Cool flick.
So are we going to divvy up parts of the constitution to write? If so, I get the Bill of Rights!
Brent
10-17-2003, 04:21 PM
Well, I was going to do it that way, but now you've ruined it, Mr. Hughes.
Once we decide on a nation whose constitution needs rewriting (I mean, who knows is some of them even have constitutions [gasp!]?), we get down to the nitty gritty of it all.
Maybe you can be some nation's next Tom Jefferson, Ken! Then we'll committee your document to something which makes no sense whatsoever!
Personally, I'm hoping this constitution runs well over 1000 pages...
AMENDMENT # 1: The president has to be a horse.
AMENDMENT # 2: Underwear must be worn on the head at all times. The president may not be a horse.
AMENDMENT # 3: AMENDMENT # 3:
AMENDMENT # 4: In case of an emergency, floatation devices are located under your seat.
AMENDMENT # 5: There is to be no underwear.
AMENDMENT # 6: There is to be no president.
AMENDMENT # 7: In case of yo soy confuse-o you soy yo marinero this arriba constitution-o is soy no yo written in yo soy marinero mock Spanish sometimes-o.
AMENDMENT # 8: ARRIBA!!
Nicole
10-18-2003, 02:46 AM
Mmmm, soy.
Also, i'm not sure if this is the best nomination, but I think maybe Pitcairn Island (http://www.lareau.org/pitc.html) needs *some* kind of help. Egads.
First off,
"If you care, then what are you gonna do about it?"
Live my individual life.
"If you don't like what we have, what alternative do you propose?"
Why should I propose an alternative? Proposing does not change things. I cannot change the system. But I can ignore the system.
"Most of us are too busy trying to earn a living to learn that much detail. Supposedly we elect people to do that for us, but they're too busy using our money to buy votes to keep themselves in office."
That's quite an interesting statement. 'Too busy trying to earn a living' to change the system, right? Sound like that line about graduating illiterates so they're dependant on the machine? And in so doing, the politicians continue with a corrupt system that benifits nobody but those within it (which you, supposedly, admit to in the second sentence). Perhaps 'earning a living' is the true opiate of the masses. Especially when you consider how much of most people's 'living' is just plain icing. Traditional social agendas do more harm than politicians or laws. Traditional? You know, conservative.
'As for abortion, the basic disagreement is when human life starts. People that are against abortion think it's killing a person, and that's wrong. Most of them don't want to take away anyone's rights or punish someone for having sex. Until we can all agree on when human life begins, the issue isn't going to be settled, no matter what the laws and the courts say. It is for our generation what the slavery issue was 150 years ago - a conflict of constitutionally-protected rights (life vs. liberty).'
I'm not even sure why that summary was needed.
"What I was saying is that the welfare state is intended by those who build and promote it to keep people dependent, so they keep voting the right way for the politicians who toss them occasional tidbits."
American politics. But skewed to make welfare the goat driven into the desert. Just change welfare to corporate and it actually makes more sense. 'But corporations create jobs.' Yeah, jobs for politicians and lawyers.
"First of all, I am self-programmed, thank you."
So, did you arrange for GATC CTAG GGCT ACTG or the more often hyped TACG GCCT ATGC CCAT? Self-programming while living within a well-defined social system is impossible. Unless you're autistic, you're completely filled with routine social viruses, expected behaviour subroutines and ethical gosubs. Self-programming is about as non-illusory as free will. I bet we can agree on that!
"Personally, if people can't be bothered enough to inform themselves, I'd rather they DON'T vote."
Heh. Like informed voting is any different from uninformed voting.
"Maybe you've made an informed decision to opt out, but you're in the minority."
Actually, opting out informed or uninformed doesn't matter to me. The more people who opt out, the better. I especially can't wait for whatever generation decides not to opt in to the stock market so that pyramid scheme can come tumbling down. My favorite thing to hear when the stock market was really falling fast was the constant rhetoric to keep putting your money in! Yes, obviously, because that's the only way it works and other people make money. Is if new money continually comes in. Hey, that IS how pyramid schemes work, right?
"there are certainly schools and teachers with agendas they want to push"
It's funny how certain words become death blows in political speak. Conspiracy isn't quite as bad as it used to be (thanks to the fact that so many actually exist). But 'agenda' sure comes in handy! It's conspiracy lite!
"Nah, someday I'm gonna retire and suck the federal teat. That means we'll need lots of little kids to grow up, pay their taxes, and feed the great brood sow."
Welfare whore!
I nominate America (http://www.whitehouse.gov).
And since when is eating turkey burgers right, eh? It is just so WRONG and TASTELESS and BLAND! But it's also an ugly bird that deserves to die.
YES UGLY THINGS DESERVE TO DIE!
Hey! Did you see Ghana play soccer in my home town! I forget who they beat. Bah, what am I saying? I probably never even knew.
I'm hungry. Staying up all night makes me hungry. And I think I'm lactating.
Why is the front page down? NA!P parties too hard, I think. Every weekend, it's fucking face down in the toilet again.
Stoopid NA!P and it's retarded editors. I hate them. When are they going to fucking update Dwarflover? Speaking of demanding updates, what happened to Cappy? I hope he's not sick and/or having a baby.
Did somebody quote something somewhere. I think Nicole was quoting Picnic at Hanging Rock.
Or Dot and the Kangaroo.
Just a little under 400 posts to go before I break the Brent Delimiter. Oh! Maybe THAT'S what happened to Cappy! He went back in time and now he's trying to connect to the forum using a phone receive modem! Poor Cappy.
I don't know what might have happened to him either. Maybe he got disgusted by the fact that I suddenly decided to be nice to him and then he never came back again. Naw, that couldn't be it.
Anyway, if a backup rival should be needed, I think I might just pick ol' Grinch. You sir, are a constant treshhold brainwashed American parroting puppet slave of the "master race" four billion eyesight-TV guinnea pig master race Frankenstein eternal living-death slavery zombies of the Gangster Computer Gods' overall plan; worldwide eternal living death Bush JR slavery!
So, um, anyway, when do we get to start killing kids, Jeff? You know that's the reason I originally joined the revolution! That, and the snazzy uniforms.
-7 Points for quoting the ol' Decmeister! Bwa ha ha! That'll lure Cappy back! The chance to give you some negative numbers!
Nicole
10-19-2003, 01:52 AM
Jeff knows too much about Alstralia.
I THINK HE IS SEKRITLEY ALSTRALIAN.
Liek!
Better not reveal my secrets or I'll sick the Bunyip on you!
The Grinch
10-20-2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by zer0
AMENDMENT # 1: The president has to be a horse.
AMENDMENT # 2: Underwear must be worn on the head at all times. The president may not be a horse.
AMENDMENT # 3: AMENDMENT # 3:
AMENDMENT # 4: In case of an emergency, floatation devices are located under your seat.
AMENDMENT # 5: There is to be no underwear.
AMENDMENT # 6: There is to be no president.
AMENDMENT # 7: In case of yo soy confuse-o you soy yo marinero this arriba constitution-o is soy no yo written in yo soy marinero mock Spanish sometimes-o.
AMENDMENT # 8: ARRIBA!!
AMENDMENT # 9: There is to be no Amendment # 9.
AMENDMENT # 10: No pooftas.
The Grinch
10-20-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
First off,
"If you care, then what are you gonna do about it?"
Live my individual life.
"If you don't like what we have, what alternative do you propose?"
Why should I propose an alternative? Proposing does not change things. I cannot change the system. But I can ignore the system.
Proposing CAN change things, 'cause ideas can shape people's behaviour. Revolutions start as proposals. Ignoring the system's fine in theory, but the system won't ignore you. That's the problem - you want to be left alone, and you ain't gonna be. How are you going to get the system to ignore you?
Originally posted by Jeff
Perhaps 'earning a living' is the true opiate of the masses. Especially when you consider how much of most people's 'living' is just plain icing.
Depends. Sure, people could do with less, but you can only do with so much less. You still need to feed your face and keep from freezing to death, and typically you do that by exchanging your time and effort for stuff that'll help you do that. Beyond that, it's up to you. There's a cultural bias toward accumulating more stuff, but it depends on what you want out of life.
The problem comes when people decide they're somehow entitled to more than what they're willing to exchange for. People who not only have all their basic needs met, but also own homes, cars, televisions and air conditioners are declared "poor", told it's the responsibilty of others to provide them that icing, and told that as long as they keep the right politicians in office they'll keep the icing coming.
Originally posted by Jeff
Traditional social agendas do more harm than politicians or laws. Traditional? You know, conservative.
What's "traditional", and why is it more harmful than "non-traditional" social agendas? Tradition at least has the benefit of having been tried. Traditions have evolved over time to fit the needs of the societies they serve. Examine any tradition closely, and you'll find there's a reason for it, and often the reasons are still valid, even if not apparent.
As for doing harm, traditions don't do harm; politicians and governments, with their monopoly on the use of deadly force, do harm. Coercion is coercion, whether it is based on a traditional agenda or a revisionist one.
Originally posted by Jeff
I'm not even sure why that (abortion) summary was needed.
You raised the issue. I'm just pointing out that not everyone who is against abortion is a control freak or religious zealot, and that not everyone who is for it is a flaming anarchist. There are very conservative arguments on both sides.
Originally posted by Jeff
Just change welfare to corporate and it actually makes more sense. 'But corporations create jobs.' Yeah, jobs for politicians and lawyers.
Yep, corporate welfare sucks too, and the people that promote it ehile condemning social welfare are hypocrites. Corporations do create jobs, and they serve society by providing goods and services people want. But if a corporation can't compete, it should be allowed to fail, so it can be replaced by something that serves society better. But big government is one-stop shopping for the status quo. A business that succeeds and grows large enough can pay the politicians to pass laws to suppress any new competition, usually packaged in "socially responsible" rheotric and pretexts. Then they pay the lawyers to find all the loopholes. Politicians and lawyers are one and the same. Most politicians began as lawyers, and once they get elected, they write laws that are so arcane and complex that only lawyers can understand them, so the rest of us can't even live our lives without consulting lawyers. It's a massive scam and fraud. But that's what comes with big government. If government wasn't empowered to provide corporate welfare, it wouldn't matter how much a corporation contributed to a politician, 'cause he wouldn't be able to do anything for them.
Originally posted by Jeff
So, did you arrange for GATC CTAG GGCT ACTG or the more often hyped TACG GCCT ATGC CCAT? Self-programming while living within a well-defined social system is impossible. Unless you're autistic, you're completely filled with routine social viruses, expected behaviour subroutines and ethical gosubs. Self-programming is about as non-illusory as free will. I bet we can agree on that!
Yes and no. I don't give a rip about genetics, nor do I give a rip about a well-defined social system. A lot of what you call "routine social viruses, expected behaviour subroutines and ethical gosubs" are just about treating other people as you would want to be treated. That doesn't preclude critical thought. I don't buy the idea that programming is built into our culture, but I do think there is deliberate programming going on in the schools and portions of the media that aims to discourage independent thought.
Nor do I think free will is illusory. It's a matter of choices based on compromise. You're not free to "walk into a deli and urinate on the cheese (http://www.lyricstime.com/lyrics/41185.html)", but why would you want to live in a society where you were? As participants in society we're part of a social contract in which we give up some of our rights to maximize the enjoyment of the rights we retain. My right to urinate ends where your cheese begins, and I'm none the worse off for it 'cause next time it might be my cheese.
Originally posted by Jeff
Like informed voting is any different from uninformed voting.
Depends on who you vote for. If the politician lies to you or breaks his promises, then you're right, very little difference.
Originally posted by Jeff
Actually, opting out informed or uninformed doesn't matter to me. The more people who opt out, the better. I especially can't wait for whatever generation decides not to opt in to the stock market so that pyramid scheme can come tumbling down. My favorite thing to hear when the stock market was really falling fast was the constant rhetoric to keep putting your money in! Yes, obviously, because that's the only way it works and other people make money. Is if new money continually comes in. Hey, that IS how pyramid schemes work, right?
The difference is that a corporation actually uses stockholders' money to make stuff and sell it. There's a lot of speculation involved, and it gets really contorted where lawyers and tax collectors get involved, but at the bottom of it something of value supposedly is being produced (Enron is not representative). In a pyramid scheme, Social Security, for example, money is simply being moved around without actually being involved in a productive process.
Originally posted by Jeff
It's funny how certain words become death blows in political speak. Conspiracy isn't quite as bad as it used to be (thanks to the fact that so many actually exist). But 'agenda' sure comes in handy! It's conspiracy lite!
But it sounds less conspiratorial. ;)
Originally posted by Jeff
Welfare whore!
Hey... at least a whore freely contracts to provide a service. With Social Security, I'm gettin' screwed all right, but free contract ain't a part of it.
"There's a lot of speculation involved, but at the bottom of it something of value is being produced (Enron is not representative)."
That's really untrue. When a company goes public, at that time, and only at that time, is the price of the stock based on the estimated value of the corporation. After that, it's really just a popularity contest. I think the huge speculation boom of the dot com companies proved this. As long as people believe in the market and keep putting money into it, it will be healthy and people who have been in it longer make more money. If I put my money in a crappy stock and convince a whole bunch of other people in the supposed value of that stock, then I will make lots of money. Obviously, a company known to do well will make more money. That's what make people believe it's not a scam. But all you need is the illusion of doing well, thus the dot com boom, and you can get inflated prices. Of course a lot of those stocks weren't worth the price. But that's wholly the point. Stocks aren't based on a company's output. Stocks are based on a shared belief between a bunch of people that the stock is worth something.
And it's funny you mention social security to compare with the stock market as being worse because you have to opt in. Hell, I agree that Social Security is also a pyramid scheme. But who do you think is the bigger fool, someone who pays to a pyramid scheme they're forced to or someone who joyfully participates? Whether you believe the stock market is based on some sort of value or not matters little. Most pyramid schemes base themeselves around some supposed value. Like a learning tool. Or a letter writing job. But it is still a pyramid scheme.
Tell me, would your stock go up in price if the company did better while no more money was put into the market? No, it would not. If the stock is based on the company, the price should go up as the company does better. But the price only goes up when more people purchase that stock.
And willingly participating in a pyramid scheme is just stealing money from people who join after you. And I agree with you that social security is a government sponsored pyramid scheme. As the stock market is a corporate sponsored pyramid scheme. Funny how the only time they're illegal is when the so-called blue collar worker gets involved with them.
I'm not for big government. I'm for your utopian anarchy of the non-pissing on cheese deli. And I use the word utopian in its exact meaning in that there can never exist that world.
Big government is one of those phrases that I grew tired of listening to conservative talk radio, along with intellectual honesty and moral clarity. Big government is just a way of criticizing the government when it is doing things you don't want it to do.
It's never big government when the military sends troops all over the world to die. Just when the government wants to actually spend some money helping out those of us less fortunate here at home.
[And for the record, a lot of what I'm saying isn't an argument at an assumption of what Grinch might think. I'm mainly still ranting at things Grinch reminded me I hated about conservative talk radio]
Because I'm also for lesser government. Let me at least make that clear. But while many conservatives think it's just and right to give lots of money to the military to protect us from foreign (and in-bred revolutionary) threats, they don't think it's just and right to spend money on making a better life for everyone here in the states. And we all know why, too.
It's about comfort and luxury and making sure nobody pisses on their cheese. They want people to fight and die so they can feel safe shopping. But they don't want to feel like they're doing more work than anyone else for that luxury.
Oh, and one thing about this war on terrorism bullshit. It's so fucking ironic and typical of the government. Terrorism. Hello? We all know what terrorism is, right? It's not about blowing up a building full of people with a bomb strapped to your back. Terrorism, people! Fight a war on terror? Hello? You idiots! Terrorism is about changing the way people live their lives through fear and intimidation. You just lost the war on terrorism when you change the whole fucking way the country runs because YOU ARE FUCKING SCARED! FUCKERS! Again, terrorists don't blow up a few people just to blow up a few people. And, at the bottom of it all, it's not about the dead guy's religious or political agenda. It's to show you you're not safe. You're never safe. Safety is, once again, illusory.
Understand, the only way to live amongst so many other people is to believe in things that don't actually exist. It is only when those beliefs are shown to be illusions that people freak out completely. Take Columbine. The safety of the middle middle class suburban white world was shattered. That is what got people so freaked out. Because it was unexpected. Because the illusion of safety in white middle class suburbia has been lived for so long that it almost ceased to be an illusion. Same with the World Trade Center attack. Living in America isn't supposed to be like that. The government scrambling to protect America is really just scrambling to recreate the illusion of peace and serenity.
Remember, we aren't at war only when our country declares we're at war. Wars also don't stop when our country declares the fighting is over. The world doesn't sit back and do what our leaders say is happening. We were at war long before Pearl Harbor. We just ignored the fact. As we were at war with a certain faction of Islam that had declared Holy Jihad on us. We just ignored them as being, for the most part, inconsequential.
We can live with these illusions as long as nobody sticks a fork in our eye. And that, also, is how I ignore the government. As long as I don't get fucked with, I'm pretty content with my life. But then I get stuck with a huge IRS bill because I didn't pay my allotment of social security taxes on contract work and I crack. I don't want to be arrested, so I pay the thing. I shouldn't have done that. I should have said fuck all to that and gone my merry way.
But that wouldn't have left my illusion of being left alone up for very long, now would it? But you know what? As long as this country is involved with military action in an ephemeral War on Terrorism (basically a be-all, do-all catch phrase that allows them to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without proof only suspicion), I'm done with taxes. Sure, I'm still participating in the system. As Grinch points out, to eat and not freeze. But I'm a stubborn cuss who missed out on nearly half of Kindergarten because I didn't like my routine changed, so I'll do my part by doing what I do.
We can feel good about thinking critically and having free speech and living in a pretty spectacular and well-off country but it still doesn't stop the bus from bearing down on you or the government killing you at any time they want.
Hey, by the way, did you all know LBJ killed JFK?
Oooh, that's gonna be my new hit single.
Hey, can we also talk about people who don't understand freedom?
Anybody who, when discussing freedom, makes it plural, doesn't understand freedom.
People who say, 'How can you say that about America when the only reason you can say that is because you live in America,' don't understand freedom.
People who think they have the RIGHT to NOT have to see or hear something don't understand freedom.
People who think rating systems help them make informed decisions don't understand freedom.
People who believe making America safe against terrorism by any means possible don't understand freedom.
People who are afraid to die don't understand freedom.
Brent
10-20-2003, 11:54 AM
I rate this thread a six!
The Grinch
10-23-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
When a company goes public, at that time, and only at that time, is the price of the stock based on the estimated value of the corporation. After that, it's really just a popularity contest... Stocks are based on a shared belief between a bunch of people that the stock is worth something.
Tell me, would your stock go up in price if the company did better while no more money was put into the market? No, it would not. If the stock is based on the company, the price should go up as the company does better. But the price only goes up when more people purchase that stock.
Faith certainly is a big element, but it's not purely random. I'm no business wiz, but can't the price can move independently of volume? If your model is correct, unless a company keeps issuing more and more stock, how can it keep going up? The price goes up based on what people believe it's worth, and that has to do with the company's ability to perform.
Originally posted by Jeff
And it's funny you mention social security to compare with the stock market as being worse because you have to opt in. Hell, I agree that Social Security is also a pyramid scheme. But who do you think is the bigger fool, someone who pays to a pyramid scheme they're forced to or someone who joyfully participates? Whether you believe the stock market is based on some sort of value or not matters little. Most pyramid schemes base themeselves around some supposed value. Like a learning tool. Or a letter writing job. But it is still a pyramid scheme.
Statistically, the stock market as a whole has outperformed Social Security in terms of the rate of return. Social security doesn't produce anything. The stock market represents interests companies that actually produce wealth. If it was a pyramid scheme, you'd always have winners and losers balancing out, but even when you take downturns into account, the average of investors comes out ahead over time.
Even if you were correct, a voluntary investor may be a bigger fool than someone who's forced into SS, but isn't it his right to be a fool? My problem is with government, which is supposed to protect peoples' rights, taking those rights away instead - which is exactly what happens with SS.
Originally posted by Jeff
I'm not for big government. I'm for your utopian anarchy of the non-pissing on cheese deli. And I use the word utopian in its exact meaning in that there can never exist that world.
It certainly can't exist in a world where people have the idea that society owes them something for taking up space. I think it could exist, if people could get out of that mindset.
Originally posted by Jeff
Big government is one of those phrases that I grew tired of listening to conservative talk radio, along with intellectual honesty and moral clarity. Big government is just a way of criticizing the government when it is doing things you don't want it to do.
It's never big government when the military sends troops all over the world to die. Just when the government wants to actually spend some money helping out those of us less fortunate here at home.
I'll tell you exactly what the difference is. Government exists to protect people's life, liberty and property from predatory behavior by their fellow man. It is the people pooling their collective right of self-defense by deadly force. There's a great little book called The Law (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html) by Frederic Bastiat, that explains this very well. I double-dog dare ya to read this book.
Anyway, when the government raises armies its supposed to be to protect you and your stuff from other armies that want to come kill you and break or steal your stuff. (Nope, it doesn't always work that way.) That is a legitimate use of government.
Now lets look at helping the poor. In order to give wealth to the poor, it has to be taken away from somebody else. If people give it willingly, that's a good thing. It helps the poor people, and it also helps the rich people grow as compassionate human beings. But when government gets involved, the situation changes. Government has a legal monopoly on deadly force. When it gives to the poor, it does so by taking away from others against their will. When you take from others against their will, it's theft. Using government to help the poor is using the wrong tool for the job, like using a gun to open a bottle of beer. It's a misappropriation.
Originally posted by Jeff
[And for the record, a lot of what I'm saying isn't an argument at an assumption of what Grinch might think. I'm mainly still ranting at things Grinch reminded me I hated about conservative talk radio]
You're right not to pin the C-word on me. I agree with conservatives on a lot of things, but disagree with them on a lot of things too. Don't even get me started on the "war on drugs"... As for talk radio I dare ya to try this one: www.boortz.com (http://www.boortz.com) but don't call him conservative either ;)
Originally posted by Jeff
Terrorism is about changing the way people live their lives through fear and intimidation. You just lost the war on terrorism when you change the whole fucking way the country runs because YOU ARE FUCKING SCARED! FUCKERS! Again, terrorists don't blow up a few people just to blow up a few people. And, at the bottom of it all, it's not about the dead guy's religious or political agenda. It's to show you you're not safe. You're never safe. Safety is, once again, illusory.
They want to show you you're not safe not just to show you you're not safe, but to intimidate you into doing something they want.
Originally posted by Jeff
Remember, we aren't at war only when our country declares we're at war. Wars also don't stop when our country declares the fighting is over. The world doesn't sit back and do what our leaders say is happening. We were at war long before Pearl Harbor. We just ignored the fact. As we were at war with a certain faction of Islam that had declared Holy Jihad on us. We just ignored them as being, for the most part, inconsequential.
This is true, the world is dangerous, and there will always be people who want to kill other people who are happier, and steal or break their stuff. This gets back to my earlier point of the military being a legitimate and unfortunately necessary function of government, even as it leaves you free to enjoy your life.
Originally posted by Jeff
We can live with these illusions as long as nobody sticks a fork in our eye. And that, also, is how I ignore the government. As long as I don't get fucked with, I'm pretty content with my life. But then I get stuck with a huge IRS bill because I didn't pay my allotment of social security taxes on contract work and I crack. I don't want to be arrested, so I pay the thing. I shouldn't have done that. I should have said fuck all to that and gone my merry way.
But that wouldn't have left my illusion of being left alone up for very long, now would it? But you know what? As long as this country is involved with military action in an ephemeral War on Terrorism (basically a be-all, do-all catch phrase that allows them to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without proof only suspicion), I'm done with taxes. Sure, I'm still participating in the system. As Grinch points out, to eat and not freeze. But I'm a stubborn cuss who missed out on nearly half of Kindergarten because I didn't like my routine changed, so I'll do my part by doing what I do.
In other words, you caved to intimidation.
Originally posted by Jeff
We can feel good about thinking critically and having free speech and living in a pretty spectacular and well-off country but it still doesn't stop the bus from bearing down on you or the government killing you at any time they want.
Depends on what you let it do. If enough people are sheep, it'll do whatever it wants. Which brings us back to the matter of participation.
I wish you success at being left alone, but as long as enough people are intimidated into non-participation, you won't be left alone; it'll keep after you and more will never be enough.
The Grinch
10-23-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
Hey, can we also talk about people who don't understand freedom?
Anybody who, when discussing freedom, makes it plural, doesn't understand freedom.
People who say, 'How can you say that about America when the only reason you can say that is because you live in America,' don't understand freedom.
People who think they have the RIGHT to NOT have to see or hear something don't understand freedom.
People who think rating systems help them make informed decisions don't understand freedom.
People who believe making America safe against terrorism by any means possible don't understand freedom.
People who are afraid to die don't understand freedom.
Totally agree...
Brent
10-23-2003, 01:08 PM
Now I rate this thread a five.
I haven't seen such a massive rating of threads since the annual "Am I Hot Or Not" -contest down at the local weaver's guild!
Brent
10-23-2003, 01:43 PM
I know! If it weren't for Hot or Not giving me the freedom to rate chicks, I don't know what I'd do!
Wait... It lets you rate them..?
Brent
10-23-2003, 02:24 PM
Duh! That's why the TV version failed! You didn't get to rate them, and so we felt oppressed.
Plus, Lorenzo Lamas kept telling uglies they were en fuego!
Oh, yeah. I guess I must've gotten it confused with that other website. What was its name..? It had lots of feminine people on it, all screeching and clawing at each others eyes and conspiring behind each others backs... Oh yeah! I remember! It was called "www.whitehouse.gov"!
"Faith certainly is a big element, but it's not purely random. I'm no business wiz, but can't the price can move independently of volume? If your model is correct, unless a company keeps issuing more and more stock, how can it keep going up? The price goes up based on what people believe it's worth, and that has to do with the company's "
Stocks are only offered when the company goes public. How can it keep going up? Well, how can the price of comic books or antique furniture or baseball cards keep going up? The only time the amount of shares increase is when a stock splits. And the only reason a stock splits? Because it has gotten too expensive for the average investor to purchase. Without stocks being purchased and traded, they can't go up in price. Again, doesn't matter how the company is doing. Mostly it's how the company is perceived to be doing. And that can be manipulated by many, many, many different means. Agreed, it's not purely random. If it were random, it would be gambling. But it's not gambling. It's a pyramid scheme.
"Statistically, the stock market as a whole has outperformed Social Security in terms of the rate of return. Social security doesn't produce anything. The stock market represents interests companies that actually produce wealth. If it was a pyramid scheme, you'd always have winners and losers balancing out, but even when you take downturns into account, the average of investors comes out ahead over time."
First off, deflecting to how Social Security is worse than the Stock Market isn't an argument in favor of the Stock Market. And, again, the Stock Market does not produce anything. This is exactly right: The stock market REPRESENTS ... companies that actually produce wealth." It's a representation. But this is completely wrong: If it was a pyramid scheme, you'd always have winners and losers balancing out. Critical think for me for a second. A Pyramid Scheme can exist and make money for everyone IF new people and new money is continually introduced into that scheme. A pyramid scheme fails when nobody new is recruited. At that time, the people who have been there the longest, have made a lot of money, no big deal. It's all the people who are newly in that lose big. Now picture nobody new ever purchasing stock. What's gonna happen?
"It certainly can't exist in a world where people have the idea that society owes them something for taking up space. I think it could exist, if people could get out of that mindset."
Why would someone self-program themselves with this degree of prejudice? Seriously, you think a Utopian Anarchy could exist if people get out of a 'society owes them something' mindset? What about an 'I'm going to do whatever I can to get rich' mindset? What about an 'I feel no empathy toward others' mindset? What about an 'I can't feel safe until all other countries are like ares' mindset? Seriously, there is a whole lot more wrong with the way people think to keep a Utopian Anarchy from ever happening. And it isn't just people who want something for nothing. A whole slew of people also work hard to earn a lot of money at the expense of other people.
'I double-dog dare ya to read this book.'
Oh, okay. I've been dared. I better do it. It's my social responsibility. Hmm, maybe I have read it.
'In other words, you caved to intimidation.'
Yes, I think I said that, but thanks for clearing it all up so succinctly.
"I wish you success at being left alone, but as long as enough people are intimidated into non-participation, you won't be left alone."
And, for one, I have never been intimidated into non-participation. If you reread that bit which you summarized so mean-spiritedly, I was INTIMIDATED INTO PARTICIPATION.
Here's my probable bottom line: I understand what government does and what it is supposed to do, traditionally. Military is necessary. Yeah, yeah. But when the military becomes such an out-of-control tool of a world despot, I'm supposed to be concerned about the part of my tax money that is being stolen by lay-abouts?
Oh yeah, and didn't you all hear the LBJ killed JFK?
The Grinch
10-24-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Jeff
First off, deflecting to how Social Security is worse than the Stock Market isn't an argument in favor of the Stock Market. And, again, the Stock Market does not produce anything. This is exactly right: The stock market REPRESENTS ... companies that actually produce wealth." It's a representation.
I didn't say the stockmarket "produced", I said it outperformed in terms of rate fo return. Companies produce (at least, that's the goal). And what the stock market represents is part ownership in a company. If a company produces wealth, shareholders gain a share of what it produces. If it loses wealth, the shareholders share in the loss, which is reflected by falling stock value.
Originally posted by Jeff
But this is completely wrong: If it was a pyramid scheme, you'd always have winners and losers balancing out. Critical think for me for a second. A Pyramid Scheme can exist and make money for everyone IF new people and new money is continually introduced into that scheme. A pyramid scheme fails when nobody new is recruited. At that time, the people who have been there the longest, have made a lot of money, no big deal. It's all the people who are newly in that lose big. Now picture nobody new ever purchasing stock. What's gonna happen?
If nobody new purchases stock, the exisitng shareholders still own part of the company, and if it makes a profit they'll share in it. In a true pyramid scheme, nothing is actually being produced. Investing money in a company helps it produce. Mailing money to the first five people on a list does not produce anything, it just moves money around.
Originally posted by Jeff
Why would someone self-program themselves with this degree of prejudice? Seriously, you think a Utopian Anarchy could exist if people get out of a 'society owes them something' mindset? What about an 'I'm going to do whatever I can to get rich' mindset? What about an 'I feel no empathy toward others' mindset? What about an 'I can't feel safe until all other countries are like ares' mindset? Seriously, there is a whole lot more wrong with the way people think to keep a Utopian Anarchy from ever happening. And it isn't just people who want something for nothing. A whole slew of people also work hard to earn a lot of money at the expense of other people.
I must have misread something. I don't think a "utopian anarchy" can exist because it's human nature to get wha they want by the easiest means. We'll always need government to make sure that the easiest means insn't preying upon each other. I do think a society can exist where government is limited to this function. As it is now, people are using government to prey on each other as much as to stop each other preying on each other.
Originally posted by Jeff
I have never been intimidated into non-participation. If you reread that bit which you summarized so mean-spiritedly, I was INTIMIDATED INTO PARTICIPATION.
Okay, first of all, Jeff, I never intended it to come off sounding mean, so if it reads that way then I'm truly sorry. I'm treating this board as a discussion among friends, so in no way do I mean to be taking shots. I may yank a chain now and then, but it's intended to be in fun.
And we've all caved, because for the most part, life's too short to deal with all the BS goverment can throw at us. I've caved to the point where I surrender close to half of what I earn, against my will, because they have the monopoly on deadly force and I don't want to lose any more.
The difference is that I offer resistance in ways that won't make me homeless or land me in jail. I do that by voting, and by making my views known to others in hopes others will do the same and spread the word. The guys I vote for aren't perfect, but I can try to settle for one little piece at a time. You can argue it's pointless, but I reckon it's better than just giving up, because I haven't been intimidated into thinking it's all inevitable. If you don't offer legal resistance when you're being plundered, you're giving tacit approval. If I vote for something and I don't get it, at least I've earned the right to bitch about it.
Originally posted by Jeff
Here's my probable bottom line: I understand what government does and what it is supposed to do, traditionally. Military is necessary. Yeah, yeah. But when the military becomes such an out-of-control tool of a world despot, I'm supposed to be concerned about the part of my tax money that is being stolen by lay-abouts?
You should be concerned about all of if, because it's not being stolen by layabouts, it's being stolen by the despot and he's using it to bribe the layabouts to keep him in power. But if you think the military HAS become "such an out-of-control tool of a world despot", then it's done so with your money, and if you didn't offer legal resistance then you gave tacit approval. Sorry if that pisses you off, but hey, if we all just withdrew when we didn't like the system, we'd still be living with a monarchy, with prohibition, with segregation, with conscription, and any other institutionalised bullshit you care to name.
Originally posted by Jeff
Oh yeah, and didn't you all hear the LBJ killed JFK?
Yeah, I've heard LBJ, KGB, CIA, VC, PRC, RNC, MI5, DDT, VFW, UAW, NOW, USPS, AFL-CIO, NAACP, RAF, EPA, RCMP, BSA, NFL, and UFOs. Basically, if you have initials, you're a suspect. :eek:
The Grinch
10-24-2003, 10:17 AM
Crap... this all started 'cause I was trying to tell zer0 that the government here doesn't go after you for freedom of speech, and then this bullshit happens (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/1003/24diary.html)... Someone pass me a piece o' that crow.
You could have saved yourself an incredible amount of time (and writing) by dropping the complex social theories and viewing your own country from a uncomplicated point of view instead. It's a rogue state which deprives it's citizens of freedom of speech if that freedom does not correspond with or suit the overall plan. Period. I knew I was right all along. And without the lenghty discussions, too.
I guess it really takes a foreigner to point out the inherant flaws in another country. Feel free to retalitate by pointing out some flaws in my country! :)
Heh. You know, it's pretty funny; if you read yours and Jeff's lenghty discussion from start to finish, you'll se that the results you eventually arrived at are almost the same as those which I originally claimed were true. Guess complex theories aren't necessary to understand national politics. All one really has to be able to do is think like a dirty crook.
I understand the stock market is a better income generator than social security. I've never argued that point. I'm trying to explain how the stock market is a fraud. Telling me there is another fraud going on doesn't make the first fraud any better.
Grinch, I think we both need to do a little reading on how the stock market actually works. But I'm to understand that the company that goes public with stock only receives money at that initial time. There's some sort of committee or something that decides what the company is worth and its potential or whatever, and they place a value and amount of shares that can be placed on the market. These shares are initially owned by the company, right? That's how we get the majority shareholder and hostile take-overs and stuff. The guy with the most shares holds on to the most shares because it means something to someone somewhere. The company only gets money for these shares the first time they're sold out to non-participants of the company. Just as a comic book company makes money for the comics first flooding the market. After that, the comic book company makes no more money on the books that are traded and sold in the secondary market.
The stock market works only on faith. Just like the secondary market for comic books. It's all speculation and whatever interest people show in the different companies at the different times. But where-as DC or Marvel provide an entertainment product that then can be used as a profit making means by the people who purchased it, the stock market offers nothing of value except a ballot in a popularity contest. Stocks only matter if a whole bunch of people think they matter.
Downturns prove this. The last downturn in the market was huge. Because a whole lot of people lost faith in it. People were hesitant to reinvest their money. And the only way money is made, is if people are reinvesting and newly investing. All of America's companies could have been doing a real bang-up job and it wouldn't have mattered if people weren't confident to reinvest. Just as if everybody pulled their money out of the banking system, it'd collapse.
The stock market isn't, obviously, a true pyramid scheme. But my point is, it's close enough. It relies on other people's money to make your money grow without actually selling anything except a piece of paper with a companies name on it.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure this is wrong: "If nobody new purchases stock, the exisitng shareholders still own part of the company, and if it makes a profit they'll share in it." You're talking about something other than stocks here. Not all stocks provide the owner with a dividend. I'll ask my dad about some of this stuff as he's one of them stocks guys.
Here's a big thing to consider: People in a pyramid scheme are going to promote the hell out of their pyramid scheme because it makes them money. When there is a huge downturn, what do all the stock market businessy types say? Keep investing! Keep investing! Because investing is the cow's life source. Not the company. Seriously, once the stock goes on the market, you can take the company and its exploits entirely out of the picture. You know why so many people lost money on Enron? Because all the rats with all the money left the ship. And what happens when you're two-hundredth in line to sell off a comic book that everyone else is also selling off? Not gonna get anything for it.
Brent
10-24-2003, 03:40 PM
Theoretically, stock should generate dividends for you if it's making a profit. Grinch ain't wrong there.
Many corporations often skip handing out dividends, however, to reinvest in the company -- Microsoft was famous for this, although they handed out dividends recently. This is decided by a vote of shareholders. Unless I'm wrong.
Oh, yeah. That's because the shareholders are dirty crooks too. They're all dirty crooks. All of them, I tell you! Yep.
Oh yeah, and let me just say this about that.
The stock market does make people money. It makes a lot of people money.
But I don't think making money should be the end all reason for the things we do or what we participate in. If that's the way someone has chosen for their retirement, good luck and I hope it works out. I'm sure it will. Which is the reason it gets compared to Social Security but I just can't stand when I'm trying to discuss the inherent faults of one system and the argument in favor of the system is 'Well, look at that system over there!' If the discussion was options for retirement, granted, cool, great. We'll discuss 'em all.
I'm just trying to point out why the stock market works and how easy it would be to fail. One generation decides not to buy in, it's done. Over. Collapsed.
I think the reason people don't take a really, really critical look at how the market works is because A. it makes people money, B. the people in the system don't want to explain what a fantasy it all really is or they might not get new recruits and C. it makes people money.
I wonder if it'll ever tip when more people pull out than put in. Mmm, sex.
Also, don't be surprised when the national, well-respected news media start claiming, if ever, that LBJ was behind JFK's death. It's pretty easy to write off nowadays like Grinch did because so many people have supposed and what-notted it.
But rest assured, LBJ was behind it.
Don't look at me like I'm a nutjob. Look into it. Or don't. I'm sure nobody cares anymore.
Here's another interesting thing said to me:
COUSIN (looking at my copy of Weekly World News [and NO, I did not get the LBJ fact from there. Sheesh]: How can people be allowed to print this stuff?
ME: Well, you can do a lot of stuff with satire.
COUSIN: But some people believe this stuff!
Man, that still makes me laugh. And yet, he'd never pick up a copy of Time or Newsweek and ask the same question. Yet that's where the question would be more pertinent.
Damn, why do I post on this thread so much? I blame Grinch. I'm just little Cindy Lou Who trying to get that heart to expand three sizes or more.
And the whole being intimidated not to participate thing is stupid. I'm just more concerned with things in my life with my family and friends than I am in casting a pebbles at a bureaucratic juggernaut that won't ever be changed by anything short of violent revolution. But before we get to that, I need to finish my latte.
Yet if it's decided by a vote of shareholders, that's probably why majority of shares remain with the company. So they can vote to not give dividends. Which means they're dirty crooks.
Brent
10-24-2003, 04:34 PM
Yep! But you can always dump your stock. And if your stock is up, you still get something. Microsoft's stock was valuable unto itself because of the leaps and bounds it experienced, not because it was making money for shareholders.
My dividends from my various stocks (not, not many, enough to be interested in the market) have never been worth writing home about.
Anyway, stocks aren't something I value until we sell NA!P stocks. And you best believe it's gonna be majority owned, boyeee!
Brent
10-24-2003, 04:37 PM
And then there's Ken, who pimped SGI on me at $4 a share, a price it's never seen again in the years since. FREAKIN' KEN! Never trust and English Major turned Financial Officer to provide accurate stock tips!
Nicole
10-24-2003, 05:24 PM
I think everyone should just move to Alstralia. We don't have stocks here. Or JFKLBJFBICIAGOV.
Yep.
No way! I'd rather face the Men in Black than all the poisons in Alstralia! You can't do anything in Alstralia without coming away poisoned.
Am I obsessed with the poisons of Alstralia? I need a new hobby.
I've never owned a single piece of stock in my whole life. Not because of some silly moral principle, but because I've been too shit-ass broke. Otherwise I would've bought a controlling interest in one of the major companies of today and begun a reign of terror. When it comes right down to it, we're all dirty crooks.
You're a dirty crook? You're off the game design team! Forget it! No deal! I'm cutting my losses right now before I get swindled by some Swedish Lex Luthor wanna-be!
And principles aren't moral! You take that back!
Oh, c'mon! What about that time you took control of a small third-world country and spread a deadly virus that turned it's citizens into flesh-eating zombies just for kicks? You think everyone has forgotten about that just because you choose to keep quiet about it? Huh? Why, you're just as bad as I am! You have no moral. Or principles. Or moral principles, even! So shaddap, you dirty crook!
At least my zombies had health coverage! Although working conditions weren't too great. And lunch time was strictly one half of an hour! Although, I probably should have extended lunch time since it always provided me with more zombie workers when it was over.
Sheesh! Your so-called "health coverage" consisted of a spool of thread, a needle and a stapler, along with a sign reading "help yourselves in case of limb- or appendix loss". That's not being considerate towards the living dead in my opinion. But i liked the part where you taught them to dance the macarena, though. That decomposing, flabby zombie in the Elvis costume was my favorite! He dropped like one pound of flesh every time he shook his fat ass! Maybe after we get the game finished, we can start "Jeff's and zer0's zombie school of world domination and latino dancing"! Whaddya say?
Brent
10-25-2003, 09:28 AM
And then you could be sitting here, typing a defense of your actions against Jeff's pyramid-scheme declaration. "But I provided capital! I took a risk!" Waaaaaa ha ha ha!
It's all about where you're coming from, dig?
I come from Sweden! Hello! :)
The Grinch
10-28-2003, 10:04 AM
Okay, I'm bored with arguing about the stock market 'cause as a subject it just doesn't interest me much. I'll agree that an element of faith goes into stock values, but I also insist that once you get past that, stocks do have value. I think Jeff will agree with that too, but he thinks the faith based portion is a lot larger than I do. Might as well move on to something less boring.... like LBJ and JFK...nothing would surprise me there. I just thought it would be fun to list all those initials.
And don't worry, zer0, you'll get your own rogue superstate to oppress the world and punish your free speech soon enough. The programming and cogs of the machine have been in place for years. Now it just remains for a central authority to assume full control. You will be assimilated... resistance is futile... (Is it coincidence that "Borg" sounds Swedish? I think not...) :p
Cappy Ahab
10-30-2003, 01:23 PM
Buy!!!
Sell!!!
No...Buy!!!
Quit complaining...it was free advice, after all.
See what happens when you leave the forum for a while, Cappy? It degenerates into quasi-serious discussion.
You were right, though; the English really are bad.
Brent
10-30-2003, 03:09 PM
Speaking of serious: I caught teh latest episode of teh 2nd edition of Joe Millionaire -- you know, teh one where tehy fool a bunch of European girls into falling in love with an allegedly rich cowboy who actually is a very poor cowboy -- and all teh Swedish chicks talk like tehy're from California!
Have teh Hollywood goons seeped that far into teh Swedish culture??
Cappy Ahab
10-30-2003, 03:32 PM
Silly Brent. Those "European" girls are SoCal natives. The "mansion" is a backlot. The "cowboy" is a Gardena group home resident. The money is made out of tinfoil. The breakaway glass is pure sugar. The horse is Jeff's cousin Eunice. The host is cheap CGI. The girls' tears are frozen tator tots, painted clear.
Sheesh. I can't believe you fell for the smoke and mirrors of Hollywood. Get out of Berkely before you start believing in the moon landing.
Dude, what's with all teh "teh's"?
Brent
10-30-2003, 04:19 PM
I actually typed the first one as "teh," so I just kept it up. For consistency's sake.
Oh. I taught you was makkin fnun off me bcuase I'm fogein andf my engliss is a bti flawewd sometymes.
Actually, now that I think about it, the only blatant misspelling I ever think I've made on this site is the time when I spelled licorice "liquorice". Mmm! Alcoholic candy!
Brent
10-30-2003, 04:29 PM
Your American accent is really well delivered here on the boards, zer0. You remind me of the Swedish Bikini Team competing on Joe Millionaire.
Tack så mycket! Er, I mean thank you very much!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.