Found 400 results
Found 400 results
I honestly just really hate baseball and want to make it sound as pointless as possible. And golf >_>
Prove me wrong. It's a game of skill, athletic ability may be advantageous, but it's not necessary to be a "professional" in baseball. Some baseball players may be very skilled, but it doesn't change the fact that they're fat and unathletic. Yes, there are plenty of athletes in baseball, but it's still a game of skill at heart.
On the other hand, soccer takes both skill and extreme fitness, as does hockey, football, tennis, swimming, basketball, whatever. Bowling, golf, baseball =/= sports.
stop hanging out at the mall. thats dumb ***** central.
I thought they were only good at sucking dick and making sammiches
..Am i reading this right? One of them pushed the other one over onto the floor to make conversation with you?
Any Ron Paul fans here?
china will buy america
What if your legs grow together.
I hate what if questions.
Natural instincts? Capitalism allows for disgusting amounts of greed to take place, but it hardly creates it. People have been greedy since we started walking on two legs (hell, before that)... I don't know what you can do about it, all I know is that it's basically inherent.
EDIT: Er, ^ that
But why do you think people tend to be greedy? Where does it come from?
Exactly. Capitalism in its current form is heavily regulated and has governmental intervention. However that doesn't mean that all capitalism relies on governmental intervention to operate successfully.
In the exact same way, socialism does not inherently require government intervention. As I said, you could have an anarchist community that implements socialism.
socialism is a system whereby the means of production are collectively owned. You could have an anarchist socialist community, just because the government may end up involved does not mean that socialism is government intervention.
Similarly capitalism is the system whereby the means of production are privately owned. And usually the ideal operation of this system is a completely free market economy allowing for the most efficient allocation of resources. However, in the current system, the government regulates, it taxes, it provides services itself in some instances but does that mean that capitalism is inherently controlled by a central state?
Well I'd argue that it always ends that way because we've yet to see any form of socialised government that hasnt been run and controlled by the corrupt and the rich. Any political revolution resulting in a socialist government thus far has ended with exactly the same people at the top: the wealthy elite. Obviously if you start off with a ruling class in a socialist society you're doing it wrong.
Socialism has everything to do with government intervention. You could argue that that's not what it was designed for (I guess), but it almost always ends with the government taking control.
Also, that's essentially what government was created for. To protect your natural-born rights and liberties. They don't remember, but that's what they were made for.
ITT: A bunch of people that don't know jack shit about politics argue about politics. This is fun!
you don't have an opinion on it?
your non-state sponsored education has served you well.
you can try to save as many as possible, but that doesn't suit your selfish viewpoint, does it?
So I assume you're a great believer in people earning what they receive?
what's your stance on inheritance?
No it's not. You're claiming that economically socialism wouldn't work. I simply stated that there has never been a socialism government. You have no proof for what you're saying, it's just something you pulled out of your ass to try to make a point.
Since we've seen so many socialist governments we know this is true.
The dollar isn't backed by gold.
It is working. We have employee-owned companies like WinCo that are expanding.
You're not understanding the idea that money has value because of:
-its limited quantity
-its ability to exchange for virtually anything.
We give it its value, if tomorrow everyone decided they don't want paper money, but demand payment in gold, paper money literally becomes worthless, regardless of any economic equations or what not.
Yes, but they have "value" because people gave them value. They didn't inherently have it.
Really, when it's all said and done, people ahve the final say as to how much anything is worth. I say it's not necessary.