Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

[Cricket]

LMAO . . .

The value of the total points will vary based on the total number of points of the person giving you the rep.

BTW with all due respect, my daughter is 12 years old and it has been several years since she has used the line of not apologizing until the other one does first.

Do me a favor and take the time to read the guidelines for this forum, especially the following.

Enter at Your Own Risk - Controversial topics can become heated very quickly. If you want to participate in the political forums, there will be times that you are going to need thick skin.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by antolage

For the 3rd time. You are choosing from a very very small group of people that are supported by a few corporations.

You do Not choose free candidates. I repeat, you do NOT choose free candidates! You are choosing from the 2 parties with the highest budget.

Um, yes, we do choose freely. We choose Republicans and we choose Democrats. Nobody forces us to choose those. If we wanted, we could choose a communist. Fortunately, we choose people who understand and represent our values - those people being Republicans and Democrats.

Now, would you mind telling me just how capitalism prevents me from choosing freely? Is there some law in capitalism that says that I cannot nominate Bob Buttmunch Jones, National Socialist? I'm very very very curious to hear how capitalism prevents me from voting freely.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by antolage

If he apologizes first for putting 2x negative reps on my profile for having an opinion he doesnt have!

Then yes, then i will apologize.

And tell me, how does it get to 4 negative stars with 2 negative and 1 positive rep? Really if you dont see what is happening here, something is really wrong. Update: he now put it to 6.

He is trying the well known conservative method, trying to make someone look bad if he cant win the discussion.

I'm addicted. My name is John Scott, and I cannot stop giving you red rep.

Seriously, until you describe how capitalism impedes democracy, I'm giving you negative rep for posting nonsense. Think of it as motivation to do the right thing.

[antolage]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Um, yes, we do choose freely. We choose Republicans and we choose Democrats. Nobody forces us to choose those. If we wanted, we could choose a communist. Fortunately, we choose people who understand and represent our values - those people being Republicans and Democrats.

Now, would you mind telling me just how capitalism prevents me from choosing freely? Is there some law in capitalism that says that I cannot nominate Bob Buttmunch Jones, National Socialist? I'm very very very curious to hear how capitalism prevents me from voting freely.

Capitalism does not carry any rules, it has only the law of the jungle. The one wich is the strongest gets the most power. You must for example understand that when you sell your electricity lines, or your drinking water installations, there will be no longer a democraticly chosen party ruling over it.
The hierarchy in the businesses is more likely to be a dictatorship like system. There is simply one big boss. (exceptions ofcourse)

And no, there is no rule that forbids you can choose your friend Buttmunch, but there is also no rule that says you can.
The leaders are chosen between a very small group of people. They are selected by the businesses together with the parties, they decide who the best choices are for the people to choose on. So they show you the candidates.

Your precious little media democracy makes you believe you choose freely, while instead you see just 4 or 5 candidates, where only 2 candidates will always remain.

But I am seriously interested, when did the commercial of the political party of your friend Buttmuch the national socialist air? I really believe the only political commercials you will see on American television will either be the Republicans or the Democrats.

[antolage]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I'm addicted. My name is John Scott, and I cannot stop giving you red rep.

Seriously, until you describe how capitalism impedes democracy, I'm giving you negative rep for posting nonsense. Think of it as motivation to do the right thing.

Get an education. Will really help you.

You can try abusing your power as much as you want man. Action means reaction.
I think if my brains worked at your level I would allready have thrown a couple o' gbits against this forum to have it get some downtime. But at least I am psychologically capable of keeping a hold of myself in a discussion.
We were talking about facts, you keep on trying to make it personal to try to affect the discussion.
Keep it factional. Don't make a fool of yourself by trying personal attacks on your discussion partner.

[antolage]

Originally Posted by Cricket

LMAO . . .

The value of the total points will vary based on the total number of points of the person giving you the rep.

BTW with all due respect, my daughter is 12 years old and it has been several years since she has used the line of not apologizing until the other one does first.

Do me a favor and take the time to read the guidelines for this forum, especially the following.

Yes, and I am not the one getting heated here. I am doing a normal discussion here. I am not the one giving out the negative reputation.

I think these rules should apply more to mr John Scott.

His skin should be thick enough to keep himself away from the reputation button.

Chi pecora si fa, il lupo mangia

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by antolage

Capitalism does not carry any rules, it has only the law of the jungle. The one wich is the strongest gets the most power. You must for example understand that when you sell your electricity lines, or your drinking water installations, there will be no longer a democraticly chosen party ruling over it.

Oh, I get you. You never went to school. You don't even know what democracy is, right? In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority rules everything. The majority, not some imagined "elite" rule things they shouldn't.

Public utilities - yep, that's within the jurisdiction of public oversight. Democracy tells the utilities how, when, why and how much.

I guess this whole argument is due to your lack of education. You simply did not know what democracy was, and though that in democracy the people did not make it their business to oversee public utilities. Ignorance on your part. No problem.

Originally Posted by antolage

The hierarchy in the businesses is more likely to be a dictatorship like system. There is simply one big boss. (exceptions ofcourse)

LOL. Big business - also subject to democratically imposed rules. Also, unfortunately, subjected to the idiocy of the unions.

You really have no idea what democracy is, do you?

Originally Posted by antolage

And no, there is no rule that forbids you can choose your friend Buttmunch, but there is also no rule that says you can.

Again, your lack of education is rearing its ugly head. There is a rule that says I can nominate Buttmunch. It's called democracy, and we have laws that enforce that right.

Originally Posted by antolage

The leaders are chosen between a very small group of people. They are selected by the businesses together with the parties, they decide who the best choices are for the people to choose on. So they show you the candidates.

Actually, no. We choose leaders on the local level that have NO TIES WHATSOEVER to business. In some towns, the leaders elected are barbers, lawyers, college professors, and every other profession.

Who chooses them? Business? No. We choose them with our nomination. We choose them at our primaries. My votes choose them. The votes of other citizens choose them. In total, hundreds of millions of individuals choose their leaders together in a beauty of a thing called American Democracy.

Originally Posted by antolage

Your precious little media democracy makes you believe you choose freely, while instead you see just 4 or 5 candidates, where only 2 candidates will always remain.

Actually, in the beginning there are often more than four or five. Sometimes 10 or more. As the election goes on, the strongest remain, and the ones who did not get support drop out. Would you prefer the weak ones remain in the race in order to humiliate themselves?

Originally Posted by antolage

I really believe the only political commercials you will see on American television will either be the Republicans or the Democrats.

Oh, how wrong you are. Oh course the popular points of views - the Republican point of view and the Democratic point of view - are the most popular and get the most support, but there are many other parties that have made good showings, and even independents like Joe Lieberman.

Does it scare and confuse you that minority viewpoints are not wildly popular? Would you like to name a candidate that capitalism prevented us from nominating?

[antolage]

Oh, I get you. You never went to school. You don't even know what democracy is, right? In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority rules everything. The majority, not some imagined "elite" rule things they shouldn't.

Public utilities - yep, that's within the jurisdiction of public oversight. Democracy tells the utilities how, when, why and how much.

And that exactly the point. Capitalism takes that away. Public utilities are put into private hands. Corporational hands, or did you not know this?
Democracy is very good, and should rule over it, but it doesnt when the property is SOLD to private companies! I am telling you this for the 5th time now.

I guess this whole argument is due to your lack of education. You simply did not know what democracy was, and though that in democracy the people did not make it their business to oversee public utilities. Ignorance on your part. No problem.
LOL. Big business - also subject to democratically imposed rules. Also, unfortunately, subjected to the idiocy of the unions.

You really have no idea what democracy is, do you?

Some bashing a smart man will not respond to.

Again, your lack of education is rearing its ugly head. There is a rule that says I can nominate Buttmunch. It's called democracy, and we have laws that enforce that right.

Actually, no. We choose leaders on the local level that have NO TIES WHATSOEVER to business. In some towns, the leaders elected are barbers, lawyers, college professors, and every other profession.

Who chooses them? Business? No. We choose them with our nomination. We choose them at our primaries. My votes choose them. The votes of other citizens choose them. In total, hundreds of millions of individuals choose their leaders together in a beauty of a thing called American Democracy.

I do believe you bringing up a good point there, although I think you still seem to miss mine. I am trying to tell you about the fact that you can only choose your president between a selected group of people. They are appointed by the party, and yes, they mostly come from corporational groups. A pretty recent example ofcourse is the Halliburton and Carlyle group connection from Bush and Cheney, the war administration.

I am not talking about your local choices. I know for a fact that the only important thing is that the president has the right to change certain things in the laws of the country.

Actually, in the beginning there are often more than four or five. Sometimes 10 or more. As the election goes on, the strongest remain, and the ones who did not get support drop out. Would you prefer the weak ones remain in the race in order to humiliate themselves?

Thats a small part I really dont understand. Ofcourse they need to stay in the race! They need to stay in the race untill it finishes! And its not about humiliation, its about their OPINION. Not about them. Its about what they have to say.

Oh, how wrong you are. Oh course the popular points of views - the Republican point of view and the Democratic point of view - are the most popular and get the most support, but there are many other parties that have made good showings, and even independents like Joe Lieberman.

Does it scare and confuse you that minority viewpoints are not wildly popular?

Yes you are indeed right, at the local level. We are talking about the real leaders here, the leaders of the parties that give directions to those local people. Those people join a party, and they can be chosen. Yes, independant candidates are always to be found. But its about the LEADERS, not about some followers. If their law is changed, they have to listen. And by the way, Joe Lieberman? Dude that guy ran with Al Gore.

Would you like to name a candidate that capitalism prevented us from nominating?

Can you tell me about one president in the last 100 years not from the democratic or republican party?
Yes I think that answers your question.

[John Scott]

And that exactly the point. Capitalism takes that away. Public utilities are put into private hands. Corporational hands, or did you not know this?
Democracy is very good, and should rule over it, but it doesnt when the property is SOLD to private companies! I am telling you this for the 5th time now.

LOL! You really need to get en education. Private ownership does not conflict with public oversight. Even when public utilities are privately owned, we in America still oversee them democratically. Water, power, etc - they are overseen democratically.

Your ignorance on that issue is simply astonishing. Price increases, quality of water and power - all of it is overseen by elected officials.

Can you tell me about one president in the last 100 years not from the democratic or republican party?

Tell me what year in America that a generic brand outsold Coke and Pepsi. I'll give you a hint: None. Why? Are coke and pepsi forced on people? No. Coke and Pepsi outsell the generic brands, despite the affordable price and availability of generic brands, because we the consumer choose Coke and Pepsi.

[antolage]

LOL! You really need to get en education. Private ownership does not conflict with public oversight. Even when public utilities are privately owned, we in America still oversee them democratically. Water, power, etc - they are overseen democratically.

Your ignorance on that issue is simply astonishing. Price increases, quality of water and power - all of it is overseen by elected officials.

Looks nice and happy happy what you say, but in reality it doesn't work like that. If private companies own it, it will always be profit based.
You can see this very clearly at the Healthcare system of the US, wich is compared to other western countries not even a system to take seriously.

If medicines are made by mc donalds, you are still going to say that democracy rules over those medicines? Right now they are also created by private companies.
The united states does not pay for people for them to be able to go to a hospital. They will leave you bleeding in front of the hospital if you did not pay some sort of strange bill. Public healthcare does not exist there.
Also are the weapons used in the war in iraq coming from democratic civil groups?
Those are just some small examples.

Tell me what year in America that a generic brand outsold Coke and Pepsi. I'll give you a hint: None. Why? Are coke and pepsi forced on people? No. Coke and Pepsi outsell the generic brands, despite the affordable price and availability of generic brands, because we the consumer choose Coke and Pepsi.

Ye, coca cola coke used cocaine to spread it as we all know. Pepsi cola was created to cure stomach aches. It comes from the disease dyspepsia.
I dont think those are correct examples, but yes you have a point there.
There is just a big difference between a brand of coke and the public healthcare system. To be honest!
The healthcare system IS forced on people. They cant choose to be sick or not.

[upsonians]

Originally Posted by antolage

Quit giving bad reputation because of an opinion John Scott. Are you maybe a bit fascistic yourself? I have 4 bad reps allready from you because of this thread alone.

Really childish. If you cant win the discussion you try to do it like that to at least feel good about yourself? Grow up man.


Bush knew Saddam had no... 09-29-2007 07:31 AM John Scott Nonsense
Bush knew Saddam had no... 09-28-2007 06:53 PM John Scott Kind of stupid, no?

How can these be worth 4 points? And also why has the good reputation wich i got from the topic starter been removed by you?
Are you now influencing my trading on this forum too? Because you can't win a discussion?

This is really one for the big book (Oh sorry, blog!)

I'm quitting this thread from here, as I think its allready clear how things work.
As well I don't want to risk getting more of these negative reputation points from you.

Well think reputation is all dependent on ur post.You said that John gave you a red to win this dicussion , i don't think so.
If you are true then tell me why "Ferre" gave me red while i was just s third party.Ferre satated this for me in reput:
Bush knew Saddam had no... 09-30-2007 01:18 AM Ferre Ass licking isn't very nice

I don't know why he did this.

Originally Posted by antolage

I think you should really get lost now, untill you can find some knowledge to at least respond to the topic.

I was writing my post and you just posted a second before me.So i was not able to read your post at that time as just after posting my post there in a reply of the above post, i got disconnected from internet.

[antolage]

Well think reputation is all dependent on ur post.You said that John gave you a red to win this dicussion , i don't think so.
If you are true then tell me why "Ferre" gave me red while i was just s third party.Ferre satated this for me in reput:
Bush knew Saddam had no... 09-30-2007 01:18 AM Ferre Ass licking isn't very nice

I don't know why he did this.

Because John Scott gave me -625 posts for participating in this thread.
Thats just childish and not how a serious administrator should work.
I just gave my opinion about things, but then am i entitled to -625 points?

Come on man, you should know better. Indeed ass licking is not very nice, like Ferre said.

I was writing my post and you just posted a second before me.So i was not able to read your post at that time as just after posting my post there in a reply of the above post, i got disconnected from internet.

Okay, understood.

[KeithCash]

Are we saying that Yale is trying to be a major power broker of the USA, by having and even backing the Yale grads so they will be in control of US.

Hmmmmm is this a conspiracy theory. Make you think.

Cheers

[upsonians]

Originally Posted by antolage

Because John Scott gave me -625 posts for participating in this thread.
Thats just childish and not how a serious administrator should work.
I just gave my opinion about things, but then am i entitled to -625 points?

man i can show you in many of my posts in which i opposed John as well as other mod but i never found any red from them but there was only a discussion way.And still we are on a discussion of Islam and few other topics.But when i posted here i found that here is a war between you people.Well i should mention that if you are going to oppose somebody then try to get the best way of posting your point of view.All will appreciate your this act.but the way you post, seems an invitation for war and seems that you are here like a political person not a designer.
i think you and ferre are not making a discussion but acting just like warriors.
John give you red for the way you post.Not for oppsoning himThanks
Regards:
Muhammad Arif