Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other...
FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other...

Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other...

Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. Quote by George W. Bush, 43rd American President (b. 1946). More homepage quotes

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Yahya Bayero (1660 days ago)
Mr Bush apparently forgot to take his daily dose of pills
ReplyVote up (209)down (129)
Original comment
Mr Bush apparently forgot to take his daily dose of pills
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1664 days ago)
Rare words of wisdom by George Bush. To be fair, he doesn't mention USA.
ReplyVote up (272)down (211)
Original comment
Rare words of wisdom by George Bush. To be fair, he doesn't mention USA.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1663 days ago)
True, Walter, but to be fair, nobody says that GW Bush actually said this. I'm not sure his mind has ever been contaminated by a single original thought so I reckon it's more likely to be something written for him.
ReplyVote up (202)down (195)
Original comment
True, Walter, but to be fair, nobody says that GW Bush actually said this. I'm not sure his mind has ever been contaminated by a single original thought so I reckon it's more likely to be something written for him.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1661 days ago)
Oh how the world is changing - a pressure cooker is now a WMD.
ReplyVote up (216)down (167)
Original comment
Oh how the world is changing - a pressure cooker is now a WMD.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Max (1663 days ago)
I can't beleive the guy actually made such a statement. Have the American Government found weapons of mass destruction yet in Iraq?
ReplyVote up (213)down (171)
Original comment
I can't beleive the guy actually made such a statement. Have the American Government found weapons of mass destruction yet in Iraq?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bill McGraw (1663 days ago)
This from a government that has invaded 50 countries since WW2
ReplyVote up (198)down (185)
Original comment
This from a government that has invaded 50 countries since WW2
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Knobette Knobette (1663 days ago)
I think George was a bit confused
ReplyVote up (207)down (195)
Original comment
I think George was a bit confused
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: NielsC (1660 days ago)
Two terms of president of the USA. Who elected him?
ReplyVote up (117)down (124)
Original comment
Two terms of president of the USA. Who elected him?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jack As (1661 days ago)
We'll just take everyones guns, that way there will be no more wars, and everyone can live in harmony
ReplyVote up (111)down (118)
Original comment
We'll just take everyones guns, that way there will be no more wars, and everyone can live in harmony
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
Let me know when you have collected 100% of those guns and I will give mine up at that time too. Good luck with that.
ReplyVote up (119)down (113)
Original comment
Let me know when you have collected 100% of those guns and I will give mine up at that time too. Good luck with that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1661 days ago)
man can only invent we cant uninvent. guns have been invented but its a nice dream to have but sadly it can now only be a dream.i would like to know how jack as is going to collect all the guns you never know he may have a good idea on how it could be done???
ReplyVote up (182)down (133)
Original comment
man can only invent we cant uninvent. guns have been invented but its a nice dream to have but sadly it can now only be a dream.i would like to know how jack as is going to collect all the guns you never know he may have a good idea on how it could be done???
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jack as (1659 days ago)
I'm just feeding in the liberals on this site. Taking guns is not the answer, look at Chicago, they have the stickest gun laws and the highest crime rate.
ReplyVote up (113)down (124)
Original comment
I'm just feeding in the liberals on this site. Taking guns is not the answer, look at Chicago, they have the stickest gun laws and the highest crime rate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1659 days ago)
Latest comment: fishing then but you didnt get a bite
ReplyVote up (110)down (114)
Original comment
Latest comment: fishing then but you didnt get a bite
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1664 days ago)
USA developed weapons of mass destruction... but then the USA is far from free so I guess he's right.
ReplyVote up (198)down (205)
Original comment
USA developed weapons of mass destruction... but then the USA is far from free so I guess he's right.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Apex (1664 days ago)
GWB's presidency was one of the most grand embarrassments in my country's history.
ReplyVote up (275)down (283)
Original comment
GWB's presidency was one of the most grand embarrassments in my country's history.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: nashy (1663 days ago)
what an idiot!!
ReplyVote up (186)down (197)
Original comment
what an idiot!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: KevS (1663 days ago)
USA developed the very FIRST WMD!
ReplyVote up (244)down (265)
Original comment
USA developed the very FIRST WMD!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1663 days ago)
Actually, the UK used WMD's by catapulting dead bodies containing plague viruses over city walls. If you want to go more modern, then the Germans used chlorine gas attacks in World War 1.
ReplyVote up (222)down (257)
Original comment
Actually, the UK used WMD's by catapulting dead bodies containing plague viruses over city walls. If you want to go more modern, then the Germans used chlorine gas attacks in World War 1.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1661 days ago)
Neither of these examples is considered a WMD. They ARE examples of bio/chemical warfare but not WMD. First WMD: "Little Boy" dropped Aug. 6th 1945.
ReplyVote up (215)down (212)
Original comment
Neither of these examples is considered a WMD. They ARE examples of bio/chemical warfare but not WMD. First WMD: "Little Boy" dropped Aug. 6th 1945.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
From Wikipedia (I know it's not authoritative but it's a good definition anyway): A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).
ReplyVote up (216)down (230)
Original comment
From Wikipedia (I know it's not authoritative but it's a good definition anyway): A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1662 days ago)
you appear to have missed out two big ones the wmd used by the usa on japan which at a guess killed more then the above wmd used by the uk and germans cant understand how you missed them out. or are there any other countries out their who topped the usa on that one??
ReplyVote up (228)down (234)
Original comment
you appear to have missed out two big ones the wmd used by the usa on japan which at a guess killed more then the above wmd used by the uk and germans cant understand how you missed them out. or are there any other countries out their who topped the usa on that one??
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1662 days ago)
Excuse me but the comment I was replying to said the USA developed WMD's first and I was giving examples where that was not true. Sure, America's Atomic bomb killed a lot of people but the other methods were used first and created by other countries. Besides, Japan was the agressor and we had to use it to stop the war. They "woke the sleeping giant" and they refused to surrender so they got what they deserved.
ReplyVote up (190)down (242)
Original comment
Excuse me but the comment I was replying to said the USA developed WMD's first and I was giving examples where that was not true. Sure, America's Atomic bomb killed a lot of people but the other methods were used first and created by other countries. Besides, Japan was the agressor and we had to use it to stop the war. They "woke the sleeping giant" and they refused to surrender so they got what they deserved.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guester (1662 days ago)
Interesting: "They "woke the sleeping giant" and they refused to surrender so they got what they deserved." ... This is a prime example of how bad group-thinking can go. The Japanese people deserved to be bombed because its leaders would not surrender. Interesting... And frightening to see how self-proclamed intelligent people can think when they see the world from a US perspective. That's how we got the work on Iraq, among other things. Frightening.
ReplyVote up (277)down (223)
Original comment
Interesting: "They "woke the sleeping giant" and they refused to surrender so they got what they deserved." ... This is a prime example of how bad group-thinking can go. The Japanese people deserved to be bombed because its leaders would not surrender. Interesting... And frightening to see how self-proclamed intelligent people can think when they see the world from a US perspective. That's how we got the work on Iraq, among other things. Frightening.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
We were innocent bystanders when the Japanese attacked us. What was the alternative then? Do you think we should have let the Japanese continue to sink our ships and kill us without fighting back? The war started on December 7, 1941 and we finally ended it with the Potsdam Declaration on August 14, 1945 . That's nearly 4 years and the Japanese killed around 30 Million people. Let me say that again, that's 30,000,000 people. Our atom boms only killed approximately 200 thousand people. Drop in the bucket in comparison to stop this war. The culture of the Japanese did not allow them to surrender easily.
ReplyVote up (275)down (228)
Original comment
We were innocent bystanders when the Japanese attacked us. What was the alternative then? Do you think we should have let the Japanese continue to sink our ships and kill us without fighting back? The war started on December 7, 1941 and we finally ended it with the Potsdam Declaration on August 14, 1945 . That's nearly 4 years and the Japanese killed around 30 Million people. Let me say that again, that's 30,000,000 people. Our atom boms only killed approximately 200 thousand people. Drop in the bucket in comparison to stop this war. The culture of the Japanese did not allow them to surrender easily.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1661 days ago)
Point of order, cengland0. America joined the war on December 7 1941. The war started well before that. UK declared war on 3 Sept 1939 (but it was arguably already going on if you ask the Poles, the Czechs...). Also, I don't really think the USA could claim to be innocent bystanders given their involvement with Lend Lease
ReplyVote up (241)down (198)
Original comment
Point of order, cengland0. America joined the war on December 7 1941. The war started well before that. UK declared war on 3 Sept 1939 (but it was arguably already going on if you ask the Poles, the Czechs...). Also, I don't really think the USA could claim to be innocent bystanders given their involvement with Lend Lease
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1661 days ago)
I know this doesn't square with your limited world view cengland0... however... try this though exercise: Ask WHY did the Japanese Attack...not WHEN did the Japanese attack. Perhaps you may discover your nation were not the "innocent bystanders" you seem to believe you are.
ReplyVote up (197)down (165)
Original comment
I know this doesn't square with your limited world view cengland0... however... try this though exercise: Ask WHY did the Japanese Attack...not WHEN did the Japanese attack. Perhaps you may discover your nation were not the "innocent bystanders" you seem to believe you are.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1661 days ago)
as said i have no views on the use of the atom bomb used war is war and its all shitty.the problem is the fact you think the civillians of japan deserved this??using your logic that all people of a country are all to blame for the actions of there country does, then you must then agree that 911 was a fair target as all the civillains where to blame??or is the usa the only country to have innocent bystanders again??as for japan it is said that the japanese at that point of the war where already a beaten country and the dropping of the atomic bomb was not needed and was only done to put the shits up the ussr
ReplyVote up (214)down (244)
Original comment
as said i have no views on the use of the atom bomb used war is war and its all shitty.the problem is the fact you think the civillians of japan deserved this??using your logic that all people of a country are all to blame for the actions of there country does, then you must then agree that 911 was a fair target as all the civillains where to blame??or is the usa the only country to have innocent bystanders again??as for japan it is said that the japanese at that point of the war where already a beaten country and the dropping of the atomic bomb was not needed and was only done to put the shits up the ussr
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
For the record, I do not condone the killing of innocent civilians during war; however, every war has it's share of collateral damage. The UK dropped conventional bombs on Berlin during the war and I'm certain innocent Germans were killed. Sometimes it cannot be avoided. It's unknown how many more people would have died if we did not drop those atom bombs and it might have exceeded 200,000 people considering the Japanese already killed 30 Million during that war. So an executive decision was made to kill people to secure an unconditional surrender and to stop future blood shed. Historians can debate this for thousands of years in the future if this was the best decision or not.
ReplyVote up (276)down (225)
Original comment
For the record, I do not condone the killing of innocent civilians during war; however, every war has it's share of collateral damage. The UK dropped conventional bombs on Berlin during the war and I'm certain innocent Germans were killed. Sometimes it cannot be avoided. It's unknown how many more people would have died if we did not drop those atom bombs and it might have exceeded 200,000 people considering the Japanese already killed 30 Million during that war. So an executive decision was made to kill people to secure an unconditional surrender and to stop future blood shed. Historians can debate this for thousands of years in the future if this was the best decision or not.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1661 days ago)
i understand collateral damage in and out of war but i am not the one saying they deserved it or we are the innocent bystaners?? yes the uk bombed german cities and killed lots of civillians this is something i a not very proud of but again war is war.i would never say they deserved it or that we are inocent bysanders,but thats where i think we differ i dont have a problem in saying sometimes the uk have done things it shouldnt be proud of but it would appear that the usa in your eyes can do no wrong and has never done wrong you see capitailism as 100% good and every man for himself as good.i dont see capitailism as 100% bad but will be the first to admit its not prefect,can you try and see things abit more with open eyes??
ReplyVote up (271)down (215)
Original comment
i understand collateral damage in and out of war but i am not the one saying they deserved it or we are the innocent bystaners?? yes the uk bombed german cities and killed lots of civillians this is something i a not very proud of but again war is war.i would never say they deserved it or that we are inocent bysanders,but thats where i think we differ i dont have a problem in saying sometimes the uk have done things it shouldnt be proud of but it would appear that the usa in your eyes can do no wrong and has never done wrong you see capitailism as 100% good and every man for himself as good.i dont see capitailism as 100% bad but will be the first to admit its not prefect,can you try and see things abit more with open eyes??
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
I do not see capitalism as a perfect economic model but it's the best out there. Others would be socialism and communism. Given those choices, I prefer capitalism. Perhaps a small blend with some socialism aspects like the local police department being controlled by the local state governments but that's what we have now. I'd like to see more privatization in more sectors such as giving me the choice of which electric, water, and sewage companies I want to use. I get to pick which phone company, TV company, and internet providers I want so we should have choice on all our services. With competition comes better service and better pricing.
ReplyVote up (205)down (217)
Original comment
I do not see capitalism as a perfect economic model but it's the best out there. Others would be socialism and communism. Given those choices, I prefer capitalism. Perhaps a small blend with some socialism aspects like the local police department being controlled by the local state governments but that's what we have now. I'd like to see more privatization in more sectors such as giving me the choice of which electric, water, and sewage companies I want to use. I get to pick which phone company, TV company, and internet providers I want so we should have choice on all our services. With competition comes better service and better pricing.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1661 days ago)
I don't know if there's such a thing as a perfect economic model, but I agree that a blend of capitalism and socialism is what we should be going for. I know we will disagree on ratios, but let me ask you this - do you think a world run by corporations purely for the benefit of top management, is in the spirit of capitalism?
ReplyVote up (147)down (157)
Original comment
I don't know if there's such a thing as a perfect economic model, but I agree that a blend of capitalism and socialism is what we should be going for. I know we will disagree on ratios, but let me ask you this - do you think a world run by corporations purely for the benefit of top management, is in the spirit of capitalism?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1661 days ago)
good luck with this one your on the round about again i guess with that answer.i as does cengland0 know what you asking and i think your right if more profit is the main goal then everything else will suffer
ReplyVote up (149)down (169)
Original comment
good luck with this one your on the round about again i guess with that answer.i as does cengland0 know what you asking and i think your right if more profit is the main goal then everything else will suffer
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1661 days ago)
Spot on.
ReplyVote up (140)down (169)
Original comment
Spot on.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
The corporations are not for the benefit of top management -- they are for the benefit of the investors. The investors elect the board of directors and the board of directors hires the CEO and possibly some other executives.
ReplyVote up (137)down (168)
Original comment
The corporations are not for the benefit of top management -- they are for the benefit of the investors. The investors elect the board of directors and the board of directors hires the CEO and possibly some other executives.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1661 days ago)
When I say "top management", I mean the few who reap the vast majority of the profits in a corporation. So I ask again: In your view, is corporatism compatible with capitalism?
ReplyVote up (148)down (162)
Original comment
When I say "top management", I mean the few who reap the vast majority of the profits in a corporation. So I ask again: In your view, is corporatism compatible with capitalism?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1660 days ago)
The people who reap the profits are the investors. Profits of a corporation can be used in several ways such as distributed to investors as dividends, reinvested in the company, or held as cash reserves. Corporatism is compatible with capitalism. A corporation is just a business that has owners that have a legal separation from the business. The number of owners can vary and, if more than one, has a percent ownership allocated to each owner -- usually by issuing stock certificates. So, if I want to be a part owner of a corporation that is publicly traded, I can buy stock in that company. So if you think it's unfair for people to earn so much money because they are a corporation, then you can also benefit in those profits by investing in those companies. Or, if you prefer, you can work for one of those corporations and earn your salary or hourly wage. You can even decide to work elsewhere and completely detach yourself from the corporations. That's the beauty of capitalism -- you make the choice and you reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of your decisions.
ReplyVote up (148)down (162)
Original comment
The people who reap the profits are the investors. Profits of a corporation can be used in several ways such as distributed to investors as dividends, reinvested in the company, or held as cash reserves. Corporatism is compatible with capitalism. A corporation is just a business that has owners that have a legal separation from the business. The number of owners can vary and, if more than one, has a percent ownership allocated to each owner -- usually by issuing stock certificates. So, if I want to be a part owner of a corporation that is publicly traded, I can buy stock in that company. So if you think it's unfair for people to earn so much money because they are a corporation, then you can also benefit in those profits by investing in those companies. Or, if you prefer, you can work for one of those corporations and earn your salary or hourly wage. You can even decide to work elsewhere and completely detach yourself from the corporations. That's the beauty of capitalism -- you make the choice and you reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of your decisions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1660 days ago)
The difference between corporatism and capitalism is that in capitalism, competition benefits consumers and those who serve those consumers. Corporatism on the other hand is when companies, rather than competing against each other, try to control the rules, for example, injecting money into politics. Another favourite corporatist trick is to buy their rival rather than compete, for example Google buying YouTube. To me, these and other anti-consumer practices makes corporatism incompatible with capitalism. In a nutshell, with capitalism, consumers also benefit from the success of a company. With corporatism, consumers don't matter as long as they part with their money. Even the law doesn't matter as long as fines are smaller than profits.
ReplyVote up (138)down (162)
Original comment
The difference between corporatism and capitalism is that in capitalism, competition benefits consumers and those who serve those consumers. Corporatism on the other hand is when companies, rather than competing against each other, try to control the rules, for example, injecting money into politics. Another favourite corporatist trick is to buy their rival rather than compete, for example Google buying YouTube. To me, these and other anti-consumer practices makes corporatism incompatible with capitalism. In a nutshell, with capitalism, consumers also benefit from the success of a company. With corporatism, consumers don't matter as long as they part with their money. Even the law doesn't matter as long as fines are smaller than profits.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1660 days ago)
I'm not sure how it works in your country but in the USA, corporations and other capitalistic companies compete and the end result is benefiting consumers. Home Depot, a corporation, has to compete with several small mom and pop stores selling similar products. All companies would like to see competition removed as they would receive more profits. This is not unique to corporations. Corporations are just a type of company owned by many investors. In the USA, whenever a company wants to buy another company, the purchase gets reviewed by the federal trade commission LINK to determine if enough competition would still exist before the merger is allowed. Google buying YouTube is not buying up competition as much as it is about diversifying their business model. Would your example have been the same if Google attempted to buy a car dealership? Just because YouTube was an internet site does not mean it was a search engine. And your comment about corporations injecting money into politics, it's now clear that you didn't read my previous comments or you chose not to understand it. So here it is again. Companies of any kind (corporations included) are forbidden from donating to political campaigns. They can organize PAC's that get money from employees but those employees are individuals. Do you think a company should have the right to advertise a product that they sell? What about mentioning that their car has better gas mileage? Could that gas mileage statement be interpreted as supporting democrats by anyone? What if the company created a TV spot to save the rain forests? Should that be allowed? All these examples are of free speech and our supreme court has gone one step farther and not limited what they can advertise. If they want to create a TV spot telling the benefits of one candidate over another because that candidate may be good for their company, why can't they do that? Where would you draw the line in a free country where people are allowed to discuss whatever they want?
ReplyVote up (136)down (161)
Original comment
I'm not sure how it works in your country but in the USA, corporations and other capitalistic companies compete and the end result is benefiting consumers. Home Depot, a corporation, has to compete with several small mom and pop stores selling similar products. All companies would like to see competition removed as they would receive more profits. This is not unique to corporations. Corporations are just a type of company owned by many investors. In the USA, whenever a company wants to buy another company, the purchase gets reviewed by the federal trade commission LINK to determine if enough competition would still exist before the merger is allowed. Google buying YouTube is not buying up competition as much as it is about diversifying their business model. Would your example have been the same if Google attempted to buy a car dealership? Just because YouTube was an internet site does not mean it was a search engine. And your comment about corporations injecting money into politics, it's now clear that you didn't read my previous comments or you chose not to understand it. So here it is again. Companies of any kind (corporations included) are forbidden from donating to political campaigns. They can organize PAC's that get money from employees but those employees are individuals. Do you think a company should have the right to advertise a product that they sell? What about mentioning that their car has better gas mileage? Could that gas mileage statement be interpreted as supporting democrats by anyone? What if the company created a TV spot to save the rain forests? Should that be allowed? All these examples are of free speech and our supreme court has gone one step farther and not limited what they can advertise. If they want to create a TV spot telling the benefits of one candidate over another because that candidate may be good for their company, why can't they do that? Where would you draw the line in a free country where people are allowed to discuss whatever they want?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1660 days ago)
....aaaaaand we're back to supporting and defending oligopolies .... and dismissing and amendment to amend the first amendment in order to undo the decision made in the case of Citizens United vs the FEC. You seem to be an advocate of fascism instead of capitalism... without the racial note, of course. Let the corporations collude and partner up with each other in order to maximize profits, let them buy the elections, let them put their puppets on top of the rest of us... after all, the oligarchic aristocracy that represents 1% of all American citizens is made of people, and people have the right to free speech... .I must honestly say that i have never seen a Capitalist country the way you describe it, and i will never see one as long as Human societies are ruled by Humans. War has rules, mud wrestling has rules - politics has no rules.
ReplyVote up (149)down (158)
Original comment
....aaaaaand we're back to supporting and defending oligopolies .... and dismissing and amendment to amend the first amendment in order to undo the decision made in the case of Citizens United vs the FEC. You seem to be an advocate of fascism instead of capitalism... without the racial note, of course. Let the corporations collude and partner up with each other in order to maximize profits, let them buy the elections, let them put their puppets on top of the rest of us... after all, the oligarchic aristocracy that represents 1% of all American citizens is made of people, and people have the right to free speech... .I must honestly say that i have never seen a Capitalist country the way you describe it, and i will never see one as long as Human societies are ruled by Humans. War has rules, mud wrestling has rules - politics has no rules.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1660 days ago)
"""I'm not sure how it works in your country but in the USA, corporations and other capitalistic companies compete and the end result is benefiting consumers.""&qu ot; yeah.... you wish...
ReplyVote up (142)down (165)
Original comment
"""I'm not sure how it works in your country but in the USA, corporations and other capitalistic companies compete and the end result is benefiting consumers.""&qu ot; yeah.... you wish...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1661 days ago)
if you see capitialism as not perfect but the best of a bad bunch then thats a sad thing isnt it??why cant we have the worse of a good bunch of ideas??you and man are not stupid so why cant we think outside the box and make a better system before the best of the worse becomes the worse of the worse???as for your water idea i get my water from anglian water this is a privatized company. the company now makes year on year higher profits it ceo wages get higher and higher each year our water bills are now 60%higher than before and we have more and more water leaks because profit comes before investing in service so thats how its worked for us in the uk.not saying gov controlled is best because its not but come on you and me and man must be able to come up with a better way???
ReplyVote up (140)down (164)
Original comment
if you see capitialism as not perfect but the best of a bad bunch then thats a sad thing isnt it??why cant we have the worse of a good bunch of ideas??you and man are not stupid so why cant we think outside the box and make a better system before the best of the worse becomes the worse of the worse???as for your water idea i get my water from anglian water this is a privatized company. the company now makes year on year higher profits it ceo wages get higher and higher each year our water bills are now 60%higher than before and we have more and more water leaks because profit comes before investing in service so thats how its worked for us in the uk.not saying gov controlled is best because its not but come on you and me and man must be able to come up with a better way???
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
You still have not come up with a better system than capitalism. So think outside the box and invent a better system and let me know what it is. I've tried and I cannot think of a better one so it's up to the rest of the boreme crowd to do it. My water company is privately owned too; however, I do not have choice. They are a monopoly just like my private electric company. I want them to remain private but have more choice. The problem is probably because these systems are considered national security infrastructure. I once visited the electric company because one of my clients worked there and invited me on a private tour. It was in a secret location without any labeling on the building. So a regular person would not know it was the electric company. Then, the amount of security required to enter the building was ridiculous. I cannot give the details of that security. Anyway, it was an extremely complex system and I learned a lot about it. So it would be more difficult to let other private companies use the same lines to provide their own electricity to your house unless they ran their own electrical wires which then becomes cost prohibited to get into that business and compete with companies already doing it. For national security, it would be nice to have redundant systems and it could also be load balanced. Not one single point of failure like we have today.
ReplyVote up (146)down (138)
Original comment
You still have not come up with a better system than capitalism. So think outside the box and invent a better system and let me know what it is. I've tried and I cannot think of a better one so it's up to the rest of the boreme crowd to do it. My water company is privately owned too; however, I do not have choice. They are a monopoly just like my private electric company. I want them to remain private but have more choice. The problem is probably because these systems are considered national security infrastructure. I once visited the electric company because one of my clients worked there and invited me on a private tour. It was in a secret location without any labeling on the building. So a regular person would not know it was the electric company. Then, the amount of security required to enter the building was ridiculous. I cannot give the details of that security. Anyway, it was an extremely complex system and I learned a lot about it. So it would be more difficult to let other private companies use the same lines to provide their own electricity to your house unless they ran their own electrical wires which then becomes cost prohibited to get into that business and compete with companies already doing it. For national security, it would be nice to have redundant systems and it could also be load balanced. Not one single point of failure like we have today.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1661 days ago)
sorry already have put a different system to you on more then one post you have just not read it yet??(walden two by b f skinner)i know you will say i dont have time but it has some good models we could use.as for your electric we in the uk can choose what company can supply us with electric and it has generated competition to a point at the start but it would now appear to be going the same why our water did yes i have many different electric supply companies to choose from but there is not much difference in them.they all have many different pricing plans which makes it impossible to compare with each other and our regulators are looking into this way of pricing at the min
ReplyVote up (141)down (182)
Original comment
sorry already have put a different system to you on more then one post you have just not read it yet??(walden two by b f skinner)i know you will say i dont have time but it has some good models we could use.as for your electric we in the uk can choose what company can supply us with electric and it has generated competition to a point at the start but it would now appear to be going the same why our water did yes i have many different electric supply companies to choose from but there is not much difference in them.they all have many different pricing plans which makes it impossible to compare with each other and our regulators are looking into this way of pricing at the min
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1660 days ago)
Finally had a chance to read a summary of Walden Two and I must say that you have to be crazy if you think that's the best economic system. Seems Walden Two is a utopian society relying on science-based methods for altering people's behavior and that removes human free will. It proposes that human behavior is controlled by a non-corporeal entity, such as a spirit or a soul. That is just ridiculous. Sorry for calling you crazy but that's all I can think of for this scenario because that is so unreasonable that you'd have to be crazy to think it's the best model. Also, it's impossible given human nature because you will have bad people in every society.
ReplyVote up (201)down (128)
Original comment
Finally had a chance to read a summary of Walden Two and I must say that you have to be crazy if you think that's the best economic system. Seems Walden Two is a utopian society relying on science-based methods for altering people's behavior and that removes human free will. It proposes that human behavior is controlled by a non-corporeal entity, such as a spirit or a soul. That is just ridiculous. Sorry for calling you crazy but that's all I can think of for this scenario because that is so unreasonable that you'd have to be crazy to think it's the best model. Also, it's impossible given human nature because you will have bad people in every society.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1659 days ago)
no problems but i was not expecting a wow moment from you.anything different from what you know is going to be seen by you as crazy.if you look at what we have now that to me is more crazy.you think what we have now is right i think walden two has some good ideas so are we both crazy?or is the world crazy too??
ReplyVote up (194)down (156)
Original comment
no problems but i was not expecting a wow moment from you.anything different from what you know is going to be seen by you as crazy.if you look at what we have now that to me is more crazy.you think what we have now is right i think walden two has some good ideas so are we both crazy?or is the world crazy too??
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1662 days ago)
the fact that you didnt agree with comment was the problem your examples are poor at best.the term wmd and their use is most connected to the usa/japan bomb and the first true wmd.as for if this was a wrong thing to have done i have no views but we are talking about the mass killing in this case of civillian people and no nation deserves that.
ReplyVote up (217)down (193)
Original comment
the fact that you didnt agree with comment was the problem your examples are poor at best.the term wmd and their use is most connected to the usa/japan bomb and the first true wmd.as for if this was a wrong thing to have done i have no views but we are talking about the mass killing in this case of civillian people and no nation deserves that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1663 days ago)
and over 2000 years the greek and persian troops threw dead bodies into wells to end a siege
ReplyVote up (228)down (267)
Original comment
and over 2000 years the greek and persian troops threw dead bodies into wells to end a siege
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mumbo jumbo (1664 days ago)
Hypocrisy incarnate
ReplyVote up (198)down (221)
Original comment
Hypocrisy incarnate
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1663 days ago)
well this defines the USA as a non-free nation.
ReplyVote up (154)down (191)
Original comment
well this defines the USA as a non-free nation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Blong Blong (1664 days ago)
He can't think the US is a free nation then
ReplyVote up (136)down (173)
Original comment
He can't think the US is a free nation then
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1663 days ago)
He was a better comedian than president
ReplyVote up (174)down (226)
Original comment
He was a better comedian than president
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
What top athletes look like naked
What top athletes look like naked
Greatest pizza order ever
Greatest pizza order ever
Norilsk, Russia's most toxic city
Norilsk, Russia's most toxic city
What drives Elon Musk?
What drives Elon Musk?
How Bill Gates reads books
How Bill Gates reads books