Sorry Everybody

[Marxist ßastard]

I never said that the solution would be that, nor did I ever provide anything that could force a man to draw such a conclusion through reasonable means. I simply stated that self-preservation is not equivalent to a fixation on perpetuating one's status as a rich man, and drew that the latter is a product of one's environment.

 

The conclusion is that, since this desire for prepetuation of wealth is evident mostly in the richest of people, and, in our culture, money is equivalent to power in almost all cases, the true behavior here is that people in power want to perpetuate that power as long as possible, which leads to many of the acts that we consider selfish.

 

The solution to this state would be to remove the desire for power, which is only possible by means of removing the possibility of obtaining power.

[Abramul]

When I say 'we' I refer to our society, not this forum, or any other group.

 

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent

[Marxist ßastard]

I don't think I see how you can read my last two posts and draw the conclusion that I think we, as a forum, should throw Bill Gates into a bear cage, thus solving all the ills of the world...

 

...English is your second language, is it not?

[ThetaOrionis01]

I don't think tax cuts have anything to do with altruism and philanthropy.

 

The question is not whether rich people have a moral obligation to re-distribute their wealth, but whether tax cuts are an effective economic tool.

 

And that is indeed questionable. Economics is never as simple or clear-cut as politicians might like you to believe.

 

Tax cuts which result in government borrowing are a bad idea - such debts have to be financed, after all.

 

Tax cuts which result in a cut in expenditure lead to poorer services, and a decrease in public sector employment.

 

 

But from a politician's point of view I suppose tax cuts only have to keep the electorate happy until the next election. After all - why focus on long-term economic objectives when by the time a long-term strategy takes effect someone else might be in power and claim the credit for the economic success?

[Dinin]

Relating to the main topic:

 

I think all that website does is further divide America. American was divided basically down the middle because of the election, but the election is over....move on. Kerry lost. Bush won. And if it makes you feel better, Bush can't come back in the next 4 years.

 

But you can't just cry and apologize to everybody just because the guy you were voting for lost. You're not helping anybody, you're not helping the country. Bush is now the president of the U.S. Thats not going to change, no matter how much you apologize, so how about giving Bush our support?

[Abramul]

As well as supporting our validly elected leader, make your opinion known. politicians will do anything for votes, so if enough people let them know that votes hinge on a decision, they will make that decision. Greed is a good motivator, because it's predictable.

 

The political system is horribly flawed, and I think the easiest way to fix it is to make it so no-one can just decide to run for office. Instead, pick candidates from the ranks of civil servants. Those who WANT to be in high office are the ones least suitable for such positions. As far as implementing this, it might take another Constitutional Convention.

 

 

EDIT: English IS my first language. I speak it well enough, have a huge vocabulary, and can follow most of the rules of grammar. Having said that, I don't understand it at all. If any of you from the UK were 5000-year-old wizard ladies, I would blame you for that.