Programming C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB
Computer Science Canada 
Programming C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB  

Username:   Password: 
Index -> Off Topic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic Printable versionDownload TopicSubscribe to this topicPrivate MessagesRefresh page View next topic
Author Message

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 8:36 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is all well and good until there are no more rich people to take money from - as their money is all taken away. by the communists. So maybe it could work well for a couple decades, but then we would see a gradual degeneration.

And how is it fair to take money from someone who has earned it, worked for it, saved for it, taken risks for it, etc and then take it and pass it on. If everyone is making around the same amount of money for different jobs then why the hell will someone want to become a doctor, or a lawyer, or a job that requires a large amount of work and education. Why not just go and work in a factory and recieve the rich people's money.

Not like I do, but Communists don't understand long-term economic things. It's like Jack Layton saying that buildings should be made energy efficient and all that (which is a good idea) but then saying that it will be paid for by the money saved from this energy efficiently over 10-20-whatever years. The fact is that the money saved over this time compared to the cost is around 1/50 or something like that.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:43 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Someone reply, I'm killing the competition or until Dauntless says something. But he may not be a communist.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 10:24 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

I think if we could have some sort of luxury tax; rich people who waste things that could be given to people who are not so fortunate should have to pay; its not like they can't afford it.

For example:

Cigarettes cause cancer, so tax them because they burden our health system
Stuff like caviar is unnecessary and endangers fish, so they should be taxed because it is definitely a luxury item
Gold-plated anything is not necessary, and should be taxed accordingly

I know you guys can think of things like that. Taxes from that could be used for so much. That way it won't be specifically taxing rich people; only rich people who spend money on ridiculous bling, etc.

And as for being energy efficient; its not just about saving money, its also good for the environment. If we're burning less gas, and breaking even moneywise, that's still good; we have more gas to trade, or what not.

As for Canada's military, I think if we cut it for a few years during a peaceable time, we can do a complete overhaul rather than buying stuff piecemeal. It won't help if we buy a bunch of used stuff that won't be cutting edge, cuz it'll be phased out sooner than new stuff. Besides; do we really need a military? If anyone other than our allies invades us, our allies will step in. And either that, or we'll be nuked, and no army can stop that. Let's say that the US was gonna invade us; even if we increased our budget by 1000%, we still wouldn't be able to resist them.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 10:55 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Yeah, if we are invaded let's just rely on our allies. Well, I'm pretty sure the US would protect us, but then they might not leave... choosing to help us draft a new constitution. Our country would then be Americanized and then the left-wingers would be where they were afraid to go with the Conservatives (who are not going to Americanize our country anyways).

This is just me, but I would consider it selfish to be such a wealthy and job-rich, etc country and not help other countries reach this. Yes, you can give them medicine and money and swimming pools like the UN, but that just goes to the aristocracy, theocracy, or dictator. Now that is not good. So say there is a civil war in a country (good lowly people fighting powerful fuckhead governments) and the good guys need help. Should we let them be slaughtered? Maybe we should just shrug it off and let the US do it, then turn on the US later on when we forget that we wanted to US to do it because we did not have a military (or one that could go help). The world is not at a point yet where we cannot have a military. Well I guess we could not have one, but then we would be selfish. Now, when suicide bombers and imperialistic countries stop doing their thing, then we will still need armies (international of course) to counter the alien threat.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:48 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

jonos wrote:
Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is all well and good until there are no more rich people to take money from - as their money is all taken away. by the communists. So maybe it could work well for a couple decades, but then we would see a gradual degeneration.

I dont think it whould have any degneration, i think that it whould hit an equlmibirm b4 that where the socail classes where very close to being the same. Witch you seem to think whould case the end of the world b/c no one whould work. But i dont think it whould hapen like that, why whould u be a highly eduacted job when it pays the same? B/C it is dam boring working in a factory all day!. I am not going in to computer science for the money, i am going in to computer science b/c i like it for exmaple.

Also i dont think the communists long trem plans are any worse then the converisves, in fact they are probly better. You can not keep on giving tax cuts forever wtich seems to be there plan. Eventaly (if the conversives stay in power long enogth) they whould kill off or put the lower social class in to such poverdey that ether they whould vote them out, cause a cival war or whould shift all the social class down one and then they whould have to do there own work for once.

As for millitray stuff, i think that canada should make a peacekeeper orgisation but i think the normal millitray should be compley disbaned. We are not going to take over anything like the U.S. so we dont need fancy fighter jets and shit, just need peackeeper stuff to help other conotrys. And by help i do not mean bomb the shit out of, witch the U.S. seems to think means help. Also there is a difrecner betwen poleop geting slaugthered and being under a dictaroship, just b/c there conotry is a dicraorshop dose not mean they slaugther all there poleop. Basiclk we should just turn our aramy in to all peackeepers and then let the U.N. uses them and help the small conotrys. Also could use them to help with other things like naterual diasotrs, not everything has to be about killing poleop.
Computer Science Canada Help with programming in C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB and more!

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:34 am   Post subject: (No subject)

Yeah, I agree with that. Canada as a defence force isn't much good; as an offensive force for that matter either. Fighter jets and really heavy weapons won't be much use against insurgents either. The only reason we might need them would be to bomb the hell out of someone entrenched, and we're not interested in that.

As for getting Americanized, we wouldn't, because we have other allies than the US.

Finally, how do we know who the "good guys" are anyways? The good guys are jsut who we support. In Vietnam, the good guys were just the non-communists and not even the people the Vietnamese wanted as their government. The US is constantly deciding for other countries who the good guys are. In Vietnam and Iraq, they supplied uprisings (Diem and Saddam) which, becoming inconvenient later, they themselves unseated. Iraq did a bit better than Vietnam, because of the lessons they learned there, but they didn't learn enough, apparently.

On the world stage, the US is like an overbearing parent who doesn't know when to stop; you need them sometimes, and they're important in your life, but they need to stop steering your life where they think it is best to, especially leaning towards what is best for them as well, not always for the country they're helping to "liberate".

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:45 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Sorry Dan, though some of your points may be correct or partially correct, you are might ignorant. The Conservatives don't want to keep giving tax cuts forever, they just want some tax cuts which helps the economy grow (and has been proven by America, Ireland, and Japan).

There will not necessarily be an equilibrium. If everyone is making the same amount of money no matter what they are doing, then why the hell go and pay the money needed to go through med or law school or further education. But then again, the communists would lower tuition rates so low that Universities would not be able to run these programs, and so we would have no doctors and lawyers and shit (in the extreme). Do you forget the Communism has yet to be beneficial towards a country (except Cuba but they are at a standstill).

Canada's military is already a peace keeping force. But I disagree with the planes, because one needs air superiority. They can be used to scout insurgence fighters, bomb (yes, bomb) the insurgents bases. If Pakistan would have had planes they could have done more damage to the Al Qaeida fights when they were engaged in that standoff. I agree that Nuclear Weapons, large bombs, etc should not be manufactured and used though.

Vietnam was a mistake, so you don't keep having to bring that up, I get the point all too well. And if I'm using something way too much, then just tell me.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:43 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Communism was beneficial to China, was it not? And you must consider that the powerful countries of today didn't become that way because they're democratic and freedom loving. Britain rose to power through its empires, which was ultimately run by the monarch (basically a dictatorship, no?). Likewise, Germany thrived under Hitler's fascist government, at least until he started WW2. Japan benefited from being democratic simply because the US needed an ally in the Pacific theatre, and democratizing Japan was mutually beneficial. They gave Japan stuff in exchange for converting to democrazy. Vietnam didn't exactly thrive under democracy either. Neither did Holland, the Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Yugoslavia, and a slew of other democratic countries.

And lest we forget, the US; any government willing to eliminate aboriginals with a justice could have done what they did. Were it not for the fact that they declared independence for the sole purpose of gaining their own non-monarch government, they could have adopted communism too, had it existed back then. The US has a ridiculously good geographical position, with all kinds of natural resources and a comfy place longitudinally.

Bad connotations for communism arose in the Truman era and the Cold War era. People are so quick to dismiss the idea of communism, when really the theories of Karl Marx are open to interpretation and adaptation. Nobody said we had to be hardline communists, but there are certain communist ideals that our greedy capitalist society could use.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:16 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

It has taken China gradually becoming more Capitalist for it to be growing at such a rapid rate (as you know people can now own their own businesses).

Some countries DIDN'T (note past tense) thrive under democracy, but why is it that all (is Vietnam democratic?) of these countries have at some point reverted back or just to democracy? Cuba benefited from Communism in the beginning but it only brought it to a certain point and is now at a stand still. And remember, even during a lot of England's imperialistic times there was still a prime minister and parliament which shared power with the King. The King did not have absolute power.

I'm quite sure that the US would not have adopted Communism on winning their independence - they are a very conservative society though I may be wrong.

Though I may agree with your statement that some Communist ideals should be adopted, I will only believe in Communism as a viable alternative to Capitalism when a country successfully utilizes it. I pray though, that Canada not be this country.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:53 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

What excaly is your defition of Communism there jonos? From reading all your post i realy am not shure, it seem it skips from being the same as a dictaership to being the libbiral party to being the way the staff run this site to being a politcal system that is strong on socialisume. The real defition of communism dose not say anything about what poleop can and can not own (businesses or other wise) but just says they have equal materal rights (witch dose not necaerly mean they divide everything eveanly ether).

Aucaly in my option some of the conotrys you talk about as bad examples of communism are realy more extream cases of capitaliusm then communism.
Computer Science Canada Help with programming in C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB and more!

PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:26 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

com"¢mu"¢nism \"kam-ye-'ni-zem\ noun [F communisme, fr. commun common] (1840)
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 cap
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

As you probably know, or should know, my comments on the staff are all in a sarcastic manner which I have (I think) stated before.

Oh, and here is the Communist Manifesto:
It is a boring read though, very boring.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 3:52 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

I side your defition not Zane Publishings deftion of it.
Computer Science Canada Help with programming in C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB and more!

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:50 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

gg liberal lovers. Things arent lookin too good for your side. At best the liberals will win a minority govenment and at worst the conservatives will win the minority. Go conservatives.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:29 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

I side your defition not Zane Publishings deftion of it.

Well, where am I supposed to get a definition of communism? I could formulate my own, but that still wouldn't be my own because I would have gotten it from some source. Do you want me to make it up? If you are making up your definitions then I urge you to please stop doing that so everyone can get on the same level, using universale, generally accepted definitions.

I will attempt to do what I think you want me to do though (using different sources to come up with a unique opinion?).
Ahem (clearing of throat)...
Communism: a form of government in which the right to private property is abolished/non-existent, where all material goods belong to the collective state ("everybody"), where everyone is of equal social class, where the proletariat controls the government, and where the word "profit" is considered dirtier than "vagina" in the presence of 16th century monks.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:46 am   Post subject: (No subject)

Why do you support conservatives?

Btw, the ridings around Windsor in a recent poll showed that each riding is in support of the Tories more than any other party. Confused
Display posts from previous:   
   Index -> Off Topic
View previous topic Tell A FriendPrintable versionDownload TopicSubscribe to this topicPrivate MessagesRefresh page View next topic

Page 3 of 5  [ 67 Posts ]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Jump to: