>>whether or not there is actually demand for what they are making is only of passing interest to the politician who spends the money.<<

If it is of interest at all. They are motivated to be inefficient -- they're NEVER under budget because they realize they'll be funded less in the future; given less power. They always go over budget no matter that they could do more with less and they always request more. An inefficient waste of a whole nation's quality of life is born.

>>Americans have loose gun laws<<

Amerikan gun laws are not enforced by the majority of those in power. The left, currently dominating in government, never prosecutes those who violate gun laws in the hopes that more crimes will be committed and create the appearance of a problem with current gun laws (helping them push for a gun ban, which is what they want).

>>and thus have significantly high gun deaths<<

hahaha so what? You would be happy if a trade was made for more knife deaths, blunt object deaths? You would be happy if a trade was made for more violent crime, as the removal of the great equalizer always gives?

I feel weird talking to pansies who fight to have their right to protect themselves and their families taken away.

>>The goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba should be to support the emergence of a Cuban state where the Cuban people determine the political and economic future of their country through democratic means. <<

This is to be achieved by shaking hands and trading with thugs who stole Cuba and oppress its people?

I don't want Cuban goods. I refuse to buy slave labor. Cuba is not open to a "policy of constructive and critical engagement." Cuba is not open to the goal of "evolution to a peaceful and democratic Cuba."

DPS said he likes government because they can waste more money than private business without accountability. He's is thus a fan of big government babysitting him, whereas I do not require a babysitter.

never appreciated Frank Herbert's later Dune books which had a strange focus on sexual prowess (thank god they weren't more specific, right?) AND should have just ripped on Chris because guys aren't Bene Gesserit

>>as i said before.. its all theory what would happen in the US if guns be banned.. so i can not bring any evidence for it.<<

No other nations have significant gun ownership but less murder rates? Yes, they do. You just can't find any that support your position.

>>and btw its funny.. you call other ignoratn in almost any of your posts. so i guess you count yourself to this interlectual elite...<<

If you're asking if I'm embarassed to respond to half of the kids on this forum: Yes, it is embarassing. I'm specific and clear. I respond to content. When I get 90% cry and 0% content response showing anything I said which you disagree with, I openly state that you're embarassing yourself by being dishonest, if not ignorant and/or just stupid.

I love the claim that concern for freedom, human rights, and human dignity is the reason we need to give up freedom, human rights, and dignity. Clearly giving them up will enhance them! Kid's on drugs.

They all work together, Justinian I. Consolidating power is what they want most; you propose giving it to them to lessen the problem? It's giving them what they corruptly seek now. That doesn't sound like progress.

...You can't be serious?

This thread is unbelievably stupid.

Have you even thought about this issue for 5 seconds? Yeah the media is a circus because the population is hundreds of millions of willfully-ignorant "promise me more stuff than your competition and I'll vote for you" bums. Your alternative is state-run media? Yeah, that'll see 0 improvement and even less real information.

sKoE's lack of an education is a fine example of how giving the RIGHT "news" and "raw numbers" can make an ignorant viewer not only convinced that he knows the right position, but SURE of it because he knows HIS position is based on NEWS and RAW NUMBERS!

>> How are they meant to avoid being screwed? They cannot unless we have a system in place to provide a saftey net for them, and others who are like-wise unable to work through no fault of their own...<<

So you want... job insurance for 100% of society? How do you propose to ensure government-placement for everyone? Isn't that dependent upon available job openings?

>>Of course capatilism doesn't forbid social security and other "socialist" policies (like education and health care) its jsut that right wingers tend to decide these thoughts are against their point of view...<<

How many "right wingers" do you know who are against social security and education? The difference between the right and the left in the USA is that the right is so far left they only want to expand these programs slightly and the left wants the programs to be unlimited in size and wealth distribution.

>> but your post Phssthpok insinuates that you don't think the system is changing, or at least you don't want it to.<<

His point was that this system has achieved unprecedented success. Regardless of relatively minor changes dependent upon circumstance, the fact remains that one system has allowed for greatest wealth explosion the world has ever seen. Regardless of whether you think socialism or some fascist state would be cozier in your head, the point is that capitalism has allowed for this wealth generation and no other system has. There is no evidence that some fundamentally different system would be ideal for some other situation. What we know is that this system has had greater success than any other. That's all we've established; this does not include some silly notion that if capitalism works under certain conditions than certainly some socialist policy would be ideal under others!

>>I do not advocate those systems, you twit.<<

You advocate precisely what I argue against: Massive government institutions running all industrialization in a country. Oh wait you don't CALL them government institutions, you call them massive NGOs under complete government control... ie, government institutions.

>>That says it all. You think all Chinese people must be communists. <<

No. I merely stated that it is clear from your delusional rantings and having never replied to a single point of content that you are horribly indoctrinated into this jealous hate of capitalism.

>>First, it isn't communism that is to blame for our current economic woes.  It is the scarcity of resources which is to blame,...<<

No. It is not. Read a book you schmuck.

>>But that is besides the point.  This 'explosion' as you called it is the point I want to respond to (whether it is really of 'wealth' is arguable, as what wealth itself is has come into question, but, again, this is besides the point).  <<

Standard of living across a nation is a pretty simple baseline to start from. If you had one, perhaps you would have a better comparison and less whining about how it's everyone across the globe's fault you're poor.

>>Whatever kind of explosion it may be, it has revealed the extent to which we are UNDERdeveloped, not developed - that is, this explosion in our capabilities as a species has given us a clue as to what ELSE, or what MORE, or what BEYOND, we may accomplish.<<

You're right. We'll all cry tonight after delicious meals, driving home in awesome cars, relaxing on comfortable furniture in climate-controlled spaces while watching and listening to massive and high-quality crystal-clear entertainment systems because we realize how underdeveloped we are and how horrible life is.

>> In another sense, this 'explosion' as you call it has been like a single candle lit, revealing to us to that we are standing before a thousand other unlit candles at some sort of alter within some sort of cathedral.<<

I suspect you're referring again to the magical robots that the West has developed but refuses to share with the world out of greed.

>>Now, instead of looking at the alter, we keep lighting more and more candles.  We don't care about the alter or the cathedral.  We are simply obsessed with the stupid little candles, not for what purpose we are lighting them.  We're as blind as we were before we started ligting them.<<

...If lighting the candles is wealth creation, that's the whole point you dolt. I'm not going to entertain your stupid and pointless analogy. You use such ridiculous references because you can't argue your point in reality so vague analogies have to be used to stretch things. You're arguing that we're creating too much wealth without focusing on... the alter? or the cathedral? Kid, we create wealth because it results in all of us having a higher standard of living. It's simple. It's an end in and of itself. An end that benefits our whole society. You would rather we all... take drugs and expand our consciousness? You have to be high on something, because you're not even coherent.

Government is behind innovation? Someone slow down his rate of LSD consumption. We've lost him.

He's Chinese.

That's why he's so indoctrinated falsely about the rest of the world, why it's evil, why it is responsible for his poor standard of living, and all kinds of other nonsense which he supports knowing well that it is impossible (his government told him that we have magical robots but we just won't let the world use them because we're greedy). It's like a fairy tale of the dumbest kind.