Look for the anarchist cookbook, it should have something like that...

Eristoff!

I know he spent quite some money in it. I merely wanted to point out that Obama (or any other president) can't do anything right in an economic crisis, or: "the grass is always greener on the other side"-effect..
Basicly, the economic crisis is something we have to sit through, the only thing a government can do is trying to make that not too much jobs get lost.

"Thats a strange sort of communism."

There's *nothing* communist about North Korea..

Get a pencil sharpener, it has a blade. Anything more advanced will only lead to tragedies.

"I was just explaining that to him, who believes that this man murdered countless human beings, killing this man was justified because he was going to continue to kill countless more human beings. To him it was like shooting a Nazi deathcamp executioner whose job it was to kill countless human beings in order to prevent them from killing more."

I know.

"On the other, there is no greater love, says the Lord, than to lay down one's life for a friend. This man gave up his life to stop a man from ending the lives of many children who were fully capable of surviving and thriving in the world we take for granted our right to survive and thrive in."

Those babies were unwanted, thus not really anyone's friend. You also take for granted there's actually a god (wich is in this case quite an important factor)...
I agree on the fact that late term abortions aren't correct by default, as there are many other possibilties for that (like adoption etc), but it doesn't justify the killing in any way...

There's a difference that's rather fundamental difference: communism doesn't equal socialism. I never claimed the free market economy should disappear entirely. It's the most favourable model and I do defend it.
I just think it should be of service to everyone rather than a lucky few. Redistribution of some level is needed or it ultimatly leads to overproduction and a terrible economic collapse like in the '30s.
With redistribution I mean: government support for new compagnies (a tax cut or cheaper loans for example), a money bonus for kids parents have, scholarships, a fund for people with long term diseases (like cancer: not to cure them per se, but make sure the disease doesn't strangle them economicly), scaled taxes, money for the unemployed (although it should be combined with inspection that they actually look for work) etc.

"Take economics 101. Go to school. Read a book. I'm done."

I had economics, I had economical history, I know what I'm talking about..

"And it always fails to."

Then why on earth is one of the best Western economies doing this with great success (Norway) while the paradise of free market in it's purest form (the USA) struggling to keep going?
Congratulations on GM going bancrupt btw

THe Who!

"Take Bill Gates as an example"

He's the only one who I know of the three you mentioned, so I'm only going to discuss him.

"He had to keep working for his fortune."

Not true. He willingly resigned the CEO position to Ballmer so that he could do what he wanted to do. He holds quite some shares in Microsoft and doesn't need to work. He quit Microsoft a while ago and he passed all the other richest people in the world in rocketspeed.

"If he let up then Google could have made an OS"
"Apple might have passed him"
"Linux might have had a prayer at success."

Irrelevant, and in most cases untrue, I think. None of those were ever in the position to threaten Microsoft's position. Microsoft had only 1 main competitor (for a little while), wich was IBM's now defunct OS/2

Anyway, Bill Gates is a good example of money not being used in the economy. He'll never be able to spend all the money he has in his lifetime. It just sits there and that's a drain.
He had 58 billion (in Euro) at the start of 2009 according to Forbes. Imagine that he gave every American 20 EUR (wich is possible), then you'd all buy something with it, wich would boost the economy more than when he just keeps it.

I'm not saying that that should happen, all I'm saying is that a redistribution of wealth by the authority is economicly justified. The degree in wich to do this is somewhat of a different matter though.

"If you give your money to the bank, the bank uses your money.
If no-one uses your money not even you then all other money increases in value."

Banks do reinvest. I was talking about the Scrooge McDuck vault, in this case.
In case of the banks, it's indeed reinvestment, but the a large quantity of the profit of these investments is sucked up by the banks themselves. Governemnts who redistribute wealth do the same, but without the need to gain money themselves as much as banks do.
Thus: a redistributing authority is defenatly economicly justified.

I want to raise a sort of off topic question:
Why on earth would anyone watch Starship Troopers 3? The first one was an abomination, nevermind the sequels!