aramike

Here's my submission for the indie logo: [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Outlaw: Defintely pick the merc career Nova! Wide assortment of jobs only limited by the game itself. I think the scientist and police caste speak for itself in terms of gameplay its resricted to. I also like your idea for an indie hangout. My ideal one would be like what the insurgents have: New America. The hidden heavily armed base carved of asteroid that would be hard to take down with conventional tactics. I hope in GCO, we get one. ...what Charles said.

LOL!

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Oh cool!! A new topic. heh, the forum is beginning to look like a local swap meet, with all these diverse topics. Cool!I only buy natural foods at my local grocery. Hehe, no kidding! I can't remember the last time General Discussion was this active and diverse. Perhaps it's a diversion to take our minds off of the terrible wait for BCM (hint to Derek)? Anyway, I prefer natural foods so when shopping, I get all of my fruits and vegetables at a farmer's market.

Banning guns is ridiculous, as all you are doing is disarming the LAW-ABIDING citizens of the land. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that a CRIMINAL - someone who'd use a gun for violent activities - is going to actually CARE about gun laws? OF COURSE not. So what is the result? That criminal knows that all those homes of law-abiding citizens are safe to enter because resistance is essentially outlawed. That's right - banning guns is the government's way of removing your right to fight back. Further, if anyone thinks that banning guns would make it HARDER for criminals to attain them, be advised that this is not true. Cocaine is illegal, but still can be aquired quite readily. So what does a gun ban actually do? It makes sure that only the criminals are armed - the people who wouldn't even think of hurting another with a gun are hung out to dry in order to push a liberal vote-winning tactic. Good government? Heh.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

LOL! That was pretty funny.

quote: Originally posted by Cmdr Nova: Hey, I'm an indie, too. The reason I like being an indie is that you don't have to take orders from anyone. I'm a jack of all trades, and do trading, escort, and other stuff.Even though I don't like the politics of it, I do prefer Galcom over Insurgents. If there's ever a big battle between the Commies and Insurgents, I'm in. Watch out, Insurgents; whenever the Dark Outlaw isn't taking a job, I'll be after you. LOL! Gallion, please add this merc to the hit list. A merc against a fleet, heck - an alliance. What a novel idea!

Charles: Needed to change the tone, somewhat. Shingen: Huh?

[rp] "Security officer, who's trash talking Spectre?" "Some rookie commander, sir." "THAT'S IT?!?! For now on, don't wake me unless it's something urgent, like those Orion lemmings getting competent officers or something." *grumbles back to sleep* [/RP] Welcome aboard, commander. I'm sure you'll find GHQ to have comfortable albeit temporary accomodations. Btw, judging by the title of this thread, it seems that we have a reputation of battling over the newbies. Makes one wonder if we're just entertainment... [ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

OK, gentlemen, let's all calm down here and let cooler heads prevail. I just edited the content of three posts, taking out comments that were either patronizing or downright insulting. Everyone knows that I enjoy a spirited politcal debate as much as anyone, but we've ALL got to remember that, while we may not agree with each other, we should respect one another's opinions as we'd like ours respected. I know that I've come within violation of this rule myself numerous times, yet I hope that you all (or a CAT team member) corrects me when I do. Now, let us return to the clash of the ideological titans, shall we?

Btw, which one of you twits is responsible for taking my 5th star?

I'm not gonna do "quotes" here (interesting, that word in quotes ... *sigh*, nevermind) because I'm too tired. I AM, however, going to enlighten some of you as to why a socialist government would NEVER work, and never HAS worked. Point One: The basis of a socialist government is that all citizens are equal owners of EVERYTHING, and as such, all citizens are entitled to the same resources. Why this doesn't work: Those resources must be CREATED, which requires productivity. Now, with all things being equal, each citizen MUST contribute equally. The reasoning is that if too many people did NOT contribute adequately, there would be a shortfall in resources. EVERYONE would suffer as a result - not just those who are not adequately productive. On the other side of the coin, if society was OVER productive, citizens would become complacent in their responsibilities as the paradigm of humanity has repeatedly shown. As a result, a resource shortfall would be immanent. Either way, eventually the whole of society would be essentially impoverished. Why capitalism works: Individuals reap the benefits of their deeds. Those who do not contribute adequately, bring no one down but themselves. This is an extension of nature - survival of the fittest. Sure, there IS an amount of unfairness involved as some people suffer through no fault of their own and some people gain without adequate contribution. But, again, this is an extension of NATURE itself, as some creatures are BORN with benefits and others with disabilities. In other words, life is NOT fair. Why should it be? Nature isn't. And mankind is merely an extension of nature. However, capitalism IS the fairest method because most people DO get what they put in. Sure, there are homeless people out there who don't deserve it just like there are rich people who don't deserve it. Yet, those examples are in the VAST minority. Most homeless persons have brought their predicaments upon themselves. Most wealthy people have worked for their wealth. That's just the way it is. This begs the question: WHY would a person dedicate YEARS of their lives in becoming a doctor if just coasting through life would reap the SAME rewards? Sure, there would be a VERY few that would actually do such a thing, but humans by nature prefer to do the least amount of work for the most amount of gain. Human history has shown this and never otherwise. Now, one might argue that citizens would be FORCED to contribute to society adequately, but then what? You've become a COMMUNIST state that simply offers basic needs in return for INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. Citizens simply become prisoners for the good of the state. Throughout history, mankind has favored FREEDOM over compensation. While there is always a detractor to ANY ideology, INCLUDING freedom, one must remember that WITHOUT freedom, ideology ITSELF would be moot. In a socialist society, everyone must be willing to contribute equally. Mankind is an interesting beast in that it ALWAYS wants MORE. The problem is, mankind is even MORE interesting in that some people are willing to GIVE MORE to RECEIVE MORE, and some want MORE for LESS. Capitalism gives each person a chance to decide whether or not they are willing to give more. Socialism decides FOR everyone that they are simply entitled to the same, and as such, each man suffers for the other man's actions. Another thing that should be noted is the fact that human motivation most often relies upon the observance of human REWARD. In other words, if in a socialist government, a kid sees a doctor working 18 hour shifts and a man working 7 hours a day while playing video games during the rest of his hours, WHILE REAPING THE SAME BENEFITS, guess what that kid would be more motivated to do? Even in a social-capitalist government (all BASIC needs provided), too many people would shirk their responsibilties to themselves because they would not be REQUIRED to PROVIDE THEMSELVES ANYTHING. As such, a shortfall of the resources that create these basic needs would occur, rendering the system useless. Personally, I think socialism would be great - IF everyone contributed highly. How wonderful would it be to be GUARANTEED a lush lifestyle. However, HUMAN NATURE does NOT work that way, and as such, socialism is a farce.

Gotta be quick: quote: If you required something that I have, which I didn't need at the moment, and I am confident that you will return it when I need to use it, then I would lend it to you.If you just walked in and took my stuff without asking, it would still be theft in a Socialist system, because you are taking goods and services from someone who may need them. In Socialism, the determining factor of the possession of objects is need, not property. Oh, really? Still theft? Hmmm, Allende's socialist government didn't ASK the people they were taking from, and neither has ANY socialistic government to date.

quote: I completely disagree with the concept that all homeless people are substrance abusers. Yes there are some but it is more often that these people who can be considered "Street" peopled are there more of other causes, be an abusive household or in some cases chronic mental illness. However there is a large feeling (More in the US) that homeless people are simply sponging off society, this is false.This is NOT false, statistically even. Last year, the Milwaukee Mission (a homeless shelter that helps find jobs) reported that only 4% of the people that it had helped find a job retained it for more than 3 weeks. The primary cause of jobs being lost was substance abuse. Also, the workers had a MAJOR tendency to NOT return to work after the FIRST payday, and when they did, an estimated 80% returned under the influence of a substance (alcohol). Substance abuse is also cited as the PRIMARY CAUSE of homelessness in America by the Department of Health and Human Services. There's a reason for this, actually - most homeless folks that are CLEAN of drugs and alcohol don't have a very difficult time working to get back on their feet, and they ALL (99.99%) eventually accomplish this (within weeks). Substance abusers, on the other hand, don't have the mindset for it. They rely on alcohol too much which causes poor decisions to be made and a more long term homelessness (often permanant). When offered assistance, many of those refuse it because they know that drinking would have to be the first to go. The US' social programs DO offer exceptional care to the homeless. However, being a republic, the homeless are not obliged to take it. And in the tip off between job or bottle, the bottle is dominant. This illustrates the largest problem with liberals, actually. They tend to "downplay" the actual CAUSES of problems with the intend of winning voters. Go figure. [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

OK, I just wrote this LONG danged response only to have an internal server error. To summarize... Drunken homeless: What else can they do with their money, you ask? Get two meals instead of one to beg less frequently. Buy an ID card and use the shelter to help get a job and some dignity. You justify drunkeness as their "escape". That's the same excuse drug addicts use, yet we're less tolerant of them for some reason (rightfully so). Also, you say that the bottle usually comes AFTER they become homeless. This is untrue, completely. The bottle is a HUGE REASON most become homeless winos. Worker's rights: So, you're saying that the US should be responsible for the laws that OTHER nations don't follow? Just because gold miners in South America are dying because their governments WON'T PROTECT them, does NOT mean it is AMERICA'S fault. Sure, there is corporate INFLUENCE involved, but if free trade was TRULY implemented, you'd open new markets allowing those corporations to have less influence over the local economies. Wait, the US should be responsible for doing something about THAT, but not Salvador Allende? Chile: Here's what you NEGLECTED to mention (yes, I am quite well versed in foreign history): When Allende was elected he only received 36% of the vote, meaning that the MAJORITY of the country did NOT want him to be president. He SIEZED private lands owned by American corporations and his OWN citizens - I call that GOVERNMENT THEFT. What about you, Steve? Jaguar? Further, he NATIONALIZED BANKING, causing an inflation of OVER 150%! Allende THEN put a prize freeze on goods, but it didn't work because Chile hardly had the resources for this. The US government simply supported OPPOSITION, which is made of of Chile's citizens. That is why socialism doesn't work. Steve: quote: I think that the issue is not so much one of wanting less government, but rather, of wanting a smaller federal government where many of its responsibilities are pushed back to the states.Yep! A great example of that in the paper today, actually - a FEDERAL COURT literally THREW OUT a Wisconsin law banning partial birth abortions. Makes me SICK.

quote: My subordinate's (sheesh I hate that word)Try "coworker". That's what I call my subordinates.

quote: You really think a bunch of gun totting dissidents can stand up to a military? That concept became outdated after WW1. Puh-lease.Yes, actually I do. Why? Because the US military is made up of the families of those dissidents and pledge oath to the Constitution - they are ALL volunteers for that cause. Plus, with the US infrastructure, the military would be at a STEEP disadvantage because it would be impossible to wage open conflict without harming non-combatants. Also, with the citizenary being responsible for government, such a conflict would be impossible to sustain for the US military, and as such, freedoms lost would be re-established in short order. Prohibition comes to mind, although the circumstances were a bit different.

I like the ISS. A great project. The tourist paying $20 million, however, is another story. The friggin' RUSSIANS are going to pocket that cash, when they hardly did ANYTHING in regards to financing and constructing the station. What crap. Oh well, cool station.

quote: Aramike, how can you (among others) say how bad CHINA really is when you are not CHINESE?Because the Chinese is in the habit of violating human rights (including that of their OWN citizens), taking American hostages, attempting the diplomatic SEIZURE of democratic lands (while THREATENING military action), manipulation to acheive their goals, and so on. quote: The fact that I don't live in the USA means that I don't understand what things are really like inside the country, but it also means that I have a better understanding of what the USA is doing to other nations.My dislike of the USA comes from what it has done outside of its borders. Many other economically powerful countries do the same things, but I prefer to verbally bash the USA because it is the biggest of the bullies. Then, by all means, share some facts and instances in which the US as "bullied" another country, economically for that matter. From what I've seen, Japan has been economically THRIVING off of America, as does China for that matter. Is America SO "terrible" for allowing OTHER economies a chance to prosper from within OUR STRONGER economy? Don't get angry at America for its economic success. quote: If I wrote all the stuff I knew about how America has screwed other nations to serve their own interests and the interests of their private enterprises, the post would last forever.So far, you haven't listed a SINGLE thing about how America has "screwed" another nation. To then imply that the post would go on forever, well, try me. quote: I have already admitted that I was wrong about the spyplane issue, but that doesn't mean that everything I say is false, and I am offended by your statement that my opinions are of less value simply because: a) I'm not American, I dislike America, and c) I disagree with your opinions.My apologies on offending you, although my point remains: you have YET to show ANY reason why America is "bullying" other nations. So far, the ONLY thing about the US that you've shown reason for distaste is the recon plane incident, and those facts were untrue.

quote: How the local industry is supposed to devellop itself, if there is a multi-billionaire industry already around? That's what customs are for : to protect the local industry. If the big industries are big enough to ship over the borders, then they can pay those customs, while the local industry, smaller, has a chance at competing.This is one sided. Think: the big industries can ALREADY ship over the borders - for a COST. Take away that cost, than SMALLER industry can ship to a LARGER consumer base than they could previously afford. By keeping your nation's products within and keeping the others' out, you're only limiting the consumership of your OWN nation.