The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I thought we were going reasonably well on the whole "we're not going to discriminate because of nationality" thing, until I was shown a few news articles earlier:
http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/ stories/news-200517820030226-080202.html
'In a move that may anger some Francophiles or menu writers, a Palm Beach County commissioner has requested a resolution that would change the name of the American food staple known as "french fries." '
They want to call them "freedom fries" - taking that propaganda drive just a little closer to home.
and
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/ sm_754383.html?menu=news.quirkies
"A Danish pizzeria has banned French and Germans from dining there because of their country's stance on a war with Iraq."
I think that speaks for itself.
http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/ stories/news-200517820030226-080202.html
'In a move that may anger some Francophiles or menu writers, a Palm Beach County commissioner has requested a resolution that would change the name of the American food staple known as "french fries." '
They want to call them "freedom fries" - taking that propaganda drive just a little closer to home.
and
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/ sm_754383.html?menu=news.quirkies
"A Danish pizzeria has banned French and Germans from dining there because of their country's stance on a war with Iraq."
I think that speaks for itself.
Page:
unknown kernel wrote:
> I think you're being too kind. On average people are murderous bigots
> on whom life is wasted.
Indeed. And especially as a large chunk of the population are American, it all works out :D
That is one of the most retarded stories I've ever read.
Oh, and Danish are now retarded :)
> I think you're being too kind. On average people are murderous bigots
> on whom life is wasted.
Indeed. And especially as a large chunk of the population are American, it all works out :D
That is one of the most retarded stories I've ever read.
Oh, and Danish are now retarded :)
I guess it depends on how you value things, and how you determine what's 'best' for the people.
If you consider pragmatics and practical benefit more important than having a say in how things work then yep, keep joe public out of the decision-making. If you value having a say in your future enough, maybe it outweighs efficiency of leadership.
IMO, democracy balances the two, giving people a say in how power is delegated to those who are (supposedly) best able to use it. Of course, the system has its flaws. Pleanty of flaws...
But when you have a group running things in the best interests of the people, who gets to decide what these interests should be?
Topically, Blair may think it in the British populations' best interests to take military action where necessary to minimise risk of outside attack, but the population may have other ideas, and figure it's in our best interests not to have blood on our hands.
Not about whether Blair or the people can best bring about their goal, but it comes down to what the goal actually is.
And I'm not sure the minority are really always capable of accurately deciding what the peoples' goals are.
Again, there's a balance with the electoral vote.
Not the best system, not the worst. IMO, of course.
If you consider pragmatics and practical benefit more important than having a say in how things work then yep, keep joe public out of the decision-making. If you value having a say in your future enough, maybe it outweighs efficiency of leadership.
IMO, democracy balances the two, giving people a say in how power is delegated to those who are (supposedly) best able to use it. Of course, the system has its flaws. Pleanty of flaws...
But when you have a group running things in the best interests of the people, who gets to decide what these interests should be?
Topically, Blair may think it in the British populations' best interests to take military action where necessary to minimise risk of outside attack, but the population may have other ideas, and figure it's in our best interests not to have blood on our hands.
Not about whether Blair or the people can best bring about their goal, but it comes down to what the goal actually is.
And I'm not sure the minority are really always capable of accurately deciding what the peoples' goals are.
Again, there's a balance with the electoral vote.
Not the best system, not the worst. IMO, of course.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> You think you can run the world? So does every other uneducated peon
> around the world. The fact is, however, that you can't, and shouldn't
> have any influence over matters that don't fully understand.
No, I fully realise that I'd be incapable as a leader. I'd have a hellofalot more morals that most of the power-wielding monkeys out there at the moment though.
Actually, I agree with you, and was pointing out the hypocrasy of a well run democracy. Democracy, literally means the rule of the people. It's widely touted as the government of the free, wereas in actual fact, it's often little more than a totalitarian state where the elite ruling class control the ignorant masses through propoganda and fear. It's not the noble idea of democracy that I grew up with, but it's the sad truth.
It probably is better than letting every numpty have a say on every issue, but only assuming that the people at the top are acting in the best interests of the people, which I think many of us will agree is not happenning at the moment in places very close to you and me.
> You think you can run the world? So does every other uneducated peon
> around the world. The fact is, however, that you can't, and shouldn't
> have any influence over matters that don't fully understand.
No, I fully realise that I'd be incapable as a leader. I'd have a hellofalot more morals that most of the power-wielding monkeys out there at the moment though.
Actually, I agree with you, and was pointing out the hypocrasy of a well run democracy. Democracy, literally means the rule of the people. It's widely touted as the government of the free, wereas in actual fact, it's often little more than a totalitarian state where the elite ruling class control the ignorant masses through propoganda and fear. It's not the noble idea of democracy that I grew up with, but it's the sad truth.
It probably is better than letting every numpty have a say on every issue, but only assuming that the people at the top are acting in the best interests of the people, which I think many of us will agree is not happenning at the moment in places very close to you and me.
Insane Bartender wrote:
Stuff
Ah, I was going to go check the notable results...
Well done :^)
Stuff
Ah, I was going to go check the notable results...
Well done :^)
A recipe for freedom:
Liberty Lasagne, Sycophantic Soup, Democratic Duck, Constitutional Carrots, Badly run Government Beans and Condoleeza Rice.
Cooked by Robin Cook and served by Bush tucker man.
Eaten by an anorexic supermodel and then chundered into the White House.
Blurgh, arughh, BLLAAIIIRR!!!
Liberty Lasagne, Sycophantic Soup, Democratic Duck, Constitutional Carrots, Badly run Government Beans and Condoleeza Rice.
Cooked by Robin Cook and served by Bush tucker man.
Eaten by an anorexic supermodel and then chundered into the White House.
Blurgh, arughh, BLLAAIIIRR!!!
BEARDS. wrote:
> "A Danish pizzeria has banned French and Germans from dining
> there because of their country's stance on a war with Iraq."
Absolutely stupid! It's not their fault Chirac is a gutless worm
> "A Danish pizzeria has banned French and Germans from dining
> there because of their country's stance on a war with Iraq."
Absolutely stupid! It's not their fault Chirac is a gutless worm
Jonman wrote:
> So, by that, you mean that the govermental elite should keep the
> public in the dark, NOT do what the public wants, and just do what
> they think is best.
>
> Thanks for the insight, George.
You think you can run the world? So does every other uneducated peon around the world. The fact is, however, that you can't, and shouldn't have any influence over matters that don't fully understand.
> So, by that, you mean that the govermental elite should keep the
> public in the dark, NOT do what the public wants, and just do what
> they think is best.
>
> Thanks for the insight, George.
You think you can run the world? So does every other uneducated peon around the world. The fact is, however, that you can't, and shouldn't have any influence over matters that don't fully understand.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> The problem is, the vast majority of non-political people are
> pointedly incapable of digesting political information, and should be
> banned from seeing any politically slanted information of any kind
> whatsoever.
>
> Otherwise, they misinterpret the information they are given, come to
> unwarranted conclusions and undertake poorly considered actions.
So, by that, you mean that the govermental elite should keep the public in the dark, NOT do what the public wants, and just do what they think is best.
Thanks for the insight, George.
> The problem is, the vast majority of non-political people are
> pointedly incapable of digesting political information, and should be
> banned from seeing any politically slanted information of any kind
> whatsoever.
>
> Otherwise, they misinterpret the information they are given, come to
> unwarranted conclusions and undertake poorly considered actions.
So, by that, you mean that the govermental elite should keep the public in the dark, NOT do what the public wants, and just do what they think is best.
Thanks for the insight, George.
Well, if they had proper chips, filled with potato, then they would be far too healthy, and there wouldn't be enough fat for them to taste good.
But the French didn't really invent them. Sure, Americans took the word "frites" and turned it into "fries", but French chips aren't that thin. You'd have thought the Americans would've supersized by now.
Page: