The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Anyone else noticed how America is headed for some serious internal troubles?
Apparently 50 percent of the countries population cannot afford medical insurance. How long is this going to be tolerated?
How long is the corruption in the government going to go unchallenged?
Basically what i'm saying is the country seems to be eating itself up from within. I predict a lot of violence and unrest in the future.
Basically what i'm saying is however i try to imagine Americas domestic future all I can see is violence.
Apparently 50 percent of the countries population cannot afford medical insurance. How long is this going to be tolerated?
How long is the corruption in the government going to go unchallenged?
Basically what i'm saying is the country seems to be eating itself up from within. I predict a lot of violence and unrest in the future.
Basically what i'm saying is however i try to imagine Americas domestic future all I can see is violence.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> But you said the groupie thing before Belldandy. Which makes Bell look
> exceedingly unaware of what he's doing.
>
I'm a Hedfix groupie.
Bell was aware?
> But you said the groupie thing before Belldandy. Which makes Bell look
> exceedingly unaware of what he's doing.
>
I'm a Hedfix groupie.
Bell was aware?
Stryke wrote:
>
> Can't we all just get along? La la.
Not until we find the WOMD dammit! :D
>
> Can't we all just get along? La la.
Not until we find the WOMD dammit! :D
I think you did. You said it a while ago, before it all kicked off again.
So if that's the way it works, yes, he is your groupie/apprentice.
So if that's the way it works, yes, he is your groupie/apprentice.
I did? Excellent.
So..He's my groupie, right? :D
So..He's my groupie, right? :D
But you said the groupie thing before Belldandy. Which makes Bell look exceedingly unaware of what he's doing.
"Groupie!"
"Yeah, you big groupie!"
"Groupie!"
"Yeah, you big groupie!"
I find all this apprentice stuff funny. I agree with a few of Bell's opinions, so thought it might be a laugh to play along with this apprentice thing.
Can't we all just get along? La la.
Can't we all just get along? La la.
Nah, I'm not offended. I just found it funny how you said that Belldandy was your apprentice, as if someone had accused him of that instead of the other way round.
Blank wrote:
> And Stryke, you do realise you've descended into self parody now?
--
When was I anything else? Don't take me seriously, I'm only trying to have a laugh. Sorry if I've offended you and the like. I was only joking with the apprentice comment, peace.
> And Stryke, you do realise you've descended into self parody now?
--
When was I anything else? Don't take me seriously, I'm only trying to have a laugh. Sorry if I've offended you and the like. I was only joking with the apprentice comment, peace.
The leadership doesn't have to be a full blown government as such, just a group of people who control the basic internal affairs of the country. The country can't function without leadership in some places, for example: the police force. There will always be criminals and renegades who need controlling, so there needs to be a police force, the police force needs some kind of structure, so needs some kind of leadership.
Similarly, factories will need managers. The concept of communism can be taken too literally, while everyone remains equal - there has to be a form of control.
Taking the concept of equality too literally makes the whole thing completely impossible.
It's not about leadership per se, but control.
A country needs its national and international affairs under control. Some form of government can control the trivial daily goings-on, with larger, more important decisions being made by the whole country - votes. The government would have less chance of becoming corrupt if the people were simply working for the good of the country, for no personal gain. For free, basically - volunteers. Unlike how our democratic governments work - things like war would be decided by the entire nation.
Obviously if the volunteers supported the communist ideals they would be willing to work for free anyway, and since it isn't a fully formed government as such, it would be more of a part-time thing.
Dissolving the state completely would be a disaster.
The equality factor of communism, mixed with the finer points of democracy.
Neither is perfect, but a mix of both (95% communist 5% democratic) should be quite good.
Maybe I am talking about Leninism....
Similarly, factories will need managers. The concept of communism can be taken too literally, while everyone remains equal - there has to be a form of control.
Taking the concept of equality too literally makes the whole thing completely impossible.
It's not about leadership per se, but control.
A country needs its national and international affairs under control. Some form of government can control the trivial daily goings-on, with larger, more important decisions being made by the whole country - votes. The government would have less chance of becoming corrupt if the people were simply working for the good of the country, for no personal gain. For free, basically - volunteers. Unlike how our democratic governments work - things like war would be decided by the entire nation.
Obviously if the volunteers supported the communist ideals they would be willing to work for free anyway, and since it isn't a fully formed government as such, it would be more of a part-time thing.
Dissolving the state completely would be a disaster.
The equality factor of communism, mixed with the finer points of democracy.
Neither is perfect, but a mix of both (95% communist 5% democratic) should be quite good.
Maybe I am talking about Leninism....
Memorandum wrote:
> With the right leadership, communism can work.
But Communism by definition shouldn't have any leader since the state should dissappear altogether theoretically. Unless you mean Leninism. In which case such a government is nothing more than despotism which it could be argued works with a good leader but at other times doesn't.
That was the problem with absolute monarchy. Elizabeth I proved to be a good monarch but Charles I almost single handedly brought down the monarchy through his own buffoonary.
Anywho Communism doesn't work. It takes it for granted that all humans can work together and in peace for non selfish motivations and that they won't persue money and items. What a load of complete balls! Just look at human history and it will show you humans are the opposite though under democracy there is at least a system that facilitates compromise. Because of the weakness of Communism it always results in dictatorship as the revolutionaries can't depart from false values. Indeed look at Russia. In 1917 Lenin held elections for a parliament but the Bolsheviks lost out to the superior numbers of peasant farmers who voted for a peasant based party. Well the parliament was then promptly shut with Lenin as basically a dictator and a government far more repressive than the Tsars.
Now don't let me hear your Red propaganda again or I will exile you to Persia.
> With the right leadership, communism can work.
But Communism by definition shouldn't have any leader since the state should dissappear altogether theoretically. Unless you mean Leninism. In which case such a government is nothing more than despotism which it could be argued works with a good leader but at other times doesn't.
That was the problem with absolute monarchy. Elizabeth I proved to be a good monarch but Charles I almost single handedly brought down the monarchy through his own buffoonary.
Anywho Communism doesn't work. It takes it for granted that all humans can work together and in peace for non selfish motivations and that they won't persue money and items. What a load of complete balls! Just look at human history and it will show you humans are the opposite though under democracy there is at least a system that facilitates compromise. Because of the weakness of Communism it always results in dictatorship as the revolutionaries can't depart from false values. Indeed look at Russia. In 1917 Lenin held elections for a parliament but the Bolsheviks lost out to the superior numbers of peasant farmers who voted for a peasant based party. Well the parliament was then promptly shut with Lenin as basically a dictator and a government far more repressive than the Tsars.
Now don't let me hear your Red propaganda again or I will exile you to Persia.
Page: