It's not enough that the America Public has been cheated out time and time again by Congress and it's obsession for money. After all, Americans who elect their representatives and senators must pay 80% of all taxes, while the corporations who give them money for their "campaigns" only have to pay 20%.
But the line stops here.
The Real ID bill, recently passed by being attached to the back of an Iraq War Supplement bill (read: It was pork) has started the process of complete and utter civil rights removal. From this point on America's core values are now dead.
Great job, you conservatives, for destroying America.
Why was this bill passed with a 100-0 vote? Because they attached it to a completely unrelated war bill that was necessary AND would make the senators look bad if they didn't vote for it. Strategic maneuvering by conservative lawmakers has finally done what they've always wanted to do: Track each and every single person within the United States whereever they are at any given time.
Big Brother is Watching You.
The bill is supposed to stop illegal immigrants AND terrorists, but accomplishes neither. Why would terrorists try to register with authorities in the first place? Would they want to get caught? Just because you pass such a bill doesn't mean that they are going to comply, register, and then suddenly get caught. It especially doesn't stop Timothy McVeigh type terrorists, those who suddenly go mad and decide to bomb buildings. So what does it do? Screw over every single person living in the United States.
Before you are allowed to travel, open bank accounts, apply for work, or anything important, you will have to show this ID card. Not only that, but the bill allows a provision that grants Congress the ability to overrule the Supreme Court at anytime.
For the sake of dignity, it might be too late to stop them. But do whatever you can. Nobody in America can live with this bill. We would have created the new Soviet Union.
Message to Congress: Stop it. Now.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
New Pope Doomed to Failure
Due to circumstances beyond human control, Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005. His successor is left with a difficult task that he has no chance of succeeding at. Despite anything that he may do, any allies that he may find, and any actions that he will take, there will be failure.
To begin with, the previous Pope left the Catholic Church in a declining state. Church attendance is dropping in many parts of the world. The once predominantly Catholic stronghold of Latin America has been lost, as now there are more Protestants in the region than before. Overall church attendance is down, and predictably, funding for churches are down.
Throughout the period from 1970 until now, church attendance has dropped due to society’s general attitude. Anti-establishment feelings in the 1970’s carried over to the Church, where people stopped attending in order to rebel. The 1980’s saw no change in this decline, as not even greater economic benefits could restore faith in the Catholic Church. During the 1990’s and early 2000’s, the Church’s stance on certain issues, such as birth control lead many to believe that they cannot both be faithful Catholics due to their own personal beliefs, and as such attendance dropped rapidly. In order for this situation to be remedied, the Vatican would need to take a less conservative stance. However, as Benedict XVI has been described as a hard line conservative, few changes are likely, allowing the continued drop due to the fallout of the 2002 sex abuse scandals to have a diminishing effect. With Church attendance down, donations to the various Catholic churches themselves will drop, forcing some churches to close due to lack of funding.
On top of all of this are the recent scandals involving sex abuse within United States Catholic Church branches. Although these incidents are few and far between, their mere existence makes them harmful to the reputation of the Church. Pope John Paul II had enough problems with the difficulty it took to deal with this scandal, there is even less chance that Benedict XVI will be able to.
The Church’s political stances are harming it as well. Many people see the recent conclave as a sign of what direction the Church’s top officials were taking with policies regarding issues such as abortion, birth control, and homosexuality. Pope Benedict XVI helped John Paul reinforce his very conservative doctrines. His past shows that he is unlikely to change the policies fueling the political division that has ground progress to a halt within the US. With continued support from the Vatican, radical conservatives across the United States will have yet another excuse to pursue policies and agendas that could end up hurting this country badly. These conservatives will try to find any excuse to justify their actions, and the continued support of the Catholic Church is more than enough for some.
On top of all this, the new Pope may not even last very long. He is seen as “transitional” Pope, one whose role is limited by his old age. At 78, he is unlikely to be Pope for long, and this combined with the many problems facing him, will make him be remembered as the Pope who stood by and watched the Catholic Church fall into ruins.
To begin with, the previous Pope left the Catholic Church in a declining state. Church attendance is dropping in many parts of the world. The once predominantly Catholic stronghold of Latin America has been lost, as now there are more Protestants in the region than before. Overall church attendance is down, and predictably, funding for churches are down.
Throughout the period from 1970 until now, church attendance has dropped due to society’s general attitude. Anti-establishment feelings in the 1970’s carried over to the Church, where people stopped attending in order to rebel. The 1980’s saw no change in this decline, as not even greater economic benefits could restore faith in the Catholic Church. During the 1990’s and early 2000’s, the Church’s stance on certain issues, such as birth control lead many to believe that they cannot both be faithful Catholics due to their own personal beliefs, and as such attendance dropped rapidly. In order for this situation to be remedied, the Vatican would need to take a less conservative stance. However, as Benedict XVI has been described as a hard line conservative, few changes are likely, allowing the continued drop due to the fallout of the 2002 sex abuse scandals to have a diminishing effect. With Church attendance down, donations to the various Catholic churches themselves will drop, forcing some churches to close due to lack of funding.
On top of all of this are the recent scandals involving sex abuse within United States Catholic Church branches. Although these incidents are few and far between, their mere existence makes them harmful to the reputation of the Church. Pope John Paul II had enough problems with the difficulty it took to deal with this scandal, there is even less chance that Benedict XVI will be able to.
The Church’s political stances are harming it as well. Many people see the recent conclave as a sign of what direction the Church’s top officials were taking with policies regarding issues such as abortion, birth control, and homosexuality. Pope Benedict XVI helped John Paul reinforce his very conservative doctrines. His past shows that he is unlikely to change the policies fueling the political division that has ground progress to a halt within the US. With continued support from the Vatican, radical conservatives across the United States will have yet another excuse to pursue policies and agendas that could end up hurting this country badly. These conservatives will try to find any excuse to justify their actions, and the continued support of the Catholic Church is more than enough for some.
On top of all this, the new Pope may not even last very long. He is seen as “transitional” Pope, one whose role is limited by his old age. At 78, he is unlikely to be Pope for long, and this combined with the many problems facing him, will make him be remembered as the Pope who stood by and watched the Catholic Church fall into ruins.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Anarchists Land!
Okay, so I'm a pessimest. I could have a more optomistic view on the world, but quite frankly, we why is it that GOD has become more important than ECONOMIC STABILITY?
Okay. So I'll start with Bush.
George W. Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Actually, I don't even think he is in a shed. I actually think he's been forgotten. And me? I think I actually made it into the shed. But that is not the point. Well, I have low expectations for Bush. Which doesn't exactly match for my high expectations for the
But no. Bush lowered taxes. National defecit goes up. We fight a fools errand for a country that hates us. We don't even fight the war properly. And guess what? Our economy goes down.
The 300 billion dollars spent on
There’s also the drilling in
In simpler terms, we will be out of power. Why? Because Bush had to fight his god given war.
Anyways, I predict the
Well, we have another problem.
I don't think there has been a time in history that there has been one sole super power. There was
Some people say
Maybe Brittan because their British, or the Japanese, because they have one huge economy, and an actual military tradition.
(I mean. Bushido, Kendo hand to hand combat, uber navy, and the miracle stomach ache pill?)
Unfortunately, both Brittan and
Well, I don't think there is anyone who actually rivals the
And this is why I think everything will descend into Anarchy. Once the
And why is this caused? Because Bush had to use his god given right to fight his god given war. The oil crises will cause a large uproar in the entire world. That will be one problem. Two, our economy is dwindling. Bush fought the war wrong. He spent the money in the wrong areas. And because we don’t have any other country that can rival the
Monday, April 18, 2005
Idiocy of the Human Shield
Okay. In the Middle East, they have this thing called the human shield. Basically kids or women who get in front of the guy with the gun. Now, the point of this is, you will not shoot an innocent bystander. However, if they were innocent, why are they in front of the guy in the first place? It's like they want to be in the cross fire.
Okay. Call me a heartless bastard.
If anyone goes, "HOLLAH HOLLAH HOLLAH," in the middle of a firefight, he will get shot. Very quickly. It's that or he lives and he's a lucky bastard. So, that's one thing. Another thing. This happens in Israel. Now, some of the soldiers in Israel have just turned 18. They are still kids. Now, lets label one guy, A, and another guy, B.
Now, soldiers A and B are best friends. They went to school together. They grew up together. They did through training together, starved together, basically a bunch of buddies. Now, soldier A says, "Gun fire." So now bullets are whizzing everywhere. Both guys are hunkered down behind a wall, scared to death. Soldier B gets the guts to take a look to tell Soldier A.
Okay. So we have two soldiers scared to death. Soldier B gets drilled in the head. Now, masses of enemy forces...with human Shields, are advancing to his position.
Stop. Think.
What would you do? You have a screaming mob, backed up by guys with guns. Your best buddy's head has just exploded, and your covered with his brains. You can either die here next to your buddy, or you can fight.
Continue
Soldier A fights. In the crossfire, women and kids are killed. The other side goes, "OHHHH, LOOK AT HOW HORRIBLE THEY ARE!!!"
Dude, the soldier is scared to death. Any soldier would be scared if his best friend got drilled in the head. And there's a mass of people advancing to his position. People he doesn't know. No hostages, just people.
Human Shields are just an excuse to get your people to say, "look how horrible they are." It's just a bunch of freaking bullshit. Sure, you should minimize civilian casualties, but as far as I'm concerned, if their civilians are willing to walk in front of the guns, they aren't civilians anymore.
Okay. Call me a heartless bastard.
If anyone goes, "HOLLAH HOLLAH HOLLAH," in the middle of a firefight, he will get shot. Very quickly. It's that or he lives and he's a lucky bastard. So, that's one thing. Another thing. This happens in Israel. Now, some of the soldiers in Israel have just turned 18. They are still kids. Now, lets label one guy, A, and another guy, B.
Now, soldiers A and B are best friends. They went to school together. They grew up together. They did through training together, starved together, basically a bunch of buddies. Now, soldier A says, "Gun fire." So now bullets are whizzing everywhere. Both guys are hunkered down behind a wall, scared to death. Soldier B gets the guts to take a look to tell Soldier A.
Okay. So we have two soldiers scared to death. Soldier B gets drilled in the head. Now, masses of enemy forces...with human Shields, are advancing to his position.
Stop. Think.
What would you do? You have a screaming mob, backed up by guys with guns. Your best buddy's head has just exploded, and your covered with his brains. You can either die here next to your buddy, or you can fight.
Continue
Soldier A fights. In the crossfire, women and kids are killed. The other side goes, "OHHHH, LOOK AT HOW HORRIBLE THEY ARE!!!"
Dude, the soldier is scared to death. Any soldier would be scared if his best friend got drilled in the head. And there's a mass of people advancing to his position. People he doesn't know. No hostages, just people.
Human Shields are just an excuse to get your people to say, "look how horrible they are." It's just a bunch of freaking bullshit. Sure, you should minimize civilian casualties, but as far as I'm concerned, if their civilians are willing to walk in front of the guns, they aren't civilians anymore.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Parents: Take Your Own Responsibility
Throughout history parents have always been given control over most of their children's activities. So why is it when it comes to violent and mature video games that parents want the video game industry to stop their children from buying the games for them?
Does it make any sense that the parents who give their children permission and oftentimes provide them with the money for the violent games to blame someone else? Would you blame McDonald's if you ate there daily and got fat? So why would you blame an entire industry based on your actions?
Many people cite an example with the tobacco industry. Yet in this case the parents have told their children not to buy cigarettes. The kids are simply disregarding what their parents are saying, not asking nicely and getting them. It makes no sense for parents, who blatantly say "OK" to violent video games to then turn around and snap at the industry as a whole? It's not as if there are no warnings. The front of the video game box clearly shows an "M" for mature. It even lists the types of violence. And yet these parents continue to buy the games they themselves say are bad for kids.
Parents, face it. If you can't control your own children and prevent them from buying video games that you wouldn't approve of, then you've failed at your jobs as parents.
Does it make any sense that the parents who give their children permission and oftentimes provide them with the money for the violent games to blame someone else? Would you blame McDonald's if you ate there daily and got fat? So why would you blame an entire industry based on your actions?
Many people cite an example with the tobacco industry. Yet in this case the parents have told their children not to buy cigarettes. The kids are simply disregarding what their parents are saying, not asking nicely and getting them. It makes no sense for parents, who blatantly say "OK" to violent video games to then turn around and snap at the industry as a whole? It's not as if there are no warnings. The front of the video game box clearly shows an "M" for mature. It even lists the types of violence. And yet these parents continue to buy the games they themselves say are bad for kids.
Parents, face it. If you can't control your own children and prevent them from buying video games that you wouldn't approve of, then you've failed at your jobs as parents.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Tainted Religion: The Justification for Evil
If it weren't for some of religion's most twisted influences, mankind would be better off.
Let's face it, religion hasn't had the world's best track record. I'm not saying that we should even get rid of religion, in fact, I think that religion does great services. But there are times when religion goes horribly wrong.
Take, for example, the Crusades. Using religion, the Pope and many European and Middle Eastern leaders justified killing each other to death, creating a hostile environment and tension that lasts to this day.
Or look towards Nazi Germany. Someone following a particular religion was enough to justify their deaths. In fact, not only was following that religion harmful, but this opened up the way for a vast multitude of people's death to be justified. Everyone from Slavic peoples, to different political parties, to people of different sexualities were murdered.
Even worse is when religion is used to justify actions that promote one religion over another. When communities in places like Dover, Pennsylvania decides that teaching intelligent design, they are willingly putting forth an idea that advocates the belief of a higher being, or a god. Not only are they insulting scientists with an unproven and untested theory, they are specifically promoting monotheistic religions like Christianity over others such as Buddhism. At this point they are no longer being tolerant of other viewpoints from other religions, defeating their purpose.
Religions can be good, and yet at the same time religious causes have been the main reasons for most of the world's conflicts. From Al Qaida to the Middle East to Bosnia to terrorism to just general discontent, the abuse of religious ideals has created the failing world as we know it. We must put all religions under heavier scrutiny, and only then will they be able to truly serve their purpose without being twisted for evil causes.
Let's face it, religion hasn't had the world's best track record. I'm not saying that we should even get rid of religion, in fact, I think that religion does great services. But there are times when religion goes horribly wrong.
Take, for example, the Crusades. Using religion, the Pope and many European and Middle Eastern leaders justified killing each other to death, creating a hostile environment and tension that lasts to this day.
Or look towards Nazi Germany. Someone following a particular religion was enough to justify their deaths. In fact, not only was following that religion harmful, but this opened up the way for a vast multitude of people's death to be justified. Everyone from Slavic peoples, to different political parties, to people of different sexualities were murdered.
Even worse is when religion is used to justify actions that promote one religion over another. When communities in places like Dover, Pennsylvania decides that teaching intelligent design, they are willingly putting forth an idea that advocates the belief of a higher being, or a god. Not only are they insulting scientists with an unproven and untested theory, they are specifically promoting monotheistic religions like Christianity over others such as Buddhism. At this point they are no longer being tolerant of other viewpoints from other religions, defeating their purpose.
Religions can be good, and yet at the same time religious causes have been the main reasons for most of the world's conflicts. From Al Qaida to the Middle East to Bosnia to terrorism to just general discontent, the abuse of religious ideals has created the failing world as we know it. We must put all religions under heavier scrutiny, and only then will they be able to truly serve their purpose without being twisted for evil causes.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Americas are the (second) biggest cowards on the battlefield
Today we do something different. Something, shall we say, less serious.
Americans are the biggest cowards on the battlefield. This is evident throughout the history of America. For example, the revolutionary war. The British fought like the Swedish, everybody line up, and shoot. In the end, you would basically make a shotgun machinegun. Constant fire, lots of rounds. Etc. Us Americans were like, "I don't wanna die!" and came up with a new way of fighting. In the trees! Behind rocks! Everywhere! Just not infront of your fire. And with this, we actually won the Revolutionary war. When George Washington crossed the Trenton river, we were also cowards. They are all asleep, not ready, not deployed. And we won. Guys in the other countries are probably saying, "Those barbaric Americans! They won't stand up and fight properly!"
Fuck no. We'll get owned.
American militeristic weapons also support this fact. For example, bullet proof armor. Yes, we were the one's who developed it. We didn't want to die. It was efficient, it did save lives, people didn't die, but we are still cowards. Yes, it was for the better, and we are a ton stronger, but really. We can't face the risks like everybody else did at that time. We got under kevlar.
Or nightvision. Developed by, guess who? You know it, and your right. Us, Americans. Now we can see in the dark, and you can't. So when your all sleeping, we will rush you, and kill you. It's worse now. Because it can be midnight, and your throat would be slit.
You see, Americans are cowards on the battle field. Well, second, first is the French. But we don't retreat, instead, we make things that you can't beat. We don't fight on your grounds, you fight on our grounds. Your AK can't go through our body armor? You can't see us in the night? You all wanna line up and fight? Tough. We're good at killing people. Just not in the conventional way.
Ah yes.
And we lost the War of 1812. No, it wasn't a stalemate. We didn't win. We got owned. This proves that the British at the time did have a better army. We just won the last battle...which was after the peace treaty was signed.
Americans are the biggest cowards on the battlefield. This is evident throughout the history of America. For example, the revolutionary war. The British fought like the Swedish, everybody line up, and shoot. In the end, you would basically make a shotgun machinegun. Constant fire, lots of rounds. Etc. Us Americans were like, "I don't wanna die!" and came up with a new way of fighting. In the trees! Behind rocks! Everywhere! Just not infront of your fire. And with this, we actually won the Revolutionary war. When George Washington crossed the Trenton river, we were also cowards. They are all asleep, not ready, not deployed. And we won. Guys in the other countries are probably saying, "Those barbaric Americans! They won't stand up and fight properly!"
Fuck no. We'll get owned.
American militeristic weapons also support this fact. For example, bullet proof armor. Yes, we were the one's who developed it. We didn't want to die. It was efficient, it did save lives, people didn't die, but we are still cowards. Yes, it was for the better, and we are a ton stronger, but really. We can't face the risks like everybody else did at that time. We got under kevlar.
Or nightvision. Developed by, guess who? You know it, and your right. Us, Americans. Now we can see in the dark, and you can't. So when your all sleeping, we will rush you, and kill you. It's worse now. Because it can be midnight, and your throat would be slit.
You see, Americans are cowards on the battle field. Well, second, first is the French. But we don't retreat, instead, we make things that you can't beat. We don't fight on your grounds, you fight on our grounds. Your AK can't go through our body armor? You can't see us in the night? You all wanna line up and fight? Tough. We're good at killing people. Just not in the conventional way.
Ah yes.
And we lost the War of 1812. No, it wasn't a stalemate. We didn't win. We got owned. This proves that the British at the time did have a better army. We just won the last battle...which was after the peace treaty was signed.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Separation of Church and State
I challenge anyone here to tell me that separation of church and state is a bad thing for a democracy.
To clarify, separation of church and state is an institutional separation. It's when neither side is part of the other. For example, the church doesn't become the "Holy Government of Jesus's Moses." This would NOT be separation of church and state.
What are the benefits of separation? We can better protect each person's individual freedoms. In a society without separation, churches (religions in general) could become part of the government. With this influence, who knows what they could do. Possibilities include banning and oppressing other religions, favoring members of their religions, or generally just wreaking havoc. So that being said...
What if we don't want the separation?
We have to have it. No matter what, having no separation means that we will turn into the next Iran, where groups of religious zealots take control of the government and make it impossible for there to be a democracy. We would have a theocratic society where only religious beliefs rule. This is bad for everyone else and human rights.
Separation doesn't help us!
Yes it does. No matter which way you look at it, no separation can only hurt a democracy. Either we become a theocracy as above, or else religions will discourage minorities and uproot them. If you have a dominant religion without separation, there is absolutely no chance that there will be no one state religion. With a state religion, people will have serious problems following another religion. Minority groups following these religions would run away from the country or be oppressed. Now without a minority, it will be a pretty damn boring democracy.
You're wrong!
No, you're wrong.
Oh yeah!?
Yeah.
Damn you. I'm leaving.
Good for you then.
To clarify, separation of church and state is an institutional separation. It's when neither side is part of the other. For example, the church doesn't become the "Holy Government of Jesus's Moses." This would NOT be separation of church and state.
What are the benefits of separation? We can better protect each person's individual freedoms. In a society without separation, churches (religions in general) could become part of the government. With this influence, who knows what they could do. Possibilities include banning and oppressing other religions, favoring members of their religions, or generally just wreaking havoc. So that being said...
What if we don't want the separation?
We have to have it. No matter what, having no separation means that we will turn into the next Iran, where groups of religious zealots take control of the government and make it impossible for there to be a democracy. We would have a theocratic society where only religious beliefs rule. This is bad for everyone else and human rights.
Separation doesn't help us!
Yes it does. No matter which way you look at it, no separation can only hurt a democracy. Either we become a theocracy as above, or else religions will discourage minorities and uproot them. If you have a dominant religion without separation, there is absolutely no chance that there will be no one state religion. With a state religion, people will have serious problems following another religion. Minority groups following these religions would run away from the country or be oppressed. Now without a minority, it will be a pretty damn boring democracy.
You're wrong!
No, you're wrong.
Oh yeah!?
Yeah.
Damn you. I'm leaving.
Good for you then.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Moderation
Everything has something good, and something bad. Unless your talking about air. Because you can never have too much air. Well, so you can. But that is besides the point. Or maybe gold. Wait, that makes stuff screw up with the gold economy and your gold becomes dirt cheap or something. Oh whatever.
Anyways, among the things that should be taken into moderation, religion appears to be a really big problem. This, if anything, should be taken into moderation. There comes a problem when you start being a screaming Christian. This would include going around shooting the disbelievers. So thats a little extreme, and is probably not going to happen here. So we move on to a more...realistic example. Take creation, and then take evolution. Creation is to geocentric, as evolution is to heliocentric. So, evolution has its own holes. So now, we go onto ANOTHER example. Going around, damming everybody to hell, saying your religion > than everybody elses, tapping people over the head with bibles, etc. So the list goes.
Well, going around saying your religion is > than the other religions causes a problem. Especially if you bring it up with another highly religious person. Plus, it's a big deal when the other guy has a friggan 45 and an AR-14. And if pushed too far, you will be shot, stabbed, etc. See the problem with people who do not take religion into moderation?
Religion is like a pill. It's good when you take one. But when you take two, you kinda feel sick. Three, four, five. Now your just getting high. Six, seven...etc. Your going to die, or get addicted to it.
Religion is what caused the Spanish Armada. And guess what? The Spanish Armada was sunk. Many people died (England won). The point isn't who won, but the point is the number of people who died. All because of religion, that is still kinda flickery when it comes to what happened, and what didn't happen.
Put religion aside. Yes, It can be very powerful. At times, it can unite everybody to strike the opposing force, but be sensible.
Anyways, among the things that should be taken into moderation, religion appears to be a really big problem. This, if anything, should be taken into moderation. There comes a problem when you start being a screaming Christian. This would include going around shooting the disbelievers. So thats a little extreme, and is probably not going to happen here. So we move on to a more...realistic example. Take creation, and then take evolution. Creation is to geocentric, as evolution is to heliocentric. So, evolution has its own holes. So now, we go onto ANOTHER example. Going around, damming everybody to hell, saying your religion > than everybody elses, tapping people over the head with bibles, etc. So the list goes.
Well, going around saying your religion is > than the other religions causes a problem. Especially if you bring it up with another highly religious person. Plus, it's a big deal when the other guy has a friggan 45 and an AR-14. And if pushed too far, you will be shot, stabbed, etc. See the problem with people who do not take religion into moderation?
Religion is like a pill. It's good when you take one. But when you take two, you kinda feel sick. Three, four, five. Now your just getting high. Six, seven...etc. Your going to die, or get addicted to it.
Religion is what caused the Spanish Armada. And guess what? The Spanish Armada was sunk. Many people died (England won). The point isn't who won, but the point is the number of people who died. All because of religion, that is still kinda flickery when it comes to what happened, and what didn't happen.
Put religion aside. Yes, It can be very powerful. At times, it can unite everybody to strike the opposing force, but be sensible.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
The Pope, and evolution
Many people believe that creation is what started humanity. Well, if you think it logically, without this panacea for all unknown things called, "god," you'd think there would be something that would snag your mind about creation. Without a panacea, you have nothing supporting Creation. There is no scientific evidence, there is no boundries, there is nothing supporting the creation cause.
Saying you think creation is the way to go, is also saying you believe in geocentric ideas. Back then, people have proved that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and the orbit was eliptical. However, nobody believed it at that time. The point I'm trying to make is...Have our level of thinking not expanded over the years?
THIS IS NOT PROPAGANDA
"Today, more than a half century after this encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis."
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm
As you can see, the pope certainly thinkgs evolution is more than just a stupid thing us liberals made up in order to make you all go to hell. Sure, there are some problems, but look, the Pope thinks evolution is more than just a hypothesis. So what does that make you? A heretic? What does that make the your holy leader? A heretic?
Think for a second. Just sit down and think. Do you believe in something thats backed up by a book? Or do you believe in something that has a little evidence?
Saying you think creation is the way to go, is also saying you believe in geocentric ideas. Back then, people have proved that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and the orbit was eliptical. However, nobody believed it at that time. The point I'm trying to make is...Have our level of thinking not expanded over the years?
THIS IS NOT PROPAGANDA
"Today, more than a half century after this encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis."
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm
As you can see, the pope certainly thinkgs evolution is more than just a stupid thing us liberals made up in order to make you all go to hell. Sure, there are some problems, but look, the Pope thinks evolution is more than just a hypothesis. So what does that make you? A heretic? What does that make the your holy leader? A heretic?
Think for a second. Just sit down and think. Do you believe in something thats backed up by a book? Or do you believe in something that has a little evidence?
Friday, January 21, 2005
The Tax, and The Rich
So, what many people don't seem to realize is that the really really rich Republicans, are only republicans for the sake of money. Despite what you believe, it's true. A very rich republican votes for Bush, so he/she can get that little tax cuts to make his/her numbers go up. Thats really annoying.
Not only do they get tax cuts, but they already pay very little in taxes. Many rich people are very succesful stock brokers. They don't pay taxes because well, stocks aren't taxed anymore. So thats one problem. The second problem is that rich people can hire army of accountants to grab every single penny the government, "takes," from them. Ok, so I'm exaggerating, but they really do find every single penny possible. With enough pennies saved, it becomes a dollar. And so on. Other times, they just, "donate," their money to a non-profit organization and lists that as a donation to the government. However, their so called non-profit organization is something like their little golf club. That by it self, means that they save alot of money. They don't pay taxes, and the money their supposed to pay taxes are just returned to them.
Bush gives tax cuts. At notoriously bad times. But that has already be written. Bush's idea of a tax cut is the guy on the bottom benefits the most. The person who gets paid minimal wage gets something like a 50% tax cut (not real number), and the person on top gets a 2% tax cut. Well, a guy who gets the highest tax cut saves maybe around...500 ish dollars? The person with the lowest tax cut gets something around, 20 000 dollars. Saved.
Not only that, but Congress has also cut funds for the IRS. Resulting in MORE rich people getting away with tax evasion. The IRS can't catch everybody. If they get little funds, they can't catch anybody. This was caused by politicians (rich people) in congress. Damn politicians.
So I say, we should have a flat tax. Everybody pays whatever percentage, regardless of their income. Not only that, but the money made by stocks should also be taxed. All the money from this, would go a really long way in paying out national debt...That was caused by Bush.
Not only do they get tax cuts, but they already pay very little in taxes. Many rich people are very succesful stock brokers. They don't pay taxes because well, stocks aren't taxed anymore. So thats one problem. The second problem is that rich people can hire army of accountants to grab every single penny the government, "takes," from them. Ok, so I'm exaggerating, but they really do find every single penny possible. With enough pennies saved, it becomes a dollar. And so on. Other times, they just, "donate," their money to a non-profit organization and lists that as a donation to the government. However, their so called non-profit organization is something like their little golf club. That by it self, means that they save alot of money. They don't pay taxes, and the money their supposed to pay taxes are just returned to them.
Bush gives tax cuts. At notoriously bad times. But that has already be written. Bush's idea of a tax cut is the guy on the bottom benefits the most. The person who gets paid minimal wage gets something like a 50% tax cut (not real number), and the person on top gets a 2% tax cut. Well, a guy who gets the highest tax cut saves maybe around...500 ish dollars? The person with the lowest tax cut gets something around, 20 000 dollars. Saved.
Not only that, but Congress has also cut funds for the IRS. Resulting in MORE rich people getting away with tax evasion. The IRS can't catch everybody. If they get little funds, they can't catch anybody. This was caused by politicians (rich people) in congress. Damn politicians.
So I say, we should have a flat tax. Everybody pays whatever percentage, regardless of their income. Not only that, but the money made by stocks should also be taxed. All the money from this, would go a really long way in paying out national debt...That was caused by Bush.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Conservatives Are Stupid
At least, all of the ones in my school.
One who justifies the invasion of Iraq with "freeing Iraqi people from a dictator and making their lives better," when it's obvious that thanks to the insurgents, they have a shorter expected lifespan. Their lives are also much more dangerous and fear filled since they are never sure of when someone will blow up a car they try to get into or fire a rocket at a nearby vehicle.
One who doesn't think that 400 tons of explosives is "a lot." One who probably doesn't realize that 400 tons is enough to level New York entirely. One who claims that Democrats live in a "imaginary world, where everything is safe and happy." One who doesn't realize the true problems of the world.
And the last. This one can't seem to grasp the concept of "the rich want to pay less taxes" theory. He seems to think that only John Kerry found legal loopholes within the tax code to prevent the payment of much of his taxes. He doesn't understand that people don't like taxes, especially people like George W. Bush, who gets a tax writeoff from a lumber company that he owns which is a "small business."
These three can't seem to get the fact that other arguements exist, and their interpretation of anything is not the final truth.
One who justifies the invasion of Iraq with "freeing Iraqi people from a dictator and making their lives better," when it's obvious that thanks to the insurgents, they have a shorter expected lifespan. Their lives are also much more dangerous and fear filled since they are never sure of when someone will blow up a car they try to get into or fire a rocket at a nearby vehicle.
One who doesn't think that 400 tons of explosives is "a lot." One who probably doesn't realize that 400 tons is enough to level New York entirely. One who claims that Democrats live in a "imaginary world, where everything is safe and happy." One who doesn't realize the true problems of the world.
And the last. This one can't seem to grasp the concept of "the rich want to pay less taxes" theory. He seems to think that only John Kerry found legal loopholes within the tax code to prevent the payment of much of his taxes. He doesn't understand that people don't like taxes, especially people like George W. Bush, who gets a tax writeoff from a lumber company that he owns which is a "small business."
These three can't seem to get the fact that other arguements exist, and their interpretation of anything is not the final truth.
Monday, January 10, 2005
CEO...WHY?
We have this omnipotent figure in todays world. The CEO. He/she has the ability to utterly own your company. So my question is, why would you even want a CEO? You hire a CEO in order to run your company. Where did the boss go? Where did the guy who was EDUCATED in the field go?
We have many problems with it comes to CEOs.
First thing is that CEO's get paid around 50 million dollars a year. Thats over kill. The president doesn't get paid that much. A CEO should get paid around 700,000? That would be ok. You save millions of dollars that you can use to spend on other things, such as research.
Two, CEOs are usually not E-D-U-C-A-T-E-D when it comes to their field. Look at the CEO for HP. Does she know anything about computers? No. She doesn't. She ran HP into the ground. Look at the CEO for Apple? She ran apple into the ground. Now that the boss has come back and kicked her out of the CEO position, Apple is doing decently now. Why? Because the owner of the company actually knows something more than Excel about computers.
Management is highly overrated. Sure, it is important to some point, but certainly not 50 million dollars worth. Too much management and too little workers will not run a company. Especially if the leaders don't know jack about their field.
Take this example. You have a CEO that tells you to make a computer can float. You can't do this. Why? It's impossible with todays technology. Not only is it impossible, but it is also impractical. What the hell are you going to do with a floating computer? The CEO won't care. He/She will just fire you if you don't want to do it. If you do a bad job at it, he/she will fire you.
We have many problems with it comes to CEOs.
First thing is that CEO's get paid around 50 million dollars a year. Thats over kill. The president doesn't get paid that much. A CEO should get paid around 700,000? That would be ok. You save millions of dollars that you can use to spend on other things, such as research.
Two, CEOs are usually not E-D-U-C-A-T-E-D when it comes to their field. Look at the CEO for HP. Does she know anything about computers? No. She doesn't. She ran HP into the ground. Look at the CEO for Apple? She ran apple into the ground. Now that the boss has come back and kicked her out of the CEO position, Apple is doing decently now. Why? Because the owner of the company actually knows something more than Excel about computers.
Management is highly overrated. Sure, it is important to some point, but certainly not 50 million dollars worth. Too much management and too little workers will not run a company. Especially if the leaders don't know jack about their field.
Take this example. You have a CEO that tells you to make a computer can float. You can't do this. Why? It's impossible with todays technology. Not only is it impossible, but it is also impractical. What the hell are you going to do with a floating computer? The CEO won't care. He/She will just fire you if you don't want to do it. If you do a bad job at it, he/she will fire you.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Where Are The Moderates?
There once was a time and place in the history of the United States where the government could, get this: GET THINGS DONE.
How the hell did we lose this time? I blame it on the lack of moderates these days. Due to the election and President Bush's blatant disregard for Democratic policies, both sides refurse to work with each other. This is, indeed, really, really bad.
Without moderates willing to compromise, nothing will ever be accomplished. In order to circumvent this, the Republicans have tried to push their majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives to new extremes. However, they are stopped in the Senate because of one key issue: Many votes require a 60/40 majority to pass, and the Republicans have only 55 seats in the senate.
Consider this: During the next 4 years, if the Democrats in the Senate rejected everything. No bill would ever come to fruition. No reforms or anything would ever come to pass. Imagine, in 4 years, if we had the exact same laws being stuck in Congress. It would be hell.
This is a call to all moderates to step out of the woodwork.
How the hell did we lose this time? I blame it on the lack of moderates these days. Due to the election and President Bush's blatant disregard for Democratic policies, both sides refurse to work with each other. This is, indeed, really, really bad.
Without moderates willing to compromise, nothing will ever be accomplished. In order to circumvent this, the Republicans have tried to push their majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives to new extremes. However, they are stopped in the Senate because of one key issue: Many votes require a 60/40 majority to pass, and the Republicans have only 55 seats in the senate.
Consider this: During the next 4 years, if the Democrats in the Senate rejected everything. No bill would ever come to fruition. No reforms or anything would ever come to pass. Imagine, in 4 years, if we had the exact same laws being stuck in Congress. It would be hell.
This is a call to all moderates to step out of the woodwork.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
FCC What?
The FCC controls the ratings for television. However, there are some really freaky stuff with the FCC. There's a movie I saw, which was called Collateral. That was rated R. It consisted of a hitman, and a taxi driver. However, aliens vs predator was rated PG-13, which had more baddies beating the crap out of each other.
So, why is it that the FCC said AVP was rated PG-13, and Collateral rated R? Their basically the same, and both pretty damn violent. Both consists of guns, curses, etc. Supposidly, it is because Collateral contains people killing people without any moral reason. So, by their logic, I'm allowed to make a highly gory movie about Jesus land invading and killing everybody else. Its religeous, and its supposidly moral (by christian views), since their killing all the sinners. So, I can walk away with a PG-13 and a Christian version of Saving Privite Ryan.
The FCC also has the ability to say what goes onto TV, and what doesn't. Saving Private Ryan was going to go onto TV on Veterans day, but the FCC disallowed that. Something like Kangaroo Jack replaced that or something. You get the point. But why was Saving Privite Ryan taken off TV? If the parents are so worried about it, they should just hang over their kid's shoulders.
Alot of anime are also rated R just because of humans killing humans. Gunslinger Girls, I can understand why its rated R. It's pretty gory, and you have little cybernetic girls killing people. But anime such as Noir, I can't see rated R. So sure, there are two girls who go around shooting people, but it's not really that gory. That should be rated PG-13. Blood the Last Vampire should be rated R. That one is very bloody.
The FCC should be dissolved. If Bush took away some of the ABA's powers, then the FCC should not be allowed to run cencorship for TV. It's not our fault that there is absolutly nothing on TV, its the FCC's fault. If they keep on taking away every single human against human combat, then you might as well turn TV into care bears and jesus channels.
So, why is it that the FCC said AVP was rated PG-13, and Collateral rated R? Their basically the same, and both pretty damn violent. Both consists of guns, curses, etc. Supposidly, it is because Collateral contains people killing people without any moral reason. So, by their logic, I'm allowed to make a highly gory movie about Jesus land invading and killing everybody else. Its religeous, and its supposidly moral (by christian views), since their killing all the sinners. So, I can walk away with a PG-13 and a Christian version of Saving Privite Ryan.
The FCC also has the ability to say what goes onto TV, and what doesn't. Saving Private Ryan was going to go onto TV on Veterans day, but the FCC disallowed that. Something like Kangaroo Jack replaced that or something. You get the point. But why was Saving Privite Ryan taken off TV? If the parents are so worried about it, they should just hang over their kid's shoulders.
Alot of anime are also rated R just because of humans killing humans. Gunslinger Girls, I can understand why its rated R. It's pretty gory, and you have little cybernetic girls killing people. But anime such as Noir, I can't see rated R. So sure, there are two girls who go around shooting people, but it's not really that gory. That should be rated PG-13. Blood the Last Vampire should be rated R. That one is very bloody.
The FCC should be dissolved. If Bush took away some of the ABA's powers, then the FCC should not be allowed to run cencorship for TV. It's not our fault that there is absolutly nothing on TV, its the FCC's fault. If they keep on taking away every single human against human combat, then you might as well turn TV into care bears and jesus channels.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Informed people are right.
Hiya. This is Drucker. I think that, although the election is obviously over, and has been for a good month or so now, that politics should still be talked about. I really like that, how on election years, there is a sudden jump in political interest. This is for, well, obvious reasons. Still, I think most people should stay informed throughout all year, every year. This isn't going to happen.
You see, I am a liberal, democrat, whateveryawannacallit. So is the rest of this site. Now, Adar Weinreb (www.weinrebsway.com) is the exact opposite, a raving conservative, republican, whatever. Still, I have to listen to what he says. Why? Because he actually knows a small bit of what he's talking about. Now the opposite of him, those that are uninformed, are the ones who say things like, "Abortion is murdering babies!" and, "Stem cells come from dead babies!" Obviously, those people have dead baby fetishes. Anyway, they are wrong. If they, the uninformed conservatives, would listen for a small minute, maybe they'd be listen to reason. This reason would be that their morals should not immediately be the morals of an entire country. This is especially true for a government founded on a separation of church and state. Bringing morals from religion into a government is usually not a good idea. But, that's exactly what has happened. What is the main argument for the conservative against gay marriage? "It is a sacred institution!" or, "It's just not right." If something is sacred, then it is about religion. If something is right or wrong, it is about personal beliefs and morals. Neither of these should be brought into a government, if it has any intelligence.
You see, I am a liberal, democrat, whateveryawannacallit. So is the rest of this site. Now, Adar Weinreb (www.weinrebsway.com) is the exact opposite, a raving conservative, republican, whatever. Still, I have to listen to what he says. Why? Because he actually knows a small bit of what he's talking about. Now the opposite of him, those that are uninformed, are the ones who say things like, "Abortion is murdering babies!" and, "Stem cells come from dead babies!" Obviously, those people have dead baby fetishes. Anyway, they are wrong. If they, the uninformed conservatives, would listen for a small minute, maybe they'd be listen to reason. This reason would be that their morals should not immediately be the morals of an entire country. This is especially true for a government founded on a separation of church and state. Bringing morals from religion into a government is usually not a good idea. But, that's exactly what has happened. What is the main argument for the conservative against gay marriage? "It is a sacred institution!" or, "It's just not right." If something is sacred, then it is about religion. If something is right or wrong, it is about personal beliefs and morals. Neither of these should be brought into a government, if it has any intelligence.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
The iPod Sucks
One thing I really can't stand is people that are uninformed with technology. If you are going to get an expensive piece of hardware, learn how to fucking use it first, right? Common sense. So, why do people buy iPods? Because they are fashionable, they are in style. What about the functionality? Crap. I think that the iPod is the Windows of MP3/audio players. Why do I say this? Apple owns 85% of the market for audio players. Everyone knows that there must be better things than the iPod out there, right? But because of the support and the fact that only the iPod is compatible with the AAC/iTunes proprietary formats, everyone uses them. Why do I use my Windows as opposed to Linux? Why, the compatibility, and the support. Why else would you use Windows at all? Linux is open source, doesn't get viruses, looks better, runs smoother, and best of all free. So why not Linux? The support. And this gets back to the first thing that I was saying. Why does everyone buy the iPod? Because everyone's getting them. Isn't that somewhat of a bandwagon effect? The screens on the iPod scratch very easily, as do their backs. I don't think I've seen one un-scratched iPod screen on an iPod that has been owned for more than a week. Why? Because the people who do buy iPods are idiots who don't know their motherboards from their CPUs. Know what I say to that? If you haven't bought an iPod already, don't. Jump off of that bandwagon. Get something better, something more personal, and something, most importantly, cheaper. IPods cost way too much for their own good. Here's a few items for those of you who are sane.
Creative products. These have touch pads instead of scroll wheels.
Creative Zen Touch 20gig.
Creative Zen Micro 5gig. (1 gig more than the iPod mini. Also, comes in more colors, and is cheaper. Black color shown here.)
Rio products. These are incredably small and portable.
Rio Karma 20gig.
Rio Carbon 5gig.
Flash players. These have no moving parts, so they're hard to break. Smaller sizes, though. Multiple companies.
Rio Forge 512meg.
Creative Labs Muvo 256meg.
That's enough for now. I only did two companies, but you get the idea. There's plenty of choices, why would you ever settle for an expensive pile of crap?
Creative products. These have touch pads instead of scroll wheels.
Creative Zen Touch 20gig.
Creative Zen Micro 5gig. (1 gig more than the iPod mini. Also, comes in more colors, and is cheaper. Black color shown here.)
Rio products. These are incredably small and portable.
Rio Karma 20gig.
Rio Carbon 5gig.
Flash players. These have no moving parts, so they're hard to break. Smaller sizes, though. Multiple companies.
Rio Forge 512meg.
Creative Labs Muvo 256meg.
That's enough for now. I only did two companies, but you get the idea. There's plenty of choices, why would you ever settle for an expensive pile of crap?
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Exciting News and Times
Alright, before I begin this rant, let me clear up a few things. First, we have an RSS feed now. Firefox and I think Netscape users can just see a litttle RSS button in the bottom right and click on it. For everyone else, bookmark the link. I think. Or better yet, get a newsreader like this one. And also, a merry nondenominational whatever the hell you're celebrating this Christmas.
Now that that's out of the way, let's begin. You may think that just because all the fervor over the election has died down that everyone would stop bashing Bush, (well, almost everyone) but you're wrong. Here at Pamphlets of the New Generation we hate Bush. A lot. We hate him so much that we will continue to haunt him for the rest of his life. The main reason is due to his Presidency, but creating the Texans is a good enough one as well.
Let's begin. In his bid for the Presidency in the year 2000, as part of the process to elimnate rivals, he attacked John Mcain's record in Vietname. Sound familiar? Bush attacked the one senator respected by both the Democrats and the Republicans, and what happens? He wins the damn Presidency. Even worse, he wins because of the Supreme Court, not because of either the real popular vote or electoral vote.
Next, his first crisis, the China spy plane incident was handled so poorly I laughed. He couldn't even apologize, so the Chinese received a letter saying that the United States was "Very very sorry", which due to translation, was accepted by the Chinese.
Onto his failure to protect against September 11th. He actually received a memo stating "Bin Laden to Attack Inside the United States", but what did he do? He went golfing, on national television. Of all things, why would anyone ignore that?
He has failed the intelligence community's credibility with his claim to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he turned the topic away from that to spreading "democracy". And then his intelligence failed him again, losing 200 tons worth of explosive devices.
All this and he still claims to make our nation safer?
Now that that's out of the way, let's begin. You may think that just because all the fervor over the election has died down that everyone would stop bashing Bush, (well, almost everyone) but you're wrong. Here at Pamphlets of the New Generation we hate Bush. A lot. We hate him so much that we will continue to haunt him for the rest of his life. The main reason is due to his Presidency, but creating the Texans is a good enough one as well.
Let's begin. In his bid for the Presidency in the year 2000, as part of the process to elimnate rivals, he attacked John Mcain's record in Vietname. Sound familiar? Bush attacked the one senator respected by both the Democrats and the Republicans, and what happens? He wins the damn Presidency. Even worse, he wins because of the Supreme Court, not because of either the real popular vote or electoral vote.
Next, his first crisis, the China spy plane incident was handled so poorly I laughed. He couldn't even apologize, so the Chinese received a letter saying that the United States was "Very very sorry", which due to translation, was accepted by the Chinese.
Onto his failure to protect against September 11th. He actually received a memo stating "Bin Laden to Attack Inside the United States", but what did he do? He went golfing, on national television. Of all things, why would anyone ignore that?
He has failed the intelligence community's credibility with his claim to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he turned the topic away from that to spreading "democracy". And then his intelligence failed him again, losing 200 tons worth of explosive devices.
All this and he still claims to make our nation safer?
Monday, December 13, 2004
Bush's godly economic plan
As you know, our economy is declining. Who's fault? Corporations, stupidity, CEOs. Bush. Today were going to talk about Bush's so called economic plan. Bush cut taxes.
He said:
The guy at the bottom of the money tree gets a larger tax cu than the guy up on the top. Therefore, the guy on the bottom has benefited more than the guy on the top of the money tree.
Many Americans fall for that saying, because it looks good percentage wise. The poor people get more money, and everybody is happy.
However, Bush did not tell you that the tax cut was for the rich. The guy at the bottom of the money try may have saved around 100 dollars because of the tax cut. Now look at the guy on the top of the money tree. He/she has saved more than 1000 dollars due to the tax cut. Plus, that person's stock/bond money aren't taxed. So the person on the top gets more money than the guy on the bottom.
See the problem (results are not correct, just there for an example)?
Because of the war in Iraq, the bad timing to give a tax cut, Bush has raised the allowed national debt number to 8.18 Trillion. The original allowed national debt number 8.1792 trillion. This is 70 percent of the national economy. By passing this bill, he can now spend more money, and leave our country in more debt.
So who has to pay for this large debt? We do. Bush has planned to dip into our social security money pool in order to pay off this large debt. Plus, he refuses to raise taxes, and/or tax the money made from stocks. Now something just doesn't add up here. Why is he lowering taxes when he's just going to take money from the people themselves? The social security funds are from the people. So your basically just taking money from the people in a more discrete fashion.
We need this money to pay off our national debt. Bush doesn't think so. He's all for the tax cut.
He said:
The guy at the bottom of the money tree gets a larger tax cu than the guy up on the top. Therefore, the guy on the bottom has benefited more than the guy on the top of the money tree.
Many Americans fall for that saying, because it looks good percentage wise. The poor people get more money, and everybody is happy.
However, Bush did not tell you that the tax cut was for the rich. The guy at the bottom of the money try may have saved around 100 dollars because of the tax cut. Now look at the guy on the top of the money tree. He/she has saved more than 1000 dollars due to the tax cut. Plus, that person's stock/bond money aren't taxed. So the person on the top gets more money than the guy on the bottom.
See the problem (results are not correct, just there for an example)?
Because of the war in Iraq, the bad timing to give a tax cut, Bush has raised the allowed national debt number to 8.18 Trillion. The original allowed national debt number 8.1792 trillion. This is 70 percent of the national economy. By passing this bill, he can now spend more money, and leave our country in more debt.
So who has to pay for this large debt? We do. Bush has planned to dip into our social security money pool in order to pay off this large debt. Plus, he refuses to raise taxes, and/or tax the money made from stocks. Now something just doesn't add up here. Why is he lowering taxes when he's just going to take money from the people themselves? The social security funds are from the people. So your basically just taking money from the people in a more discrete fashion.
We need this money to pay off our national debt. Bush doesn't think so. He's all for the tax cut.
Selling Computers in China
One of the dumber things that an American CEO has made.
Why? I'll tell you.
You sell a computer, and you make no profits. Most of the computers bought in China are comprised up of hole in the wall computer stores. You go there, pick out the parts, and they make them for you. Their faster, meaner, cooler, and sometimes cheaper than whatever computer companies try to sell to you. So selling computers is probably the dumbest thing ever. You set up factories in China, bribe the officials, etc. No one buys. You loose money.
Well, selling programs isn't any better. Windows XP has been pirated, and sent all over China to sell. No longer do you have to pay the regular 100 dollars for a copy, now you can spend a fraction of that price for Windows. Or they get linux. Whatever, the point is, you still don't make any money. This is the same thing with games. Their games are alot cheaper. Why? Because you don't really buy them from the companies, you buy them from guys who hacked the program.
So, why Americans persist to sell computers and stuff in China is beyond me. You might make money off of selling hardware, since the hole in the wall stores need parts. But thats about it. No one wants to buy factory made computers. Plus, in China, no one wants to spend ANY money on an OS. So maybe you can make millions of dollars since theres alot of Chinese people. But if a hundreth of the Chinese population spends money on your stuff, your not making much. With all the factory and shipping stuff, your probably loosing money. The Chinese? Hell, the guys who bought your stuff are probably hacking and selling them for the country.
Same goes with DVDs, CDs, and etc.
Why? I'll tell you.
You sell a computer, and you make no profits. Most of the computers bought in China are comprised up of hole in the wall computer stores. You go there, pick out the parts, and they make them for you. Their faster, meaner, cooler, and sometimes cheaper than whatever computer companies try to sell to you. So selling computers is probably the dumbest thing ever. You set up factories in China, bribe the officials, etc. No one buys. You loose money.
Well, selling programs isn't any better. Windows XP has been pirated, and sent all over China to sell. No longer do you have to pay the regular 100 dollars for a copy, now you can spend a fraction of that price for Windows. Or they get linux. Whatever, the point is, you still don't make any money. This is the same thing with games. Their games are alot cheaper. Why? Because you don't really buy them from the companies, you buy them from guys who hacked the program.
So, why Americans persist to sell computers and stuff in China is beyond me. You might make money off of selling hardware, since the hole in the wall stores need parts. But thats about it. No one wants to buy factory made computers. Plus, in China, no one wants to spend ANY money on an OS. So maybe you can make millions of dollars since theres alot of Chinese people. But if a hundreth of the Chinese population spends money on your stuff, your not making much. With all the factory and shipping stuff, your probably loosing money. The Chinese? Hell, the guys who bought your stuff are probably hacking and selling them for the country.
Same goes with DVDs, CDs, and etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
