is the nobel prize , obamas payoff?
Whether it was rewarding Jimmy Carter for criticizing the Iraq War or supporting Al Gore in his crusade against global warming, the Norwegian Parliament - which chooses the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize - has sought to use the award as a political tool to influence American politic s. Its prestige and moral power make the prize a potent weapon with which to help steer the direction of the colossus beyond the seas that controls a quarter of the world’s economy and most of its military power. Now, the Norwegians have weighed in to support Barack Obama in his bid to reshape America so it looks more like, well, Norway, or at least like Europe. European socialism cannot succeed without conquering the United States. If the European Union has high taxes and the US keeps its levies low, business and brains will flow to America. If the EU’s labor standards require long vacations, high benefits, and proscribe layoffs and ours’ do not, employers will migrate across the ocean to do their business in the States. If the Old World curbs ambition by taxation, regulation, and social opprobrium, the ambitious will flock to the New World as they have done for four hundred years. So, Lenin was right. Socialism cannot exist in just one country - or one continent. It must dominate worldwide or wealth and power will flow to those who remain committed to the free market. Europe realizes this reality and it makes Obama’s election as president of the United States all the more welcome. The Nobel Prize is really Obama’s payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations. Europe wants to reverse the American Revolution and re-colonize us and it sees in Obama a kindred spirit willing to do its bidding. Does the United States let its entrepreneurs run wild, coming up with fanciful new ideas and making billions from them? Obama will regulate and subdue business just like they do in Europe. Do U.S. businesses compete by slashing prices, aggressively pursuing markets, and jockeying for market share? Obama will make them behave themselves and stay in line just like European companies do. Do Americans work hard and push aggressively to make as much money as they can? Obama will raise taxes, emphasize community values, and narcotize their ambition by offering government largesse. And does the United States still believe in a sloppy, contrarian democracy in which ordinary people can directly affect their government, states have powers, and courts can reel in executive authority? Obama will use his rubber stamp majority in Congress to pass new laws regardless of public opinion and make us obey. In foreign policy, is the United States still willing to stand up, alone if necessary, to protect human rights in Bosnia, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan? Obama will curb this unruly independence and mold it within the fabric of appeasement that has dominated Europe for the past half a century. All this heavy lifting, this conversion of America into a European state, deserves a reward. And what is a more fitting one than to give Obama than the Nobel Peace Prize? He obviously doesn’t deserve the award for economics or, given his health care ideas, for medicine. But the Peace Prize expresses Europe’s longing: to
Politics - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the Norwegians who are socialists were just buying some policies that they knew Conrade 0bama was going to do , it is disgraceful there is no creditability to the prize what so ever and I would say that the Norwegians have displaced a total lack of ethics
2 :
You Betcha !!!
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Please help, i will miss 2 years of school and i dont know what to do with my life?
Please help, i will miss 2 years of school and i dont know what to do with my life?
I have been living in Norway for about 1 year now, and that 1 year i went to a school that barely taught me any norwegian, so my norwegian is pretty bad. And i appplied for my 10th grade class (i would have been in the 11th if i was still in Canada, but im still in the 10th because i needed to learn norwegian), and now i wil lhave to go to anotehr school to teach me norwegian so i will miss 1 more year, so when i am supposed to be in gr.12, i will be in the 10th. So pretty much, i need backup plans. What could be ideas to make a stable living without completely relying on too much school? I play guitar so i plan to form a band and just sell albums and make some money off that, and i also plan to buy a house in the city centre and open a Metal music cafe/clothing shop, and i use to be an extra in comercials, so i may try that again. Would those ideas be good? And is there anything else i could try to do to make a decent living?
Other - Society & Culture - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You are still young don't panic. How about the military? There are also many options in both Norway and Canada and plenty of people/programs that can hrlp you.
2 :
i would get off the computer and get a job than go back to school
3 :
Stay in school. Where are your parents?
4 :
if you sell albums, it means you are famous. so I think its very hard to become famous. and those who are famous, are just very lucky. dont think of this dream too much. my opinion: if you wanna be famous, you have to face the fact that you might never succeed. otherwise it will hurt and you will push things too far. but if you wanna be famous, you need a job, so you can support yourself, pay an agent and everything else. or at least you will need a job, if you never become famous, so you dont waste time and you can have money all this time. I think that almost every singer that is now a star, used to work a lot before they become famous, like kelly clarkson. she was working anywhere she could, so she could afford everything. if you have money, then a Metal music cafe/clothing shop is perfectly okay. but you have to know how to run it, so you wont fail. if nothing works, then just find a nice job.
I have been living in Norway for about 1 year now, and that 1 year i went to a school that barely taught me any norwegian, so my norwegian is pretty bad. And i appplied for my 10th grade class (i would have been in the 11th if i was still in Canada, but im still in the 10th because i needed to learn norwegian), and now i wil lhave to go to anotehr school to teach me norwegian so i will miss 1 more year, so when i am supposed to be in gr.12, i will be in the 10th. So pretty much, i need backup plans. What could be ideas to make a stable living without completely relying on too much school? I play guitar so i plan to form a band and just sell albums and make some money off that, and i also plan to buy a house in the city centre and open a Metal music cafe/clothing shop, and i use to be an extra in comercials, so i may try that again. Would those ideas be good? And is there anything else i could try to do to make a decent living?
Other - Society & Culture - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You are still young don't panic. How about the military? There are also many options in both Norway and Canada and plenty of people/programs that can hrlp you.
2 :
i would get off the computer and get a job than go back to school
3 :
Stay in school. Where are your parents?
4 :
if you sell albums, it means you are famous. so I think its very hard to become famous. and those who are famous, are just very lucky. dont think of this dream too much. my opinion: if you wanna be famous, you have to face the fact that you might never succeed. otherwise it will hurt and you will push things too far. but if you wanna be famous, you need a job, so you can support yourself, pay an agent and everything else. or at least you will need a job, if you never become famous, so you dont waste time and you can have money all this time. I think that almost every singer that is now a star, used to work a lot before they become famous, like kelly clarkson. she was working anywhere she could, so she could afford everything. if you have money, then a Metal music cafe/clothing shop is perfectly okay. but you have to know how to run it, so you wont fail. if nothing works, then just find a nice job.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
I have proposals for the new country, Southern Sudan. What do you think?
I have proposals for the new country, Southern Sudan. What do you think?
As you all may know, Southern Sudan is about to officially become a sovereign state. I have some proposals for the new country that I'd like to run by the group. This seems like the perfect place to submit them. The first main thing I'd like to introduce is a new currency. For the purposes of this post, I'll call the currency SSK (Southern Sudan Krona). I have 2 propositions for the currency. 1. Currency introduction could go like the Euro. When the Euro was first introduces, the exchange was about 1.19 Euros to $1 (USD). So, when first introducing the SSK, the exchange rate could be 1.20 SSK = $1. Eventually as time goes on, the SSK will get stronger until it's equal and surpasses the USD in value. 2. The currency value could start off and remain low in value but high in quantity. Let's say....6.70 SSK = $1. It could be like Norway, where people make LOTS of money. Minimum wage could be like 200 SSK/hr. ($30). People will make lots of money but cost of living will also be pretty expensive. So a minimum wage salary for a month would be 32,000 SSK ($4800). That would give the people lots of purchasing power. Other things I'd like to get there are international chain restaurants, build the communications infrastructure with wired and wireless high speed internet connections and cell phone towers for smart phones, Wal-Mart type stores that have everything, and transportation networks (interstates, roads, paved streets). I'd also like to get in a modern banking system where people go to open accounts and make deposits, and are issued credit and debit cards for purchases. I'd really like to go there, submit my ideas, and have them let me help them make it the strongest, richest economy in Africa. Tell me what you think.
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I think you're delusional.
As you all may know, Southern Sudan is about to officially become a sovereign state. I have some proposals for the new country that I'd like to run by the group. This seems like the perfect place to submit them. The first main thing I'd like to introduce is a new currency. For the purposes of this post, I'll call the currency SSK (Southern Sudan Krona). I have 2 propositions for the currency. 1. Currency introduction could go like the Euro. When the Euro was first introduces, the exchange was about 1.19 Euros to $1 (USD). So, when first introducing the SSK, the exchange rate could be 1.20 SSK = $1. Eventually as time goes on, the SSK will get stronger until it's equal and surpasses the USD in value. 2. The currency value could start off and remain low in value but high in quantity. Let's say....6.70 SSK = $1. It could be like Norway, where people make LOTS of money. Minimum wage could be like 200 SSK/hr. ($30). People will make lots of money but cost of living will also be pretty expensive. So a minimum wage salary for a month would be 32,000 SSK ($4800). That would give the people lots of purchasing power. Other things I'd like to get there are international chain restaurants, build the communications infrastructure with wired and wireless high speed internet connections and cell phone towers for smart phones, Wal-Mart type stores that have everything, and transportation networks (interstates, roads, paved streets). I'd also like to get in a modern banking system where people go to open accounts and make deposits, and are issued credit and debit cards for purchases. I'd really like to go there, submit my ideas, and have them let me help them make it the strongest, richest economy in Africa. Tell me what you think.
Current Events - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I think you're delusional.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Do you think America actually gives money to poor people in other countries?
Do you think America actually gives money to poor people in other countries?
Americans are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share. The purpose of 99% of foreign "aid" is to create foreign markets for US products, especially arms sales. Foreign aid aids the giver (America), not the recipient. The leaders get the money, not the people. Giving money to the people is both not useful to the US as well as rather impossible. There are no people driving up to villages with cash and handing townspeople money making sure to distribute it evenly. They give it to the government and or the rebel leadership to allot. Richer nations receive the most aid. 1 third of all American aid goes to Israel and Egypt. After that it goes to places like Columbia, Pakistan, Jordan etc... not Rwanda or Burundi or Botswana. When looking at how it's allotted by the US, it's clear that strategic considerations, political alignment and drug policy are the biggest considerations while the poorest nations receive the least if any aid. The U.N. Voting Record doesn't even count, if you can't do anything for the US. Sweden spends the majority of it's aid on places like Sierra Leone, Gaza & the West Bank and Liberia and the rest of Africa. When will Americans come out of their government / media induced coma and realize the propaganda that is fed them? Of course America doesn't give money to poor people. They don't even give any to poor dying Americans, why would they give it to a Botswanian? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/08/bush_brings_faith_to_foreign_aid/ http://www.networkeurope.org/feature/sweden-cuts-foreign-aid-recipients http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html "Below 50%" - 500 million. He's not worth 50 billion. Anyway, re-read, you're not getting it. "End the Fed" - Please no more self-delusional America speak about how we all mooch off America's generosity in defending us. We neither want nor need America's "protection". "Cracker" - The topic is foreign aid genius, not charities in America for Americans.
Politics - 11 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I did not know that. Pretty shocking... but unsurprising.
2 :
Yes I do. At least in terms of individual donations to charity, and not purely government statistics like the ones you use. Americans (not government) give more to charity than any other nation in the world. So your lame attempt to denigrate Americans (for whatever reason) is laughable. Rant much? How does it feel to be a "Top Contributor" that's shown to be selective in their data, dishonest in it's presentation, exposed, and frankly outfoxed by a lowly level 1 with no avatar calling himself "cracker"? Must feel embarrassing.
3 :
Very surprising I did not know this.
4 :
When they stop rushing back and forth from their jobs so they can pay taxes.
5 :
bill gates donated $50 billion dollars for AIDS research, do you know of a man from denmark who gave that much money away.
6 :
We do give for our own gain but when you say Japan gives all that money I say yeah because they barely pay for their defense because the U.S. does. The bankers manipulated us into being world police and hegemony guardians, some countries benefit greatly while others get tyrannized. The U.S. provides defense and hits for half the world, the people allow it to happen because they don't know the wisdom of non intervention and are taught there is no other way.
7 :
Not surprising. I didn't know the exact numbers but I know that all the money the U.S. gives for aid is directly tied to helping U.S. interests worldwide. I suppose the reasoning is that such aid helps U.S. businesses and sets up stable markets so that the people can use them. Then again, it also tends to lead them into dependency, which does them no good. Thanks for the numbers. However, you seem to imply that Sweden, Denmark, and Japan give money to these poorer states out of some perceived charity. I would dispute that. When Sweden gives money to Sierra Leone, they are seeking after their interests just as much as the United States is by investing in Egypt or Israel or whereever. Don't think for a moment that they are doing it out of the kindness of their heart. Swedish interests may not be economic in nature, especially to places like Sierra Leone, but they are getting some benefit out of it, be it business, defense, or diplomatic. It may even be a prestige thing. To quote Lord Palmerston, a former British Prime Minister, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Cheers! ©2009 SinisterMatt. All Rights Reserved.
8 :
I am not surprised as we just write a check and let some idiot decide who gets what , without conditions why write th check? We need to end all foreign aid!
9 :
That's a joke right they rather build their military then give to the poor
10 :
The American people donate more money than any single government on Earth to charity, including our own. Your numbers are just government aid, not the total of government and private aid. If you tell the whole story instead of cherry picking your numbers, then America is clearly the most generous nation on Earth.
11 :
not at all surprising.
Americans are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share. The purpose of 99% of foreign "aid" is to create foreign markets for US products, especially arms sales. Foreign aid aids the giver (America), not the recipient. The leaders get the money, not the people. Giving money to the people is both not useful to the US as well as rather impossible. There are no people driving up to villages with cash and handing townspeople money making sure to distribute it evenly. They give it to the government and or the rebel leadership to allot. Richer nations receive the most aid. 1 third of all American aid goes to Israel and Egypt. After that it goes to places like Columbia, Pakistan, Jordan etc... not Rwanda or Burundi or Botswana. When looking at how it's allotted by the US, it's clear that strategic considerations, political alignment and drug policy are the biggest considerations while the poorest nations receive the least if any aid. The U.N. Voting Record doesn't even count, if you can't do anything for the US. Sweden spends the majority of it's aid on places like Sierra Leone, Gaza & the West Bank and Liberia and the rest of Africa. When will Americans come out of their government / media induced coma and realize the propaganda that is fed them? Of course America doesn't give money to poor people. They don't even give any to poor dying Americans, why would they give it to a Botswanian? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/08/bush_brings_faith_to_foreign_aid/ http://www.networkeurope.org/feature/sweden-cuts-foreign-aid-recipients http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html "Below 50%" - 500 million. He's not worth 50 billion. Anyway, re-read, you're not getting it. "End the Fed" - Please no more self-delusional America speak about how we all mooch off America's generosity in defending us. We neither want nor need America's "protection". "Cracker" - The topic is foreign aid genius, not charities in America for Americans.
Politics - 11 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I did not know that. Pretty shocking... but unsurprising.
2 :
Yes I do. At least in terms of individual donations to charity, and not purely government statistics like the ones you use. Americans (not government) give more to charity than any other nation in the world. So your lame attempt to denigrate Americans (for whatever reason) is laughable. Rant much? How does it feel to be a "Top Contributor" that's shown to be selective in their data, dishonest in it's presentation, exposed, and frankly outfoxed by a lowly level 1 with no avatar calling himself "cracker"? Must feel embarrassing.
3 :
Very surprising I did not know this.
4 :
When they stop rushing back and forth from their jobs so they can pay taxes.
5 :
bill gates donated $50 billion dollars for AIDS research, do you know of a man from denmark who gave that much money away.
6 :
We do give for our own gain but when you say Japan gives all that money I say yeah because they barely pay for their defense because the U.S. does. The bankers manipulated us into being world police and hegemony guardians, some countries benefit greatly while others get tyrannized. The U.S. provides defense and hits for half the world, the people allow it to happen because they don't know the wisdom of non intervention and are taught there is no other way.
7 :
Not surprising. I didn't know the exact numbers but I know that all the money the U.S. gives for aid is directly tied to helping U.S. interests worldwide. I suppose the reasoning is that such aid helps U.S. businesses and sets up stable markets so that the people can use them. Then again, it also tends to lead them into dependency, which does them no good. Thanks for the numbers. However, you seem to imply that Sweden, Denmark, and Japan give money to these poorer states out of some perceived charity. I would dispute that. When Sweden gives money to Sierra Leone, they are seeking after their interests just as much as the United States is by investing in Egypt or Israel or whereever. Don't think for a moment that they are doing it out of the kindness of their heart. Swedish interests may not be economic in nature, especially to places like Sierra Leone, but they are getting some benefit out of it, be it business, defense, or diplomatic. It may even be a prestige thing. To quote Lord Palmerston, a former British Prime Minister, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Cheers! ©2009 SinisterMatt. All Rights Reserved.
8 :
I am not surprised as we just write a check and let some idiot decide who gets what , without conditions why write th check? We need to end all foreign aid!
9 :
That's a joke right they rather build their military then give to the poor
10 :
The American people donate more money than any single government on Earth to charity, including our own. Your numbers are just government aid, not the total of government and private aid. If you tell the whole story instead of cherry picking your numbers, then America is clearly the most generous nation on Earth.
11 :
not at all surprising.
Friday, June 1, 2012
How much would a profession like this make in norway?
How much would a profession like this make in norway?
If you happen to be a Finishing Contractor in Norway, as in freelance, would you be making a lot of money? Lets say u live outside of Oslo? Are people in this profession considered wealthy, or just have enough to feed a family of 2-3? As a Finishing contractor, and a strong believer of the Christian Faith, can he also be an elder of a church there? putting together financial and professional status...?
Other - Europe - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
This company (Access Personnel AS) need an contractor, take contact with therese@access-personnel.no I bet you would make lots of money, and remember, that if you are working in Norway and get sick, you will still receive money and insurance.
If you happen to be a Finishing Contractor in Norway, as in freelance, would you be making a lot of money? Lets say u live outside of Oslo? Are people in this profession considered wealthy, or just have enough to feed a family of 2-3? As a Finishing contractor, and a strong believer of the Christian Faith, can he also be an elder of a church there? putting together financial and professional status...?
Other - Europe - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
This company (Access Personnel AS) need an contractor, take contact with therese@access-personnel.no I bet you would make lots of money, and remember, that if you are working in Norway and get sick, you will still receive money and insurance.
Monday, May 28, 2012
I need help to translate english into french! Help me?
I need help to translate english into french! Help me?
Hey! Will you help me? I am supposed to translate this into easy french! Make it as easy as possible! No difficult words! Do not use any translator softwares! I want you to be a person who actually talks french! Here it is: - My mom does not like shopping. Instead she gives me the money so I can go shopping. She is very nice. She has short brown hair and brown eyes. My father is also nice. He always helps me with my homework. He also has brown hair, but he has blue eyes, not brown. He is a chef so he loves eating just as Marie. He plays the guitar with my everyday. - I miss the a little. In the beginning I missed them a lot, but I miss them less now. They call me almost everyday. My famille d'accueil is very nice to me and they treat me as one of them! I like that! Do you miss your family? - When my real parents told me that I was going to France to study I expected a lot of this place. New friends, new environment, new everything. Everything was just as I expected it would be. I have a lot of new friends, and I love this country. But it is hard to talk french, it is very hard! - It is hard because I have only learned it for three years now. But at least I try! What did you expect? - Why? - Thats it? - If you say so! - How is your sister from Norway? I have not spoken to her for a long time. - Yes, he is my bestfriend and he is very very nice. I miss him very much! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know it sucks, but please! I really need help! Merci beaucoup in advance! =)
Languages - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
My mom = Ma maman = elle She likes shopping = Elle aime le shopping She does not like = Elle n’aime pas ____ She gives me = Elle me donne de l’argent To be = être (je suis, tu es, il/elle est – nous sommes, vous êtes, ils/elles sont. You have to memorize this) To have = avoir (j’ai, tu as, il/elle a – nous avons, vous avez, ils/ells ont. Memorize this) He loves eating = Il aime manger He plays the guitar = Il joue de la _____ I miss them = Je m’ennui d’eux A little = un peu In the beginning = Au début A lot = beaucoup Less = moins They call me = Ila m’appellent To me = avec moi At least = au moins http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/a%20lot You need to study this: • Auxiliaires : ÊTRE et AVOIR • Semi-auxiliaires : DEVOIR, POUVOIR, VOULOIR, SAVOIR, FALLOIR, ALLER, FAIRE • 1er groupe : –er > CHANTER –e, es, e, ons, ez, ent ( Tous les verbes sauf ALLER ) • 2e groupe : –ir > FINIR –is, is, it, issons, issez, issent • 3e groupe : –dre > RÉPONDRE –ds, ds, d, dons, dez, dent ; + Tous les autres verbes • Verbes pronominaux > SE lever – http://www.lepointdufle.net/present.htm Try to do it by yourself. Everyone learns from his mistakes
Hey! Will you help me? I am supposed to translate this into easy french! Make it as easy as possible! No difficult words! Do not use any translator softwares! I want you to be a person who actually talks french! Here it is: - My mom does not like shopping. Instead she gives me the money so I can go shopping. She is very nice. She has short brown hair and brown eyes. My father is also nice. He always helps me with my homework. He also has brown hair, but he has blue eyes, not brown. He is a chef so he loves eating just as Marie. He plays the guitar with my everyday. - I miss the a little. In the beginning I missed them a lot, but I miss them less now. They call me almost everyday. My famille d'accueil is very nice to me and they treat me as one of them! I like that! Do you miss your family? - When my real parents told me that I was going to France to study I expected a lot of this place. New friends, new environment, new everything. Everything was just as I expected it would be. I have a lot of new friends, and I love this country. But it is hard to talk french, it is very hard! - It is hard because I have only learned it for three years now. But at least I try! What did you expect? - Why? - Thats it? - If you say so! - How is your sister from Norway? I have not spoken to her for a long time. - Yes, he is my bestfriend and he is very very nice. I miss him very much! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know it sucks, but please! I really need help! Merci beaucoup in advance! =)
Languages - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
My mom = Ma maman = elle She likes shopping = Elle aime le shopping She does not like = Elle n’aime pas ____ She gives me = Elle me donne de l’argent To be = être (je suis, tu es, il/elle est – nous sommes, vous êtes, ils/elles sont. You have to memorize this) To have = avoir (j’ai, tu as, il/elle a – nous avons, vous avez, ils/ells ont. Memorize this) He loves eating = Il aime manger He plays the guitar = Il joue de la _____ I miss them = Je m’ennui d’eux A little = un peu In the beginning = Au début A lot = beaucoup Less = moins They call me = Ila m’appellent To me = avec moi At least = au moins http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/a%20lot You need to study this: • Auxiliaires : ÊTRE et AVOIR • Semi-auxiliaires : DEVOIR, POUVOIR, VOULOIR, SAVOIR, FALLOIR, ALLER, FAIRE • 1er groupe : –er > CHANTER –e, es, e, ons, ez, ent ( Tous les verbes sauf ALLER ) • 2e groupe : –ir > FINIR –is, is, it, issons, issez, issent • 3e groupe : –dre > RÉPONDRE –ds, ds, d, dons, dez, dent ; + Tous les autres verbes • Verbes pronominaux > SE lever – http://www.lepointdufle.net/present.htm Try to do it by yourself. Everyone learns from his mistakes
Monday, May 14, 2012
How, by the following definition, is North Korea socialist/communist [it's long out of neccessity, sorry]?
How, by the following definition, is North Korea socialist/communist [it's long out of neccessity, sorry]?
And by extension, everything else people seem to recognise as socialist/communist? In this thread please use the definition below, for the sake of figuring if north korea is socialist/communist. If you are not going to do that, don't bother answering. This isn't a thread saying socialism will work, it's a thread challenging the commonly held views about what socialism is. First off, my views as a socialist do not mesh with the ideas of many who call themselves socialists; I have heavy disagreements with social democrats, democratic socialists, trotskyites, leninists, deleonists, maoists, and stalinists. Therefore the definition I give will not match their definition. Second, I would like to make clear that when I say socialism or communism, I use these two words to refer to the exact same thing, not as seperate ideologies or one as a transitional phase and the other as some obscure utopia. My definition of socialism/communism is a society in which the people themselves share ownership and control the land and the means of production, through direct democracy. Essentially it's the extension of democracy to every quarter of society, the home, the workplace, and the community at large. A socialist society can only exist when the vast majority of the world population wants it to; there is no buying a plot of land and forming your own commune, as socialism can't exist while capitalism does. The people themselves then establish the socialist society democratically, through a revolution. In a socialist society, the following should apply: The socialist society has no monetary or barter system, there is no money and no trade, a socialist society has a gift economy. The socialist society is leaderless, since leaders are inherently undemocratic. The people themselves are in charge, administrating through a global direct democracy. The socialist society is stateless. Essentially, state is the power to use force legally against people. Socialism can't work in a coercive system. As well the existence of a state would undermine a classless society. The socialist society is borderless and global. Socialism can't exist in one country, nor can it exist while capitalism exists. The socialist society is classless. There are no upper and lower classes, no elites and no poor, and there is no state. So your turn. Does north korea fit the definition above? Did the soviet union? Does china? How bout cuba, vietnam, or cambodia? Do France, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, or any of those european countries fit the definition? Does obama fit the above definition of socialism? Vinny, if you're going to answer, READ THE DEFINITION AND DEFINE BY THAT! Your own definition of communism is irrelevent here. Everyone in the world socialist movement has agreed upon the definition above. This question is subject to linking and reposting, to ensure the most answers. That's cool, L, I look forward to your answer. :)
Politics - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's a totalitarianism.
2 :
North Korea is most certainly 100% communist because Kim Jong, a tyrannical dictator, and his national military controls the entire nation which confiscates most of the countries food supplies to feed themselves (why do you think their army is so big...because thats where all the food is). Kim Jong also personally controls imports/exports, manufacturing, etc. He also answers to no parliment, no governing council or court-type leveling system of any kind. Edit: Give this answer all the thumbs down you want, it wont change the truth.
3 :
Learn to Juche. Socialism and communism are stupid, outdated, white ideologies. Their mention annoys the fuck out of me. Juche idea it is they are!
4 :
No country that has ever existed and no person who has ever existed fits your definition of a socialist. When people say that Obama or North Korea are socialist, they are obviously not using your definition. They're using some other definition. You can't have useful discussions with others until everybody involved in the discussion agrees upon the definitions of key words, phrases, and concepts. Hope that helps.
5 :
Your definition of Socialism is incorrect.. that's the problem. Or to use Communism for a better example (since it's more concrete than socialism)... In Communism there is no private ownership. Instead a central entity controls all production and distribution of resources. Without that central entity, there is no way to maintain the structure and you'd end up with anarchy. And that is the downfall of all such systems.. so long as there is one central group given so very much control it will always end up corrupt and no longer acting solely in the best interests of the people. If there is no central entity (I use that term because it doesn't have to be a government), what is to stop someone from taking 5 iphones for free just because he wants to? Or how could you stop someone from requiring pine cones in order to receive a jar of peanut butter? If there's no central ruling group then there's no system to maintain order. In Socialism and Communism, someone always manages the resources to determine who gets what. That is precisely what causes those systems to turn into modern slavery.
6 :
Socialism, at its root, is about the emancipation of the masses. Working men and women, no matter one's race, ethnicity, culture, or sexual orientation, are at the heart of the socialist ideal. Only through the resilience of the proletariat can Socialism prevail over Capitalism and the upper tiers of society that it benefits. But this is not something that is achievable unless the majority discover the meaning and revolutionary ideal of class consciousness. The complete abolition of privately-owned property, along with the eventual disintegration of the state and all its bureaucratic foibles is the ultimate conclusion of this - global - class struggle. Worker's democracy, with the strength of the proletariat as its foundation could be the ideal solution to any possible vacuum left by the destruction of the state. When the means of production and distribution is sorted out and finally implemented, and true transparency in both the decaying of the state and democracy is achieved, the worker cannot fall into complacency and deem his work done. Socialism, as implemented by a single state, has been proven to be both unproductive, disastrous, and most importantly, counterrevolutionary. Stalin believed in Socialism in one State; Mao advocated eternal revolution; others implemented similar methods with terrible, repressive results. It can be argued that Socialism, once accomplished in a single state, is at once in danger from within and without by certain elements whose sole purpose is to undermine the victory of the proletariat and bring him/her back under the yoke of class oppression. This cannot be disregarded as foolish paranoia, nor simply as the replacement of one dictatorship with another. However, the methods utilized by the Russians, Chinese, N. Koreans, Vietnamese, and countless other states are both terrible and exploitative. A reign of terror has no place in Socialism - no matter the severity of the situation before it. Socialism, once organized into an efficient process of production and distribution, must eventually begin the process of dissembling the state into a borderless entity within which all who possess the ability to work, work to the best of their abilities for the betterment of the collective good. Held to such a standard, N. Korea (or the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc.) do not even hold a candle to the true concept of Socialism or the equality of the masses. These states remained within the binds of class stratification and state bureaucracy - the very things Socialism rails against. When the state owns the means of industry, military, governance, and security, the people are left with naught but the very thing they originally overthrew. Not that they themselves are immediately aware of this; the state goes to such ridiculous and heavy-handed lengths to keep and maintain the perceptions of the people. A society built upon lies and deceit (produced by the very people they originally supported) is the very antithesis of Socialism. The DPRK is an especially special case, as it is one of the few self-described "socialist" states that hasn't fallen or economically transformed itself to hold off its own collapse. It is a state frozen in time. Kim Jong-il is a leader who was neither democratically elected or cares for the well being of his people. He lavishes himself and his government allies with Capitalist goods and services while the proletariat wilts beneath his heavy hand. He rails against imperialism whilst threatening the South with nuclear extermination. These truths are certain and indisputable; Kim Jong-il is about as Socialist as Obama - who isn't. However, with that being said, stateless Socialism still contains multiple issues and flaws that need addressing. For instance, who is to ensure the transparency and equality of the eventual classless society? Surely the state cannot be held in such a role; it would surely abuse its power. The only solution (in my mind) is to follow the paths of Democratic Socialism, with the eventual goal of a stateless, borderless, classless society. Socialism cannot be utilized without the power of democracy - how else will the people be heard and heeded. A state that's built beneath the crushing spirit of the proletariat, which follows the mandates of the masses, is an ideal that cannot be disregarded. The state's role (aside from its eventual disintegration) must be the mouthpiece of the worker, through which his/her needs are formulated and carried out. Lenin's Russia built its order of governance from the top to the bottom, with a central entity dictating to the organizations below it. The same cannot be repeated; the state must be on the receiving end of policy-making - not the other way around. A dictatorship of the proletariat over the state, so to speak. Now, I've rambled quite enough (I suspect at moments incoherently), but I hope I got some measure of my point across.
And by extension, everything else people seem to recognise as socialist/communist? In this thread please use the definition below, for the sake of figuring if north korea is socialist/communist. If you are not going to do that, don't bother answering. This isn't a thread saying socialism will work, it's a thread challenging the commonly held views about what socialism is. First off, my views as a socialist do not mesh with the ideas of many who call themselves socialists; I have heavy disagreements with social democrats, democratic socialists, trotskyites, leninists, deleonists, maoists, and stalinists. Therefore the definition I give will not match their definition. Second, I would like to make clear that when I say socialism or communism, I use these two words to refer to the exact same thing, not as seperate ideologies or one as a transitional phase and the other as some obscure utopia. My definition of socialism/communism is a society in which the people themselves share ownership and control the land and the means of production, through direct democracy. Essentially it's the extension of democracy to every quarter of society, the home, the workplace, and the community at large. A socialist society can only exist when the vast majority of the world population wants it to; there is no buying a plot of land and forming your own commune, as socialism can't exist while capitalism does. The people themselves then establish the socialist society democratically, through a revolution. In a socialist society, the following should apply: The socialist society has no monetary or barter system, there is no money and no trade, a socialist society has a gift economy. The socialist society is leaderless, since leaders are inherently undemocratic. The people themselves are in charge, administrating through a global direct democracy. The socialist society is stateless. Essentially, state is the power to use force legally against people. Socialism can't work in a coercive system. As well the existence of a state would undermine a classless society. The socialist society is borderless and global. Socialism can't exist in one country, nor can it exist while capitalism exists. The socialist society is classless. There are no upper and lower classes, no elites and no poor, and there is no state. So your turn. Does north korea fit the definition above? Did the soviet union? Does china? How bout cuba, vietnam, or cambodia? Do France, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, or any of those european countries fit the definition? Does obama fit the above definition of socialism? Vinny, if you're going to answer, READ THE DEFINITION AND DEFINE BY THAT! Your own definition of communism is irrelevent here. Everyone in the world socialist movement has agreed upon the definition above. This question is subject to linking and reposting, to ensure the most answers. That's cool, L, I look forward to your answer. :)
Politics - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's a totalitarianism.
2 :
North Korea is most certainly 100% communist because Kim Jong, a tyrannical dictator, and his national military controls the entire nation which confiscates most of the countries food supplies to feed themselves (why do you think their army is so big...because thats where all the food is). Kim Jong also personally controls imports/exports, manufacturing, etc. He also answers to no parliment, no governing council or court-type leveling system of any kind. Edit: Give this answer all the thumbs down you want, it wont change the truth.
3 :
Learn to Juche. Socialism and communism are stupid, outdated, white ideologies. Their mention annoys the fuck out of me. Juche idea it is they are!
4 :
No country that has ever existed and no person who has ever existed fits your definition of a socialist. When people say that Obama or North Korea are socialist, they are obviously not using your definition. They're using some other definition. You can't have useful discussions with others until everybody involved in the discussion agrees upon the definitions of key words, phrases, and concepts. Hope that helps.
5 :
Your definition of Socialism is incorrect.. that's the problem. Or to use Communism for a better example (since it's more concrete than socialism)... In Communism there is no private ownership. Instead a central entity controls all production and distribution of resources. Without that central entity, there is no way to maintain the structure and you'd end up with anarchy. And that is the downfall of all such systems.. so long as there is one central group given so very much control it will always end up corrupt and no longer acting solely in the best interests of the people. If there is no central entity (I use that term because it doesn't have to be a government), what is to stop someone from taking 5 iphones for free just because he wants to? Or how could you stop someone from requiring pine cones in order to receive a jar of peanut butter? If there's no central ruling group then there's no system to maintain order. In Socialism and Communism, someone always manages the resources to determine who gets what. That is precisely what causes those systems to turn into modern slavery.
6 :
Socialism, at its root, is about the emancipation of the masses. Working men and women, no matter one's race, ethnicity, culture, or sexual orientation, are at the heart of the socialist ideal. Only through the resilience of the proletariat can Socialism prevail over Capitalism and the upper tiers of society that it benefits. But this is not something that is achievable unless the majority discover the meaning and revolutionary ideal of class consciousness. The complete abolition of privately-owned property, along with the eventual disintegration of the state and all its bureaucratic foibles is the ultimate conclusion of this - global - class struggle. Worker's democracy, with the strength of the proletariat as its foundation could be the ideal solution to any possible vacuum left by the destruction of the state. When the means of production and distribution is sorted out and finally implemented, and true transparency in both the decaying of the state and democracy is achieved, the worker cannot fall into complacency and deem his work done. Socialism, as implemented by a single state, has been proven to be both unproductive, disastrous, and most importantly, counterrevolutionary. Stalin believed in Socialism in one State; Mao advocated eternal revolution; others implemented similar methods with terrible, repressive results. It can be argued that Socialism, once accomplished in a single state, is at once in danger from within and without by certain elements whose sole purpose is to undermine the victory of the proletariat and bring him/her back under the yoke of class oppression. This cannot be disregarded as foolish paranoia, nor simply as the replacement of one dictatorship with another. However, the methods utilized by the Russians, Chinese, N. Koreans, Vietnamese, and countless other states are both terrible and exploitative. A reign of terror has no place in Socialism - no matter the severity of the situation before it. Socialism, once organized into an efficient process of production and distribution, must eventually begin the process of dissembling the state into a borderless entity within which all who possess the ability to work, work to the best of their abilities for the betterment of the collective good. Held to such a standard, N. Korea (or the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc.) do not even hold a candle to the true concept of Socialism or the equality of the masses. These states remained within the binds of class stratification and state bureaucracy - the very things Socialism rails against. When the state owns the means of industry, military, governance, and security, the people are left with naught but the very thing they originally overthrew. Not that they themselves are immediately aware of this; the state goes to such ridiculous and heavy-handed lengths to keep and maintain the perceptions of the people. A society built upon lies and deceit (produced by the very people they originally supported) is the very antithesis of Socialism. The DPRK is an especially special case, as it is one of the few self-described "socialist" states that hasn't fallen or economically transformed itself to hold off its own collapse. It is a state frozen in time. Kim Jong-il is a leader who was neither democratically elected or cares for the well being of his people. He lavishes himself and his government allies with Capitalist goods and services while the proletariat wilts beneath his heavy hand. He rails against imperialism whilst threatening the South with nuclear extermination. These truths are certain and indisputable; Kim Jong-il is about as Socialist as Obama - who isn't. However, with that being said, stateless Socialism still contains multiple issues and flaws that need addressing. For instance, who is to ensure the transparency and equality of the eventual classless society? Surely the state cannot be held in such a role; it would surely abuse its power. The only solution (in my mind) is to follow the paths of Democratic Socialism, with the eventual goal of a stateless, borderless, classless society. Socialism cannot be utilized without the power of democracy - how else will the people be heard and heeded. A state that's built beneath the crushing spirit of the proletariat, which follows the mandates of the masses, is an ideal that cannot be disregarded. The state's role (aside from its eventual disintegration) must be the mouthpiece of the worker, through which his/her needs are formulated and carried out. Lenin's Russia built its order of governance from the top to the bottom, with a central entity dictating to the organizations below it. The same cannot be repeated; the state must be on the receiving end of policy-making - not the other way around. A dictatorship of the proletariat over the state, so to speak. Now, I've rambled quite enough (I suspect at moments incoherently), but I hope I got some measure of my point across.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)