Board of Directors of Apple

[Ace]

And yes, the Democrats are against capitalism....what they want America to become is called SOCIALISM.....not too far off from COMMUNISM.

GhostSniper, please remove your head from your ass before making any other comments of this nature.

It might do you good to take a poly-sci class or two also.

I have a BS degree in Political Science and a BA in History.  Idiot.

Well, since you have those oh-so-hard to get degrees, why didn't you enlighten Alaric as to what makes your position so right? Maybe it's because you were totally off the mark?

You as such an obviously learned man should realize that socialism and capitalism are *gasp* not mutually exclusive! Take a look at some European countries like Sweden. They have a capitalist economy but socialist domestic policies. So please, check your facts next time unless you want someone who spends all his time studying about computers debunking your feeble arguments.

PS - Since when the fuck did Poly Sci count for a BS? Last time I checked, you actually have to earn a BS in a real scientific field at any real school.

[westamastaflash]

I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions abounding here about capitalism vs. socialism, and then address a broader issue here - I've sorta moved away from the Al Gore thing, but hey, the man is setting himself up to run against Hillary in 2008 -> See Wed. Dec 10 Daily Show (Sen. Zell Miller was on).

I really don't care that Apple has added Gore to its board - tasty, as long as Jobs keeps crankin out the quality product (even at a premium price) i'll be buying (though I do think that one's social views affect every aspect of one's life, but i don't want to cover that here).

First some definitions.
Defining capitalism as Miriam Webster does: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Another definition from Dictionary.com -> An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

It should be noted here that Dictonary.com defines the antonym to capitalism as socialism.

Socialism defined in Webster as: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

From Dictionary.com -> Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Please note that there are other definitions of capitalism that take a broader perspective - that capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
Socialism also has a broader perspective - it is based on the principle of the most good for the most people - as described by the principle of utilitarianism.

Ace, you said:

You as such an obviously learned man should realize that socialism and capitalism are *gasp* not mutually exclusive! Take a look at some European countries like Sweden. They have a capitalist economy but socialist domestic policies.

Based on the definitions above, I'm pretty sure that it can be objectively stated that capitalism (private ownership) can not be reconciled with socialism ("public" ownership). Individual rights should never be trumped by "the good of the many" or even the argument that a specific program is "for your own good."
John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859) said "... the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or to forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinions of others to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise."

Sweden is often used as the "poster child" for a nation that has reconciled capitalism and socialism. This is a myth that, due to frequent retellings,  eventually becomes common knowledge and "fact." I suggest you read this article (there are a lot more articles out there, but this one seems to be the most relevant in this discussion):
http://www.techcentralstation.com/112702A.html


There's an excellent French philosopher/economist by the name of Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) who wrote a pamphlet entitled The Law. This should be required reading in all high school & college economic/history classes! Please at least read the entire pamphlet, and I'm sure many of you will disagree with what is said - but don't read the first 3 paragraphs and then toss it away.
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
Note that the translation uses the term "Communism" - such a term was in usage of the day to mean the socialism of the French progressives, not the Communism of Marx and Engels.

An excellent quote from Bastiat to end my post / rant with: "It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person."

[dictionary.com (abe)]

Just for the record, dictionary.com isnt the best source for definitions and antonyms. Case in point:

Entry:??
catholic

Function:??
adjective

Definition:??
general

Synonyms:??
all-embracing, broad-minded, charitable, comprehensive, cosmic, cosmopolitan, diffuse, eclectic, ecumenical, extensive, generic, global, inclusive, indeterminate, large-scale, liberal, open-minded, planetary, receptive, tolerant, unbigoted, universal, unprejudiced, unsectarian, whole, wide, world-wide, worldly

Antonyms:??
limited, narrow, parochial, provincial, sectarian

Concept:??
commonness

No offense to any catholics, but this seems just a little off the mark.....

[Mr. Lothario]

     Holy crap! Flash, welcome to the forum. : )

[alaric]

GhostSniper, I'm already very impressed that you can even write, you don't have to make up stories about military service or imaginary degrees from backwater universities to impress me.


Now, I realize that you probably do have some military service  under your belt (your inability to think for yourself is a good indicator of this), and that you probably have gotten a degree from some local college. But honestly, if you're smart enough to get a degree in anything, you're smart enough to realize that degree means nothing, especially on the internet.

Here, it's not who you are or what you've done, it's what you say and how you present your arguement that matters. To this point I have never seen you scrape together even one coherent arguement. All you have done is throw around your "accomplishments" in a vain attempt to make people think you know what you're talking about. Your arguements should be strong enough to stand for themselves, you shouldn't need to weight your arguements with unverifiable and unrelated items from your personal life.

So, the next time you feel the need to prove your ignorance to us, remember that you're just a dumb jarhead who needs to get his ass back to the kiddie table where he belongs.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Ghostsniper,

The one thing that your BS in PolySci or life in the military didn't prepare you for was the art of debate.  While having studied polysci is important, you should demonstrated that knowledge more, give logical arguments, not just rest on that accomplishment.  

Yeah, I've brought up my education in posts, but I've also backed it with the actual theory, laws, facts and learning that went into that education.  

So, word of advise, don't give the short "because I know I have a BS in polysci" for answers.  Try explaining them more.

[bronto]

yeah i like the way he always makes sure to add either his degree, occupation, and/or his and his ancestors military history, even when it's completely irrelevant. wouldn't be surprised if he was just bullshitting us.

[tasty]

Based on the definitions above, I'm pretty sure that it can be objectively stated that capitalism (private ownership) can not be reconciled with socialism ("public" ownership). Individual rights should never be trumped by "the good of the many" or even the argument that a specific program is "for your own good."

Sweden is often used as the "poster child" for a nation that has reconciled capitalism and socialism. This is a myth that, due to frequent retellings,  eventually becomes common knowledge and "fact." I suggest you read this article (there are a lot more articles out there, but this one seems to be the most relevant in this discussion):
http://www.techcentralstation.com/112702A.html

Do you believe that the United States is a socialist country? We have plenty of publicly owned entities, from the post office to our water supply. Are these programs infringing on your individual rights? We live in the most capitalistic country in the world -- does this mean that we are currently living in a socialist world? If so, the International Socialist Organization might as well give up because obviously they have already achieved their goal. It is foolish for you to say that we cannot make distinctions between two unlike things, in this case capitalism and socialism. Governments all around the world have policies that fit in different places on a political spectrum encompassing both free-market and socialist economic policies and libertarian and authoritarian social policies. That's the way most people want it--a free market with some social safety nets built in. Not every government can be lumped in to the neatly defined moniker of capitalism or socialism.

[abe (lazy)]

Dude,
What did you learn in political science (poli sci, btw not poly sci-its neither scientific nor particularily useful for anything)? Not too much obviously.....The only thing that even suggests the possibility that you do actually have an education is your incessant bragging about it. The content of your posts and your style of debating, however, make you seem like either a 10year old or someone with very, very (i cant put enough of these....) limited intelligence. Personally i don't give a shit, but you might think about turning off the rush limbaugh show and reading some books that werent written by Pat Buchanan, if only to get an idea why all these evil, liberal, commie, unamerican, subversive jerkoffs are plotting to take over the world and force good hardworking, well educated americans like yourself to perform fellatio on bill clinton. I mean, thats obviously what they are up to, so you might as well find out why.....

Anywayz, ghostsniper, all the diplomas in the world won't change anything about the fact that you are ignorant, unless you actually educate yourself, which you evidently chose not to.
While i disagree with you 100% on almost everything you post, it is not the fact that we disagree that is bothersome to me, but rather the way in which you present your arguement with neither logical reasoning, nor any facts to back up your absured statemens. Bah, im sick of this now......

btw, LMFAOROFL@jebs post....

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Great!  I've now received ONE phone call....anybody else?

[tasty]

I disagree with almost every political opinion of ghostsniper too, but you guys are pretty mean to him. We can argue without being rude guys? let's all get along (well at least to some degree).

Oh BTW ace, congratulations to your trojans on NOT being in the national title game.

also, if anyone is paying any attention at all anymore, no one from the board made the fantasy football playoffs (not the winners bracket at least). The winners bracket is my team, my friends team, snipers' team, and spaz's team.

[BFG]

 whats up with Gore? Crikey you could have had bush!  just think.... or in his case just don't!