PDA

View Full Version : Have you ever noticed.............



Pirschjaeger
11-07-2005, 09:53 PM
......how the poor people can tell you how to get rich? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Ok, next irony? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
11-07-2005, 09:53 PM
......how the poor people can tell you how to get rich? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Ok, next irony? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

JG52Uther
11-08-2005, 03:55 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Hang on,i'm poor! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-08-2005, 12:15 PM
You know if you put a penny to one side, then doubled the amount of the money put aside every day, you'd have over 5 million in thirty days?...lend me a tenner, could you? I'm a little short at the moment. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ViktorViktor
11-08-2005, 12:28 PM
Oh, go join the Marines, why don't you !!!!!!!

Actually, it's because the poor are more altruistic than the rich, and willing to share good ideas. The rich are more wont to keep it to themselves and their 'inner circle'. Am I right ?

Lucius_Esox
11-08-2005, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, it's because the poor are more altruistic than the rich, and willing to share good ideas. The rich are more wont to keep it to themselves and their 'inner circle'. Am I right ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They say it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven... nah really!!!

jarink
11-08-2005, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Ok, next irony? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

.......how people who have never flown a plane in their lives (let alone a WWII warplane) can tell you if the FM in the game is porked or Uber?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

justiceboy
11-08-2005, 02:04 PM
i think your reply was overmodeled and way to uber for this forum. must be hacked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lemky
11-08-2005, 09:47 PM
I agree no way will a plane sway like this FM,no matter how hard you push the rudder.It is a unstable FM,

jimDG
11-08-2005, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
......how the poor people can tell you how to get rich? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Ok, next irony? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor people are fools (in a meritocratic environment where poorness depends on lack of ability). And if I may paraphrase a fav saying of mine (by Bertrand Russell):
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain
of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

tagTaken2
11-08-2005, 11:41 PM
According to my current govt, which emphasises tax cuts for high-earners, and welfare and minimum wage cuts for the low-income to improve productivity...

So, to make people work harder you give a big carrot to the rich, and hit the poor ones with a stick.

Pirschjaeger
11-09-2005, 01:11 AM
Modern feudalism disguised as capitalism supported by democracy? We have the freedom to vote for who will support those who beat us with the sticks. Seems fair enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

jimDG
11-09-2005, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Modern feudalism disguised as capitalism supported by democracy? We have the freedom to vote for who will support those who beat us with the sticks. Seems fair enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, the problem is in democracy itself (but not everywhere).
Take 20 people in random. Ask them to elect a good electritian to repair a faulty transformer that supplies power to their homes, out of 20 candidates. One of the 20 people will know something about electronics/electricity/power grid. He will vote for the best electritian out of the 20, he will be able to recognise the electritian with the most ability. The rest will know nothing and vote for the best self-promoter, the one that appears to be most knowledgable in the "dark area" of power electronics.
However, the best self-promoters are those who are most certain of themselves, and fools are more likely to be certain of themselves, than wise people. Fools are also more likely to be narrow experts - who know all there is to know in a narrow field of knowledge, but have no in-depth understanding or ability to learn or adaptability.

And so - narrow minded self-promoters are more likely to get elected, because the majority is always incompetent when it comes to a specific issue (any issue/matter/field: statmenship, leadership, managment, science, religion, amazon fish species etc.)

The only way around is is the British kind of democracy, where you only get to vote for people who have been through a rigourous test of learning abilities and smartness. The way this works is that new blood in parties comes exclusively from Oxford and Cambridge - people who started their political careers in the junior party orgranisations in Oxford and Cambridge. Therefore they can't be fools, as they have been through rigourous tests of ability, to get to Oxford and Cambridge in the first place.
In other words: what makes a democracy work is two things:
1) Elitism based on testable and objectively tested ability (as opposed to availability of "connections")
2) Tradition and conservatism (to keep 1 in the long run)

New (true) democracies without any traditions (where anyone can run for office) fail and soon turn into something else (South America/Post-colonial Africa/Post-communist Eastern Europe)

alert_1
11-09-2005, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In other words: elitism based on testable ability, is what makes a democracy work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ability for WHAT? Securing a big carrot for themselves and big stick for others?

ViktorViktor
11-09-2005, 03:34 AM
I'm sure Arnold Schwarzenneger and Jesse 'The Body' Ventura (former wrestler) would have been duly elected to the House of Commons had they been political candidates in the U.K.

JimDG, if all the candidates in British democracy are all so well-qualified, why do we keep reading about all these scandals in the papers ? Shouldn't these people have already been weeded out long before they showed up at Parliament ?

jimDG
11-09-2005, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In other words: elitism based on testable ability, is what makes a democracy work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ability for WHAT? Securing a big carrot for themselves and big stick for others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ability to understand and solve unknown/new/unforseeable problems in the area of the task they have been elected to perform ("A talent"). As opposed to knowledge of how past problems have been solved in the same area ("An expert"). Or, in extreme cases: as opposed to no ability and no knowledge to slove tasks, but only self-promotivness.
(Provide happiness for everyone given present and future circumstances, for instance, is one way to describe a certain task/job http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jimDG
11-09-2005, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
I'm sure Arnold Schwarzenneger and Jesse 'The Body' Ventura (former wrestler) would have been duly elected to the House of Commons had they been political candidates in the U.K.

JimDG, if all the candidates in British democracy are all so well-qualified, why do we keep reading about all these scandals in the papers ? Shouldn't these people have already been weeded out long before they showed up at Parliament ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but Arnold wouldn't have been accepted or risen high enough into the ranks of a UK party, to eventually become a candidate for prime minister, would he?
Its all realtive. Are those scandals more frequent and/or graver than the scandals elsewhere? Or less? Are the scandals simply more public (as opposed to hidden)?
Ideally - they should have been weeded out, but there are no ideal tests. No test is 100% objective, even IQ tests aren't, and IQ tests dont test for many usefull qualities in real life. Hell, I'm sure lots of people go through college with just memorising things they forget after the exam. Or by having rich dads that donate (less so in the UK).
Its a system that reduces the chances of fools getting to the top, but not by 100%.

And no extreme is ever good either. Suppose in 20 years we have DNA tests that objectivly test ability in certain areas. The question then becomes - what abilities are best for a certain task? Would I be ok with being a garbage man if my tests show that this is what I am best at, and that I'll be less usefull (or just plain harmfull) to society in another position?

So, the UK kind of democracy is as good as it gets, Im not saying its perfect, but I dont think we should necessarily strive to be living in a "perfect" world. There is no free will in a "perfect" world.
People should be free to do damage to themselves, if they so decide (thats a pesonal opinion, though). The minus side of that is that being free to do damage to yourself, also frees you to do damage to others.

Pirschjaeger
11-09-2005, 08:57 AM
JimDG, I'm no expert on Churchill but wasn't he basically a fu**-up before he got into power?

This doesn't support your "tried and tested" theory.

As for democracy, the theory is great but you know what happens when you mix it up with humans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz

Airmail109
11-09-2005, 09:17 AM
Im from the UK, ID much rather have the American system of democracy. We have no written constiution defining our rights. Our rights can be taken away from us as easily as they were given to us. All aspects of peoples rights are written in the same form as any other piece of legislation. In the UK a government with a large majority can get away with a lot of things. This allows a constitutional vandal to change Britans uncodified constution overnight on any political whim, often without the consent of anyone except his cabinet. I like to see Britain as an elected dicatorship moderated by opinion polls.

major_setback
11-09-2005, 09:31 AM
Have you ever noticed how it's always those who have money that claim that it's not important!

Pirschjaeger
11-09-2005, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Im from the UK, ID much rather have the American system of democracy. We have no written constiution defining our rights. Our rights can be taken away from us as easily as they were given to us. All aspects of peoples rights are written in the same form as any other piece of legislation. In the UK a government with a large majority can get away with a lot of things. This allows a constitutional vandal to change Britans uncodified constution overnight on any political whim, often without the consent of anyone except his cabinet. I like to see Britain as an elected dicatorship moderated by opinion polls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thoughts exactly, Democratic National Socialism. Make the politicians accountable and the population responsible. With todays communication technology and the internet it is more than just possible. Every bill could be debated openly and voted for by the people. To ensure it's success political classes starting from elementary school would be mandatory.

All incomes would be taxed at 20%, regardless of how much you make. This would more opportunity and equality. The harder you work, the more you make. Military duty or community work would also be mandatory for highschool graduates and a prerequisite for University. The University fees would be paid partially or in whole by the state, percentages depending on the students efforts and grades.

IL-2 would also be mandatory but only permissable once you were married. Poor Danjama. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Personal wealth would be limited to 20 times that of the national average income. Anything above would be utilized for raising those under the level, the development of science and the arts. Hoarding money while others suffer is just inhumane and greedy.

Fritz

jimDG
11-09-2005, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
JimDG, I'm no expert on Churchill but wasn't he basically a fu**-up before he got into power?

This doesn't support your "tried and tested" theory.

As for democracy, the theory is great but you know what happens when you mix it up with humans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchill got famous in SA (Boer war) - got medals, had top notch education, was first lord of the admiralty in ww1, was the only one in gov who supported the development of the tank in ww1 (the Mk1 was developed by the navy) ... tried and tested he was without a doubt, by the time of WW2.
That such non-conformist, alcoholic, easily pissed-off, straight-tongued individual ever got to politics and power is all the proof thats need to show that ability (to get the job done) matters in UK. Traditionally.
Actually the UK was the only place in the middle ages where one could institutionally rise from peasant to aristocracy - elsewhere you are what you are born into.
The USA of course has the exact same social/cultural values ("the american dream") except for "tradition" and "conservatism" which have been scratched off.

Pirschjaeger
11-09-2005, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
JimDG, I'm no expert on Churchill but wasn't he basically a fu**-up before he got into power?

This doesn't support your "tried and tested" theory.

As for democracy, the theory is great but you know what happens when you mix it up with humans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchill got famous in SA (Boer war) - got medals, had top notch education, was first lord of the admiralty in ww1, was the only one in gov who supported the development of the tank in ww1 (the Mk1 was developed by the navy) ... tried and tested he was without a doubt, by the time of WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that kinda makes up for the mess he made in WW1(Turkey?).

Fritz

jimDG
11-09-2005, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
JimDG, I'm no expert on Churchill but wasn't he basically a fu**-up before he got into power?

This doesn't support your "tried and tested" theory.

As for democracy, the theory is great but you know what happens when you mix it up with humans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchill got famous in SA (Boer war) - got medals, had top notch education, was first lord of the admiralty in ww1, was the only one in gov who supported the development of the tank in ww1 (the Mk1 was developed by the navy) ... tried and tested he was without a doubt, by the time of WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that kinda makes up for the mess he made in WW1(Turkey?).

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The galipoly idea, that he proposed, was to have the navy bombard the ammo factories next to Istanbul, and withdraw. Then others got excited about it, expanded on it, then ****ed it up, and churchill got the blame.
The only **** ups that he was responsible for were the Norway landings and the opening stages of ww2 naval war (the battle of the north sea), and both were salvagable affairs from conceptions - without much loss of life if gone wrong.
On the plus side though, Alexander the Great is the only leader that who never made a mistake http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Dont get me wrong, churchull was a raving lunatic when it came to ideas (such as using poison gas bombs on berlin in 1941), but was reasonable enough to listen to his generals who refused to carry it out - he didnt sack them and install more obedient ones, as most other angry and annoyed polititians would do when opposed by subordinates. Thats what he put them there for - to get their jobs done as best they think (rather then obey).

Pirschjaeger
11-09-2005, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
JimDG, I'm no expert on Churchill but wasn't he basically a fu**-up before he got into power?

This doesn't support your "tried and tested" theory.

As for democracy, the theory is great but you know what happens when you mix it up with humans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchill got famous in SA (Boer war) - got medals, had top notch education, was first lord of the admiralty in ww1, was the only one in gov who supported the development of the tank in ww1 (the Mk1 was developed by the navy) ... tried and tested he was without a doubt, by the time of WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that kinda makes up for the mess he made in WW1(Turkey?).

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The galipoly idea, that he proposed, was to have the navy bombard the ammo factories next to Istanbul, and withdraw. Then others got excited about it, expanded on it, then ****ed it up, and churchill got the blame.
The only **** ups that he was responsible for were the Norway landings and the opening stages of ww2 naval war (the battle of the north sea), and both were salvagable affairs from conceptions - without much loss of life if gone wrong.
On the plus side though, Alexander the Great is the only leader that who never made a mistake http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx for the info on Churchill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BTW, Alexander messed up in India and got his butt handed to him. That was his last great battle before he died. He lost many men in India.

But he's still my favorite leader from history.

Fritz

jimDG
11-09-2005, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
JimDG, I'm no expert on Churchill but wasn't he basically a fu**-up before he got into power?

This doesn't support your "tried and tested" theory.

As for democracy, the theory is great but you know what happens when you mix it up with humans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchill got famous in SA (Boer war) - got medals, had top notch education, was first lord of the admiralty in ww1, was the only one in gov who supported the development of the tank in ww1 (the Mk1 was developed by the navy) ... tried and tested he was without a doubt, by the time of WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that kinda makes up for the mess he made in WW1(Turkey?).

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The galipoly idea, that he proposed, was to have the navy bombard the ammo factories next to Istanbul, and withdraw. Then others got excited about it, expanded on it, then ****ed it up, and churchill got the blame.
The only **** ups that he was responsible for were the Norway landings and the opening stages of ww2 naval war (the battle of the north sea), and both were salvagable affairs from conceptions - without much loss of life if gone wrong.
On the plus side though, Alexander the Great is the only leader that who never made a mistake http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx for the info on Churchill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BTW, Alexander messed up in India and got his butt handed to him. That was his last great battle before he died. He lost many men in India.

But he's still my favorite leader from history.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

dont get me started on Alexander http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. India was fine - it's a popular (an wrong) legend that elephants stopped him (those he defeated). What stopped him is that he got wonded badly and barely survived - and his army promply refused to go any further - they thought that next time he would probably die, and then they would be lost - so they got really scared for him and themselves - they believed they owed all victories to Alexander.
BTW J.F.C Fuller has a great book on Alexander's campains - he claims that those were in essence "tank campains" and goes through them to prove it.
(Fuller is the brit general who developed tank strategy and tactics along with Lidell Hart in the mid war years- the british version of Guderian)