>>Who cares? They can complain
>>all they want, but I
>>doubt if they are going
>>around hungry, especially ones with
>>recording contracts and albums out.
>>It's funny how celebrities
>>complain about the "plight of
>>the world" when they are
>>part of the group that
>>is taking advantage of the
>>system that they are against.
>
>So, when I proove your remarks
>to be completely false, it
>becomes irrelevant ? How
>convenient.

What did you prove false? All you said was "go ask the artists". That isn't telling me nothing. Of course they are going to give me their point of view, but that doesn't mean that it is the truth.
>Artists end up with 10-15% of
>the money generated with their
>music.

That's more than most employees make of company revenue. Not to mention the promotions, the manufacturing of the CD's, any kind of special costs, yadda yadda yadda.....

Besides it's real simple. If you didn't like the cut of the money you were getting paid, then you shouldn't have signed the contract, and asked for something higher, or else go to another company. When you sign the dotted line to any contract that means you agree and understand all the decisions specified on it. Hence, don't sign something you don't know about.

>When you refer to 6 or
>7 figure salaries, that's a
>very small minority of the
>artists in music today (but
>since you only care about
>rich people in general, don't
>let it worry you).

I won't, because common sense dictates that if you aren't making money in one profession, then you go to another profession. Hey, they always need a new fry guy at McDonalds.

>>Oh give me a break.
>>Your
>>assumption that everyone with money
>>are nothing but asskissers and
>>exploiters is becoming tired.
>
>Where did I say this ?
> Simply cos I analyse
>today's system and criticize a
>few phenomenons, you conclude that's
>what I think ?
>I have no problem with people
>working hard at all, nor
>with people making a lot
>of money through honest work.

Well if it's only a "few phenomenoms", then why do you advocate taking their hard earned money by force, instead of simply finding out and stopping this exploitation individually?

>I DO have problems with people
>making exorbitant amounts of money
>through speculation and exploitation of
>other people who have no
>means to defend themselves or
>stand up against it.

Who doesn't? I don't like people being took advantage of either. But everyone shouldn't suffer because of the evils of a few,

>Sorry that I don't fit into
>your simplistic logic where the
>rich are good guys and
>poor people are lazy bums.
> Like there's no lazy
>bums on the rich side

Wrong. There are bad rich people as are good rich people. The contrary is true also. However I don't believe in taking money from people who earned it

God man I have explained twice already. Listen.
Socialism takes away opportunities for advancement and growth, which makes it that much harder to achieve. That means those factors that you speak of become virtually larger under socialism and democracy.

>>I also said
>>that glass ceilings, racism, and
>>sexism can be overcame however.
>>It's all about the
>>desire you want to overcome
>>them.

>I think you're gonna make a
>few million people very happy.
> Please share with us
>how to overcome structural racism
>and sexism, with nothing but
>desire, motivation and ambition.

Ask around, read, or listen. I don't know about Belgium, but here it happens every day. Just about every obstacle in this world has been overcome by someone.

>>I guess the new
>>industries and technologies that are
>>being made every day comes
>>off the backs of the
>>poor too?
>
>If you're referring to computers assembled
>by (Chinese) prisoners, yes.

Well blame that on the Chinese government, not industries.

>>I guess
>>you can't get an education
>>because the "man" won't let
>>you get one?
>
>Sometimes this is the case.
>I'd like to work towards 'it
>(almost) never happens'. You
>just say it never happens
>to make things easier.
>If it turns out to be
>the opposite of what you
>say, you don't give a
>eff.

Because it makes no sense! You're trying to make emotionalistic reasoning logical when it isn't.

>Life is easy that way, but
>I rather live my life
>my way.

Well good. If you feel that way, then I should be able to do live my life my way also, hence stop whining to government to try to control other peoples' lives.

>Which facts ? Textbooks ?
> Written by people like
>you with no sense of
>reality or no experience with
>the real world outside your
>protective materialist cocoon ?

You can call it a cocoon, but you see the thing is that we "materialists" have the materials, and you don't. Therefore if you want materials too, you'll ask someone that got them. Why go to a desert to get water?

>First of all, there's more people
>than ever too. So
>it's quite logical to have
>more self-owned businesses.

Not true. The world's population grows every day, but that doesn't mean that every country is going to gain more businesses.

>Secondly, you restrict your logic to
>the US, I don't.
>Mainly cos I don't live
>in the US, but also
>cos I see the other
>side of your bright shiny
>system and its consequences.

Well, that's nice. However, like I said before that is irrevelant because the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the domestic affairs of other countries and their governments. Not to mention that government and national issues are based within the confines of our national borders. Other countries may model them, but we do so for our own interests. Therefore, we aren't going to simply break down our government and principles simply because other countries want it to be that way. That's why there is a thing called national soverignty. You can do what you want to with your own country, but you have, nor should have, any influence on how we govern ourselves here.

>Those consequences are economical, cultural, social
>and so on. I
>don't have to accept your
>system. I don't have
>to agree with the US
>trying to shove it down
>my throat. And I
>can mos def express it
>here.

*LOL* You have no choice but to accept our system. It is our system that runs the world, and will probably do so until doomsday. The US sets the pace for the rest of the world. As I mentioned about high achievers, if they aren't doing good, then the rest of the world isn't either. It's the same with international prosperity as well. You don't have to agree to it, but you might as well get used to it.

>>Yes, because you forgot one simple
>>idea....cost of living. If
>>all the poorer people were
>>to get richer, say, by
>>raising up minimum wage, in
>>order for businesses to recieve
>>a profit so they can
>>live they would have to
>>up revenue, which means that
>>prices would have to go
>>up. Therefore, all narrowing
>>the gap is going to
>>do is cause poor people
>>to come up with more
>>dollars in order to live.
>> They call it minimum
>>wage/standard of living for a
>>reason; because it's the lowest
>>job standard you can get.

>And you forget reality.
>I've already mentioned before that prices
>DID GO UP (which is
>normal), but the lower wages
>didn't follow. So the
>gap only got bigger.

But like I said before the gap is going to get bigger regardless because the more money people make, the bigger it's going to get. I'm not arguing the gap is going to get bigger, I'm arguing that raising the minimum wage will only make it get even bigger. What, you expect businesses to be willing to lose revenue? Yea right. Either prices will go up, or businesses will cut their costs considerably (labor, equipment, benefits), or they could possibly liquidate and go out of business. Your choice.

>>So, even if they do get
>>a better education, and even
>>if you try to universally
>>raise up the poor's income,
>>all you're doing it making
>>it harder for them and
>>everyone else; them because they
>>are still going to be
>>poor, meaning they will have
>>to gain more money in
>>order to live under the
>>comfort level you'd like to
>>see them at, and everyone
>>else because you are taking
>>their money away from them,
>>which means they will lose
>>financial security and status, making
>>it harder for them to
>>get by. You're not
>>helping out the economy, you're
>>stifiling it.

>No problem : we'll let the
>prices, rent, ... (cost of
>living) continue to rise and
>keep the low wages where
>they are right now and
>tell all people who suffer
>from this textbook theory that
>it's the best for them.

But you're not making any sense, because the cost of living will never go over what the target consumer can afford in order for the business to make a profit. If noone can afford to pay rent, then reasoning would dictate to drop the rent down so you can get some people to at least bring in something. Some revenue is better than no revenue.

>>However, chances are that you'll
>>be more likely to get
>>it though public funded hospitals
>>than private ones.
>
>How ? Why ?
>Oh, let me guess : most
>people don't have access to
>private hospitals cos they simply
>don't have the money to
>get in.

Nope, it's because in order for hospitals or any place to have patients they don't need the negative publicity to get out to their prospective patients. And yes, there are hospitals that do base themselves on financial prospects. But nothing in this world comes free, you have to pay for the best to get the best. You get what you pay for.

>>Simply
>>put, there is no business
>>government can succeed at better
>>than the private sector.
>
>How ? Why ?

Because the private sector is competitive, and are going to compete among themselves in order to be the product everyone recognizes. Government has no such competition, which means there is less of a chance they will look out of the people's best interests, and will simply give them whatever they want, especially if it is a solution to higher profit.

>Plus you completely ignored my remark.
> You don't seem to
>realise that cutting profits at
>all cost holds a risk.
> And that that risk
>becomes bigger when competition gets
>tougher.

Yeah, risk for the companies themselves to lower them. If they don't, then they lose business. And when competition gets tougher that means more opportunities for both labor and the consumer.

>I don't think workers in Africa
>or Colombia have problems with
>desire or ambition.
>Unless you believe that these people
>are inherently lazier, less motivated
>or dumber there's no reason
>to assume this.

No, just less opportunities provided by less success because of their corrupt governments.

>>will is one of the
>>most strongest forces in this
>>world. However, if you
>>don't believe in yourself, then
>>you aren't going to get
>>much done.

>read my lips : N A
>I V E
>I don't blame you son, you're
>still young and you're so
>stuck in your simplistic logic,
>that it must be quite
>terrifying to see people talking

It's sad you have such a defeatist attitude. I don't blame you old coot, you're old and have nothing much to live for, so you feel the same for others, so your're stuck in your pessimist attitude and simplistic logic. You must be jealous watching other people succeed. Get over it.

>Choosing for supporting a business is
>a way of controlling it.

Yeah I'm sure that's what you meant by a family wishing they had democractic control over General Motors. Sure.

>>Plus, what you are
>>proposing is that the government
>>control these private companies through
>>democratic consent. That's truly
>>satanic, not to mention authoritarian.

>Democratic consent = authoritarian ?
>Interesting.
>Next thing you'll probably tell me
>is that blue = yellow

You'd probably want a referendum changing the name of the color of blue in order to call it yellow. You might win too.

>If you don't have money to
>pay for the bus, you
>don't have access to it.
> Your access depends on
>your financial status.

But your financial status can vary, with you being financially secure at one time and not doing as well in the other. Therefore they still have access to it, just not at the moment. That means they have the opportunity to get financial counseling, but whether or not they take it is a different story.

>>tell me
>>how you plan to execute
>>this idea of democracy.
>>Until you can do that,
>>you and the other Okayplayer
>>liberals are doing nothing but
>>blowing hot air.

>I'd rather blow hot air than
>have my head up my
>ass.

YOU ARE STILL EVADING THE QUESTION. What is your model of fair democracy??? Stop trying to play dozens and answer what I asked for once.

>>I suggest you read this column
>>
>>http://herald.com/content/today/opinion/columnists/pitts/digdocs/073792.htm
>>
>>I think his opinion of all
>>you "activists" are right on
>>the money. You have
>>no coherent plan, no kind
>>of direction, no nothing.

>What your friend is saying is
>the same reasoning as people
>saying ALL hiphop is BS
>cos there's a lot of
>people who don't know the
>culture.
>Or saying that all homosexuals or
>lesbians are just doing it
>cos it's a trend (just
>cos there's a few people
>experimenting and switching sides).
>Just cos there's a few people
>rioting or not completely informed
>about the cause of the
>protests, doesn't make the protesting
>or critique irrelevant.

Wrong. He said no such thing. I think you need to reread that column again.
He mention there are still alot of problems with the world, and they can be solved. However, the protests going on at conventions and such were nothing but a big clusterfuck of people with different agendas. There was no specific agenda inthem because it was like hundreds of people going in 500 different directions and having 500 different issues.

Also, as he mentioned, the whole purpose of protest and activism is to rally people to your cause. How are they going to know when there are 500 other agendas going on in your protests? Notice the media couldn't put a specific reason of protest up there because there were so many. It's like you're pushing and moving each other around trying to see who can get the most attention. Meanwhile, you're doing nothing to help your cause because people are confused by this clusterfuck of protests all going at once so they can't decide whether they agree or don't agree. A protest is moot if you can't rally people towards your beliefs.

>Basically, that column just says that
>everyone who lives in a
>comfortable condition should shut up
>and not talk about the
>cost of us living this
>way, cos it annoys you
>too much. You don't
>like to hear it.

Wrong. Like I said, reread the column. He said that the clusterfuck makes the protesters look less like they want to help a cause and more like they are just out there for the sake of protesting and being heard. I agree, because none of them really has any sort of direction they are going in, and the whole thing looks like a hybrid of views all going at once. He wasn't complaining about the protest itself, he was complaining about the lack of direction you guys have.

>Too bad. You said yourself
>the truth can be hard
>to swallow. Better brace
>yourself kid.

Yeah, and when that truth is coming in 50 different directions, most people will be lucky to understand what's going on.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.