I agree with one part of Kim Jong Un's speech

[dannno]

There's lots of things Hitler did that were impressive. Also, I've heard plenty of statements from Bin Laden, Amadiajad, and others that seem pretty intelligent.

That's because those people were setup by the establishment to fight the establishment. The establishment chose them to be fighters against the establishment for a very strategic reason, which is to discredit the entire anti-establishment. For example, Ron Paul has been accused of "reading too many of Ahmadinejad's press releases" because he used anti-establishment rhetoric just like Ahmadinejad. People who don't support Israel's occupation of Palestine are often compared to Hitler in the sense that they are given the antisemitism connection.

I've actually heard smarter things from them that I've ever heard out of Obama. I've never heard anything I liked from Obama.

That's because Obama was setup by the establishment to fight for the establishment.

[Acala]

I don't really have a preference between a monarchy (which is probably a better word than dictator in this thread) and an oligarchy (which is what we have). The key issue for me is my ability to secede from any one jurisdiction and join another or stay unaffiliated. In that way, government - regardless of form - becomes voluntary.

Now if someone wants to insist on the word "dictator", then the implication is central control (dictating) of the economy, which ALWAYS fails.

[tttppp]

-Wikipedia


Second of all, why do you think a single person can make better decisions that "hundreds of CEOs"?? I would rather be able to choose between Trader Joe's, Whole Foods and other grocery stores than have a single person in government make that choice for me, I don't care if they are elected. If we had an election today for a person to choose one grocery store for the whole country, it would probably end up being WalMart!!

Put it this way. There are plenty of smart people on the board of Apple. They didn't set up a bullshit legislative system to run the company. They hired Steve Jobbs to make all the decisions because he was better than them, and because 1 smart person can run a company better than 200 smart people.

You obviously haven't run anything before in your life, or were not too success. No offense. But anyone who has had success in management knows its ideal for only one person to be in charge of one responsibility. If you have many people in charge of one responsibility, nothing will get done, and everyone will point the figure at each other. I've seen this before. I've seen bad managers fuck things up by having too many people in charge of one task, and I've seen the right way.

And if you had the CEOs of all those health food companies' CEOs sharing one responsibility, you wouldn't end up with something good. You'd end up with ShitMart...a combination of Wal Mart and the DMV.

[tttppp]

That's because those people were setup by the establishment to fight the establishment. The establishment chose them to be fighters against the establishment for a very strategic reason, which is to discredit the entire anti-establishment. For example, Ron Paul has been accused of "reading too many of Ahmadinejad's press releases" because he used anti-establishment rhetoric just like Ahmadinejad. People who don't support Israel's occupation of Palestine are often compared to Hitler in the sense that they are given the antisemitism connection.





That's because Obama was setup by the establishment to fight for the establishment.

I agree to some extent. Would you agree that most dictators have been given a bad name by the establishment? They bash leaders like Hitler and say "see, this is what happens when you have a dictator." You can see this effect just be reading this thread. Everyone assumes that because someone is a dictator, they must have been a divine leader and hold their power forever. This is not what I want. I want one leader who is accountable for everything, and is held accountable by another department.

[kcchiefs6465]

Put it this way. There are plenty of smart people on the board of Apple. They didn't set up a bullshit legislative system to run the company. They hired Steve Jobbs to make all the decisions because he was better than them, and because 1 smart person can run a company better than 200 smart people.

You obviously haven't run anything before in your life, or were not too success. No offense. But anyone who has had success in management knows its ideal for only one person to be in charge of one responsibility. If you have many people in charge of one responsibility, nothing will get done, and everyone will point the figure at each other. I've seen this before. I've seen bad managers fuck things up by having too many people in charge of one task, and I've seen the right way.

And if you had the CEOs of all those health food companies' CEOs sharing one responsibility, you wouldn't end up with something good. You'd end up with ShitMart...a combination of Wal Mart and the DMV.

No offense. But please stop while you are behind. You must be the entrepreneur. I'm still laughing at your first incredible post. And you expect ANYONE to believe you are a businessman? What exactly do you do? I usually don't "bash" people for their ignorant posts but your's are especially troublesome. Please. Pick up a book.

EDIT: Or a dictionary for that matter.

[tttppp]

No offense. But please stop while you are behind. You must be the entrepreneur. I'm still laughing at your first incredible post. And you expect ANYONE to believe you are a businessman? What exactly do you do? I usually don't "bash" people for their ignorant posts but your's are especially troublesome. Please. Pick up a book.

EDIT: Or a dictionary for that matter.

This post is bullshit. There is absolutely no substance whatsoever in this post. You might as well just call me a bunch of names. That would get the same effect.

What exactly do you disagree with? Are you capable of having a discussion, or do you resort to bashing people when you don't understand something? The management philosophy I stated works wonders. I don't see how anyone can disagree with it. I don't see how someone can support the management system our own government uses, which is a complete disaster, and everyone just points the finger at each other, which is exactly what I said happens when you use that system.

[kcchiefs6465]

This post is bullshit. There is absolutely no substance whatsoever in this post. You might as well just call me a bunch of names. That would get the same effect.

What exactly do you disagree with? Are you capable of having a discussion, or do you resort to bashing people when you don't understand something? The management philosophy I stated works wonders. I don't see how anyone can disagree with it. I don't see how someone can support the management system our own government uses, which is a complete disaster, and everyone just points the finger at each other, which is exactly what I said happens when you use that system.

I apologize, when I said earlier I don't know where to begin it wasn't from a lack of understanding of what you are trying to convey. I understand what you are trying to say. One person in power that is held accountable, correct? The problem is "we" won't uphold our end of the agreement. The propaganda machines will be running and nothing will really change. Later you mentioned a group of "advisors." That is precisely what we have. The analogies to corporations are far-fetched at best. Yes, we don't need the beauracrats we have but that doesn't mean we should turn over power to one man. EVEN IF THAT BE RON PAUL (though I truly believe he wouldn't abuse his power) What about the next man? Laws are passed in "blindness." The power would surely be corrupted and abused. Not to mention a coup.

EDIT: I apologize again. I sometimes am too quick with a response. I supposed you were just trolling.

[tttppp]

When I said earlier I don't know where to begin it wasn't from a lack of understanding of what you are trying to convey. I understand what you are trying to say. One person in power that is held accountable, correct? The problem is "we" won't uphold our end of the agreement. The propaganda machines will be running and nothing will really change. Later you mentioned a group of "advisors." That is precisely what we have. The analogies to corporations are far-fetched at best. Yes, we don't need the beauracrats we have but that doesn't mean we should turn over power to one man. EVEN IF THAT BE RON PAUL (though I truly believe he wouldn't abuse his power) What about the next man? Laws are passed in "blindness." The power would surely be corrupted and abused. Not to mention a coup.

EDIT: I apologize again. I sometimes am too quick with a response. I supposed you were just trolling.

The CEO example is a very good one. CEOs without a 51% ownership are at the mercy of the board. If the board likes his job, he stays. If they don't like the job, he goes. It works for businesses, why not try a similar model with our government? Have the Supreme Court, a Dictator, and an agency that the dictator has no control over that holds the dictator accountable to his promises, hold impeachment hearings, and holds valid elections. You can also write some guidelines for the dictator, such as he must make sure his laws are for all people, and that the dictator must live by the rules as well, and that any new laws passed must not conflict with the constitution or whatever we would have.

Let me get this straight, there will be dictators who attempt to fuck things up. But in this system, we would either impeach them or not reelect them. And when we do get someone good, it will more than make up for the bad ones because the dictator would have the power to do whatever good he wants. It actually would be good to have a bad dictator every once in a while. It would teach people to pay attention and not vote for someone who is just bullshitting them. Right now, nobody cares who the president is because nothing will change, unless we go radical and elect someone like Ron Paul.

Why would I be trolling? I have like a thousand posts.

[dannno]

Put it this way. There are plenty of smart people on the board of Apple. They didn't set up a bullshit legislative system to run the company. They hired Steve Jobbs to make all the decisions because he was better than them, and because 1 smart person can run a company better than 200 smart people.

You obviously haven't run anything before in your life, or were not too success. No offense. But anyone who has had success in management knows its ideal for only one person to be in charge of one responsibility. If you have many people in charge of one responsibility, nothing will get done, and everyone will point the figure at each other. I've seen this before. I've seen bad managers fuck things up by having too many people in charge of one task, and I've seen the right way.

And if you had the CEOs of all those health food companies' CEOs sharing one responsibility, you wouldn't end up with something good. You'd end up with ShitMart...a combination of Wal Mart and the DMV.

You're missing the point, I understand that putting one person in charge of something that they specialize in and can be held accountable for is often superior to putting a bunch of people in charge of something that would be more difficult to hold them all accountable for in a business environment.

But if you had one person making the decision to make one grocery store for everyone then we'd have shitmart. The products you want would not be available.

The government is not a business, I don't want them making decisions for me. At most, I would like them to defend the borders from actual enemies (not immigrants who are coming here to work), defend my person and property and uphold contracts. Very simple.

Instead in the free market we would let all of the businesses open their doors and operate and let the 600 million individuals in this country decide which store they thought was best. If we didn't have government subsidizing bad factory farming methods, then we would have less of it because the price would be more comparable to better methods.

[kcchiefs6465]

The CEO example is a very good one. CEOs without a 51% ownership are at the mercy of the board. If the board likes his job, he stays. If they don't like the job, he goes. It works for businesses, why not try a similar model with our government? Have the Supreme Court, a Dictator, and an agency that the dictator has no control over that holds the dictator accountable to his promises, hold impeachment hearings, and holds valid elections. You can also write some guidelines for the dictator, such as he must make sure his laws are for all people, and that the dictator must live by the rules as well, and that any new laws passed must not conflict with the constitution or whatever we would have.

Let me get this straight, there will be dictators who attempt to fuck things up. But in this system, we would either impeach them or not reelect them. And when we do get someone good, it will more than make up for the bad ones because the dictator would have the power to do whatever good he wants. It actually would be good to have a bad dictator every once in a while. It would teach people to pay attention and not vote for someone who is just bullshitting them. Right now, nobody cares who the president is because nothing will change, unless we go radical and elect someone like Ron Paul.

Why would I be trolling? I have like a thousand posts.

This would not happen. The power would be too concentrated. It is bad enough trying to fight our way out of this oligarchic system most were born into. The powers of propaganda work wonders. Imagine what "change" could come with the right slogan.

EDIT: All