CoD sometimes seems unfair from another perspective

Black Ops forum

godsmack(the original) wrote:

 

Greed isn't the problem. I submit that laziness is the true problem. Without laziness the world would be a better place. Communism didn't work because of laziness and apathy. Not because of greed. Greed is a productive trait laziness is the polar opposite. Yes in a vacuum communism would be great but in the real world people need a great enough incentive to not be lazy. Communism can't supply this insentive because no matter how hard I work I won't personally benefit and no matter how lazy I am I won't suffer. Misery is an incentive when you take away the misery you take away the incentive for a person to better themselves. Some people no matter how much they have us never enough and others no matter how much you give them they will never have anything. It goes back to the old adage something for nothing is worth nothing. This why we see all the spoiled brats on this forum complaining about any and everything because they have never earned anything so have no way to place a value on anything.



I Have to agree, It does seem without a Apparent or Dire Consiquence or Reward people wont do what they have too.
XyZ-_AetheR_
Likes: 0
Posts: 345
Registered: ‎07-11-2010
I guess it should be noted that there many different levels of Communism. And what I am referring too is not the typical "everyone is told what to do and how to do it" type of Communism. There are levels of Communism in which everyone still has their freedom too choose what to do, how much they want to make, and what to spend their money on. I suppose some would consider this system closer to Socialism.



But the point being is that government (un-corrupted) should be in control of most of the things that are currently privately run. Anything that is related to basic human need and survival should not be in the hands of people only concerned about making profits. This would include things like shelter, food, healthcare, etc...



I do not understand how people can say a system where 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth is a good system, while at the same time there are people dying every day because they have no food or shelter.
kweagle
Likes: 30
Posts: 4829
Registered: ‎22-09-2011
Ok, the Vietnam war, there was too many politics in that war and too many rules for the U.S. to follow. Like if the vietnamese soldiers left the borders of vietnam, the U.S. soldiers couldnt fire on them. And the U.S. is getting control of Iraq and Afganistan (however you spell it). If U.S. wanted they could go and nuke the crap outta those countries and take control, but they try to be civilized unlike the terrorists who bomb innocent citizens, or the rebels in africa, who force children to be child soldiers and willl mutilate you if you resist.
dat4co
Likes: 0
Posts: 164
Registered: ‎01-07-2011

dat4co wrote:

 

Ok, the Vietnam war, there was too many politics in that war and too many rules for the U.S. to follow. Like if the vietnamese soldiers left the borders of vietnam, the U.S. soldiers couldnt fire on them. And the U.S. is getting control of Iraq and Afganistan (however you spell it). If U.S. wanted they could go and nuke the crap outta those countries and take control, but they try to be civilized unlike the terrorists who bomb innocent citizens, or the rebels in africa, who force children to be child soldiers and willl mutilate you if you resist.







Ahh.. no, no they couldn't...
kweagle
Likes: 30
Posts: 4829
Registered: ‎22-09-2011

kweagle wrote:

 

I guess it should be noted that there many different levels of Communism. And what I am referring too is not the typical "everyone is told what to do and how to do it" type of Communism. There are levels of Communism in which everyone still has their freedom too choose what to do, how much they want to make, and what to spend their money on. I suppose some would consider this system closer to Socialism.



But the point being is that government (un-corrupted) should be in control of most of the things that are currently privately run. Anything that is related to basic human need and survival should not be in the hands of people only concerned about making profits. This would include things like shelter, food, healthcare, etc...



I do not understand how people can say a system where 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth is a good system, while at the same time there are people dying every day because they have no food or shelter.





Socialists governments isnt good. It just makes more taxes, we may get benefits like healthcare, but we also have to pay for our benefits and the benefits of others who cant afford it. Socialists governments want everyone to be on the same level, therefore causing the lack of innovation.. Obama's socialist approach has only put the U.S. in more debt, 12 trillion dollars and counting to be exact. Socialist government = higher taxes, lack of innovation and debt. Although it does sound like a great system were everyone will get benefits, it really isnt because it raises taxes.
dat4co
Likes: 0
Posts: 164
Registered: ‎01-07-2011

kweagle wrote:

 

cod009 wrote:

 

dude most of their soldiers are not in it to win. they dont give two **** if they died. they are raised from birth believing they are going to die in war.







lol, what??







yeah, kweagle, in the middle east, the soldiers dont care if they die because they think they are doing it for the great cause of making the world muslim. That should explain the suicide bombings and attacks by the terrorists. Osama bin laden said it himself "The differance between us is that we love death and you dont."
dat4co
Likes: 0
Posts: 164
Registered: ‎01-07-2011

dat4co wrote:

 

kweagle wrote:

 

I guess it should be noted that there many different levels of Communism. And what I am referring too is not the typical "everyone is told what to do and how to do it" type of Communism. There are levels of Communism in which everyone still has their freedom too choose what to do, how much they want to make, and what to spend their money on. I suppose some would consider this system closer to Socialism.



But the point being is that government (un-corrupted) should be in control of most of the things that are currently privately run. Anything that is related to basic human need and survival should not be in the hands of people only concerned about making profits. This would include things like shelter, food, healthcare, etc...



I do not understand how people can say a system where 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth is a good system, while at the same time there are people dying every day because they have no food or shelter.





Socialists governments isnt good. It just makes more taxes, we may get benefits like healthcare, but we also have to pay for our benefits and the benefits of others who cant afford it. Socialists governments want everyone to be on the same level, therefore causing the lack of innovation.. Obama's socialist approach has only put the U.S. in more debt, 12 trillion dollars and counting to be exact. Socialist government = higher taxes, lack of innovation and debt. Although it does sound like a great system were everyone will get benefits, it really isnt because it raises taxes.







LMAO is that what they are teaching you in the states??
kweagle
Likes: 30
Posts: 4829
Registered: ‎22-09-2011

dat4co wrote:

 

kweagle wrote:

 

cod009 wrote:

 

dude most of their soldiers are not in it to win. they dont give two **** if they died. they are raised from birth believing they are going to die in war.







lol, what??







yeah, kweagle, in the middle east, the soldiers dont care if they die because they think they are doing it for the great cause of making the world muslim. That should explain the suicide bombings and attacks by the terrorists. Osama bin laden said it himself "The differance between us is that we love death and you dont."







Try asking the actual residents of the country, not some extremist group that has nothing to do with them. Besides, what do you expect them to do, sit around while a foreign country invades them??



BTW, explain to me why the US is even in Iraq...
kweagle
Likes: 30
Posts: 4829
Registered: ‎22-09-2011

kweagle wrote:

 

dat4co wrote:

 

kweagle wrote:

 

I guess it should be noted that there many different levels of Communism. And what I am referring too is not the typical "everyone is told what to do and how to do it" type of Communism. There are levels of Communism in which everyone still has their freedom too choose what to do, how much they want to make, and what to spend their money on. I suppose some would consider this system closer to Socialism.



But the point being is that government (un-corrupted) should be in control of most of the things that are currently privately run. Anything that is related to basic human need and survival should not be in the hands of people only concerned about making profits. This would include things like shelter, food, healthcare, etc...



I do not understand how people can say a system where 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth is a good system, while at the same time there are people dying every day because they have no food or shelter.





Socialists governments isnt good. It just makes more taxes, we may get benefits like healthcare, but we also have to pay for our benefits and the benefits of others who cant afford it. Socialists governments want everyone to be on the same level, therefore causing the lack of innovation.. Obama's socialist approach has only put the U.S. in more debt, 12 trillion dollars and counting to be exact. Socialist government = higher taxes, lack of innovation and debt. Although it does sound like a great system were everyone will get benefits, it really isnt because it raises taxes.







LMAO is that what they are teaching you in the states??





Ok please post the benefits of a socialist government.
dat4co
Likes: 0
Posts: 164
Registered: ‎01-07-2011
I already did. They are full of benefits, and, when managed properly, have no disadvantages.
kweagle
Likes: 30
Posts: 4829
Registered: ‎22-09-2011

Studios