Do You Believe They Put A Man On The Moon?

[Images 0]

Because Russia = Communism. The only thing the US wanted Russia doing first, or at all, was burning to the ground and putting up US flags.

yeah which is just silly.

[Travis Kroells 0]

Because Russia = Communism. The only thing the US wanted Russia doing first, or at all, was burning to the ground and putting up US flags.

Dont go dissing Communism. Other wise you'll have another post on you hands that requires Moderation.

[Images 0]

Dont go dissing Communism. Other wise you'll have another post on you hands that requires Moderation.

You're a regular citizen smith kroells :P

[Travis Kroells 0]

::Stands tall and proud, the USSR flag waving in the background::

 

You know I am.

[Images 0]

STSF's new slogan?

 

POWER TO THE PEOPLE! :P

[HyperDrive 0]

Oy vey...

 

How about a quick lesson on Communism, ah?

 

Form? The government gives full power to the people, and no one is left in charge to make decisions for the whole. All people live in harmony, and share everything equally.

 

Problem? People aren't equal, and most don't want to be. Human reaction is to "be better than someone else." In a Communistic rule, people cannot strive to do something more for someone else.

 

Example? One farmer has 3 children, all of whom work on his father's farm for 10 hours a day. They each get the same amount of food.

 

Another farmer down the road has 12 children, all of whom work on his father's farm for 4 hours a day. They get the same amount of food as the farmer and 3 children mentioned above.

 

Fair? No.

 

These families must also be trusted to take the same amount of food every time, and not add to their meal. In pure Communism, no one would be with the food, dispensing it in equal portions. Everyone must be trusted to do this on their own.

 

Another problem is that, in a Communistic rule, a Leader is put into office around a small group of political leaders. This leader is suppose to give up command of the nation when "the nation is ready to run on it's own". If you were in charge of the Soviet Union, would you want to give it up? No... it is a major political power on Earth. (It wouldn't have mattered... Soviet Union never hit the point to be pure Communistic.)

 

Finale? Not all people can be trusted. Because of this, pure Communism cannot ever be reached until all people can actually be equal (which would not only be impossible, but would also essentially cease future inventions of anything).

 

 

In a sense, Communism would seem like the perfect government. However, every world case of Communistic rule on Earth has been corrupted from the inside-out... proof that it just can't work for the common peasant.

 

----

 

Now, on to what I think about the Moon...

 

I firmly believe we went to the Moon. There were simply too many witnesses to the event for it not to be true... (do you really think any government can pull off such a large event with thousands of actors not knowing the truth, and millions who just nod and agree? No.)

 

The reason there even was a Space Race was because the Soviet Union and the United States competed for *everything* during the Cold War. Each wanted to be #1 in the world.

 

(Story: A boat race was ran between two ships... one from the USSR, and one from the United States. The one from the United States won the race. Printed in the Russian newspapers was this: "Soviet's finish 2nd, U.S. finishes next-to-last.")

 

The Cold War was, for the most part, propoganda... with war/conflicts along the way (Korea, Vietnam, and others).

 

("Cold War" is actually just the type of war that was fought... 50 years of propoganda, with bloodshed about every 15 years in between. A "Hot War" is a war that has massive bloodshed, and doesn't last near as long.)

 

The Space Race was due to propoganda, and each government needed the personal satisfaction of winning.

 

(To add to BluRox, the USSR lost almost 150 Cosmonauts in the Space Race, while the United States lost less than 10 astronauts.)

 

Now, here's my answer: Yes, we went to the Moon. (The only question I ever wanted to ask that went against us actually landing on the Moon was this: "Who put the camera on the surface of the Moon if no one had been there before?" :P I have a feeling that the first Moon-walk we ever saw was actually, ah, the second. But, that hasn't been proven. :) )

 

~HD

Edited July 22, 2004 by HyperDrive

[Images 0]

wait, you are right...who held that camera?

[Tachyon 0]

wait, you are right...who held that camera?

Well, the moon landing had one negative effect for Earth at least. Some inconsiderate astronaut planted a flag right in the middle of one Martian's view of Earth.

 

So that Martian went back in time to prevent this, and journeyed to the Moon to prevent the astronauts from ever landing. During this time, one astronaut asked him to hold the camera.

 

So they duped Marvin the Martian into holding the camera long enough to get historic footage, planted the flag, and infuriated the little guy before they were off again. Marvin has since continued his plans for the destruction of Earth.

[Dumbass 0]

I can sum up the confusion people have about both Communism and Capitalism this way:

 

Communism is like a model airplane. The instructions look very clear until you actually start building the thing and find out not all the parts fit together.

 

Capitalism is like a real airplane. All the laws of physics say it shouldn't get off the ground, and yet people fly in them all the time.

[LoAmi 0]

wait, you are right...who held that camera?

In case anyone is taking this seriously... There were two cameras. The first was on the leg of the landing module. That one took the view of the Eagle touching down and the famous picture of Neil Armstrong's leg. The second was carried by Neil Armstrong. It took the pictures of Buzz Aldrin leaving the LM.

 

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar...lo_11_30th.html

[Tachyon 0]

Here's a good quote I came across concerning communism and capitalism recently:

 

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

 

Both don't work, they're like the two postulated endings to the universe. Communism collapses fairly quickly, while capitalism goes on in a slow death spiral.

Edited July 22, 2004 by Tachyon

[Grom 0]

Here's a good quote I came across concerning communism and capitalism recently:

 

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

 

Both don't work, they're like the two postulated endings to the universe. Communism collapses fairly quickly, while capitalism goes on in a slow death spiral.

::blinks:: How slow are we talking about...? I mean, it looks like so far so good eh?

 

:P

[Dumbass 0]

Here's a good quote I came across concerning communism and capitalism recently:

 

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

 

Both don't work, they're like the two postulated endings to the universe. Communism collapses fairly quickly, while capitalism goes on in a slow death spiral.

You should know that John Kenneth Galbraith is not considered to be a mainstream economist - meaning most economists disagree with him.

 

And name me one capitalist society that died out other than through war, plague, natural dissaster, and other things man can't (or at the time couldn't) control.

[Tachyon 0]

Both don't work, they're like the two postulated endings to the universe.  Communism collapses fairly quickly, while capitalism goes on in a slow death spiral.

You should know that John Kenneth Galbraith is not considered to be a mainstream economist - meaning most economists disagree with him.

 

And name me one capitalist society that died out other than through war, plague, natural dissaster, and other things man can't (or at the time couldn't) control.

I don't care who said the quote, I like it even if it's inaccurate.

 

Capitalism and communism are like two sides of the same coin. Like Dumbass said, communism works in theory but not in practice and capitalism works in practice but not in theory.

 

The problems with communism stem from the fact that you have no control over the corruption of the system.

 

Capitalism is also rife with corruption, but at least the corruption is spread equally. Capitalism must grow to maintain its success, however. Stagnancy leads to decline in the economy. Yet there is a maximum point where you can't grow anymore.

 

Socialism can work if you have money to inject into the system, but you're always losing money and you need more money to make the system work. If the government pays for everything, then it gets all that money from its taxes and the money it makes off exports. But that's closing the system. A closed system is susceptible to entropy.

 

And everyone knows that the problem with democracy is that people, collectively, are stupid and have no clue what is really going on. Democracy only works if people a) vote and b ) know what they're doing.

 

So none of our government systems are particularly great, but there is no other alternative. I would prefer capitalism to communism simply because communism promotes the good of the group over that of the individual, and I don't work well in groups.

 

And no society dies out just because they run out of money. War, plague, natural disaster--these are the things that follow, they're what destroy a society. I'm not saying that capitalism is the only system prone to this. Capitalism only works until you reach your maximum growth limit, and effectively grow stagnant. The same is true with any system, except with minor differences.

 

"So far so good" I would agree. But all good things come to an end. There's no such thing as perpetual motion, no steady-state. When I say that capitalism goes into a slow death-spiral, I mean pretty slow. The command economy of Russia began to decline fairly quickly in civilization-terms. Capitalism lasts longer because of its tendency to grow. Sooner or later, though, entropy will get to it.

 

I'm not an economist, and you probably shouldn't take me seriously. In fact, right now and for the record, I'm advising that you don't take me seriously because I'm probably wrong here. But at least I've put forth my opinion.

 

So how exactly does this relate to the moon-landing?

Edited July 22, 2004 by Tachyon

[Dumbass 0]

Capitalism is also rife with corruption, but at least the corruption is spread equally. Capitalism must grow to maintain its success, however. Stagnancy leads to decline in the economy. Yet there is a maximum point where you can't grow anymore.

I disagree. You are right that capitalism depends on "growth" - I prefer the term "expansion" instead - but whatever you want to call it, capitalism provides the ingredients for that expansion. It allows investors to invest in new technological ideas that establish new markets. The investors profit because they are rewarded for their risk if the idea they invested in is profitable. The consumers profit because they now have new products they can buy.

[Tachyon 0]

Self-sufficiency and reliability. I see. Yet somewhere down the line, some idiot investor will make an investment that is not profitable. Therefore it upsets the balance and throws the system into a vicious cycle.

 

I agree that capitalism works, it works very well in fact. But if the idea of a system is to achieve economic equality, capitalism does not meet this goal. I don't think you can achieve economic equality, because just as HD said, humans themselves are inherently competitive and desire to be better than their neighbour. That's why capitalism works for most people, it satisfies that urge to compete, and to win.

 

So I don't really see what we're trying to debate here, since I'm not attacking capitalism, just pointing out its flaws.

 

The Borg are like communists. Each drone gets the exact same amount of energy and work as the next drone. There are no poor drones, there are no rich drones, and there are no gameshow drones. Yet if the Borg lose their queen, and the Collective collapses, then their communistic society immediately collapses because the Borg no longer receive equal shares of everything.

 

But can you imagine the Capitalist Borg?

 

You will be assimilated. Your culture will adapt to fulfill our quarterly assimilation quota. We will become the dominant market force in this galaxy. Resistance is futile.

 

One of the things that I could never figure out is how the Federation managed to revert back to a traditional economy. How could they get rid of money when so many other species--notably the Ferengi--use it? Considering the actions of basically every human who isn't part of Starfleet, and most of the humans who are part of Starfleet, I don't think that Picard was right when he said that humans in the 24th century worked to better themselves. Maybe many centuries ahead of the 24th, but not in the 24th. Where do those Starfleet officers get all that latinum to gamble with if they don't get paid? It sounds like they have side ventures going on, or like they're getting paid.

 

Yet Picard adamantly claims that the Federation doesn't use money. Maybe he just secretly wants all of it for himself. :P

Edited July 22, 2004 by Tachyon

[Travis Kroells 0]

::Is officially mad at half the people in STSF now::

[Images 0]

::Is officially mad at half the people in STSF now::

Don't worry comrade, they will learn one day