Comments | laruoccobot: war for CAPITALism

laruoccobot

war for CAPITALism

Jan 11, 2005 23:03

excerpt:

[ God is , A fOUR* Letter Verb. © L.A.Ruocco 2001

Capitalize on "i" there's no 'point' - architecturally. ] (ref. Xero pg.12 ( Read more... )

Comments 6

yoot_faari January 12 2005, 04:42:42 UTC

do you know about e-prime?

also, there's no verb "to be" in the indonesian language.

yea.

laruoccobot January 12 2005, 05:14:33 UTC

not exactly, searched E-PRIME, thanx.

Robert Anton Wilson Rocks see:Prometheus Rising btw. (esp. the drawing of the boob sucking itself.)

jenlight January 12 2005, 10:43:12 UTC

even at minimum wage or on public assistance, we get quite a bang for our buck, that & all the civil liberties

Do you mean that if we made other countries like us we would no longer have these things?

And the number of homeless in America is really quite an interesting number. Then there is those of us who are on public assistance and can not afford to live on our own. Although, in most other cultures it is not quite so important to move out of one's parent's home... even if one is rich.

I don't think anyone is really trying to make other countries "like us". But maybe that's what you meant. Certainly it is obvious that destroying the infrastructure and economy of a country will not make it the owner of much capital or "like us".

ex_architect335 January 12 2005, 15:02:15 UTC

i do agree americans love their cheap labor, just look at wal-mart. some american groups though are fighting to bring up the living standards and working conditions. the negative to that is after they get better conditions the jobs will get moved to other poorer countries because americans demand it.

we value status symbol things until they become unpopular and then they get trashed.

it would seem 'public assistance' may be a thing of the past if the present admin have their way. we must continue the war on terror!

erichk January 12 2005, 16:53:14 UTC

Capitalism is like an addiction, it must contantly FEED or perish. The demand for goods must always INCREASE.

The problem with the third world is, they'd rather snuggle in the bosom of a loving family, or have sex, than sublimate these primal needs into consumerism. Money just isnt as GOD like to them, nor are junk products.

Thus it is ESSENTIAL we make them as poor as possible to the point where no amount of familial love can soothe their wounds, then they will too will see happiness in terms of shoes and CDs, and contribute to the consumerist feeding frenzy.

may be ex_rocketshi363 January 12 2005, 17:45:37 UTC

powerful countries, those with excess resouces and thus money and strong government act sorta like the dominant one would be in a romantic relationship. and either the other person is gonna be submissive or they're gonna resist/rebel... i don't know tho. everything leads back to sexual desire (uh may be not really but it sure seems that way sometimes, most ppl are unsatisfied w/ their romantic/sex life so they need to find satisfaction or power in othe ways.