Forum Post: The Myth of Equality
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 23, 2012, 1:44 p.m. EST by BannedForTruth
(233)
from Christiana, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Equality
e·qual·i·ty [ih-kwol-i-tee]
<1.the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.>2.uniform character, as of motion or surface.
3.Mathematics . a statement that two quantities are equal; equation.
If we all were truly equal there would be no star players on sports teams and you could play baseball as good as "pick a player".
If we all were truly equal you could do math as good as Isaac Newton.
The point is if you want equality try your best to make yourself equal or better. If we forced equality that would be a tyranny against the people who put in the hard work. Equality is a myth!!!
The point of "equality" as it relates to government, as far as I am concerned, is that everyone should have the same opportunities to develop their abilities, whatever they may be. It is in the best interest of our society to enable our individual members to maximize their abilities.
I think we should all have equal opportunity in our capitalist economy. And we should all have an equal voice in government. I think we already have the first one, it's just broken down because of the recession, bad tax and trade policies, wars and debt. We don't have the second one. But if we can get the second thing, we can fix the first thing.
ditto
I agree we should strive for equality under the same terms as you said.
[Removed]
If you have spent any time at all working with other people, you must surely realize that there is only ONE way to make everyone equal - you simply take the least of the group in whatever catagory you choose and beat force everyone else to meet that standard.
ie - If a man is confined to a wheelchair because of a back injury with no way to improve that condition - the only way you can make the man equal to everyone else is to injure the back of all other humans, put them in a wheelchair - presto--you have equality.
If one man is rich and has $1,000 and another is poor with nothing, the easiest way to make them equal is to take $500.00 from the rich man and give it to the poor - presto--you have quality.
Most posts that I have read on these forums merely seek the "presto" method of equality - don't expect great results, a great country, or anything other than extreme medioricty from such an approach. I have worked 15 years under a system like this. Believe, me "equality" as being determined by OWS is not something that you really want.
equality in the american sense refers to rights not personal ability. your wonderful little parables are really funny though
Not really intended to be funny but thanks.
I think that I agree with your statement regarding American equality. To me that means equality outside of the person themselves as some-thing that they can put themselves into or elect out of. It is a right that exists with or without the person. The right to vote, of example, exists whether anyone choses to vote or not. If that right is denied due to force, lack of access to the polling place, etc this is wrong. If on the other hand, the voter does not have a vehicle of their own, that does not take the right away from them (they can still vote by absentee, hitch a ride, take a taxi, etc). The right exists whether it is used or not.
? wtf ?
Somehow I think it is code speak for IQ.
One of the lamest comments I read on this forum. I concur with rayi - WTF?
Just because you do not understand or agree doesn't slap a "lame" lable on anything other than your mind.
Name me one "RIGHT" that has your personal name "cephalus" on it. So far, I have not seen you mentioned in the Consititution or any other founding documents of this country.
Sorry you see that I was also concurring with rayl.
Just expressing an opinion. I'm sure a lot of readers think your comment above is wonderful and insightful. I don't think so. However, you shouldn't worry what I think. It's not a big deal.
Right, it really isn't. These forums have a very, very limited source of wisdom and even more limited source of sharing the same.
True indeed. Still, WTF?
NMTF - I am too busy today to reply any more.
LOL
The libertarian utopia is that everyone can be wealthy. Just put in the hard work and make intelligent decisions. Everyone is equal. Doesn't exactly work that way does it? Truth is, in order for some to be wealthy, others have to be poor. Here is the reality. If you are wealthy, you better damn well be thankful to the poor people who have been sacrificed for you. Because if you continue to treat them like shit, they will rise against you.
Imagine yourself in a room with only two other people. One is a 8 year old girl from Haiti, the other person is Donald Trump. If Donald Trump were to begin hitting the 8 yr old in order to take her food, only you could prevent that from happening. Equality is the rightful feeling inside you that the 8 yr old is completely equal to Donald Trump, and you should do the right thing.
Expand this example to our world and the big picture. Everyone is equal when they are face to face, equality for the world requires us to not allow more complex issues to exempt anyone from fairness. Equality is a worthy goal!
Stopping the Donald from beating a girl to take her food has nothing to do with equality. That would be theft kind of like taking from the few to prosper the many.
While I've believed absolutely in male-female equality, I have to say I've felt drastically disappointed that females have not fought for the Truth as much as males. I know that is why the transition of the world to peace has not happened.
@ BannedForTruth: Your premise is false, there are many forms of equality.
Equality before the law.
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."
Equal opportunity:
is a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort among living entities, whether persons or animals. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that equality contains the idea of equity of quality. That is, all people should be treated with the same dignity or be regarded as possessing the same intrinsic qualities despite our societal diversity of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, (dis)ability or cultural heritage.
Gender equality:
the goal of the equality of the genders, stemming from a belief in the injustice of myriad forms of gender inequality.
Racial equality:
Means different things in different contexts. It mostly deals with an equal regard to all races.
Social equality:
Is a social state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in a certain respect. At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under the law, such as security, voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, the extent of property rights, and equal access to social goods and services. However, it also includes concepts of economic equity, i.e. access to education, health care and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves the whole of society.
a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular “distinctions can be explicitly justified.
All of these have nothing to do with the skill of hitting a baseball or understanding quantum Physics.
They are human equality's that define a society.
i defined my terms <1.the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.>
@BannedForTruth...They have nothing to do with society.
The quantity of property you have, you are right should have nothing to do with society. The value of your bank account is the same. This thread was mostly intended for the zeitgeist type people here, not the movement.
Sigh... and to think you are the ones telling us that we are naive and idealistic...
Are YOU really naive enough to believe that everyone at OWS defines equality as you have up there?
Political equality... capitalistic equality... equality in jurispurdence...no one allowed to (effectively) cast more than one vote or bribe politicians through lobbying or campaign financing... no corporation being too big to fail... no one above the law... that's the equality I want...
Or... to put it in your terms... I dont want media moguls and movie stars to be able to hammer through laws like SOPA... I dont want to allow banks to repeal even more regulations and run their business as usual.... I want movie stars and sports stars and their kids to go to jail for being in possession of drugs... just like everyone else...
The "equality" we are addressing is American equality, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and democracy itself.
The "equality" you are addressing is you and a bag of hammers.
A Nation of Laws, Not Men
Wise men learned long ago that it had better to be a nation of laws, not men.
The American governmental system was one founded at a time when dastardly monarchs ruled by quasi-divine fiat. Those who were to be the fateful originators of the Constitution feared, loathed and desperately wanted to proscribe such an authoritative form to the trash heap of history.
Thus, with this ultimate goal emblazoned upon their consciousness, the framers went about establishing a system of government based on a superior principle: all political power should never be derived from on singular source or entity or institution (or administration); but rather it must be dispersed amongst various sources that all have the capability and imperative to forever check the machinations of the others. This was due to a prudent understanding of human nature and a large body of history that would turn out to be cyclical many times over.
The Reagan administration’s foreign policy in the midst of a cold war, that at times seemed to be a ubiquitous straw man or perhaps a proverbial dead horse that was to bring about questions of a critic’s patriotism with every passing kick, was not unique to history. It has been used by many regimes in the past and brings with it the logic of a school yard bully. It in some ways stems from a superiority complex brought on by the good fortune of history, a byproduct of American success. And with this mindset comes a fanciful notion of being the exception; a strain of jingoism that sometimes begins to mirror a religion.
These traits of consequential egoism lead inevitably to the belief, by its adherents, that whatever action or course is taken in the name (or guise) of defending the state is right and just. Once this salient concept is cemented into the minds of those mighty state defenders, there will be no limit to their justifications.
Admiral John Poindexter and Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North were essentially the administration’s inglorious henchmen. They were the ones who were called on in times of moral uneasiness; at times when there is an ethical (or legal) line that needs to be crossed. Poindexter was the national security advisor to the president; North’s superior, and more prone to deceive. For his deception wasn’t exclusive to Congress, but rather breached the core of his enabler’s administration.
They were true believers of the stock already described; eager to get about the business of lying, stiff arming internal foes, sidestepping statutes, and running amuck over the Constitution under the greatest pretense of them all, defense.
Poindexter and North were to be the duo to spear-head President Reagan’s communist fighting policies in Nicaragua; and the supposed success of these policies had a name: the Contras. North, in particular, was the National Security Council (NSC) liaison to the Contras and his mission was to “keep them alive, body and soul.” As an aside (or legal landmine depending on your position), Congress was also fully aware of the Contras and eventually passed amendments to proscribe funding to them. The Boland Amendments (five total), in effect prohibited all funding from “any agency involved in intelligence activities.” North averted this obstacle by setting up “outside entities” in order to “raise non-U.S. government monies” in support of the prohibited group.
As for the president, he not only approved of this rogue strategy, but actually took part in some of the fundraising by meeting with various foreign and domestic donors. When Congress caught wind of this activity, two representatives wrote letters to the National Security Advisor (at this time McFarlane) asking for information; North subsequently submitted “false, erroneous, misleading, evasive, and wrong” documents to Congress.
During this period there was yet another, in this case contradictory, covert policy in which U.S. arms were being sold (via Israeli middleman) to the Iranians. The inherent contradiction lies in the fact that the administration had deemed Iran a terrorist state which, at the least, implied that the U.S. government would not be in the business of selling them weapons.
A complication existing within the contradiction aids in its explanation: an Iranian back terrorist group was holding American hostages in Lebanon. This problem needed a solution and the dynamic duo came to the rescue with an arms for hostages initiative. America sold weapons to Iran which would lead to the release of hostages. Besides running counter to the long held American policy of not making deals with hostage takers, the plan turned out to be highly unsuccessful.
The secret nexus between the two dubious policies went by the equally dubious name of “The Enterprise.” It consisted of a partnership between “Albert Hakim, an Iranian-born businessman, and ex-U.S. General Richard Secord” with North also being in the mix. Sometime in 1985, North made the decision to use “residual profits” from Iranian arms sales to fund the Contras. This critical decision was supported by Poindexter and was orchestrated by The Enterprise which received little, if any, oversight from either man. The Enterprise came to control and administer all funding (from the Iranian arms sale, foreign or domestic donors) in support of the Contras. The president was told neither about The Enterprise, nor the residual Iranian arms sale profits that were going to the Contras.
Many justifications have been given in the aftermath of the affair, but any search for morality among them would be in vain. The American system of government was structured precisely to avert such reckless disregard of moral judgment. In this case, in myriad ways, the U.S. government was hijacked by unelected military officials who were willing to cross any legal and ethical line in achieving their goals, including those statutorily draw by Congress. The claim is that they were doing it to protect the country, the American people; but the means used in many ways appear much more threatening than the communist straw man they erected.
Overzealous government officials working in the shadows of the Constitution arguably pose a greater existential threat than a poor third world country ever could, whether communist or not. Yet the “red scare” had the uncanny ability to create wild hysteria which the overzealous could all too easily channel into military adventurism. The inevitable consequences of a president essentially turning his administration into an additional branch of the military in this environment should have been predictable.
To use the term “groupthink” in explaining the affair would be too slight of a judgment. It is clear that the men involved not only had the same basic foreign policy views, but also seemed to detest constitutional government. Instead of understanding that their duty was to protect and defend the Constitution, they saw it as an obstacle to be maneuvered around. It was as if they had some delusional belief that, within their official capacity, they could breach the bounds of constitutional proscription, as fantastical dark knights fighting evil-doers off in the shadows.
And when confronted with the legal realities, their disdain for those ingrates that would dare to raise questions comes in the form of defensive condescension. After all, they are the trained professionals, the experts, whose every word is to be taken as sacrosanct by the lowly masses. At least that’s the way it used to be, back before the likes of Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton had their say.
Wise men learned long ago that it had better to be a nation of laws, not men.
While laws don’t often, if ever encompass all ethical ground, they at least in some measure act as a guiding light which aids in the discovery of the ethical path. For laws to have any effect they must be grounded in ethical considerations, morally justifiable with respect to there consequences, and no one must be above them. Moral sounding justifications become ubiquitous to someone who knows they’ve done wrong. Thus, authority figures can sound well-meaning, yet hide machinations behind their words. Also, good intentions should never shield suspicion. As Justice Louis Brandeis once put it, “Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
A step out of legality and into morality provides no safe-haven for Reagan’s henchmen. The consistent willingness to lie on full display for the entirety of the affair was not only wrong, but was an unfailing show of disrespect and condescension. As a parent may often lie to a child about things he or she is assumed not to understand; so too did Poindexter and North tell their endless lies to Congress and later to the country. The unapologetic willingness to trample upon the sovereignty of other nations is an international affront to morality and the mining of ports is far worse.
In the end, this journey into the “insidious wiles” by the “military-industrial complex” demonstrates the eternal wisdom of checks and balances.
Sunday, August 7, 2011 | David C. Murphy | at 6:53 PM | Labels: history, Iran-Contra, politics
No CEO is 400+ times smarter than myself or anyone else living in poverty or near-poverty (while working full-time nonetheless). I don't want equality in the sense that we are all forced into mediocrity, far from it. What I want is a system that values every person's input, allows them to function to the best of their capabilities, and provides a decent living for all without eliminating rewards for innovation and incentive. That's not where we're at. What needs to be done is not getting done because that is not where the money flows. America is more socialist than the so-called free-market capitalists will admit. Most everything would be inverted if we were attempting to compensate those who are truly the best.
It is a question of value.
A CEO may or may not be 400 times smarter than you but that is not the point. When Steve Jobs left Apple the company almost went under. Their stock was trading at $1.23/share. To get him to come back they paid him 400 times what they would pay you. Apple is now the largest company in the world and their stock trades at $420.41/share.
The same holds true for many CEOs. Most are workaholics and have great insight. They get paid millions because they can bring in billions.
the scriptures say, we all must past thru the fire, and 2/3rd shall die (or be cut off from blessings) only 1/3rd shall live. To apply these wise counsel to the real world, If you havent suffered as I have, I sure as hell dont want you representing me, or making decisions that affect my family, because it would be impossible for you to see, or comprehend, what is right, fair just and true.
[Removed]
Equality is the basis for Democracy. When the unfair advantage of financial resources is added, Democracy ceases to exist.
Equality is a reality. It is the greedy and the bullies of the world economic system that made it into a myth. All men (women, children, nations, creeds and colors) are created equal, as human beings. It is man in his utter shamelessness that force these dire conditions and diabolical economic maneuverings on nations of people. Obviously, individuals who condemn this movement, know nothing about history or else they would understand what people have done to protest all manners of insanity across the globe and what this continued insanity did to individuals, nations and families!!!
Wait, what?? If there was real equality there wouldn't be greed. There would be financial equality.
I think you are talking about two different things. At a basic biological level we are all created equal. Our economic system is not created for financial equality. Capitalism allows for greed and in some cases encourages it.
You are talking material, I am talking universal. There is no one on this earth who can truly state they are better, smarter, more intellectual, or genetically engineered to be greater than!!! Financial equality?....take for example...the stock market crash of 1929!! That put everyone on equal footing and then what took place? Get real!!! You bleed, they bleed....it is greed, pure and simple...Man is given free will...some choose to gain by putting their foot on the neck of others....and some choose to let the foot stay on their neck!!! So, which one are you?
I'm neither. I'm not into playing victim. And I'm not a victimizer. Yes, there's greed. It's a product of unrestrained capitalism. So it needs to be fixed. I don't see a need to get all "victim-y" about it.
Good for you, and neither do I. Facts are facts and the fact remains, there are rich and there are poor and never the twain shall meet until it is forced....like everything else that deals with people and their right to freedom(s). Simple, cut and dry as it may seem!! This was inevitable!!
It's a false dichotomy to think that people are either top or bottom. Iv'e met women who like to vary their position and their amount of control.
In that case I'm a willing victim.
People are not created equally. My neighbor weighs 220 pounds and I only weigh 160 pounds. He could slap me around if he wanted to. I know what you're going to say - "His bigger size only means his genitals are a bigger target.". Perhaps, I don't know. Still, I think we are not of equal force.
Well, now I see that discussing this with you is really a waste of time. You couldn't raise your thoughts any higher than this if 100 forklifts were piled sky high.! Truly, reality has taken you too far down that lonesome trail!!
What's your point? There has to be someone out there making the cash that we take. If all these productive assholes are dumb enough to let us take their shit, who's smarter then??
Good point.... insert sarcasm
Yes, we should do away with all those who aren't our equals. Who should we start with?
Moron stop trying to frame debates!! Where in there did you get we should harm anyone?
You display a remarkable intellect with quick wit while avoiding the pitfalls of insult and lambast.
Who says we should all be absolutely equal? Seems to me this movement is about fairness. It's about everyone having enough.
Main Entry: fairness [fair-nis]
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: justice
Synonyms: candor, charitableness, charity, civility, consideration, courtesy, decency, decorum, disinterestedness, due, duty, equitableness, EQUALITY, exactitude, fair shake, fair-mindedness, give and take, good faith, goodness, honesty, honor, humanity, impartiality, integrity, justness, legitimacy, moderation, open-mindedness, propriety, rationality, reasonableness, right, righteousness, rightfulness, rightness, seemliness, square deal, suitability, tolerance, truth, uprightness, veracity
http://thesaurus.com/browse/fairness
I like "FAIR SHAKE." Come on. This movement is not about everyone being equal. I don't give a damn how rich people get, great for them, as long as we don't have 22% of our kids living in poverty.
This thread is not intended as an attack on the movement just as a debate for those that it pertains to.
Perhaps using the term myth, got it off on the wrong track?
It's no myth to those that struggle with inequality.
Who does it pertain to?
The people demanding equal pay and some other people.
Who the hell is demanding equal pay? "And some other people"....I don't get your post, sorry. First you say equality is a myth. Then you say it's not a myth when it comes to opportunity and the government. But when it comes to pay it's a myth - but no one says everyone should be paid equally - so why say this at all?
No read it carefully.
"The point is if you want equality try your best to make yourself equal or better"
In doing this you just made yourself better then many. ie equality does not exist
Okay, really cute. So you're blaming poor people for not working hard enough to get out of their poverty. I get the message. I'm not going for it.
Because if that's not what you're getting at then your whole post is a platitude. Of course, we're not all equal in terms of athletic ability and mathematics. Duh.
I don't really get how you came to this illogical idea that i am blaming the poor for being poor. Furthermore i don't really get what is wrong with being poor as long as you can eat and have shelter. Also you must realize that even some of the best athletes and scientists are poor. I blame the current system for the poor being so poor and such a gap in income. It is called outsourcing.
I have spent a lot of my life in education. May I take the liberty to rewrite:
"I don't give a damn how smart people get, great for them, as long as we don't have 22% of our kids living in the dumb catagory."
All that I have heard or read herein tends to equate equality with only one thing - MONEY. Is that what this is all about?? MONEY??
Hell yeah. Because with so much money concentrated at the top of the 1% we have 22% of our kids living in poverty. That is shameful.
Who determines what is "enough". What if there is not "enough" to go around. Who sets the standard. Does the person living in a shack and driving a new Lincoln have enough. What about me, I drive a 10 year old car and live in a two-bedroom apartment. In this case, do we both have enough.
"Enough" would be difficult to quantify but it is quantifiable. It would have something to do with a living wage which would be figured against cost of living in different geographical areas. Nothing important is ever easy.
Agreed. That is one reason why posts on here can seem way out of line to someone living in another area of the country. To me, $750 for a two bedroom apartment is quite a bit - but just 60 miles from here that is cheap and $1,500 is reasonable. So many things to consider.
Right. We need some really smart people to figure this all out.
I agree. The truth is some people are smarter than others. People with skill and ability, desire and intellect, deserve to be rewarded appropriately and will go further. Of course, we should all have the opportunities and try to make the most of our abilities. But we are not all equal.
Capitalism recognizes our unique skills and abilities and rewards us for them, in the most fair way yet concieved. Not always perfect, but generally speaking, understandable and acceptable. I don't want to be treated like everyone else in an anarcho-syndicalist or communist system. This diminishes all of us.
Hmmmmm, the myth about the myth.
Quite a mythful post.
What's the myth behind the word truth in your username?
What you can't even retort? Nice argument, attacking the poster instead of the argument. There is a word for that ad hominem, usually people do this when they cant argue the debate at hand.
A myth is still a myth.
Your username is also a myth.
Both parts.
That's not an attack, it's a fact.
One of many you've ignored over the months.
It is a double meaning.
If we want truth from government we must banned together.
Also many places ban people for speaking truth about different subject's.
Typing like this is such a attention wanting way to type.
OK
First we need the truth about corporations.
This is necessary because they own and operate the government.
OccupyWallStreet!!!!!!
Is a great place to start.
I agree with everything you said there. Maybe we have more common ground then you realize.
Actually, we have more in common than YOU realize.
not to worry, I'm a patient and forgiving man.
Are you saying that Monarchs actually have divine providence? That slavery is Okee Dokee?
If I was someone like Issac Newton and had the time to think past survival, hanging out waiting for apples to fall off trees and the like then sure, I could "do math" just like Newton did..
Do you think that if someone is a good thief on Wall Street, that the best move for everyone else to make is out thief them....
Good idea...Everyone who is in an underwater mortgage..Dump that pig NOW...
Filling my mouth with your thoughts? I won't respond to you until you act intellectually honest.
Intellectually honest? GMAFB...I'm just bringing you to the natural conclusion...Which is the idea that the fittest should win, dominate and enslave others, just because they can...
BTW, if I wanted to fill your mouth with something it certainly wouldn't be my thoughts...
I have a complete menu of tasty treats and guilty pleasures for you to fill your mouth with! http://www.perkinsrestaurants.com/menu/bakery-to-go
No but making everyone equal is not even possible with out removing freedom. And yes criminals should be punished. Also Just because you can't play ball as good as MJ does not mean you should be his slave. You are really letting your mind wander.
Look...The elites who actually control this country, aren't necessarily superior, or better or anything...They want everyone to be equally poor around the globe...With them on top...
I'm not talking about a stupid sport...
The idea of "All men are created equal" comes to mind...You see, there are people out there who have been in power for a very long time that want to ensure they stay on top..In order to do that, they have to ensure that you never get to where they are..
You are only allowed to play within the box they have created...You can be the best you can be...But only within a certain context..
You are running your idea of what i think as if that is what i think. I don't think the elites are superior in anyway. The sports thing is an analogy.
Yes...the sports thing...It's not the same though...I edited also..Sorry.
Yes all men are created equal and that means they can choose to not educate themselves. America needs to get back to its roots and bring back jobs. here is a clip and paste from this thread_
[-] 4 points by Phanya2011 (295) from Tucson, AZ 2 days ago
The point of "equality" as it relates to government, as far as I am concerned, is that everyone should have the same opportunities to develop their abilities, whatever they may be. It is in the best interest of our society to enable our individual members to maximize their abilities. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink [-] 3 points by April (2035) 2 days ago
I think we should all have equal opportunity in our capitalist economy. And we should all have an equal voice in government. I think we already have the first one, it's just broken down because of the recession, bad tax and trade policies, wars and debt. We don't have the second one. But if we can get the second thing, we can fix the first thing. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink [-] 2 points by BannedForTruth (101) from Christiana, TN 1 day ago
ditto ↥like ↧dislike reply edit delete permalink [-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (101) from Christiana, TN 2 days ago
I agree we should strive for equality under the same terms as you said. ↥like ↧dislike reply edit delete permalink
under socialism , everyone is equally miserable.
in switzerland one of the controlling political parties in the current government is the socialist party and we're doing much better than america by a long shot. nice try :)
So true.
beside cheese, clocks and secret bank accounts, what have you contributed to the world?
the oldest working democracy, a direct democracy not the psuedo-democracy type foud in the us.
switzerland is a world leader in several sectors, including watches and other luxury items, pharama, food processing (Nestle etc.) and chocolate, biotechnology, energy production - especially hydrolic, civil engineering (tunnels!), insurance and banking, perfumes (Givanchy), textiles, precision machines, computer peripherals (Logitech) and more
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Switzerland_famous_for
you're superficial attack on switzerland is very weak and disappointing. nice try :)
And mercenaries. You forgot the Papal Guards!!!
did you know that it has been illegal for swiss citizens to fight as mercenaries since 1859? a swiss citizen will go to prison if they are caught doing this. the papal guards are a vestigial remnant of a long tradition. nice try :)
the usa was founded are a representative republic, NOT a democracy.
yes, a representative republic which at present doesn't follow the will of the people.
the majoity of the did not want obamacare, but with a dem congress and dem senate , it was passed, with lies and corruption. remember the cornhusker kickback? how about this via pelosi,......."you have to pass it to find out what's in it" who would vote for major legislation without knowing what they're voting for? DEMOCRATS
dems and reps are corrupt as hell. don't play the dem-rep game with me
ONE republican voted for it, joseph cao of ny.
and you know this how?
beside a better version of the already invented zipper and velcro which already existed in nature , what have you got?
~lol~ you're the proof that meth destroys brain cells
i don't do drugs,........do you?
i've read your posts here and you're either high, drunk or just plain stupid