Government control?

I have no idea what you're getting at. If the government isn't run by the people and there is no trust then why do you think that post presentation on a Maple Story forum site has remotely any pertinence to an actual change in politics? If you're really insinuating about bringing change to the behemoth, then wasting your breath here is anti-intuitive to bringing actual results. Opinions and voices don't go far without funding, man-power, and posing a valid threat to the positions presently in power. The Tea Party couldn't have gained traction if they weren't funded by the Koch Brothers and even then as an idealistic movement it fails to enact similar change politically because all though the party members were a threat, they were nowhere close to jockeying Congress from the status quo. In order to bring about change in Washington, you need to fundamentally change the tendencies of men to do work for others while not having an eye out for self-profit. What's ironic is that this sums up what work is for all of us on a daily basis, politicians are no different as they go about their careers climbing ladders and taking in some major campaign funding incentives before they get fired by their constituents. They are just playing with bigger bribes, bigger scandals, and require more apathy on a regular basis than we would take on in our life-time. Things will only get worse with 'the fear' of reduced opportunities, saturated competition, and specialists at every corner. People will come to feel the need to claw for scraps and this mentality will fuel a never ending cycle of self-interest at the expense of others that will continue to pull the ladder higher and higher until everyone suffocates. In order to bring integrity back to the government we need to bring back values of human decency and justice to be held in higher regard than job security, influential affluence, and self-preservation. Good luck making that happen.

Also one more thing, the government doesn't have sole ownership over all those institutions. Considering each resource there is some privatized sectors and ones that involve quasi-government influence. The point is that the statement in the OP is remarkably ignorant of the details and just acts as a bait to make people angry because it is an entirely juvenile statement to make. I think that the fact that people are responding to it at face value is a waste of time since the reality of the situation is that the statements are completely false on a factual level. That leaves the OP on a concept level which is honestly a simply and singular message that is Fox-worthy. I can tell you something about a Fox-topic, waste of time much like the waste of time I spent responding to this post.

But seriously, I'm glad someone mentioned the government not having total ownership of some of these resources. That needed to be clarified.

But seriously, I'm glad someone mentioned the government not having total ownership of some of these resources. That needed to be clarified.

[MENTION=5956]hadriel[/MENTION] brought it up early as post #7. And some posts get close to the mark but hit on a different point such as [MENTION=10201]Niernen[/MENTION]'s post in #18 that brings up the fact that America is being run as an inverted democracy where high profile institutions can lobby self-serving congressman to adjust or add to legislation that favors them i.e. Monsanto riders.[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP] Certain corporations like General Motors are quasi-owned by the government either due to legal stipulation post Chapter 11 or considered so by the government's initial 25% stock buy in of the company. However, that doesn't indicate that the government completely owns the company and conducts all it's decisions like the fatal ignition defect that resulted in thirteen deaths and was known to be an issue ten years ago with absolutely no action being taken by the company. This boundary between government and private interests has been a recurring motif in our current events. With the reveal of Prism, Edward Snowden launched himself into the public eye being a hired employee from Booz Allen Hamilton, a private firm providing contracted services to the government. Lawmakers in reaction to the bill announced that in the future there would be more restricted access to private contractors. However, the issue according to testimonies from people who were interviewed by journalists and were coworkers with Snowden explained that he was a genius and his ability to get things done was unprecedented enabling him to gain access to even bigger tasks because he was so incredibly useful to the NSA that he was even offered a position on Tailored Access Operations, however turned it down in order to take the contracting position at BAH.

The Snowden leaks though involved that the government can have an influence on industries that aren't business related. Nacchio was convicted for multiple counts of insider trading, he stated, after he refused to cooperate with the government for giving customer data approximately February of 2001. In addition, the government has also solicited Google, Yahoo, and many other private companies to divulge customer information although all companies have denied any knowledge of the program and having any cooperation with the government.[SUP]3[/SUP] Nacchio's confession that he was directly asked leads one to question why the government wouldn't directly query bigger players in the market, the fact that a leaked NSA document reveals that these companies were cooperative furthermore points to the fact that these companies, much like the President himself were fully aware of the program and cooperating with it's execution despite denying awareness of it completely. Not to mention the government also hacking into companies like The New York Times and even the aforementioned companies by trying to obtain information stored via Cloud.[SUP]4[/SUP] Having a discussion on the level of absolutism has no pragmatism because it's not reflective of what is actually true of what it actually concerns. Its expression it merely artistic since it's interpretation is fictional and while art may be a good starting point for conversation on real topics, discussion of art itself with abstract arguments hardly touches upon the reality of the situation.

la li lu le lo
la li lu le lo
la li lu le lo

you know who we truly serve under!

you know who we truly serve under!

Obviously our one true loli overlord.

How has this not exploded yet?

Anyways its the peoples job to keep the government in check and not let them get too far out of hand.

Some person shared this on facebook, thoughts on this?

[COLOR="#cc8899"]
The only thing worse would be all of the same in the hands of the common man. I've seen enough of what mob mentality or general selfishness can do that I'd rather sleep with the snake in my bed than with the rats in the sewer.

I'm more surprised that anyone ever thought otherwise, really.[/COLOR]

[COLOR="#cc8899"]
The only thing worse would be all of the same in the hands of the common man.[/COLOR]

But governments are made up of those same people; perhaps more educated, but education certainly doesn't provide common sense or morality. Having wealth may prevent you from becoming like this http://imgur.com/gallery/ubpTG, but while you gain the knowledge and skills required to not be a total failure at life like those people, you also get an overall air of disconnect with the "common man", you start thinking you are better than them, and eventually, you start thinking, "hey, I'm better than them, I don't have to do what they voted me in to do, I can trick them into thinking I AM doing what they asked", and guess what, they can, because people are dumb as rocks.

It was doomed to failure from the start, just like everything else our civilization has or ever will do.

There I disagree. An educated man is more likely to milk a cow over several years than slaughter it the instant they but it.

There I disagree. An educated man is more likely to milk a cow over several years than slaughter it the instant they but it.

Unless you are applying morality to eating meat, I don't see how that's disagreeing with me.

Unless you are applying morality to eating meat, I don't see how that's disagreeing with me.

Sorry, misread. Saying the same thing in different words, rather.

But governments are made up of those same people; perhaps more educated, but education certainly doesn't provide common sense or morality. Having wealth may prevent you from becoming like this http://imgur.com/gallery/ubpTG, but while you gain the knowledge and skills required to not be a total failure at life like those people, you also get an overall air of disconnect with the "common man", you start thinking you are better than them, and eventually, you start thinking, "hey, I'm better than them, I don't have to do what they voted me in to do, I can trick them into thinking I AM doing what they asked", and guess what, they can, because people are dumb as rocks. It was doomed to failure from the start, just like everything else our civilization has or ever will do.

I disagree with this reasoning completely. Consider this, you enter a room with ten people in the room. Eight out of the ten people play nothing but Game A, you come into the room to play Game B, and the other newcomer wants to play a Game C. There can only be one game played at a time and it requires at least six out of the ten people in the room in order to agree that they want to play it. What's the most effective method of getting people in Game A to remotely consider playing into your game?

I disagree with this reasoning completely. Consider this, you enter a room with ten people in the room. Eight out of the ten people play nothing but Game A, you come into the room to play Game B, and the other newcomer wants to play a Game C. There can only be one game played at a time and it requires at least six out of the ten people in the room in order to agree that they want to play it. What's the most effective method of getting people in Game A to remotely consider playing into your game?

...Wait for them to get bored of game A then suggest game B? I don't know. From what I've seen at the few LANWars I've been to, people keep playing their game the whole duration and ignore everyone that doesn't want to play it with them, leaving tiny fragmented groups of people playing MMOs ranging from flavor of the month (SWTOR at the time) to completely dead (Age of Conan private server, what the pineapple?) while the majority play LoL the entire time.

...Wait for them to get bored of game A then suggest game B? I don't know. From what I've seen at the few LANWars I've been to, people keep playing their game the whole duration and ignore everyone that doesn't want to play it with them, leaving tiny fragmented groups of people playing MMOs ranging from flavor of the month (SWTOR at the time) to completely dead (Age of Conan private server, what the pineapple?) while the majority play LoL the entire time.

K. My metaphor was a fail. I don't think people in politics are completely amoral beings. Rather, they are ruled by amoral precedent and a peer situation where they are pressured to taking shady actions and playing party politics because everyone else is doing it. Congress has become a funny thing where pork barrel legislation and log roll voting embody the current status of politics being a bartering system where in order to do YOUR job you need to give something in return. Pushing yourself as a moral and righteous person gets you nowhere in politics excepted excluded and when you are an outcast there is no reason for either of the major party lines to respect any trade they made with you. They may promise to help you on an important piece of legislation you want to implement to create jobs in the state, but even if you do them a solid if you have no allies and nothing to jockey their coalition power structure then there is no reason for them to actually follow through with approving funding that you need for your state when they also have similar ambitions in siphoning our taxes into their states for constituent benefits. Politicians who don't want to play the game are forced to choose between becoming lame ducks or becoming part of the herd in order to strong arm positive results for their own constituents.

they are ruled by amoral precedent and a peer situation where they are pressured to taking shady actions and playing party politics because everyone else is doing it. Congress has become a funny thing where pork barrel legislation and log roll voting embody the current status of politics being a bartering system where in order to do YOUR job you need to give something in return.

I agree, but just because it's the only thing you are allowed to do in order to be successful doesn't technically make it RIGHT. I'd almost prefer to get shunned by them, personally, but then, I don't have a charismatic character, a desire to be the center of attention, the will/ability to lead, or the motivation to make a positive impact on the world, I'd rather just complain that the ship is on fire when the fire extinguisher is right next to me.