Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/3/12 02:24 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 11/3/12 12:40 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm talking about the synonymous nature of trade and capitalism.

It has been explained to you concisely why trade and capitalism are not synonymous; they refer to different things.

No, it has been vaguely explained and mounted on misconceptions. You are assuming the difference can be made by how the defined terms are distributed differently, when that distribution is irrelevant, when you understand that there is no difference between regular folk and political folk in any way, shape or form.

Something you don't understand or have any obligation to clear up precisely.

You do not understand what either trade or capitalism mean. They are in no way "the same thing." How you can continue to claim that they are synonymous is insane considering the piles of evidence you've been shown that prove otherwise.

I don't see pile of evidences. I see vague definitions. And you using vague definitions.

Capitalism is an economic system in which ownership of the means of production is held by private owners as opposed to being held collectively by the proletariat.

Trade is the exchange of commodities at any level.

Wow, so essentially they both are related to trade. Yet, one is different than the other, because one is the daddy and the other is the bitch. I already get it. One has more power over the other. The distribution between the two terms are obviously different when you look at it in that way, but when you look at it as the daddy as being originated from the bitch, you will clearly see that these terms are fuck all defined.

All your bullshit pseudophilosophical reasoning will change nothing: You are completely wrong.

No, you are trying to argue a vague sense of definition.

At 11/3/12 02:23 PM, Profanity wrote: You should pick up a copy of The Wealth of Nations from the library.

Oh, you mean more neo-political fuck faces who obviously are ripping people off.

Wake the fuck up and see the political facets that are governing their motives. These motives are extremely selfish and destructive to any development in political positions.

At 11/3/12 02:16 PM, Smiler123 wrote: does it count if i go outside and a bitter wind makes my eyes water?

No, because that would not be an emotional response.

At 11/3/12 02:17 PM, Profanity wrote: No, the "this needs to be done for the good of humanity" responsibility sharing and decision-making game.

That games doesn't exist.

It is similar to the ''this doesn't need to be done, but we make it seem like it has to be done, because reality is boring when we aren't fucking everything up and worrying about what we want for ourselves' game.

At 11/3/12 02:12 PM, Profanity wrote: No, they are playing the only game.

Oh, you mean the 'Fuck Everything; I'm dying anyways' game?

Yeah, a lot of people, such as yourself, play that game like no tomorrow.

At 11/3/12 01:58 PM, Profanity wrote: Mitt Romney is a chess piece in a much larger game.

So you admit that they are playing a game with reality.

That is childish and irresponsible behaviour.

At 11/3/12 01:26 PM, Profanity wrote: And who, pray tell, is running the system?

Mini Mitt Romneys.

At 11/3/12 01:24 PM, Mumbo wrote: Rucklo can u plz ban hym

Look at the turd holding onto other turds.

So beautiful.

Or, should I say: Pootiful

At 11/3/12 01:21 PM, Profanity wrote: It's able to convert idiots like you into productive members of society.

The people running the system are counter-productive themselves.

So are you.

Now, stop bitching and wake the fuck up you selfish fuck. You know damned well you are just parroting what others think.

At 11/3/12 01:10 PM, dem0lecule wrote: Logical fallacy at best, you are using your negativity to fight other negativities. Hm, you should be smarter than that.

Says the guy with a phalluscy.

At 11/3/12 01:09 PM, Profanity wrote: There, I've cleared it up for you.

The system is bullshit.

There, I've cleared it up for you.

Now, fuck off you useless plunger.

At 11/3/12 01:06 PM, dem0lecule wrote: And where is it? proof or never happens.

Responses. All of them. Riddled with errors. Burning my eyes. End it - now. A horrible mess of trolling ineptitude. The sun has risen, and the moon as fallen to the tirading nonense that spews out of your unforgiving responses from the ass of hell. The sun can't stand it either - burning itself, dying to the enclosed stupidity trapped into your hampster wheel of a mind berated by the gastro intestinal components from the shit you you shove in all of your orifices. Oh, God, the sun is angry at your homicidal fuck all posts. It wants to burn us all alive to keep us from your despair you have created from the chambers of your adolescent whirlpool of your character's excretions flown into your small dick galaxy that you compensate with computer general stuff you only know because of other people, and would not be compensating if it wasn't for the real computer geniuses you dick riding back yarding hindsight fruitless frag grenade that never did explode in the history of mankind.

At 11/3/12 01:05 PM, dem0lecule wrote: U are just being a sad straw man.

This just in! Dem0lecunt resorts to use phallus like symbols to compensate for him not having a dick.

Also, his technical nature is the result of his insurmountable natural errors.

At 11/3/12 01:02 PM, dem0lecule wrote: It's called technical trolling.

There's a technical error in your technical trolling, you technical fuck.

At 11/3/12 01:00 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Morals keep people from killing eachother and making stem cell research pointless.

make*

At 11/3/12 12:52 PM, TurkeyBased wrote:

At 11/3/12 12:51 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

You are like a kid that thinks he won't get his ass kicked no matter how much is working against his position.

what

doth u not comprende f00l?

Keep on giving that dead horse a blow job. It's the only thing you are good at.

this is why you wouldn't win and anon would crush you

I know I wouldn't win, because you've already lost by default, kid.

At 11/3/12 12:52 PM, dem0lecule wrote: IT'S NO U LOL, FAGGOT!

Adding lol doesn't change the nature of the concept.

Look at you, acting all technical and shit.

At 11/3/12 12:51 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 11/3/12 09:55 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Rants.

Typing like a robotic fuck, who has oil deficiency in some random dark cubicle corner.

Look at your own post, then back to mine.

There was nothing to look back on, or to look at from the start. All I see is my post, and this post raping your sorry ass.

Picking up after an agriculturally inept fuck.

Self-describing at best.

Ad hominem. 0% substance

Being assigned to a boss with a big mouth and a small dream.

Your boss?

Ad hominem. 0% substance

Forced to obey people who obey people who don't even know what obedience means.

Grow up.

Grow some balls, sprout a dick, then suck it you self-preserving fuck.

Making little money, while shortening your life span by a lot.

It's life, ain't it?

Something you wouldn't know, hence you are attempting to troll me with endless failed attempts.

Enriching the already rich, by cleaning their golden toilets full of shit with your tongue.

You do that every night before go to bed with your mom, right?

Ad hominem. 0% substance.

At 11/3/12 12:49 PM, TurkeyBased wrote: there wouldn't even be any physical evidence. just you trying to convince beardkiller you have the evidence in your brain and that he is stupid for not getting it

You are like a kid that thinks he won't get his ass kicked no matter how much is working against his position.

Keep on giving that dead horse a blow job. It's the only thing you are good at.

At 11/3/12 12:46 PM, dem0lecule wrote: NO U LOL

You can't no u the no me, so stop trying. You suck horribly at it.

At 11/3/12 12:45 PM, TurkeyBased wrote: i picked you because you'd get thrown out for objecting to everything

Like I have said -- you would be screwed to the highest degree, if you have me consulting your sorry ass through evidence and key-elemented paperwork.

No me?

Know me?

You don't know me or no me.

You can't no u the no me.

L2Triforce

At 11/3/12 12:37 PM, TurkeyBased wrote: mos def

Sir, you are direly screwed if you find me in a place where I'm not sharing my own ideas. I would send you to jail, by critically turning every single piece of evidence against your sorry ass. Have fun dropping the soap, kid.

At 11/3/12 12:34 PM, Profanity wrote: Try reading Adam Smith and shutting up for a while.

So essentially, you are implying neoclassical flaming bullshit, yes? Why don't you go get a king sized bag, and spend 700 thousand dollars on a rare type of fecal matter that came from an extinct komodo dragon and leave it on my porch, eh?

I'm not talking about the characteristics of intentions or people's political bias. I'm talking about the synonymous nature of trade and capitalism. Something you don't understand or have any obligation to clear up precisely.

At 11/3/12 12:30 PM, TurkeyBased wrote: ok then

TurkeyBased: Shits bricks, picks them up, and waits for people to pass by, so he can lob bricks at em'.

At 11/3/12 12:26 PM, ohbombuh wrote: You've got to realize it's part of a series of "edgy" posts, but that particular one is in the foreground, symbolizing that the post it is used in response to is recent but unoriginal.

The clouds are more edgy.

At 11/3/12 12:17 PM, ohbombuh wrote: This reaction image was created in a top-secret government laboratory.

Obviously. That post isn't even the closest one to the edge.

At 11/3/12 12:16 PM, draco889 wrote: No, You have serious misconceptions on what trade and capitalism actually are. I really think you should read a basic economics textbook, and then try arguing your point.

They both are involved with trade.

Yet, one is political and the other is just there. It used to be a big thing, back when Capitalism did not exist.

How are they at all any different from each other? You are not explaining yourself. You are just saying ''you're wrong; go read basic stuff that you're already aware of''.

At 11/3/12 12:13 PM, draco889 wrote: What are you talking about? Like I said, A person (or people) own a business. These people hire workers and pay them a salary. If the workers think the salary is too low, then they find a new job or they go on strike. Yes, these businesses want money. What's your point? The reason a business is founded is so it can turn a profit.

There is a difference between respecting the cow's utters and cutting them off with pruners.

At 11/3/12 11:58 AM, draco889 wrote: You don't understand what I'm saying. Trade is the transfer of gods and services. Capitalism is a system where there is FREE transfer of said goods and services. Its not a "governmental global distribution". The government is not involved in any way, and the principle is applicable to a local as well as a global level.

Excuse me, not governmental. I was meaning to say political.

Capitalism is the daddy version of trade, is what I'm saying. All it is, is a bigger assessment of trade than trade itself. Trade is a bitch compared to Capitalism. The thing is, Capitalism is the irrational form of trade. It turned nearly everything into an owned property. Trade was simply using objects like rocks, stones, silk, et cetera as a trade subject. Capitalism applied steroids to this system and turned it into a gobal monopoly system.