Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/20/12 07:10 AM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:
Off soapbox.

"Small government" is a cover for funneling more citizen tax money to private interests. In case you guys haven't noticed, government is in constant competition with private business over resources. The reason that the Republicans really want "smaller government" is because their constituencies do not lie within the public sector.

The more money that the government saves through being "smaller," the more profit will be free after taxes are collected to give to big oil, big finance, and big manufacturing. The GOP wants to give money to Lockheed Martin and Exxon...that's all. You gotta follow the money, that's it.

while the Republican party is in favour of this for sure, people who actually want small government also want less subsidies for businesses big and small. In fact their ideal amount of subsidies is NONE. As well, they wan't taxes to be smaller to fit the new bill. While some people in office differ in this, its the same on the left how people want to be able to do what they choose to do with their own bodies, but then the people they elect have the nanny mentality instead.

I'm a little divided on what i'm gonna do in my next provincial elections, Liberals and NDP (socialists) are the mainstream candidates and all the liberals do is create private sector monopolies where it is against the law to compete with them, NDP will spend like mad, and then the conservatives are the usual morality police crusaders who care more about social issues (of which, I and everyone else hate their stance on) than economic issues.

so here are my options:

-vote libertarian, accomplish nothing
-write "I refuse to vote" on my ballot (they don't listen to people who don't show up, they assume you do it out of laziness not principle)
-write "I nominate me" and try to convince as many other people to do the same thing, for the lulz.

If I had to guess, you would be describing the modern Republicans. I for one would like a smaller government, with no expansion in power anywhere else, and can say that without being full of shit.

At 8/16/12 12:50 PM, ToddM wrote:

At 8/16/12 09:15 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

What do you suggest to help the American economy instead of your doom and gloom that you always say?

I kinda understand where he's coming from.

At 8/15/12 10:20 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: To Iron-Hampster

I looked at my post and I do not see any part where I say that the government should not have any intervention.

hinted it here: "What I am saying is there should be some kind of system in place that punishes people who do this."

Could you please explain what you mean by "But the one part that you forgot, the most important part was where you described exactly why government intervention wasn't even necessary in the first place."

your post was implying that these people did what they did knowing that the government (or in this case, a privately owned extension of government) would bail them out, but under capitalism, they would never be able to get away with such a thing because they would go bankrupt, providing an incentive not to loan money to people who can't pay it back.

Also if you do not want the government to get involved then what is your solution because if we keep things the way they are the economy will just get more and more unstable until it collapses.

my solution would be to get rid of the Fed's monopoly on our currency by opening up their market to competition, and to remove regulations on banks.The ones that prevent them from committing fraud should be strengthened but the ones that force them to loan money to people who they don't trust to pay back should be done away with.

This would also make it easier for new banks to appear, ensuring that interest rates are always competitive, and that even with affirmative action style regulations being lifted, less fortunate people will always be able to get a loan when the current economy calls for it, unless you are trying to help your competition of course.

That would cut off any cause for economic collapse on the bank's end, the rest would be up to the government not to fuck up, that is my solution.

It wasn't until Austrian economics were abandoned for Chicago and Keynesian economics when the market became unstable.

At 8/15/12 12:27 PM, Jmayer20 wrote:

Now I am not arguing for or against the ball out. What I am saying is there should be some kind of system in place that punishes people who do this. Some sort of law that makes it clear that if you endanger the stability of the economy there will be consequences. Now some of you are probably thinking that's socialism. But the fact is it is socialism for the government to ball these people out in the first place and unless we do some thing you will have more ball out with your tax dollars and the economy is just going to get more and more unstable until in collapses.

This part is where you went way out of whack. The first bit of your post perfectly explained why government intervention did more harm than good. Now you are suggesting another form of government intervention that punishes people for what might possibly be an honest mistake. But the one part that you forgot, the most important part was where you described exactly why government intervention wasn't even necessary in the first place.

The truth is, they knew they were going to get bailed out by the fed before this even happened, its just the nature of central banks because the way their government backed businesses work. They make investments, and when they profit, they pocket the money, when they lose, they charge it to the bank, and had there been no government to enforce a monopoly, that would have meant giving your competition a really nice gift.

no but selfishness is.

but seriously, the problem I have with people is when their greed drives them to manipulate the government into giving them privileges at the expense of other people.

otherwise, both need and greed are driving our economy in positive ways, except when the above happens.

At 8/12/12 04:45 PM, naronic wrote:

At 8/12/12 04:43 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: just connect the dots will yas.

Yeah funny,

Until you realize the sociopath purchased his firearms legally...

they never do. every country in the world has gangs that can find a way to arm themselves with guns. The exception to that might be north korea.

either way, nothing gets done.

just connect the dots will yas.

At 8/12/12 03:30 PM, TheKlown wrote: Why aren't the Democrats running positive campaign ads talking about what they've accomplished the past 4 years?

well in a two party government where neither party does any good, they really have nothing else to put in their ads other than all the bad that the other guys are doing, while leaving out everything that they have done, because they haven't done any good themselves.

At 8/12/12 12:35 AM, psychopathy wrote:

At 8/12/12 12:00 AM, Retreaux7 wrote: Okay I'm 16 and really don't know anything about politics I just thought I'd post something.

i knew 20x more about politics at that age son

it's nothing to brag about since american politics is pretty simple to follow; there's no excuse for not knowing a good amount about the subject

at his age I was a little commie bastard, now I'm borderline Randroid. no I think its understandable that it takes a bit of time to fully understand everything, its not just about knowing the facts, its about knowing how to decide your position on issues.

At 8/11/12 09:25 PM, MuyBurrito wrote:
Better yet, just destroy the banks. Give everyone guns, and let us kill eachother for money and to reduce population.

Why stop at anything? Why do we need to be compassionate and provide ANY civil service?

well we could give everyone guns which allows them to rob people at gun point, or we can let everyone vote their way into each other's wallets. We can also give ourselves the right to vote our way into other countries so we can kill them with guns and take their shit to.

dah nvm, paul ryan is probably in favour of that last part.

This is how some people actually vote.

At 8/11/12 12:10 AM, Rahmemhotep wrote:

At 8/10/12 08:07 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:
but the absolute biggest irony to all this, is that Mitt Romney is the liberal, he's just pretending to be a conservative. He was once further to the left than Obama was.

If you think either of these guys are actually Liberal or actually Conservative, you need to get schooled, son.

haha, you funny guy, i should have said "progressive" because there seems to be a clear difference between the two.

At 8/10/12 02:06 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 8/10/12 04:57 AM, Tribal wrote: Stop trying so hard to be so politically correct. A lot of Americans are opposed to gay marriage as well. What say you to them? I hope you realize that saying "you shouldn't" and "it's not right to" aren't going to work.

Polling has shown that 46 percent of Republican voters in Mississippi believe that I shouldn't be able to marry my girlfriend because she is black and I am white.

What say you to them?

I would tell them that it is not the governments place to decide what you do with your life, but if they don't want to have any part in it, they don't have to.

too bad they want the whole pie, as usual.

This commercial is for people who think in terms of rich vs poor. It wasn't very convincing for me. I think in terms of violence vs voluntarism.

They complained that he was going to take their entitlements away, well those entitlements all came from some one else, so it is THEIR hand in some one else's pocket, not Mitt's.

I am more worried about Obama, how in every state of the Union address, he preaches tax increases for the middle class, which is already the most over taxed class as it is.

but the absolute biggest irony to all this, is that Mitt Romney is the liberal, he's just pretending to be a conservative. He was once further to the left than Obama was.

At 8/10/12 10:15 AM, HydraTundra wrote: If you're for Legalizing Prostitution: Read this; http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/laws/000022.html

I wonder what that site is based on, it also mentions problems caused by other acts of government intervention.

Women can't go to the police because prostitution is illegal, and when it is legal, foreign women can't go to the police because their immigration status is illegal, so they will be sent back to get killed by what ever gang brought them here. Do the people behind the site have the balls to enact the tough changes needed to actually make this industry legitimate? Or do they just want us to keep going with the status quo that victimizes people from foreign nations?

At 8/7/12 11:24 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: To Iron-Hamster

Are you say that the only reason you are against gay marriage is because they might do something to you. They might force some priest to marry them. First off that's kind of a lame excuse. Second if that is really your only problem then lets say in the bill legalizing gay marriage you also have a part that say some one does not have to marry the gay couple if it is agents there religious beliefs. Then at lest they can go to someone that is not a bigot.

I am not against it, I am against government involvement in marriage, and I believe that priests and churches should be able to choose their own policies toward gay marriage. I already condemned a full out ban on gay marriage for this reason earlier in the thread.

At 8/7/12 12:07 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

Look have you even meet a gay person before. I have and contrary to what the church acts like they do not have flames shooting out of there nostrils and horns sticking out of the top of there head.

lets just say I'm probably more socially liberal than you, I just don't want the government to force anyone's hand. But I know history, you can get sued if you deny people service for these kind of reasons and that's exactly what this issue can turn into.

and drop the high and mighty tolerance kid attitude. Were talking about free will and the right to refuse service, not the right to run out and actually restrain some one who's actions currently have nothing to do with you. It's called the right to say "no".

He was a terrorist, he wanted to draw attention to his cause just like breivik did.

But we don't use the word "terrorist" for white people very often.

At 8/5/12 11:27 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: The best argument that people have given me for making gay marriage illegal is, "it says in the bible that being gay is bad".

I think the actual issue is not around that, at least for most people. They are probably concerned that the government will force people who don't believe in gay marriage to marry same sex couples whether they like it or not, the same way racist business owners are forced to serve the people they don't like. While most people seem to be okay with that, it becomes a little different when you start forcing churches to change their ways too.

The ban on gay marriage that they are calling for is massively hypocritical in this sense, just as the liberal stance to force gay marriage is too. People who pull bible quotes with out checking the context in which they are used before hand and immediately assume they have a place in the laws our country are ruled by are just a vocal minority, like WBC (the god hates f***s people).

if there are any homosexual Christians, they should start their own church that is tolerant of gay marriage. That way any attempt to ban gay marriage would be a violation of their religious freedoms.

Problem= Solved.

I thought he supported Civil Unions, probably because it is the cowards way out to these people but is actually a good compromise between religious freedom and other civil liberties. Only reason why its the unpopular view is because everyone just wants the whole pie.

but 50 stars is an even number and is so convenient to make. if you have to add one more star it throws everything out of wack

At 8/1/12 06:21 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/30/12 03:57 PM, Korriken wrote: Listen up Everyone! Don't oppose what you don't believe in, it makes you evil!

The company has donated money to groups that are straight-up classified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I mean I'm glad Chick-fil-A's stance on this is getting noticed (and wished it was getting a more negative reception), but I've talked to some stupid people who are supporting them because free speech or something. But it's not just a matter of free speech. By giving your money to that company you are supporting actual hate groups. If your tastebuds is all it takes for you to give money to bigots, then congratulations on selling out for a shitty chicken burger.

hey feel free to vote with your dollar any time but you can't bitch about everyone else who chooses not to join your boycott. Fact is that any amount of customers that they turn away is the free market punishing them for their words naturally, and is just a disadvantage that they didn't need.

and be realistic, they didn't say anything that wasn't totally out of the ordinary for the time we are living in. Had they said "god invented AIDS to punish homosexuals" then your words would have more merit.

oh yea, and remember the time Obama said marriage is between a man and a woman?

At 7/27/12 01:31 PM, Light wrote:

At 7/27/12 01:23 PM, Korriken wrote:
Is the left really so intolerant of those who don't think the way they do that they would deny job creators from setting up shop, thus not boosting their economy, just to preserve their way of thinking? sad.

I hope you're not implying that the Right is not at least as intolerant.

Because that would just be foolish on many levels.

actually gay marriage is a more complicated issue than that. The people who don't want it are Christians and gay marriage is against their religion. To allow gay marriage generally means forcing them to provide accommodation for same sex marriages. Outlawing gay marriage on the other hand like they want mandates that gay marriage is now forbidden whether it is against your religion or not.

Basically, both popular sides of this argument are intolerant and against freedom of religion. Now as for these people who spoke out against it, they have every right to say what ever they want. stopping them from putting their chain up would be the government punishing people for using their right to free speech. Anyone who supports government regulated speech is 100% in the wrong.

this threads pretty one sided, should I try arguing against prostitution being legal even though I support legalization just to balance the teams?

At 7/30/12 05:41 PM, tyler2513 wrote: Like the typical person living in Canada, I'm conservative.

good one.

so lets see here nao.

the highest of high incomes hide all of their money in tax heavens, effectively paying nothing.
the bottom 50% get so many tax benefits that they don't pay anything at all.

that means were over half way there! all it takes is a massive tax boycott from the rest of us and it's mission complete.