2,152 Forum Posts by "Iron-Hampster"
I wonder how a Naturalism vs Nihilism thread would work.
At 6/7/12 10:51 AM, Elfer wrote: Romney is right, let's shoot guns at terrorism until it dies.
does that mean Obama is only, semi-right?
more jokes as you look at how lulzy this election is going to be.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
At 6/15/12 08:50 AM, kmau wrote:At 6/13/12 11:29 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:It's a conspiracy to bring more profit to the camel food industry.At 6/13/12 10:21 PM, Dimitrilium wrote: Actually, it's 10 camels for informations, not the kill itself.That is not a bad deal, but you would need enough camel food for them.
What do camels eat anyway?
well they are bovines and bovines eat off the ground, these ones come from the desert so they obviously must eat sand.
At 6/14/12 08:31 PM, ohbombuh wrote: But do they truly own it when the government he stands for can order them around that easily? Also, if some businesses are already nationalized (road and bridge construction, supporting banks, mail delivery, portions of education and health care, most parks, etc.) and new leaders do not try to privatize any of them, isn't it implied that they accept the nationalization of those industries and would do the same if their predecessors hadn't already?
Yea, the government does seem claim ownership over everything, but a socialist would redistribute the profits of these businesses so that everyone gets paid equally, instead the government allows them to keep their profits, and then passes their losses on to everyone else through taxes. This is called "corporatism", where corporations become extensions of the state.
I can see a lot of this going on in British Columbia (my province) where corporations like ICBC, BC Hydro are given government forced monopolies over our roads, insurance and utilities and then get almost all of their expenses covered by tax payer money while the executives still gets to keep any profits generated this way. They also get special privileges that negate everyone else's property rights. Our socialists in charge said "we should take their money and use it for something" and the corporatists in charge said "we have to let these people keep their profits it's their right, even though their profits consist almost entirely of tax payer money."
In Obama's case, he forced people to buy health insurance. "free health care"
At 6/14/12 10:57 AM, ohbombuh wrote: Just out of sheer curiosity, how would you define "socialist?" Isn't it someone who wants people to "come together" and wants to artificially limit the representation of successful businesses? Or is it simply someone who wants a compromise between capitalism and communism, so that we won't "cut our way to prosperity?"
its a legitimate question because the word's been thrown around so much its like calling some one the F word (the one that means gay) now adays.
I would't define it as a compromise between capitalism and communism, it used to be interchangeable with communism so I'll put it like that. Lets just say that Socialism is the economic system used under a Communist dictatorship. Take a police state, give it a socialist economic model, its communism. Take a Democracy, give it a Socialist economic model, its democratic socialism. very plain and simple actually.
Why Obama isn't a socialist is because he isn't taking control of industries and nationalising them under the public sector. All he is actually doing is forcing people to run their business a certain way. It is authoritarian no doubt about it but economically authoritarian doesn't automatically mean socialist, other forms of economic authoritarianism would be Cronyism used by corrupt fascists, and Feudalism used by Europe in the middle ages.
I try not to judge a news source purely from word of mouth, but anyone who tells me that Obama is a socialist at this point is either a massive liar or too ignorant to be in their position. This is why I will never rely on fox news.
yes, having a monarch WOULD speed the process of republic to fascism, if it weren't for the fact that our current monarch only has power of veto and never uses it anyway.
Actually, the monarch is just a more expensive version of an important part of Republic. If anything, we should get rid of her for doing too little! I would cut off ties to the common wealth and lose the Queen in favour of a more local governor general who gets paid less, knows what he is doing (not saying the queen doesn't, she just does... nothing) and actually uses his power of veto when a purposed law violates the constitution.
I wouldn't trust a British person to decide what is and what is constitutional in our country anyway, the UK government is even more authoritarian and invasive than the American government!
At 6/9/12 12:55 PM, Korriken wrote: Killing Obama will net you 10 camels! The president better never show his face in public again after such a fabulous offer. /sarcasm
That is a terrible deal, the punishment for murder in Somalia is that the tribe of the murder must give the tribe of the victim 120 camels. The bounty on Obama's head is 10 Camels. They obviously need to up the bounty to that of a president if they wan't anything to get done. Any other person could fetch you 12 times as many camels as the president! Who knows, maybe they are gonna bid higher and higher until some one does it.
the price of a Camel in American money is about $100. Basically they are asking you to shoot the President for $1000. People who draw Muhammad on the other hand get a bounty of $50000. that is 500 Camels. Maybe they are running out of Camels?
At 5/29/12 12:23 PM, Korriken wrote: this is what I mean by having TOO MUCH job security.
my teacher never told me I was smooth like icecream
At 5/31/12 08:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: You must be joking. All the CIA did was fund some propaganda and help rouse a mob or two.
-The United States began training insurgents in, and directing propaganda broadcasts into Afghanistan from Pakistan in 1978.[94] Then, in early 1979, U.S.
-According to Brzezinski, CIA financial aid to the insurgents within Afghanistan was approved in July 1979, six months before the Soviet intervention, though after the Soviets were already covertly engaged there. Arms were sent after the formal intervention.
-US "Paramilitary Officers" from the CIA's Special Activities Division were instrumental in training, equipping and sometimes leading Mujihadeen forces against the Soviet Army.
-senior Pentagon official overcame bureaucratic resisistance in 1985âEU"1986 and persuaded President Reagan to provide hundreds of Stinger missiles.
-the United States donating "$600 million in aid per year,
I did NOT have to look hard to find these facts.
The only reason the Shah came to power was because he had the support of the military and a substantial portion of the population. And Mossadegh was as much a democratically elected leader as Harry Reid is the democratically elected Senate majority leader. This is conveniently left out by the popular narrative and the Iranians themselves, who've selectively forgotten their history to hide their complicity.
-the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah
-On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79âEU"12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.
but why? oh I know!
His administration introduced a wide range of social and political reforms but is most notable for its nationalization of the Iranian oil industry
You are a retard. Not only are you retarded for calling Desert Storm and a few missile strikes during the Clinton years "bombing the Middle East into dust," you are even more retarded for suggesting 9/11 was retribution for "100,000" Iraqi deaths that hadn't even happened yet. That is of course unless you're talking about the Oil For Food Program and have decided to blame the US, as opposed to the UN or god forbid Saddam himself for the suffering it led to.
I can't take you seriously, because you are full of shit. not only have the 100 000 innocent deaths already happened, but because the food for oil was to fix up the fact that the citizens were only starving because of economic sanctions. As for the death count for the Gulf War here's the estimate range for you.
-NGO-based reports and official figures to measure civilian casualties, approximately 7,500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase, while more than 60,000 civilians have been killed as of April 2007.
-At the other end of the scale, the Lancet Survey estimated 654,965 "excess deaths" to June 2006; and the Opinion Research Business Survey estimated 1,033,000 "deaths as a result of the conflict", to April 2009.
honestly I think the number is closer to the NGO but 3000 vs 60 000 is 20 Iraqi civilians killed for every American civilian killed. There is a video of Osama Bin Ladin, he says something along the lines of "the allies are all mad about the innocent civilians I killed in 9/11, but what about the innocent people killed in Iraq when Americans were bombing us? Nobody even offered their condolences for them." All this just to give the people of Kuat their old dictator back.
your attitude is demoralizing, but hard research is a lot more powerful than a few mean words, it just takes a little more work is all.
At 5/30/12 07:32 PM, adrshepard wrote:At 5/29/12 10:07 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: That aside, American interventionism is what caused a lot of these problems to begin with, and its only logical to say that using more military interventionism will just cause even more problems.Yes, American interventionism 60 years ago (in the form of a dozen guys who passed some bribes) caused Iran to develop a secret nuclear program, and we should have just done nothing at all when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Yeah, those stinger missiles and bomb-making training for a handful of people totally caused 9/11.
that's a nice way to shit on some ones argument, over simplify the scenario.
1. 60 years ago a brutal dictator was installed in Iran by American intervention to replace a democratically elected leader.
2. the resistance was full of extremist Muslims, because you can't just install a brutal dictator and complain that by roll of the dice the revolutionaries who are forced to take him out aren't very happy with you. They didn't want a free society either, but again its roll of the dice, they didn't start off with one either.
3. the nuclear program probably has something to do with the fact that everyone else has a nuke and the biggest military in the world is their sworn enemy.
4. by "a hand full of people", do you mean by any chance, the Taliban? Because that's who it was all given to. Oh yea and Bin Laden, was given CIA training.
5. before 9/11 we were already bombing the middle east into dust. the 3000 innocent people who died in 9/11 is dwarfed by the 100 000 innocent people who died in Iraq.
I wouldn't vote for Romney because he'll "protect" us from China and Russia. The chances of direct conflict with these countries is extremely small. I'm more worried about Obama's plan to decimate our wartime capacity in the hope that special forces operations and global cooperation can solve every problem. Increasing benefits for veterans is nice, but it doesn't make the military any more prepared to face future conflicts.
the cuts to the military were small, and it still has the largest share of the budget. Did you know that it is impossible to balance the budget with out cutting funding to the military even still? Maybe it is time to let the rest of the world fend for itself. One of the reasons the Soviet empire collapsed was their bloated military budget and their over involvement in the middle east. Their military was cheap too, but this military demands over $17 000 to equip just one troop.
Wait, you mean we can sue our government for infringing our rights?
Oh this is just priceless, no wonder they are trying to keep this stuff quiet! I guarantee you that everyone can sue the government for something now. "It is what America does best, sue the bastards."
It wouldn't matter if the CEO of Lobbyists and shady deals incorporated were suing the government for the same reasons, they would have pretty good reason to try and stop this news from spreading. SPREAD THE WORD, YOU CAN SUE YOUR GOVERNMENT!
At 5/29/12 07:08 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
Wow, it's funny, because with changing a whopping two words this applies to virtually everyone and their supporters in the two major camps
Anyone who calls Republicans out for spending too much either dislikes the democrats too, or hasn't been thinking enough.
and vice versa.
but he just openly admitted that he wants to increase spending. That's the thing with NeoConservatism, eventually you run out of other people's money!
When that happens I don't think he's going to be the kind of guy who will admit he dun goofed though, I think he is going to force Austerity on the middle class (the only people who pay taxes any more). Its brilliant really, if we run out of other peoples money, we can just take more of some one else's!
That aside, American interventionism is what caused a lot of these problems to begin with, and its only logical to say that using more military interventionism will just cause even more problems.
At 5/28/12 01:59 AM, Korriken wrote:
close enough. they don't have to follow the federal government's standards, that's enough to send a teacher's union into hysterics.
no ones going to win because it isn't privately owned, there for, teachers will never see a raise in their lives, no matter how much their productivity increases or inflation drives the value of their current wage down. No I think this middle ground is worse than either of the extremes.
also taking government over sight over the classrooms may make it easier to fire the bad teachers, there is still government oversight over the administration, which is also being funded with public money. Now that the administration loses it's ties to the teacher's union, were only going to see more abuse from that level than before.
could we get an explanation as to what the charter schools are? Are they private or public? If they are government funded and are anything like the residential schools that we had up north, then yes sexual assault should be a pretty big concern, in fact so should beating rape and basically every form of assault in the book including mental abuse, lots of that sir.
Atheist. As for belief being a choice, if you have to choose then you don't truly believe now do you?
but again, democracy would never do this! it has never and will never elect dictators!
this is TOTALLY not an example of an old trend that we have seen in the past with Democracy!
good ol democracy protecting us from tyranny once again
At 5/15/12 11:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 5/15/12 09:41 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Only through state involvement have people started to become unhappy about this issue.Marriage has been a State issue in Anglo-American law for close to 1000 years, if not longer.
THAT, would have been a fallacy.
State sanctioned marriage was never a problem until gays wanted it.
and interracial marriages. The truth is that the state is an obstacle to individual rights as the world progresses. It starts with some intolerant group demanding that people not be allowed to do things followed by mislead "tolerant" people retaliating by demanding that the government FORCE people to cater to people they don't like. This is why the government shouldn't get involved in the first place.
At 5/10/12 10:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
My marriage is completely void of religion. It is a purely state construct.
no the tax benefits you receive for it are state construct. The ceremony was purely symbolic, not state construct. (just like any other marriage)
This whole "marriage is for religions only" fallacy serves to have a larger effect in destroying the tradition of marriage than gays do.
It's not really a fallacy, if the government were out of marriage then the symbolism would still exist. Gay couples would get to enjoy their ceremony and symbolism and Christians would still get their Christian marriages so they could be happy too. Only through state involvement have people started to become unhappy about this issue. Of course if the state benefits and the name that your government gives you is a problem then all couples who want the benefits should be classified under the same category.
the only legitimate reason gay people want the title of marriage for is to get all the legal benefits of being married, in reality there shouldn't be any benefits. In reality, separation of church and state acts BOTH ways contrary to popular belief. If the church don't wanna marry you, find another church or just settle with being together. Should the state out right ban gay marriage, or legalize it? NEITHER! Marriage is a matter of the church and not of the state. State involvement in a religious ceremony is hilariously misplaced and neither the road of theocracy or forced political correctness is the answer.
The end of China is also the end of everyone who owes money to china. The money they lent to other countries will have been backed by their fake capita. All of the money they used to buy debt off other countries will also have been backed by their fake capita. They might call back all of their debt when faced with this crisis and trigger hyper inflation in other countries, just like what happened to Europe when America's economy crashed.
So china might have an economic melt down, so will everybody else.
At 5/9/12 07:01 PM, bgraybr wrote:At 5/7/12 07:58 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: no 2 people agree on absolutely everythingWhat if they're clones or identical twins?
twins are siblings and siblings argue all the time
and clones might both have the same memories and there for both be convinced that they are the original and the other is the copy.
Dad was very hands off with my ideals, mom was a Liberal, but not extreme. I started out as a hard core socialist like 90% of kids my age at the time then slowly became more and more libertarian. So me and my mom have some disagreements now but on social issues not so much (I'm just more hands off). Dad probably leans more towards Thatcher while I gravitate more towards Rand but my family is still Atheist.
At 5/6/12 10:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 5/6/12 10:02 PM, Eltro2kneo wrote: But still, even if it passes congress, it can still get forced to be taken down from laws.How and why?
The Judicial Branch is still there, as is the Governor General and other safe guards. All the propaganda about how great and holy Democracy is has taken its toll on these areas though. "as long as we do everything 50%+1 says then we will always be free" kind of crap.
At 5/5/12 05:09 AM, geosposterioss wrote: Bush and Bin Laden Friendship Families?
Some conspiracy theories seem far-fetched, as referenced in the unlikely parts. Suspicions about the family ties of Bush and bin Laden are counting on the concrete historical fact. On the morning September 11, 2001 Father of President George W. Bush met in Washington hotel "Ritz Carlton" one of the brothers of Osama bin Laden. On the same day a group of terrorists managed by bin Laden, has carried out a huge terrorist attack in the capital of America. What is it - a coincidence?
Article http://incredible-stories.blogspot.com/p/bush-and-bin-laden-
friendshipfamilies.html
Views?
I don't doubt that they met, because historically the USA and Taliban were like two peas in a pod. Before the Al Kaida appeared the American government was funding Osama Bin Laden and his band of merry men against the Russians and even provided CIA training for them. I imagine that this was very similar to the United States meeting with the Japanese Ambassador right before Pearl Harbour. These events alone really didn't prove much but were some pretty big causes for conspiracy theorists, a lot more people thought Pearl Harbour was an inside job at it's time than people now a days think the same about 9/11.
At 5/2/12 02:03 AM, MrFlopz wrote: Any way you can link to that survey Iron Hampster? I wouldn't mind taking it.
oh sorry for double post I'll gladly deliver http://www.politicaltest.net/ its kinda long but not too crazy.
At 5/2/12 03:54 PM, Kidradd wrote: it's interesting that people still think republicans want small government and democrats want big government when if you look at the past 20 or so years this has clearly not been the case with the rise of neoconservatism (bush) and neoliberalism/new democrats (clinton, obama)
you used the term "neoliberalism" wrong. Both the Republicans and Democrats are closer to NeoConservatism. Neoliberalism is more like Libertarianism.
At 5/1/12 06:39 PM, Memorize wrote:
A couple things to note here is that these are ALL big Government positions. And since big Government is something liberals claim to support, then I should consider all of these to be Liberal Positions.
wrong on that one chap, the correct term is STATIST. The media has a statist bias, they always favour giving the government more power while constantly whine and beg people not to allow the government to relinquish power.
The other thing is that all of these positions are almost identical to Bush, which begs the question: Why is Obama considered a "Great Guy" and Bush Horrible?
the [idiots] who called Bush terrible call Obama great, and the [idiots] who called Obama terrible call Bush great. What always has been will always be.
Let's face it. The only reason you get away with calling Obama a centrist is because you're using an idiot like Bush as an indicator.
There is no centre, there is no left or right, only right and wrong, free and unfree.
Here is what a Liberal REALLY looks like. But people have long since abandoned the notion of using words PROPERLY. I haven't, but that seems to be causing a lot of troubles for me.
