6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
At 10/18/14 05:03 AM, elitegamer11 wrote: i sure hope it wont reach Ireland. i live there and it would suck if Jacksepticeye got it.
Given your government's love of africans then I'd be a little worried.
At 10/17/14 08:47 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also, for a country that so much hates Russia, and things from Russia....and broke away from a monarchy....why do we name this kind of management position after the old Russian Monarchy? Just saying.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/czar-trek/381605/
At 10/1/14 12:18 PM, Earfetish wrote: Dobio used to do this list but then started saying that people (Such as me) were spamming to get higher up
well he's not wrong really
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Ebo-LIE
People In the Western World Need to Know What's Happening Here in West Africa. THEY ARE LYING!!! "Ebola" as a Virus Does NOT Exist and Is NOT "Spread". The Red Cross Has Brought a Disease to 4 Specific Countries for 4 Specific Reasons and It Is Only Contracted By Those Who Receive Treatments and Injections From the Red Cross. That is Why Liberians and Nigerians Have Begun Kicking the Red Cross Out of Their Countries and Reporting In the News the Truth. Now Bear With Me:
REASONS:
Most People Jump to "Depopulation" Which is No Doubt Always on the Mind of the West When It Comes to Africa. But I Assure You Africa Can NEVER Be Depopulated By Killing 160 People a Day When Thousands are Born Per Day. So the real Reasons Are Much More Tangible.
Reason 1:
This Vaccine Implemented Sickness Being "Called" Ebola Was Introduced Into West Africa for the End Goal of Getting Troops on the Ground In Nigeria, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
If You Remember We Were Just Trying to Get Into Nigeria for "Boko Haram" #BULLSHIT But That Fell Apart When Nigerians Started Telling the Truth. There ARE NO GIRLS MISSING. Global Support Fell Through the Floor, and a New Reason Was Needed to Get Troops Into Nigeria and Steal the New Oil Reserves They Have Discovered.
Reason 2:
Sierra Leone is the World's Largest Supplier of Diamonds. For the Past 4 Months They Have Been on Strike, Refusing to Provide Diamonds Due to Horrible Working Conditions and Slave Pay.
The West Will Not Pay a Fair Wage for the Resources Because the Idea is to Keep These People Surviving on Rice Bags and Foreign AID So That They Remain a Source of Cheap Slave Labor Forever.
A Reason Was Also Needed to Get Troops On the Ground In Sierra Leone to Force an End to the Diamond Miners Strikes. This is Not the First Time This Has Been Done.
When Miners Refuse to Work Troops Are Sent In and Even If They Have to Kill and Replace Them All, the Only Desire is to Get Diamonds Back Flowing Out of the Country. Of Course to Launch Multiple Campaigns to Invade These Countries Separately Would Be WAY Too Fishy. But Something Like "Ebola" Allows Access to an Entire Area Simultaneously...
Reason 3:
In Addition to Stealing Nigerian Oil, and Forcing Sierra Leone Back to Mining, Troops Have Also Been Sent In to FORCE Vaccinations (Deadly "Ebola" Poison) Onto Those Africans Who Are Not Foolish Enough to Take The Willingly.
3000 Troops Are Being Sent In to Make Sure That This "Poison" Continues to Spread, Because Again It Is Only Spread Through Vaccination.
As More and More News Articles Are Released Like the One Above From Liberia, Informing the Populous of the US Lies and Manipulation, More and More Africans Are Refusing to Visit the Red Cross.
Troops Will Force These Vaccinations Upon the People to Ensure the Visible Appearance of an Ebola Pandemic. In Addition to This They Will Protect the Red Cross From the Liberians and Nigerians Who Have Been Rightfully Ejecting Them From Their Countries.
Reason 4:
3000 Troops..... Is Ebola Susceptible to Bullets?? Ridiculous. Last But Not Least the APPEARANCE of This Ebola "Pandemic" (Should Americans Not Catch On) Will Be Used to Scare Countless Millions Into Taking the "Ebola Vaccine" Which in Reality IS THE PANDEMIC.
Already They Have Started With Stories of How It Has Been Brought Back to the US and Has Appeared in Dallas, How White Doctors Were Cured But Black Infected Are Not Being Allowed to Be Treated Etc.
ALL That Will Do Is Make Blacks STRIVE to Get the Vaccine, Because It Appears That the "Cure" is Being Held Back From Blacks. They Will Run Out In Droves to Get It and Then There Will Be Serious Problems.
With All We Have Seen Revealed About Vaccines This Year You Would Think We Learned Our Lesson. All I Can Do Is Hope So, Because They Depend Highly On Our Ignorance to Complete Their Agendas.
Ask Yourself If Ebola Was Really Spread From Person to Person, Instead of Controlled Spread Through Vaccination - Then WHY Would the CDC and the US Government Continue to Allow Flights In and Out of These Countries With Absolutely No Regulation, Or At All?
We Have Got to Start Thinking and Sharing Information Globally Because They Do Not Give the True Perspective of the People Who Live Here in West Africa.
They Are Lying for Their Own Benefit and There Aren't Enough Voices Out There With a Platform to Help Share Our Reality. Hundreds of Thousands Have Been Killed, Paralyzed and Disabled By These and Other "New" Vaccines All Over the World and We Are Finally Becoming Aware of It.
isn't multiculturalism great
germans should be thankful for being culturally enriched by vibrant followers of the religion of peace
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4780/hamburg-holy-war#.VD6XmoPDNq4.twitter
At 10/13/14 12:02 PM, ChloeFlora wrote: So you think that it's ok for a citizen of an advanced country to fight for his rights for survival,
I'm saying that's not happening (on the scale suggested by the 'poverty rate'),
If you have ever been to some REALLY advanced country you would see how far are we from normal way of living!
that type of living is not really possible for a country like america
if you are talking about sweden though I'd invite you to wait a few decades and see how 'advanced' a country with a muslim majority ends up being, because that's where they're headed and it ain't gonna be pretty
At 10/10/14 11:53 AM, Feoric wrote: If you live in Liberia and have the means to flee to the US and there's no commercial air traffic coming in/out of the country, chances are you're not just going to stay put and accept your fate.
Fine, then ban Liberians and whoever else is from a high-risk country entering America full-stop.
Of course, progressives care more about africans being able to come to america than they are about americans not getting ebola so of course sensible policy cannot be expected.
At 10/15/14 12:43 AM, Ranger2 wrote: While I certainly don't condemn White Shroud's actions, we need to be cautious. I have a feeling White Shroud is neither enemy nor friend of the United States.
Given that they're anti-assad im sure obama probably loves them.
At 10/15/14 10:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Talks about the debt are really just a good springboard to talk about where money actually should be spent, with some ideas being good and others not so much.
Talking about these micro spending issues is meaningless in the context of the national debt.
For example, the impacts of government spending more or less on sport in educational facilities are utterly dwarfed by those resulting from amnesty being granted to millions of immigrants, the government providing universal healthcare, the military budget being radically transformed etc.
The debt itself is really just a bogeyman. It's existed in massive form sinc ebefore I was born and aside from one scare that immediately went away has had ZERO effect on the economy
Well firstly, >$200 billion a year on interest payments isn't exactly zero effect. Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that this kind of arrangement can carry on indefinitely when it absolutely cannot. The longer it is until the fiscal situation of the united states is sorted out (voluntarily or involuntarily) the worse the damage is going to be. Yes, the debt was large since before your birth, but the global economy looked very different then and america's place in it was much, much different.
eliminate the debt by deploying military personal to eliminate hate groups
got it
sorry were we talking about the national debt or something
At 10/14/14 11:25 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 10/14/14 08:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So..not biological factors then?And you act all surprised when I say you are racist. HAHAHA.
When have i ever done that?
So..not biological factors then?
At 10/14/14 01:26 AM, Light wrote: If you think Africa is not as advanced as the more developed areas of the world because they're so lazy, you're pretty ignorant of economic history and the geographic, biological, and political factors that make it difficult, if not impossible for Africa to completely industrialize.
Biological factors? lol agreed
At 10/12/14 10:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: How is ISIS our problem? ISIS has yet to kill anyone in America, last I checked.
(If/)When ISIS take over Iraq and Syria, obviously they just want to create a nice little regime and keep to themselves, living in peace. Live and let live and all that. That will be the last we ever hear from them.
At 10/11/14 10:08 PM, Feoric wrote: The origin of "human rights" is in the universality of human morality.
How can morality be universal if different groups of people throughout the world and throughout time can have such radically different conceptions of it?
Regardless of where you live, the freedom from murder, torture and subjugation (among other things) are necessary conditions for a contented existence and it is therefore in humanity's best interests to protect these freedoms where possible.
You might be close to having a point if that's all "human rights" were confined to, which they are not. Moreover, it's a little less simple than that because human rights of that nature aren't just "we agree not to murder or torture people". For example the scenario described above regarding the deportation of foreign extremists. Because according to some, what is ostensibly the protection of your citizens from being killed is viewed by many "human rights advocates" as a violation of someone's human rights.
At 10/11/14 10:20 PM, Warforger wrote: So everything he did when he took power is completely irrelevant?
Almost 'everything he did when he took power' was not about reconciliation at all and directly lead to the brutal treatment of white citizens (which is far worse than what the vast majority of blacks experienced under the supposedly horrible apartheid regime).
Also it's kind of hilarious how people jerk off so much to mandela considering that even if you don't care about the horrific crimes against whites directly perpetrated by the ANC or in which they are complicit, the reality is that black life expectancy, black wealth, black employment, black educational achievement and black/white income equality have all decreased since the end of apartheid and what was previously the safest country in africa has become one of the least safe countries in the world.
What a great man!
At 10/12/14 01:18 AM, Mrdie wrote: No, but what does that have to do with anything? It was one of the many songs sung during the liberation struggle against Apartheid. "Boer" in this case referred to those who headed the government, not whites as a whole.
Well firstly, Mandela had no problem whatsoever killing innocent white civillians, and secondly, none of the rest of the ANC (or black south africans for that matter) seem to have received that particular memo.
This is obvious when one remembers that the ANC's closest ally was (and still is) the South African Communist Party, which was headed by a white man (Joe Slovo) and which, because of this alliance, the Pan Africanist Congress and other groups which put race above class accused the ANC of submitting to "white ideology" and being puppets of the "white communists."
said white communists are about as anti-white as you can get and many of them have openly called for whites to be killed
It's silly to lambast Lincoln
No, it's not, especially in the context of the post I was responding to.
At 10/1/14 09:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote: If both parties are drunk it becomes a completely different issue.
In theory, perhaps.
Here both parties could legitimately claim rape and they both could claim intoxication.
which goes to show how idiotic such laws are.
I'm actually surprised you didn't try to blame this on black people.
You seem to be bringing up black people more than I do so...?
At 10/11/14 06:41 PM, Mrdie wrote: Because he called for the white bourgeoisie to agree to the formation of a black counterpart. Once in office he pursued a commitment to defending private property, throwing aside all the promises the ANC made for social progress in the 1960s-80s. See for instance: http://johnpilger.com/articles/south-africa-20-years-of-apartheid-by-another-name
I'm guessing "kill the boer" is actually zulu for "peace and tolerance", right?
Of course it does. The Union, once it resolved to abolish slavery rather than simply bring the southern states back, waged a revolutionary war to destroy an archaic economic system. This war was broadly popular among practically all strata of society.At 10/10/14 10:36 PM, Mrdie wrote:
Which is why they had to conscript ~10% of their troops?
The opposite was the case in the Confederacy, which represented the interests of an aristocracy backed by British industry (which preferred to keep American industry underdeveloped), the Papacy, and other reactionary forces in the world.
I'm sorry, was anybody in this thread calling a confederate leader one of the top political leaders of all time or prasing their moral fortitude?
At 10/11/14 02:10 PM, lapis wrote: Anyway, it's sad that opposing human rights is a perceived vote-getter in the UK nowadays.
Except "human right" is just a made up label.
X is human right.
You oppose X.
Therefore you oppose human right.
Human rights are good.
Therefore you are bad.
At 10/11/14 12:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, this is ironic coming from the guy who posted an opinion piece youtube video by an overtly an unabashedly biased party.
people of newgrounds, I present to you Camarohusky, the only unbiased man in the world.
Same for civlization. While a society can exist without a complex government, and has before, true civlization as defined by acadmic scholars requires the complex social hierarchy, i.e. a government.
Well what academic scholars define things as is irrelevent to the discussion.
You claim these people had no government because they were egalitarian.
No, they had no government because they had no government.
But wait. Egalitarianism IS a form of governance.
That's fucking idiotic and you know it.
Heck, even your poorly made and academically flawed youtube video had it better off than you. It doesn;t claim no government existed. It says no state existed.
State meaning government. Duh.
Then it goes on to completely and wholly ignore why the concept of the state was created
Even if it's agreed that the existence of states is a good thing, states were absolutely NOT created because everyone got together and decided that it would good if government existed.
Like others have said, if you truly want to live without the state, go live as a hermit in the forest.
I'm not saying I "truly want to live without a state", I'm saying that the state doesn't give you the choice of not living under its control and therefore its idiotic to compare taxation to transacting with a private business. If you're going to compeltely ignore hte point of a thread why bother responding?
Wait, not in a US forest though, as the state keeps those forest fre of brigands and bandits for you.
See, no choice. You really have no choice to live free from the state which is precisely why the "view on taxes" is fucking idiotic.
Same goes for any developed nation's forests and most third world nations as well. I think the ilds of north eastrn Nigeria would better fit your political ideology, but you better keep yourself protected.
That's not what this thread or what my posts were about.
They slit people's genitalia for fun out there.
Yeah they truly are our equals, huh?
At 10/10/14 08:17 PM, Light wrote: Well, racists tend not to like Martin Luther King Jr., so your puerile remarks about about the man are sadly not surprising.
Oh noes, somebody criticized St MLK Jr! What a filthy heretic!
At 10/10/14 08:30 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: oh hell no! INFOWARS IS NOT A FUCKING SOURCE!!! It is conspiracy theory lies and bullshit! You are inches, inches, from me just deleting or locking threads you make ON SIGHT. You NEED to learn how to post in this forum and what it's standards are.
You need to calm down tbh.
At 10/10/14 11:27 PM, Ranger2 wrote: and pursued reconciliation over revenge.
How can you honestly believe that? lmao
At 10/10/14 10:36 PM, Mrdie wrote: Desertion was far more common among Confederate troops. By the closing stages of the war discontent was sweeping the Confederacy.
So? Doesn't change my point.
At 10/10/14 08:24 AM, ChloeFlora wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_poorest_places_in_the_United_States
Moreover in 2013 there were 16% people living under the poverty rate (which was just 1 percent less than in 1958). Now the poverty rates raised up to 29% just in a year (thanx to Oba and his social programs)
Unfortunately it would be harder to find a link, cause I've done a research myself and now can't find the sources!
The way poverty is defined in the US makes it a measure of income equality rather than absolute living standards. It certainly is not comparable to global definitions of poverty.
The fact that a certain number of Americans are 'below the poverty line' is no indication that most of them are literally struggling to survive, let alone 'dying' en masse.
At 10/10/14 04:50 PM, cga-999 wrote: 4. Abe Lincoln
and lead a civil war to fight for what he believed in.
For others to fight against their will for what he believed in*
3. Winston Churchill
He lived by Germany in WWII, and he kept British people from being too scared of Hitler.
No, he kept people scared of Germany by grossly exaggerating the threat to Britain from Germany before the war and from deliberately hiding from the British people the fact that germany was willing to make peace during the war. Germany also wouldn't have been so intimidating were it not for Churchill's idiotic 'ten year rule' which made the British armed forces exceptionally weaker than what they otherwise would have been.
2. Martin Luther King, Jr.
He was an amazing black activist who put up with discrimination, death threats, and even a bombing of his home. He was the inspiration for the discontinuation of segregation.
He was an academic fraud, a communist and a fundamentalist christian who believed that civil rights would lead to racial equality. What a dumbass lol.
At 10/10/14 11:24 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: Second here is a different comparison from your "foot wear example". Going back to the restaurant. When you pay the bill are you really only paying for what it costed to provide you with the meal and service. Of course not. The owners are also having you pay for their profit. They then take that money and spend it on things that they want. How dare those people except you to provide money for some of the things THEY want. Not just what YOU want.
Except I CHOSE to give them the money. The profit they make it the cost of them providing me a service and I determined that the price of the service/food is worth it (or it isn't worth it and I don't buy anything). I see a steak for $20, I think it's a fair price and I get my steak. He gets his $20, and what he does with it is not my concern because I agreed that $20 was a fair price for the steak.
It's not at all analogous to taxation. Taxation is the restaurant owner having a monopoly, forcing me to pay him huge sums of money against my will and then deciding what I get to eat.
After all the world clearly revolves around you so why should you have to pay for more then purely what you want in the transaction.
No, because that was the entire point of your original post, that taxation is fees paid for services rendered
This is the same with the government taxing you. You agree with many of the things that the government spends your money on and can not get all these services without the government.
The reason i can't get many of these services without the government is precisely because of the government. It's like breaking my legs and being there with crutches and thinking that you're being helpful to me.
That's why you should look at the government expenditures on things you don't want the same as the restaurant owner spending money that he got from you on things that they want
Businesses offer services and you can can agree to pay for them or not pay at all if you don't want to, and if you do pay you get the previously agreed upon services (and if the services are no good you can even get a refund). If you want more services, you agree to pay more money and you will receive those services i.e. the amount you pay is dependent upon your consumption of services.
Government takes a huge chunk of your money whether you want them to or not and then decides what services you receive if any. The amount you pay (i.e. is taken from by) the government is in no way whatsoever associated with how many of these services you receive and they can give you different services than what they said they would and if they're bad services then you're still out of pocket. You can't choose not to pay and you can't choose to pay less by consuming less.
and before you use that bullshit line about how you have to pay the governments taxes but don't have to go to the restaurant remember I already pointed out a choice to you earlier. If you want to live in our civilization then pay the bill for it. If you don't want to pay the bill then go live in the wilderness.
You said that taxes are money for receiving services, now its the cost for some abstract and vague 'maintenance of 'civilization'. Have some fucking consistency.
AGAIN, taxes are in no way associated with your consumption of government services, and you can pay taxes without using government services and use government services without paying taxes, and paying more taxes has nothing to do with your consumption of government services
And see how idiotic your idea of "choice" is? Government monopolies society and destroys the non- state alternatives to many aspects of life that would otherwise exist, and then if you don't like it you can leave. And heck, if you do go and live in the wild, they'll follow you out there and fine you for breaking some idiotic regulations like erecting a structure without a permit even if you're in the middle of some vast tract of wilderness.
At 10/10/14 09:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Empirically hogwash. The existence of a form of government is a vital criteria for civilization.
So your ideology trumps empirical evidence?
Cool.
At 10/10/14 09:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You say Ebola is not our problem, but ISIS is? I'm not sure there's much to say with this sort of massive logical breakdown.
Claiming ISIS is our problem certainly makes a lot more sense than Ebola is (unless you're a pussy who thinks that measures to stop the spread of the disease to the west are 'racist').
