Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/23/08 02:56 PM, punk546 wrote: the religious over exaggerate other religions and the non-religious. It really depends. If you are an atheist that always talks shit about other religions.... then most likely bush would be right.

Id like to think id still be a citizen!!!

BUT considering most atheists know that there are more important things in life than an imaginary friend.... they keep away from arguing a futile battle. Its like arguing politics. You are not going to change how they feel and likewise on your behalf.

Id have to disagree. The masses are made of individuals. BUT, I'd have to say you shouldn't get too invested in it.

Its funny too, the same people who judge atheists... are from the christian faith. Bible clearly states to not judge another. Basically. the religious are often retarded. but few are the nicest people you will ever meet in your life. my advice, dont worry about it. Your not going to change how they feel about you.

Cheers for the comment man, but why the hell shouldnt I worry about it? Yeah I have religious friends, but if your going to tell me not to worry about discrimination, why not tell everyone the same?

Just provoking debate. Love and peace.

At 11/23/08 02:56 PM, Orange-Jews wrote: stop wanting to feel like a hated minority.

Everyone is fucking atheist these days.

WRONG!

3% Of America is Atheist.
44% of UK is Atheist.

At 11/23/08 02:48 PM, Elder500 wrote: This belongs in politics, and there is an official thread about Atheism vs. Religion.

I know realise it belongs in politics. Im a noob. And its supposed to be about tolerance not competition.

At 11/17/08 04:14 PM, Minarchist wrote:

At 11/16/08 04:03 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote: Doesn't it seem to you like maybe the system of the deregulated market and the system of violent oppression go hand in hand?

Of course not. That's government corruption, which has more to do with the scope of government. A government committed to free market principles WILL scale back in scope, whereas a government committed to regulation necessarily does not decrease in scope.

Sorry, I hate being a patronising bastard but a Marxist government shouldn't turn corrupt either but your not calling for communism. And secondly you need violent oppression to stop riots.

On the contrary, Marx's philosophy is based on force, as assets must be transferred to public ownership rather than private. So what happens if an individual does not choose to give up his assets? Force is necessary to seize it.

Yes, ideally every one would happily accept the staggering inflation rates, and mass unemployment, but people RIOT! People STRIKE!

They should as I do. Central banks are NOT free market institutions.

Your talking about the long term benefits. In the short term people WILL starve. Its undeniable man, how it ends is debatable.

It's well known that central banks (which are necessarily granted their tyranny over monetary policy by governments) are responsible for inflation.

Correct. But they cannot be the lone culprits right? Otherwise according to this statement inflation could be solved by strict regulation of the central bank. Great. Thanks.

What is debatable is the long term, but in my opinion we would not survive to see the long term.

Market forces will always tend to equilibrium. Government intervention is an attempt to force the market to some person or small group of people's ideal rather than the consumer at large. Eventually market forces will win (usually resulting in things like recessions or the destruction of certain industries that had been propped up by government) and equilibrium is reached. The long term question is whether governments just repeat the cycle.

Yeah. In other words your debating the long term. Et la court terme? Again, sorry for the patronisation and my bad french. Please no ad homs.

Chilean miracle? Inflation soared to 375%! Unemployment reached 20%! The economy contracted 15%!

You're referring specifically to the recession period. As a big government/central bank enthusiast, you should recognize that this was the result of the end of a long business cycle created by the central bank. So in other words, you're blaming free market reforms for a problem created by the largest regulatory body in an economy (the central bank, in case you haven't been paying attention).

Again your blaming your problems on one and only one economic factor. If it was ONLY the central bank why was inflation so much higher under Friedman than Allende?

If nationalization was responsible for the unprecedented expansion of the Chilean economy then why was it unprecedented?

I would say off the top of my head the economic backing it recieved from the first world and that it wasn't that great outside the recession period anyway: 40 % of the population under the poverty line etc. Vast rich poor divide.

And even if free markets deliver better living standards than Stalin, I doubt that to be something to aspire to.

Free markets deliver more than better living standards. A free market requires individual FREEDOM.

And survival requires FOOD. Which isn't so easy to get when inflation and unemployment are soaring and the government aren't going to help you out.

No one starves outside of the third world unless by choice. And that's not because of government. It's because of private individuals giving charitably and voluntarily to the causes they believe in. On the other hand, the third world DOES starve because of the failure of their governments (which are propped up by first world nations). Nationalization of agriculture and food industry necessarily leads to shortages and makes the people very vulnerable to abuse by the government.

Wrong man. First off, what makes you think Chile Indonesia Argentina etc. didn't have people living in third world standards. Whilst that statement is generally correct you apply it in an exception of the rule. Secondly: A little bit of irony, no real depth in this point, but you say people starve in third world countries backed by the IMF, a free market organisation. Don't take this point seriously, just something to bring a smile to peoples faces. Thirdly: I'm not a socialist, I understand a PPR situation can have beneficial effects.

Love and peace, sorry for the late reply. I recently lost a family member and have taken a bit of a break from the pc.

OK, this is not supposed to digress to a massive atheism vs religion thread, just something about the apparently HATED minority guys like me make up.

60% of Americans would vote for an atheist even if they were completely qualified.
31% of Americans think there's not enough religion in politics.
26% of Americans think an Atheist cannot be morale.

George Bush said atheists could not be morale or be citizens.
Ben Stine said atheism leads to killing people.

I just want it to be said that this shit shouldnt be tolerated.

At 11/17/08 12:47 PM, Khlepenaft wrote: How old are you? Most if this would not work. Four hour school day? That would make America a complete dumb ass.

I agree in part. It all depended on how you managed the hours and the homework.

:Drinking age down to 16? Your liver is not developed by then.
Not true. It all depends on the individual. I would say you should be able to get a drinking license from a gp. I know guys my age who have drank seventeen year olds under the table. As in actually seen them. As in my friend out drinking my brother. No shit.

I would say that your a nine year old fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Why bring in ad homs man? Just why?

Yeah no offence but he does sound pretty shite.

I would offer to play bass, but im only 14, plus youve probably had like a billion offers. Maybe I should read the whole thread.

If no one else can replacehim, just kick him whenever he hits a bum note. It works. Trust.

At 11/16/08 08:25 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: You're obviously new here.

If you want a remotely serious response about remotely serious issue (ie. not Guitar hero, favourite band etc.), then you come to poli.

Thanks for the info! I must have set a record for words/ info given away. Or you're sharp like a ninja.

Ninjaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Does anyone else find it funny that the guy claiming love doesnt exist has his aura set to evil?

At 11/16/08 04:27 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I drop kindness the first time my opponent lies.

Oh come now. If I can be civil to Minarchist after he called Russia under Yeltsin "a highly regulated market" cant you do the same? Please? For the sake of the thread?

I guess I may as well nominate myself, seeing as it might get the relenetless zero bombers off my back. Yeah, Im egotistically and patheticallly nominating myself.

Thank you for you're time.
Love and peace.

This is more of a "general" thread.

At 11/16/08 04:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Smile and Nog, i highly recommend that you drop the insults and stick to the substantials, unless you are intending for this debate to go nowhere and the admin to lock the thread due to trolling. :D

Would it be alright if i just insulted people's mothers?

At 11/16/08 06:27 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 11/15/08 06:38 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote: Like I said: I am not entirely Keynesian. And BTW I'm in favour of GOOD regulation, so don't quote SOX at me.

Lol, atleast your not like theat smileagent who thinks SOX was a good thing.

I dont know, it's an on going debate and i don't know too much about it.

People who favor free markets will show how even limited free market reforms transformed countries into higher standards of living and greater freedom. Is there any doubt that freer markets have always led to more favorable conditions than communism?

Lets have a look at the favourable conditions of Pinochet, Yeltsin, and Menem. Each had to enforce deregulation with innocent blood and first world backing. There really is no difference between the petty communist dictatorship and the southern cone experimental free market. Both killed, tortured and disappeared. Both saw bodies clogging up rivers, both saw the murder previous governments, both saw an economy twisted and screaming in pain starving thousands to death.

What does this have to do with economic reform? These human rights abuses just held back the free market. You can't have a true free market without full freedom: economic, social and political, limited only by the non-aggression principle.

Doesn't it seem to you like maybe the system of the deregulated market and the system of violent oppression go hand in hand? Marxism too is ideologically peaceful and happy with violence being the complete antithesis of Marx's utopia. Yes, ideally every one would happily accept the staggering inflation rates, and mass unemployment, but people RIOT! People STRIKE! And don't deny the inflation or the unemployment, because its well known to be true. What is debatable is the long term, but in my opinion we would not survive to see the long term.

And as for free markets delivering better standards of living then non free markets, lets look at pre pinochet Chile. Even a socialist Latin American country with Nixon torturing the economy did better than an American backed expertly executed free market dictatorship.

Don't deny the "Chilean Miracle." GDP per capita soared to twice the average for South America under the limited free market reforms.

Chilean miracle? Inflation soared to 375%! Unemployment reached 20%! The economy contracted 15%! The Chilean economy only started to steadily re-grow in 1982 when they were forced to re nationalise many industries IN CONTRADICTION to Friedman! This was because the regulation free Piranhas had completely pissed all over the system, and ran up a $14 BILLION debt! The one thing that kept Chile afloat was the copper mine nationalized under Allende which generated 85% percent of the export revenue! When will people accept the Chilean miracle as a myth?

And even if free markets deliver better living standards than Stalin, I doubt that to be something to aspire to.

Free markets deliver more than better living standards. A free market requires individual FREEDOM.

And survival requires FOOD. Which isn't so easy to get when inflation and unemployment are soaring and the government aren't going to help you out.

At 11/15/08 09:00 PM, Minarchist wrote:

At 11/15/08 06:01 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

The truth is, the world hasn't really seen a laissez-faire economy in modern history.

Maybe not, but the closest we've had has scared the crap out of us. Naomi Klein got it right when she likened Free marketers to marxists. Both have their utopia. Yet when they are presented with examples of it put into action they will say it was not operated correctly. Whilst communists will say Vietnam, Russia, and Bosnia do not serve as accurate examples of communism, free marketers will say the same of Chile, Poland, and Indonesia.

People who favor free markets will show how even limited free market reforms transformed countries into higher standards of living and greater freedom. Is there any doubt that freer markets have always led to more favorable conditions than communism?

"Friedman got the nobel prize. Chile got Pinochet."

Lets have a look at the favourable conditions of Pinochet, Yeltsin, and Menem. Each had to enforce deregulation with innocent blood and first world backing. There really is no difference between the petty communist dictatorship and the southern cone experimental free market. Both killed, tortured and disappeared. Both saw bodies clogging up rivers, both saw the murder previous governments, both saw an economy twisted and screaming in pain starving thousands to death.

And as for free markets delivering better standards of living then non free markets, lets look at pre pinochet Chile. Even a socialist Latin American country with Nixon torturing the economy did better than an American backed expertly executed free market dictatorship.

And even if free markets deliver better living standards than Stalin, I doubt that to be something to aspire to.

Poopie pants.

At 11/15/08 02:30 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 11/13/08 05:35 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote: Countries processed through deregulation:
1) Chile under Pinochet (saw the destruction of an economy)
2) Russia under Yeltsin (ditto)
3) Poland under IMF ruled deregulation via Solidarity (What do you know? This is uncanny!)
4) Indonesia under Sukarno (I see a pattern emerging!)
5) Argentina under Menem (Another Southern Cone, but oh well.)
6) Britain under Thatcher (It counts, we still hate the bi**h)

Most of those problems have a mixture of new regulation with deregulation, or lack of an educated workforce. Oh, you missed one. India after 1991. That's worth like two points for my cause. But please, try and find one example in the US, and prove that regulation would have done a better job in the long run.

"But in the long run we are all dead". Keynes.

Ok, to be honest, Im not sure if you're saying that is wasn't free markets that harmed these countries or if you're saying that they don't serve as an accurate representation of America, because hell they don't serve as an accurate representation of Russia, but by that logic I could theoretically say that Marxism is ideologically superb, and that Russia doesn't serve as an accurate representation of Britain. But if you are saying it wasn't free markets that caused these problems, lets take note that they all nose dived right after the introduction of free markets, which by the way had to be bloodily enforced (except Thatcher who merely clamped down on those pesky strikers via riot cops), just like the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia.

And I did forget a one other free market fiasco: the credit crunch. And in a completely deregulated economy there would be no bail out and no intervention. And sorry: Pinochet only counts as one, Singh only counts one.

Deregulation: 6
Regulation: 7

Keynesian economics isn't in favor of government regulation, it just favors large government investment, but low government taxing and non investment expenditures to maximize long term growth during normal times.

And I base my argument for regulation on what happens during crises which is Keyensian. Whether or not Im entirely Keynesian is a different matter, but its the best phrase i have. If there's a better one please say.

Besides, regulating markets in how the government seems fit is flawed as the government does not know what is best.

Who does?

Keynesian economics states that if a problem arises, then the government should come in, but the government's hand in normal times should be limited. Where does the heavy regulaiton the SOX, which caused many public companies to go dark due to billions in compliance costs come to play in the Keynesian school of thought?

Like I said: I am not entirely Keynesian. And BTW I'm in favour of GOOD regulation, so don't quote SOX at me.

At 11/15/08 03:56 PM, Minarchist wrote:

At 11/15/08 12:11 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

At 11/13/08 06:05 PM, Minarchist wrote: You've just described 6 instances of heavily regulated markets. Congratulations.

Ok, now you really are just trolling. Pinochets top economic adviser was Friedman! Poland and Russia had Sachs. Indonesia Argentina and Britain were all prescribed shock therapy of complete deregulation.

Friedman was a decent guy, but the policy he advocated was still far short of a free market. In a free market there would not be any central banks since the fractional reserve system would not be sustainable.

You want no central bank? Thats understandable. Panama does serve as a good example of how having no central bank serves benefits. However, let us not forget they run on the US dollar, made and sold by the Fed reserve.

The truth is, the world hasn't really seen a laissez-faire economy in modern history.

Maybe not, but the closest we've had has scared the crap out of us. Naomi Klein got it right when she likened Free marketers to marxists. Both have their utopia. Yet when they are presented with examples of it put into action they will say it was not operated correctly. Whilst communists will say Vietnam, Russia, and Bosnia do not serve as accurate examples of communism, free marketers will say the same of Chile, Poland, and Indonesia.

At 11/13/08 06:05 PM, Minarchist wrote:

At 11/13/08 05:35 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

Regulation: 0
Deregulation: 5

Now it's a game!

Countries processed through deregulation:
1) Chile under Pinochet (saw the destruction of an economy)
2) Russia under Yeltsin (ditto)
3) Poland under IMF ruled deregulation via Solidarity (What do you know? This is uncanny!)
4) Indonesia under Sukarno (I see a pattern emerging!)
5) Argentina under Menem (Another Southern Cone, but oh well.)
6) Britain under Thatcher (It counts, we still hate the bi**h)

You've just described 6 instances of heavily regulated markets. Congratulations.

Ok, now you really are just trolling. Pinochets top economic adviser was Friedman! Poland and Russia had Sachs. Indonesia Argentina and Britain were all prescribed shock therapy of complete deregulation.

No, you lose Friedmanite. Its a proud day for Keynesists everywhere.

It's hilarious to see people still attached to Keynes. He was debunked by Friedrich von Hayek many, many years ago, and every reformulation of those same faulty ideas hitherto has been struck down by the Austrian school.

Yet he worked wonders with the marshall plan, the Keynesian new deal ditto, and the Keynesian current bank rescue plan in modern Britain is working, despite George Osbourne's protests. Flash Gordon anyone?

Regulation: 0
Deregulation: 5

Now it's a game!

Countries processed through deregulation:
1) Chile under Pinochet (saw the destruction of an economy)
2) Russia under Yeltsin (ditto)
3) Poland under IMF ruled deregulation via Solidarity (What do you know? This is uncanny!)
4) Indonesia under Sukarno (I see a pattern emerging!)
5) Argentina under Menem (Another Southern Cone, but oh well.)
6) Britain under Thatcher (It counts, we still hate the bi**h)

Deregulation: 5

Regulation: 6

You lose, commie.

No, you lose Friedmanite. Its a proud day for Keynesists everywhere.

I think that if we could figure dark matter and maybe even wormholes out we'd have toppings to put on our pancakes that we never dreamed of.

And sauces that would satisfy His Great Noodliness. Ramen.

this is on par with the whole propaganda they were pushing in "expelled".

Totally man. Did you hear the interview where stine said science led you to killing people? I just watched the interview for a laugh at his stupidity, but you know stine: Come for the total lack of scientific knowledge; stay for the war mongering hypocritical hate speech.

The black thing isn't necessarily their only motivation. The youth just need to get its priorities straightened out.

Ok, fair enough. Let me play antagonist as a fourteen year old democrat, just showing the other other side here. Because you're so VERY right about the instantaganism (new word) of the mod culture, but some of us have good reason.

Ok, you talk about the economy: Mc. Cain ALWAYS pushed for less and simpler regulation, as a senator (a very good sentator in my opinion who got the Bolivia thing right), and looking at the slowdown the international commune is facing, even if you employed every inhabitant of NYC as regulators, on an average regulators wage for a year you would have EASILY saved money from the necessary measures we are living through, whilst Obama seems to be very strongly Keynesian, and in my opinion definitely the one suitable for a time of recession (Keynes is kinda my economic idol for the work on the Marshall plan).

To back my motives for not liking Bush up (and by that the motives of I'd say 90% of my friends and probably a great deal of us infamous non conformist brit youth!) I would say that Bush was right to go into Iraq, his mistake was not being in at the time of the mass Baathist murders (and the terrible human rights records of iraq, but hey, at least he isn't Anne Coulter), but that his economic plan followed after possibly the two most flawed genii in the modern history of economists (Friedman and Sachs), and that his privatisation (but mostly Cheneys) of the national sector really could make Thatcher wince. And yes, his stance on Euthanasia, gay marriage etc, I strongly disagree with.

So thats why I support Obama.

PS: Hannah Montanna and the Jonas Brothers really do suck. They need some guts, something that pushes the musical standard higher, or at least pushes the bondaries wider.

At 10/27/08 06:01 PM, CBP wrote: I agree with all of these links, if you deny evolution you are denying a proven fact. It's like saying the sky is not blue, that's just a theory. Seriously, why can't evolution just have been God's way of creating the Earth?

Or, to go further, just the way the variety of life followed post whatever you believe made the world happened.

Anyone who uses the phrase "believe in science" is quite clearly a moron.
Anyone who opposes 'belief in science" with "belief in religion" in the same sentence is a triple-fudge sunday of moron.
Congrats.

I love being able to peg people so incredibly accurately after just a few words : D

We all lap it up!

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

Not true, evolution doesn't explain life's origins only it's variety.

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

Well, see above. Plus aetheist and creationists both have the same amount of evidence about the prime mover.

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

As an aetheist, I hate to say it, but never. The big bang theory merely explains how matter turned into a diferent form of matter. It does not explain the matter itself.

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

What do you say about Hovind?

A good question may be:

In terms of the prime mover, how do the scientific theories and religious theories weigh up, ie: intelligent and unintelligent forms of energy.

At 3/14/08 12:16 AM, DariusR wrote: A recession won't happen, the US has too much economic capital and trade.

What's going on now? Foolish republicans (brittish tories and american republicans), Friedmanism never works! Up Keynes!

At 10/31/08 11:28 AM, CALBOB66 wrote: you have a really good topic and some nazi like mod comes along and says some smarmy comment and thn shuts down the topic

im not saying this to all mods

cough<GODWINSONS LAW>cough