1,352 Forum Posts by "Commander-K25"
At 5/27/03 06:48 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: And if you think the pictures I have of you are bad, you should see the tapes Bumcheek has on me!
Actually, no you shouldn't!
Don't reveal the pictures, Ted! That's our bargaining chip.
Ninja, I refuse to read or respond to your "novel" because it is pointless to argue with people that love the sight of their own text. You down't even listen to or respond to anyone else, you just go off on tangents for pages and pages and think that it makes you superior.
At 5/27/03 11:01 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:
Commander, I'm confused. Which way do you go politically? All of these different posts with different viewpoints are confusing the liberal hell out of me.
I believe what I believe. I would describe myself as conservative morally and socially. I prefer small, limited government like the libertarians, but not quite so tiny as what they advocate. I support a strict interpretation of the law and governmental powers that shall not extend beyond what is explicitly granted to them in the constitution. These are basic and I'm not sure where they fit in, really, amongst all the different parties and sides of the scale. The political compass test places me almost exactly center, only a bit to the right-authoritarion quadrant but not enough to even move the dot from the center point.
Party-wise, I believe the Republicans are a bit soft on limiting government and a little too authoritarian. I'm much closer to the Libertarians, but they'll never get elected any time soon and like I stated earlier, I'm not quite as extreme on cutting down government as them.
I hope this answers your question.
At 5/27/03 01:21 AM, jimsween wrote:
Well wait a sec, Your very conservative commander, I would have thought you were anti-birth control.
Another stereotype-based assumption. Birth control is fine, just know that it isn't perfect and use at your own risk.
At 5/26/03 11:56 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Um, this theory isn't about "accommodation," or "giving up," it's about "competition" and "reduction."
I know the meanings of these words and you don't have to assume everyone is an idiot or that they don't want to read your long-winded ramblings because it's "over their head". Your arguments could be easily condensed. I don't think you're an arrogant person, but you're coming off as one and it annoys me.
You still don't get my drift. These laws are not accommodating porn makers, but pedophiles. Rather than stamp it out, a halfway is reached which involves accommodating the other side.
Take my condom metaphor, for example. By providing them to teens, we are accommodating a practice rather than opposing it. By allowing virtual child porn, we are accommodating pedophiles' needs rather than opposing them. By giving condoms to kids, we are condoning and legitimizing underage sex. By providing legal child porn to pedophiles, we are condoning and legitimizing child abuse. Can you not see the parallels? Do I have to make them clearer? Can we move past discussing a single metaphor? Stay tuned for more tomorrow.
At 5/26/03 11:46 PM, TheShrike wrote: Awww... too much work for ya, Commander? Seriously, I'd go through the list myself, but it's Dubya-bashing, and not really in my interests to debunk. Give it a try. It's not so hard. It might take more than 2 minutes, but hey, at least we'll see your point, right?
There's no point in trying to convince stubborn people of facts they'll never accept. I have better ways to waste my time.
At 5/26/03 11:11 PM, karasz wrote:
SO if u jerkoff u are a murderer...
No, it is not a seperate organism until it joins with the egg thus creating an independent organism with a genetic code different than yours. A sperm is just one of your cells until that and killing it would be no more murderous than brushing off dead skin.
At 5/27/03 12:30 AM, OSC wrote: Last couple attempts? I only remember one attempt made. When did the second one occur?
Both JFK and Reagan cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Democrats desperately want to downplay JFK's own beliefs now because they overlap with Bush's on this issue.
For future pictures, use this gif of the PC logo since it has a transparent background:
At 5/26/03 07:12 PM, Jiperly wrote:At 5/26/03 04:12 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Jiperly, this is a very nice piece of propaganda. It is absolutely one-sided and completely slanted. Good job!thank you, but i repeat: i did not write this
No, you just posted it.
and how about proving them all wrong? rather than just sitting there on your pestital and saying that its all one-sided- tell me HOW its one-sided(which it most definately is)
You post such a long list, you know nobody will do an exact rebuttal of each and every one. I read them and made a general observation on them. Read my comment on the economy for a rebuttal of many of them.
You even agree that they're one-sided so get off YOUR pedestal of self-righteous anger at me.
One should also remember that the downturn of the economy started in 2000, the last year of the Clinton presidency. Bush inherited this economic downturn like Nixon inherited Vietnam. Also like Nixon was blamed for Vietnam, Bush is being blamed for this recession.
At 5/26/03 06:46 PM, Slizor wrote:You mean give up 'ideology' in order to give some people free healthcare? Then the answer is no.What if, say if it would stop things such as SARS from ever occuring, or the Plague. Would you consider that a good result? I mean this would seem to have a net benefit if we disregard your erroneus "slippery slope" argument.
Erroneous? So you claim, but that is your opinion and mine is my own. I consider you erroneous.
As for scientific research, this is best done by private organizations rather than the government. The government, of course, tends toward stagnation rather than development because it is the path of least resistance and when you're the government and run everything, there is no benefit for being on the cutting edge. With capitalistic private enterprises, however, there is. The company that develops a cure for SARS or any other problem will have a step up in the market and thus make more money. This is called an incentive, something that doesn't work with big government.
At 5/26/03 05:30 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: like the fact that the government provides us with basic health care for free.
Exactly. Many people would like the welfare nanny state. Why? Because it's easy. Hate making decisions? Just let the government do it for you? Can't take care of your own life? Just let the government manage your future.
At 5/26/03 04:49 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
That's not an equal metaphor. A better metaphor would be if the government found a way to make a special drug that got you high but didn't hurt you, anyone else, or support organized crime. That's like fake porn versus real porn.
My statement on drugs was COMPLETELY unrelated to this topic. You can type another novel of a post if it will make you feel better.
Also, the "condoms in school" metaphor doesn't work either. A closer metaphor would be providing "fake sex," to these kids, not something that would allow them to have REAL sex easier. lol. :P
The metaphor was about laws intended to accomodate vs. laws intended to restrict.
Jiperly, this is a very nice piece of propaganda. It is absolutely one-sided and completely slanted. Good job!
Not you, obviously. Well, unless you're a horse. (someone riding you?)
I mean Andrea, Rydia, Nirv or House.
At 5/26/03 10:19 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: If we allow them to look at fake kiddie porn, and declare a one-month amnesty....
That's all well and good, but developing pedophiles are still supplied with child porn.
If you could buy Weed from legalised stores, would you buy it from them or off a dodgy bloke in a pub?
So the government should cave because the fight against drugs is a hard one?
At 5/26/03 10:59 AM, Slizor wrote: Commander, would you be willing to break with ideology for pragmatic reasons?
You mean give up 'ideology' in order to give some people free healthcare? Then the answer is no. The net result does more harm than good. By starting to nationalize things like that you start down the path to a socialist society where people are dependent of the government for their most basic needs.
Poor people should be helped, but not through government intervention and control. People helping people within the framework of the community is what I believe in.
BUsh is t3h gaYz0r!!!!!!!!!!1!!!1~
House, Andrea, Nirvana and Rydia, that's four, but I couldn't find a pic with four riders. So, just assume that you're in it.
At 5/26/03 04:38 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: I also agree with your second comment, Commander. Conservative isn't always synonymous with republican, just as liberal isn't synonymous with democrat, or libertarian, or green party, or whatever. It's all so, so diverse, it's not really fair to make blanket generalizations.
True. I actually believe in many libertarian ideals and principles. Of course, they're not really on the left, they're hanging somewhere off the scale.
At 5/24/03 11:33 AM, Lyddiechu wrote: anyone who knows anything about politics (or art for that matter) would know that mao is nothing but a pop culture icon. like mcdonalds or something. except mcmao.
A pop icon with a bodycount of millions attributable directly to him. Chiang Kai-Shek should have crushed Mao's little group when Mao was still trapped in Southern China.
At 5/26/03 04:19 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: Another mistake would be to think that Conservative = Republican. It doesn't.
A pre-emptive clarification, I mean that it doesn't ALWAYS.
At 5/26/03 03:59 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: As oppossed to the current conservative administration in America, which is taking away your rights and moving you closer and closer to fascism .........
Even if this is true, you're associating the actions of a few with the beliefs of the many.
Another mistake would be to think that conservative = Republican. It doesn't.
At 5/26/03 04:09 AM, dokeun wrote: By the way, most of the $6,464,000,000,000 debt is owed to foriegn countries!
And many foreign countries owe us....big. Like France for instance. We rebuilt a lot of Western Europe after WWII and forgave a lot of the debt. Now they all hate us. Hypocracy? You decide.
At 5/26/03 04:04 AM, jimsween wrote: Hehe... The topic says bone deep...
Cover your ears and divert your eyes, lest you be corrupted, young 'un.
House, your argument is the same as my objections to legal abortion and condoms in schools. You can make an argument for it and it will have marginal benefits, but it will open the floodgates by condoning these types of behaviors and actions whether it be teenage promiscuity, abortion or pedophilia. Those on the left say that outright banning of things is just an ignorant, knee-jerk conservative reaction, but we understand that it is the only way to truly put a stop to something. Half-measures and allowances soon give way to full-measures and bigger allowances and soon the floodgates are wide open to anything. Only strict, harsh, unyielding laws that are enforced vigorously shall deter pedophiles.
If you allow them to look at kiddie porn, even fake, you're telling them aloud, "We're telling you that you can do this but just don't abuse children", but the hidden message that it whispers in their ears is, "but it's really okay to do it anyway."
At 5/26/03 01:57 AM, TheShrike wrote: Uh-oh, Spagetti Code!
a = 1;
b = a+a;
c = b+a;
d = c+c;
e = b+c;
f = e*e;
g = (a+f-d)*d+a;
h = b*e;
i = b*b;
j = f*c;
k = (f*(c+i))+(f-e);
trace(((Math.sqrt(g)-a)*h)+((f*e)+j)*i+e+(k/c)+(c*h));
Don't give away the PC Messages code!
Oh, never mind, it's nowhere near as simple as that.
At 5/25/03 08:47 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: yeah yeah republicans shut the FUCK up i dont want to hear you bitching about how you dont want your hard earned money going to pay for healthcare for some bum. yeah well what happened to your love thy neighbor be charitable christian bullshit???
We want to choose to give our money to help people, not have it stolen out of our pockets by the government. I'll decide what to spend what I have earned on rather than some bureacrats in Washington determine what is "best" for me to do.
Yes, I do believe in charity, but not organized robbery as practiced by the government. It is not the goverment's job to "take care of people", especially not by stealing from some to give to others, (while diverting and pocketing some along the way).
