2,152 Forum Posts by "Iron-Hampster"
The moderates failed, the military stepped in and gave the same familiar image of facism, the radicals are taking control. world peace is unattainable as long as Ideology exists.
there are some double standards going on here. How come the same man who impeached Clinton for his sex scandal can now run for office after having MORE sex scandals than the man he impeached? He should have been forced to resign like Wiener but guess what, he didn't.
Imo, adultery shouldn't be grounds for resignation to begin with, if we get party animal dickheads in congress, who cares. Its the bribery, abuse of power and blackmail that should get you kicked out. aka, things that actually matter. Although if its a crime like rape or sexual harassment then that's different.
to my understanding, the founding fathers weren't so puritanical themselves.
i'll answer your riddle with another one, how will not bringing attention to the subject be better?
unemployment is still too fucking high. You know its bad when your employer can get away with paying you minimum wage when you are a tradesman.
but why fix it? this is GOOD for the rich isn't it? lets keep making it harder for smaller business to start and easier for big business to stay afloat and stagnate things some more. lets privatize our emergency services so our ambulance drivers can work for pennies as well!
its impossible to be a Zionist without being a Jew but it is possible to be a Jew with out being a Zionist, if that helps sort that statement out.
start with Marijuana, there is no way you will be able to sell legalization of all drugs to a decent amount of people at the moment. some would argue that it is a gate way drug, I say slippery slope fallacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vk K4
remember what this was about? we set a deadline, and we are now honoring that deadline.
oh wait, SHOE!
Except they knew what they wanted, equal rights. the OWS crowd doesn't have a clue on WHAT they want done.
oh look, this worn out argument again. I'll tell you its about ending corporate welfare and lobbying and no more sending our tax dollars to fix other peoples mistakes who are already rolling in money as it is, and the same argument will be made again, then the same answer will be given.
or alternatively you could try to justify the bailouts because heaven forbid they go bankrupt for losing all of OUR money. The only solution has GOT to be for us to give them MORE of OUR money so they can fix the problem they created and then give themselves massive bonuses with the left overs.
x is bad because the law says so. the law says so because x is bad. x is bad because the law says so. the law says so because x is bad. x is bad because the law says so. the law says so because x is bad.
i'm seeing it in this thread right now.
At 11/29/11 02:36 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: ZZzzzZZzzz
popOh sorry guys, I seemed to of drifted off from all this dry baseless circular reasoning and name calling.
Not fun reading the same bullshit that's gone on five pages now.
awyea, I have really lost interest in my own topic pretty fast.
dahhh, ill let one more crack in, we should send cops to enforce time outs for everyone every time someone somewhere does something bad.
At 11/28/11 08:34 AM, Korriken wrote:
I'm pretty sure its not legal to refuse to obey a police officer when you've formed a humam barricade and they order you to move.
if the police ordered you to jump off a bridge...
if she wins, it will have gone from the man being able to sell everything and keep all the money while leaving the woman with nothing but the children and leaving, to this. no happy grey zone is enough for people eh?
able to block sites without a court hearing or a trial... this isn't even a slippery slope fallacy anymore, its just fact that you are giving the government the power to do unconstitutional acts of censorship. Then again even if they did get a court hearing someone could always just bribe or black mail people to make the case go their way. (and get away with it)
But that would not change anything. People would still want it called marriage
fuckem. The law isn't supposed to be biased, especially with religious matters.
and others would still not want gays to have that right.
see above, with or without the second sentence.
While gays would still want to be able to get married and declare to the world that they are married to one another.
if marriage is left as nothing more than a simple party, what is stopping them from having one and getting a civil union? oh yea, the church, not the government. And everyone would hold the correct party accountable for once.
there was another person I remember who introduced absolute freedom of speech to his country with the catch that you had to get approval from the government to use it first. His name was Joseph Stalin.
At 11/22/11 11:47 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Only if you don't look at things like the two atomic bombs as a situation of "we sacrifice this many lives...so we don't sacrifice this many more on both sides" it's not fun math to do, but it's the math leaders are put in charge in part to deal with. Let's not be simplistic here please.
the Japanese were in no position to keep fighting us without their oil, there was no reason to believe that they would have kept sending ships and planes at us since they had no oil left. The atomic bombs were just there to end the war before the Russians could get too much influence over Asia. Too bad it didn't help much. We could have just surrounded them and waited for them to give up or have a revolt do so for them. (not unlikely as they built themselves up to be invincible in their propaganda. I doubt the Japs would simply forgive Tojo and Hero Hito their failure after all the oppression they went through for them.)
At 11/22/11 01:24 AM, HooglyBoogly wrote:
Sorry to butt into the conversation. These countries you speak of, though, how are they doing on an economic standpoint? (Switzerland is excluded from this list. They are in control of so much money due to banks, they can virtually provide the country with anything.)
France, for instance: Claimed to be on the best universal health care systems in the world. Albeit, I wouldn't say it's the most economically sound nation in all of Europe. The same applies for the infamous Greece, Portugal, Spain, and even Germany has gone slightly downhill due to the influx of certain immigrants.
Don't get me wrong, I think universal health care is a fantastic idea. My main qualm with it is that there needs to be strictly enforced limits on it.
there is a difference between government provided healthcare and being forced to buy insurance. It leads me to believe that the Republican party is the bank and oil company party and the Democrats are the bank and insurance company party.
We in Canada have long line ups but they are some what exaggerated, and could be solved (or at least, cut down to with in reason) if the government cleaned up some of it's waste in other areas, but our current prime minister pretty much promises to make those areas worse instead.
a mud bath is indeed good for the skin, unless you take it in Hungary.
haha old news
At 11/21/11 08:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Wall Street and BP are two recent examples of private corruption being hundreds of times more harmful than political corruption.
political corruption can lead to despotism. That has some pretty disastrous effects too.
bigger woman: more to love
bigger government: more to corrupt.
At 11/20/11 07:37 PM, akmeteor wrote:
Sure it's legal to protest, you do NOT have the Constitution to back you up when you are occupying public property. It's illegal.
might I ask where it is legal to protest then?
its funny because all the good bands are starting to WANT people to illegally distribute their songs because it makes them more famous making them more money when they do concerts.
its the people who auto tune in the studio, lip sync on stage, hire other people to write songs for them who are worried about this.
basic empathy dictates my morals, would there be any other people effected by my action? would they like it? would it harm them? do i hate them? etc.
taxes were meant to ensure that our society could function. zero tax means law enforcement would be 100% privatized and would there for be law unto itself. The military would be non existent in terms of national defense so any neighboring country would just be able to walk into your country and place their flag and rape everybody. No education would be available either so we would be set back about 500 years, maybe more.
As soon as it gets too high there is a good chance your country will be much less efficient and will start over spending in certain areas and that the government would be interfering with other people's personal lives too much, causing complicated problems that call for more solutions (and more taxes)
But I think one of the biggest reasons why everything is getting out of control is the baby boom and over population. Only so much of this planet to go around, and unfortunately this is also another complicated problem that can't be solved easily.
At 11/18/11 05:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me two things:
- Why I should care about the protection of clearly illegal speech
- How this changes anything since Grokster (545 U.S. 913)
my problem isn't with piracy, it is with censorship. they would be blocking sites they deem illegal. Australia did this and low and behold, wikileaks shows them blocking sites that aren't even doing anything illegal.
At 11/15/11 10:01 PM, Korriken wrote:
This movement is pro left, so the media isn't going to jump on it like they did with the tea party. it might be covered by the local media, but the national media isn't going to hammer away at it.
they already have jumped on it, by labeling it as pro left, alienating the cause from everyone else and attracting MORE pro left people. Media has subtle ways of getting rid of threats.
At 11/15/11 05:32 PM, Scarface wrote: A friend of mine suggested today in Debate that marriage no longer have any legal meaning whatsoever, simply religious, and that all couples, heterosexual and homosexual, would file for civil unions. That way, everyone would be equal.
Any objections to doing this?
I wouldn't object sir, not at all, I think I brought this up on the page before this and continued it on this page!
there should be a petition for this.
At 11/15/11 03:01 PM, Korriken wrote: that's another false assertion that the media makes "they're all psychotic white racist right wing nutjobs... despite the number of non conservatives in the group, as well as people of varied ethnic backgrounds, lifestyle and come from both sides of the political aisle.
but still, they're not Obama supporters so they MUST be racist, right?
hay, we agree on something! But with that in mind, does this not bring into question the credibility of the media and it's portrayal of everything anti government? Including this very movement?
At 11/12/11 08:17 PM, Korriken wrote: meh, I don't really believe in the sanctity of marriage anymore. people pretty much shit on that, set it on fire and fed it to the neighbors dog.
well even in the times where marriage was still young, marriages were prearranged between two people who didn't love each other for the best interests of the parents. Even in when it was a Christian ceremony it was about economic gain and class progression. There really never was any sanctity to it to begin with. In fact if Jesus were around he would have been flipping tables and telling everyone they should be ashamed of themselves.
No there was never really a golden age to this invented thing called "marriage".
