Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think I speak for everyone when I say this topic starter is a dumbshit and most likely that asshole on youtube that posts half assed opinions like wishing the USSR was still around.

At 10/13/07 11:00 PM, PieGraphGlock wrote: Capitalism created authoritarian governments such as Turkmenistan, Myanmar, former Iraq, former fascist Italy;

Socialism and marxism has created authoritarian and murderous governments such as the USSR, People's Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and many more.

not to mention the countries that have been impoverished under capitalism such as those in Africa,

Umm, many Africa countries are prospering because of capitalism. Look at South African countries and their economic status before Mandela came to power.

Asia (excluding China which is Communist),

This tells me you don't know jackshit about economics if you'd consider China's mixed economy as communist.

And South America.

Just about every country in South America. So let me run this by you. If capitalism is what's impoverishing South America, yet every country South America is socialist, then how can capitalism be in effect there?

Capitalism is more deadly than any Communist state I've ever seen.

It's hard to see the world when you're a delusional fuckwit, such as yourself, but let me just point out the death toll for the USSR alone (excluding all other socialist and marxist government thats kill off their people through starvation or mass executions) 109 million.

At least when a Communist state is impoverished, the poverty stays in that country.

Bullshit. Every Marxist country always tries to spread its ideology through military means and causes the subjugation of other countries. Perhaps you forget all the Soviet campaigns or the reason the Vietnam War started.

Capitalism creates a world market, which causes COUNTRIES to be impoverished in the name of INDIVIDUALS!!!

To quote Maddox, reading/watching this is like being bukkaked with stupid. Whenever a capitalist country engages in trade with a third world country, that third world country always gains because it now has a consumer and producer for its needs. Without these capitalism countries, the third world country would be in a perpetual state of shithole because it has no one to trade with. What capitalist industry offers is opportunity for that country to engage in commerce and better itself. Look at the founding of the US, in two hundred years we've ascended from a group of backwater colonies to the most prominent economic and military power in the world, all thanks to sagacious business dealing and proper utilization of resources by individuals.

Infact, watch this and it may enlighten you some from that mental illness known as marxism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsshqyAF h8

Capitalism is the greatest threat that most of mankind,

No, I'd say stupidity is the greatest threat to mankind, and if you cared anything for human evolution then you wouldn't have any kids.

if not the entire world, has ever faced. But our generation is the next in line, and we can do whatever we want to stop this travesty. Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

You won't believe how hard I'm laughing at you right now and perhaps anyone else that has the misfortune to read your idiotic post.

Does anyone here know anything about communism or socialism, or are you just basing your ignorant statements on the flaws of failed socialist states?

No, anyone who has any conception of ecomonics and the way the world works will come to the conclusion marxism and anarchy sucks balls. I'll wager the fourteen year old kid that goes "Socialism is da ghey" knows more of the subject than the most ardent supporter of the system.

Because the only reason socialism failed in the USSR is that Josef Stalin was a psychopath who was beaten by his father when he was young.

The only reason socialism failed in the USSR was because socialism is inferior to capitalism. Infact, I'd say Stalin did a favor for the USSR. If not for his ambitions, the USSR would been regarded as nothing more than a pissant country with no military or economic influence.

Trotsky would've been amazing. He believed in democracy, freedom, and communism. It's a shame how a brilliant mind can fall to a flawed mind. It reminds me of the USA 2004 elections.

Trotsky is an older version of George Bush. Don't you know what a neocon is?

Some of you are wondering why there's a smiley in the title of the thread. Well, recently there was a school shooting, apparently, this gothic, Marilyn Manson-idolizing little bitch decided it would be cool to go on a killing rampage and recreate the events of Columbine, but being a goth(and possibly a fan of My Chemical Romance) failed at this endeavor just like everything else in his life. The only person to actually die was the shooter himself.

For a more detailed view of the story look no further than here. Contributed by the fine folks at Encyclopedia Dramatica.

At 10/12/07 07:54 AM, JOSHQUATCH wrote: clinton, albeit a man who fucks fat chicks, at least had us rollin with a surplus.

Yeah, during one term, jackass. Incase you forget, the government nearly closed down in his previous one.

Despite their Ph.Ds, high IQs, and prestigious roles, the people whom decides the recipient of the Nobel Prize are damn fools.

They're both shitty economic models(though communism expands into the realm of government as well).

Nuff' said.

At 10/1/07 12:14 PM, Mr-Money wrote: I fully support Iran.

I fully support you shutting the fuck up, but that's just me.

Global warming induced by humanity's industries is a myth.

That is all.

Anyone ever notice how every socialist country seems to have subpar GDP per capita?

Actually, depleted uranium is harmless to the health of soldiers. It's when nuclear materials has been in degrading period for a few decades that it is hazardous to the health of human being.

See if you can recognize where I get the allegory from.

The year is 2010 with the Presidency of Barack Obama. Recently, a controversial matter has erupted among parents regarding teaching materials in highschool classrooms, more particularly what is being taught in civics class.

"This is an outrage!" Proclaims long-time Democratic supporter and concerned parent Natasha Lauwe(made up). "Why should my children be indoctrinated into a belief that teaches only self-interest and dehumanizes humanity by teaching they aren't capable of pure altruism!"

In hindsight, it would of been best for Barack Obama to ignore the demands of this crazy-ass base, but after falling behind Hillary in the polls he needed a boost from these individuals. Now that he's elected with a re-election in two years he couldn't betray his constituents. As a result, he canot help but kowtow at the demands of the Secular Belt, more particularly its buckle known as San Francisco.

"Why must my children be only taught the theory of capitalism! I propose we have an alternative economic model taught along side the theory of capitalism. One that we like to call fair economics. All the theory of capitalism teaches is corporate subservience and that the human greed is the most successful element of it! Imagine the influence such a fatalistic idea this will have on our kids"

"This idea of fair economy deeply concerns me and my colleague." Says prominent economist and chairman of the Enterprise Society, Alan Redspan "The supporters fair economy would have you believe it has credence, but in all actuallity it is merely veiled socialism. My fellows and I in the economy are in agreeance that this idea is merely pseudoeconomics.

Part 2 coming up, perhaps.

At 10/3/07 06:04 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Our leader has committed atrocities in Iraq, and therefore, we all suffer from criticism. I wonder when they'll figure out we didn't elect him

Sort of like Clinton with the Kosovo incident...?

At 10/1/07 06:03 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Here's an interesting paradox.

Bible: kill gay people

(later): thou shalt not murder

Fixed for accuracy, but hey if you want to get on someone for writing it why not the people who actually did - the jews?

At 9/30/07 10:29 AM, tony4moroney wrote: it's a duopoly. one party introduces policies that do not represent the people and the other remains apathetic to it . i wish there was a third-party that could actually influence change.

There are multiple parties to choose from. The problem is Americans ARE typically stupid(less so than some of our fellow democracies) and do not realize their political views cannot be adequately represented by either republicans or democrats. I myself am more concerned with the financial situation than I am any social one, yet neither party believes the economy is a top priority.

How ironically how people like to ignore General Patraeus(There's a Greco-Roman name for ya') report.

Bush's approval rating range from 30%-20% in each state, but Congress' national rating is 11%. I don't think their chances for the Presidency are that good.

I thought the point of a mod was to lock shit-topics, not start them?

At 9/24/07 04:31 PM, WillDouglas wrote: Unions are necessary,

Yeah, because I enjoy the prospect of paying more for products due to asshole union.

or else the bosses would do as they please.

Complete horseshiite.

Wasn't it for unions,

If it wasn't for unions thousands of people wouldn't be losing their jobs and overall stifling the economy.

the bosses would pay late,

No they wouldn't, considering this is illegal and would likely be fined to oblivion by a state or federal government. Quit embellishing shit, man.

withhold benefits as much as possible,

Umm, incase you didn't realize, benefits are just that, benefits. No employer is required to give benefits, but do so anyways because it is better for capitalism. If you want skilled laborers you give them benefits because their job is in high-demand. If you're unskilled you don't get jackshit. There's something fucked up about a part-time burger flipper dental coverage, but maybe I'm just old fashion like that.

and fire people whenever they felt like so.

They can do this now.

stupid brick

At 9/18/07 11:31 AM, tony4moroney wrote: i suppose that was a natural development,

Yeah, I suppose a generation that lived purely on the spur of the moment and wanted everything handed to them would have a profound effect on the next one.

what id like to know is how people living in their comfortable lives can think that theyd be so much better off if most of the govt. disappeared.

Because most people who do live comfortable lives got to that station without any government aid? But hey, if you're not confident you can stand on your own two feet I suppose you could try and piggy-back the government, just don't impose your inane ideas on us resulting in tax hikes.

At 9/17/07 08:58 PM, AapoJoki wrote: I don't feel like a slave if EU takes money from Microsoft >.>

The good blacks that got to live in the master's house didn't feel like slaves either.

In fact, I don't even care if the verdict was fair or not, in legal terms, I'm just always glad when a corporation suffers a huge loss.

You know what? I don't care whether a verdict is fair or not. As long as a minority hangs I'm happy.

Think that shit's bad? Read some of the stuff the Nation of Islam espouses. Well, the Nation of Islam isn't as bad as the KKK, per se, but the shit they teach is just plain laughable, especially their views on Yaccub.

Each one of these soldiers should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor.

What would I fall under if I'm socially libertarian. Needless to say, this thread is better for satire than either mine or HighlyIllogical's.

What I'd really like to know is how people started getting the idea that the government is entitled to make sure they live comfortable lives? History shows that the government only had two functions. Now people want it to handle everything from medical bills to the expense of sex change operations.

At 9/14/07 08:51 PM, tony4moroney wrote: wrong, the embargo means that both private citizens and corporations of the u.s are forbidden to trade with cuba. it was also a multibillion dollar imports-exports trade, with the u.s consuming something like 3/5 of cuban exports.

Despite the existence of the embargo, it is worth noting that not all commerce from the United States to Cuba is restricted, as the United States is the fourth largest exporter to Cuba (mainly aid).

shit get educated man.

I think you should follow your own suggestion with mine and shove it.

At 9/14/07 09:05 PM, tony4moroney wrote: They didn't use people and militia interchangeably,

That's what I've been saying.

they said that the people, specifically able-bodied men were automatically part of a militia.

No they weren't. If they were the case they would of drafted of every able-bodied man during the Revolution, but instead they had a volunteer army. It's quite clear the amendment means any militia or people(s) maintain the right to arm themselves accordingly.

Look at it from where the Founding Fathers came from, Great Britain didn't allow its citizens to arm themselves and they(Founding Fathers) say this as a form of oppression so they wanted to make sure that citizens would be able to rise against a tyrannical government, hell, Jefferson thought the only way to have a government that accurately reflects the will of the people was to have an armed revolution every twenty or so years.

At 9/14/07 09:11 PM, catman03 wrote: Yes and since that conscription is no lomger in place isn't it arguable that guns should not be permitted to citizens?

First, conscription can be brought back at any notice by Congress. So you're first point is already down thew drain. Second, I could turn around and say since we're in civil crisis our citizens shouldn't be permitted free speech or any other right guaranteed by the Constitution.

At 9/14/07 05:56 PM, tony4moroney wrote: uhh.. ok..

You do remember the misguided point you were trying to make before my first post, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia

funny that you say that because i thought it was a period that denoted an end in the sentence.

Yep

if you hadn't realized it was a comma suggesting, most likely, that the reason why the people have the right to keep and bear arms is for the necessity to maintain the security of a free state.

"the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, esp. when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list,to mark off thousands in numerals, to separate types or levels of information in bibliographic and other data, and, in Europe, as a decimal point. "

otherwise i'm sure a grammarian like you would realize, the first sentence would be left incomplete.

That generation was much more strict about their wording. I can confidently say that they would of worded it a whole more succinctly and not had such words as "people" interchangeable with "militia."

At 9/14/07 05:25 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Then explain to me why it's under the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Priveledges.

good thing, the gun should be considered a privilege

No, considering it is under the Bill of Rights and explicitly stated as so in the Consititution. Good thing our Founding Fathers knew they'd be individuals such as yourself and included the phrase "These rights shall no be infringed upon" in the clause.

considering you own it because of an oft misquoted 200 year old law.

Misquoted? I'm sure if you have problems with reading comprehension you'd say it's ambiguous or "misquoted," but it's actually quite straight forward and any who made it to highschool literature can easily understand the meaning of the amendment.

your right to a gun has not in anyway aided in upholding a free state

I guess wars have never happened. Every conflict since the invention of the flintlock was all fabricated and no one has ever had to take up a rifle and defend their God-given rights of liberty before.
Silly us

and you're also not pat of a well regulated militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

I guess you just skipped that part or never learned about the use of a comma.

At 9/13/07 09:14 PM, Empanado wrote:

At 9/13/07 08:50 PM, animehater wrote: You truly are a wannabe Communist. Flip flopping between people and all. Try to stick to one.

Wannabe? You haven't been around any real commies, have you? They tend to flip-flop more than John Kerry wearing rubber sandals.

Empanado is quite correct. Early teenage-angst can do that to a person's views, jumbled with lyrics of Rage Against the Machine's albums.

At 9/14/07 12:31 PM, jef01 wrote: first of all:
everyone that says "cuba fails => communism fails" is "stupid".

And people who say Cuba doesn't fail IS stupid.

cuba only fails because of the U.S.

No, Cuba fails because of its jackass leaders and unattainable economic goals that stifles innovation.

the U.S. is boycotting(not shure of spelling) cuba because they are commies.

The US isn't boycotting anything nor are the Cubans commies. We have an embargo which means OUR government will not conduct trade with them. Our private sector and citizens are free to do so, but no company wants any business with Cuba since it would be waste of time and money due to their economic model and government.

and yet cuba doesn't realy fail,they'r only poor.

No, they fail pretty hard. Before Castro came to power Cuba was an affluent nation, now it's a shithole with a shitty economy, zero prestige, and no political freedoms.

second:
communism is THE ultimate form of government/economy.

No, communism is The ultimate form of a drug-induced euphoria until the said druggie quickly wakes up from his delusion to the screams of his mother telling him to move out of her basement.

even capitalists dream of it (star trek and maybe the tau from DOW,not shure thoug)

You really don't know anything, do you? Yeah, my capitalist buddies and I really get a hardon by the thought of a controlled government and economy where we aren't permitted to invest as we please.
With that kind of academic reasoning you could very well become a University Professor of Economics or Political Scienece. I can see it now "Professor Dipshit."

Cuba doesn't fail because of the USA's embargo. Cuba fails because of its own idiotic government.