2,064 Forum Posts by "Politics"
At 3/18/06 08:38 PM, FatherJmBd wrote: LOLOL!
http://profile.myspa..mp;friendID=27647476
Day-am. Dat's gangsta, biotch.
Did I just break some kind of wigger law by properly and coherently punctuating my last sentence? Anyhow, I bet the owner of that account is actually a white male out for a joke. All the black people I know have too much self-respect to make asses of themselves and their race like that.
At 3/19/06 01:00 AM, red_skunk wrote:At 3/19/06 12:40 AM, Captn_r wrote: Anyhow, Groundbreaking reporting here. That outta shut yer pie hole.LOL. Read your link again. They get paid according to that blurb.
I know. I was saying that they aren't soliciting prostitution, and so porn isn't rightfully illegal.
Heh. I've never realized before just how hard it is to Google 'porn star' without getting masses of porn inbetween the helpful articles. It's frustrating when you DON'T want porn on the internet, as rare as the situation is.
Anyhow, Groundbreaking reporting here. That outta shut yer pie hole.
At 3/19/06 12:13 AM, -Michael- wrote: I got a crazy idea for a topic.
Let's do this in General btw.
We make a topic on how some radical Democrats are submitting bills for after birth abortions. For example, renegade Democrats want to legalize abortions seven months after birth. It would get the pro-lifers foamy at the mouth. I would think the retarded ones. That's the people I'm targeting. Is it just too much? Please keep in mind, all of this is bogus.
Oh god. Even I'd get foaming at the mouth, and I'm pro-choice (within heavy restrictions).
Could be too much. Or people wouldn't say anything at all, because they wouldn't even know what abortion is. Remember, it would be the General forum.
At 3/18/06 11:58 PM, red_skunk wrote: Yes, Nevada, outside of city limits, in certain places. Still. Producing porn is just filming prostitution. Same thing essentially. It doesn't make sense.
Do you need a permit to make porn? Where would you get one?
Illegalizing it though. That's a good one talcon. Funneh.
I vaguely remember discussing this with LadyGrace, and she said that most porn stars don't get paid for it. I don't have the experience to confirm this, as much as I'd like too...but it's not such a crazy idea; to think they're just doing it for the exercise.
At 3/5/06 01:18 AM, W31RD0 wrote:At 3/2/06 11:46 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Get a sense of humor.It wasn’t as if she was joking, she really thinks that we should invade Canada and that have no rights to maintain a sovereign nation.
Oh man. I feel so uncomfortable when I'm on her site, but I broke into a laughing fit when I read the 'My life' section,' Near the bottom. It read:
REPORTERS WHO ARE ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW ANN AGAIN:
John Cloud, Time Magazine Ms Right
Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian An Appalling Magic
Jamie Glasov of Frontpage Magazine Frontpage Interview: Ann Coulter
Is she for real?! I mean, she sounds like one of those exaggerated characters you'd see on South Park. Good for a laugh, mostly.
At 3/18/06 06:41 PM, red_skunk wrote: I burned my Rice a Roni. Note to self: don't buy stuff that ought to be cooked in a mic when you don't have a mic.
So what'd ya do gunter?
Yes, now is when you return with a similarly interesting anecdote from your life, Gunter. Be specific, naughty details make for an interesting story.
At 3/17/06 05:57 PM, TrendWhore wrote: He never said so. I think you should be able to get 15 years in prison for knowingly distributing child pornography.
At very least. I'm not going to cry out for the death penalty like some people in this thread, but imprisonment is to remove and hopefully rehabilitate people like that. There's no way that incarcerating him for a few years is going to get that done. He clearly needs a longer sentence.
At 3/18/06 02:36 AM, JoS wrote: Not fight as in fist fights or bar brawls, and not Iraq in specific, but why we figth wars, military campaigns etc.
I'll have to watch that movie. What's it called, again?
Anyways, my pre-movie verdict is conflict, caused by various things. Natural resources being a distinct possiblity as one of those reasons.
Waidda argue a point about nothing.
Did you liberal friend throw a PSP up against a wall then start spouting on about the DS?
I'm never going to let you live that thread down, y'know. It sparked so much stupidity...
Well, I daresay that his death was hardcore. How fitting.
Well, I have a similar card to that (Sapphire X800GTO), which is basically the same core and speeds, and though I havn't played any of the games you've described, I can play UT2004 without and trouble. It appears as though it's a driver problem. What OS do you run?
Catalyst 6.3 seems to be the latest driver, so updates isn't an issue. You could try reinstalling some drivers, or maybe it's a bug.
The best advice I can give you is to reinstall your catalyst driver, and if that doesn't work, try installing an older version.
You should note that I'm 99% sure that you can fix it that way, but unless something goes horribly wrong in installing, I can't imagine how reinstalling could hurt.
At 3/18/06 01:07 AM, BonusStage wrote:At 3/18/06 01:04 AM, Captn_r wrote: Dude, you're the biggest spammer EVER. You've even won awards, and rightfully so. How is your time valuable?Just ask the masses of peopel that have my back and you'll know :\
Alts*
Also; urmom cuz u 4got mehLike i'd have even noticed you in the first place.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT OUR PASSIONATE NIGHT ON THE BEACH?! AM I JUST YOUR WHORE?!
Apparently so.
At 3/18/06 01:01 AM, BonusStage wrote:At 3/18/06 12:59 AM, -Flynt- wrote: You forgot me :(I did it for people that are, you know, worth my time.
Dude, you're the biggest spammer EVER. You've even won awards, and rightfully so. How is your time valuable?
Also; urmom cuz u 4got meh
I'd always thought he was Ethiopian. BOY, WAS I WAY OFF.
Bah. I feel as though I'm angering the spirit of St. Paddy by not drinking tonight, even though I'm under-age. Sobriety is a big ol' thumbs down.
At 3/17/06 08:34 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote: The first reason is that there are a lot of chilren at home that need adopting...
You're putting the value of an American child above that of a Chinese or Philippino child, and by doing so, arguing to establish precedent for putting the lives of some ahead of others. That is; not to say a country shouldn't defend its own, it just leaves some rather nasty loopholes. I could make some 'inhuman' arguments here, but that's been done.
The second reason is that it will help to improve the US econonmy...
By not bringing a new, potentially tax-paying citizen into the country? By not bringing a customer, and a worker into the country? Obviously the parents are going to spend money on the kid, no-matter where they are from, but if the kid is foreign, the parents are bringing a new piece of the future workforce into the country. Economically, it's better to adopt from elsewhere.
Thirdly, adopted children from other countries might below our acceptable standarts...
The final reason is to help protect us from terrorist...
Har har har.
No.
Maybe I can finally get my legions of WoW zealot friends to come to NG with this. Super.
Jesus fucking Christ, mackid.
"Guns iz bad"
That quiz is biased crap. If there is a god, you'll get shot because of this topic.
"I found a new reason for you to play my game, gogogogogo!"
lolk
At 3/15/06 11:21 PM, red_skunk wrote: PLEEAAAAAAASE.
WHOA. Fuck yes. I just noticed that. Nice.
Heh, this topic is starting to swing towards intelligent debate. Yay.
At 3/15/06 10:44 PM, Zenobia wrote: All I did was read the article and think, "hmm, too much syrup....what to do..." and I thought about using it for some kind of energy. Jesus Christ, you people read into things too much! It's a syrup surplus and I was trying to be creative. Damn it. Sell it to Trojan Inc. to use a lubricant for all I care. You try to be orignal......
Heh. It was a good, creative suggestion, and I'm grateful that you brought it to this topic. But you can't expect people on a political forum not to critisize.
You infer a good point though; it should be used in other things.
At 3/15/06 10:23 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 3/15/06 10:22 PM, Captn_r wrote: After the syrup, we'll take your women, and exile you to the frozen tundra of Iqaluit. There is no stopping the Canadian syrup machine from the world.Screw that, Vermont makes better stuff.
Yeah, I said it!
OH NO YOU DI-INT
Determining the quality is subjective, like the article said; syrup is like wine.
At 3/15/06 10:06 PM, -Michael- wrote: I just wish all the syrup would burst from their above ground storage tanks and flood the streets of Canada and cause them all to drown from syrup poisoning.
Beer too. It would be the best, most rawkin' tragedy ever.
At 3/15/06 10:11 PM, -poxpower- wrote: Eat more pancakes you assholes >: (
And stop buying that corn syrup based knockoff shit.
Ten-four. On it.
At 3/15/06 10:16 PM, red_skunk wrote: I think the US should start heavily subsidizing maple syrup producers in upstate NY and Vermont to combat this northern scourge.
After the syrup, we'll take your women, and exile you to the frozen tundra of Iqaluit. There is no stopping the Canadian syrup machine from the world.
At 3/15/06 09:53 PM, strongpoint4u wrote: first of all....what the heck is this thread here for. second, Canada's gonna rule the world anyway. syrup won't change anything
I originally intended it to have some sort of discussion with a basis on economics, centering around various markets, but very few people have taken on this opportunity to make such a discussion.
And Canada isn't going to rule anything. We may have massive relations with the United States, which results in scrutiny of the rest of the international community, but it isn't going to result in some sort of nationalistic WWIII begun by Canada.
Right now, maple syrup is huge to the Canadian market.
The best thing you can do is NOT define yourself by preconceived values of a party, place, or ideology in general. While you're developing your opinions, do the best research into the subject you can, and approach the subject from a neutral standpoint. Don't be swayed by pretty words, and always scrutinize someone's statements in your mind. Don't be afraid to admit being wrong if you believe you are. And always put facts before rhetoric. Don't develop generalized opinions about an ideology, and use your brain. It's very important to use your mind all the time. Don't assume.
Doubtlessly, you'll fail to follow a few of these rules, as have all of us. Even I don't do half of that, and it's when I fail to use these rules that I lose at arguments or make an ass of myself.
I highly doubt that maple syrup has the necessary amount of hydrocarbons to be a viable fuel source. As much as I love to dream...
At 3/15/06 03:25 PM, SIMPLYB wrote: You know what you are racist against Democrats...
MoralLibertarian: I'm beginning to see why you dislike so many liberals. I shuddered when I first read this.
At 3/15/06 07:35 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Unions are damn near useless in today's day and age. They do half the work for double the money. And if they strike you can't fire them, even if their demands are insane.
You act as though conditions couldn't revert back to the way they were 200 years ago without continual support from the basic economic determiners. I don't agree with having unions for everyone, but a few around to set precedents doesn't hurt badly enough to threaten to put workers into a wage slave situations by making them unlawful.
No, that helps no one. 95% of Economists agree.-An increase in minimum wage
Stop quoting that damn statistic, it proves nothing because popularity (and statistics) prove nothing. Minimum wage hurting the economy remains theoretical, as does a coorelation between job loss and minimum wage. If you want to provide an actual argument, I defy you to present evidence of some sort. Not hearsay and speculation. If you can crack this one; an argument made by economists for hundreds of years, then I'll respect you all the greater.
And the money comes from.....?
Iunno. I remember reading a post by ML stating that funds should come from cutting public transit and some other places, I can't remember them all, and I've tried to look for the post, but havn't found it, but my point is; I'm sure they can scrounge some up without causing more damage than good.
Privitization of social security makes it vulnerable to shifts in the nation's economic system. Make it optional, not required.
Agreed. I'd just like to go on the record now and state that parts of your posts that I agree with will be/are edited out. That's my usual proceedure, but I just wanted to let you to know to avoid the whole "you avoided my topic" thing.
...Even I giggled when I first heard this, but it's absolutly serious.
It's an urgent matter. Quebec's maple syrup producers, which alone account for 80 per cent of the world's supply worth about $150-million in farm receipts annually, are sitting on gigantic surpluses. Thousands of barrels of syrup are fermenting in warehouses. The farmers' union, with $25-million in provincial aid, has actually started paying some people to stop producing the stuff. Others aren't so lucky. The union imposed a form of supply management four years ago, forcing even those who depend on maple syrup for their livelihood to cut their production by 25 per cent and sell their bulk output through a provincial marketing board.
As any economist will point out, an administrative rather than a market solution to the supply-demand equation is no solution at all. The result is a Soviet-style, seriously sick syrup market. Prices have been kept artificially high, though no one -- except the bureaucrats -- seems to benefit from this. Certainly not consumers, who usually pay between $6 and $9 for a half-litre container. Full-time syrup producers aren't any better off. They get no more than they did a decade ago for the best grades of syrup -- $5.18 a kilogram sold to the marketing board minus fees -- even though fuel costs (syrup is produced by boiling the water out of tree sap) have skyrocketed. Quebec taxpayers have not benefited from supply management, either. They've plowed more than $60-million into the industry in the past five years.
This is no pretty postcard of cabanes à sucre in the snow. Open warfare has erupted between hundreds of producers and the bureaucrats who run the marketing board, la Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec. The latter, whose name stems from the Latin root for maple (acer), is a unit of Quebec's powerful farmers' union, l'Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA). Bitterness has given way to violence at times. Police have been called in to oversee regulatory hearings. Producers even went as far as the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 to challenge the UPA's monopoly on syrup marketing. They lost.
The UPA loves supply management. And why shouldn't it? The quota system has given its members a lock on more than 40 per cent of Canada's milk production. It's managed to centralize marketing for just about every agricultural commodity produced in Quebec, from pigs to poultry. That makes the people who run the UPA, especially president Laurent Pellerin, important power brokers courted by political parties of all stripes.
The problem is, maple syrup has a lot more in common with wine than milk. Farmer John may insist Bessie gives a better product than Sadie, but in reality, there's no difference. As any connoisseur or big name chef will tell you, however, the quality, taste and texture of maple syrup varies considerably from one producer, or one year, to another. Like wine. Sugar maples yield a much sweeter syrup than black maples. And boiling the sap is an art form; l'acériculture is a true profession in Quebec.
Supply management stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. Syrup producers have no incentive to create a distinctive product, since they have no control over who buys it or the price they get for it. And when the UPA sells the syrup to a bottler, restaurant or food processor, it doesn't distinguish except by grade -- light, amber or dark. The UPA pays the most for light syrup, so that's what everybody produces. The result is a severe shortage of dark syrup, which is preferred by food processors as a flavouring.
The UPA will tell you supply management has been a success. Surplus syrup stocks declined by 13.5 per cent last year as a result of the quota system and increased export sales to Japan. But that is really a drop in the bucket. The United States still accounts for almost 80 per cent of exports -- absorbing about two-thirds of Canada's total production. Americans may know what maple syrup is, but they consume even less of it than Canadians. To add insult to injury, most of them think it comes from Vermont (a tiny producer compared with Quebec) and not Canada.
The production of maple syrup is big industry in Canada, and Canadian syrup accounts for the vast majority of the worlds total production. It deals with some of the same problems as any economic entity, such as government involvement, supply and demand, and international trade. Discuss.
At 3/15/06 06:37 PM, The_Last_Cynic wrote: I realized that earlier on, but unfortunately, there's no time machine for me to go back in and hit myself for making myself look stupid, now is there?
If only there were...
