lol at stupid kids having incredulity about big bang theory when they explain it as "nothing becoming something' and describing it as an "explosion".

At 11/27/09 03:24 AM, Grimm51 wrote: I'm troubled by the shocking amount of parasitic people today. Its no longer the land of the free, home of the brave. Its just a pit of snakes. Todays motto is prosperity through self-interest, and everyone one else be damned.

Being ABLE to become prosperous is what makes America home of the free.

And as for the brave, do you have any idea of the amount of risk involved with being an entrepreneur, a start up business owner or a venture capitalist?
Do you have any idea how important these people are to society?

People prey on the less fortunate, the sympathetic, the honest people. The only thing that this mind-set is going to bring is more greed, more anger, and more hatred. Violence begets violence, and greed is no different. Life is so fucked up now.

Blah blah blah show me some examples

The rich have destroyed everything in life, all for another buck.

Oh my god, shut your god damned much you moronic bleeding heart.

The rich are the productive people in society.

Without the rich, there would be far fewer jobs than there is today,

How rich do you have to be to realize that you don't need anymore damn money?

The rich having and making mroe money is a GOOD thing. More money ---> more Jobs

Some rich guy invests in a new business, business grows and oh hey look they need employees now.

So some rich CEO is rich enough to build a dozen mansions, but guess what, he has to construction workers and tradesmen to build them for him.

Every day I live, I see these atrocities happen, and nothing is done about them. I am constantly reminded that kindness brings you exploitation and that you must compete with your fellow man to survive

Can't you see this is a good thing? Competition is what drives innovation.

"Man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress."

And what, you don't think people should have to work hard to get somewhere in life? Do you want the government to provide everything to you on a platter?

Society gets NOWHERE with that kind of thinking.

in this land of overabundance and excess.

Being the most prosperous society in history is a GOOD thing.

Life is next to meaningless now.

How about you mind your own goddamned business, eh?

If people want to "waste" their lives seeking profit, then by all means let them, and pursue your own non-materialistic desires.

Everyday, when you first wake up until you go to sleep again, you are constantly bombarded with advertisements, (Buy my shit! Its better than THEIR shit! And cheaper too!) I hate it.

Oh boo fucking hoo.

If there were no advertisements, tehre would be practically no tv, radio or internet.

You think Tom Fulp maintains newgrounds for the sake of his its users? Of course not, he does it to attract advertisers and hence make profit.

This is a GOOD THING though because he is constantly driven to improve newgrounds and satisfy its users in order to keep our traffic. this results in a beautiful, mutual benefit.

And you know what sucks? You have to have money.

No you don't. go live in the wild.

See how fun life is without "The greedy evil capitalists wahh"

So, you get a shitty job, say, working at a factory making I pods. Every two weeks, you get your measly check, and hopefully have enough for rent, food, and gas to get back to work for the next two weeks.

if you're making iPods, you're an unskilled labourer and hence your skills are not valuable. there are plenty of people who are willing and able to do your job for the same wage, so there is no reason your employer should pay you any more.

And its your own fault for having a crappy job. Maybe you should have worked harder at school like the productive people did.

They say that college is the only way to make more money. Get an education. You pay $40,000 to have some bitter old man shovel his hatred at society down your throat,

Well you've obviously chosen some pretty shitty arts subjects if you have this kind of stuff happen. take business and science subjects that are both useful and far less opinion-influenced.

just so you can maybe be able to live decently. To be a fucking consumer.

No you fool, to be a PRODUCER.

We are being reminded that human nature does not evolve with the advancements of civilization. This is oppression, and it is propaganda. We are being brainwashed

Oh shit up already ffs

No one says that human nature is to reason and to spread knowledge. They all say it is in our nature to oppress and eliminate those who bring harm to the self.

So its wrong to get rid of those who harm you ???

I say it's the parasites of our society that need to be exploited and purged.

Parasites are the ones who never try hard in life and expect to get somewhere from the hard work of otehrs. Sounds like you actually.

Those with good intentions have the ultimate power when they gain the will to rise against. What this world needs is more leadership by example, a ripple effect of clarity and perspective.

ahaha, exactly, good INTENTIONS.

that's what by a liberl is all about, isn't it. Being good intentioned, ddoing what sounds good.
Except that you have a complete and utter disregard for teh practical consequences of your ideas.

Almost all who submit to these ideologies of dog eat dog, oppress and prosper are in fact being exploited themselves.

Dog eat dog is a beautiful thing because it drives innovation.

If the government controlled all production, what motivation have they do do things better and mroe efficiently? None, and as a result society suffers.

What do you all think?

That you're a complete and utter ignorant moronic fool who will get nowhere in life and will blame those who tried and worked hard for this.

we should abolish state-recognised marriages completely :O :O

At 11/26/09 01:46 AM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: What do you Believe?

LESS GOVERNMENT for the love of god (lol)

Do you think we should have a limited government, as so people can have more individual freedom, or more government, so there can be more protection for peoples freedom.

Massive fallacy.

You suggest that a larger government leads to a greater protection of rights:

2. Obviously the larger the government gets, the more they try and control as much of people's lives as they can, hence larger government leads to less freedom

2. If we had a small government system such as minarchy, instead of focusing on unneccesary crap they could actually dedicate more of their resources to protecting rights, leading to greater protection of freedom

At 11/26/09 07:08 AM, morefngdbs wrote: You want to back that up SadisticMonkey ? lol.

Mainly: look at the motives of the various nations involved in WW2

Your politicians at the time decided to put on a show for the world... "we are mighty" they should have labeled it.

I'm actually Australian but okay

Maybe you & others wouldn't call such shortsightedness 'evil' , but IMO it sure as hell wasn't an intelligent decission !

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Frasier
Seinfeld
Boston Legal

omg lol FOX is liek SO STOOPID lol

i mean come only fox have dumb opinion shows none of the other channels have opinion shows !!

and also the rest of the media are liek soooo unbiased and Fox is extremely biased amiriite, i mean who cares about pesky evidenceand stuff

At 11/25/09 10:08 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I became a mod to ban people and take away their privileges.

see dude i told you, you HATE FREEDOM

At 11/25/09 03:04 PM, Memorize wrote: My point was: Why stop there?

Don't see how that was achieved by "OMG LOOK u guys stalin was a ATHEIST lol"

Affirmative action,

I'm against Affirmative Action

paternity leave,

Employers should be ABLE to, but not FORCED to.

handicap accessories...

what do you mean

The reason why I bring up religion is because he said it in his very own post: He doesn't believe in freedom of religion.

Still, how does "Kind of ironic considering the biggest mass murderers of the last century were atheists.

But it's nice to know you consider yourself as wonderful a person as Mao." achieve this point?

could you just specifically explain the point of this quote in this context?

If that's not what he meant, then he shouldn't have stated that.

yeah it was a poor post; he believes in freedom of religion, but not that one shouldn't be able to be discriminated against by it.

I agree, but also believe it shouldn't just be religion, but whatever the hell the employer wants to discriminate against.

At 11/25/09 04:05 PM, DizzeeRascal wrote: Again, ''war crimes'' when it's against you, ''neccessary evils'' when it's against them. God bless America.

Except that the US, although flawed, are not evil scumbags like the Japanese were.

At 11/25/09 06:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I did it to piss off conservatives. Its worked wonders. ^_^

Pros: Conservatives pissed off

Cons: Country being ruined

At 11/24/09 04:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 11/24/09 07:50 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: That said, I'm against freedom of religion, because I think the only rights religious people should have is the same that the rest of us...

Kind of ironic considering the biggest mass murderers of the last century were atheists.

But it's nice to know you consider yourself as wonderful a person as Mao.

What in the fuck did that have to do with his post?

He says the religious should not be granted any special rights, you reply by mentioning atheist dictators.

makes no fucking sense

-because he had, to the average leftist, very inspiring (albeit empty) campaign rhetoric

-because he is attractive, articulate and intelligent

-because the idea of voting in the first black president gives the average liberal a massive hard on

-because Sarah Palin was a terrible choice for running mate and reminded people far too much of Bush

-because people are fools

I know this was accidental and all, but doing this would actually be a good thing.

ANY DAY now, he'll bring our boys home as promised, just you wait and see...

"you can't arrest me, you don't have any proof!"

"We don't need proof we're THE POLICE omg lol"

And not to mention, you can actually trust the accuracy and legitimacy of the instruction manual with a video game.

Although it's a claim heard very frequently, a British court has recently made it official.

Employees who raise concerns about their company's environmental practices won the right to legal redress yesterday after a judge ruled that green beliefs deserved the same protection in the workplace as religious convictions.

In a landmark ruling which legal experts said could open the floodgates to thousands of claims Mr Justice Burton ruled that environmental views should be protected under the employment equality laws.

The appeal judge's decision means that workers who are victimised for their strong environmental views such as how a company should deal with cutting carbon emissions, managing waste or using aviation to travel to meetings, can bring compensation claims against employers.

Okay well obviously not literally, but you get the gist.

Can someone explain to me how this is not a ridiculously stupid decision?

cuz he was AN IDIOT LOLLLZ

At 11/23/09 06:09 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: Ah, but in the justification of the timme, the slaves weren't people, so they didn't deserve equal rights.

Well that's obviously false reasoning then

There is a truism that goes "There is no such thing as a honest millionaire". Do tell, if you know someone who got capital R Rich by their own hard, honest work alone, without: a) inheritance b) luck c) exploitation of other's weakness.

There are fucking thousands of people who fit this criteria, ie. Entrepreneurs, people who start their own
businesses, people who work hard and get into business and climb their way to the top. People which society rely upon.
And I mean, of course luck's always involved, but unless we're talking lottery luck won't make you a millionaire.
And funny point there; the working class will decry millionaires as greedy and evil and as people who "don't deserve their money", and yet when one of them wins the lottery, a completely unfair and undeserved way of acquiring wealth, this is celebrated.

Besides, I'm not actuaklly for a completely state-run planned economy; I'm not a Soviet Communist, I want a more just system that doesn't benefit the greedy and ruthless.

Greedy and ruthless ----> Innovative and intelligent
Do you have any idea the amount of risk involved with being an Entrepreneur or a venture capitalist? Do you have any idea how important the people who take these risks are?

Capitalism rewards those who are the least ethical; if you stop to think whether or not it's right to, say use child labor, the person who has no moral dilemma over that takes that niche, and lowers their production costs and gets past you in the competition.

Pu-lease. What a joke. Seriously, over 99% of beating competition is not done through child labour or other "unethical means".
And besides, can you name a system that works better.
I mean, it's not as if there's been any exploitation or use of "unethical means" by communists now, has there? >_>

At 11/23/09 05:30 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: Right to own slaves used to be a right as well.

what a stupid fucking thing to say that is

Things that should be a right: Things that don't impinge upon the safety or freedoms of another person.

Slavery: violates freedom of other people ---> should not be a right

keeping own money: no violation of other people's rights ---> should be a right

taxing higher-earners more than everyone else: Unequal treatment ---> unequal rights ---> Violation of freedom

At 11/18/09 08:15 AM, domdom2323 wrote: Gaddafi said that women in the West "have often been used as pieces of furniture, changed whenever it pleases men. And this is an injustice."
At 11/23/09 01:02 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: He's right about west women tho

Please.

At 11/22/09 11:45 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:
hahahaha you think having money gives you freedom

No you fucking dolt, I think having RIGHTS gives you freedom, and keeping the money you have earned is a RIGHT.

At 11/22/09 11:12 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: With extreme loopholes & so much paperwork that there are too many expenses. The new tax code would be pay this % of your income where the percentage is directly related to the amount of money you make in relation to the cost of living. You divide one number by another and then multiply that by your gross and that's what you owe. End of story.

Okay, cool, but you're still not addressing why people who earn more should be forced to pay a greater percentage of their taxes.

Investing is fine, but you'll have to actually go into the business to do it & make a profit.

"The idea of making money because you have money and not an actual product is a defunct one."
Investing is exactly this, making money with money. But you act like it's a bad thing, when in reality is an essential thing.

Interest for credit and loans is what would be abolished. And the Arabs did it successfully a long time ago.

Seriously?
Without interest on loans and credit, no one would give people loans and credit.
Don't have $300,000 in the bank? oh bad luck you're going to have to live with your parents the rest of your life.
And don't give me crap about it would stop people from getting into credit card debt, because that's their own fucking fault for being so stupid to have a credit card in the first place.

Unfortunately for you, unlike communism, every country that's done it proves you're wrong. So kindly fuck off.

All of these countries:
-Are smaller than the United States
-have smaller populations of illegal immigrants than United States
-Have lower quality of health care than United States
-have populations where the majority actually want Universal health care introduced, unlike America

One size does not fit all.

And fuck off yourself you dolt.

No, not at all. I firmly believe productivity would go up as would employment & general health and happiness of the population.

It's not the government's job yo ensure the happiness of the people.
It's their job to protect their rights and security, so they should protect people's rights to work themselves into unhappiness.

They'll be happier doing it.

Not healthier though, which was your whole point. Unhealthier if anything, coz, liek u kno alcohol's bad for you.

And you'd be surprised what people would do with more time in the day.

I would spend it doing work at home.

It would certainly leave more time for pursuit of your real interests and I'm sure we'd see more inventions and small businesses within a span of 5 years than we would have otherwise.

I'm sure a majority of Americans would rather spend their time working than not working, especially if they're paid by the hour.

Because aesthetics & entertainment keep a population happy and a happy population is more productive.

Like I said, it's not the government's job to make people happy.

And publicly funded art tends to be shit, just let it be done privately, because like most everything else it gets done better.

I don't want to monitor it. I want people to teach who want to teach and I want people to be able to learn what they want to learn. And I want people to be given the opportunity to work in the real work environment so that they know what they like ahead of time.

Okay that sounds brilliant and all, but there is no way at all that this could be effectively implemented on a large scale at all.

Competition. Such an evil thing.

Competition is a brilliant thing. Holding back companies that are better than their competitors for the sake of artificial competition is a terrible thing.

Seriously dude, embrace freedom.

Totally embracing freedom means embracing someone else's free choice to suppress you. The total pursuit of greed is a cancer which continually & cyclically corrupts this nation.

Sorry, explain how embracing freedom means "embracing someone else's free choice to suppress you". Makes no sense.
And although greed can be a bad thing sometimes, it's greed that made America the most prosperous society in the history of the world.

At 11/22/09 03:13 AM, Stoicish wrote:

At 11/21/09 01:52 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: so darned refreshing to hear someone else say this

Granted I like the idea of Libertarianism and how it says that it's none of the state's business on how a person lives their life.

I talk to plenty of libertarians online every day. However, I was saying that it was refreshing because I am one of the few atheists I know who isn't a left wing statist. Smilez is perhaps the only other libertarian atheist I have met on here.

And I mean proper libertarian, not "Oh well yeah i'm libertarian because I believe all drugs should be legal and gay marriage as well. Oh but btw the government should tax the hell out of everyone and give them no economic liberty ok lol"

Good for the consumer on a small level. Bad idea on large scale. No regulations means bigger businesses will take advantage of customers and workers. It's been proven too many times in the past and it's not because there ARE regulations in place, but because they are greedy.

What needs to happen is that government regulation has to stop being about laws and start being about information.

prime example is the FDA. the FDA should make it aware to the public about say, the contents of a new drug for example, but they shouldn't (be able to) ban the drug from being sold if they don't like it.

Also, lower taxes are sweet, but infrastructure has actually been pretty good. We have subways, highways and various other essential ways that get American's across the country.

Please, if the government practised true fiscal conservatism, even with tax cuts there would be ample money for any necessary infrastructure projects.

Again, problems. If you go after the cheapest bidder you may not always get great quality work.

yeah but government have no obligation to quality though

Also, one company policies and regulations on construction is different from another and is not always consistent. If you have government workers they have a set way of doing things and run by a set mandate.

Well the government would contract a company to do it for them, but it wouldn't be as if teh company has total control of the project. The government would still be running the show.

And I mean, it can't be good for your business if your company builds a government bridge and it collapses, could it.

I could go on, but what I'm trying to say is that I hope you yourself aren't blindly following something just because it sounds great on paper.

Hey, I'm pragmatic as anyone. I don't just support libertarianism because of it's obvious moral superiority over every other system, I support it because it more often than not provides the best practical result.
It's not as if I'm an anarchist or anything.

I hate to go this route, but that's how Communism started.

It's not really the same scenario.

Communism has failed because:

-Economically, it fails on paper. Say what you like about human nature ruining things, but communism is an inherently poor way to run large scale economies.

-it provides government with too much power, and throughout history whenever government has too much power, things turn to shit.
And I mean, only a fool would think government power is good in theory.

And may I add that regulating the hell out of the market like you inevitably would actually leads to less competition and hence companies with huge market shares.

Just look at healthcare. Statists like you will be quick to blame profits for the high costs, but idiotic democrat supported regulation, the main example being laws preventing sale of healthcare across state borders, destroy any hope of companies competing for market share and as a result allow the big players, some of which hold 80% of the market in certain states, can charge as much as they want.

99 times out a hundred, regulation causes more damage than the thing it is trying to fix in the first place.

At 11/22/09 01:15 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: B) Abolish the current tax code and replace it with an increasing percentage based tax on earnings.

Um, America already HAS a progressive tax code.

fact: Top 1% of taxpayers pay taxes than the bottom 90% combined.

And don't gtive me crap like "THEY EARN MORE THOUGH LOL" because you, much less the government, are in no position to decide that earning a lot of money is 'unfair'.

D) Abolish interest as a practice. The idea of making money because you have money and not an actual product is a defunct one.

So you want to abolish investing? As in the thing that our economy relies upon?

F) Access to Universal Healthcare & Education.

Countless reasons why Universal health care is a bad idea but that's a whole other thread's worth of discussion.

G) Shortening of the work day to 6 hours to encourage exercise, mobility & a better moral.

Wait, so force people to work less? meaning less productivity, less money made, hence less money with which you can fund your nanny state with.

And people aren't going to exercise more, they'll probably just end up drinking more if anything.

H) Net neutrality & support of the arts.

Why should people be forced to fund the arts? It makes no sense whatsoever.

J) Remove standardized tests from curriculum and encourage more trade based & hands on learning.

Good luck monitoring large-scale academic achievement.

K) Place strict limits on market share maximums. IE, no company can have a market share of greater than 33% and any that does has to split up.

Fuck that, you just end up hurting the market rather than helping it.
And like 'spliting it up' will solve anything

Seriously dude, embrace freedom.

At 11/21/09 10:44 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I don't need global warming to tell me carbon emmissions are fucking bad.

yeah okay cool, but carbon emissions without the effect of global warming does not at all justify Obama's "Cap and Trade" nonsense.

At 11/22/09 12:56 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Economic freedom of the individual is just as stupid.

yeah, l agree, i mean people shouldn't have the right to keep their own money and to not be controlled by the government amirite

At 11/22/09 12:23 AM, CloudEater wrote: If there was no government then people would not be able to exist in large numbers.

i never said mentioned getting rid of government entirely.

If the government didn't care about what chemicals people consumed then there'd probably be alot less people alive,

If people are consensually consuming substances which they know are dangerous, then it should be their right to die.
I mean, sure, let's definitely not purposely kill them, but I'm sure society would be better off without the druggies anyway.

maybe if they leaglised it heaps of people would overdose and die which would scare others and then they would be to scared to try drugs. Your thoughts about this??

Nah, I'm pretty sure that if you're going to do drugs, you'll do drugs, regardless of their legality.

And as for scaring people, I'm pretty sure everyone knows the consequences of drug use already.