Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

seriously guys!
I have a problem and I don't know what to do so I came to newgrounds because all you young lads are so intelligent and witty.

Around the head of my cock there are a bunch of red sores that have a bit of white in the middle. My cock kind of itches, and burns when I jack off or pee. Is this herpes or anything like that? I'm afraid of going to the doctors because I'm too embarrassed to have a man look at my penis. Also, I'm a virgin so I don't think it's an STD.

opinions pls!

Mason, I'm going to do something different here. Instead of straight out countering your argument, I'm going to point out some weak points in your original post that need expansion/modification/clarification/cit ation/etc:

At 2/28/09 03:00 AM, TheMason wrote: Did you know that in 1939 unemployment was still at 20% or more?

True, but is the unemployment rate the only signifier of a healthy economy? Have you done research into the US's GDP or Private investment statistics from 1933 to 1939? Focusing on only one factor (unemployment) gives your argument a weak foundation.

Furthermore, in testimony the Commerce Secretary (the guy whose job it was to guide New Deal economics) said that every dollar spent on public works jobs took dollars out of private sector jobs. He wondered if perhaps this was doing nothing but prolonging the Depression.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). Just because the Commerce Secretary says it doesn't mean it's true. There's nothing wrong with letting us know that the Commerce Secretary was the one who made the argument, but you must the also explain to us the arguments that he made so we can decide for ourselves if we agree with them. Providing a citation would be nice as well.

Did you know that in 1932 FDR BLASTED the former President's (who happened to be Republican) handling of the economic crisis was leading the US towards socialism and was wrong for this country?

Did he? That's is some new and surprising information and I think it's a very good point. Please provide a citation for this.

However, once in office FDR copied and accelerated the policies of the President he so maligned and blamed in the election?

Did he copy and accelerate the policies of Hoover? I think you're exaggerating. While Hoover did intervene somewhat in the government (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act), he never actually performed any large scale government intervention. That is to say, he never allowed the government to provide jobs for the unemployed, which was the basis of Roosevelt's new deal.

2002: The much maligned and vilified Bush pushes through an economic stimulus plan. 2008: The much maligned and vilified Bush spends the last of his political capital to get TRILLIONS of dollars based upon the unarguable economic logic that the treasury department needed a "large number". 2009: The much glorified Obama puts his celebrity and high approval ratings beyond a stimulus plan on the principle that we need to do something now, we need to do a lot.

Fair enough.

Did you know that only about 30% of the newest stimulus law will go into effect in 2009/10 when economists say the money would actually be, oh, helpful.

Once again this an appeal to authority fallacy. We cannot argue with these economists. We can only argue with you. It is your duty to provide us with an argument that supports the idea that the stimulus money will only be helpful in 09/10. Most of us want to hear arguments and not blindly accept the authority of said 'economists'.

The stimulus package ties the hands of state and local officials on how to spend the money. Instead of letting officials who actually live in and around the public works projects that need money and know what schools and roads need to be serviceable...Washington is dictating new programs.

Perhaps an article with further reading on this? I would like to see details on exactly how Washington is restricting State governments.

What happens when the federal funds dry up?

It's my understanding that these are not federal funds, but rather 'borrowed' money collected by selling Treasury Bonds.

See the thing about establishing programs rather than bid out contracts for construction that once done will pass into extinction...is you can't pull the plug on a government program.

Why exactly can't you?

So in a few years the state and local governments will have these programs to fund...and no federal funds to pay for them. This causes a run-up of either deficits or higher taxes.

I think you need to explain this in more detail. I as a reader am not understanding why exactly government program can't end.

Reversing Bush's bans on stem cells and funding for abortion advocates are NOT going to stabilize the housing industry. Regardless of how you feel about these issues, they should NOT be included in an economic stimulus package.

I can think of a counter for this.

Such funding provides jobs for higher level workers, and invests in future technologies simultaneously. You can't expect all US citizens to be employed building roads.

I don't want to debate the merits of these issues in this topic...because that rightfully belongs in a political discourse on these issues on their own.

I agree

What happened to promises of bi-partisanship and placing (rightfully) earmarks in the dustbin of history? Sneaking ideological (right or left) pet issues into a bill intended to stimulate economic recovery is not the way of a) stimulating the economy or b) confining harmful partisanship to the dustbin of history.

I'm not sure I would consider all of them earmarks (although I'm not going to none of them are). A good way to expand on this would be to explain the percentage of the bill earmarks make up. If it's something significant I think you have a case.'

That's about it. If you adress these concerns and reform your original post you'll have much more solid and convincing argument.

At 2/20/09 01:00 AM, dySWN wrote: This is a fail argument. Companies aren't living, sentient beings ,and therefore have no intrinsic morality beyond that of their constituent members. If the leadership of a company is made up of evil people, but the employees are exemplary members of society, then is the company evil in your eyes? What if the board members are philanthropists, but the overall policies of the company wind up hurting people? Can we even judge the leadership in that case, let alone the company as a whole? Obviously, blanket moral judgments would be impossible here, especially since (more likely than not) realistic companies contain people that fall within the whole spectrum of philosophical alignments, both good and evil.

I'm calling them evil in the same sense that someone calls the chinese government evil when they blow up students for protesting in Tienanmen square: Obviously I'm not referring to the grunt workers in the government, I'm referring the higher level officials who made the decisions. If this is a concept too hard for you to understand, please feel free to replace the world 'evil' with 'destructive'.

At 2/20/09 10:24 AM, Ericho wrote: Would it be too lazy (or too subjective) to say Marlboro or other cigarette companies?

Oh no, definitely not. Cigarette companies deserve special attention for their product alone. Not even mentioning their despicable ad campaigns.

At 2/20/09 10:36 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Taggart Transcontinental.

That book actually any good? Also, I BEAT YOU TO THE JOKE LOL. Almost the first sentence in my OP

At 2/20/09 06:43 PM, Christopherr wrote: The most evil company in the world would definitely have to be Shinra Electric.

Umbrella Corp would beat the hell out of that pussy weaboo shit. AMERICA DOES EVERYTHING BETTER THAN JAPAN FUCK YEAR!

At 2/20/09 06:43 PM, Proteas wrote: Notice that the pic the topic starter opened with does not contain the actual patent number for Sweet 'N Low, whereas mine does.

SHOOP DA WOOP!!!

That's "photoshopped" for everyone else.

Could be shopped, I wouldn't know as I didn't take the picture myself. Found it on a wikipedia article for Sacharin. However, I do know that the label used to be there on Sweet N Low.

At 2/20/09 07:50 PM, n64kid wrote: Hoover's policies, The new deal, and Jimmy Carter's Public Works Employment bills have done more harm than help. The US government providing jobs always backfires. I stress the word "always".

Not sure which of Hoovers policies you would consider government intervention (isn't it nice how people revise history?). Besides that, saying that government employment always backfires is a rather naive and uninformed statement. Roosevelt's policies (which by and large were a success in my opinion), caused an almost immediate increase in quality of life for the American worker. Unemployment plummeted and the economy only started to downturn when Roosevelt tried to balance the budget later on in office. Of course we were later pulled out completely by the war, but afterwards the FDR policies that still remained stabilized our economy, and prevented further economic downturns from becoming as bad as they previously had been. It wasn't until Reagan started dismantling the system in the 1980's that we started having the problems we're having now.

Personally, I'd say it's Monsanto. They're like a real life version of Umbrella corp from the resident evil games:

- Sacharin: Original product developed by Monsanto. Proven to cause cancer in lab rats. Monsanto continues to sell it.

- Agent Orange: Yes, Monsanto was one of the largest producers of the chemical agent . The chemical dropped in the Vietnam war that continues to cause birth defects in Vietnam, and at the time even effected our own soldiers.

- Pollution in Annistan Alabama: for 40 years Monsanto knowingly discharged both Mercury and PCB laden materials into the local water supply.

- rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone): Developed by Monsanto, this drug allows cows to produce larger yields of milk. However, later studies suggest that the Bovine Growth Hormone can actually cause cancer in those who drink the milk of the cows that have been injected with it. It has been banned in most modernized countries, but continues to be sold by Monsanto to companies in the US.

- Dumping of Toxic Waste in the UK: Between 1965 and 1972, Monsanto paid contractors to dump literally thousands of tons of toxic wastes into local landfills, doing a shit ton of damage to the local environment and poisoning the water supply with toxic chemicals (some of which were derivatives of Agent Orange).

- Patenting genes: Monsanto lobbied the US government to gain the ability to copyright the genes of their seed. Using this they force farmers to not be able to harvest seeds from their crops and instead buy more from Monsanto. In one case, a bird picked up some seeds from a field with patented Monsanto seeds and dropped them in the field of another farmer. Monsanto sued him for violating their patent.

Thoughts? Can anyone think of a company more fucked up than Monsanto?

Pic related: it's a product containing sacharin. Monsanto continues to produce and sell this product.

At 2/10/09 02:04 PM, n64kid wrote: so the one break that people in the top 10% of wage earners make you want to take away?

Yeah guys, seriously, cut the rich white guys a break. Don't you know how hard they have it?

At 5/22/08 08:35 PM, Korriken wrote: the same can be said the other way around. I have heard MANY athiests just flat out say, "God doesn't exist." is this not also closed minded?

I have heard some people say straight to my face "Santa Claus doesn't exist", is this not also closed minded?

At 11/15/08 08:59 PM, therealsylvos wrote: So instead of saying "we don't know if its good because we're to poor" they said its good, and since they are a government regulatory body, people trusted them, and since they don't operate in the free market they suffered no repercussions and are free to fuck up agaon.

Actually they had to give a yes or no on every product that passes through them. What are they going to do? say no on every single one of them because they dont have the money to perform proper inspections? Nope. It's not the FDA's fault that they had terrible funding.

At 11/15/08 08:56 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Do you understand how patents work? Just because a company patents a cancer drug, doesn't mean some other company can't put out some other drug, thus creating COMPETITION!

Too bad this doesn't happen in practice. How many times has one company come out with one drug that helps to treat a certain disease at the same time another company comes out with a different drug with a different chemical basis that treats the same disease. I dont have a list on hand, but I'd say there haven't been many occurrences.

Also do you have any idea how much money a company spends to produce a drug? And how many of those drugs never get sold? You would rob ALL incentive to pursue new treatment?

Never said that I would. Though I would considerable shorten the time that they get a monopoly under

Furthermore don't you understand one of the most obvious of all market principles PRICE CEILINGS CAUSE SHORTAGES?

Maybe, but the alternative is having the price so high that nobody can afford to buy it without getting themselves in serious financial trouble (people do anyways though because their lives depend on it).

Yes your right, Ken Lay retired to Bora Bora and lived out is life in luxury and comfort.

Keneth Lay died of heart disease while on vacation. He never saw a day in jail.

Its all based on actuarial principles. If they did, they would lose boatloads of money and go bellyup. If those old people bought insurance when they were younger and less at risk do drop dead, they would have no problem.

All the more reason why health insurance and health care are bad industries to leave to the free market.

Mostly do do government regulation. Otherwise it would be all to easy for other smaller companies to break in cause these oligopolies huge losses.

I'd like to see you prove it's due to government regulation. Companies have adequate motivation to fix prices without regulation.

Ok, because that's a great example because it doesn't ignore the effects that 70 years of communism will have on an economy.

They weren't communist when they tanked again under yeltsin. He liberalized the markets and introduced free market capitalism to Russia. According to your theories they should have thrived. Instead their economy was destroyed. Go figure.

At 11/15/08 06:02 PM, therealsylvos wrote: This is why its such a headache to argue with people like you.
You. Just. Pointed. To. A. Case. Of. A. Governmental. Regulatory. Body. Fucking. Up.

Do you understand that? that is regulation fuckin up.
You seem to think if the government didn't ensure it, the market wouldn't demand drugs that didn't harm us.

No it wasn't It was a failure of a government regulatory body that was nerfed under bush. The FDA has seen massive cuts to it's budget, to the point where it can no longer regulate properly. Lo and behold, we suddenly have all manner of poison drugs and food entering our economy. Yay deregulation!

At 11/15/08 05:55 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Your right. One day, millions of people lost confidence in the system for no reason with absolutely no outside events influencing said loss of decision.

You have an interesting habbit of making strawman arguments. I never said that it was the only factor, I said its the only factor that anyone can agree on. But go ahead. Make your argument for why Unions, Regulations, and other things that serve to benefit the common people and not the rich caused the great depression.

Actually, if you bothered to research, theres competition in the medical field just like every other field in the world. That's why there isn't one pain medecation, one SSRI, etc.

I'm sorry did you miss the whole point of me bringing up patents? Do you understand how patents work? For the period in which the patent is in effect, pharma companies can sell their drug at whatever price they want because nobody is allowed to reproduce it for cheaper (because the patent prohibits this). So no, I see no reason why prices would lower exponentially under less regulation because they could keep prices as high as they are and still sell because nobody can produce that drug except for them.

Enron DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY FUCKED OVER THEIR CUSTOMERS. Their horrendous, downright illegal 'customer service' LITERALLY FUCKING DESTROYED THEM.

Actually it was their failure to properly report profits that ultimately destroyed them, not their customer service. Nice try though.

Yes, until they PLUMMETED TO THE POINT OF NON-EXISTENCE.

"Gee you guys, Robbing banks is a great idea! My uncle robbed a bank and made 2 million dollars! Robbing a bank made him rich!"

"Yes, but he was shot to death after taking 3 feet out of the bank"

"BUT HE WAS RICH!"

Who do you think was hurt by the Enron scandal exactly? The executives? Nope, they had already sold all of their stock way before the company imploded. It was the stockholders that had the whole thing blow up in their face... and the employees that had their pensions frozen in Enron stock. Your analogy fails as usual.

First off, I like how you alter what you said. Are you going to admit you where being dumb by saying they shouldn't exclude sick customers from free money?

Yes, jesus christ calm down I mistakenly put people with existing conditions in the wrong catagory. They're the ones who get kicked off their insurance after they develop a serious condition like cancer. I love how you're pointing at one tiny segment of my argument and ignoring the rest of it. Do you think it's a grand show of free market benevolence for health insurance companies to deny service to the elderly simply because they're a bad risk? Do you think it's acceptable to have a system under which the elderly will likely develop a condition that will BANKRUPT them because they dont have insurance?

And again, if your healthcare company does this, DISCONTINUE THEIR SERVICES, SWITCH OVER, AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.

except it doesn't work that way. No insurance company is going to take a high risk investment like an elderly person. Sorry champ, try again.

Poor customer service exists in ALL fields, ever. The ones that are the most guilty will subsequently make less money then those who treat their customers well.

except when there are oligopolies and price fixing at work.

The fact of the matter is that the government supported high risk loans. You can't say "we should have had more regulation!", because if we had more regulation NONE of it would have limited HRL's, since the government SUPPORTED it.

Actually CRA loans have been proven to statiscally be less likely to be high risk loans than those that aren't under the CRA. If the CRA supports high risk loans, then why exactly are they statistically less likely to be high risk loans?

And all five where easily pointed out to be flawed methodology.

Only in your mind. I'm not convinced that that is true.

Go prove to me that a bullet in Kennedy's brain killed him. Prove something else didn't coincidentally cause massive brain damage.

Terrible analogy. Economics is effected by a ton of micro-economic factors that are beyond policy control. A bullet to the head is much more direct. Not to mention a much more detailed and specific argument can be given as to how exactly the bullet entered the head and caused the brain damage, and can be backed up with much more convincing evidence. You cant do this with your free market theory.

Hong Kong switches to free market, and see's unprecidented growth that can't be attributed to ANYTHING ELSE.

It could be attributed to a lot of things. For example, government guidance like say... subsidization of housing that keeps labor costs low. Or maybe just the fact that Hong Kong is a city state and cities tend be more economically prosperous simply because they dont have the countryside to bog them down.

So no, I can't say that Free Market helped Hong Kong, but I can say that absolutely nothing else but free market possibly could have caused the growth.

Sure, but you would be absolutely wrong.

Kenya, the country that is crippled by staggering levels of corruption, and who's economy is dependent on rain and tourism, two things which may stop at any point, without any warning?

Unless your saying that government regulation could make it rain, remove human greed, and make people want to come to Kenya, it looks like Kenya's economic troubles are largely the fault of either personal failure or sheer bad luck.

If you want a more pristine example of free market failure you can always look at Russia under Yeltsin. There really aren't many modern examples of newly enacted free market policies, but there are plenty of old ones.

Yeltsin left his term with Russia in complete economic ruin. if we are to assume that your JFK bullet in head logic is true, then Russia is a proof of the free markets failure.

At 11/13/08 12:04 AM, n64kid wrote: Ooops, regulation by Hoover turned a market crash into a depression, and FDR's policies just prolonged it.

Oh and guess what, that study you linked me to so matter of factly. It's not generally accepted to be correct. Most economists believe that FDRs policies didn't prolong the depression. How interesting.

At 11/13/08 05:12 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: People who prove you wrong does not a troll make.

Too bad he hasn't proven anything about my argument wrong.

You made shit up on the spot and presented it as fact. Many would consider it lying.

I never did any such thing.

Actually, I can prove, for a fact, that MANY of FDA's policies failed miserably, both financially and in terms of accomplishing their goals.

Go ahead. I'd like to see your objective proof that FDR's policies failed. I personally would agree that some failed, but as a whole I believe that FDRs policies not only benefited the country in the 30's and 40's, but also provided infrastructure that continues to benefit us even to this day.

And if government regulation hadn't caused the great depression, we wouldn't have an issue.

You can't prove objectively that government regulation caused the great depression.

Yeah you guys? Why don't greedy hospitals just magically summon the money they need to build a giant hospital, buy extremely high-tech machines we'd be dying without, hire Janitors to keep the hospitals spotless, hire Doctors and nurses to spend hours looking at you

Oh hi there strawman, nice hat. I've never said that hospitals dont have maitenence costs, but hospitals have always had to deal with stuff like that. Why the sudden dramatic rise in cost this past decade? Well, if you look at their rising profit figures, you'll realize the reason is that they're fixing prices.

spend billions of dollars creating a new drug, and pay the millions of dollars it takes to pass medicine through government regulation, not to mention the hundreds of millions they pay thanks to bullshit regulations and bullshit government fines, as well as illegal immigrants who recieve medical coverage they can't pay for.

Yeah! Damn those bullshit government regulations! All they do is muck up everything! I mean, what bad could possibly come from deregulating pharmaceutical companies? I'm sure glad Bush nerfed the FDA the way he did, otherwise companies would still be going through all that pesky government regulation, being forced to make sure their drug is safe for human consumption. Who needs that? Not me!

Oh, and the little fact that they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to provide free emergency healthcare to anyone, regardless of whether or not they know, for a fact, that that person won't be able to pay them a dime. G.O.M.E.Rs don't cost them money or anything.

Sorry, what exactly don't you understand about "record profits"? If they were really just compensating for things like illegals, why exactly are they making so much more money than they used to?

Oh yeah, plus the fact that spending a night in the hospital DOESN'T cost 2000 dollars.

I've seen someone in california pay over 2.5 thousand dollars for a night in the hospital (and yes, just for staying there, the total cost was much higher). So you're absolutely wrong.

Good, then you know that it was a PRIVATE COMPANY, not the government, that stopped the scam.

Excuse me? Stopped the scam? Nobody "stopped" the scam. The stock payers never got their money back. The customers never got their money back. The employees never got the entirety of their pensions back. Enron had already imploded before anyone even knew what had happened.

Maybe some private company came in and cleaned up some of the mess after the fact, BUT IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE. If your trying to prove that the free market can regulate itself because some company came in after the fact then you're failing miserable. With regulation, Enron would have never been able to do what they did.

Or not an idiot that decides that one single case should change how we view hundreds of years of business practice.

Anyone who didn't immediately stop flying in airplanes ever again after 9/11 is a total inbred moron terrorist.

Another terrible analogy. A closer analogy would be (As Drakim has already stated), "Anyone who calls for less security after 9/11 is insane"

At 11/13/08 04:33 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Which great depression? The Great Depression that was caused by BRILLIANT GOVERNMENT MOVES like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and the amazing descision to switch over to the Gold Standard?

The Great Depression that was caused by a massive loss of confidence in the system. This is the only thing that can actually be agreed upon as a cause of the great depression. Also, nobody here has said that all regulation is good. I know that the Smoot-Hawley act didn't help the economy. But at the same time lack of regulation in the right areas can be much much more damaging than heavy regulation in the wrong areas.

If Pharmaceutical companies didn't have to pay MILLIONS of dollars and wait YEARS before they can get their medication approved through useless government regulation, your treatment and pills would be exponentially cheaper.

Not really, what motivation would companies have to lower the prices of their patented medicines? It's not like they really have any competition. They can sell for whatever price they want.

Except they don't do that, at all, in real life. Theres always going to be bad companies in any field that try to scam their customers out of a few bucks here and there; this is when a SMART human being goes and IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUES SERVICE with that company. The richest companies are always the ones with the best treatment of their customers.

The richest companies are always the ones that best treat their customers? Hmm, lets see... Enron! I seem to remember them manufacturing an energy crisis in order to sell at a higher price. They totally fucked their customers, but guess what? They were one of the riches companies of all time. So much for that logic.

Wow. If companies offered to to just pay the bills of everyone who's sick and didn't have healthcare insurance, NO ONE would buy insurance; they would save money by waiting until they got sick, and insurance companies would go out of business, causing us all issues.

I agree with you to an extent, but unfortunately insurance companies go above and beyond that. Health insurance companies have been known to actively battle with their customers in order to save money. They look for anything like improperly filed information sheets, even the tiniest error can get them legally out of paying you money for your claims.

This is like saying "Yeah, so I refused to buy any stock and invest company in google, but now that they hit it rich, they aren't paying me any stock dividends! WE NEED GOVERNMENT CONTROL!"

You make terrible analogies. It would be more like saying "the company is refusing to let me cash in on stock that I invested on! That's bullshit!" Guess what? It is bullshit.

With the complete and utter approval and urging of government and regulators.

Are you talking about the CRA? If so I'll ask you the same question I asked n64kid, where's your evidence? Because the majority of the banks who made high risk loans weren't regulated by the CRA.

Really? Name one time.

I named like 5 in the first post.

Go ahead. I mean, I can name Hong Cong as a perfect example of a Free-Market Capitalist system that works.

Lets hear your argument for Hong Kong. Also, don't just make it "Hong Kong implemented free market policies and then saw growth" because I can give you a ton of examples of where an economy implemented free market policies and tanked. Show me a real economic figure that proves that Hong Kong thrives BECAUSE of free market policies and not DESPITE free market policies.

Go ahead and name a single country in the entire world that is Free-Market Capitalist and failing.

Kenya, and just about every other African country that's seen reforms under the IMF.

At 11/13/08 02:09 AM, n64kid wrote: Very well, comrade.

So wait, now your comparing regulation of a capitalist market to communism? You're absolutely delusional aren't you?

You admitted to a mistake about regulation.

I never did any such thing.

Ooops, unions help caused the great depression.

I'd like to see an objective argument for that.

As did an increase in tariffs and taxes, as did a decrease in trade. There was no money FOR businesses to thrive.

Interesting, so according to your theories we should have never left the great depression. When FDR came into power he increased taxes and regulation and all sort of other things that go against free market values, and yet, the economy saw booms under him. How strange.

Also according to your logic, after we emerged from the depression, it should have been likely that we would have fallen into another seeing as we had much stronger unions and much stronger regulations AFTER the great depression than we had before it... yet we didn't.

To try and pidgeonhole what caused the great depression into a series of biased arguments against taxation and regulation, ignores a shit-ton of micro-economic factors that were a far reach away from what the government could control. Furthermore it shows that you have let your blatant bias blind you from the objective truth. I never made the argument that one series of economics or another CAUSED the great depression, only that regulation could have put an end to it sooner, the fact that you do try and place the brunt of the blame on unions and taxation tells more about you then it does about the economy.

Illegal immigration. They don't have insurance, take up those beds, and don't pay fees. Someone has to pay the millions of dollars of R&D these companies pay to produce a product in a risky market such as bio meds.

OOPS (hey look, I can be a patronizing asshole just like you), it looks like hospitals have been showing record profits. That's strange ain't it? If they had only been raising prices in order to cover things like illegal immigrants, then they would be seeing such dramatic increases in net profit would they? So there you go, the health care industry is fixing prices.

Your summary sucked and gave me reason to believe you don;t know what you're talking about.

Well if you think the summary sucked then I think it reflects more on your knowledge of the Enron scandal than on mine. The summary was accurate. Maybe you should brush up on your reading.

So you don't know the full scope of SOX and how it affects the economy negatively today?

No, you can go ahead and tell me if you want. I've got a feeling whatever you're going to tell me is going to totally undermine its benefits and the other side of the argument though. It seems to be a recurring situation with you.

I think it is you who just skimmed over the topic without realizing the pressures it put on banks to take up sub-prime loans, as well as creating that over demand for housing.

Notice how you never answered my question? I'm well aware of the frivolous conservative allegations against the CRA. I'm also well aware that there almost no evidence to support these allegations. So I ask again. How exactly did the CRA cause the housing bubble if the majority of the banks that sold subprime loans weren't even regulated under the CRA?

hurf durf n64kid = troll. Oh well, I suppose every topic sees at least one.

1. I never "lied" about anything.

2. Some economist speculate that FDRs policies prolonged the depression, but it's all based on theory which of course is based entirely on the world view of those who are making the conclusions. I would say that whether FDRs policies where a success is a moot point however. The point I was making with the great depression is that companies worked together to fix wages in order to screw over the working class. With a bit of oversight this might have been labeled as the abuse that it clearly was and delt with accordingly (set a federal minimum wage etc.)

3. If the health care industry isn't fixing prices, then explain to me why exactly a day in a hospital bed can easily cost you 2000+ dollars? Why exactly is it that medication can easily cost you around $1800 (probably more, but thats the most I've seen paid for medicine). Why exactly is it that healthcare has quickly risen to be the #1 source of bankruptcy in the nation?

4. I know exactly what happened in the enron scandal, I summarised it in the original post. If you had actually taken the time to read it and review the argument before making a half assed attempt at a rebuttal you would realize that.

5. SOX seems to me like it adressed the exact problem with Enron. It required more regulation to make sure that businesses properly reported their profits/losses so that stock holders could make more educated decisions when buying stock. Besides, what would you have suggested we do after a ridiculous scandal like Enron? Deregulate the energy market further? anyone who would suggest that is insane or bribed.

6. If the CRA caused the housing bubble, why is it that the vast majority of the offenders that practiced predatory lending weren't even regulated by the CRA? You obviously haven't done much research into this.

7. I know I shouldn't be giving you attention since your a troll and that's all your looking for, but I do this as more of a service for everyone viewing this thread so that they don't actually believe your drivel.

At 11/12/08 11:21 AM, therealsylvos wrote: The great depression had nothing at all to do with what you said it did.

Well, it didn't start because of the corporations, but it was the actions of groups such as "the associated farmers of california" that ultimately prolonged it. They conspired together to fix wages and did other things like bribing cops to go beat the shit out of anyone trying to do a union. These examples go a long way in showing just how far greed can really go. The free market proved itself throughout the depression to be completely incapable of working towards the interests of the nation as a whole, which is why Roosevelt put these protections in in the first place.

The pharmaceutical industry is extremely regulated

Obviously not enough if their being allowed to fix prices and cheat the common people out of proper healthcare.

As is the Health Insurance Industry

To be honest, this one is more of an example of the free market working against the interests of the common people. Their pursuit of profits has created a system which doesn't cover everyone, and especially doesn't cover the ones that need it.

As are energy utitilities (or any publicly traded company for what enron did)

This is a joke I suppose? If regulations/oversight had been in place on Enron they would have never had been able to cook the books like they did. Their stock would have never rocketed sky high due to faulty reports on profits, and the stock holders for enron wouldn't have been completely screwed out of all the money they put in stock. Not to mention employees at Enron would still have their retirement.

Again Banking industry heavily regulated.

And yet, once again, not regulated enough to stop the Banking industry from practicing predatory lending on it's customers and virtually destroying our economy. If proper regulations had been in place on all the commercial banks that were making the loans, none of this would have ever happened.

Also, you removed yourself from your original claim. You never provided an argument for how these were actual problems with regulation.

At 11/11/08 11:55 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Brilliant!
You point to failures of regulation to bash deregulation!

Please tell me you are a marketing major to increase the irony.

My friend, every single one of those instances can be traced back to a lack of regulation...

Why does anyone support removing regulation from businesses anymore? The private sector has proven itself time and time again to be incapable of regulating itself. I mean lets look at the track record:

-The Great Depression: Companies took advantage of impoverished migrants and used them for labor while paying them wages that were below poverty level. Together different corporations for different industries bound together in Oligopolies to fix wages so that workers couldn't find decent pay anywhere.

- Pharmaceutical Companies: Conspiring together to fix prices on treatment and medication, blaming it on "frivolous lawsuits" despite reporting record profits.

-Health Insurance Companies: Intentionally fighting with their clients and looking for any excuse to renig on their contract and not provide payments for important operations. Furthermore, intentionally excluding those who actually need health insurance (the elderly, those with existing conditions like cancer, or even those simply working at a potentially harmful job like a fireman).

-The Enron Scandal: Enron cooking the books and not recording losses, instead reporting gigantic profits. Their stock soars. The Enron executives then sell all their stock and freeze employee pension in Enron stock, cheating employess out of their hard earned retirement.

-The 2008 Sub-Prime Mortage Crisis: Banks practice predatory lending on their customers and give unqualified borrowers gigantic loans that they cant afford. CEO who caused the mess later get bailed out while the borrowers default on their loans and have to declare bankruptcy.

That's all I can think of now anyways. It's not like I think all companies are evil, quite the contrary. It's just that it only takes several bad corporations to get this country into one gigantic heap of shit. So why take the risk? The free market has proven itself to be incapable of being benevolent time and time again throughout history. So I can't see why anyone would support deregulation after all this has happened.

no, I'm not a faget

At 9/5/08 07:53 PM, Haynesyb0y wrote: All I lost was all my pets.

Now go to the video games forum.

Sorry suck up modfag

Nothing pisses me off more than playing through a game many many times, unlocking tons of shit, completing almost every achievement, and then losing my save file.

Also, in b4 sign out and sign back in and creating a game on Xbox Live and clicking ready, neither works for me.

Make sure the game works properly Behemoth before you fucking release it and people waste their time playing it just to be fucking in the ass by bugs.

CASTLE CRASHERS IS FULL OF DONGS.

I WAS ON 4CHAN FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER AND THIS FUCKKING FREEEEEEEK SAID THSI:!:!:!:
I was browsing through my child porn collection when I came across this really astounding cinematography- this adorable little girl, blonde... blue eyes, she had little pig tales. She was sitting in a room when these two big black men came in and they looked at her and instantly pulled out their very large penises. The little girl started to scream but one stuffed it in her mouth and said "SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH" and the other crammed his cock in her asshole. For a while she started to thrash about, but after 5 minutes she just laid limp and they just fuck the shit out of her. After they are done, they pull their dicks out and get a pillow and put it on top of her face and start suffocating her, right when shes about to pass out they take the pillow off of her face and cock slap her multiple times- the film ends as it fades to a close up to the little girls face, sobbing.

NO WONDER THIS PLACE IS SO HATED UGH ITS SO DISGUSTING!

AHAHAHAHAHA A NEWGROUNDS TATTOO

I just went onto there website and I see a dead cat holding up a white flag.

At 8/27/08 09:04 PM, cherries wrote: Here's mine.

Dude... you're fucked up.

Microsoft Frontpage.

At 7/1/08 11:32 PM, minic78 wrote:

At 7/1/08 11:29 PM, CryogenChaos wrote: Also, "cancerous"? You're not on the chans right now, you don't need to use their jargon.

right? is it me, or does it seem like anyone who posts in 4chan and newgrounds is almost always a troll / douche?

Is it just me or does it seem like anyone who posts on Newgrounds period are a bunch of lulz killers and overall idiots. It seems after seeing you guys post over the past few years the only conclusion I can make is that the wide majority of you can't uphold the slightest of an intelligent discussion. Why do you think everyone who's ever been a decent user has left by now? It's because of people like you. You ruined our forums, the only place we ever used to enjoy coming to.

Get trolled you weeaboos.

That would make it easier to PM people too.