162 Forum Posts by "zachomis"
At 6/13/06 09:30 PM, Tal-con wrote:At 6/12/06 06:55 PM, Cazruzult wrote: things about WalMartThis is a problem with China's labor laws, not Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is only a scapegoat to the greater problem when it comes to the info you posted.
There is a reason that these workers are being paid below minimum wage- political manipulation.
(towards quote on anti-monopoly laws):
Who said a business needs to be a monopoly to be a threat? Even on the state level soft money is thrown about and bribes are delt to politicians. I live in Maryland and I can tell you that legalized slots wouldn't have a CHANCE in passing if it weren't for the bribes thrown about in our state legislature. Even some of the Democrats are getting corrupted by this nonsense.
No Erlich for Maryland, No O'Malley for Maryland; vote Duncan 06'
I don't understand why this discussion failed to come to geography and history. Oh well, not much is to be expected of some flash forum...
At 6/12/06 11:45 PM, Hell-Itself wrote: wal-mart is an awesome store it found a wa around the system. Good for them.
if living in china sucks ass why should wal-mart suffer.
try and fix china if you hate wal-mart
You bitches better read this before posting because i'm not going to educate you again.
This is far beyond smart business practices and the deserving praises of market prosperity. In fact, less than a hundred years ago our country was in a socio-economic shit called, "The Guilded Age." Over this period of time, large corporations and holding companies controlled our vast economy like none before. Today we see this coming to a repeat.
You're right, this is fair, natural economics. However, just as with The Guilded Age, we will see a great political unraveling slip before us. After the civil war we elected general Grant for our blessed presidency. But, because of our vastly corrupt corporate economy, Grant was pulled into the mix of becoming one of our nation's worst presidents. Wouldn't expect such a great general to be such a shitty president, would you?
Also take into example the country's former Open Door policy with China. Way back in that age China was this giant mercantilistic cluster-fuck. This globalizing economy, like then, is screwing over more than just china- it is creating a massive economic periphery around the core (which consists of the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Europe.)
This brings me to my last point- that China "sucks" simply because of its corrupt economic system (pleutocracy) which is heavily influenced by the corporations which work inside of it. To fix China is to fix the corporations which exploit and rape it.
Think of Walmart as the Standard Oil Company of today. Just look in the history books, dickheads.
Well, since I have lots of time on my hands for day dreaming and all, I have already formulated a quite simple plan:
Assemble an organized group of figters within the age group of 15-45. Those who are not able (or willing) to participate in combat will assist in logistics. Logistics teams will store food, aid injured, and manufacture weaponry. Remember: A civilian with the best shot cannot even stand a chance in a firfight against an organized military force.
Defined Method: Guerilla Warfare (duh, people)
The only method of effectively repeling an enemy force is by locating, isolating, and eliminating the enemy in small units. Yes, I am talking about ambush; ambush with explosives and small arms fire. The civilian population will use home-made explosives (check out the Anarchist's Cookbook, its a good read) to destroy its own infastructure as a means to slow down the enemy's advance. The best way of doing this is not to destroy highways and bridges before the enemy comes to it, but as the enemy comes to it.
Maximize casualties: Injury can do more to slow down or stop a unit than death. If a soldier dies, the corpse can be left there to be picked up later. But if the soldier is injured, then it becomes a serious issue. The casualty must be evacuated and taken care of; This creates a demoralizing burden on the enemy force. Its a good thing to keep in mind; just hit the bastard.
Social Structure: War lords, pretty much
It really depends though, because a similar plan goes if the administration suspended elections and declared martial law.
Eh, I would write more, but im getting quite bored of this now, happy revolting everyone!
At 3/20/05 07:29 PM, Mayhem_N_Bedlam wrote:
everywhere but Haiti > Haiti
try Haiti > SUDAN
At 12/13/04 08:45 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:
Which is why i like to help the poor, but i also like to tell them, "get an education". We have schools with free education up to the 12th grade, and if you want to get more of an education, join the military which gives you free college tuition. The poor can do more for themsleves if they wanted. By over taxing the rich, that wouldnt allow them to save enough money to set up more and more businesses to help employ.
1. A 12th grade education is almost USELESS in 1st-world society.
2. The military does not provide enough tuition to get a good college education.
3. Supply-side economics do. Not. Work. Period. This "E" economy this world is turning into makes demand go before supply. The rich wont do jack to increase production if there is no increase in demand. And where are we going to get demand? Through the middle and lower class. That is why tax-cuts for the rich is almost useless to spurr an economy
The only way to protect the church from the government is to protect the government from the church. Period.
At 12/14/04 06:47 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:
How is it widening the poverty gap if it allows more to have jobs? If this war isnt putting up jobs then what are the tax cuts doing?
Filling already deep pockets. I.E just filling rich bank accounts.
At 12/13/04 08:42 PM, Jimsween wrote:At 12/13/04 03:05 AM, GeorgeTopouria wrote: i dont like whats happening in iraq.Smartest thing I've heard all day.
You must live a very dull life. Read.
Before I start, I would like to let everyone know that I am, indeed, a deist. But I do not belive in the creationist theory. My reason:
It is a matter of fucking logic: You cannot create something out of nothing. It is impossible for something to exist before existence itself. Period.
My theory: The universe was always here. For us to say existence did not exist at some point and time is ignorant, illogical, and (excuse my french) complete bullshit. We should stop arguing and start a concerted effort in solving other secrets of the universe.
To address another issue: Some of you claim that there is a big difference between the physical and spiritual realm.
Answer: No, there is little or no difference. The spirit is just an "organied" pool of electrons (energy).
At 12/7/04 08:38 PM, Rooster349 wrote:
My, aren't we pessimistic?
Im less pessimistic and more pissed. But thanks for asking.
Look, the founding fathers didn't allow general election of presidents until the Andrew Jackson Era, and the voter fraud during that time was incredible. Offers of whiskey, booze, property, money in exchange for votes, etc. It took us about 100 years to refine our voting system, and even now bitchy shit liberals like to whine and demand recounts on account of voter fraud. (or getting into office. Either or.)
There is a HUGE difference here. That was the colonial age getting into the industrial age. This is the information age, where almost all sneaky shit gets under someone's radar. Voter fraud is something we can detect, and should.
And now you're saying that the election of Afghanistan is a huge failure because CNN says there was voter fraud? I must say that their idea to mark ink on their fingers is dumb as shit, but the fact is that it could have gone a lot worse than it did.
Not only CNN mentioned it: http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-10-10/23701.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=151502
http://www.startribune.com/stories/722/5023984.html
Now suck it.
Thats just immature.
At 12/7/04 08:20 PM, Jimsween wrote:At 12/7/04 08:13 PM, zachomis wrote: If it is all such BS, then just debunk it all, and move on. We dont need you to just say were full of it, and then walk away. Thats just retarded. Nor is it debate.The problem is, you can't debunk that which has no basis in fact.
President Bush is an alien who's plan is to weaken earth for an invasion.
Debunk it.
The burden of proof lies upon the claimer.
George Walker Bush was born July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut from a woman named Barbara Pierce. His father is George Herbert Walker Bush.
Source on birth date and place: http://selectsmart.com/president/Bush.html
Source on family origin: http://www.ancestry.com/landing/famoustrees/gwbush/bush_tree.htm
CONCLUSION: With the information above, it is fact that GWB is not an alien.
There, I just constructed a well-made argument that debunks your factless lie. You CAN debunk any factless lie with evidence of what was going on at the time. Either that, or you can scold others for not having evidence to back up their story. But the point is, those things(such as election rigging) do have evidence, and sources. The problem is you wont try to find evidence that disproves it. Instead you whine and bitch at us.
At 12/7/04 07:53 PM, Jimsween wrote: Okay, heres the thing.
The extreme left can't shut up about conspiracy BS and the US sucks stuff, so they make everyone whos not on the right hate the left and go to the right.
The fact is, Iraq sucks, it's certainly getting better but it sucks, and its costing way too much to get it not to suck.
But Iraq is not a radioactive wasteland filled with evil US soldiers under command to kill anyone who's brown.
Your BS propaganda isn't helping the left, its hurting it, your the same people who pushed communism with the civil rights movement and made everyone hate liberals. You need to realize the fact that everyone hates you, just because you read 15 weekly zines and 24 blogs doesn't make you any smarter than the other 50% of the world.
If it is all such BS, then just debunk it all, and move on. We dont need you to just say were full of it, and then walk away. Thats just retarded. Nor is it debate.
At 12/7/04 07:08 PM, Rooster349 wrote:
I'm willing to put faith in it. I know that there are stable parts of Iraq, I know that our guys and the new trainees are building hospitals, schools, etc. I know that some Iraqis do appreciate what we are doing, and even more importantly, many are willing to fight alongside us and want to vote on January 30th.
That election is going to be a failiure, just like afghanistan's election.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/...ghanistan.elections/index.html
</lurking>
At 12/4/04 12:37 AM, Soul_Chamber wrote:
That was just in New York. What do you think happend to other businesses and jobs after that? And our jobs are going up rather rapidly.
Just because the WTC fell, does not mean those jobs were lost. Most of the jobs were just relocated to other office buildings.
I guess he's not, but then again, if you take into consideration all of what the US is doing.
Like wasting money? And making tax-cuts in the middle of a war? We have wasted 600 billion dollars on a new nuclear missle defense system, and tons more. Thanks Rummy.
Why give less money? If the poor wanted to do something with their lives then why not get an education. There are schools that are free up to the 12th grade. And then you could join the military for free college education. The rich are more capable to handle money well than the poor.
Dude, do you realize how useless a high-school diploma is? Democrats TRY to make government scholarships, democrats TRY to make affirmative action laws so poor minoritys have a chance to make a difference in their family. But republicans oppose it for tax-cuts.
I think that taking money from the rich and giving their money to poor sounds a little leaning towards communism. They shouldnt have their money taken away and given to other people who probly havent worked nearly as hard as they have to get where they are today.
No, its not. Europe has done this for years, and it does not lead to communism. And yes, the poor do work harder than a rich person. They work longer, harder, and with MUCH less reward.
If so much of the poor werent lazy then maybe just maybe. The poor can do more for themselves than anyone else can, but a lot of them instead just try to bum money from other people and keep living their lives the way they are. My family is middle class, but far from rich and so far we're doing much better.
They are not, by any means, lazy people. Period.
Al Franken is actually the guy that got be back into reading. And yes, it is a wonderful book. Lots of shits and giggles! =D
At 11/17/04 12:56 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:
Yeah i know, i saw that. I was just using those 2. Im just pointing out that just because the republican candidate won doesnt mean he was the only one who cheated or all of those 93,000 were just bush.
Hey, the democrats were the ones who were fighting against those machines.
omg, it was fucking rigged, and here is the proof:
http://forum.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?act=ST&f=88&t=37396
I am posting this not as propoganda, but to help you all understand that this is a real war with the death of real people and what real war looks like. It is NOT a game.
WARNING WARNING WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS ARE EXTRAORDINARILY GRAPHIC AND IS NOT RECOMMENDED TO THOSE WHO HAVE A SENSE OF HUMILITY AND MORALS!
At 11/16/04 07:36 PM, The_General_Public wrote:
so what is the difference between you and that fetus?
I am not completly dependent on my mother's womb to survive. If we were talking about a baby, then I could be taken care of my another intelligent individual.
What's your point? Just because it is dependant on the mother for it's survival doesn't mean it is any less of an individual human.
Its dependence is WHY it is not an individual
For the LAST AND THIRD TIME I will go over my point:
The fetus is not a human being because it is totally dependent on the mother for survival. If the fetus is to be removed from the womb, then it would immediately become dead tissue(I am talking about a FETUS here, not a developed baby). Thus, it is not a independant lifeform, so it cannot be human. However, with a baby you can just change mothers or have a male take care of it. With a fetus, you cannot. The fetus is attached to that mother and ONLY that mother and cannot be seperated.
With that logic, you can even conclude that the fetus is actually part of the mother.
At 11/15/04 04:16 PM, BeFell wrote: See how long an infant lasts on it's own. Just because it needs support from somebody doesn't mean it isn't human.
Any intelligent being can take care of an infant, we are talking about the mother being the only individual that can suppourt the fetus.
At 11/15/04 03:16 PM, BeFell wrote:At 11/15/04 03:04 PM, zachomis wrote: How is that relevant? The fetus still needs the uterus for survival, conception just occurs in a friggin dish.Yes the conception occurs in the dish then it doesn't matter who the embryo is inserted into. This means that the child is independant of the mother because it doesn't even have to be one of the mothers eggs for the child to grow inside of her. Thus your point about the child being a part of the mother is void because it is indeed possible to transfer embryos.
Ok, you dont seem to get it: We are talking about a FETUS here, not an embryo.(and when I say MOTHER, I am referring to the female that developed the fetus in her uterus) Once the embryo is inserted into the uterus, then it is completely dependent on that individual because you cant take the embryo back out once its inside the uterus walls!
At 11/15/04 02:55 PM, BeFell wrote:At 11/15/04 02:53 PM, zachomis wrote: With a fetus, you cannot. The fetus is attached to that mother and ONLY that mother and cannot be seperated.Obviously you have never heard of in vitro fertilization.
IVF is a method of assisted reproduction in which the man's sperm and the woman's egg (oocyte) are combined in a laboratory dish, where fertilization occurs. The resulting embryo is then transferred to the uterus to develop naturally. Usually, two to four embryos are transferred with each cycle.
How is that relevant? The fetus still needs the uterus for survival, conception just occurs in a friggin dish.
At 11/15/04 01:48 PM, BeFell wrote:At 11/15/04 12:11 PM, zachomis wrote: Did you even READ this thread before posting?Fuck no.
Then your opinion/argument holds no value. But just to be nice, I will post my theory again so you can make a proper rebuttle. That way, we dont go through all the same shit twice like we have been doing:
The fetus is not a human being because it is totally dependent on the mother for survival. If the fetus is to be removed from the womb, then it would immediately become dead tissue(I am talking about a FETUS here, not a developed baby). Thus, it is not a independant lifeform, so it cannot be human. However, with a baby you can just change mothers or have a male take care of it. With a fetus, you cannot. The fetus is attached to that mother and ONLY that mother and cannot be seperated.
With that logic, you can even conclude that the fetus is actually part of the mother.
At 11/15/04 12:07 PM, BeFell wrote:
That's bullshit, you went through the exact same developmental process just as every other human who ever has and ever will exist.
Did you even READ this thread before posting?
At 11/15/04 10:45 AM, blackclock1 wrote: Bush is sucked shit
Shut the fuck up. Come here only if you have a real argument.
At 11/15/04 11:54 AM, BeFell wrote: Of couse a fetus is a human. It is the offspring of two humans isn't it? It's ridiculous to claim that at some arbitrary moment it suddenly becomes human.
I will say it again: It is not an independant being, therefore it is not an equivilent to us.
At 11/15/04 11:03 AM, silencedintruder wrote: A fetus is human, we were all fetus's once so with that argument i guess we arent human either or only at a certain point in our lifes human, no wee are always human our entire life from fetus to death, but hey if we dont keep abortion legal then we cant do this: (gory and unecessary image to this argument)
Yes, we were all fetuses once, but that does not quite make it human with all the rights we have. Its like saying "killing a chimp is murder and you have to be put away for 20 years". Just because we developed from it, does not mean it is what we are.
I have developed this theory not too long ago:
The fetus is not a human being because it is totally dependent on the mother for survival. If the fetus is to be removed from the womb, then it would immediately become dead tissue(I am talking about a FETUS here, not a developed baby). Thus, it is not a independant lifeform, so it cannot be human. However, with a baby you can just change mothers or have a male take care of it. With a fetus, you cannot. The fetus is attached to that mother and ONLY that mother and cannot be seperated.
With that logic, you can even conclude that the fetus is actually part of the mother.
At 10/18/04 06:02 PM, LightningRider wrote: People say that abortion shouldn't be banned because it would be forcing one person's religion on others. Well, how about Abe Lincoln? I believe one of his reasons for abolishing slavery was that all men are created equal. I think that the "creation" part may have a little to do with religion.
Actually, i just watched a documentary on the History Channel on Lincoln: He said repeateldy that he [b]never[/b] wanted to make "niggrs" equal to whites. In fact, in one State of the Union address, he suggested the deporting of the black race from America. Insane.
