ThePyg's Waterfall
Genetic engineering is the thing of the future. And when the moral assholes finally have no power, the potential for human creativity in our genetics is limitless.
Choosing orientation is the tip of the iceberg. Although, from my studies I believe that there's a lot more to sexuality than simple genetics. People are born with a tendency, but you have to realize that genetics aren't these self-aware beings. There's no gene to drive one to choose one sexuality. There are genes that blended with our culture will create the gay or straight person that you see today.
I was looking through how they determined these results... not as accurate as last time i took this quiz.
anyway:
Libertarians - 84%
Green Party - 46%
Republicans - 39%
Democrats - 18%
Socialists - 12%
This makes sense because the Libertarian Party is the only party in the list that is overall for less government.
The most useless thing you could do is sue the government. They'll just print more money, making your current funds even more useless.
We should dismantle the NSA and Executive Branch.
But really, where the fuck is iamdavidh? We need to see why Obama is justified...
Lol, he called himself a Socialist and claimed that his policies were socialist.
I will use the ever so famous, anti-socialist, conservative source...Wikipedia to point out how he has been unjustly criticized by the right.
Chávez gained a reputation as a price hawk in OPEC, pushing for stringent enforcement of production quotas and higher target oil prices. The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003
Lol, everyone was blaming Obama for higher oil prices. THE FOOLS!
But anyway, Venezuela basically finally started to improve their economic situation when they acted like a corporation. lulz.
Chávez's strategy in response to food shortages consisted mainly of increasing domestic production through nationalizing large parts of the food industry. The price ceilings increased the demand for basic foods while making it difficult for Venezuela to import goods causing increased reliance on domestic production. According to some commentators this policy may have increased shortages.
absolute socialism.
Chávez was strictly enforcing a price control policy, denouncing anyone who sold food products for higher prices as "speculators".[265] In January 2008, Chávez ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela.[273] In February 2009, Chávez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.
Militarist State Socialism.
In 2010, after the government nationalized the port at Puerto Cabello, more than 120,000 tons of food sat rotting at the port.[280] In May 2010, during a shortage of beef, at least 40 butchers were detained on charges of speculation for allegedly selling meat above the regulated price; some of them were held at a military base and later strip-searched by police.
Enemy of the small business man... socialism.
In 2010, Amnesty International criticized the Chávez administration for targeting critics following several politically motivated arrests.
Political prisoners.
Following Afiuni's arrest, several groups, including the United Nations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Episcopal Conference of Venezuela, Human Rights Watch, the Law Society of England and Wales, the U.S. Department of State, and the European Union Parliament accused Chávez of "creating a climate of fear" among Venezuela's legal profession.
Look at all those Conservative propagandists complaining about Chavez's not-so-corrupt manner of scaring his people into obeying his commands.
in 2008, Human Rights Watch criticized Chávez for engaging in "often discriminatory policies that have undercut journalists' freedom of expression."[283] Freedom House listed Venezuela's press as being "Not Free" in its 2011 Map of Press Freedom, noting that "[t]he gradual erosion of press freedom in Venezuela continued in 2010."[304] Reporters Without Borders criticized the Chávez administration for "steadily silencing its critics".[305] In the group's 2009 Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders noted that "Venezuela is now among the region’s worst press freedom offenders."
Lol, one of the WORST when it comes to freedom of the press. I'm sure Reporters Without Borders is just some Koch Brothers conspiracy.
In 2006, Chávez announced that the terrestrial broadcast license for RCTV would not be renewed, due to its refusal to pay taxes and fines, and its alleged open support of the 2002 coup attempt against Chávez, and role in helping to instigate the oil strike in 2002–2003.[320] RCTV was transmitted via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 2010, when it was excluded by cable companies in response to an order of National Commission of Telecommunications.[321][322][323] The refusal to renew its terrestrial broadcast license was condemned by a multitude of international organizations, many of whom have claimed that the closure was politically motivated, and was intended to silence government critics.
More censorship. Support action against your government? Not under Chavez.
And I suppose ignoring what Conservatives would object to, there's a LOT MORE to object to of Chavez, including his Bush tactic of using Christ to further his tyrannical policies.
However, two things I do agree with is his opposition to "US Imperialism," and how he used Capitalist policies to trade with Iran and industrialize the nation.
But small tyrants are still tyrants, and opposing US Imperialism while oppressing your own people is just not admirable enough.
From my link:
You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[31]
Now, maybe he DIDN'T say that, or maybe he believed that his God is weak and preaches the wrong thing... which would make him an anti-Christian or Pagan Satanist. But a statement like that isn't one sect versus another, it is anti-christian. Now, if it's false, then it's false. However, i've yet to see indications that it was false, along with many other quotes (from more than once source) within my link.
I am not saying that Hitler is definitely a Pagan, but the evidence speaks in this favor. One can, over time, lose their faith in one religion and choose another. He seemed to lose faith in Jesus and go to a more Paganistic style. if anything, he WAS a Satanist. But worship of Christ? Most likely not. He seemed to view himself more of a God than Jesus.
From what I've read over the past couple of years is that Hitler seemed most in favor of Christianity when he used it to speak out against the Jews. And in my link it seems that his most support of Christianity was more of recognition that the people of Germany and the West were deeply Christian and mostly influenced by Christianity. He wouldn't have been able to accomplish what he did if he didn't use the people's religion. he was a politician, and a really good one.
Oh, so it's a hoax. Well, I'm sure you'd have the evidence to back that up.
It should be easy enough. I've provided a collection of sources showing that Hitler wasn't as Christian as you claim him to be. You say that it's all just hidden agenda, and I'd like for you to defend that claim.
You may found some articles and books trying to make him look like an atheist or even Muslim but if you trace those authors usually it's a person active in Church refusing to provide references to his sources...
I'm sure you could do that for me instead of just making the claim.
He also talked negatively of Christianity and even said that other religions were superior to it, according to my link.
It is clear that during his Reich his views on Christianity started to grow more negative. His support of it came mostly from the realization that Christianity helped build Western Culture and that the German people would not follow a secular ideology. Hell, one of the main opposing parties was the Christian Socialists.
While he was raised a Catholic and spoke of God and Christianity in Mein Kampf, his views do not stay consistent into his later years.
He was a Pagan, which is neither Christian nor Atheist.
Raised Catholic, as a leader he dismissed the notions of a Christian God. His views came to be that Christianity was actually nothing more than bullshit to lead the people. However, you can't say shit like that publicly. It's easy to brainwash the people when you support what they support.
However, Hitler did believe in a God. So he wasn't an Atheist, which requires that you don't believe in God. And he most likely believed in a personal God, making him the Overman. Ironic, because Nietzsche philosophy came from Atheistic, individualist origins, while Hitler was a Deistic, collectivist.
They both kind of suck, and I can't watch it because of the video was removed, but I'm going to just post on this side.
I think neither won. They represent the middle intellects of the world, arguing over Republicans vs. Democrats and seeing who can be the most "revolutionary" while still being status quo. Bill O'Reilly is a T-Warrior, Jon Stewart is a neo-liberal. In the end, they both think that government is inherently good and that it's okay to give a select few people the ability to tell us what to do.
They both don't understand economics. Stewart believes that the poor can be "helped" if we just redistribute wealth through higher taxation and social programs. O'Reilly believes that the economy will flourish if we just lower taxes. Neither would ever consider free markets because that takes power away from the hands of the whoever's in charge and puts it into a much more diverse demographic. Most people are afraid, because they think Americans are stupid enough to need to be controlled. They put their faith in their political leaders, and hope to hell that the political leaders that THEY think are right will be the ones in charge.
Otherwise, they'd just blame the entirely flawed system on the right leaders not being elected, as opposed to the entire system that they support in the first place that has been allowing for corruption, restrictions, human rights violations, civil liberties violations, and mistreatment of people in general to happen.
Democrats will tell you that corporations will take over if government isn't strong enough, as if government is ruled by Angels and corporations is ruled by Devils. As if the incentive for more consumers will not get in the way of putting poison into your food.
Republicans will point to bestiality and polygamy as reasons for why we need legal standards. As if the integrity of the collective is limited by our lack of morality and consideration for our fellow man. We have to worry more about others than ourselves, even if others don't care.
O'Reilly and Stewart are both Collectivists. They believe that your purpose is to serve everyone else. They believe that you can not just be an individual. It doesn't matter if you hurt no one, you either serve the collective or got to prison. The society we've established is legalized slavery.
I'd say that there's nothing wrong with pointing out how this may not have been a good idea.
The level of hostility in her tone is debatable, but she's still got a point. This guy did not do the right thing when he grabbed that woman. Sure, it may, in some senses, seem "romantic," but I'm pretty sure this isn't some fairy tale where it was "love at first sight."
Pretty much. Gary Johnson, thanks to the internetz, has been storming as a third party candidate, and unfortunately this doesn't mean jack shit. The system has been made to try and keep GJ and other third party candidates out of the mainstream. Luckily, our generation is getting smart enough to realize the bullshit behind Republicans and Democrats.
Of course, Joe, this is a Fox source, so Davidh is immediately going to say that this is all some kind of Republican conspiracy, some how.
Well, requirements of handicap parking should be removed. It makes little sense to have government mandates that "accommodate" the handicapped. The private sector can do that on its own.
Handicap parking can be beneficial at times, but that is up to the business and consumer, not the State. Many handicap accommodations only harm the efforts of both businesses and the handicap to work with each other. Handicap person's employment has even gone down since the adaptation of stricter disability accommodations due to businesses fearing massive lawsuits.
As I proposed a few months ago that got Zombee real pissed off (also because she thought I meant holding women down to be forced to give birth or have an abortion) was a private contract between consenting parties. Automatically, the fetus belongs solely to the woman. However, to get impregnated a couple could sign a contract on the terms and conditions of the child. He could be the legal father as long as she doesn't abort it. Shit like that.
It's true, they could be wrong.
Doesn't necessarily mean that there's a good chance. The evidence for evolution is strong.
but it was also strong for eugenics at one point. And blood-letting and alchemy. And global cooling.
but most likely if evolution is shown to be nothing but a sham, it's likely to NOT be replaced with age old theistic ideas. It's more likely to be replaced with something much more impressive than evolution. The Theory of Evolution has been evolving (right?), so it is likely that some stuff today will be shown to be wrong, but replaced with better explanations with stronger evidence.
it stops the poor from killing the rich.
Is it that the poor are so blood thirsty that if they didn't get a check from their government they'd be out murdering anyone who drove a Buick?
And are the rich so oblivious to this that they wouldn't be cautious? Is charity only possible through taxes? Are services and employment provided only by the public sector?
