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?
It's sad that Liberals are not against bigger government, considering that's what their name means.
But it's ironically true. now, folks like Romney and Santorum (especially Santorum) don't like Libertarians because of our beliefs in personal freedom (and even economic freedom, something that a lot of Republicans have abandoned or don't truly support.)
In general, though, especially among the younger crowd, it's easier to have a Conservative turn Libertarian than to have a Liberal turn Libertarian. Stossel said that he was surprised by this since Conservatives seemed to believe in moral restrictions while Liberals seemed more open minded. He thought that Liberals would be logical enough to look at the facts behind free market economics and just make a rational choice.
How we were all wrong. Conservatives, in touting typical stuff about "pull yourself by your own bootstraps" and "Live by your decisions" have actually found these economic principles to transcend into personal choices. Now, most Conservatives do not view economics in the same way as Libertarians (since Libertarians have shown free markets to benefit far more than a currently Statist intervention that we have today), they usually just do stuff to favor self-interest and greed, but their policies, ironically, are more in tune with Libertarian ideology. So it's not so hard to push them a little further on economics and to show them how it's not about "dog-eat-dog" but about mutuality and non-aggression.
Liberals, on the other hand, are not really good on even personal freedoms. While they like the usually politically correct stuff like abortion and gay marriage, most don't give a shit about the War on Drugs or even the War on Terror (based on Obama type Liberalism, of course.) Democrats and Liberals are nothing more than Authoritarians who ever once in a way cater to a minority. Conservatives cater to the rich and the religious, but at least many of them are abandoning those policies after being shown Milton Friedman or Reason magazine.
Abortion should be completely legalized and unregulated. While it may seem harsh to allow this, late-term abortions are rare and usually too complex to be just for the sake of "convenience" for the mother. What abortion laws do is bring about a bureaucratic system that women must go through in order to hope to achieve their abortion.
And contraceptives and education are available to the public, but not through coercion.
Silicon Valley has been a major success story for so many young and intelligent entrepreneurs.
The last thing the internet needs is a bunch of taxes and possible regulations just to strike down on those wishing to push their ideas that will benefit society and themselves.
The internet is best left alone. It has been a success story and the less government involved in it, the better.
They are not a medical decision if we view medical as something concerning physical health.
However, if I had the ability to screw with the Universe, I'd make it so that we could still consider them as mental health issues. Some people could not handle a baby that is of an undesirable race or gender, which is an endangerment for depression or anxiety.
Of course, I'm just in favor of completely legalized abortion. So a medical reason wouldn't matter to me in the legislative portion. Privately, however (if a hospital or insurance company decides to fund it or not), is really up to whatever contract or terms were agreed upon.
How does a marriage license differ from a broad private contract?
There is little room for negotiation in a marriage contract. Marriage contracts come with automatic terms that must be changed by the party if they even know what is in the contract.
The greatest killer in this is the prenuptial agreement, which must be specifically put in (often something that ruins relationships or harms the marriage, people are practically coerced into not getting a prenup for the sake of the marriage hegemony).
Even so, a marriage contract from government is only granted to those that government finds suitable to meet the requirements of marriage. Once again bringing about issues of gay marriage, polygamy, marrying a child, etc.
A contract between the military, spouse, and a military personnel is a contract with the government.
A very specific one considering living arrangements and living arrangements only. What if the terms of marriage are not what a soldier and his partner agree with?
You seem to want to just change the name.
Clearly that is not the case. I want to eliminate it and allow individuals to create their own terms. Already, eliminating marriage as a contract, would greatly eliminate the need for one. many things that marriage comes with are things that people either don't want or find to not be necessary, or maybe doesn't cover enough. Through individual contracts without government definition or regulation, most of these issues would be rectified.
most contracts defacto are contracts with the government in that the government agrees to enforce them.
Still treating me like I am anti-government. Far from the case. Government must enforce the right to contract.
What about the legal benefits of marriage
Can any not be considered through private contract?
the spouse of a military personnel can live on base with them.
The problem with this is this is military personnel that is not fighting. Military bases outside of the US should not exist. Military bases within the US can make room for a spouse or loved one through a contract between the military personnel and the military. We do not need a marriage contract for this.
Marriage serves several purposes via granting numerous privileges and rights.
Rights to property and offspring and visitation can be handled by private contract. Allowing government to regulate marriage is bringing in a bureaucratic mess (see gay marriage, animal marriage, and polygamy).
Marriage licenses are obsolete.
At one time, hundreds of years ago, the purpose of government regulated marriage was to encourage reproduction.
At the moment, marriage is just a vanity thing. People like getting married, and many of them do not have children.
Others have children out of wedlock.
And Thousands of children are in the foster program.
Marriage serves no purpose these days, and we are evolved enough to recognize this. if you love someone, visit your church and get married. But stop having government get involved.
It's about the appeals of sexuality and the aspects of sexual organ that makes a gay man become aroused by a cock.
Consider how women look at dicks. Many of them will not find an erect penis to be very attractive when they're the type of woman who bars herself sexually (prudes, monogamous, etc). However, when a woman becomes far more open to sexuality, it is common to look at the penis as more attractive. They'll even be more inclined to want to do more things with it... you know, orally ;)
So think about being gay. If you're a man, you usually love sex a shit load. Treat it very physically. Gay men aren't much different, and now that they're gay and open about it, they'll usually love dicks... like, a lot (sometimes even more than most women).
hahahah, but no.
i don't think about her washing her hair because washing hair has nothing to do with debates.
even being drunk, at this moment (and you know it, because only drunk people advertise that they're drunk) makes me think "eh, w/es yo, what's that argument like?"
lol, I wish this specific picture was more of the case. I usually see shit like this in dude's facebook defaults.
Chicks tend to have the more "lol, look how cute i am" photos.
In general, Facebook is great for exposing how much like ants we all are, just doing the same routine shit, even in our independent moments.
The reasoning for paying for abortion and contraception is quite amazing. They say "it would be cheaper than paying for people with kids".
first... why do we have to pay for any of this?
Second, why are we accepting irresponsible behavior and then just paying for it?
If this is the case, why not pay for sterilizations, which eliminate the cost of contraception AND abortions AND welfare for kids.
And then we can pay for porn, which eliminates any cost of sex (unless couples are using porn while they have sex, but hey, people abuse all systems of welfare, right?)
