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.

Would be brilliant especially if you can detach the vacuum cleaner to reach all the parts that the wheels can't fit in.

Given how small my house is, though, would be a waste of money. But I can appreciate the genius.

Any true scholar of Patriarchy will know that sexism is deep-rooted into our brains and every decision we make without regard towards the equality of women is AUTOMATICALLY sexist.

So I might as well revel in it ;)

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...

I suppose he'd be a liberal if he was advocating that others should be forced to give her some kind of advice or counseling.

Not unless she's beating him off, ifyaknowwhatimean

--------------------------------------------

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.[296][297][2][298][299][300][301][302] The European Parliament called it "an attack on the independence of the judiciary by the President of a nation, who should be its first guarantor".[303] A director of Human Rights Watch said, "Once again the Chávez government has demonstrated its fundamental disregard for the principle of judicial independence."[

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.

In my Wiki page all statements are linked. It's in the OP when you click the word "dismissed."

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.

No, but we sure could use a president who crowd surfs.

-----------------------------------------------------

I'd buy 100 Hummer H1s and hire illegal immigrants to drive them for 10 hours a day and just refuel when they are out of gas.

And spend the rest on feeding the homeless.

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.

Girls play with their own boobs. It's a fact.

Universe forever brightened.

And I'm also bi

Ought to be mandatory

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.

I'm a college student who is currently taking the Summer off.

needless to say that at the moment I wake up naturally.

I do find it very interesting of a concept, and you've inspired my next essay.

thanks Joe :)

BSA can do whatever they want, but they should not be receiving Federal funding. No organization like that should be receiving funding.

clearly you didn't catch the humor behind this whole debate topic....

to avoid all the unnecessary quibbles, read Atlas Shrugged.

I suppose Libertarians would have to find their own afterlife to avoid the free-loading Liberals and the moralist conservatives.

Wow, that was impressive.

-----------------------------------

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).

Yeah, it was one of those gradual lols that starts off with a chuckle and ends in a HAHA.

I was really high yesterday and I thought about how we're just apes and our homes are just caves.

W/e, I like talking about my drug use.

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.

I thought women faked their entire beliefs and values in order to have a relationship.

And then, when you're locked in, they just turn out to be just as demanding and intolerant as the last girl you broke up with.

No, God just hates them.

-------------------------------

------------------

More like they found a poop-hole ;)

------------------------------------

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?)

People... people are acting like having sex for pleasure is a need.

Fuck it. Down this path government might as well pay for cable and internet.

Oh, so you don't wish to address any of the issues brought up by Warren Buffett and instead resort to saying "what a sweet old man, how DARE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!"

didn't expect much better, though.

I'm guessing that in your case she had quite a lot of gas :3

It says nothing about terrorists, taliban and insurgents... which makes me think that this graph is highly flawed.

inb4 gary says "terrorists taliban and insurgents are innocent"

I'm kind of stoned, so that made my mind sore into such an analytic monologue about the mindsets of opportunists vs. the other three... 8l

I guess he assumed that John Lennon fans were laid back and more about not making a big deal out of simple words... since John Lennon preached that message.

I guess he was wrong. The fans are superficial and want something to rally behind.

I used to say that I wished that John Lennon was still alive so that I can shoot him myself.

Now, I don't hate John Lennon, but in all honesty... who cares? This is why I love talking shit about the man, because his fans are a bunch of faggots. Cee Lo Green replaces hippie lyrics with equally hippie lyrics and all of a sudden he's a monster!

John Lennon said the shit he said most of his remaining years because The Beatles all took a shit load of acid. Most hippies did. Acid makes everything way different, and until you take that shit for years in heavy doses, stop thinking that YOU would know what John Lennon would have wanted, or that he's even an inspiration to you.

And anything he said that wasn't acid inspired was just Marxist inspired, so give the credit to Marx, not Lennon. (lulz)

Yes, and where Reagan got Authoritarian, Paul will do much better. After all, he wants to even cut military spending 8D

And legalize all drugs 8D

And end any overseas coercion 8D

True dat. you're about the profit, not the ideology.

8l

8l

8l

Dog 1 or Dog 2?

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh!

It started with the Disability Act (but that's just me being serious)

---------------------------------

[Joke having to do with sperm]

----------------------------------------------

Sort of like when I saw Notorious with some friends and had to save seats (instead of bikers, a lot of black people).

Exactly as Casper described it; the world has a far too globalized economy to go at war with each other for financial gain. The trade between countries is far too valuable.

Don't be a big baby, you said yourself that you it was incoherent. i was agreeing.

This is debate, not a relationship.

I don't really know what you were disputing, and yes, it's pretty incoherent.

True, I feel, however, that just because one pretends to believe in something for the sake of survival doesn't mean our actual beliefs have changed.

In the USSR, it was prohibited to worship Christ, but people did it anyway. There were underground churches.

Agnosticism is more of a philosophy than a belief system, in my experience.

If I really got into the nitty gritty, it's logical to be Agnostic because Agnostics comply with Quantum Mechanics (nothing can be certain).

But do I believe in God, spirits or the afterlife? No. So I am an Atheist.

In reality, that makes perfect sense (funny, that satire is less ridiculous than the actual situation). I didn't watch the video because it wouldn't load, but I read the caption. There should be less restrictions on vices that big daddy government hates so much.

Although, less restrictions on drug use has actually shown to decrease drug use (Portugal). That is with treatment replacing punishment, HOWEVER, the treatment isn't necessary. People just shoot up heroin in the streets... yet, there is less drug addiction after decriminalizing drugs.

so wait, this is a terrible idea. More people would live as a result of the War on Drugs ending 8o

I do apologize, Secular Humanism is a philosophy/religion, Secular Progressives are just usually Secular Humanists.

But yeah, those who think that bigger government is actually necessary and also happen to believe that religion should be completely out of government.

I'm pretty sure it's gay men. The anus was not made for things (especially penis sized) to go inside of.

Well, in COD it isn't as fun as close up action.

But in real life, I'd much rather use a drone since I'm safe AND kicking ass.

"FO A BETTAH 'MERICUH!!"

I love how much you pissed off Gary and then, in the end, he told someone "i'm not angry". lol, the tool.

And then Xaeon says "I haven't chosen a side" but, for some reason, is against Israel. If you are against someone, you have chosen a side.

I, on the other hand, have not chosen a side, so I believe that America shall help neither Israel nor Palestine. It is THEIR fight, not ours.

Terrorists use violence. We can't just take it up the ass and hope to develop a fool-proof strategy that will make everyone convert without having to raise a gun.

In the real world, we are going to have to kill some people. I am against war and believe we could have done way better with special ops, but unfortunately, we're at war and people have to deal with it.

But "non-violence" is fuckin' retarded at this point. Bring our troops home and send in spec ops, but that will still require some violence.

The only reasonable argument is that, yes, America fucked up in the past when it was trying to be all moral authority and shit, and helping establish the state of Israel. But that is, in no way, a good argument for what we need to do RIGHT FUCKIN' NOW about terrorism.

fuckin' morons.

I find myself reaching more for the insults lately. Probably because I'm losing faith in some debators.

I'm sure that the Secular Humanists are already on their way to trying to spread their ideals unto others (including Atheism). This is why they want a secular government to control education. This is why they want a secular government to control everything (and are opposed to privatization). The belief behind Secular Humanism is that:

1. Government must have power over the evil men (because evil, for some reason, still exists)

2. Government must be "secular" (aka, atheist).

This, of course, means that atheism must be the standard.

But do not worry, my friends. There is another branch of Atheism that is growing. It is quite different from Secular Humanists. They are still secular, but believe that most things should be left to the people. If you believe in shit like Jesus, you will have so many opportunities to continue that belief without fear of breaking some law or code.

Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Individualists and Objectivists are concerned with Post-Theistic ideals (no longer worrying about the fact that Theism exist).

I did not make a leap of faith in order to deny a belief in a deity.

When others tell me that God exists, I merely decide that unless they have compelling arguments, I'm not going to believe in such a thing. That is not faith... that is basic reasoning.

I will say, however, that the interest of whether we can actually conclude if God exists or not (and in what form) is solved through Philosophy. And while there are many philosophical arguments out there, you will never be able to truly understand your faith or reasoning unless you argue from your own mind (and not just quote Epicurus or Aristotle).

For your first point, I wasn't trying to say that Democrats of the past are the exact same thing as Democrats of the present. Not only would that be inaccurate, but it's also impossible. As the world changes, policy changes. What I was pointing out is that Classical Liberalism wasn't a platform for either Republicans or Democrats. Republicans of the past would tend to get the favor of business since Republicans passed legislation in favor of individual responsibility as opposed to favoring unions (made up of white people). Now, Republicans weren't fully classical liberal (as they aren't these days either) because of their support of tariffs. They made the mistake in favoring a sort of corporatism instead of Capitalism. But, this is how Capitalism died (in the name of Capitalism, ironically).

As for civil rights, you're talking about how voters shifted their party support. What I'm talking about is the legislative position, which civil rights was not a Democratic policy.

Through Libertarian measures (allowing business to continue their technological progression), we could achieve the goals of Communists 8l

possibly. or that tyranny of corporations thing that would lead to a revolution. Either way...

I see a lot of mention of Classical Liberalism, and I think it's important to point out that the ideals of Classical Liberalism were not Democratic. They were an ideology. Just how Republicans, today, do not support Classical Liberalism.

Lincoln and the Republicans had trouble with unions (unions hating Republicans? no way!!!) because of their belief that business should be allowed to hire immigrants and blacks who were willing to work for much less. Now, if one's argument is that immigration policy among Republicans has changed, I would agree, but unfortunately for the folks on the other side, they decided to go about a different route :(

So anyway, why do Democrats all of a sudden support civil rights? Well, because of LBJ. That's about it. It wasn't a Democratic policy (especially since LBJ worked with Republicans to get civil rights legislation passed in the first place). But what did this result in? Blacks supporting Democrats. So what do Democrats do to maintain that support? Keep blacks dependent on government and the Democrats.

This is what is happening now. The Democrats actually managed to bring back slavery. Good work.

There is no such thing as actual justice. The fact is, the Israel vs. Palestine situation is a fucked up situation that should be handled by the parties involved. This means NOT the United States. We've done enough shit around the world, let's just stop giving free weapons to them.

Great thing about a free country, that's the best way to show your opposition to something.

so what you're saying is that every country HAS to be like Western Democracies in order to exist?

The arrogance of Americans.

I was really excited when I first heard about this. Ended up being in a long ass debate with two friends (who are liberals) on Facebook.

The whole point of the Libertarian Islands is to take away force. So forcing someone to live there is counter to the idea.

I think that if this project works out, overtime it will end up having a decent population. Of course, many people do not support something like this, but I believe that to be a natural selection. Those who support Libertarianism will make this place greatly efficient. If we have a bunch of Liberals (asking for entitlements) and Conservatives (questioning the morality) we'll end up having a big bureaucratic mess. At least since it will be privately owned that turds won't really be able to take away the liberties of the citizens.

I think a better thing to say would be that war has helped stopped imperial countries of certain ideologies from continuing their imperialism.

The Third Reich was a danger towards Europe and Hitler and the SS were monsters. While it's possible that we could have stopped the Third Reich in some other way, War seems to have worked.

As for Communist take over, we focused more on giving aid to countries that were threatened by Communism. The Vietnam and Korean War wasn't our war, exactly, it was theirs. American interest was to keep the Communist from getting strong, and i'm not too sure if the Cold War and this whole macho man thing vs. the commies was the right thing to do, but never-the-less, the USSR has fallen, but I would attribute that more to American competition with the Soviets. We had a better economy and they could not keep up.

As for slavery, the Civil War did not really end slavery. In fact, the war started because of Federal failures to keep up with the Great Compromise. Slavery eventually dissolved after the war, and it is somewhat the attributed to the victory of the North, but the cost in lives may not have been worth it. After all, it wasn't victory that ended slavery, it was legislation.

War, to me, is not always necessary, but thinking up alternatives isn't always that easy. What we should do, instead of being a bunch of assholes who point the finger, is look to past and see what we could have done better and apply that to the future.

Good thing I don't invest in stock.

But I avoid all types of gambling.

The science is nice and all, and the fact that Yahoo (not known for its bias :3) published it is nice and all, but all of this is just speculation.

It doesn't disprove global warming, it just shows that we do not know everything about global warming.

There are three sides to this debate (even though I have still not seen an organized debate on the matter...):

1. Believers - People who believe that global warming is a major issue and is man-made and could possibly be stopped by man if we enact enough legislation (that happens to serve certain corporate interests, and harm others)

2. Non-believers - People who believe that there is no global warming or believe that climate change is an inevitable force that has been occurring for millions of years. They support the other lobby, which is against legislation that could hurt some corporate interests but help others.

3. The skeptics - People who, after looking at the science that has been presented, have concluded that there is no conclusion. Global Warming MAY be happening at an alarming rate, and it MAY be mostly man's fault, but there has not been enough hard evidence to show that legislation will cure this man-made catastrophe or if it truly is man-made. There is possible corporate interests since skeptics, at this time, are against legislation, but the problem skeptics, as opposed to non-believers, is that they can be convinced by presentation of hard evidence (as opposed to mainstream, juicy evidence that says "carbon dioxide, in the air, causes a greenhouse effect and then the earth gets hotter and then florida drowns in 20 years"... you know, that stuff they've been telling us since we were 10 years old.

I skimmed it. Joe... you're a funny ass dude.

but really, wtf was all this? Has CD become AIM?

Clearly it's made from the Honda. That shit will go on forever.

The thing about art is that every once in a while you will get a result of a true artist. Tattoos, while awesome, have become something too common and cliche. I don't mind them on someone, and they still look pretty cool. Don't get me wrong, if you have a tattoo that is similar to most other tattoos, I'll still probably like them (as long as they're not gay, like a favorite quote or something, you fuckin' hipsters).

But in order for me to see something as true art, it has to break boundaries. It has to make people go "holy shit, that's amazing". And a tattoo of a bunch of flowers or w/e, while very well done and pretty, aren't going to do that. Like I said, I like to see tattoos (don't have any myself, but that's because I don't want to spend 80 bucks to look like everyone else; if I was offered a really cool one for free, or paid to advertise something, I'd consider it). But most of the tattoos you see these days aren't special or amazing.

But I like these tattoos. They look like neato abstract paintings instead of just a mess.

You never see stand-up comedians bitching about being able to swing...

People who don't get it simply... don't get it.

Marriage is about being with someone who you love and share many common interests with. It's NOT about sex. Sex is a physical act that feels really good and is really fun. Sure, with someone you love can make it special, but that doesn't mean that you'd have to just have sex with that person forever. If a couple chooses to fuck around, it's because they enjoy sex for the pleasure and not just for the love. Loving is sex is good and all, but that doesn't alter sex in general.

But like I said, those who don't get it just don't get it. And they probably never will. They've grown up with a certain mentality and it would be really hard to convince them that there are people out there who are just as happy or even happier doing things completely different them.

Sex with children is a crime. Unlike the old days that Conservatives talk about.

Lulz, such a basic principle. Guns make us feel safer because they make us safer. I'd feel a lot safer from people attacking me if I was well armed.

It's all true. Government leaders are much smarter than everyone else, therefore, everyone should be slaves to the government.

duh.

Only in a perfect world we would be so free of choice and of the ego. Even better, we can just be hooked up to machines, making us all free of ambition.

This study is a bit confusing towards me. They say that a happy, smiling man is found least sexually attractive... and then goes on to say that a woman wants a man who is successful. well, a happy, smiling man would mean that he's currently successful and proud of his life, correct? If you are brooding, you are not successful.

Now, I feel that there should be better ways to explain this study. I am not saying that a smiling man is not less attractive... I'm just saying that smiling man are happy because they are successful. Plus, this study is based on online photos, another problem since pictures are different from real life. In pictures, the scene/hipster look is far more popular just because that is the culture of the internet (refer to tumblr/facebook). Hell, even my current profile picture on Facebook is a hipsterish look. That's because I know that bitches love it. But chicks like a guy who is smiling IRL since it portrays confidence. Now, smiling the entire time is just creepy, and in profile pictures that's a freeze frame of a smile... which can be creepy. Plus, it's very generic to have a picture of yourself smiling..."say cheese". It's more trendy to show yourself with a very rigid, strong look saying "i don't give a fuck because i'm the shit". But if you don't smile the entire time IRL, you kind of look like a buzz-kill. Girls, in general (let's forget about scene chicks) want a guy who looks fun and confident. Sure, they want a guy who has a dark past, but that's an entirely different game.

Interesting. I'm not sure if parents are buying this so that they can read it to their kids. Also not sure if this is even real (it is cnbc).

Global Warming, to me, is more like a conspiracy theory than a religion. Now, I'm not saying that climate change doesn't happen; it's been happening since Earth was formed. There is record of it happening before industry has happened.

Global Warming becomes a conspiracy theory when people take some scientific fact, like how carbon emissions can have a greenhouse effect or how certain chemicals can damage the ozone layer, and decide to use that as a CONCLUSION that man is CAUSING global warming. Conspiracy theories do just that. They take some facts about something and then decide to make a conclusion off of those facts without actually directly connecting those facts to how exactly that conclusion could be possible. Conspiracy theories are pseudo-science. Religion is something different.

But yeah, I see what you're trying to say.

not exactly...

I was showing you how Atheists who support scientific endeavors are NOT following a religion, according to the first definition (that i posted).

Some believe in the Big Bang... others believe it's just a theory...

As for physics... some believe in physics... others believe that it's all speculative. As well, physics itself describes the nature of only what is observable. We know that physics is most likely the answer because we found evidence of it. But if Newton never did his mathematics, scientists might still be behind and may NOT believe that physics describes any kind of the nature of the universe. But our support in physics only came from research and evidence.

The belief, if you can call it a belief, is in knowledge. Merely learning what we can. This is not a religion.

As for Buddhism, it's a collection of philosophies from some fat guy. He believed in some kinds of religious type qualities (like karma and darma, which have no evidence to support it), but even Buddha said, in describing his beliefs in either a deity or creator of the universe, is that "it is what it is". He did not claim that there really is an answer, but whatever it is, that's what it is. So it's not that much of a religion, just a philosophy.

I go by the FIRST one:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

atheists do not believe in anything UNLESS significant evidence is presented. They do not have a belief for the cause, nature and purpose of the universe... if there is any cause or purpose, science will lead to that answer. if not, science will take us a different path.