Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts
EllieX wrote...
What if I do not agree with the law? Why do I have to abide by these rules I never physicaly or verbaly agreed to? What if I beleive a law is immoral? Why should I have to obey somthing that goes against my beleives? Am I just being forced to follow a contract I am apparently being held to against my will? Will people start to rant about inhernt social and societal contrats?Under the current system, you simple bend over and try to relax your anus as you get fucked by the state (a.k.a. Government). Under less federal systems (such as confederacy, Anarchy, Libertarian Marxism) you have less central authority and therefore you can move about to find a city, county or state that more closely resembles your own beliefs.
This is part of my beef with the Federal system. We're too dynamic and diverse of people for a single law to meet all of our needs. It's better to leave the regulations at the city, county and state levels.
To more directly answer the questions.
Under the current system.
1). If you don't agree with the law, sucks to be you and you better obey it.
2). The men with the guns say you have to.
3). Sucks to be you. You can try to change it but, in the meantime you better obey it otherwise the men with the guns will take you to jail.
4). The men with the guns say you have to obey it.
5). Yep.
6). Don't know what you're asking for specificly so I can't really answer that.
LustfulAngel wrote...
Lishy1 wrote...
In my opinion, dealing with Iran is quite simpler than those working in the government might be over-complicating it.Yes, Ahmadinjad is a Muslim extremist, but he doesn't show intention to invade other countries over Jihad that I know of (correct me?)
His problem is he is a conspiracy theorist who religiously follows people like David Duke, and instead of his religion being his motive for hate against Israel, he believes in "zionist" conspiracy theories.
We have to talk to him, and confront his concerns on David Duke's rumors about Israel and America being a "Satanic Jewish" conspiracy. Prove him wrong and TALK to him instead of fueling his ideas about American imperialism!
Right now Iran feels like it's the victim, and obviously they feel justified to fight back. But if we could just talk to them, a lot could be accomplished.
What we're missing in this discussion is the reprecussions, and what I mean by that is that in their clamor for war, they aren't telling the American People the truth of how extensive this is going to be.
Russia has already made the position clear, that it will not tolerate an Iranian attack in any circumstance. In other words, hostilities with Russia. If that isn't enough to make an American hesitate, then know that Syria also has close ties with Iran and has also declared that an Iranian attack will mean Syrian involvement.
Still not convinced? China has come out in recent months to declare she will protect Iranian interests, add to that her alliance with Russia and there's no doubt of heavy Chinese involvement.
If an American is still stupid enough to actually want to get involved in this situation, Newt Ginrich mentions Pakistan(a Chinese Proxy), I'm glad to see Newt isn't entirely clueless but he's still majorly clueless.
Far more concerning is the tight Chinese-North Korean ties, now that's a nation that actually HAS nuclear weapons and has opposed U.S. Policy in the past.
But I'm not done yet, when the Iranian Question has come up, several Middle Eastern experts have feared and theorized that an Iranian attack will unite the divided Muslim factions and hence countries that otherwise might be neutral would join in the now-expanding regional/world war conflict on the part of the Iran-Chinese-Russian axis.
Like, say Turkey! In a show of geopolitical ignorance on the part of Israel, her long time Muslim ally Turkey merely asked for an apology for the death of it's civilians(in violation of International Law, Gaza Strip is NOT Israeli territory and should not be regulated by the Jewish). Israel refused to comply, because it's own appointed "investigation team" determined they did no wrong.
Turkey was rightfully offended by this, Turkey was willing to oversee the death of it's own people for a simple apology and they actually had the gall to say no?
In a regional muslimic war, Turkey will now take the side of the Eurasian Axis, all because Israel couldn't give a simple apology.
The fear by most U.S. Generals and the fear of anyone paying attention is that this regional world war will be one where we will experience what the AXIS experienced in 1945.
A two-front war which will lead to America's second military defeat, this one so resounding and obvious that it might finally wake Americans up to the need for political reform.
China doesn't have the economic strength nor the incentive to be directly involved in a war vs the U.S. China is currently suffering from a huge real estate bubble (that's bursting) and government debt problem. The Chinese Government is trying to change the culture of thrifty saving into a culture of consumer spending.
If China did get involved it would be mostly limited to material support for the other countries. Why send your own troops to fight when you can send the troops of another country to fight for you?
I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter and believe the media isn't giving him a fair shake but, even I think you're grasping at straws with this. The media wouldn't stoop to such childish tricks to discredit Paul. They simply wouldn't have even interviewed the corporal in the fist place.
They would rather ignore him outright than pull childish stunts. Example is when he became the 13th floor in a hotel. Whenever he would get 2nd or 3rd in a poll they would simply skip over him and mention those immediately below him. Jon Stewart even did a bit on how the media is treating him.
They would rather ignore him outright than pull childish stunts. Example is when he became the 13th floor in a hotel. Whenever he would get 2nd or 3rd in a poll they would simply skip over him and mention those immediately below him. Jon Stewart even did a bit on how the media is treating him.
BigLundi wrote...
You know...I just...don't understand. Why go to war over oil? War costs billions of dollars. What the hell is the mentality?"We need oil, and we want to save money. What's the best way?"
"Let's spend billions of dollars forcibly taking it."
"BRILLIANT!"
I don't get it, I really don't.
Close but, not quite taking in the whole picture Lundi. The United States spends it's blood and treasure to secure these resources but, the United States does not directly profit from these acquisitions. Instead, Halliburton, the other oil companies and banks are the ones who make the profit. These corporations buy the politicians who then do their bidding by convincing the American people to go to war for reason X.
In other words, it's pure propaganda. The media pushes the idea that we need to go to war for reasons such as Democracy and Humanitarian reasons as we saw with Iraq and Lybia.
When you start digging past the media's story you eventually see the man behind the curtain.
Link.
Lishy1 wrote...
There's nothing to gain from becoming a police statePower & Money. The political class gains power and wealth the more we turn into a police state. A good example is how U.S companies financed and support Nazi Germany during WW2 WHILE we fought them.
It still occurs today. U.S organizations will convince the American people we need to go to war and then when war breaks out, they play both sides to gain money from weapon and resource purchases or even the payments on loans used to finance the war effort.
There are even reports that U.S C.I.A started the Lybian conflict in order to oust Qudaffi so they could get access to his countries oil reserves.
Corruption is like a cancer. You have to remove the entire mass otherwise you're simply wasting your time. So for voting to work, you would have to vote out 99% of congressmen and women. Changing just a few congressmen leaves the majority of the cancer cells to infect and ruin the new cells. If you remove the majority of the cancer you still have a few cells that will try to create new cancerous cells.
The only way to stop it is to completely remove the tumor. That is the problem, the majority of Americans think their congress reps are doing a great job and won't vote them out.
The only way to stop it is to completely remove the tumor. That is the problem, the majority of Americans think their congress reps are doing a great job and won't vote them out.
You used a common misunderstanding that is often used by ignorant people to claim that Dr. Paul is a racist as a "joke". I'm not sure where the "joke" was but, forgive the misunderstanding.
Honestly, I'm leaning towards revolt but, I know it's futile, so I vote reforms. I view the majority of Congress as traitors to this country. I believed they should be arrested, tried and preferably executed accordingly. These men and women took an oath to uphold the constitution and all they have done is shit on it from day one. Concerned more about getting reelected and maintaining their positions of power rather than doing their jobs. Meanwhile the American people are scrapping by, getting hours cut at work, losing jobs, giving up their dreams while 47% of congress are millionaires.
These people are modern day Romanov's and should see the same fate.
Honestly, I'm leaning towards revolt but, I know it's futile, so I vote reforms. I view the majority of Congress as traitors to this country. I believed they should be arrested, tried and preferably executed accordingly. These men and women took an oath to uphold the constitution and all they have done is shit on it from day one. Concerned more about getting reelected and maintaining their positions of power rather than doing their jobs. Meanwhile the American people are scrapping by, getting hours cut at work, losing jobs, giving up their dreams while 47% of congress are millionaires.
These people are modern day Romanov's and should see the same fate.
Aud1o Blood wrote...
Besides Paul, he'd do it because he's a white supremacist.)That is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever seen you post. You clearly have been gulping down bias and downright wrong information. I expected better from you.
On topic: As much as I am appalled by the passing of this abomination I can't help but, feel that the American people are getting what they deserve. The apathy, ignorance and downright complacency of the American people towards the body politic has allowed this to occur. Now you're stuck with a police state that enforces it's popularity abroad with the lives of service men and women who joined because they wanted to give something back. A police state that is deeply in debt to the tune of 15 trillion dollars. A police state with a dwindling middle class, growing poverty rates (FYI, poverty rates haven't been adjusted in over 20 years hence why statistics appear better than they are). You allowed the political class to pit you against your fellow Americans by dividing you into groups based on ridiculous labels. The Rich vs The Poor, Whites Vs Minorities, etc, etc when you're all fucking Americans and should have thought of them as Americans first and foremost. No, by playing their games you allowed the political class to deprive you of your rights under whatever godawful excuses you could think of. Allowed the political class to deprive you of the only real means to protecting your rights that you had. Allowed the political class to sell you, your family, your friends into economic slavery to multinational corporations and banks.
MLK Speech from Boondocks wrote...
I've seen what is around the corner I've seen what is over the horizon
and I promise ya, you Niggas have nothing to celebrate
and no, I won't get there with ya, I'm going to Canada.
EZ-2789 wrote...
That's for sure. Our government is highly inefficient. I can understand our founding fathers wanting to purposefully make an inefficient system where the power was sprinkled here and there like confetti, but lately it's been getting kind of ridiculous. The parties themselves are fragmented up the ass and that's why we never get any consensus on anything.Perhaps we should move towards a more confederate system. Each state being generally independent with the Feds stepping in as adjudicator for disputes. The founding fathers were very ahead of their time when they gave the Federal Government a narrow list of responsibilities explicitly spelled out in the constitution and left the rest of the responsibilities, rights and powers to the people (and to the states via the people).
I'm hoping people realize how far they have strayed from the constitution and make a dramatic push to return to it.
Anesthetize wrote...
Perhaps i should rephrase as you're getting mixed up from what i intended. I never said America was a pure free market (as there is no such thing), but free market practices that were un-policed and the de-regulations laws of Reagan and other presidents are what caused it.Again, it was bad governmental policy that lead to the problem in the first place. Barney frank through the strong arming of Fanny Mae lead to the housing bubble. Without frank using the powers of government to forcible lower lending standards and provide incentive for bad lending practices the whole issue probably would have never risen. Therefore it is the government fault for this mess.
You can continue to blame the "deregulation" for the problem but, nobody would or should take that argument seriously considering where the government policy's placed the incentives.
Government gave incentives for bad practices. Market followed those incentives which distorted the market place. Federal reserve manipulated the interest rates to promote those bad practices.
[quote="Anesthetize"]Yeah, but it was the free market that let people do that.
Yeah, people tend to make mistakes when you allow them to live their lives.
[quote]i think you give the government too much slack they're caught in a catch-22 where the people who control the free-market are the ones that have the power to control politicians. Even if they want to do something, they ultimately can't if it goes against their interests. America stopped being a democracy during Reagan and is now a plutocracy.
You really don't understand what a free market is. The United States has not been a free market since Roosevelt. The government has been involved in the market place either through regulation, legislation or by creating quasi-governmental agencies such as Fanny May and Freddy Mac since the 1800s. All these claims that the "free market" is the reason for all the trouble we're in are bunk since we haven't even had a free market for over 100 years. We're a mixed economy.
Yeah, people tend to make mistakes when you allow them to live their lives.
[quote]i think you give the government too much slack they're caught in a catch-22 where the people who control the free-market are the ones that have the power to control politicians. Even if they want to do something, they ultimately can't if it goes against their interests. America stopped being a democracy during Reagan and is now a plutocracy.
You really don't understand what a free market is. The United States has not been a free market since Roosevelt. The government has been involved in the market place either through regulation, legislation or by creating quasi-governmental agencies such as Fanny May and Freddy Mac since the 1800s. All these claims that the "free market" is the reason for all the trouble we're in are bunk since we haven't even had a free market for over 100 years. We're a mixed economy.
[quote="Anesthetize"]This can swing in the other way also. If the person making the decisions decides on the right ones that lead to results (Deng Xiaoping and China) then that would be far more efficient than having several states, only of a few which end up with stable economic growth.
So you're saying that a single individual who controls the military should be allowed to dictate the lives of his subjects? Do you really need a central planner to tell you how much you should pay for basic necessities because you can't make those decisions? Central planning requires the person making the decision be correct 100% of the time otherwise the people suffer. Plus, I'd rather be the one in control of my life not some monarch, dictator or unelected bureaucrat.
[quote]Not only that but a federal state is far more difficult to regulate and control than a single entity. The type of system you've just described is a free market ideology, yet it is this free market ideology that has caused this mess. In economics, the saying "strength in numbers" doesn't work because of how rampant and intertwined globalization has made the modern world, only of which are we seeing the results now.
Free market did not cause this crisis. The ignorance, complacency and greed of various sectors of society along with mismanagement at the Federal level is the reason for this mess. Housing bubble? Barney Frank cause the market to become distorted when he passed a bill that essentially forced lenders to lower their standards for borrowing. That in turn caused a build up of loans that people could not pay eventually surpassing the tipping point for the economy to handle. On top of that the mismanagement of the interest rates by the Federal Reserve caused an artificial demand which continued to exacerbate the problem of the housing bubble and bad lending practices. Finally, the failure of Government regulators put the final nail in the coffin when they failed to do their job of regulating derivative and credit default swap trading.
Government failures are always larger than market failures.
So you're saying that a single individual who controls the military should be allowed to dictate the lives of his subjects? Do you really need a central planner to tell you how much you should pay for basic necessities because you can't make those decisions? Central planning requires the person making the decision be correct 100% of the time otherwise the people suffer. Plus, I'd rather be the one in control of my life not some monarch, dictator or unelected bureaucrat.
[quote]Not only that but a federal state is far more difficult to regulate and control than a single entity. The type of system you've just described is a free market ideology, yet it is this free market ideology that has caused this mess. In economics, the saying "strength in numbers" doesn't work because of how rampant and intertwined globalization has made the modern world, only of which are we seeing the results now.
Free market did not cause this crisis. The ignorance, complacency and greed of various sectors of society along with mismanagement at the Federal level is the reason for this mess. Housing bubble? Barney Frank cause the market to become distorted when he passed a bill that essentially forced lenders to lower their standards for borrowing. That in turn caused a build up of loans that people could not pay eventually surpassing the tipping point for the economy to handle. On top of that the mismanagement of the interest rates by the Federal Reserve caused an artificial demand which continued to exacerbate the problem of the housing bubble and bad lending practices. Finally, the failure of Government regulators put the final nail in the coffin when they failed to do their job of regulating derivative and credit default swap trading.
Government failures are always larger than market failures.
Anesthetize wrote...
Controlling how wealth is generated and how wealth is distributed are two differing ideologies. There is no real communist way of generating wealth nor is there a democratic way either. Not sure what this has to do with my post but, ok.
Mismanaging any economic system, regardless if the country is democratic or communist is going to lead to negative effects, like how you said we saw in the SU, and how we're seeing today in the Eurozone/US.
The more centralized the economy the bigger the issues become. With a decentralized system the effects of mismanagement have smaller more localized impacts. With a more centralized system the effects are broader and multiplied by the size of the centralized body.
Think of it like this, if the entire economy is planned by a single economist and he screws up when doing his calculations. You will have a serious crisis. However if you break the area up into 50 states with each state having their economy run by the population of that state. A lot more people have to screw up before things get serious.
Look at the banking system, all the power is concentrated into a handful of international banks. So when they get into trouble, it's a crisis because so many people will be affected by the collapse of just 1 monster, megabank but, when your local credit union is in trouble the only people affected are the ones who bank at that credit union. Beginning to see the point?
ryanbeev wrote...
how come if you are with communism and socialism you're always "trolling" so - un - cool bro
It's not the pro-commie or socialist stance that got you labeled as a troll. Flaser is a avid communist and I don't think of him as a troll. Simply, your poorly worded, short and confrontational first post got you labeled as a troll.
I don't hate communism but, it simply isn't practical. The flaw is concentrating massive amounts of power in the hands of a group of people. Every "communist" country has failed to convert 100%. It always stops at that final step and eventually turns into an oligarchy with the Bolsheviks turning into the new Romanov's.
The entire economic system is terrible as well. Central planning only works if the planners are perfect. If the system is mismanaged at any level you start seeing lots of stress fractures to the system. Mismanagement is part of the reason why the Soviet Union stagnated and failed.
also 2/10 for trolling
The entire economic system is terrible as well. Central planning only works if the planners are perfect. If the system is mismanaged at any level you start seeing lots of stress fractures to the system. Mismanagement is part of the reason why the Soviet Union stagnated and failed.
also 2/10 for trolling
How to control a society? Allow me to quote Niccolo Machiavelli
Look at every dictatorship around the world. The people are lead to believe that their ruler is the only person capable of governing them. Kim Jong-il was literally worshiped by his people (if you believer their media).
You can look at the events surround Bush Jr's administration. The American people gave into fear of terrorism so they allowed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act to be passed. They allowed to president to declare an unconstitutional war on not a foreign nation but, an ideology. The fear of the American people allowed them to believe the delusional concept of "if we kill enough of them, the fighting will stop" Their fear allowed the president and congress to strip away nearly every single right they ever had because of fear.
NDAA is set to pass because some people are scared of the possibility of dying to boogeyman.
The bank and car manufacturer bailouts all stemmed from the fear of an economic collapse.
To control a society you need fear. Fear of punishment or fear of being left to fend for themselves without their benevolent leader. Fear is power, it is control.
niccolo machiavelli wrote...
Therefore A Wise Prince Will Seek Means By Which His Subjects Will Always And In Every Possible Condition Of Things Have Need Of His Government, And Then They Will Always Be Faithful To Him.Look at every dictatorship around the world. The people are lead to believe that their ruler is the only person capable of governing them. Kim Jong-il was literally worshiped by his people (if you believer their media).
You can look at the events surround Bush Jr's administration. The American people gave into fear of terrorism so they allowed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act to be passed. They allowed to president to declare an unconstitutional war on not a foreign nation but, an ideology. The fear of the American people allowed them to believe the delusional concept of "if we kill enough of them, the fighting will stop" Their fear allowed the president and congress to strip away nearly every single right they ever had because of fear.
NDAA is set to pass because some people are scared of the possibility of dying to boogeyman.
The bank and car manufacturer bailouts all stemmed from the fear of an economic collapse.
To control a society you need fear. Fear of punishment or fear of being left to fend for themselves without their benevolent leader. Fear is power, it is control.
Tsu, you'd hate me I mostly use the PP90M1 w/ rapid fire. The first time I used that combination I fell in love. I've got multiple games when all was said and done with my KDR was 19+. I simply can't do that with any AR. The SCAR, ACR and Type 95 do their thing but, it's never that good. I think I got a 25:0 with the type 95 once.
Things that I dislike about MW3
1. The shit-tastic spawn system. I've literally spawned IN FRONT of more people than I can count. Literally, in the path of their bullets as they are shooting someone else.
2. With all the nooks and cranny's the you get lots of campers. This by far is my biggest complaint about the game.
Side Note: I want to mention how relaxing and rewarding it feels to throw a frag or a simtex at a guy camping and see their dumb ass on the kill feed.
3. Strike packages: I love the specialist strike package but, I despise the support strike package. First day of playing the game. I suffered 3 back to back bombers from the enemy team...during domination! Good luck trying to take B when there is a steady stream of bombers blasting the ever loving bejeesus out of the center of the map.
Also, Fuck the recon helicopter. Why the fuck does it have flares? It makes so little sense that every time I think about it, I have to take medication so I don't go insane and start trying to crawl inside the ear of a donkey.
Support needs to lose the bomber and the recon helicopter needs to stop stunning stunning me before I trying to harness lightning to bring to life my own frankenstein-ish jackalope.
4: The Map "Mission" is horrible balanced. the African militia side is at such a steep disadvantage when trying to push forward.
5: Assault rifle users pretty much roll over and die if someone with a SMG enters the room. I really hate how the M4A1 and M16A4 are terrible. I used the m16 in black ops until I unlocked the AUG and I used the M4 in mw2 on occasion when I wanted a change of pace.
If anybody is interested in playing on ps3 let me know. Anything would be better than some of the inbred retarded "randoms" that I get paired with. I think a lobotomized monkey on meth would be a better teammate than some of these fuckwits.
Things that I dislike about MW3
1. The shit-tastic spawn system. I've literally spawned IN FRONT of more people than I can count. Literally, in the path of their bullets as they are shooting someone else.
2. With all the nooks and cranny's the you get lots of campers. This by far is my biggest complaint about the game.
Side Note: I want to mention how relaxing and rewarding it feels to throw a frag or a simtex at a guy camping and see their dumb ass on the kill feed.
3. Strike packages: I love the specialist strike package but, I despise the support strike package. First day of playing the game. I suffered 3 back to back bombers from the enemy team...during domination! Good luck trying to take B when there is a steady stream of bombers blasting the ever loving bejeesus out of the center of the map.
Also, Fuck the recon helicopter. Why the fuck does it have flares? It makes so little sense that every time I think about it, I have to take medication so I don't go insane and start trying to crawl inside the ear of a donkey.
Support needs to lose the bomber and the recon helicopter needs to stop stunning stunning me before I trying to harness lightning to bring to life my own frankenstein-ish jackalope.
4: The Map "Mission" is horrible balanced. the African militia side is at such a steep disadvantage when trying to push forward.
5: Assault rifle users pretty much roll over and die if someone with a SMG enters the room. I really hate how the M4A1 and M16A4 are terrible. I used the m16 in black ops until I unlocked the AUG and I used the M4 in mw2 on occasion when I wanted a change of pace.
If anybody is interested in playing on ps3 let me know. Anything would be better than some of the inbred retarded "randoms" that I get paired with. I think a lobotomized monkey on meth would be a better teammate than some of these fuckwits.
Tsurayu wrote...
Not even FPOD and Flaser are immune to getting their asses handed to them, from time-to-time. That folks, is why I love SD.
Tsurayu wrote...
Oh come on. You're the last person I would expect to start spewing conspiracy nonsense.It's not conspiracy nonsense. It's a well founded distrust in the Federal Government born from years of being exposed to the political environment of the U.S. Sure, it seems innocuous but, all it takes is one politician to set the ball rolling. I'd rather leave the pirate be than even consider letting a bill that could potentially violate my civil rights pass.
Perhaps it's exaggerated but, I'd rather err on the side of caution then let a bad bill pass.
Tsurayu wrote...
I don't believe it will ever get that bad. I think people are over-dramatizing this. I mean it is good that so many people show such fervent initiative, but there's a fine line between being fervent about something and just being bat-shit crazy. This is not going to affect everyone's day-to-day lives as much as they think. I just get infuriated with how many people think this is the end of the internet, or even the world, as we know it.
Tsurayu, this is the United States Federal government we're talking about here. A governing body full of corporate influences, bribes and outright corruption. Do you seriously doubt that corporations won't use this bills broad language for personal gain?
Also, you mentioned you're a broadcaster on twitchTV. Already, Sp00ky from Team Sp00ky (Competitive street fighter broadcaster) had his streaming equipment seized (on grounds that it could be used for illegal broadcasting)when he was traveling. That was just by the TSA, imagine what a broadly defined bill can do? I'd rather be cautious and leave a few pirates to continue to do their thing than risk having the internet censored because of overzealous corporations.
