Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Competition creates advancements and innovation. The constant demand to make something bigger/Smaller, faster, cheaper is the driving force behind the economies of the world. All countries that do not embrace competition slow down to molasses is December.

Artists compete between each other for money and recognition. In order for them to get money they have stand out from the crowd, they have to be better than the rest. This is competition a.k.a. "Conflict",

Another example would be automobile companies.

Automobile companies such as Ford, GM, Toyota, etc all compete for the money of consumers around the world. The competition between these companies drives them to innovate their existing products and improve the designs of future products.

You can replace the names of the car companies with artists. Artists competed for money from Rich people. This created competition over the money. In order for the artist to stand out more from the rest they had to become better or create innovative new styles. Artists have to sell themselves (their skills) to investors like a company sells it's product.

This "conflict" causes artists to become better by developing their techniques or learning from masters or other artists.

One subject not mention are charities that don't deal with disease or other illnesses. What about homeless charities? Habitat for Humanity, ASPCA are a couple off the top of my head.

List

Others have already mentioned the plethora of problems that would plague the decision process and money allocation. Would diseases with the highest number of cases take importance or would another criteria be the deciding factor such as lethality of the disease?

I adamantly agree with Whitelion about how a "supercharity" won't create a superlab. It is better to try different methods to reach a cure. This isn't as simple as getting from point A to point B.



The U.N. is possibly the most corrupt entity on the face of the planet. Why? Because they don't have to answer to anybody. Any large body of authority has corruption. Basic law of the universe. Last thing I want is some bureaucrat deciding which disease my dollar goes towards which I am perfectly capable of making a good decision.

While you are correct, there are other factors that determine the birthrate of a country. An example would be the declining fertility in American Men who drink water in Areas where water is recycled. Various hormone from birth control are passed through the bodies of women taking the medication. Which then enters the water supply and is able to pass being filtered out. The men drink the water which caused lower sperm count. Also the increased use of contraceptives to control birth rates.

Currently, the birthrates in developed countries is about a 1-1 ratio while under under developed countries would be hitting population explosions if the mortality rates weren't so high. So in order for a N.W.O to take over they would have to control the reproduction of those countries first as the western world is maintaining it's population levels do to immigration.

My concern is how would the N.W.O. control population levels? Force contraception? Controlled reproduction (Master Race), etc. I find these type of actions nothing less than disturbing. While I would love to have the guidelines held up by a general population consensus but, doing so by force isn't the way to go but, sadly if a N.W.O. takes place it is most likely going to be totalitarian or an Oligarchy

Imperfect beings can't live in a perfect world. It is a waste of time to achieve perfection in anything as it will be impossible. There are noble aspects to these rules but, they also lead to areas where freedom is restricted such as the maintaining the size of the human population. What would somebody do if they get 500,000,001+ people on the planet? Kill the newborn or kill an older person? The only alternative I can conceive is to strictly control the reproduction of everyone on the planet.Such events would grant too much power to those in authority since they would control the very reproduction of a species which is what Hitler did with the "Master Race" as the gentlemen in the video pointed out.
This reminds me of the events in TTGL.

It wouldn't be possible for a single person or group to suddenly take control over night. There is a growing movement towards Global Citizenship. This is when a N.W.O style government would begin to take shape. Beginning signs would be requiring governments to disband their individual militarizes or turn control of them over to a governing body such as the United Nations. Along with legislation that trumps national laws in a similar way the supreme court trumps lower courts. An example of this would be gun bans made by the United Nations trumping the right to bear arms in the American constitution. That's the theory anyways.

At least, that's how I believe they would do it. High-jack a popular movement.

On topic: Utter rubbish. Conclusion comes last, not first.

From what I can recall the Georgia Guide stones were supposed to be a guide of what to do after the end of the world. I don't really know, ZiggyOtaku was more interested in it than I was. If case anybody cares here are the Rules on the Georgia Guide stones



I will admit that I laughed at the "genetically modified food" conspiracy. Somehow by breeding plants in the same manner as we do animals to receive traits we desire from the offspring is somehow going to control our reproduction in some manner.

To answer the topic; yes but, I think it's more than just Fakku affected by this. Another example of this is the comments on youtube videos.

I personally love an intelligent discussion where opposing views are made on a factual basis usually involving studies, news articles or various statistics. I've developed some pretty good friendships with a couple users from Fakku based on our arguments despite that their views are different from mine either extremely liberal or conservative. This kind of compare and contrast of opposing views and logic vs your own helps you fine tune your own views with information you may not have otherwise known.

HentaiElder made some valid points that I agree with 100%. We have some very open minded users but, at the same time we have some very close minded users as well. The ratio of which is left up to individual viewpoints.

Edit: I'll agree to a degree with Nacho since there are a few users out there that search for intelligent discussions in order to gain knowledge.

So if it's popular then it's not right. That could be compared to some of the political issues floating around. Obama was popular apparently he wasn't right. National health care is popular but that must make it wrong. American Idol is popular but, that's not right either. The majority find homeless people being treated poorly is popular, but that's not right at all.

Just because something is popular doesn't say either way if something is right or wrong. Everything has it own merits which is what makes it right or wrong. Popularity has nothing to do with it. People gravitate to ideas, things or people they agree with.

Anyways: you people are reading too much into this. As shaggy said



I'm not trying to say Fox is perfect it's just as credible as any other news channel. All news is biased but, everything has a little truth to it. Between all the sources I get my news from I can come to an educated conclusion.

The problem with this post is that you have yet to make any intelligent rebuttal to my argument. Trying to cover up your insults under the thin excuse of "satire" when really we know you were just being a typical troll.

Come back when you graduate high school.

Why the hell not. I'll feed the troll some more. It's fun watching you beg for scraps and attention.

If you have a point it would be nice if you actually made one instead of a game of mimic.

Christianity was spread at the point of a sword and later a gun. Then deeply rooted into society and taught everyday as truth everyday for the last 2,000 years. This verses a t.v channel that you have to want to watch. Not much of a comparison there.

With MSNBC being as biased as it is and the station losing ratings like a burning plane loses altitude then maybe Fox News isn't as bad as people claim it to be.

Plus, I feel like I'm the only person who actually watches Fox News and criticizes it for the actual flaws instead of hoping on the "Fox news sux" bandwagon.

Edit: As for O'reilly I take his show with a grain of salt. He has his flaws but, his heart is in the right place. He was instrumental in helping "Jessica's law" get passed and he consistently demands that public figures be held accountable. Especially those who are judges when O'reilly demanded a judge be held responsible for giving a sentence of 90 days in jail to a man who sexually abused his daughter from the age of 4 to 8 9don't quote me on the age but, it was for a prolonged period of time). Another example is when he criticized Al Sharpton for his statements about Micheal Jackson like he was a Civil Rights activist like Dr. King.

That "bullshit" as you call it is the most popular news channel in America. Not to mention the channel is broadcast internationally in:

Canada
Brazil
Australia
Italy
New Zealand
Scandinavia
United Kingdom

Location of all Fox news broadcasts are on this map.


If it's popular they must be doing something right. Which goes to show that people dislike channels like MSNBC whose ratings have been dropping for some time now.

Also, please provide an example of how the channel is laughable. A piece of advice, don't use the opinion guys as your example.

Happy belated shaggy. I can sympathize with you on the job hunting. I was lucky enough to land this gig. Not exactly something I want as a career but, you do what you have need to pay the bills. Best of luck.

yes, because people were laid off that completely invalidates the argument that millions of other people are employed. A lot of people lose their job but, that doesn't mean you can't find another one. Currently, that is difficult to do but, companies are still hiring in the recession. Picking up the Sunday paper and you will still see ads for people the problem is that competition for them is a lot more fierce.

How about we all stop the personal attacks and actually have a factual discussion about the issue.

I apologize to Ramsus for that last comment but, I would like to stress that the way he worded his statement came across as a personal attack stating that being a Libertarian obviously means that you are stupid or whatever negative comment you want to inject.

The point of the matter is I do know what the hell I am talking about. I read the news and I pay attention to politics far more than the majority of people. If you disagree with my views then counter them with facts instead of attacks claiming I want people to stay poor and die in the streets due to not wanting national health care when my example is pretty obvious. People in Canada and England leave for the U.S. in order to seek treatment. If out system is so terrible why do people come here for treatment? yes, the system is broken but, we should fix it in a way that doesn't involve politicians or bureaucrats telling us that a procedure isn't worth the cost.

People claim I want businesses to have all the power when I don't want high taxes on them. These people give us our jobs which gives us our money to buy the shit we want. Without employers you won't have employees.

So if you have a problem with my arguments then counter them with facts and prove me wrong.

Attack the argument not the person.

Coming from a guy who is trying to make people believe he's a little girl. Not to mention you trolling a birthday thread, amongst the variety of other things you've done.

He's personal attack was unprovoked. I've even tried to make amends in the past and apologized but, apparently he didn't see our "relationship" as neutral parties like I did.

This shows the weakness of your argument that you resort to personal attacks. Why don't you get the rest of your little clique together to help you out? Nah, that's what a pussy would do.

It's a comedy show with no journalistic responsibility. It's good for a laugh but, nothing that comes out of his mouth has any journalistic credibility.

What could be considered a joke here? That I get my news from actual journalists instead of comedians? Is there something wrong with reading

The New York times
The Washington Post
Atlanta Journal Constitution

or listening to

National Public Radio (All things Considered, Fresh Air)
W.S.B. 750 (Clark Howard, Neal Boortz)
WGST 640 (Rush Limbaugh)
Or watching

CNN Headline News
Fox News
CNN

I believe in getting information from several sources.

I made an intelligent post in Serious discussion a while back and somebody (I forget their name at the moment) said "Penguin I vote you the next president" and I joked and said "Penguin'24" From there I ran with the joke and asked Magical Gnome to make a sig for me. Plus, I love politics and it's not much of a stretch for me to actually run for office (president or otherwise) if I had the money.

Just making sure you had an actual (I hoped more specific) reason that you dislike him instead of being one of the people that just hate him because it's popular.

Edit; Flashblock FTW.