Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Callipygian was the only word I've used for the hell of using a ridiculous word. I used the word tautological because it's accurate for what I was saying.

What's the world coming to? And WTF is going on with global economies?

I was trying to present something of both sides. As you know, I'm not as libertarian as you, or a full on lassez-faire supporter, but neither do I think the U.S. should be France. It's best to let markets work as unimpeded as possible, for both economic liberty and accuracy, but there do have to be some restrictions.

Just as important, if not moreso, than how much we give the poor is the form in which the aid they receive comes. Education and skills training is preferable, as per the famous "Teach a man to fish" quote, but at the same time, people can't go to school if they have to spend all their time and money simply trying to get by on min wage jobs.

Some economists suggest we should consider paying the poor to attend community colleges or trade schools for some limited amount, assuming they keep up their grades/reviews. It certainly puts the incentives in the right place.

I think that the U.S. has a mythos, whether it happens often or rarely, of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps. Some influential figures in the history of the nation, notably Andrew Carnegie in the economic sector, did manage to advance from poor lives due to exceptional talent and effort. There will always be people able to do this no matter how much or little help is given to the poor(such as nothing, as in Carnegie's day).

Yes, it is noble to help the poor, and our unique intelligence and ideals as humans presents us with a duty to try to prevent people from dying into the street. However, there is an inherent indefiniteness in the ideal of "equal opportunity" that many of us ascribe to. Does is mean that we should leave everyone as they are and let them go at it? From the perspective of government, everyone has then been treated equally. It is fate who is the tyrant. On the other extreme, should we make everyone as equal as possible in order to have a truly level(or as level as possible) playing field? But is it then fair to take from those who have more and give to those who have less? The government is then treating different people differently, and unequally. Most people would agree that the best option is somewhere in the middle, but I think it's an important concept to keep in mind when discussing such issues.

Additionally, both sides have costs, as well as benefits associated with them. A true welfare state eliminates poverty, which seems noble. However, it also restricts economic liberty, lowers incentives for success(since you see less results from your success), and is generally inefficient, since you are forcefully not letting the market optimize itself.

A lassez-faire capitalist state preserves economic liberty and is more optimal, from a wealth creation standpoint. However, the system inherently does not value human life, as well as leads to higher rates of destitution, which have societal costs, such as crime and insurgency.

Anyways, we see stuff in welfare states like the problems in France where laws make it impossible to fire incompetent employees. And when they try to change the laws, people riot in the streets. In the meantime, people who don't already have jobs can't get employed.

@Fiery_penguin_of_doom: You should get all of Dillinger Four's albums when you can, they're seriously so good. And I know it probably doesn't mean much coming from a friend, but my friends put on an AWESOME live show. So much energy, every time I see them I wonder how they can keep on their feet the whole time haha.

No you haven't. Forget everything you know about Gaia Online down to the smallest detail.

Trust me.

What happened?

I saw a hentai pack that was near/over 100 GB.

I have no clue what that gif was before, but oh well

there's TITTIES


a +rep for that alone

I see. Well, I'm bigger than that, although I generally drive an old lincoln, and I fit into that alright. PT Cruisers always seemed a bit small to me.

I could see why you guys don't like the vocals, but I listen to a lot of music like this and I think they fucking rule. Everyone's got their own tastes of course.

@Fiery_penguin_of_doom: Damn you're ruthless haha. But if you don't like it, you don't like it. Do you like Dillinger Four? They recently came out with a new album that is fucking sick. They also played with NoFX recently but I didn't buy a ticket fast enough and it sold out. My friends went though and they said it was awesome.

To me, I just don't understand why women shouldn't have the right to abort, or be denied the right to make that decision. Why should they sacrifice their lives and welfare for something (I say something, not someone - intentional distinction) that's not even concious, let alone being sentient.

I just find it ironic that it's women who support Pro-Life, that they say that a life is a life and that they don't have a choice in it... which to me sounds like utter BS. I mean, there are also very rational reasons for abortion:
1. Saving the life of the mother,
2. Perserving the mental and physical welfare of the mother,
3. Preventing a birth with congenital defect(s),
4. To lessen the health risks associated with multiple pregnancies.
5. (Most used rationale) Preventing the birth of an unwanted child. (teen pregnancy, rape, financial situation, religion, etc.)

Also, stop hating on indie you fags >_>

[size=10]
I think the music does sound pretty nice.

The voice(s) may not seem so pleasant or understandable to some, but since it's punk/thrash music, I can understand why it is that way. They're not bad in my opinion. Maybe, if they're lucky or not even lucky but take the right paths, their music will lead them somewhere good.

Ah.. but the chances of making it in the music industry seem slim.
[/h]