I LIKE TO JACK OFF TO BILL AND HILLARY!

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003057.html

GOVERNMENT IS THE WAY TO GO, GOVERNMENT CAN DO NO WRONG, GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THINGS!!!!!!!!!


CLICCFC

>>I know you liberals are just so caring, so sensitive, so compassionate... Get the fuck over it.

What is wrong with being caring, sensitive, and/or compassionate?

>>39
You are stupid, dangerous, and greedy, and on top of that, you're an asshole.  It's so sad that people like you have wrested control of this planet. 

Even if every poor person in the world had this utopian ability to work like you want them to, there would only be so many jobs to go around, you know the workplace is pretty saturated.  You'd in that case, no longer have a bunch of lazy people out of work, but a lot of people FULL OF ENERGY out of work, and ready to fuck some people up for it. 

There is so much wealth out there which will never be used, it's just there to line the pockets of the super rich, and make them able to look down their noses at poor people.  They have so much more money than they will ever be able to use, why not spread it around a bit?  It's fucking sinister how the top 1% of the world uses 98% of it's rescources.... 

I say we need an armed uprising.

>>41
Nothing. The problem occurs when you decide to be "caring, sensitive, and/or compassionate" with others' property.

>>42
JOIN THE REVOLUUUUUUUUUTION!

>>43
You are a fucking corporate propaganda spewing doucher.  You neutralize your cognitive dissonance with a stupid sarcastic catchphrase. I hope you burn in hell you motherfucker, you'd probably laugh at all that shit that happened in new orleans.  You're probably a pedo motherfucking piece of shit like everyone else on this fucking forum.

I feel like I need a shower after reading this for so long.  You all need to fucking die or get a life.

In conclusion, FUCK YOU.  I'm leaving this forum for good.

You'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes, >>43.

And what's wrong with being "be "caring, sensitive, and/or compassionate" with others' property."???   They AREN'T USING IT EFFECTIVELY.

>>46
Well, most of the time, most of the greatest scientific and cultural advancements occur in areas where wealth is most concentrated.  Boeing, big corporation, makes tons of advancements.  Phamaceutical companies are responsable for tons of human advancement.  NASA alone fast forwarded our technological evolution by decades.  Are people with tons of money really using it so ineffectively?  There's more to acheivement than feeding your own damn mouth.  Other than Rap and banjo music, what have poor people produced?

>>42 "I say we need an armed uprising."

Of course you say so, your type of people have been robbing the American people at the threat of a gun since Teddy Roosevelt. -_- I have nothing further to add to this thread, just see for youselves how the world turns out with liberals and socialists running it. People would eventually cease to know their own humanity, and you can quote me on that... *Slaps his libertarian party card on the counter and walks out*

>>42 "It's fucking sinister how the top 1% of the world uses 98% of it's rescources.... "

No, wait, I have one more god damn point... The top percentage of wealth-holders may use the majority of the resources, that's simple social mathematics. My question to you is, how much more percentage of people do you think they feed and enable to live a comfortable life?

>>49
46 here.
You're making the same point I am, that concentrated wealth can be a good thing in some situations, creating rescources and technology that would not exist otherwise.  Decentralizing everything doesn't always work.

Phamaceutical companies are responsable for tons of human advancement.

You know, I normally agree with the assertion that many human advancements come from concentrations of wealth, but pharmaceutical companies are a really bad example. I'm afraid anyone who claims this has no idea how that industry works in practice.

Also, calls for revolution are innately stupid. Life isn't that bad at the moment. Revolutions can be really bloody affairs, you know, and they fuck up a lot of things for a long time.

That said, "John" is also a clueless idiological idiot. Talk about tunnel-vision.

>>51
Believing that big-pharma is evil is such a worn out liberal cliche...

>>52
I never said it's evil, I said that people who make claims like above don't understand the system.

You've fallen into the trap of labelling everything you disagree with. Reality isn't so pleasantly black and white. This applies to your much-hated "liberals" too.

>>53
Then enlighten us.

>>54
BTW, I didn't say I hated liberals, just that railing on the phamaceutical companies is a tiresome habit I've noticed they had.

>>54
I'm not going to reiterate a topic that has been overdone on the web. Use google to hunt down some places where doctors and researchers post (not the uninformed nutjobs), and take a look.

The system isn't evil, because it works. It just doesn't work as well as it could.

In other words, you won't substantiate your point.

In other words, I'm too lazy to substantiate my point.

Just like you're too lazy to go look it up.

>>58
Usually when one brings something up, they'd want to go through with it, and make their point.  Not arguing the actual argument anymore, just your debate style.

BTW, what you gave me was pretty vague.  What, am I supposed to do, type "The Phamaceutical Companies Suck" in Google?

Why refuse to substantiate your point, and then act like it's a legitimate debate technique?

Besides, anything you could come up with I could easily just respond, "I suppose you'd rather not have any drugs at all..."

>>59
I don't think you understand. Look around. Does this place strike you as a debate forum? The impressive prose backed up be pain-staking research and cross-referenced material? The elegant and sound arguments which are carefully drawn from a logical structure with valid premises?

Fuck that. I'm not going to spend several hours hunting down and researching shit I've seen in passing over the years for some unknown goof on world4ch. Neither are you. This place isn't a debate forum, it's just a pleasant sideline where we can all flame the daylights out of each other.

I could easily just respond, "I suppose you'd rather not have any drugs at all..."

Which just goes to prove this place isn't for legitimate discussion. "I'm gonna take my ball and go home"-style juvenile rhetoric and all that. Imagine that in a journal. Yeah, right.

Either look it up, or don't. I don't care. I'm an unforgiving Anonymous who has nothing to gain or lose.

>>60
ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT ORT

You admit that you've only read things "in passing" on the topic, eh?  Generally, when something takes hours to look up on google, it's a fair bet that it doesn't exist except in the fringes.  I sincerely doubt that scenario, though, in which NOBODY has whined about the drug companies.

You really suck at internet.  Even being Anonymous, you still have to personally acknowledge that.

>>61
Yeah, whatever.

>>62
I WON THE ARGUMENT

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT IT BECAUSE EVERYONE CAN SEE IT.

LALALALALAL

>>63
More like you keep proving >>60 over and over.

Good job, kid. Keep it up.

>>64
>>62
>>60
Same person.

Master of the Obvious.

>>39
"Socialism doesn't work"??
Tell that to most of the first world.  Their "people" (sorry for what to some is a vile obcenity), are better off than Americans by every measure.
"Caring...sensitive...compassionate"?
Good sir, you mistake me.  A worker who is ill paid, ill housed, ill educated or just plain ill--is by definition not a fully productive worker.  Those who for valid reason cannot work I'm sure you'll agree are not under disscusion, so lets look at this from another angle.  Sets.
Set One=total work force.  Subsets=working and not working.  The working set I've replied to.  Not working breaks out into two subsets=willing to work and not willing to work.  Willing to work have the motivation but lack the job.  Not willing to work lack the motivation.  The willing to work but lack the job, that's easy solved (hint, it's one of the reasons FOR a government).  So, at last, we come to the object of your diatribe.  Not willing to work.
I agree.  Lazy Bastards, one and all, but to review:
A sub set of a sub set of a sub set?  Math makes my head hurt but it seems to me that the cant you rant (sorry) is based on at best selective data.
Your Serve.

>>67
Wow, this is more badly written than most of the right-tards...

>>67
...

do what now?

...

>>67
When you say "by almost every measure" what do you mean? 

>>70
Well....
Life expectancy
Health care
Education
Crime rate
Then there's those intangible thingies that get lumped into "Quality of life".  A good example is New Zeeland (sic).  I'm told every full time worker gets by law Six (6) weeks paid vacation.  They work less, and yet are more productive per worker than Americans.
Long ago a very wise and rich man told me that:  "If your employees aren't happy your customers will never be.  And if your customers aren't happy--you're pissin' money out the window."

Life expectancy - Because we're rich enough to eat all we want to.  Besides, you're catching up with us.
Health care - Bleh, we don't want it, don't need it, socialized medicine WINZ amirite?  Most people have private health insurance, other than poor niggers.
Education - unlike the other "metrics" it's socialist.  This area actually points out why socialism doesn't work.
Crime rate - Blame the niggers.

It's possible to live a better life in america probably than anywhere else, as long as the statistics don't bother you.

Also, if it's the case that the vacation law helps them become more productive, why haven't corps in the US adopted it?  I'd think that if it really had these miraculous effects like you say, they'd be scrabbling for it. 

The fact is the low worker productivity is cultural.  Eh.

>>72 speaks for itself. Duhrrrr...

>>72
>It's possible to live a better life in america probably than anywhere else, as long as you are not one of the statistics.
fixed
And universal health care?  Who needs it?  Who Wants it?  No one except the comrades that run General Motors, Boeing, General Electric... .  Fellow travelers one and all.
>>73
Miraculous is perhaps overstating and I'm sure other factors must also play a part, including cultural.