Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

The Largest Killer in the Last Century

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 16:37

I'll give you a hint, it isn't war. 

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM

Name: Xel 2006-06-29 16:53

>>1 Could it be... KA-GASP! IT *IS* BIG GOV! Well, as long as the peeps are capable of self-sustenance. It appears that lower IQ grades are bad for society to a very high degree; scroll down on this one.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 17:01

That's fucking stupid, to act like big government is going to suddenly up and kill millions of people JUST BECAUSE IT'S EVIL.

I'm sick of all you neo-cons and Ayn Rand dicksuckers trying to make it look like the only way anyone can ever acheve anything is in an utterly lawless state, where you're free to abuse the rights of other people as you see fit. 

You think poor people deserve what they get, and yet, you yourself usually tend to be poor while the dick cheney types are fucking laughing at you.

No, the greatest killer isn't big government.  It's corporations driving us to war.  All those figures cited are just incidental deaths from lack of food etc...  the most people killed intentionally are killed with the direct hand of people like you you fucking creeps.

I can't believe that you want to take healthcare away from us.  You fuckign piss me off.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 17:12

>>3 lol at your naivity

Name: Xel 2006-06-29 17:36

>>3 You embarass the left. Yes Cheney sucks. Yes the right should be punished for allowing Cheney like the left shall be for allowing Hillie. Yes Ayn Rand is scary, but so is Pinhead and everyone likes Pinhead. Yes we can't trust all governments as long as the consumers aren't up to speed. No free healthcare isn't the best solution. You want to know what else I believe? I am a big fan of sex, Daily Show, porn and good and I think chastity, organised religion, Coulter and evil blows. I shall now apply a fine spice to your comment and everything you stand for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sage

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 17:52

>>2
This issue hasn't been hammered down near enough... what is wrong with this post?

>>3
Not only are you naive, you need to realize this simple truth:  not all "right wingers," "conservatives," "libertarians," or "minimalists" are the same.  For example:  You automatically seemed to assume that I support Dick Cheney, and that I am a neo-con.  Wake up, you are prejudice.  Not against black people, but against conservatives.  You have already prejudged me based on nothing but that first article posted.

"I'm sick of all you neo-cons and Ayn Rand dicksuckers trying to make it look like the only way anyone can ever acheve anything is in an utterly lawless state, where you're free to abuse the rights of other people as you see fit. "

The only people abusing anyone's rights is the government.  Business dealings are voluntary.  Government taxation is not. 

"trying to make it look like the only way anyone can ever acheve anything is in an utterly lawless state"

I don't advocate anarchy.  Government is evil, but it is a necessary evil.  Thus it should be restricted and limmited as much as is reasonably possible while still allowing people to live their lives in freedom, and preserving this relatively free state.

Name: Xel 2006-06-29 17:56

>>6 While said dealings are voluntary, it's the dealing structures that worry me. The world doesn't need more Nikes, naam sayin'? Then again, there was some 1000-page book supporting capitalism, I should read that before I dis the market.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 18:20

>>7
I do understand what you are saying, I think.  As an American, with jobs flowing overseas (from companies like Nike who won't put factories here) to China and other 3rd world countries at an absolutely alarming rate, and the unemployment rates in my area skyrocketing, while Bush runs up the Federal deficit, well... it's a pretty bleak outlook. 

I think the government should try to find ways to keep our economy running here at home, not propping up progs. like welfare and soc.sec.  There's no need for them if you have a good job.  Jobs are what we need, and not jobs at McD's flipping burgers.

That said, it is not Capitalism that I have a problem with, but global capitalism.  And, yes, you should read all the pro-market literature before you diss the market. 

Another view of things - even in the worst situation possible, in which I wouldn't be able to have a job at all, there's nothing stopping me from going out and living on my own, in a self-sustaining, and self-reliant sort of way, like Americans of the past did.  A trusty rifle for hunting, and a field for crops.

That said, I think the solution isn't more programs, which the democrats are so adamant about propping up, but rather a way to reign in the global economy, so it can't abuse labor as it does now, but that we would still have a relatively free society, within the borders of said country.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 19:04

Capitalism works well and even repairs itself. It's surefire economical system and has no flaws, but one. The fact that under capitalism lucky corporations have ability to grow and grow until they have monopoly of market. That problem is very hard to fix too, but even with that problem capitalism beats socialism hands down.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 21:24

>>3

"All those figures cited are just incidental deaths from lack of food etc..."

Stalin starving the Ukrainians to death (11,000,000 dead), was NOT  'incidental.'  He knew it would happen, and he did it deliberately to punish them. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 21:55

>>10
Same with Mao. He organized those famines. It's more cheaper to starve people to death rather than shoot them.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 23:41

>>11
I didn't know Mao used famines.  I knew the Chinese government was brutal though.  I'll have to read a bit more...:)

>>9
That's mostly true... though I think other large companies would enter the market if they thought they could compete.  And, yeah, I agree, even with monopolies, capitalism>socialism hands down.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 23:53

but w/ proper anti-trust laws most cases of monopoly can be avoided, that is except for that goddamn game!!! Monopoly has a monopoly on monopoly!

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 23:53

>>11
Also starving people are more loyal if you have the food and in an already over-populated country like China, if the population is decreasing the better off the people still alive will be also increaing their loyalty.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-29 23:59

>>14
China was over populated in the 50s... The gdp per capita would increase as the population goes down.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-30 0:04

>>3

"No, the greatest killer isn't big government.  It's corporations driving us to war."

Totally false.  Though, corporations do drive us to war.  That is a problem with the mixed economy... something the liberals pose no solution to. 

Name: Xel 2006-06-30 3:47

>>16 I think Halli and the gang could have caused the war w/out political means, but then again I'm a pessimist.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-30 7:05

>>1
AW RIGHT...MY country is listed there..goooo indonesia

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-30 9:12

LOL at communists who think coorporations are worse than sadistic despots.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-30 10:03

>>19
Yeah, don't see Bill Gates massacring people even though with money he has he could easily take over any small country in world.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-30 12:03

>>19
They are.  And in amerika, they don't have to answer to anyone.

Name: Xel 2006-06-30 14:24

>>21 Authoritarian, big govs have killed almost a fifth of a billion people, especially peeps w/out guns. So take it easy with the generalizations. That's not saying that the corps are working kinda hard at breaking that record. Not to sound like the Adbusters equivalent of Rums-"BOOO"-Feld but seriously, we need to keep those fellows in check as consumers or we be in deep shit by 2100. Kongo-Kinshasa, don't let that be forgotten. Or forgiven.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-30 14:27

>>16
Yes but far fewer have died resulting from this war than have died resulting from, as mentioned earlier, big-government, was my point.  His claim was far from true.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-30 14:29

>>22  How are you going to keep corporate power in check? Just educate consumers or what?

Name: Xel 2006-06-30 16:00

>>24 Fuck yes. Conusmers are the only check on corporations, and the day when corporations can take profit for granted and start cooperating we are royally fucked (worst-case scenario, but make no mistake that corporations have an inert capacity for everything.)

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-30 17:07

>>25
How would we be royally fucked if corporations put less of a value on simply making profit ?

True, the profit motive is a great thing, and it's driven much of the innovation in the United States... but I don't think it'd be economic doomsday.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-30 22:14

>>26
You need to reread what >>25 wrote.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-01 1:06

In a government where personal and public responsibility is balanced, genocide doesn't happen within its borders.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-01 1:35

>>28
I'd hope to think we in America (generally speaking) still favor more personal responsibility and freedom over public responsibility and government.  That's probly true though. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-02 22:15

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 2:22

In America, corporations are the government, your votes don't matter when X lobbyist arranges some hookers to accidentally show up at your hotel room in X corporation's uniforms.

I'm all for personal freedom, but I think there is a point at which wealth bores the rich, and they decide to get power.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 19:54

>>31
Most of the corruption seen in the government would not be possible if we had more laissez-faire type policies, rather than a mixed-economy. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-03 21:58

>>31
Social democracy is not safeguard against corporatism. Here in Finland big corporations literally rule whole country and decide our laws as proved by recent passing of new copyright law that most citizens were against...

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-04 20:10

>>33 You missed the whole intent of >>32's post. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-05 16:31

>>34
His post wasn't directed at >>32's post.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-06 20:48

Social democracy is a terrible idea. 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=social+democracy

It's nothing but Socialism masquerading under the flag of democracy. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-07 19:57

Stupid communists. 

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List