Charities and foreign aid being misused or used to support dictators; food for oil and other programs that give money to the top instead of the bottom; politicians that accept money from lobby groups promoting food regulations, pollution control, gun laws, corporate interests, and more foreign aid to be misued; war, poverty and disaster used as a means to make money via contractors and investments; supporting corrupt leaders and officials who promote crime, war, drug trade, and suppression of education and economic freedom for its people; politicians, regulators, and law makers who are closely tied to certain industries, passing laws that benefit these industries specifically but promoting them as good for the people; lying to the public, misusing funds from taxes, donations, charities, support; using other countries as a means to avoid tax, avoid laws and regulations, pay workers barely enough to get by in poor working conditions; using countries as a dumping ground for waste and byproducts; passing laws to promote certain medicines, chemicals, services and products to come exclusively from one company to ensure high costs and no competition; stifling foreign economies by charging them more for fresh water, farming rights, business rights and natural resources or forcing everything to be government controlled so only the leaders benefit the most...
It seems the world is run by one beauracratic orgy of scratch-my-back bribery and plutocracy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-23 15:13
LOL kill yourself
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-23 16:09
Summon Meteo
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-23 16:15
The only way to control greed and corruption is to pit entites that might be affected by them against each other in competition.
Name:
Xel2006-07-23 16:41
>>4 I wonder who would be fucked if they started to cooperate under the table. Oh yeah, you and me. Nah, you have a point. Living in Sweden I really shouldn't start yelling Orwell just because of a suggestion that the market may be the key, considering our government is intrusive, greedy and horrible. I just feel that such a system relies to heavily on virtues and vigilance, but considering that objectivism is an induction of reality I should read it. I still don't have to like the cunt who wrote it, so why not?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-23 22:50
>>5
Fuck you. If you are gonna refer to her as a "cunt", I'm gonna sit here and say FAGGOT to piss you off.
No, I don't hate gays, but I hate smartass liberals who bitch about Ayn Rand all the time.
FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT
The same smartass liberals also fail to see that Rand was opposed to the government sticking it's nose in the business of said gay people.
............
WHAT?
BUT RAND IS ANTI GAY LOL!
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-23 22:51
>>6
All right wingers, conservatives, libertarians, and republicans are anti-gay.
>>13
Not to mention that there are gay republicans too(including party members) and even gay conservatives. Conservatism(meaning traditionalism) originally refered those who supported classic American values such as liberty, free trade and small goverment. In 60s some guys started neo-con movement which was basically composed of crazy Christians and fuckers with police state fantasies. Like modern American "liberalism" has nothing to do with real liberalism neo-"conservatism" has nothing to do with real American conservatism.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-24 15:11
>>15
"neo-"conservatism" has nothing to do with real American conservatism."
Yeah, I have to say I agree. Neo-conservatives are just some strange people who have been showing up on the Republican ticket and masquerading as true conservatives.
I don't think they accurately represent real American Conservatism as a whole.
Name:
Xel2006-07-24 16:29
>>16 There's the protestant link. The conservative, secular intellectuals couldn't push back against the mass of retards that think supernatural ideologies have a place in the western world.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-24 22:03
>>17
Why should they push back? All those religious right wing 'retards' are helping them get conservatives in office with voting power.
If it wasn't for them, we'd be overrun by smartass liberals, and the country would have crumbled into a rotting heap of Socialism ages ago.
Name:
Xel2006-07-25 4:29
>>18 Rather that than homophobia, anti-feminism and a supernatural basis for all RL affairs.
>>19
You would honestly rather have the USA become Socialist than elect a homophobic, anti-feminist leader who is religious?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-26 22:09
>>19
Why do you say abortion is an issue revolving around women's rights?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-26 22:14
>>22 Because he isn't broad minded, and doesn't have any understanding of people, or their cultures. Funny that liberals are supposed to be "broad minded" by definition.
Fail. The broad minded view is, in fact, the question of woman's rights. Also: Please explain, in full, how considering that a woman has a right to her own body parts shows a lack of understanding about people and their cultures.
"Please explain, in full, how considering that a woman has a right to her own body parts shows a lack of understanding about people and their cultures."
Because he doesn't understand the american religious right.
Fails hard. If the woman didn't want to have a baby, she should have either used birth control, or not had sex in the first place. Since she didn't abstain from sex, and didn't use bith control, she should be forced to have the baby.
OF COURSE, there should be exceptions for things like rape.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-27 4:35
>>24
WOMENS RIGHTS? So women should have the "right" to murder? Things that infringe upon another beings rights (such as their right to live) cannot be "rights".
Name:
Xel2006-07-27 4:54
>>27 It's not a being you doye. A potentiality is not an actuality, not to mention the fact that the very reason unwanted pregnancies occur is due to the gender roles the pro-lifers secretly want to perpetuate. And as long as women suffer the humiliations, manipulations and inequality they do, I think the "right to murder" is a good way to even the fucking score.
Name:
Xel2006-07-27 4:56
>>26 Ah, pregnancy as a punishment. It just makes sense.
Name:
Xel2006-07-27 4:58
>>21 You know I do. A state that can't offer complete equality and liberty due to supernatural beliefs is not a fundament worthy to build on, be proud over or accept. It makes said country morally illegitimate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-27 5:09
>>28 Nobody should have the right to murder. That's laughable.
What humiliations, and manipulations do women have to "suffer"?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-27 5:11
>>28
Reveals the amazing disrespect the left wing has for human life.
Name:
Xel2006-07-27 9:34
>>31 It's not murder. Also, does the world need more fucking people? >>32 Oh I'm sorry, then. What a shame a majority of the enlightened part of humanity doesn't agree with you. I think you should attack the factors that cause unwanted pregancies rather than the lack of wanting the pregnancy
or the removal of it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-27 10:05
>>33
Like rape? Surely legally disarming women and preventing them from carrying concealed weaponry to fight back is the answer! Vote democrat!
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-27 10:09
>>33
Since the majority believes it, it must be true.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-27 10:18
>>33
It has nothing to do with whether or not the world needs more people.
Name:
Xel2006-07-27 14:53
>>35 I didn't say that consensus had objective value. >>34 This is a point, but I prefer eliminating the gender roles that cause rape in the first place. Thus, I am a feminist and I deplore any and all who are against it (and vote right) without having some real facts to back it up. Then again, that fucker Clinton was murder on women's rights so I guess nothing is secure any more... >>36 Um, yah? That bleeding-heart Bush harms the contraceptives and therefore the gender equality movement. He disses abortion as well, and while this doesn't harm the world (because they're not part of the global economy), I think it is deplorable and it starves the entire world of resources. Maybe less abortions someday, but first let's deal with gender inequality and the causes of gender inequality.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-27 15:39
>>37
Vote libertarian. They won't compromise on anyones rights, including gays, women, gun owners, etc.
A vote for the libertarians is a double win in this category: women and gays get any rights the dems would give them, plus the right to keep and bear arms. Taking away this right only leaves them defenseless to rapists, homophobes, or just general criminals.
>>40
But not just to have to largest dick on the block, amirite?
Name:
Xel2006-07-28 12:25
>>41 The libertarians are convinced of the power of the American notion, the essence of meritocracy. As such, they are capable of marketing liberty through soft power, unlike the neocons who obviously didn't learn a thing from the cold war, or the left who are girls all the time
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-28 13:33
>>41 >>42
Yes, you need a huge cock to let your woman know who's in charge, but you also need to stick it in the right places, analogically.
Name:
Xel2006-07-28 13:42
>>43 America, fucking the shit out of the worlds assholes. But it needs to learn how to clean itself up afterwards and stop feeding the same system that causes the shit in the first place. Also, the STDs doesn't help with the shit-fucking-out-of. The pussies can't complain because the cock has the dollars and the fly wheels and pussies are only good for one thing. Maybe the pussies need one of those contractions that impale the cock if it doesn't behave. I like this analogy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-28 13:58
>>44
What's worse? Some american coorporation building a factory, employing locals with wages they could never achieve as subsistence farmers and allowing them the luxury of iced coca cola when they take their kids to the park on the weekend, or some psychotic despot who's soldiers rape your daughter whilst taxing you into the ground?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-28 14:37
>>39
We currently spend way too much on everything. If a libertarian got elected, and we had a libertarian congress, a libertarian senate, etc, you could expect budget cuts across the board. They would target the programs that are the worst, the largest waste, and need to be gotten rid of first, likely. The military would likely have it's belt tightened like everything else, and the money would be put back in the hands of those who earned it -- the people.
Name:
Xel2006-07-28 15:17
>>45
Why, the psychotic despot of course! As long as he pretend to be a communist he will gain my support!
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-28 15:34
>>42
Interesting. Are you suggesting that Americans follow the 'libertarian' ideas of foreign policy, and essentially get rid of the other despotisms the same way we got rid of the Soviet Union - just outlasting, or out-impressing them, rather than the neocon idea of just bombing them all to shit with raw industrialized firepower?
Name:
Xel2006-07-28 17:01
>>48 With my admittedly low level of education on the matter, I do. >>47 You take me to giggletown, you pitiful excuse for a troll you. >>45 What's it like when everything is in monochrome? It must be a doozy to sort out wiring for you. I'm not saying capitalism is of net deficiency for mankind, in fact my stance is that it is natural, positive and a good force. That doesn't mean I can take it for granted. Capitalism is absolutely and solely focused on profit. Any positive side-effects, even though they currently outweigh the negative ones, are accidental.
"Capitalism is absolutely and solely focused on profit."
It's based on individual rights, and personal freedom.
Business, and profits are only results. But the facts are, THESE are what it's based on. This is the philosophical base -- individuality, individual rights, and freedom of the individual.