This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 427428429 430431 ... 502
12841
« on: September 21, 2014, 07:18:25 AM »
I also don't give a fuck if anybody here enjoys driving.
Fuck you, you're a fucking cockmongler if you enjoy putting up with all the dumbshits allowed access to the roads.
12842
« on: September 21, 2014, 07:12:02 AM »
>driving around on an estate
>guy fucking tailgating
>coming up to a roundabout
>is in third
>brakes slightly
>down to second
>guy honks horn at me for braking
>apparently could've run into the back of me
>fucking tailgaters
Cunts should be shot.
12843
« on: September 21, 2014, 05:49:09 AM »
praise be our lord verbatim
emo master of hipocricy, niggerhood and hoodies
there are none more perfect than he So, do you always miss the point of the posts that you read? Are you that stupid?
You can't even spell "hypocrisy", so I mean, maybe you are that stupid.
fuckin hipocrit
You're just a hippo. You fat, Swedish fuck.
12844
« on: September 21, 2014, 05:38:42 AM »
You don't believe that buying domestic products increases the standard of living for everyone around you? Not necessarily. The importation of cheap, foreign goods heightens consumer surplus and makes people, overall, wealthier. Let's assume the government raises tariffs to make foreign imports slightly more expensive than domestic goods. Now then, spending on domestic goods might help a local producer or farmer, but everybody's poorer because of it. The capital and labour kept in the production of those domestic goods and services which, without tariffs, would fall to foreign competition is wasteful. America became a super power in the early 20th century by essentially being a massive circle jerk, and doing a lot more exporting than importing. Well, I'm not saying a trade deficit is absolutely fine. Exporting always helps. However, running either a trade surplus or deficit cannot last forever in most circumstances, as the currency appreciates or depreciates on foreign markets. Australia hasn't had a recession since 1991, all the while running a large trade deficit. When it becomes a problem, it's usually indicative of some structural weakness in the economy, such as too little saving. People know wealth needs to be redistributed, the problem is we don't like being forced. Not only would we rather do it out of the kindness of our hearts, but that way it ends up in the hands of who the benefactor wants it to end up in the hands of. Sucks to be the people, then. I'm not arguing for a massive welfare scheme; it'd probably be smaller than our current one (for the UK or the US) and be far more streamlined. If people don't like that, then tough. Liberty has to take a few punches in order to allow the bottom to not starve in the streets. Damnit, you're making me sound like a Lefty.
12845
« on: September 21, 2014, 05:20:32 AM »
Shut up, nigger.
12846
« on: September 21, 2014, 05:17:30 AM »
Exaggeration is the biggest part of my personality.
emo isn't a personality
I think you missed the joke.
12847
« on: September 21, 2014, 05:16:47 AM »
The redistribution of wealth is something that the rich must take upon themselves. They can take as much redistribution upon themselves so long as the government enforces a minimum. Keynesian economics will only get you so far for so long, at some point, we have to recognise that it is the responsibility of those who hold wealth to decide on how to distribute it. Yeah, I'm no Keynesian. I do agree, however, that wealth redistribution can only happen so much before the economy tanks. If they can give you money, they can tell you how to spend it. Well I agree with you there, and I think it's a tragedy. I'd never support (and don't support) a welfare system which pretends to know what is in the best interests of the poor. It is borderline impossible to buy other things. Well, part of the reason dictating what people should buy doesn't work is because people underestimate the ingenuity of the poor. Depending on the system, they will find a way to swap and trade whatever they want. Because of these taxes and welfare systems, the rich don't feel obligated to look after the lower class. They probably wouldn't anyway, without some other motivating factor. They don't feel the need to spend their money on domestic products to help out entrepreneurs Good, they shouldn't have to. Free trade is a good thing for a reason. But now I'm ranting, so...
Yes, yes you are.
12848
« on: September 21, 2014, 05:11:01 AM »
You know Kind-
Oh, never mind. You've already dealt with him.
12849
« on: September 21, 2014, 04:50:59 AM »
I really, really don't care so long as nobody's making a big deal out of not legitimately being able to identify as an apache attack helicopter.
12850
« on: September 21, 2014, 04:17:01 AM »
Just fuck her.
How old are you?
17.
12851
« on: September 21, 2014, 04:10:36 AM »
Just fuck her.
12852
« on: September 21, 2014, 04:09:36 AM »
Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?
12853
« on: September 21, 2014, 04:01:46 AM »
Having morals
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
12854
« on: September 21, 2014, 03:56:01 AM »
My main problem with Marx, as the late Christopher Hitchens noted, was that he drastically underestimated the capacity for capitalistic innovation.
Other than that, I'm not entirely sure how to approach your question. I don't know what you're asking. It seems to me that inordinate wealth distribution is not only unnecessary, but undesirable. I'm all for redistributing wealth to the bottom of the socioeconomic pile now though, without taxing the rich at 80pc as some French academics would have us do. I'm not entirely sure how you can justify the "cut off point", either. When do we reach the point of enough innovation to begin the redistribution of wealth?
12855
« on: September 20, 2014, 06:11:34 PM »
12856
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:18:43 PM »
Believing in God.
Take my shekekels.
12857
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:14:20 PM »
I fuck someone.
12858
« on: September 20, 2014, 05:09:57 PM »
Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer [. . . ] think of a wicked thing said, or an evil thing done, by a person of faith in the name of faith and no one would have a second of hesitation.
12859
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:04:16 PM »
 Spoiler inb4 pussies who don't hate anyone I hate Door for being an uber-fage. I'm glad he's dead.
12860
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:01:54 PM »
Don't be silly.
They're paedophiles.
This place is awash with paedophile culture.
12862
« on: September 20, 2014, 03:12:51 PM »
Will not doing the essay make you fail your class?
Nah, but the teacher has been on my ass for missing two already.
12863
« on: September 20, 2014, 03:11:14 PM »
I need to get up early tomorrow and have to finish a history essay tonight. An attractive and, I think, drunk girl from college is texting me, wanting me to come out and meet her and her friends.
What do?
12864
« on: September 20, 2014, 03:09:19 PM »
I did read what you said. I'm giving evidence that I've read that shows why I think both their atheist and militant attributes are linked as one
Being militant in one's atheism merely belies a general belligerence of the personality, not in the doctrine. Especially in something like a non-doctrine as atheism is.
12865
« on: September 20, 2014, 03:02:28 PM »
Actually, they were militant. Yes, I know. It just wasn't because they were atheists. Remember the whole persecution, attacks, and killings of Jews authorized by Hitler? Jews were the easiest target because nearly everybody hated them or didn't care about them. Starting with Catholics would literally be suicide for Hitler I know. I didn't say anything that remotely contradicted that. I'm just discussing Hitler and Stalin, So? I agree that they were atheistic. I'm denying the idea that they were militant because of their atheism. If you want to look for motivations of their militancy, a better direction would be the fact that they were both psychopaths, and the latter was intensely paranoid. ONLY reason why Hitler is seen supporting Christianity and Catholicism was for the purpose of political gains and control of the populace. Hitler was smart enough to know that in order to be successful then he would need to appear sympathetic I know, I literally said that to Das. Political/state worshipping isn't really what this is about. It's about worshiping religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and those type of religions. There's a difference between the two, especially with one being brainwashing and threats that if you don't worship the leader then you and your entire family will be killed or sent to a prison camp As if Hell is any better a fate. This has nothing to do with individual doctrine, and everything to do with the psychological and sociological impact of such a political/social structure. I'm beginning to wonder if you even read anything I said.
12866
« on: September 20, 2014, 02:39:13 PM »
I'm calling complete bullshit.
I'm trying to help you here. Did your mother eat free-range eggs when she was pregnant with you? That would explain a lot.
12867
« on: September 20, 2014, 01:40:07 PM »
Excellent example of how correlation doesn't equal causation.
What are you talking about? The evidence is right in front of you. The consumption of organic food is unequivocally, absolutely and undeniably the cause of autism. It's literally in front of your eyes. If you don't want to see it, then fine, but that's your problem.
12868
« on: September 20, 2014, 12:04:25 PM »
Great.
When do we start bombing them?
Nah the Mojahedin are allies with America and they're working with the CIA.
The last time a group of Iranians worked with the CIA they ended up establishing an Islamic State.
12869
« on: September 20, 2014, 12:00:41 PM »
Not to mention, German soldiers often had belt buckles stamped with Gott mit uns.
I'd argue that this was just carrying on the military traditions of the second Reich and since it was basically the soldiers' battle cry in WWI, and had nothing to do with Adolf's beliefs. "Gott mit uns" was also all over Prussian heraldry since the 1700's.
I know, I'm not using it to argue for the religiosity of Hitler or the Nazi Party. The point is, descriptively speaking, religion was still a factor in German social life. Hitler made reference to God as much as he could in his speeches, simply because he was a good politician. And while the Catholics faced terrible persecution under the Nazis, to deny the presence of Christianity in the German social fabric is to deny the German social fabric.
12870
« on: September 20, 2014, 11:57:40 AM »
This jimmy rustling is sponsored by Pepperidge Farms, remembering the shit you don't want to remember
You haven't rustled my jimmies.
Pages: 1 ... 427428429 430431 ... 502
|
Show Posts
