Jump to content

ringringlingling

Member
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Good member.

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Democrat

Profile Information

  • Location
    California
  1. We all know there is basically a fixed number of positions that have no fixed income, and fixed income positions have a cap on their salaries, and that a certain percentage of people are going to occupy the bottom, middle and top no matter how the wealth gets distributed, and those numbers aren't hugely negotiable... Yet there is a seemingly unlimited demand for cheap labor, and I have no idea why. Even if you can assume that they are all literate and can do basic math, what are you going to use all those people for? Say you're a monarch, and you can consume all the labor you want to do "whatever" you want, (within reason) what are you going to do with all these poor, uneducated peasant class? It seems to me that paying for their education is the only way to make them useful servants... I mean, if the consequences for not having an education are that you have no money to spend, you're still going to fuck like rabbits, cause what else are you going to do? There are no more wars, so there is no where to send them off to die, and until ww3 happens there is really nothing you can do to stop them from breeding or any way to kill them off en masse. You have 300 million people in your country, and you basically OWN them, and yet you still want an illiterate and uneducated peasant class to do your bidding?
  2. *Warning, Strong Langauge, not for the faint of heart* Can we generally assent to the fact that most liberals, most democrats, hate their own party? Can we further attest to the general lack of muster, courage, and general spinelessness amongst our party? Can we admit to ourselves that we are, for lack of a better term, a bunch of fucking faggots? Its sad but its true. But you know what? I'd rather be a fucking faggot than whatever the fuck they are. Those diseased, barbaric, muscle-brained, dimwitted wet farts down south of the bayou. Those ugly dim-witted slack jawed inbred pig fucking child molesting hospital bombing motherfuckers. FUCK THEM. I'M SERIOUS. FUCK THEM RIGHT IN THEIR STUPID FUCKING ASSHOLES. They are the goose stepping, child beating, war mongering mongrels of the future, and they are so busy holding parades in their own honor, they don't even notice our scumbag democrats sneaking up behind them with a 2 by 4. Yeah, i said it. Were scum. And we're damn proud of it.
  3. As for my original point, US lawmakers control the purse-strings, its what they do. They must decide on a military budget and determine which projects get funded and which do not. That is there job. If you want to make some sort of point about money in politics, that seems to me like a serperate issue, but the reality (to me at least) is that the democrats do not spend enough time courting military contractors and are allowing republicans to make pork barrel projects like the X-35 fighter jet possible, which tallies up to nearly 1.5 trillion in investment by the US government, and to wit there are less than 300 planes in production and less than a 150 that have actually been fielded.
  4. An empire is like an organism, it is either expanding or receding, growing or aging. We expanded our spheres of influence into Western Europe in the 50's, establishing military bases throughout Germany, England, and many other places. Withdrawing our troops from overseas only puts us at a disadvantage, it leaves those western democracies easy pickings for soviet and chinese influence peddlers. I believe in the nuclear policy of non-retaliation, I still believe in it, but I still think we should fight tooth and nail against leaving any of our territories under the sway of communist nations, especially now that the Chinese control more of the worlds economy than we do. When it comes right down to it, America can and the IMF can loan all the currency they want, but they are just moving numbers around, the chinese control the capital and the labor. If we left europe, I have no doubt that they would begin fighting again. Before I had personally visited the UK, I had assumed that the progressivism of the European Union had united them, but the truth is that there are still underlying tensions between western european nations, they remember slights that happened hundreds of years ago. They simply can not be counted on to stand together against any sort of socialist incursion. Much like the Irish trying to unsuccessfully succeed from the UK, they do not realize that by propping up their own national identities they are encouraging the balkanization of their union into thousands of tiny microfactions, all of whom are easy pickings for a large, predatory system run by despots and tyrants. Without NATO, western europe would fall apart. It is patronizing, but it is true. Without the United States, the european union would likely dissolve, as would the U.N. Already it may be falling appart, as it has incorporated too many unstable countries with ailing socialist economies. There are over 30 nations in the EU, and it continues to grow. They have become heavilty reliant on gas and oil reserves from socialist countries, and the resentment among western nations towards countries that used to be part of the soviet bloc as they are incorporated into the EU is palpable.
  5. Republicans have no problem giving trillion dollar pork barrel projects to the likes of lockheed-martin in exchange for lobbying money, and when they are finished we are often lucky if they can lift up off the ground. Democrats could build weapons and war machines as well, and I bet you they could do it for a lot cheaper. (They might actually work, too!) As much as we bitch about military spending, we are notoriously understaffed as well. Our military consists of an all volunteer army, we do not have enough personel to maintain our territorial holdings, much less wage war on foreign soil. There are plenty of bases at home that are understaffed, overequipped, and thoroughly unprepared to fight a war should there be one.
  6. It really is an absurd proposition, but what galls me is that she blames the demise of the steel industry and freight rail on the incompetence of others, when it was technological progress spurred by capitalist innovation that caused the collapse of those industries. (i.e. polymer plastics, aluminum and freight trucking) I think most republicans who claim to have read the book tend to give each other a nod and a wink as they haven't actually read it or only skimmed through it. Jhon Galts speech is over 40 pages long in the paperback.
  7. Its a political as well as a philosophical premise. The idea is that we should all act out of self-interest, and that altruism is counter productive. Most people acting altruisticly actually are acting out of self interest, they make a conscious decision to sacrifice something for someone else for their own perceived benefit, because they are capable of empathy and do not wish to see others suffer and derive pleasure from bringing joy into the lives of others.
  8. Of course Stephen Hawking WOULD say that. Damn robot-lover. Didn't they try that in Vietnam?
  9. I think your crazy. Why else would anybody bother with backwater hellhole filled with hostile lunatic religious barbarians if there weren't some sort of profit motive? You think that Putin is just in a dick measuring contest with Obama? Or what, that his heart just can't stand the sight of seeing the terrible turbulence befalling Assads beleagured nation?
  10. I'm not following you. Why is natural gas not important?
  11. speaking of border patrol, how about this little gem? http://www.texasobserver.org/border-patrol-agents-assault-three-women-shakes-border-community/
  12. I really don't see the point of giving the conservative teenie-boopers a romper room. (ie NHB) If they came here to debate, thats fine, but I don't see why someone isn't waving the banhammer around, some of these posters have 25k+ posts and are basically just flooding the channel with inane nonsense. I was thinking about setting up my own chat forum, but it would only be online during certain times and would be a private invite.
  13. That makes a strange sort of sense. Higher taxes force you to invest in your business, not in yourself.
  14. Well, from what I understand, the president doesn't just point his finger and say, "That Guy" The CIA picks out targets and operations, and tries to get the president to sign off on them. If he doesn't, then the ball gets kicked back to congress or some senate sub committee or the joint cheifs until somebody, somewhere, gives them the greenlight to go ahead, with or without the presidents approval. If the president doesn't sign off on them, he gets called an "obstructionist" and he starts earning those grey hairs on his head. I sometimes forget that all the president can really do is talk, he has no divine right to rule, he can't really order anybody to do anything, he has to convince them to follow him. I probably shouldn't have called Obama the CIA's house boy, but it just seems so damn frustrating, I mean he's the god damn PRESIDENT, he should be able to tell people what to do. Of course, this is all just speculation, for all I know the president is a warmongering lunatic who eats puppies.
  15. I want to believe that raising taxes on the rich is the right thing to do. It sounds like the right thing to do, and it feels like the right thing to do, but I'm not sure. How does taxing the rich make me any less poor? Relative to the richest man on earth, it makes me less poor. But in an actual, realistic sense, am I any better off? Does a rich man have any less power over me than he did before?
×
×
  • Create New...