Saffire

Andreasw, with all due respect, you have little to add to this discussion. You clearly don't have an understanding of economics, and you probably haven't read anything on the subject of anarchism. But I'll humor you a while longer, because I'm bored and I need a statist to bat around. People have stopped buying their music, and people have reacted to the lawsuits - CD sales are down drastically. It is never profitable to attack your customers. And as I said before, in an anarchy, you couldn't have intellectual property, because there would be no government to enforce patents or copyrights. Do you know how businesses and entrepreneurs make money? By serving as many customers as possible. Wal Mart is worth hundreds of billions of dollars because they give cheap goods to the poorest Americans. This nonsensical socialist claim that a free market is the enemy of the common man isn't backed up by any empirical evidence. Government is the enemy of the poor and the middle class. Not capitalism. A democracy can get away with more than dictatorship, because it has popular consent and the illusion of freedom to help it along. Hans Hoppe, a great German-born economist has written books on this fact. Also, as a German you are surely aware that Hitler was democratically-elected. I am not proposing anything. I am an anarchist. I let people live as they choose to live. It is YOU who are proposing things. YOU are the one who wants to force people to do things.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/10/chicago-mayor-daley-blames-fort-hood-on-americas-love-of-guns/ Chicago Mayor Daley says this was the result of America's "love of guns". :laugh3:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1109/clinton_we_are_winning_c3243bd1-33d6-42a7-ab70-5bae329fdc6e.html Cill Blinton talking about the Health Care bill. He he also had this to say: Yeah. That's exactly why they're mad. Because you and the other felchers are "winning". And here's an economics lesson (probably taken from the same textbook that says the economy needs to grow at "breakneck" speed in order to generate a single new job, and that it's possible to have a "jobless recovery"): The economic argument in favor of forcing everyone to buy health insurance at the point of a gun isn't one I've heard yet. I wish he had elaborated on it. The Felchers are out in full force.

It was Al Gore's son, he was doing research on how to save polar bears.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html He's completely incapable of understanding the economics of the health care industry. He's like a 7 year old. Besides the glaringly-obvious fact that forcing everybody to buy health insurance doesn't increase: 1. The number of doctors. 2. The number of hospitals. 3. The number of hours in the day. ...and therefore necessitates long wait-times during which patients will suffer and/or die, he completely overlooks the fundamental difference between car insurance and health insurance - namely that car insurance pays for the result of accidents caused by the driver, not only the accidents the driver may get himself into. Your poor health isn't going to damage property and other peoples' lives. It only affects you. So the analogy doesn't work, and Obama is acting like a magician by directing everyone's attention to his left hand while his right hand is busy slapping doctors in the face and propping up mega-corporation drug companies. Next we have this gem: Ohh, how fair-minded of the former Harvard Law Review editor! Except for one thing: if I don't pay for health insurance, I don't expect to get it. Sort of like how, if I don't pay for a steak dinner at Ruth's Chris's, I don't expect to get it. It's politicians like Obama who raise children to EXPECT this stuff will be handed to them by "society". Or rich people. And while they're not paying for your health insurance, retirement, and KICKASS Iraq War (fuckin' towelheads!), they're also expected to give you and your children jobs. That's "responsibility", alright. And yeah, I would agree that most Americans enjoy this alternative definition of responsibility. Quit pointing guns at and threatening jail time for peaceful people, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize. And he's about to jack up the number of troops in Afghanistan by 40,000: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/world/main5592551.shtml This man can't make a single correct decision to save his life.

Oh my gosh what an idiot! And what a heroic train operator!

Of course they would, and they would pay for the hit man by jacking up the price of their music cds beyond their competitors prices! And customers would appreciate their use of hit-men, so they'd donate money and buy even more of their music. :rolleyes: (end sarcasm) In an anarchy the music "industry" wouldn't exist. It simply wouldn't be profitable to run around trying to catch people who pirate music. You need a tax-collection agency to do this dirty work for you. Besides, hit-men couldn't get near me because I would be under the umbrella of a private security firm whose reputation rests on protecting its customers. Oh, but you've got roads. That's cool. Nobody in an anarchy would ever think to build roads, because we're all retarded losers who can't plan or save money. We need papa Hitler to come take a % of our income to do this shit for us.

Jesus doesn't love you anymore. True story.

Mark, this was amazingly prescient of you. Check out this newly-released article: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873 I'm going to say something about this that will probably tick a few people off, but I firmly believe it's the case: The US Government allowed this terror attack to happen in order to drum up support for their efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The polling data showed Americans were getting war-weary and sick of the excuses for sending tens of thousands more troops to the middle-east. So they needed something to happen.

I turned the sarcasm meter up to 11 in that post. :D

Cougars are becoming more common. In the last year alone I've been hit-on by 3 cougars (one of which is my mom's friend who is newly-single). :laugh3:

Eight cups? Come on, people, my bladder isn't the size of a basketball.

I'm convinced the music industry doesn't actually care about these facts. They just like having the law on their side.

Thank God for intrepid reporters like Perez Hilton to represent all gay mankind!

One side-effect of all this feminist propaganda is that young guys in the later generations are beginning to realize it doesn't make much sense to marry right away. Why marry when you can go out and have fun til' you're 35? Besides, women aren't attracted to male youth, they're attracted to male bank accounts. :P

COULD YOBS GIVE PENSIONERS DIABETES?

...and they're still not satisfied! Nick, you're better off being single. Or dating me!!! I'm close to getting Chris to go gay, it's only a matter of time.

It's official. You can kill anyone in a videogame except politicians.

Books bore me because they typically don't have new content like the internet does. I recently read a couple of good books, one called "Empire of Debt" (about America) and another one on Complexity Theory. I cannot stand fiction books. Anyway the whole idea that heterosexual women "don't need men" thing has been going on since the 1960s with Gloria Steinem and radical feminism. And women always end up feeling hollow and depressed when they get the corner office, six figure salary, power, etc. without the strong, hairy boyfriend who can pick them up and throw them on the bed.

This is great news, let's keep it up! Hopefully in another 20 years women will have their legal right to castrate their baby boys firmly upheld by the Supreme Court (it's more aesthetic and easier to keep clean).

Are you kidding me? His religion was clearly part of his motivation for killing these people. If it was a Christian shouting, "Sinners repent!" as he blew away his victims, you'd be hearing the same thing. The key distinction here isn't religion, it's the Government. Notice how nobody is calling this terrorism, when it clearly is. Notice how nobody is screaming for more GUN CONTROL! and BACKGROUND CHECKS! like they would if this had been a regular civilian shooting his co-workers. If you work for the Government, you are treated as a different species. Civilians, on the other hand, are the scum. We immediately assume the worst about them.

I think it's fair to say their religion is evil. I feel sorry for the shooter. He was clearly mentally oppressed by both religion and government. He couldn't just quit his job in the military after finding out he was going to be forced to go to Iraq. (otherwise he'd have to go to jail or get punished in some other way) As a psychiatrist, his job was to make other soldiers feel good about killing people. And he probably had access to all sorts of state-sanctioned drugs. So no, the only real surprise here is that this type of thing doesn't happen more often.

Well maybe by the time they're old enough to have sex, they'll think of it more as an academic exercise and choose to skip it. I think Gordon Brown should be in instructional sex videos, and Obama should be his baby.

I think we need some gun control in the military. EDIT: Funny how they're so reluctant to call this terrorism, when it clearly fits even their very-narrow definition of the word.