Gotta get that Xbox Smartglass, plus kinect's voice control capabilities
Smoke those Marlboro Reds allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
So long as anyone democratic or progressive (rather than conservative) is in office they will. Republicans very much run the 'Washington consensus' which is why we saw Bush narrowly win in 2000 and surprisingly get reelected in '04 amongst seemingly massive support even, and why now the general republican partisanship is gridlocked against any policy Obama or the house democrats put forward. So yes they probably will thanks to citizens united and special interest groups which have essentially a veto over our democracy.
Saying nigger is much better than saying 'the N word' because when you say the N word the other personal obviously knows you mean to say nigger and it has the exact same effect. Own up to the words you're saying, it should not be unacceptable for anyone to say nigger so long as it isn't directed at anyone in a hurtful manner. It was and to a certain extent still is part of our culture and modern lexicon. I even sometimes blurt out nigger or faggot when I stub my toe or fall, not to target either the blacks or the gays, but because those are the two most profane words I know and come closest to fully expressing my frustration in that moment.
You're totally right! We should adopt an optional system of taxation, so that you can chose what taxes and services you pay/receive, that way you can keep your hard earned money out of the government's clutches and drive yourself to the hospital and put out your own fires!
In some cases, overtaxation can be akin to robbery if none of the fiscal spending is benefiting the general populace. In the US however, we enjoy relatively mild tax rates compared to our European counterparts, but considering the US is one of the greatest countries to live in in terms of civil and political rights as well as a shrinking–but still sizable–middle class, I think it's fair we are taxed a enough to maintain the general stability and infrastructure of this great nation.
Seriously? First off, humans did not evolve from apes, they share a common ancestor. A simple Google search would have sufficed, this is plain just lazy. Since there are already numerous articles answering this cheap 'blow' to the theory of evolution, I will just post the answer:
"Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today."
Joke? That comment didn't even register on my plane of existence.
Actually, I recently captured and consumed god in order to absorb his powers, but it turned out he only had control over crabs.
Pretty much if you care about the existence of the lowlands (New York City, Florida, New Orleans) or whether or not the earth will be comfortably inhabitable in the next century like it has been for the last billion or so, than yes you should care more for the environment. If not, I strongly suggest you buy land in Kansas where the beaches will be nice.
Super PACs, bipartisan gridlock, and a politically apathetic population really undermine our electoral process. The fact that we have and have had the same 2 party system since 1852 really shows how token what little democracy we have is. What we really have is a self destructing autocracy or controlled opposition which generally leaves little room for radical institutional change (on purpose clearly).
The outlandish campaign contributions which factor in greatly to who wins the presidency (over 90% of elected presidents have spent more on their campaign than their opponents) almost makes the 60% voter turnout almost desirable. The fact that most–if not all–of campaign spending goes towards advertisements is proof of the widespread epidemic that is intellectual and political apathy.
If you don't think this is an ideal state of affairs, vote for candidates who advocate for the overturning of special voter/interests groups and for the transparency of political donations (i.e Progressive Caucus members!).
Afrobeat, it's pretty much a combination of my two favorite generas: Jazz and Funk, also the songs are generally ten or more minutes long and consist largely of a free form jam. Also Afrocuban, dubstep, soul and jazz.
This is a difficult legal question. Most Dimensional Circuit Courts would uphold the ruling in Leventhal3 v. Leventhal2, which determined that a being with a brain comprised of two hemispheres could, for legal purposes, be considered two separate entities. However, unless your nervous system is releasing the proper levels of acetylcholine, consumption of an electromagnetic field has the potential to delay your case indefinitely. Our recommendation is to store the portion of your psyche associated with insanity in a proxy-flesh until your legal code is updated.
This is a difficult legal question. Most Dimensional Circuit Courts would uphold the ruling in Leventhal3 v. Leventhal2, which determined that a being with a brain comprised of two hemispheres could, for legal purposes, be considered two separate entities. However, unless your nervous system is releasing the proper levels of acetylcholine, consumption of an electromagnetic field has the potential to delay your case indefinitely. Our recommendation is to store the portion of your psyche associated with insanity in a proxy-flesh until your legal code is updated.
This is a difficult legal question. Most Dimensional Circuit Courts would uphold the ruling in Leventhal3 v. Leventhal2, which determined that a being with a brain comprised of two hemispheres could, for legal purposes, be considered two separate entities. However, unless your nervous system is releasing the proper levels of acetylcholine, consumption of an electromagnetic field has the potential to delay your case indefinitely. Our recommendation is to store the portion of your psyche associated with insanity in a proxy-flesh until your legal code is updated.
No it was Bill Clinton you're thinking of who was an omniscient being. Don't worry you're not the first person to make that classic mixup ;P
It's very interesting the way you spun all those points to somehow create the sense of infringement on one's rights. First of all, part of the consent of the governed is that they yield some of their rights to the state in order to maintain a livable society. If you don't like this fundamental trait of government you should seriously consider moving to uncharted territory.
All this really is, all you really are, is an example of how political and intellectual apathy can devolve one's views to the point of subordination to a greater power's agenda. If you really think your liberties are at all risked by the legalization of abortion, the blocking of domestic drilling, or by smear campaigns (of which conservative do a considerable amount more of than liberals as you have unwittingly proven), then you have a truly propagandized view.
I'm not even going to go into who makes up or what defines this elite economic class which I have been alluding to, but know that their economic and political power is far reaching and that they do far greater harm to our democratic society than the liberals do. Radically partisan conservatives (or neo-cons), are the corporate arm undermining our democracy through favoritism and lobbying. Progressive liberals are the main bulwark against this expansion of corporatism into our government. To suggest to circumstances are converse demonstrates a great degree of subordination to popularized ideals and manufactured consent, an epidemic which I'm afraid a large part of society (as well as myself to a certain point) has succumb to.
I don't know why you disputed my post, since you pretty much just reiterated it from every angle. Like you said "In the absence of society however, my right to life, liberty, and property extends only as far as my own efficiency," as in your own ability. It is your inherent ability to do every one of those things you listed for some reason but not your right.
In the absence of society you are afforded no rights because rights only exist within a societal construct. Outside of that construct you are more or less free to do whatever as is everyone else. This is bad because as we see in nature, animals demonstrate no apparent mutual respect for life, neither do we to a certain degree.
So you are somewhat right in defining the purpose of a society as to "more fully protect such rights with greater efficiency." In reality though, society not only protects such rights but creates them as well. This is why different societies have different rights guaranteed to different citizens.
So I will repeat that Natural rights, meaning they are somehow inherent in the natural world, outside of society and apply to communities beyond that of humans are non-existant. I demonstrate this by again saying you have no rights in the absence of societal ramifications for violating those rights for which only society can afford and which the natural world cannot.
If society were to collapse tomorrow you would have as much a right to life as you would healthcare. Rights–like you said–cannot exist without some form so voluntary social order. By "social order" I'm guessing you mean society. Under that logic, the collapse of society would mean there would be no social ramifications for stealing or murder as there would be incentive to provide mutual welfare, so neither the reciprocal of your argument nor the original argument itself does justice to your point.
Healthcare would not be a right in say Ethiopia or India, but in the US, one of the richest most technologically advanced countries in human history, some basic form of care should be guaranteed to everyone. IS healthcare a right? No. SHOULD health care be a right in the? In the US, Yes.
Natural rights (meaning they are somehow inherent in the natural world, outside of society) are non-existant.
I think it's fair to say an inherent right of humans is the right to life and to not be murdered, yet for tens of thousands of years, our prehistoric ancestors lived, fought, and died like any other animal. The average life expectancy was at around 25 and death was as much a part of life as birth. Even currently, natural life such as bacteria is killed in the billions yet we dont try to apply natural rights to them or the animals we raise to slaughter.
Rights are of human construct and therefore only apply to things like societies and civilizations and not to the natural world. Similarly you can't expect something of human construct to act the same as the natural world like the economy or morality.
Firstly there is no prestige in war. War is shameless, mutual destruction, and there is no respect or prestige in that. As for the US' previous conduct in war, there is not much respect to be mustered there either.
In the past the US has consistently sunk to the standards of our enemies, employing total war against civilian populations and utilizing mass and chemical weapons, the effects of which are still being felt to this day. I don't know whether this is an indictment against the slippery slope that is war, or against the overall moral depravity the US has shown in it's conduct of foreign affairs, either way both are seriously lacking prestige.
Places where US victory has been contested, places like Vietnam, and Iraq, there is no doubt that those were all lost wars because the conditions of victory for them were simply unattainable. There would have been literally no way for the US to extinguish the Vietcong or popular Vietnamesse independence groups entirely. And we couldn't retaliate against a force (Iraq) that had never attacked us (9/11). Nor could we have found and dismantled WMD's where there were none.
Let's be clear though. The US was and always has been the military victor. The US would sooner bring the whole world down with it than be dethroned as the major military might. We may have lost in Vietnam but the real losers were the Vietnames people whose population we devastated with our far superior tactics, technology and numbers. Like so many others before have said there are no real victors in war, only losers.
I took three semesters of Yoga in highschool in which we had a time set aside to meditate silently. I can say from a personal standpoint it was noticeably beneficial. I then see no reason not to offer it on the condition that–like all other mind sets–it is not compulsorily impressed on the youth.
Well I think the main point of a uniform currency is convenience and relative stability. Also our whole system of valuation is so great because it is simply a number. Yes numbers can be manipulated but it is the case you can say ok I have this much exactly, this costs this much exactly, is the price of this worth subtracting that much from what I have? In no other system is this really viable.
"War ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom, they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence."
I assume your talking about development programs in developing nations (3rd world countries). In that case very rarely do development models–when applied–have any real impact on the population unless they are done by non-government organizations. But mostly things like infrastructure and modernized agricultural industries do nothing but make that country more a more profitable investment. Most of the time these programs ARE meant to line pockets. For instance, does a country where 40% of it's people are hungry need high speed broad band? Probably not. Should a country with no clean drinking water be manufacturing computer chips? Again the answer is no. The population has no use of either high speed internet nor a demand for computer chips, but these operations cost money to build (most foreign infrastructural contracts go to American corporations) and sometimes even make profits.
It essentially says to law makers and legislation: back to the drawing board. As opposed from abstaining your vote (which contrary to popular belief does NOTHING), it's a way of showing your dissent for a very rigid law or prop. which you should then become involved with amending. Moreover it gives voters the right not to compromise.
Measurable climate change comes from CO2 emissions which man emits several tones of every single day. I don't normally trust statistics, but before 2000, climate variations were measured in less than a degree farenheight, now year to year climates can vary by multiple degrees, this is an alarming trend but it's origin is no doubt man made and what man has made he can reverse.
I'm not saying the UN is all bad, it's just worse than people give it credit for
Prokaryotes emerged from the primordial soup some billions of years ago and here we are. The primordial soup I'm talking about it actually just a chemical reactions of the molecular building blocks of life like ameno acids and proteins and what not. We can actually replicate this reaction through a process called biogenesis.
This is what we call the tyranny of the majority, these people don't have jurisdiction to prohibit the exercising of a right which again has no real impact on them, they merely justify themselves by involving a non-inherent debate of morals
What I'm saying is "There are a lot a people who don't have a lot of rights," if abortion is illegal across the map thats not necessarily the end of the world, but obviously it's a difference to any degree by any standard
There are a lot a people who don't have a lot of rights, sometimes thats a good thing, sometimes thats a bad thing, it's pretty arguable which are for the better and which for the worst. If a woman's right to abortion is taken away–ok. Thats just one more right people very stupidly do not have. Thank you for the nail in the coffin of humanity. Your opinion has been voiced and you hope enforced onto everyone, but at least consider that there are real consequences to the serious state of logical and moral depravity you and many others have lolled yourselves into. To think you have the right to deny another person the right anything which by their exercising has no real effect on you or the world at large–negative or otherwise–is simple nonsense. I don't vehemently support abortion, there are far more noble institutions under duress from far greater evils, but just come on now.
Sorry if I put a bit of a spin on it, I feel pretty strongly about people's welfare and the 'other sides' ideology isn't doing us any courtesy in that respect
Can you clarify what exactly I said that was incorrect versus what I said that you don't agree with please?
Unless you are a barter system purist we do have a barter system with monetary valuation and representation in the US. Money is just debt in this case, societies' debt to you.
Adopting a progressive tax code is not only ideologically in the right it's also far better for the economy. Percentage wise rich people spend less of their income than middle incomers do which makes sense, but this means they are not contributing as much to the demand-side of the economy. I'm not necessarily in favor of any monetary policy or government stimulation of the economy but it's plain to see that taxed income when reintroduced into the economy through government fiscal policy is better economically than stagnant income amassing wealth that is occasionally spent on luxuries. Also keep in mind that the US' income tax is still far lower than in most other developed nations.
A flat tax is also bad economically because it lowers productivity. If someone amasses $10 million and stops working thats a loss of productivity because why would anyone who has more money they would ever need work? So not only does the higher income bracket hoard wealth they also contribute very little to the economy. If you think about it logically, given a companies' fixed payroll budget, for someone to be making more in wages someone needs to be making less in wages. Apply this to a larger unilateral scale and you see the problem with amassing more wealth than you could ever need; very little of it goes back into the economy and for it to exist there must be an absence of it elsewhere (the toll of which is usually spread among a large workforce).
Economically this is not the case for every income bracket. The lower and middle class spend a larger percentage of their wealth and spend it in places that are more likely to stimulate the economy and economic growth overall. We should be enriching the middle class because doing do will invariable enrich the economy. Why would we then impose the same economic sanctions on them that we impose on large sums of stagnant wealth? Overall it's counterproductive and simply unjust.
Its more of a tyranny of a majority if anything, that or vindication for hostile actions against a neutral power with opposing ideologies
If your saying the UN has no real policing force or jurisdiction I would point out two things. First, the security council, the smallest body of the UN, consisting of only France, Russia, China, the UK, and the US pretty much dictate what incidents the UN condemns and who they condemn, and since they are usually the nations in question they take no action against themselves or hold themselves to the same standards they impose on other countries. Secondly, the UN is responsable for the enforcement of most organized sanctions against nations, so they have the power to impose embargos, seize a countries foreign assets and a host of other methods to "fuck shit up." This economic leverage is just as effective at sending the troops in. If you don't like how a country is acting just cut off the foreign aid and food exports and quite literally starve them out. Famines have actually been caused this way, so I think venomous snake is more accurate than toothless lion.
Libertarians are more or less pragmatic anarchists which I wholly empathize with
Our social instituions–like all social instituions–are bound to collapse eventually and give way to newer ones, but what we consider broad based society i.e family units, morals, placing high values on health and education, will likely prevail. The 'fabric of society' if you will evolve over the course of history but our general society is too deeply rooted in the population to every wholly collapse.
I would say overall that youths are better protected from the horrors of disease, child labor, and poverty of yesterday, but they inherit far more problems than we have ever faced previously. With all this influx of technologies leaves behind a deficit of knowledge on how to most equitably apply it. Global warming, overpopulation, economic instability, and a perpetually marginalized middle class are all challenges the youth are going to have to respond and adapt to at a rate of change not yet achieved amongst our society. This is not an insurmountable goal, but the sooner the older generation relinquishes its chokehold on our political and economic institutions, the more likely it is we will be able to turn the tides away from self destruction and towards a safe and more importantly certain future.
There is no question of the US government is corrupt and overly agressive (just look at 20th century US foreign policy). The question is: with the voter turnout at >60% and a partisan gridlocked legislature, what are we going to do about this?
I have no biological reference to this other than that of common sense
False, they have yet to gain any stream of measurable consciousness and thus do not qualify as a 'human' being–maybe a being but not anything resembling a human (homo erectus). Therefor any human rights that infringe on the mother's own rights are non-existant on the part of a fetus.
Libertarians are not very pragmatic in the political arena. Being libertarian in a partisan sense means you want a flat tax, no social programs, and very limited government. Ultimately this will just vilify the government and make it a more arbitrary part of our lives instead of what it should be; a manifestation of us, the governed. The reason libertarians oppose government it because the government has never seen that much involvement of the people. Ideally, the government should be an extension of the people instead of what it is now: an instrument used to manipulate the people. The answer is not less government it is more public involvement in government so that government is never used against us.
