CyniQ
New Member
Bob Smith said:People still watch SNL??
Somebody does. Or they'd have taken it off the air. It's not nearly as funny as it used to be.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Political Test
- Thread starter PDP
- Start date
Somebody does. Or they'd have taken it off the air. It's not nearly as funny as it used to be.
MANWHORE
Subscriber
I watch it and it's pretty good but i watch MAD TV more .. not that i like MAD TV more it's just on when i'm watching TV. I think most of the time MAD TV just isn't funny at all. SNL is still funny thoughCyniQ said:
Beefy
New Member
CyniQ said:
Seriously. Would you fuck Hillary Rodham-Clinton?
I think yes....
Id fuck her with a broken off, splintered shovel handle.Beefy said:Seriously. Would you fuck Hillary Rodham-Clinton?
I think yes....
CyniQ
New Member
Bob Smith said:
My god that was violent. Wow, Bobby. If you need to talk you can PM me bro...
Beefy
New Member
Bob Smith said:
That's what marriage will do for you.
Ten years of marriage and you'll want the handle for yourself.
And after Hillary got some good action, I would take it out and beat her across the head with it. Id rather put her out of her misery than waiting a few years and chancing that she becomes Prez. At that point, ID would want to be put out of MY misery.CyniQ said:My god that was violent. Wow, Bobby. If you need to talk you can PM me bro...
Grizzly
New Member
I'd do her, with or without the shovel. 
CyniQ
New Member
Bob Smith said:
I still don't see how anyone can see her as a viable candidate for president. It's just ridiculous to me. I guess we'll know in '08. But if she even gets the nomination I'll be shocked.
I wouldnt be shocked. She is the darling of every liberal and is now positioning herself as a moderate in order to appeal to voters who could go either way. I think a lot of people, particularly on the right, wouldnt vote for her simply because she is a woman. While I dont really want a woman President, my not voting for her would be about her extreme left position on the issues and not because shes a girl.
Grizzly said:
You have to forget everything you learned in school about socialism as it was mostly propoganda.Socialism is not communism nor is it totalitarianism.
The core of the libertarian is that I have the right to do anything I want provided it does not infringe on the right for someone else to do anything they want.
When you take that concept and apply it it can become very restrictive because your action may deny someone their rights. For example let's say I want to open up a chain of stores in every town, but there isn't enough space in every town to support multiple stores. If you build a store in every town you are denying someone else the right to open up a store also as two stores can not sucessfully exist in that area. Thus the state socalizes the stores to ensure that everyone that wants to open up a store can have one.
Let's say Lower Pudnuck can support one store and Upper Pudnuck can support three stores. Two people from Lower Pudnuck want to open shop and one person from Upper Pudnuck wants to open shop. Then the state tells one of the Lower Pudnuck people they can open a store in Upper Pudnuck, thus all people that wanted to open a store gets one and no ones rights have been denied.
In another example you are permitted to do whatever your heart desires on your property without government intrusion provided you aren't causing harm to others, however all social services are owned and controlled by the state. Thus both libertarianism and socalism are existing at the same time.
Grizzly
New Member
I think you might want to rethink your interpretation of libertarian beliefs.
CyniQ
New Member
bryan361 said:
I think what Grizz meant was. Your analogy is way off. Libertarians also believe in a free market society. So, you can open up as many stores as you like. The market will decide who's stores get to say open, and who's go out of business.
Grizzly
New Member
Right. I have ten ways from Sunday worth of destruction for the previous "argument", but, for now, I'd just like to point out that a core component of Libertarian beliefs is lasseiz faire capitalism. Therefore, what you described is 1 BILLION percent incompatible with Libertarianism.
Like I said, it is impossible to be a socialist and a libertarian at the same time.
Like I said, it is impossible to be a socialist and a libertarian at the same time.
Grizzly
New Member
First off, socialism and communism very much are the same thing. USSR - United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic
Secondly, as noted above, Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They don't believe in laws in either sphere, beyond those which are absolutely necessary to protect one's self-interest, ie health, wealth and happiness. Lasseiz faire: hands off. They believe the gov't should not regulate the economy. Capitalism in its truest form.
Now let's look at your little hypothetical. Ok, so one section of town can have 3 stores. Ok, cool. All three stores will have different income levels. Who decides who gets the store in the best part of town? What are you going to do; give it to the guy with the least money?
The problem with socialism is that it sacrifices the strong to the weak. Because I have more money than you doesn't not mean I owe you. Why does business man A have more than businessman B? Because he's a better businessman. So you propose we give the weaker man the better store because he's not as good as man A? That's ridiculous!
You were not born with a guarantee to have anything. Life is a constant struggle. It's significantly easier of a struggle today than it was 400 years ago, but it's still a struggle nonetheless. Your subsistence is guaranteed only by your own hand and your own mind. Food will not come to you. You must get the food.
Secondly, as noted above, Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. They don't believe in laws in either sphere, beyond those which are absolutely necessary to protect one's self-interest, ie health, wealth and happiness. Lasseiz faire: hands off. They believe the gov't should not regulate the economy. Capitalism in its truest form.
Now let's look at your little hypothetical. Ok, so one section of town can have 3 stores. Ok, cool. All three stores will have different income levels. Who decides who gets the store in the best part of town? What are you going to do; give it to the guy with the least money?
The problem with socialism is that it sacrifices the strong to the weak. Because I have more money than you doesn't not mean I owe you. Why does business man A have more than businessman B? Because he's a better businessman. So you propose we give the weaker man the better store because he's not as good as man A? That's ridiculous!
You were not born with a guarantee to have anything. Life is a constant struggle. It's significantly easier of a struggle today than it was 400 years ago, but it's still a struggle nonetheless. Your subsistence is guaranteed only by your own hand and your own mind. Food will not come to you. You must get the food.
