Search results

I like to hammer a few nails into my cock to start things off in the right mood. Then I like to dig up fresh corpses, cut off their skin and dance around to Brittney Spears while wearing their deceased flesh as a bikini. I cap it off by raping a prostitute and cannibalizing her while she is...

you may not be a nazi, but what you propose could easily lead to a greater acceptance in nazism because what you propose (severe curtailment in democratic freedoms) is ultimately compatible with the overarching nazi ideology of taking power away from the people and centralizing in the hands of...

1 million people commit suicide every year worldwide.

I lost faith in humanity, god and nature a long time ago. I don't expect anyone to embrace anything. The only thing i expect is to die at any given second given the nihilistic nature of existence. Figure it out yourself.

People in Canada and the UK are less free politically in more ways then one. Free speech is not as strongly codified in England and other parts of Western Europe and the fact that you don't directly pick the prime minister makes you less free. This is not to be taken as if I am saying "The U.S...

Plato was a fascist. Read Karl Popper to understand this better. And you are too because you ultimately admit you don't care how judges become judges, as long as "the legal system works correctly." you are a joke.

you are reducing my calling you a nazi down to "calling someone a name." but the truth of the matter is a nazi is someone who believes the people should have no real democratic say in things, and your proposal to take away the ability of citizens to vote for the congress and president is one of...

:1orglaugh thanks for playing.

Exactly. And how do the children grow older and get to the point where they could contribute to the economy? Through the unpaid labor of mothers. Not only is the labor unpaid, people don't even want to help them with welfare benefits if the "time-limit" has expired as with the clinton legislation.

Dude, please stop quoting me shit from economics textbooks. Try reading dissident economists like Steve Keen or dozens of others in the 20th century who have debunked economics. Just because you said you took a couple courses doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. If you are confused...

no, there is a difference between, one the one hand, not agreeing with someone, and on the other hand making illogical statements that do not cohere or demonstrate an inability to think critically or comprehend what you read. there are a lot of stupid people in the word who don't give a fuck.

If you are against popular pressure influencing the courts, why not be against popular pressure influencing anything. Afterall, one could make the argument that the making and executing of laws are too important to be left up to popular pressure. There is also a serious problem here, seeing how...

Lots of people have influence in different ways, but the president is the leader of his party and can help to shape debate in the congress. I think Pelosi and Reid are more likely to listen to Obama then Oprah. This of course would create a problem for independents and third parties if there was...

calm down sparky. it's simple. woman make baby. woman raise baby. baby grow up to be zombie consumer/worker who pumps money through the economy. the end.

Bendover: First, mothers raising children are generating revenue in a longterm perspective because they are doing the fundamentally important work of making sure the human species continues to exist. Second, your talk about incentives can be turned around on you. For example, maybe someone...

the idea is that you might only be able to have a friend or family member help you out during the commute, not spend an entire 8 hour or more shift. duh.:rolleyes:

:1orglaugh hmm, let's see. maybe a friend or family member? wow, that took a grand total of 2.6 seconds to think of. and, obviously, if you imagine no commute there is no problem. also, you could take a risk a leave the kid alone for a little bit during a commute. not that i'd recommend that...

first of all, there is no reason to assume they have no money. if you assume they have some money, however they may have acquired it, my point holds. Even if you have no other source of income then some minimal amount from welfare to help your child, you could use the money to hire the nanny and...

you wouldn't be paying yourself because someone else would be paying you. you are not paying someone else to raise their own kid. Person A pays person B to take care of person A's child and person B pays person A to take care of person B's child. This way person A and person B can tell the...

you are not paying someone to sit around. you are paying them to be a nanny in the example i laid out. if you pay them to be a nanny, why not just pay them to raise their own kid?

of course it's a wise political move. i'm trying to legalize public nudity after all. jeez, who do you think you're talking to? cotton mather? as to your first point, what if i claim i merely have a really bad itch on my cock and all of the sudden, oops, some cum came out. plausible defense?

:confused:

Imagine a workfare mother taking on a job as a nanny, not for a rich person, but for another workfare mother, and at the same time hiring her employer as a nanny for her own children at exactly the same rate she is getting paid, so that they both have child care except during their mutual...

Your second sentence only explains what they do and adds nothing to your point. Now your point is ridiculous on multiple levels. First, why not use your same logic and apply it to the congress and president? Let's have state legislatures appoint the president and the congress and give them life...

ChefChiTown: You are so funny. Someone should give you an award. Bone: "the 2 party system insures that things are kept basically the same which has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. why change it now with no guarantee that things will get better and a good chance it could be...

I came up with five. There are others. What else can the rest of you come up with? 1. Supreme Court is given lifetime appointments but no other branch of government is. 2. Supreme Court is not directly elected by the people, but the President and Congress are. 3. Congress has no term limits but...

i guess i won't be getting your vote. just for that, i'm going to make a special executive order that legalizes human pooping in public so we don't walk around like a walking contradiction allowing dogs to do it when people can't. i know you'll love that one.

you won't be saying that when i'm banging the head of the Pornland Security Department in the Oval Office.

you're right, subisizing organic farming is quite stalinist. but SubSIdizing organic farming allows people who can't afford to buy healthy food to have the opportunity to get healthy food at a cheaper cost. but you are probably some type of libertarian or neo-con or whatever so i guess you think...

maybe you should have bolded the word hypothetically in my post and you would understand the point better.

there were land deals with the cherokees before the indian removal act/trail of tears. in order to demonstrate 100% of cherokee land was wrongfully acquired by the U.S., you'd have to demonstrate all cherokee land before, during and after the removal act was not acquired legally/morally. same...

well, then no peyote. it's a clear cut choice. you are either for voting for me and legalizing peyote, or you are an undercover agent working for bin laden and the devil.

if you vote for me, i'll legalize it.

no. it is a hallucinogen that is legal for native americans to use in religious ceremonies.

what is wrong with the analogy? and don't tell me no nudist has ever been lynched or enslaved. although i can't say for sure there haven't been nudist lynchings or forms of enslavement, even if there wasn't, that doesn't deny the correspondence between hypothetically segregating blacks because...

You know what's funny about you "100% of the land was wrongfully acquired" crowd? It doesn't seem like any of you would find it acceptable to call for the absolute destruction of the U.S. even if it was the legally and morally appropriate action. funny, isn't it? i shouldn't have to hide in a...

have you read the thread? i've already stated numerous times, in numerous ways, there is no evidence that 100% of the land in the U.S. was wrongfully acquired. but just in case, i just said it again right there. jeez!:confused:

try reading through the rest of the thread. it might help answer whatever questions you have regarding my apparent racism which is actually just the usage of an analogy to make a point. hardly an endorsement of any particular policy of racial oppression.

let me put it to you this way Will E Worm. Take your example of the Indian Removal Act. Hear are two choices. Now pay attention and put your thinking cap on. What does the Indian Removal Act prove? Choice A: Some fucked up shit was done to the Cherokees. Choice B: 100% of the Cherokees land...

i have a hunch you aren't joking. You have provided no evidence 100% of the land was acquired wrongfully. If you think you have, you obviously dont understand what qualifies as evidence. Nothing i have said about blacks is racist so go ahead and make your baseless assertions, but it's not going...

yeah, i know. but i was saying that 9 out of 10 of my policies would be good enough to not have me lose a ton of voters. just a little mix up.

just as because you think my nuts are too hairy is not a reason i should be legally coerced to cover them up.

first of all, there is no indication that your post is a source at all, second of all if it was a source, it doesn't demonstrate 100% of the land was taken wrongfully. All your post says is that there were people here, they had their own way of life, a lot of death and destruction resulted from...

if you are not going to segregate blacks because a majority of people think they are ugly, why would you ban nudity simply because a majority might think there are some ugly cunts walking around? source?

Even girls with big bottoms vote for Waddams!

The Indian Removal Act is a good example of fucked up shit. So is the prevalent perception of indians as "savages." Neither of these establishes that 100% of the U.S. was wrongfully taken from Native Americans.

the question is how much land was wrongfully acquired. maybe it is 50%, maybe less, maybe more. start with the clear cut cases and work your way out from there.

i think you need to think it through a little more and consider the analogy made with black people. i don't know if i can help you any further, but i'm pulling for ya timmy. go towards the light.

but i'll get the porn vote. and maybe i can sway the narrow minded. Especially if I say i'm going to appoint some super hot pornstar as Secretary of Porn or the head of the Pornland Security Department.

well, 9 out of 10 ain't bad. as for returning lands, i'm being reasonable in only calling for the return of wrongfully taken lands, not the entire country. my legal precedent is the UN declaration which allowed for decolonization of third world countries. i think the same standard should apply...