But, but, but....Milton Friedman is an... liberty... bitcoins.... statism.... bitcoins... Ron Paul... minarchy..... classical liberal.... statist.... tyranny..... statist...... statist... Milton Friedman es muy.... liberterrier... statiststatiststatistatis..... you are an bitcoin...DOES NOT COMPUTE... you are an tyranny..... 00011101010001.... Daissssyyy... Daissseyyy, givve mee yourrrr answ..... Self Destruct in T minus 5... 4... 4... 4..

-END OF LINE-

And Scene.>> ^NetRunner:

"I do believe that every individual should be free to own, buy, and sell gold. If under those circumstances a private gold standard emerged, fine—although I make a scientific prediction that it’s very unlikely. But I think those people who say they believe in a gold standard are fundamentally being very anti-libertarian because what they mean by a gold standard is a governmentally fixed price for gold."
-Milton Friedman
Also:
http://delong.typepad.c
om/sdj/2009/03/the-earlier-you-abandon-the-gold-standard-and-start-your-new-deal-the-better.html

>> ^shagen454:

Yeah, yeah (I love Futurama BTW and the only way they are able to make references to what they do is because they are well aware)
But I'd rather support "penniless hippies" than corporate, lifeless twats that ruin local American economies just so they can by a John Deer lawnmower so they can waste shitloads of good water & money on their silly little golf lawns and feel "accomplished".
I really wish "Support Local Business" wasn't synonymous with "hippy" culture. It should be in everyone's interest. But, I guess the other-side of America is apathy, complacency and self-destruction - the whole "I don't care" "fuck it" mentality.
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shagen454:



The issue isn't "greedy corporations" you realize all corporations were once the local business in town that grew because they provided something better/cheaper. I will agree that giant mega corporations aren't all that great...but you need to understand they wouldn't exist without government subsidization (look at america's corn industry...hence the obesity levels..everything has corn syrup in it because the industry is SO heavily subsidized.)

my point is, if you're unhappy, don't complain about walmart, complain about the shit government that fucks up free markets, allowing and encouraging monopolies and oligopolies. not a single case of a monopoly within a free market exist in the history of any country.*


ps. I bet you shop at walmart.

Yeah, yeah (I love Futurama BTW and the only way they are able to make references to what they do is because they are well aware)

But I'd rather support "penniless hippies" than corporate, lifeless twats that ruin local American economies just so they can by a John Deer lawnmower so they can waste shitloads of good water & money on their silly little golf lawns and feel "accomplished".

I really wish "Support Local Business" wasn't synonymous with "hippy" culture. It should be in everyone's interest. But, I guess the other-side of America is apathy, complacency and self-destruction - the whole "I don't care" "fuck it" mentality.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^shagen454:

Satan doesn't make you do anything..he merely tempts. It's not Satans fault that someone sinned. He couldn't legally be blamed for any sin that humans do. Our nature is fallen, that is why we're such easy targets. We naturally want to do things which aren't right. The flesh and spirit are at war with one another. The flesh has insatiable desires which never end, and lead people into self destruction. We're willing victims, which is the problem. This is why we must be born again. Until we put on the righteousness of Christ, we don't stand a chance.

The bible is more than a cautionary tale, it is our true history. What is seen by the eye is the surface of the spiritual war that is underlaying all things. Every person you meet is a soldier on one side or the other, and a war is being waged for his very soul. What comes out of his mouth are the weapons of this war, the sword of truth or the flaming arrows of the enemy. There are no coincidences, because all things are being orchastrated.

Since you do appreciate the bible, I will recommend the book of Ecclesiastes to you. It is a book of sayings of wisdom, written by a King who had done it all, seen it all, had every thing a man could ever possibly want and more. It his cautionary tale about life.

Also, I honestly don't see how you think that the one who controls life and death is evil for presiding over it. Over 2 million people are born and die every day. God is sovereign, and He can adjudicate His creation how He pleases. As He said to job, "Have you ever in all your life caused a day to dawn?" He didn't need anyones help in making the Earth, and He certainly doesn't need anyones advice in running it. It was *because* of the evil man was doing that He brought His judgement to bear.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Change 'Satan' to greed and self interest, and I'm pretty much on board with what you are saying in this comment. I think attaching greed and self-interest to a demon allows us to put one degree of separation between the good and bad side of our own nature - hindering us from taking responsibility for the ill we actively or passively commit on others. "Satan made me do it."
I think there is much wisdom in the Bible, so long as we look at these stories as cautionary tales rather than literal truth; so long as we look at these stories as the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of a just God - because there are a number of horrors perpetrated by God that far surpass the evil of men.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This "ridiculous caped horned boogeyman" is the image that Satan prefers, and the secular media portrays. It's the image the spiritually undiscerning have of Satan, that he is some overt and absurd caricature of evil. Nothing can be further from the truth. Satan masquarades as an angel of light. When he shows himself to someone, it's under the pretense of good not evil. He is a master manipulator and tactician, more intelligent and powerful than any other creation of God. He shows himself to be a giver of secret knowledge, a liberator of humanity. Someone who has our best interests at heart. His influence is everywhere, in our culture and media, from main street to wall street to pennsylvnia avenue. His product is sin and everyone is buying, and all those who do become his slaves.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Unsaved people don't believe in Satan. You are confusing love with mockery. Satan is one of the most poorly constructed characters in all of Christian mythology - a ridiculous caped, horned boogeyman designed to frighten young children and gullible adults into going to church. When South Park or Tenacious D features Satan, they aren't praising Satan, they are making fun of religion. >> ^shinyblurry:
Unsaved people love this idea of devil as some sort of freedom fighter..but that wasn't the case.

I find it hard to build any sympathy for her. 27 is so damned young, but she seemed to revel is such self destructiveness and did little to prevent this..

Apparently so. I still love you, Issy.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
Well, just as you said bareboards was "indirectly" involved in people getting banned, such as joe "u r a cunt" dirt, you did kind of set off choggie by submitting a cat fart vi that used his name in the title. That sounds pretty similar. Not saying I didn't think choggie did not overreact. Yeah, this is a tiresome argument and I am getting bored with it. The point is, I do think you overreacted in your response as I am sure I am probably overreacting right fucking now to a fucking reversed ban about a what's-his-name user I don't give a fucking shit about. I mean, who fucking cares? He got banned wrongly, and now he is unbanned. Great success. Yay tolerance for intolerance. Yeaaaaaaaaah... did I tell you that I am in a foul mood right now?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, it's not accurate. I doubt MrFisk was referring to my college term of endearment when he said I wanted to be the biggest asshole so I had to remove my competition by banning choggie. And what I dislike about his comment the most is that it's revisionist history. You were there when choggie was banned, you know it wasn't my doing. He self-destructed and begged for his head to be chopped off in the town square.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to place choggie's ban on me. I was glad to see him go, but I wasn't the cause. I guess some cannot separate the two.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

Well, just as you said bareboards was "indirectly" involved in people getting banned, such as joe "u r a cunt" dirt, you did kind of set off choggie by submitting a cat fart vi that used his name in the title. That sounds pretty similar. Not saying I didn't think choggie did not overreact. Yeah, this is a tiresome argument and I am getting bored with it. The point is, I do think you overreacted in your response as I am sure I am probably overreacting right fucking now to a fucking reversed ban about a what's-his-name user I don't give a fucking shit about. I mean, who fucking cares? He got banned wrongly, and now he is unbanned. Great success. Yay tolerance for intolerance. Yeaaaaaaaaah... did I tell you that I am in a foul mood right now?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, it's not accurate. I doubt MrFisk was referring to my college term of endearment when he said I wanted to be the biggest asshole so I had to remove my competition by banning choggie. And what I dislike about his comment the most is that it's revisionist history. You were there when choggie was banned, you know it wasn't my doing. He self-destructed and begged for his head to be chopped off in the town square.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to place choggie's ban on me. I was glad to see him go, but I wasn't the cause. I guess some cannot separate the two.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

No, it's not accurate. I doubt MrFisk was referring to my college term of endearment when he said I wanted to be the biggest asshole so I had to remove my competition by banning choggie. And what I dislike about his comment the most is that it's revisionist history. You were there when choggie was banned, you know it wasn't my doing. He self-destructed and begged for his head to be chopped off in the town square.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to place choggie's ban on me. I was glad to see him go, but I wasn't the cause. I guess some cannot separate the two.

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

Has nothing to do with you. My comment above was a response to Lawdeedaw about how the first and racist Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, signed into law the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears. After that you got defensive because I said something negative about the Democratic Party, and I've been enjoying watching you self destruct ever since.

Now who's attacking the person and not the argument?
You said I have the history wrong...what history do I have wrong?

8====D~

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

Has nothing to do with you. My comment above was a response to Lawdeedaw about how the first and racist Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, signed into law the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears. After that you got defensive because I said something negative about the Democratic Party, and I've been enjoying watching you self destruct ever since.


Now who's attacking the person and not the argument?

You said I have the history wrong...what history do I have wrong?

>> ^NetRunner:

Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?


Has nothing to do with you. My comment above was a response to Lawdeedaw about how the first and racist Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, signed into law the Indian Removal Act which lead to the Trail of Tears. After that you got defensive because I said something negative about the Democratic Party, and I've been enjoying watching you self destruct ever since.

Atheism takes a stance, which is that God does not exist. It's the agnostic that says he doesn't know. Don't you even know what you believe? All I've ever told people is this..that there is plenty of evidence to believe that God exists..however, my testimony isn't necessarily going to be good enough for people..which I why is tell them to seek out the truth themselves. I have told anyone who has honestly inquired that God will reveal Himself to anyone who dilligently seeks Him out, as He directly promised. This is not about me and never was. I don't have any motive other than doing what the Lord commanded me to do. The conversation never turns around here though, its mostly a blanket wall of denial and dogmatic assertion. I don't have any trouble speaking or appealing to the deeper thinkers..its the shallow know it alls that can't hear anything.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's hubris and arrogance to elevate man to a station he doesn't deserve..his so called wisdom is nothing but foolishness, as history proves over and over and over..and continutes to prove today..His pride and vanity have made him blind and given him an insatiable appetite for self-destruction. Man has learned nothing of value. Cockroaches are better; at least they know their place and have a sense of self preservation. No an ignorant savage on a dirt ball shouldn't presume he knows enough to say either way, and certainly a speck of dust shouldn't mock the wind that gave its vital breath. All man has earned for himself is death, that is the final equation of his power and dominion..his inheritance is zeroed out into oblivion.
>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.


Is it hubris to say "Your story is flawed and I don't believe it"?
No, it is hubris to say "I know the truth of the universe, and you should believe everything I say."
It is vanity to say "The only way to get into heaven is to be like me."
It is prideful to say "I am a chosen child of God."
You know nothing, and are too prideful to admit it. The atheist admits to knowing nothing, and believes only when evidence is shown.
The path to self destruction... believing whatever somebody tells you without thinking about it for yourself. That's almost the definition of religion.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's hubris and arrogance to elevate man to a station he doesn't deserve..his so called wisdom is nothing but foolishness, as history proves over and over and over..and continutes to prove today..His pride and vanity have made him blind and given him an insatiable appetite for self-destruction. Man has learned nothing of value. Cockroaches are better; at least they know their place and have a sense of self preservation. No an ignorant savage on a dirt ball shouldn't presume he knows enough to say either way, and certainly a speck of dust shouldn't mock the wind that gave its vital breath. All man has earned for himself is death, that is the final equation of his power and dominion..his inheritance is zeroed out into oblivion.
>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.




Is it hubris to say "Your story is flawed and I don't believe it"?

No, it is hubris to say "I know the truth of the universe, and you should believe everything I say."
It is vanity to say "The only way to get into heaven is to be like me."
It is prideful to say "I am a chosen child of God."

You know nothing, and are too prideful to admit it. The atheist admits to knowing nothing, and believes only when evidence is shown.

The path to self destruction... believing whatever somebody tells you without thinking about it for yourself. That's almost the definition of religion.

It's hubris and arrogance to elevate man to a station he doesn't deserve..his so called wisdom is nothing but foolishness, as history proves over and over and over..and continutes to prove today..His pride and vanity have made him blind and given him an insatiable appetite for self-destruction. Man has learned nothing of value. Cockroaches are better; at least they know their place and have a sense of self preservation. No an ignorant savage on a dirt ball shouldn't presume he knows enough to say either way, and certainly a speck of dust shouldn't mock the wind that gave its vital breath. All man has earned for himself is death, that is the final equation of his power and dominion..his inheritance is zeroed out into oblivion.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Only the religious can take the stance that he is a special chosen child of the one almighty god, created in his image, who loves us all and communicates with us individually and grants requests when we pray hard enough... and call that humility.
Only the religious can look at a man who knows he is an insignificant speck in the endlessly vast universe, barely clinging to life in a tiny sliver of ground that his uncountable ancestors fought and died for, whose only wish is to enjoy what short time he may have here and learn a little about how it really works... and call that hubris and arrogance.

Ah, America.
Home of prurient attitudes about *anatomy.

Personally, I couldn't care less about politicians' sex lives and sincerely believe that most judgments that people make about such things are severely projective and hypocritical.

That being said, photographing your junk, and then e-mailing it through Twitter while holding public office can only be described as either phenomenally stupid, seriously self-destructive, or (as I believe is the case here) a combination of both.

Wow. I mean... WOW.