>> ^shinyblurry:

This video is complete fantasy. Take the evolutionary animation for instance..none of that is supported in the fossil record. All of those transitions are completely inference, especially ape to man. If you believe that, you are thick..do your own investigation. There isn't any conclusive evidence for ape to man evolution what so ever.
And you don't think they're looking for true transitionals? Why do you think evolutionists trotted out piltdown man and nebraska man as proof of evolution for over 50 years, and why today the desperate search is still on to find the missing link. They thought it was neanderthal man but it turned out to be a guy with arthritus and rickets. The fossil record isn't just incomplete, it is ludicrously so..with hundreds of millions of them uncovered yet no true transitionals. I'll let real palentologists explain it to you:
Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
He continues:
The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7
The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:
...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 2
David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… 3
N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. 4
Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:
The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. 5
Wake up people..your belief in evolution is purely metaphysical and requires faith. I suppose if you don't think about it too hard it makes sense. It's the same thing with abiogenesis..pure metaphysics.
Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.
The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2
You've been had..be intellectually honest enough to admit it and seek out the truth. Science does not support evolution.


Case in point.

This video is complete fantasy. Take the evolutionary animation for instance..none of that is supported in the fossil record. All of those transitions are completely inference, especially ape to man. If you believe that, you are thick..do your own investigation. There isn't any conclusive evidence for ape to man evolution what so ever.

And you don't think they're looking for true transitionals? Why do you think evolutionists trotted out piltdown man and nebraska man as proof of evolution for over 50 years, and why today the desperate search is still on to find the missing link. They thought it was neanderthal man but it turned out to be a guy with arthritus and rickets. The fossil record isn't just incomplete, it is ludicrously so..with hundreds of millions of them uncovered yet no true transitionals. I'll let real palentologists explain it to you:

Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

He continues:

The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7

The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 2

David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… 3

N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:

My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. 4

Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:

The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. 5

Wake up people..your belief in evolution is purely metaphysical and requires faith. I suppose if you don't think about it too hard it makes sense. It's the same thing with abiogenesis..pure metaphysics.

Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2

You've been had..be intellectually honest enough to admit it and seek out the truth. Science does not support evolution.

Making hard drugs illegal solves nothing. It makes drug usage harder, but in doing so creates a problem much worse: a black market and the lives and resources that are destroyed trying to dominate or prevent it. It truly is no different from alcohol prohibition. Instead of dying of drugs because of parental neglect, now your children will have an opportunity to die:

1. in a gang from a cop or other gang members
2. from a gang as a cop
3. from a gang as a citizen who gets caught in the crossfire
4. from a gang as a citizen who was going to testify against a gang member
5. as a citizen who otherwise might have had a cop in the area to help them if not for their being busy with anti-drug enforcement

It also increases the chance of corruption within the police force because the confiscated substance are of such high market value from the artificial scarcity. Of course, we saw all of this from the 30s with alcohol prohibition, yet don't apply the same logic to all drugs. People are dumb when it comes to weighing cost/benefit ratios. Look at marijuana, marijuana is 1% as dangerous as even alcohol, and people still cling to its prohibition as being worth the costs incurred.

Then there's the philosophical part, which is that you should have the right to do to your body as you wish because you own your body from the day you're born. All rights derive from property. If you can be incarcerated against your will for doing something to yourself, then you are a slave of the state.

>> ^bobknight33:

The Fed Fucked us.
The Fed is a group of private bankers and not a government entity. They look after themselves not the citizens of America
Let the USA print their own money supply as per the constitution.


Nobody owns the Fed. It's not just "some other private business". It was created in 1913 by law. Their powers are exclusive and granted by congress. In fact, according to most constitutional scholars, the government is not given the power to give powers they don't have to someone else. That would make them all powerful and defeat the purpose of the document. Remember, the constitution is a privilege system. Whatever isn't explicitly granted to the government is implicitly denied. Article I does not say that the government can print money, it says it can coin money. That wording was used at a time when government notes not backed by metal had just blown up in everyone's face. And if the government can't print money, what gives them the authority to create a virtual GSE that can? Somehow, the government got around that article by endowing a bunch of powers it didn't have to a "private" entity, continuing to call it private, and going from there. It doesn't make sense to anyone with a brain, but to a dumbfuck populace, it's plenty complex to achieve subversion. Government have always wanted to spend as much of the people's money as they can without eliciting the resistance of taxation. And inflation is what allows them to do it.

We don't want currency to be counterfeited by its issuer while everyone else has to produce to obtain it. That's the purpose of having 100% gold-backed notes in milligram denominations. The scarcity of gold cannot be reduced like a dollar unit. If the Fed started issuing denominations with extra zeroes, any dollars you hold buy 10% what they did before. They print money, buy government bond debt, and by the time it filters down to you, prices have gone up.

^Deadrisenmortal:Is this what capitalism gets you?



No, this is what any perceived scarcity gets you.

(Demand > Supply) + Limited Timeframe = Instant Idiocy.

I don't think that's amoral, I think that's decidedly immoral. Like @ryanbennitt says above, the Federation is keeping people stupid, allowing genocide, famine, wars etc. At the very least, they could introduce their replicators to all friendly states they met and given them INFINITE food and materials. Not doing that, is intentionally keeping them down.

Because it is a post-scarcity world, there is no limit to supplies in the advanced races, but there is in the simple ones and some people will starve, some people will die because of the inaction of the Federation. I think this is immoral. (Morality is obviously different from person to person, but I think the "least harm principle" is almost universal.)

They should of course be careful when introducing new technologies, and do it gradually, but to make an arbitrary decision like "all pre-warp civilizations get nothing" is immoral.


>> ^Bidouleroux:

>> ^gwiz665:
The Prime Directive is immoral.
quality doublepromote

The Prime Directive is amoral. It comes from the Vulcans. It is a rational directive so as to not be squandered by moral dilemmas (when two options seem equally "good" or equally "bad"). The Prime Directive is neither good nor bad, it's just a directive to cut the moral Gordian Knot. That the application of the Prime Directive is debated so much shows why it exists : to cut the crap debates around morality. Because it's easy to think you won't interfere when you're far away but not so easy when you're in the middle of a situation. Hence the directive and hence the fact that they can't really punish you when you ignore it in the heat of a situation, unless you committed an actual crime like genocide. And I say "committed", not "let happen". You can let happen a genocide if by doing so you are respecting the Prime Directive in regard to a pre-warp civilizations' internal matters. If its two warp capable factions of the same civilization, it's a matter of whether there is ground to recognize them as two different civilizations, which is a political decision more than a moral one.
In Voyager they sometimes had good reasons to ignore the Prime Directive, for example with the Ocampas they were aware that they were being protected by an alien (the Caretaker). Also, the Kazon were warp capable and were interfering anyway so that's a good reason to beat the crap out of them (plus they were hostile from the get go). You can refrain from interfering in the internal matters of a civilization, but you can't use that excuse when it's not an internal matter (e.g. Picard and the Romulans vs. the Klingon civil war : don't interfere with the Klingon's own internal affairs but also keep the Romulans from interfering because that's not an internal matter).
The Prime Directive is not an absolute, but a code of conduct. Also, the only way I could see to get punished under it would be to give warp technology to a pre-warp civilization. That's a inter-civilization incident because you effectively wilfully bring a new player (de facto ally since you control their level of technological progress) on the galactic table, skewing things in your favor by artificial means. That's why you don't see the Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians or even the Ferengi giving warp technology. You just can't do that without facing consequences from other warp-capable civilizations.

LYRICS:

Only rapper to be called a thief without stealing
Download an MP3 for free, these people hit the ceiling
I'm just a citizen that's teaching you a lesson
for restricting my freedom of expression
How can ideas be possessions when they're freely replicable?
Hence unapplicable property laws are reprehensible
Didn't Jefferson express his opinion on the matter
when he said inventions shouldn't be given a patent
What happened to that thinking, we're stuck in a pattern
where the people with everything are keeping everything from us who haven't
We want it back, look, fed up of adverts, left and right
begging me to buy til there's nothing left of mine
to spend, never mind, who's next in line to testify
that we need laws like these to protect our rights?
Medicine has never been something I'd ever deprive
especially when a life depends on it to survive
Yeah, it takes an incredible effort to develop them right
but putting wealth over health, I said it's never been right

I'm just a citizen that's teaching you a lesson
for restricting my freedom of expression, and I reckon
if old blues themes hadn't been used by Led Zeppelin
we wouldn't ever have any heavy metal then
the history of music would have never even happened
and amusingly there wouldn't even be a Metallica
to tell us that we should hang on the gallows of law
so we wouldn't even need to have a Gallo Report
Oh and by the way the fricking Gallo's support
is made of signatures which have been apparently forged
This shit is sinister, and cannot be allowed to enforce
so tell your ministers and MEPs of how it's been brought about
Although you'll probably get a shallow retort
because the lobbyists have got a grip around all their balls
If I was boss, I'd tell them get the Hell out the door
because I've had enough of corrupt crooks ramming through laws

I'm just a citizen that's teaching you a lesson
for restricting my freedom of expression
Yes, and deep packet inspection? squeeze that up your rectum
If your postman did that to you you'd be having him sectioned
arrested for meddling in your private affairs
But it's only online, right? so why should we care?
Because digital rights should be applicable right
here in real life, and we're not criminals, right?
So this is just why we'll never give up the fight
to be considered innocent until we kick up and die
Giving internet providers responsibility
for the whims of their subscribers infringes privacy
Before the internet, media was a rarity
but how do you expect it to keep its value without scarcity
And that's what scares me, seeing their cons and schemes
to stop their creaking business model being obsolete
What a robbery they pull off so obviously
Don't give a fuck who it affects as long as it's not me
Well I'll keep making copies, see if they can stop me
They'll have to confiscate my PC and take it off me
See there's no problem with taking my property
for creating some lines of binary, blatant hypocrisy
Afraid to face the controversy relating to what we need
Making a profit off it or breaking monopolies

>> ^rougy:
Our government is corrupt and ineffectual. Our military is bloated and not really ours as a nation but "ours" in the multi-national corporate sense. If you have no money, you have no justice. A fraction of a percentage of people are allowed to get rich, and everybody else has to fight it out and claw their way through life just to stay alive. Financiers like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan make a living out of figuring out ever better ways to fuck people over and get a slap on the wrist when they're caught, if that. We torture people. We murder innocents overseas for the sake of convenience. We overthrow governments that we don't like, that won't march to our tune, and call it spreading democracy.
Worst of all, nobody here knows anything. We have to be some of the dumbest people on earth, especially in regards to what's being done overseas on our name.
And I'm supposed to swear my blind, undying allegiance to that? I'm supposed to point to Mexico and exclaim proudly "Things could be worse!"


You forgot to mention how you continuously vote for people who believe in continuing all of those things, either directly or through policies that enable it. And then you spend the rest of your time trying to convince everyone that the problem is we're not all registered Democrats. The real problem is that we allow people to vote on things they shouldn't. The constitution sealed its fate with the general welfare clause.

When America defaults on its debt, it will be because the constitution failed to prevent idiots from trying to steal from each other or borrow money that they would benefit from, but that future generations would have to pay. Because it failed to ban the public sector from voting in elections. Because it failed to prevent a central bank from price fixing interest rates and monopolizing the money supply with unbacked paper they can print for themselves while we work to obtain it and watch it's scarcity/value siphoned. It is so much easier to just print more money and redirect its value than appropriate the money itself. Whatever you think you got out of this is crumbs compared to government employees and politically connected companies.

People like you are constantly fooled into enabling what you despise. Government destroys free market self-regulation and then claims lack of regulation is the problem. They loan banks money well below realistic interest rates. They insure every bank's deposits so banks don't have to compete on the safety of those deposits. GSEs like FM&FM implicitly backed subprime and so everyone thought that was a riskless bet as well. The tax code encouraged flipping property over real investment by making certain home sales completely exempt from capital gains. You may as well dump candy into a busy intersection and blame people for getting hit by passing cars. And instead of stopping the candy dumpage, your solution is to borrow even more money from China at interest to hire 10,000 full-time crossing guards. That is how insane the socialist rhetoric has gotten. When their social engineering fails, the problem isn't something they did, but something else they didn't do. Well, it's only going to last until China realizes that dollars are no asset, no product placeholder, when you're accumulating them in perpetuity.

Completely agreed. A more in-depth analysis of this and other reasons why diamonds are a very shitty investment (even as an engagement band!) is available at http://www.diamondssuck.com/

>> ^joe2:
two comments
1. diamonds are a scam - the price is kept artificially high by debeers keeping them scarce. they have warehouses full of diamonds and only release them to the market slowly to keep the price up. and they have very low resale value because of this artificial scarcity. if you buy an emerald, it retains most of its value, but if you buy a diamond the second you walk out of the store it's worth 75% less
2. man-made diamonds are more and more common and they are "real" diamonds (compressed carbon). debeers has had to add microscopic markings to their diamonds (only visible to a testing machine) so that dealers can tell which were mined and which were created. but the man-mades cost half or 1/3 as much

Hey hey! Don't speak bad about my awesome diamond. These things have value!1!!
>> ^joe2:
two comments
1. diamonds are a scam - the price is kept artificially high by debeers keeping them scarce. they have warehouses full of diamonds and only release them to the market slowly to keep the price up. and they have very low resale value because of this artificial scarcity. if you buy an emerald, it retains most of its value, but if you buy a diamond the second you walk out of the store it's worth 75% less
2. man-made diamonds are more and more common and they are "real" diamonds (compressed carbon). debeers has had to add microscopic markings to their diamonds (only visible to a testing machine) so that dealers can tell which were mined and which were created. but the man-mades cost half or 1/3 as much

two comments

1. diamonds are a scam - the price is kept artificially high by debeers keeping them scarce. they have warehouses full of diamonds and only release them to the market slowly to keep the price up. and they have very low resale value because of this artificial scarcity. if you buy an emerald, it retains most of its value, but if you buy a diamond the second you walk out of the store it's worth 75% less

2. man-made diamonds are more and more common and they are "real" diamonds (compressed carbon). debeers has had to add microscopic markings to their diamonds (only visible to a testing machine) so that dealers can tell which were mined and which were created. but the man-mades cost half or 1/3 as much

Beck is easy fodder and this segment seems to be implying that gold's price is a result of illegitimate fear and not actual currency debasement worldwide. Not even Beck's massive ego can affect the price of gold. Gold began going up years ago when Greenspan lowered interest rates to 1% and blew up the real estate bubble.

http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au3650nyb.html

The Fed's continued policy of inflation, the arbitrary creation of dollar units at no labor or material cost, is what is making dollars less scarce relative to gold. Yes, the real estate bubble was allowed to collapse about halfway, but gold continues to rise in anticipation of the banks eventually loaning all that bailout money they received. It can't just sit on the sidelines forever, either it's retracted and we pay the piper, or it's loaned out. The problem with loaning it out is that we may lose key buyers of our debt. A bond is a promise to pay future dollars, and if we are rapidly decreasing their scarcity relative to goods, it becomes a losing proposition to buy bonds at such a low interest rate. Some of the largest purchasers of gold are foreign central banks, which are currently VASTLY underinvested in gold. China has only 1% of its reserves in gold, the rest is paper. India recently bought 200 metric tons.

I will start believing in the gold bubble crowd when I stop seeing those infomercials getting highly indebted Americans to SELL their gold for paper. You talk to the typical person the street, and they're still oblivious to what gold represents, and those that do are not buying, but selling. This is just the beginning of a huge bull run, and it's kind of hilarious to see some people calling the top over and over again. Peter Schiff wrote a funny article in 2006 about what a gold bubble would actually look like.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Schiff/apr252006.html

I think it's hilariously shortsighted that they don't even consider "free will". And that they get value by just "making gold" - if you can make gold for free, then the value of it is 0, unless it has a practical application. The scarcity of a thing dictates its value, unless we make value up, like with paper money.

This is a good explanation... for kids. It's too bad it's a poor example from a scientific perspective. Lamarck and Darwin's observations (early 1800's) were not very rigorous.

In their article, "Winning by a Neck," zoologists Robert Simmons (Uppsala University) and Lue Scheepers (Ministry of Environment, Namibia) agree that the standard account "may be no more than a tall story". According to the competition hypothesis, giraffes use their long necks to advantage during dry seasons, when food is scarce; but, in fact, the opposite is observed in the field. "In the Serengeti," Simmons and Scheepers note, "giraffe spend almost all of the dry season feeding from low Grewia bushes, while only in the wet season do they turn to tall Acacia tortillis trees, when new leaves are ...plentiful ...and no competition is expected. This behavior is contrary to the prediction that giraffe should use their feeding height to advantage at times of food scarcity". Moreover, they report, "females spend over 50% of their time feeding with their necks horizontal [a behavior so common it is used to determine the sex of animals at a distance]" and "both sexes feed faster and most often with their necks bent". These observations, they conclude, suggest "that long necks did not evolve specifically for feeding at higher levels." (from http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/ls181.htm)

"but if we continue to illustrate our conviction with an indefensible, unsupported, entirely speculative and basically rather silly story, then we are clothing a thing of beauty in rags and we should be ashamed, `for the apparel oft proclaims the man.'" (from "The Tallest Tale" by Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1996)

>> ^rougy:
>> ^blankfist:
No one ever criticizes the little guy for stacking the system so he can have a free lunch.

Hey, he's just following the precepts of the free market.
He's just being selfish, and selfishness is good, right?
This piece of shit country will never change.
People can't afford preventative medicine, that's why so many people don't go and see a doctor until it's too late.
Most bankruptcies are due to medical events, and most of those people were insured. Yeah, great fucking country. The free market wins again.
But let's bitch and moan about preventative care. Ron Paul would be proud.
Eat the rich.


Epic fucking fail, rougy. People have been trying to teach you this point countless times on this website. Libertarians draw a major distinction between wanting to do something with what you own, and wanting to do something with what someone else owns against their will. That's why a constitution and courts to enforce it is necessary, and ours ultimately failed. Everybody knows that true democracy is just people trying to vote themselves other people's shit, even shit that doesn't even exist yet. One generation could borrow from Chinese savers at interest well in excess of productive capacity and leave future generations holding the interest burden. That is THEFT. And unless you can somehow vendor finance trillion dollar deficits in perpetuity at 1% interest rates, we are going to have to raise interest rates to 30% or devalue the living shit out of the dollar and inflate the debt away.

You should be kissing Ron Paul's ass. Here's a fucking guy who has wasted 30 years trying to keep SPENDING in this dipshit country constrained to what it could PRODUCE by tying the dollar to something which always takes labor and material to produce. Instead, we now have a currency whose scarcity can be diminished at will by its issuer and is given a government-mandated monopoly. Instead, we went from the richest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation because we allowed the government to sell us the idea that it needs no discipline. If it wasn't for brainwashed foreigners too scared to stop giving us money to buy their products, and a dickless American populace willing to go along with anything to keep the party going, we wouldn't have deferred the inevitable collapse again last year.