[soup]

People should not have the right to make new people just because they want to. There is a question of ethics of bringing someone new into this fucked up world. There is a question of an over-burdened planet and society. At the very least, there should be prerequisites (financial support, a stable house hold, etc.) for a kid to be born.

BTW I didn't say communism. I like capitalism. We just need a little more socialism mixed in.

[Hooligan Harry]

People dont realise they are repeating the same mistakes of the past. I dont doubt Soup believes what he does and has good intentions, the problem is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ironically, it was Marx who said that any democracy is the road to socialism. How right he was.

Im also amazed at how many PUA's who accept evolutionary biology as a fact of life and resent feminism take so easily to socialism and post modern liberalism when they are rooted in the same line of thinking. There is no alpha or beta without competition and heirachy, and if everything is only a social construct, why are you practicing techniques that are contrary to that belief in the first place?

Liberalism is the denial of evolutionary biology, yet game as a concept falls flat without it.

[soup]

(07-02-2012 02:45 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

People dont realise they are repeating the same mistakes of the past. I dont doubt Soup believes what he does and has good intentions, the problem is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ironically, it was Marx who said that any democracy is the road to socialism. How right he was.

Im also amazed at how many PUA's who accept evolutionary biology as a fact of life and resent feminism take so easily to socialism and post modern liberalism when they are rooted in the same line of thinking. There is no alpha or beta without competition and heirachy, and if everything is only a social construct, why are you practicing techniques that are contrary to that belief in the first place?

Liberalism is the denial of evolutionary biology, yet game as a concept falls flat without it.

They are separate. It is a crude reduction to say there exists no nuance. Not sure how getting laid means that people should starve..

[durangotang]

Soup, as a nation we are rooted in constitutional rights not granted by the government, but by our creator. A right is something you have, and a privilege is something you seek from a higher authority. We have the right to reproduce, certainly nothing could be more innate and inalienable, and do not need to seek the privilege from the government. We are also not a democracy, but a constitutional republic which guarantee's minority rights - despite how much our misguided politicians love to use the word democracy. Democracy is three wolves and a pig voting on what's for dinner. As Americans we have a constitution and a bill of rights that prevents this scenario.

Socialism is at odds with our system, both philosophically and fundamentally.

I encourage you to look more into these matters. I can assure you nobody wants anyone to starve here.

[DjembaDjemba]

(07-02-2012 02:45 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

People dont realise they are repeating the same mistakes of the past. I dont doubt Soup believes what he does and has good intentions, the problem is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ironically, it was Marx who said that any democracy is the road to socialism. How right he was.

Im also amazed at how many PUA's who accept evolutionary biology as a fact of life and resent feminism take so easily to socialism and post modern liberalism when they are rooted in the same line of thinking. There is no alpha or beta without competition and heirachy, and if everything is only a social construct, why are you practicing techniques that are contrary to that belief in the first place?

Liberalism is the denial of evolutionary biology, yet game as a concept falls flat without it.

We've tried both extremes in the past and neither have functioned in practice.

South Africa and Rhodesia both ran on the premise that some are more equal than others at birth (intelligence, capacity for restraint, athletic ability, etc), and ran their governments according to these principles.

The result of running a nation with these principles was evident. Both countries were at the brink of civil war until the international community stepped in. Regardless of how well a minority lived, or how high the total GDP of the nations were the end result was chaos and fear for all.

This whole HBD evo psych shit that some being more intelligent than others and must therefore be granted greater rights always leads to ruin because people have dignity and will never be subdued to 2nd class citizens based on inherent traits.

I won't deny the science (and I won't confirm it either), but running a government based on this principle always had historically led to ruin and civil war.

Then we have the other extreme, the redistributionists, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" communists. Their "goodwill" left the world littered with corpses, from Stalin Holodomor in Ukraine, to Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields from attempts to create a 'cosmic society'. The eventual collapse of the USSR was the culmination of years of failed redistributive policies. The basic premise that without incentive, people won't work.

All people aren't equal, but all people deserve an equal shot at life, the results aren't going to be equal and that's fine.

Extremes dont' work. Its always been about striking a fine balance. Unlimited welfare will bankrupt a nation, but so will unrestrained wild west type capitalism. It's why a strong constitution exists to protect all citizens. Rich and poor, white and brown, women and men. A system that only protects some citizens will always be flawed at the centre. It will always lead to collapse, or reform.

As for the game concepts being rooted in evolutionary psychology. Game concept is about what gets a dick hard and a vagina wet. The intellectual masturbation that is found in so many game blogs today is nothing more than attempts to try and justify rejection and failure.

They create hamsters backed up by very carefully pre-selected academic studies (usually badly interpreted too) that lead to the most common themes:

-She likes bad boys, but she needs a good beta to provide for her otherwise she'll be poor. This is why America is fucked up.
-She likes blacks/mexicans because she's low class trash, this is why she rejected me. This why America is so fucked up.
-Weak men with no game and more intelligence built civilization so it's an inherent right for them to reproduce, but they can't even get laid. This is why America is fucked up
-Intelligent men can't have game, that's why so and so race are better at game.


Don't get me started on the whole "is this beta/alpha" insecure obsession that goes on in the game community and the countless links to what monkeys in zoos do to feed that hamster.

"If a ripped a mans' penis off with my bare hands and beat him over the head with it, is that Alpha? Am I alpha? Here's a pdf link confirming that's totally alpha."

*Still doesn't approach women.*

[soup]

(07-02-2012 03:23 AM)durangotang Wrote:  

Soup, as a nation we are rooted in constitutional rights not granted by the government, but by our creator. A right is something you have, and a privilege is something you seek from a higher authority. We have the right to reproduce, certainly nothing could be more innate and inalienable, and do not need to seek the privilege from the government. We are also not a democracy, but a constitutional republic which guarantee's minority rights - despite how much our misguided politicians love to use the word democracy. Democracy is three wolves and a pig voting on what's for dinner. As Americans we have a constitution and a bill of rights that prevents this scenario.

Socialism is at odds with our system, both philosophically and fundamentally.

I encourage you to look more into these matters. I can assure you nobody wants anyone to starve here.

There's no reason to believe in a "creator."

It's accepted that people shouldn't be allowed to go around killing other people because they feel like it. Same with giving life- I think the epidemic of single motherhood is bad for society. Here's an article about the ethics of having kids:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...eneration/

I don't care what you do, as long as it isn't negatively affecting me or other people.

I think there are too many people in need of basic necessities, and the the small minority of people who control all the resources could care less.

[j r]

(07-02-2012 10:33 AM)soup Wrote:  

I think there are too many people in need of basic necessities, and the the small minority of people who control all the resources could care less.

I am curious about what you mean by this statement. There are certainly countries where an elite control all of the valuable resources. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. In a country like the U.S., however, the value in the economy is diversified across any number of business sectors and geographic regions. Most of the value in the private sector is owned by public companies, which in turn is owned by institutional investors. Institutional investors manage things like insurance company portfolios, pensions funds, large university endowments. Quite literally, the wealth of the United States is owned, in some form, by its citizens.

Now, in recent years, finance has found a way to extract much more wealth from the system that it was adding in value, but that doesn't change the ownership structure.

[qazwsx]

(06-30-2012 05:29 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 04:43 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 03:36 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Honest question for everyone:

Has anyone actually ever met a conservative that was cool person?

As in, "f*ck, that conservative guy is mad cool. He puffs mad weed, good fighter, dresses razor sharp, and swoops massive amounts of girls. And an all around cool cat too."

I am sure at least one must exist somewhere, but I have yet to meet one.

I met tom Selleck a few times when I was younger. I believe he is a big Republican supporter. He was cool. Other than him, I can't think of many.

Aloha!

I knew there had to be one.

It's funny, I was racking my brain trying to think of any cool conservative famous people.

Think about it, every great musician, artist, actor, athlete, comedian, rapper are all not conservatives.

It's not like Jimi Hendrix, Led Zepplin, Andy Warhol, Al Pacino, Bruce Lee, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Chris Rock and Tupac are conservative.

All cool famous people are liberal.

Even the coolest biz people are all liberal.

The only famous people that are conservative suck at things like Ted Nudgent.

Another serious question for everyone:

Have you ever met a conservative that had a good sense of humor?

Like, he was actually funny?

As in, he ever made a funny joke?

I don't think one has ever existed.

Ronald Reagan actually had a great sense of humour. Search for his jokes in Youtube. And John McCain and Boris Johnson are the only politicians nowadays who I can remember to have real sense of humour.

But speaking of humour in politics, the greatest name in History: Winston Churchill.

Outside of politics, two of the guys I most admire, two genuinely cool guys who banged tons of gals: Clint Eastwood and Serge Gainsbourg.

Clint Eastwood has supported Republican candidates all his life (although he considers himself more a libertarian - so he's a right wing guy anyway). Serge Gainsbourg didn't usually talk about politics, but the only time he did so he expressed his support for Giscard d'Estaing.

[soup]

(07-02-2012 12:16 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 10:33 AM)soup Wrote:  

I think there are too many people in need of basic necessities, and the the small minority of people who control all the resources could care less.

I am curious about what you mean by this statement. There are certainly countries where an elite control all of the valuable resources. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. In a country like the U.S., however, the value in the economy is diversified across any number of business sectors and geographic regions. Most of the value in the private sector is owned by public companies, which in turn is owned by institutional investors. Institutional investors manage things like insurance company portfolios, pensions funds, large university endowments. Quite literally, the wealth of the United States is owned, in some form, by its citizens.

Now, in recent years, finance has found a way to extract much more wealth from the system that it was adding in value, but that doesn't change the ownership structure.

Follow the money

[j r]

(07-02-2012 12:42 PM)soup Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 12:16 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 10:33 AM)soup Wrote:  

I think there are too many people in need of basic necessities, and the the small minority of people who control all the resources could care less.

I am curious about what you mean by this statement. There are certainly countries where an elite control all of the valuable resources. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. In a country like the U.S., however, the value in the economy is diversified across any number of business sectors and geographic regions. Most of the value in the private sector is owned by public companies, which in turn is owned by institutional investors. Institutional investors manage things like insurance company portfolios, pensions funds, large university endowments. Quite literally, the wealth of the United States is owned, in some form, by its citizens.

Now, in recent years, finance has found a way to extract much more wealth from the system that it was adding in value, but that doesn't change the ownership structure.

Follow the money

I follow money for a living. And there are better places to get economic analysis from The Guardian and the Occupy movement. Even if I accept that income inequality has grown, my point still stands. In a developed economy like the U.S., resources are not controlled by an elite.

[durangotang]

The problem is that the Federal government spends over $11,000 per year for adjusted for our 330 million population. That includes infants and elderly (not just the work force). Yet the federal government receives $6700 per capita in income - and it is very difficult to raise that number without destroying what little money people have left. In short, we have a disastrously large budget deficit and too much federal spending - most of which is social security, medicare, and medicaid (which is basically bankrupt). This does not factor property tax burdens, state income tax burdens, and sales tax burdens.

I highly recommend checking this out:

http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-...012-6?op=1

We have a spending problem, not an income problem.

And watch this (Bill Whittle is just the kind of uncool conservative G rails on but the video is worth a watch):

There are large dynastic families whom control institutions like the Federal Reserve in the United States who are a problem, but they are more like the .00001%. The 1% aren't the problem, and derivates haven't wiped out their fictitious speculative wealth yet. I understand that many people who are struggling (most people) look at those who have money and think this isn't fair, but the 1% aren't the problem. If we implement Glass-Steagal legislation and let wall street gambling debts correct for how over leveraged and worthless they are when accounting for derivates, a lot of that fictitious wealth will disappear and people will still have no jobs.

Failed government policy (monetarist policy) is the problem.

[j r]

(07-02-2012 01:21 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

There are large dynastic families whom control institutions like the Federal Reserve in the United States who are a problem, but they are more like the .00001%.

What large dynastic families control the federal reserve?

[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 01:31 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:21 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

There are large dynastic families whom control institutions like the Federal Reserve in the United States who are a problem, but they are more like the .00001%.

What large dynastic families control the federal reserve?

I'll have to consult my copy of "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins, which is currently at home right now. But the Federal Reserve is entirely owned by private banks. Those banks go back to the very beginning of this country and back to England. I can reference the book later if you would like, but if you are truly interested yourself I recommend picking it up. I would shoot of the top of my head but I don't want to bungle it.

[Samseau]

(07-01-2012 08:02 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Should simply be the following.

Bed to sleep in with roof over head
Health care
Food/water

That's it. Everything else is moot.

To people who don't believe in this i ask you the following...

When you are homeless how do you apply for a job WITHOUT AN ADDRESS. Good luck.

Sorry, your list is too expensive.

Healthcare alone is just too expensive.


Let me ask you: What good is a currency if the country backing the currency goes bankrupt?

What good is a home if your country falls into civil war?

What good is a job if no employers exist?

[j r]

(07-02-2012 01:37 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:31 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:21 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

There are large dynastic families whom control institutions like the Federal Reserve in the United States who are a problem, but they are more like the .00001%.

What large dynastic families control the federal reserve?

I'll have to consult my copy of "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins, which is currently at home right now. But the Federal Reserve is entirely owned by private banks. Those banks go back to the very beginning of this country and back to England. I can reference the book later if you would like, but if you are truly interested yourself I recommend picking it up. I would shoot of the top of my head but I don't want to bungle it.

That is not at all how the federal reserve works.

[Samseau]

My biggest issue with Liberals is that they suck with money. Without the vast USA government to exploit, Liberals would have no way of generating cash.


Thank god the USA will go bankrupt. The liberals will be forced to accept economic reality

[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 01:42 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:37 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:31 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:21 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

There are large dynastic families whom control institutions like the Federal Reserve in the United States who are a problem, but they are more like the .00001%.

What large dynastic families control the federal reserve?

I'll have to consult my copy of "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins, which is currently at home right now. But the Federal Reserve is entirely owned by private banks. Those banks go back to the very beginning of this country and back to England. I can reference the book later if you would like, but if you are truly interested yourself I recommend picking it up. I would shoot of the top of my head but I don't want to bungle it.

That is not at all how the federal reserve works.

Yes, it is. I just remembered I have the book at work here. So I have just photographed a few key pages for you. Who owns the Fed:

[durangotang]

weird, double post...deleted (sorry about the size of the photos, but it's the only way you can read it).

[j r]

(07-02-2012 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

My biggest issue with Liberals is that they suck with money. Without the vast USA government to exploit, Liberals would have no way of generating cash.


Thank god the USA will go bankrupt. The liberals will be forced to accept economic reality

Is that really a precise statement? From where I stand, both liberals and conservatives are committed to unsustainable fiscal practices. It's not liberals who are increasing defense spending and building more prisons. And both parties have been pretty solid supporters of giving lots of goodies to old people through social security and medicare, which are the two biggest items in the federal budget.

It should be fairly obvious that what we have is a system in which both political parties play off one another to convince their partisans that the other guy is some terrible evil that must be avoided at all costs when, in fact, both parties are pretty much up to the same thing. When you step into the voting booth, you basically have a choice between the welfare state and the warfare state. And at the end of the day, the welfare state is the warfare state and the warfare state is the welfare state.

[WestCoast]

(07-02-2012 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

My biggest issue with Liberals is that they suck with money. Without the vast USA government to exploit, Liberals would have no way of generating cash.


Thank god the USA will go bankrupt. The liberals will be forced to accept economic reality

I strongly disagree. If the USA goes bankrupt who is going to really go up against our military?

Sam love your game posts, love the strong fisted beliefs but I don't even have to ask. You've never been poor.

Seems to be a disconnect between liberals as whack jobs and conservatives as assholes who love money. Again without an even hand it is next to impossible to move up, hands will never be even, but we can at least give every human a shelter, food, water health care. If that's liberal then color me bad with money.

[assman]

jr, the Federal Reserve banks are indeed owned by private banks, not the government.

The Creature From Jekyll Island is a good history of the Fed.

[soup]

Do you mean Democrats vs. Republicans?

Democrats aren't that liberal. They are just seemingly more left leaning than the Republicans. But, let's not delude ourselves: they are both arms of corporate interests.

To the corporation, the only thing that matters is $.

[j r]

(07-02-2012 01:54 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:42 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:37 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:31 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:21 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

There are large dynastic families whom control institutions like the Federal Reserve in the United States who are a problem, but they are more like the .00001%.

What large dynastic families control the federal reserve?

I'll have to consult my copy of "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins, which is currently at home right now. But the Federal Reserve is entirely owned by private banks. Those banks go back to the very beginning of this country and back to England. I can reference the book later if you would like, but if you are truly interested yourself I recommend picking it up. I would shoot of the top of my head but I don't want to bungle it.

That is not at all how the federal reserve works.

Yes, it is. I just remembered I have the book at work here. So I have just photographed a few key pages for you. Who owns the Fed:

Ownership of the fed doesn't mean what you think it means.

Stop getting your history from conspiracy theorists.

[MikeCF]

Here's a pie chart from the 2010 federal budget.

Lots of conservative spending going on.

Talk of a civil war is funny. If you're starting an army, you need soldiers.

Where are you going to get your soldiers? From the the 66% of Americans who are overweight or obese?

35% of American youth are ineligible to serve in the U.S. Army because they are too fat or sick.

There will be no civil war. There will be debt peonage. The 1% will enslave the 99%. There are plenty of liberals and conservatives in the 1%.

Either find a way to become the 1% in the U.S. or find a way out.

[MikeCF]

(07-02-2012 02:13 PM)j r Wrote:  

Ownership of the fed doesn't mean what you think it means.

Stop getting your history from conspiracy theorists.

You've never posted anything that warrants your tone.

Establish some credibility first.

Otherwise you're being all show and no go.

Make your case, player.