PC Gaming News
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 138
  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Jmervyn View Post
    Hence the jokes about socialism - ensuring that <everyone> is equally miserable.
    I'm not sure if I've heard these before, or if I've made them myself in feeble defenses of socialism, but something that it constantly brings to mind is that if the purported goal of socialism/communism is bring people on an even footing, why wouldn't they raise the standard of what equality is? In other words, rather than misery and suffering, comfort and prosperity or whatever.

    That part of the application of these models never made much sense to me.

  2. #72
    Achievements:
    10 PostsVeteranBlogger1,000 Posts10000 Experience Points
    Lensor's Avatar
    Guild

    The Order Of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    5,209
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Sorry, but I hope you'll understand why quotation of the gov't body in charge is not implicitly convincing. Would you cite CIA Factbook regarding interrogation and care of inmates at Guantanamo Bay?
    Sigh. Really, you are reaching now, even for you. There is a marked difference between a med coverage system for an entire population and a pretty much covert "terrorist" prison run by national intelligence. Seriously, you don't think we would have noticed by now if meds were barred from us? Just admit that the article was wrong and leave it at that. It should not be that big a deal for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    The State inevitably achieves monopoly status, by virtue of being the "referee" on the "playing field". It can take a long while to do so, but it inevitably does.
    "Might become a monopoly sometime in the far future" is not the same as "Get a huge fine and/or prison time right now if you dare make something someone somewhere has a patent on". In any case, we are going in the opposite direction (less state monopolies, not more), so you will excuse me for not worrying overly over that particular scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    That's a net benefit, most likely, as tort law of the sort that I deride Holtzmann over is one of the primary factors behind our outrageous costs. But if there's not a possibility of damages, how are state doctors held to account for their mistakes? A review board? Because the private doctors will go out of business, but the state doctors don't.
    They are the same doctors. People change jobs you know, they are not in eternal servitude to "private" or "public" and never shall the two meet. And yes, it is a review board thing where they (and/or their bosses) can lose their licences. In serious cases it becomes a criminal matter and they could go to prison. And people do get money for damages. Just not punitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    What I'm saying is that the same anecdotal evidence is what is used to claim socializing medicine is a good idea.
    So you agree that anecdotal evidence is poor evidence. So why do you use it?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    We're seeing what that casual attitude ends in before our very eyes. I suspect in another ten years the so-called "far right" nationalist parties will be the dominant ones, and I'm quite concerned that the statists of either European variety (your Right, my Left) will start another war in the interim. Socialism does not have to be international to be dangerous, as if I needed to mention that to a European.
    I really do not think that we will start a war because we have public health care.. Now I agree it is a problem with the rise of what we call "far right" parties, but who really are nothing more than nationalist parties running scared of what they call the "Muslim invasion". But that is another discussion altogether.
    Last edited by Lensor; 04-06-2011 at 00:29.

  3. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    That's a net benefit, most likely, as tort law of the sort that I deride Holtzmann over is one of the primary factors behind our outrageous costs.
    1. It's Holtzman, only one N.
    2. High medical costs aren't a function of torts, they're a function of high selectivity of medical schools (brings down the number of available doctors) plus a rising demand for medical care (more advancements means more things are treatable, and the rising age of the boomers puts more people in line for medical care), plus sheer extortion on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry (patent control lets them leverage medical care). MedMal insurance, which pays the penalties in torts claims, is negligible in comparison. Most torts do not have punitives, contrary to your beliefs.

  4. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Says the child torturer.
    Don't you mean "animal rapist"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Accreditation gives you *skills*, and what you do with those skills is a different matter.
    So because the author attacks something you cherish, and yet you have no valid rationale for cherishing it, HE's the bad guy?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    You also shouldn't believe me out of authority.
    No worries, buddy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    However, my skills give me the ability to point out BS when I see it, and to gather proper data when I need it. This is the difference.
    Ah, but this is obviously false in your case. You supposedly possess the superior skill set, and yet...
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    I believe that healthcare should be a right, and I would vote in favor of it.
    You still have not explained how your belief in a false proposition somehow validates it. You mock and sneer at others' beliefs in religious or moral concepts, yet you cling to a belief which is even more ludicrous than those of Flying Spaghetti Monster aficionados. FSM cannot be disproved. The "right" to someone else's stuff can. Yet you crap on the former and adore the latter. How can you claim superior logic, much less sanity, and yet hold such a laughably stupid position?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    You can get someone to change his opinion
    OK, I'm of the opinion that dueling should be brought back as a legal form of dispute resolution. Why is your opinion about health care as a right more sane than my opinion that what many would regard as murder is legitimate?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Clearly, you lack the skills to detect BS, because you are *still* trying to defend that terrible terrible article.
    Not particularly; the article just has a bunch of claims that Lensor doesn't necessarily have the ability to refute.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gmr Leon View Post
    if the purported goal of socialism/communism is bring people on an even footing, why wouldn't they raise the standard of what equality is? In other words, rather than misery and suffering, comfort and prosperity or whatever.
    Because as I mentioned previously, you can't raise the level of water in a pool by pouring it out at one end and back in at the other. In fact, you're almost certain to lower the level due to spillage.

    Analogies aside, Alaris belief that his like-minded allies are somehow more able to decide what is wholesome for the general populace fails due to a number of reasons. The primary reason is that they have a fundamentally stupid belief - that having an elite of "smart" people creating THE PLAN will cause superior results when compared to individuals making their own decisions.

    The secondary reason is that the elite aren't superior at all - they send shirtless pics to unknown coeds and then lie about it just like we all do... no, wait, they are the sort of bottom-feeding scum that exemplify the principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    By creating centralized planning, not only are you not guaranteeing any success of the plan (because such inherently ignore the indicators provided by the market) but you promise that scum-suckers will gravitate towards powerful positions from atop which vile people can exercise their megalomaniac tendencies.

  5. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor View Post
    There is a marked difference between a med coverage system for an entire population and a pretty much covert "terrorist" prison run by national intelligence.
    Why? IMO there's far greater likelihood that you'd be lied to than I. Your bureaucracy would have a monetary stake in such fraud, where the CIA gains... what, exactly?... by trying to maintain a cover-up?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor View Post
    Seriously, you don't think we would have noticed by now if meds were barred from us?
    No, not really. You're used to getting what you're given, and that's the way enslavement works.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor View Post
    Just admit that the article was wrong and leave it at that. It should not be that big a deal for you.
    Contrary to Alaris' claim, I'm not planting my flag on the article - but you're guilty of the same 'one wrong claim disproves the entire' standard which Alaris denounced.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor View Post
    In any case, we are going in the opposite direction (less state monopolies, not more), so you will excuse me for not worrying overly over that particular scenario.
    Understood, but exactly why do you think you're tracking away from state monopoly? Aren't you of the assumption that they are at least as valid as the market? If not, why are we discussing the viability of state monopolies?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor View Post
    And yes, it is a review board thing where they (and/or their bosses) can lose their licences. In serious cases it becomes a criminal matter and they could go to prison. And people do get money for damages. Just not punitive.
    How common do you believe this to be? Wouldn't it be wiser to have economic grounds rather than criminal or judicial?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor View Post
    So you agree that anecdotal evidence is poor evidence. So why do you use it?
    Because all either side allows is anecdotal - as I previously indicated, your bureaucracy (like ours) will keep its evaluatory "finger on the scale" so to speak, in order to assure that there's no way to make valid comparison. Because whenever such comparisons can be made, socialism/centralism looks horrible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor View Post
    I really do not think that we will start a war because we have public health care..
    Perhaps not health care alone, but what about your <whole> safety-net model? Greece is calling you...
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor View Post
    Now I agree it is a problem with the rise of what we call "far right" parties, but who really are nothing more than nationalist parties running scared of what they call the "Muslim invasion". But that is another discussion altogether.
    Agreed, but there are definite hooks within this issue. The reason the Islamists in European countries are problematic has little to do with overt bigotry by brown-shirt types, and far more to do with soft racism by both parties preventing integration by the parasitic population. Essentially the Islamists take advantage of these isolated populations which are not integrating into your lily-white society (and yet sponging off of it), and play upon the same hatreds that socialists traditionally do.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    1. It's Holtzman, only one N.
    Whatever you say, Davey.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    2. High medical costs aren't a function of torts, they're a function of high selectivity of medical schools (brings down the number of available doctors) plus a rising demand for medical care (more advancements means more things are treatable, and the rising age of the boomers puts more people in line for medical care), plus sheer extortion on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry (patent control lets them leverage medical care).
    Oh, so ambulance chasers have no impact on the cost of insurance, particularly malpractice?
    Quote Originally Posted by David Holtzman View Post
    MedMal insurance, which pays the penalties in torts claims, is negligible in comparison. Most torts do not have punitives, contrary to your beliefs.
    You certainly seem to be well versed in ambulance chasing despite your previous denials. However, I'll grant that there are many other factors involved, such as the underwriting cycle itself, which is what caused Hillarycare to be such a disaster; too many groups with fingers in the pie, yet uninvolved with the resolution.

    Despite this, I will now write two words which are likely to cause you to run shrieking from the thread.
    Spoiler

  6. #76
    Hi guys, what's going on in this thr...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor View Post
    State-mandated monopolies (i.e. patents) are the work of the Devil as far as my agnostic self is concerned. It is proven that systems where there are no patents nor copyright, like software and fashion (even though the US has this spectaularly failing experiment with Software patents going on atm..), not only thrive, but are also able to progress at a much accelerated rate due to competition.
    What is this? Do you know what a patent does? It a monopoly in name only. Its true function is to allow companies to use other companies' inventions provided that they are allowed to do that (usually by paying a fee). If we didn't have patents, companies would just keep stuff secret instead, leading to less progress.

    Also patents are not the same as copyright.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    The State inevitably achieves monopoly status, by virtue of being the "referee" on the "playing field". It can take a long while to do so, but it inevitably does.
    Lensor is Swedish. The state companies in Sweden are either non-profit (like public hospitals etc.) or they have explicit limitations placed on them to prevent them from engaging in too vigorous competition (like the state-owned electric power company).

    I have to put all things right for you people

  7. #77
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    22,615
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Don't you mean "animal rapist"?
    No, I was directly referring to your position on those abortion issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    So because the author attacks something you cherish, and yet you have no valid rationale for cherishing it, HE's the bad guy?
    No, because he falsely uses his authority to push his agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    You mock and sneer at others' beliefs in religious or moral concepts, yet you cling to a belief which is even more ludicrous than those of Flying Spaghetti Monster aficionados.
    1) I don't mock religious beliefs, rather, in fact, I have often been on the defending side of religious beliefs.*
    2) The right to healthcare is more ludicrous than the FSM? What are you smoking?
    3) God said that we should take care of each other. God wants this. Jesus was going around healing the poor and needy.
    4) Yes, there are charity that will take care of this, but it's not enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    FSM cannot be disproved. The "right" to someone else's stuff can.
    Dumb argument is dumb. You're against socialized water and electricity? Oh but we're forcing the water cleaners with a GUN TO THEIR HEAD to give us water.

    We live in society, which means takes, shared resources and shared responsabilities, and common wealth that arises from it. We only need to decide whether health is one of those aspects that gets included or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    OK, I'm of the opinion that dueling should be brought back as a legal form of dispute resolution.
    I'm good with swords, so yeah, why not.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Not particularly; the article just has a bunch of claims that Lensor doesn't necessarily have the ability to refute.
    He doesn't have the time. Besides, shouldn't you read GOOD articles instead of BAD ones hoping there's something, anything true in it?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    having an elite of "smart" people creating THE PLAN will cause superior results when compared to individuals making their own decisions.
    1) Except that we don't have individuals making their decisions. We have monopolies. We have the rich talking to each other. We have networking.

    2) Also, yes, NASA makes better decisions than a bunch of rednecks, even if they make mistakes sometimes.

    3) Except you're not even advocating for free market anyway, so you're not fooling anyone except the fools.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    The secondary reason is that the elite aren't superior at all - absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    So one so-called elite (if he is in fact elite) does something dumb, now the whole gang is dumb?

    Do you realize how dumb the argument is? People like you keep sending us back to the stone age. You think the great minds never did anything dumb in their life?

    I think you need to take probability classes. Also, to realize that the elite are elite in their own field.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    By creating centralized planning, not only are you not guaranteeing any success of the plan (because such inherently ignore the indicators provided by the market) but you promise that scum-suckers will gravitate towards powerful positions from atop which vile people can exercise their megalomaniac tendencies.
    Scum-suckers are already at the powerful positions atop and they are already exercising their megalomaniac tendencies. Just look at the US healthcare system ;)
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  8. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by raspberry jam View Post
    The state companies in Sweden are either non-profit (like public hospitals etc.) or they have explicit limitations placed on them to prevent them from engaging in too vigorous competition (like the state-owned electric power company).
    You really think that self-regulation by the gov't is a valid excuse?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    No, I was directly referring to your position on those abortion issues.
    Your pardon; I forget which atrocity I'm accused of on a daily basis.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    No, because he falsely uses his authority to push his agenda.
    But you didn't? So why boast, if not for the very same reason? Particularly when you still can't answer the question?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    1) I don't mock religious beliefs, rather, in fact, I have often been on the defending side of religious beliefs.*
    Yeah, you BETTER put an asterisk on that one...
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    2) The right to healthcare is more ludicrous than the FSM? What are you smoking?
    You can't answer the question, can you? A belief in an invisible, undefinable being is far more legitimate than the belief that you have a right to steal from me. Because that's what you really mean; if you were simply referring to a right to "be healthy" then it's no different from the right to "life" (which Leftists aren't particularly wild about either).
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    3) God said that we should take care of each other. God wants this. Jesus was going around healing the poor and needy.
    Yes, and that's precisely why Pilate washed his hands - he was getting ready to perform surgery.

    I always smile when some aspiring totalitarian claims a non-existent religious mantle which he/she despises to excuse their beliefs. Demanding the State be empowered to steal and kill is Holy Writ. The buffoonery by the fascist left never ends, I guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    4) Yes, there are charity that will take care of this, but it's not enough.
    Why not? Oh, right, because like any good totalitarian, it's never enough. Socialism cannot exist in competition with the market, and so it must stamp out the market - yet socialism also cannot set prices, which will inevitably emerge in a black market.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Dumb argument is dumb.
    But calling names because you haven't an argument is great, as long as you've got your homies from the socialist mob at your back.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    You're against socialized water and electricity? Oh but we're forcing the water cleaners with a GUN TO THEIR HEAD to give us water.
    Yes, actually, private utilities are invariably superior; the problem is that our distribution systems frequently grant local monopoly capabilities that aren't overturned by gov't - it is far easier to get in bed with the utility and control it through regulation and tariff.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    We live in society, which means takes, shared resources and shared responsabilities, and common wealth that arises from it. We only need to decide whether health is one of those aspects that gets included or not.
    You continue to fail - how is "common wealth" suddenly a legitimate issue? And how does it have anything to do with my labors? Taxes are confiscatory in nature, which is undeniable, and by the confiscatory nature are punitive - you tax what you wish to discourage. But how is the doctor's labor (or the grocer's, or the manicurist's) somehow YOUR right?

    You can't answer the question because you base it on thievery - you want the labor of others without paying for them yourself, as differentiated from taxation where people are contributing to a pooled resource. You don't have a "right" to a pooled resource, because someone else controls the pool, even if they theoretically will give it back at some point (often on a Ponzi scheme basis, where your "contributions" are disconnected from your "payout"). I don't have a "right" to my Social Security; the Gov't will redefine my "payout" if I receive one at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    I'm good with swords, so yeah, why not.
    And here I felt sure you'd try to drag up the imaginary commandment, "Thou shalt not kill!".
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    He doesn't have the time. Besides, shouldn't you read GOOD articles instead of BAD ones hoping there's something, anything true in it?
    Good articles, as in, ones you agree with. Sorry, but I stopped being a sheep decades ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    1) Except that we don't have individuals making their decisions. We have monopolies. We have the rich talking to each other. We have networking.
    You're wrong, but I don't expect you to admit it. The monopolies (as exemplified by Obama being a creature of Wall Street yet claiming that the GOP are the fat cats) <ARE> problematic - but they are problematic because of Gov't protectionism.
    The top- three corporate employers of donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Rahm Emanuel were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JPMorgan. Six other financial giants were in the top thirty donors to the White House Dream Team: UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Credit Suisse Group.12 In 2008 alone, Goldman Sachs employees gave more to Obama -- nearly $1 million -- than any other employer, with the sole exception of the entire University of California, which has 230,000 employees -- ten times more than Goldman.13

    And still Republicans are called the Party of Wall Street. Bush let Lehman Brothers go under -- what else do Republicans have to do? Liberals latched on to the image of Bush, Cheney, and even Tom DeLay as "oilmen" to blame them for everything from Enron's collapse to blackouts and high oil prices.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    2) Also, yes, NASA makes better decisions than a bunch of rednecks, even if they make mistakes sometimes.
    Which is why Richard Branson runs NASA, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    3) Except you're not even advocating for free market anyway, so you're not fooling anyone except the fools.
    Other than the pure ad hominem nature of this - which of course is reprehensible and hypocritical when someone other than you would do it - what the heck are you saying here? That I'm <not> advocating the free market by doing so?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Do you realize how dumb the argument is? People like you keep sending us back to the stone age. You think the great minds never did anything dumb in their life?

    I think you need to take probability classes. Also, to realize that the elite are elite in their own field.
    Actually, you furnish a perfect illustration for what I'm talking about - the assumption that because you happen to claim the title of elite in a particular narrow field of study, that you are superior. You have had the benefit of working in an academic environment long enough to earn an advanced degree in something, most likely on someone else's dime. Good on you. But you then make the assumption that because you earned an advanced degree in something, it means you have the ability to make superior decisions about a matter than the person actually dealing with an issue. It's the fallacy about belief in a higher authority that I've mentioned before; the person who makes the best decisions is the one who is faced with the problem, not an academic thousands of miles away and puffed up with their own hubris.

    See, just because you may know about whatever you wrote your thesis on doesn't inherently mean that you know bupkis about anything else - in many cases, it is far more likely that you <don't> know, since you'll have been an ivory tower academic who doesn't know shyte about reality (as with Obama). It's a reason that the epithet "college boy" <is> an epithet; collegiate "knowledge" has destroyed several industries. This belief in your innate superiority because you went to school really doesn't align with market forces, much less reality.

    You may believe any number of miserably asinine things - like that you have a "right" to health care, or that mankind is heating the planet rapidly and must be stopped, or that there ought to be better food available in the inner city. But your belief, coupled with a gun in your hand, will simply kill people while never solving the problem. Whereas if people in the inner city really want to eat better, they can go buy good food (or grow it), if the planet is really getting warmer then people will move North, and you could try paying your doctor out of your own pocket. Because invariably, your asinine schemes really aren't about solving a real problem like high risk insurance, but about your megalomaniac attitude and insatiable appetite to order other people around - if there was an actual problem, the market solves it. Because decision making is best done in a situational basis, rather than by some elite snot in a basement months after the issue arose.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Scum-suckers are already at the powerful positions atop and they are already exercising their megalomaniac tendencies. Just look at the US healthcare system ;)
    Conceded. The U.S. healthcare system already has far too much Gov't intervention, as opposed to private care at private expense, to the point that the Gov't has attempted to outlaw cases of direct pay care.

  9. #79
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    22,615
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    thievery
    Right here is the problem.

    You think I want to steal the doctor's labour, but in fact I want to give him more work for which he gets paid for (should he accept it, he can also take the day off).

    There is no point debating this anymore (was there ever?) because you just won't discuss it in a civilized manner.

    These issues are complex enough as it is... bringing agendas and emotions into it so far has made the problems worse, because people can't focus and make informed decisions.

    Here's the missing *. I keep the right to make fun of people when their beliefs are self-inconsistent, or make them do clearly stupid things. Those who worship responsably get my respect.

    PS: About the education thing. You still haven't admitted that the article was bad. Is that lack of education, pride, or what? My training in psych tells me that people caught in the problem might be too involved to be able to see a solution that's right in front of them. It also tells me that bringing emotions and false beliefs doesn't help resolve problems.

    PSS: The best protection against false beliefs is to acknowledge that beliefs are nothing but beliefs, and to rely on the facts that you do have instead of on your beliefs.
    Last edited by Alaris; 07-06-2011 at 18:08.
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  10. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Right here is the problem.

    You think I want to steal the doctor's labour, but in fact I want to give him more work for which he gets paid for (should he accept it, he can also take the day off).
    Then it has nothing to do with you conjuring up a "right" to his labor. That indeed is the problem, because you continue to frame it as a "right" - meaning the doctor MUST provide it to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    There is no point debating this anymore (was there ever?) because you just won't discuss it in a civilized manner.
    You'd have done better to recognize your failure of logic and try to discuss the matter differently. Instead, you doubled down on your claim to an evil-minded "right", and threw insults at me for denouncing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    These issues are complex enough as it is... bringing agendas and emotions into it so far has made the problems worse, because people can't focus and make informed decisions.
    Yeah, those horrible ad hominem attacks covering up logical inconsistency.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Here's the missing *. I keep the right to make fun of people when their beliefs are self-inconsistent, or make them do clearly stupid things. Those who worship responsably get my respect.
    In other words, some animals are more equal than others. Don't worry, I already knew about your inconsistent mentality.

Posting Permissions

Posting Permissions

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off