Conquer Club

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Because they make more money by not caring about the environment? Dumping your toxic waste in the lake nearby or safely getting rid of it makes a huge differenc in price. You act like big bussiness' care about the long term. (More than 50 years.)

Thank you for yet another stupid and moronic statement. They make more money by not caring about the environment. So I guess the fact that they actually go out of their way to restore the areas that they use has nothing to do with it. Why - well because they don't care. How the hell do you know the emotions of people you've never met anyway?

All right Mr. Toolbox, we can go with insults then. Why do these green-thumbs need to restore the environment in the first place? Maybe because they dumped shit in it? If you raped somebody, video-taped and sold it afterwards, and then used some of your profits to pay for the counselling they need afterwards are you some sort of saint? No! I'll pause for a moment so you can chuckle as you count your money.







OK, back to the point.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Because of socialist policies. There are no fucking purely capitalist countries on this world. More importantly, capitalism doesn't actually contradict socialists policies. The Netherlands is on the list of most capitalist countries, but we have universal healthcare, a very lenient wellfare system and basically free education.

You seem to be in love with stupidity. I never said there were any purely capitalistic countries. I used data from those sources I mentioned which said the most capitalistic countries. You really need to read or else stop trying to change what I said.

You are such a ignorant fool. You don't even understand how your own healthcare system works. It's not universal healthcare. Your country has citizens pay an extra income-related tax that goes to the government, which in turn subsidizes low-income people to be able to afford their own health insurance. That's not exclusive government-run universal healthcare because they know it wouldn't work. That's just telling people they have to buy their own insurance anyway. Secondly, the same stupid idiots who think they're getting truly subsidized healthcare are the same ones paying the tax into the system in the first place. It just gets re-routed back to them through a socialist program! They could just as well pay for the premium in the first place directly to the insurance company but because they're idiots they pay it through a tax which just comes back to them.

Free education, really!!!! Where did the government get the money to provide this free education? From taxpayers. You're a moron.

You're right, the government should use it's own money to pay for that stuff. Oh wait, the government gets it's money through taxes you shit-chucking ape. Lets use your example at the end, education. Would you prefer to have everyone pay for their own education? You know, you get what you pay for, something along those lines? That's basically your idiotic position on health care. I'll be honest with you, that sort of position would fill the country with more pathetic induhviduals (nods to Scott Adams) than we already have.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:All democratic. (At least most of them.)

Another brilliant point. All democratic - at least most of them. Why don't you think first before you post?

Ignore the point more please. If the heavy majority of the top capitalist countries are democratic it adds a confounding variable. You can't just make an observation and turn it into a rule of fucking thumb.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Lots of dictatorships. And they're also all fucking poor. Are you suprised that they have worse living conditions? Do you think they got poor because of socialism? And not, saaaaay, thanks to dictators who weren't interrested in leading the country but more in getting rich from it?

They're fucking poor because they have socialistic programs. Yeah, when you have policies which allow the government more control over individuals lives of course the tendency will change more towards dictatorships. It doesn't happen overnight. I give up on you. Please think for at least 3 seconds before making a comment.

You're putting the cart before the horse dumbass. Dictatorships tend to have more control over individuals and will choose economic systems that suit their needs. Just because assholes use certain economic systems doesn't mean that the economic system should be considered wrong. Just look at you and capitalism.

bradleybadly wrote:

radiojake wrote:If you honestly believe that the environment isn't being raped in the name of profits, then I will no longer post in this thread, because you will never understand it.

The environment is being raped in the name of profit!! Oh heavens to mergatroid!!!! I hope the rapists at least wear a condom. Nice attempt at trying to make the earth look like a person. Yes, the earth is a victim - another common socialist argument.

Perhaps the earth can attend a rapist recovery group with other planets in order to get its self esteem back.

Oh look, you got ahead of me you self-important douchebag.

Capitalism? Get'er done!

bradleybadly wrote:

comic boy wrote:Please tell us what 'Socialist' countries you base these figures on.

compared to the 25 most socialist countries - Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Dem. of Congo, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Algeria, Guinea Bissau, Rep. of Congo, Burundi, Russia, Togo, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Ukraine, Rwanda, Niger, Columbia, Syria, Romania, Chad, Benin, Turkey, Malawi, Madagascar, and Ecuador

bradleybadly, how on earth did you get to the conviction that the countries above are 'socialist'? Socialism is about abolishing private ownership of the means of production. The countries listed above do not fit that category. Most of them could more appropriately be described as 'jungle law capitalist' or 'semi-feudal'.

Frigidus wrote:

Capitalism? Get'er done!

What the f*ck is that?? I have to say it to this one

YEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAWW

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:

comic boy wrote:Please tell us what 'Socialist' countries you base these figures on.

Since you asked nicely:

The 25 most capitalistic countries - Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Luxembourg, Estonia, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Austria, UAE, Belgium, Botswana, Kuwait, Oman, Chile, Germany, Hungary, and Sweden

compared to the 25 most socialist countries - Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Dem. of Congo, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Algeria, Guinea Bissau, Rep. of Congo, Burundi, Russia, Togo, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Ukraine, Rwanda, Niger, Columbia, Syria, Romania, Chad, Benin, Turkey, Malawi, Madagascar, and Ecuador

Sources: The Frasier Institute, The Cato Institute, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University along with the World Economic Forum & Joint Research Center of the European Commission, and the World Bank

They all team up to produce their annual Economic Freedom Report every year. Come on now I want to hear how these figures are doctored to favor the wealthy countries. It's all a big conspiracy to make socialism look bad. Jay would be proud.

How does this prove that socialism is a bad thing? All of the capitalistic countries exploited weaker countries and are largely responsible for the poor economies of the above socialist countries. The entire idea of capitalism is an economic survival of the fittest. That hardly seems like a humanistic system to me.

What garbage,for a start the UK has had a Socialist government for the last 8 years, Hong Kong is part of China , Zimbabwe is run by a Marxist dictator, Myanmar is run by the Military....it just goes on

I defy you to produce one link stating that those countries are socialist,you are either joking or simply rigging a list to fit your bizarre notions

comic boy wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:

comic boy wrote:Please tell us what 'Socialist' countries you base these figures on.

Since you asked nicely:

The 25 most capitalistic countries - Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Luxembourg, Estonia, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Austria, UAE, Belgium, Botswana, Kuwait, Oman, Chile, Germany, Hungary, and Sweden

compared to the 25 most socialist countries - Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Dem. of Congo, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Algeria, Guinea Bissau, Rep. of Congo, Burundi, Russia, Togo, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Ukraine, Rwanda, Niger, Columbia, Syria, Romania, Chad, Benin, Turkey, Malawi, Madagascar, and Ecuador

Sources: The Frasier Institute, The Cato Institute, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University along with the World Economic Forum & Joint Research Center of the European Commission, and the World Bank

They all team up to produce their annual Economic Freedom Report every year. Come on now I want to hear how these figures are doctored to favor the wealthy countries. It's all a big conspiracy to make socialism look bad. Jay would be proud.

How does this prove that socialism is a bad thing? All of the capitalistic countries exploited weaker countries and are largely responsible for the poor economies of the above socialist countries. The entire idea of capitalism is an economic survival of the fittest. That hardly seems like a humanistic system to me.

What garbage,for a start the UK has had a Socialist government for the last 8 years, Hong Kong is part of China , Zimbabwe is run by a Marxist dictator, Myanmar is run by the Military....it just goes on

I defy you to produce one link stating that those countries are socialist,you are either joking or simply rigging a list to fit your bizarre notions

Hey, good point. Those sources are probably ancient.

If anyone is raping the environment it's you idiot socialists & your buddies in the environmental movements.

Ha

I think i worked you out bradley. Just trying to stir the nest, as such, and see how much of a stink we come back with. Noone can really be as stupid as you are trying to make yourself sound

It depends on how you look at it. I voted yes because there are to me more downfalls to having LOTS of friends compared to just a few. And it mainly depends on what they do and stand for. You will most likely switch to their views to gain acceptance. That would be your first mistake. I only have about 10 friends but no one significant. However they all do like me because i stay myself rather than change to what they like. I believe that if your friends are doing harmful things they will most likely be a bad influence to you rather than you being a good influence. I hate health class for this. I can continue but ill more than likely get flamed for continuing.

bradleybadly wrote:
probably because it would be about as likely to convince you as it would be to convince Stalin that killing his own people was wrong.

Why bother to go to all the time and effort to actually construct reasoning to support your position, when you can simply declare that the opposition wants to make love to Stalin's corpse.
Character assassination FTW!

bradleybadly wrote:Poisonous chemicals in your biscuit packaging! EVERYBODY RUN, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! Yet even though you knew this information you went out and bought these biscuits. You are contributing to that 7% boost in sales and releasing poisonous chemicals into the world. How dare you!!!
Oh, the horror that we have unleashed upon the planet through biscuit packaging. Someone save us. LMFAO once again at your stupidity.

Are you going to actually respond in any meaningful way, or are you planning to spend the rest of your days running in terror from biscut packaging?

The biscuts were an example. One biscut package is virtually harmless. Vitrually is the operative word. A million packages is another story. The probably poisionous dye used will wash off when it hits a water stream, getting into the water supply. Sure, most of the western world has great filtration, but many others are mot so lucky. Hell, I doubt livestock water is filtered very extensively. Do you really want to eat a cow that was in the last stages of being poisioned by whatever cheap-and-nasty dye the biscut packaging used? Or find out the bread you eat is actually made from a wheat field that is chock-full of heavy metals?

It's odd how many people think humanity is invulnerable to the repurcussions of the things it does to the environment.

In response to the very first post it has now become clear who the nonsensical idiot is, be an idea if the bufoon actually learnt the difference between Communism, Socialism and Military dictatorships
I wonder whose multi he/it is ?

a-person1192 wrote:It depends on how you look at it. I voted yes because there are to me more downfalls to having LOTS of friends compared to just a few. And it mainly depends on what they do and stand for. You will most likely switch to their views to gain acceptance. That would be your first mistake. I only have about 10 friends but no one significant. However they all do like me because i stay myself rather than change to what they like. I believe that if your friends are doing harmful things they will most likely be a bad influence to you rather than you being a good influence. I hate health class for this. I can continue but ill more than likely get flamed for continuing.

He's kidding...he's kidding...he's kidding...please tell me he's kidding.

radiojake wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:You can't argue against people who view the earth as a person.

No but maybe people view the Earth as a living thing. Something you seem to struggle with.

Yeah the earth is a living thing. There are prescriptions for people with delusional fantasies such as yourself. How old does the earth have to be before we allow it to go out on a date? Maybe we can set up a courtship between earth and Saturn! Should we allow the earth to drive? Perhaps we should give it an allowance! Do you also feel sad when buildings fall down? Maybe we're hurting their feelings.

Frigidus wrote:All right Mr. Toolbox, we can go with insults then. Why do these green-thumbs need to restore the environment in the first place? Maybe because they dumped shit in it? If you raped somebody, video-taped and sold it afterwards, and then used some of your profits to pay for the counselling they need afterwards are you some sort of saint? No! I'll pause for a moment so you can chuckle as you count your money.

Sounds like you and radiojake have a lot to talk about. There's a rape therapy group you two can join if you truly care about the earth. As far as insults go, just ask rj about his brave adventures from behind his computer screen as he insulted PhatJoey's son.

Frigidus wrote:You're right, the government should use it's own money to pay for that stuff. Oh wait, the government gets it's money through taxes you shit-chucking ape. Lets use your example at the end, education. Would you prefer to have everyone pay for their own education? You know, you get what you pay for, something along those lines? That's basically your idiotic position on health care. I'll be honest with you, that sort of position would fill the country with more pathetic induhviduals (nods to Scott Adams) than we already have.

This keeps getting better and better. Yeah, take more money out of the economy in the hopes that it will help the economy. Let the stupid agencies take that money for themselves under the guise of "operating costs" instead of actually letting the people who need it receive it. All the while, pitting one group of citizens against the other in the name of fairness. If the U.S. health care system is so bad then why do people keep coming here to get operations?

The rich aren't paying their fair share. WWWAAAAAHHHHH

Frigidus wrote:Ignore the point more please. If the heavy majority of the top capitalist countries are democratic it adds a confounding variable. You can't just make an observation and turn it into a rule of fucking thumb.

Socialists do it all the time when attacking capitalism. Ooopps, guess you forgot to criticize them.

Frigidus wrote:You're putting the cart before the horse dumbass. Dictatorships tend to have more control over individuals and will choose economic systems that suit their needs. Just because assholes use certain economic systems doesn't mean that the economic system should be considered wrong. Just look at you and capitalism.

Yeah dickhead. It's terrible having air conditioning, heating, gasoline, houses, affordable food, jobs, and extra money to spend on a social life. Let's hear it now socialists - all together now: IT'S ONLY BECAUSE YOU'RE EXPLOITING OTHER COUNTRIES THAT YOU CAN AFFORD ALL THAT!!

Moghul wrote:bradleybadly, how on earth did you get to the conviction that the countries above are 'socialist'? Socialism is about abolishing private ownership of the means of production. The countries listed above do not fit that category. Most of them could more appropriately be described as 'jungle law capitalist' or 'semi-feudal'.

Then you have a problem with the sources and agencies I cited.

comic boy wrote:What garbage,for a start the UK has had a Socialist government for the last 8 years, Hong Kong is part of China , Zimbabwe is run by a Marxist dictator, Myanmar is run by the Military....it just goes on

I defy you to produce one link stating that those countries are socialist,you are either joking or simply rigging a list to fit your bizarre notions

I defy you to do anything other than dismiss facts you don't like.

Neutrino wrote:Why bother to go to all the time and effort to actually construct reasoning to support your position, when you can simply declare that the opposition wants to make love to Stalin's corpse.
Character assassination FTW!

Like a broken record you did exactly like I thought. Instead of actually trying to construct your own reasoning to support your position you simply declare that mine isn't correct. I'll say it again - why would anyone try to present you with information that you would automatically dismiss just because you don't like it.

Neutrino wrote:Are you going to actually respond in any meaningful way, or are you planning to spend the rest of your days running in terror from biscut packaging?

Are you going to actually respond in any meaningful way, or are you just planning to declare that anyone who disagrees with you needs to justify themselves (all with the intention of just saying their sources are biased no matter what they say)?

Neutrino wrote:The biscuts were an example. One biscut package is virtually harmless. Vitrually is the operative word. A million packages is another story. The probably poisionous dye used will wash off when it hits a water stream, getting into the water supply. Sure, most of the western world has great filtration, but many others are mot so lucky. Hell, I doubt livestock water is filtered very extensively. Do you really want to eat a cow that was in the last stages of being poisioned by whatever cheap-and-nasty dye the biscut packaging used? Or find out the bread you eat is actually made from a wheat field that is chock-full of heavy metals?

I like how you went from being so firm of your position and now say it's probable and virtually. And now to add to the hilarity you're saying that it's going into the water supply BUT that it's making its way to our beef supply. You've got an excuse for anything. Do you make this stuff up as you go? I'm sure if someone showed you that that is a bunch of bunk you would then claim that mosquitoes carry it from garbage cans and then bite people and they die! ROFL. I can see your scenario being played out now:

"Damn, lost another one"......"Doctor, how did he die?"....."Well, it appears that this man ingested beef that contained a high concentration of poisonous biscuit packaging"......."Oh, that's terrible! How can we stop this from happening again, doctor?"....."I'm afraid the only solution is to adopt socialism so we can stop greedy corporations from making profits"

I'm so sure that corporations are going to continue to produce things which would poison potential customers. Once again, you're an idiot.

You better stop eating bread produced by capitalist countries. It could be the last thing you ever eat. Oh no, attack of the capitalist bread loaves!!

bradley, i suppose it seems to be worth questioning. What exactly are your gripes with socialism, especially as someone who does not live in such a country. Seemingly we have heard your obejctions to people who argue against you, but have heard surprisingly little about your actual objections.

Bradley: sarcasm is good when it punctuates your points. It is not good when it is your point. If you want to utilize the amazing power of the exclamation mark and Caps Lock key to do your arguing for you, fine. There are some of us, however, who wish to have an actual debate that dosen't revolve around over-and-poorly-done sarcasm and shoddy character assassination.

Maybe you'll realise that cheesy pictures, overly agressive comebacks and creative misunderstanding don't cut it in a non-flame wars debate and change your style. Then again, maybe you won't. I'm certainly not betting any money on the latter.

Just another Dumbarse Troll !

Neutrino wrote:Bradley: sarcasm is good when it punctuates your points. It is not good when it is your point. If you want to utilize the amazing power of the exclamation mark and Caps Lock key to do your arguing for you, fine. There are some of us, however, who wish to have an actual debate that dosen't revolve around over-and-poorly-done sarcasm and shoddy character assassination.

Maybe you'll realise that cheesy pictures, overly agressive comebacks and creative misunderstanding don't cut it in a non-flame wars debate and change your style. Then again, maybe you won't. I'm certainly not betting any money on the latter.

Oh yeah, cos that's a valid point...

[size=0]Yes, I'm joking... well done for noticing that[/size]

Dancing Mustard wrote:Oh yeah, cos that's a valid point...

Yes, I'm joking... well done for noticing that

It's a bit difficult to argue with bradleybadly when he refuses to advance his own arguments.

Der Fuhrer wrote: f*ck socialism.

what about national socialism?

heavycola wrote:

Der Fuhrer wrote: f*ck socialism.

what about national socialism?

National Socialism is wonderful. You have something to add my dear child?

Der Fuhrer wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Der Fuhrer wrote: f*ck socialism.

what about national socialism?

National Socialism is wonderful. You have something to add my dear child?

No, my dear troll. I think we have the complete set now: the paranoiac, the conspiracy theorist, the anarchist, the bible thumper and now the nazi. It's like the A-team except less gets done.

heavycola wrote:

Der Fuhrer wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Der Fuhrer wrote: f*ck socialism.

what about national socialism?

National Socialism is wonderful. You have something to add my dear child?

No, my dear troll. I think we have the complete set now: the paranoiac, the conspiracy theorist, the anarchist, the bible thumper and now the nazi. It's like the A-team except less gets done.

The paranoiac has every right to be paranoid, with a fascist such as myself around. The conspiracy-theorist would be wise to watch his back in my presence. The anarchist, being my polar opposite, should be executed. The bible-thumper needs realise my fascism does not allow for his bullshit, and thus serves no purpose other than to spout fairy tales.

bradleybadly wrote:Yeah the earth is a living thing. There are prescriptions for people with delusional fantasies such as yourself. How old does the earth have to be before we allow it to go out on a date? Maybe we can set up a courtship between earth and Saturn! Should we allow the earth to drive? Perhaps we should give it an allowance! Do you also feel sad when buildings fall down? Maybe we're hurting their feelings.

Good one. The earth doesn't have to be a living thing for us to destroy it.

Sounds like you and radiojake have a lot to talk about. There's a rape therapy group you two can join if you truly care about the earth. As far as insults go, just ask rj about his brave adventures from behind his computer screen as he insulted PhatJoey's son.

OH NOES YOU INSULTED SOMEONE SO I WILL NEVAH LISTENN TO U AGAIN!~!
Solid reasoning there, dude.

This keeps getting better and better. Yeah, take more money out of the economy in the hopes that it will help the economy. Let the stupid agencies take that money for themselves under the guise of "operating costs" instead of actually letting the people who need it receive it. All the while, pitting one group of citizens against the other in the name of fairness.

Yes because surely the fact that the USA spends more money per capita on healthcare than any other nation in the world, despite having 47 million people without healthinsurance is a fine example of a good system. People who know about it agree with you (not really)

If the U.S. health care system is so bad then why do people keep coming here to get operations?

Because along with having some of the worst coverage, you also have some of the best treatments for rare diseases. Which cost a lot of money for those people, but hey, otherwise they're dead. However, leaving 47 million people to die for that doesn't really sound like a good thing, particularly when they needn't be that way.

The rich aren't paying their fair share. WWWAAAAAHHHHH

Universal healtcare would probably cost less.

Socialists do it all the time when attacking capitalism. Ooopps, guess you forgot to criticize them.

What are you talking about?

Then you have a problem with the sources and agencies I cited.

Naturally, as you seem to have no idea what socialism means.

Like a broken record you did exactly like I thought. Instead of actually trying to construct your own reasoning to support your position you simply declare that mine isn't correct. I'll say it again - why would anyone try to present you with information that you would automatically dismiss just because you don't like it.

Oh yes, very helpfull in defending your position. He called you on not using your reasoning but instead insulting others, and then you respond by insulting it.

I like how you went from being so firm of your position and now say it's probable and virtually. And now to add to the hilarity you're saying that it's going into the water supply BUT that it's making its way to our beef supply.

You can't possibly be this stupid. What do you think cows drink????

I'm so sure that corporations are going to continue to produce things which would poison potential customers. Once again, you're an idiot.

I'm sure of it, because it's slow poisoning. Or are you saying that tabacco-companies don't exist?