Wednesday, January 11, 2012
They disabled my adsense
so... good bye everyone. I'm going over to Opera from now on. I will not use google ever again.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Why America is a souless corporation
America home of the whopper & the big mac:
Wants dumb irresponsible insecure children.
Why?
Because if they are insecure they will buy stupid clothes to be "cool" they will live how they are told to live. The fact that GQ magazine tells you what to wear, WHAT TO WEAR. You pay someone to be your mom, TO DRESS YOU. Idiots. You buy overpriced pieces of fabric because someone you've never met but everyone thinks is cool has their name on your clothes. You buy into fads, which come with expiration dates because you are not cool. You crave to be cool. You imitate the cool, you dress like them, etc. Cool comes from not caring and being you. By definition you cannot be cool by being someone else. So you waste your money, keeping up with the Joneses.
America wants stupid children.
If they are dumb they will not question authority. Remember you are paying people money or time to tell you what to eat, dress, listen to, watch and spend your money on. You already don't want to live your life. The government and religion are extensions of that.
They want irresponsible kids.
If you are irresponsible you won't make your own decisions and stand by your word. You won't stand up to anyone. You have no need to take action. You are submissive.
If they are dumb, insecure and irresponsible they will rake up huge debts.
Why?
So that big businesses get bailouts and they get employees with no option of leaving; because of all the debts they owe to credit card companies, mortgages and colleges.
All because they told you that there is such a thing called the safe debt load.
The "safe" debt load. It's kind of like "safe" sex.
You can still catch herpes, aids, other STDS and at least 1% of the time you will get a girl preggo-waffles.
But yeah, it's safe, and only vaguely enjoyable; but you crave it.
You don't really know what you want do you?
Wants dumb irresponsible insecure children.
Why?
Because if they are insecure they will buy stupid clothes to be "cool" they will live how they are told to live. The fact that GQ magazine tells you what to wear, WHAT TO WEAR. You pay someone to be your mom, TO DRESS YOU. Idiots. You buy overpriced pieces of fabric because someone you've never met but everyone thinks is cool has their name on your clothes. You buy into fads, which come with expiration dates because you are not cool. You crave to be cool. You imitate the cool, you dress like them, etc. Cool comes from not caring and being you. By definition you cannot be cool by being someone else. So you waste your money, keeping up with the Joneses.
America wants stupid children.
If they are dumb they will not question authority. Remember you are paying people money or time to tell you what to eat, dress, listen to, watch and spend your money on. You already don't want to live your life. The government and religion are extensions of that.
They want irresponsible kids.
If you are irresponsible you won't make your own decisions and stand by your word. You won't stand up to anyone. You have no need to take action. You are submissive.
If they are dumb, insecure and irresponsible they will rake up huge debts.
Why?
So that big businesses get bailouts and they get employees with no option of leaving; because of all the debts they owe to credit card companies, mortgages and colleges.
All because they told you that there is such a thing called the safe debt load.
The "safe" debt load. It's kind of like "safe" sex.
You can still catch herpes, aids, other STDS and at least 1% of the time you will get a girl preggo-waffles.
But yeah, it's safe, and only vaguely enjoyable; but you crave it.
You don't really know what you want do you?
Guns - why we need more of them
Something liberals don't understand: violence has always existed and will always exist.
Guns are not allowed in Indonesia but I'm told people kill each other with hatchets over there.
So getting rid of guns is not a real solution. In fact what if everyone had one. Think about it, you are walking anywhere and you know that everyone is legally required to own a weapon of some kind & carry it on their person. Who is going to rob anyone??? How long would a rampage last? How many serial killers or rapists would there be? Imagine a world where no one messes with any one. How would anyone hijack a plane or steal a car. Who would invade this country? I don't think we would even need a standing army if we did this, it would be cheaper. We might need the police for somethings sometime.
Guns are not allowed in Indonesia but I'm told people kill each other with hatchets over there.
So getting rid of guns is not a real solution. In fact what if everyone had one. Think about it, you are walking anywhere and you know that everyone is legally required to own a weapon of some kind & carry it on their person. Who is going to rob anyone??? How long would a rampage last? How many serial killers or rapists would there be? Imagine a world where no one messes with any one. How would anyone hijack a plane or steal a car. Who would invade this country? I don't think we would even need a standing army if we did this, it would be cheaper. We might need the police for somethings sometime.
A cool idea I found: economics
The
RICH Economy
by Robert Anton Wilson
RICH means Rising Income through Cybernetic Homeostasis
Basically: Unemployment is a natural effect of improved technology. The more efficient machines become the less workers you need. Employment and work are not self-evidently "good" uses of time. Most people hate working. We work in order for the products of work. Needing less people is not a bad thing. People not "working" isn't a bad thing either. The wealthy do not really work. So why is being unemployed a bad thing? Our current economic system is set up to reward work and punish unemployment. Our economic system made sense back in the pioneer days, in modern times and in the future this makes less and less sense. Robert Anton Wilson lists 3 new economic policies to change our understanding of unemployment and the affect massive unemployment has on the world. Consider these ideas alternative to hiring people to dig a hole and then fill the hole - government employment.
IDEA #1:
The National Dividend. This was invented by engineer C. H. Douglas and has been revived with some modifications by poet Ezra Pound and designer Buckminster Fuller. The basic idea (although Douglas, Pound, and Fuller differ on the details) is that every citizen should be declared a shareholder in the nation, and should receive dividends on the Gross National Product for the year. Estimates differ as to how much this would be for each citizen, but at the current level of the GNP it is conservative to say that a share would be worth several times as much, per year, as a welfare recipient receives -- at least five times more. Critics complain that this would be inflationary. Supporters of the National Dividend reply that it would only be inflationary if the dividends distributed were more than the GNP; and they are proposing only to issue dividends equal to the GNP.
IDEA #2:
The Guaranteed Annual Income. This has been urged by economist Robert Theobald and others. The government would simply establish an income level above the poverty line and guarantee that no citizen would receive less; if your wages fall below that level, or you have no wages, the government makes up the difference. This plan would definitely cost the government less than the present welfare system, with all its bureaucratic red tape and redundancy: a point worth considering for those conservatives who are always complaining about the high cost of welfare. It would also spare the recipients the humiliation, degradation and dehumanization built into the present welfare system: a point for liberals to consider. A system that is less expensive than welfare and also less debasing to the poor, it seems to me, should not be objectionable to anybody but hardcore sadists.
IDEA #3:
The Negative Income Tax. This was first devised by Nobel economist Milton Friedman and is a less radical variation on the above ideas. The Negative Income Tax would establish a minimum income for every citizen; anyone whose income fell below that level would receive the amount necessary to bring them up to that standard. Friedman, who is sometimes called a conservative but prefers to title himself a libertarian, points out that this would cost "the government" (i.e. the taxpayers) less than the present welfare system, like Theobald's Guaranteed Annual Income. It would also dispense with the last tinge of humiliation associated with government "charity," since when you cashed a check from IRS nobody (not even your banker) would know if it was supplementary income due to poverty or a refund due to overpayment of last year's taxes.
I personally think that these are great alternatives to our current reaction to unemployment.
by Robert Anton Wilson
RICH means Rising Income through Cybernetic Homeostasis
Basically: Unemployment is a natural effect of improved technology. The more efficient machines become the less workers you need. Employment and work are not self-evidently "good" uses of time. Most people hate working. We work in order for the products of work. Needing less people is not a bad thing. People not "working" isn't a bad thing either. The wealthy do not really work. So why is being unemployed a bad thing? Our current economic system is set up to reward work and punish unemployment. Our economic system made sense back in the pioneer days, in modern times and in the future this makes less and less sense. Robert Anton Wilson lists 3 new economic policies to change our understanding of unemployment and the affect massive unemployment has on the world. Consider these ideas alternative to hiring people to dig a hole and then fill the hole - government employment.
IDEA #1:
The National Dividend. This was invented by engineer C. H. Douglas and has been revived with some modifications by poet Ezra Pound and designer Buckminster Fuller. The basic idea (although Douglas, Pound, and Fuller differ on the details) is that every citizen should be declared a shareholder in the nation, and should receive dividends on the Gross National Product for the year. Estimates differ as to how much this would be for each citizen, but at the current level of the GNP it is conservative to say that a share would be worth several times as much, per year, as a welfare recipient receives -- at least five times more. Critics complain that this would be inflationary. Supporters of the National Dividend reply that it would only be inflationary if the dividends distributed were more than the GNP; and they are proposing only to issue dividends equal to the GNP.
IDEA #2:
The Guaranteed Annual Income. This has been urged by economist Robert Theobald and others. The government would simply establish an income level above the poverty line and guarantee that no citizen would receive less; if your wages fall below that level, or you have no wages, the government makes up the difference. This plan would definitely cost the government less than the present welfare system, with all its bureaucratic red tape and redundancy: a point worth considering for those conservatives who are always complaining about the high cost of welfare. It would also spare the recipients the humiliation, degradation and dehumanization built into the present welfare system: a point for liberals to consider. A system that is less expensive than welfare and also less debasing to the poor, it seems to me, should not be objectionable to anybody but hardcore sadists.
IDEA #3:
The Negative Income Tax. This was first devised by Nobel economist Milton Friedman and is a less radical variation on the above ideas. The Negative Income Tax would establish a minimum income for every citizen; anyone whose income fell below that level would receive the amount necessary to bring them up to that standard. Friedman, who is sometimes called a conservative but prefers to title himself a libertarian, points out that this would cost "the government" (i.e. the taxpayers) less than the present welfare system, like Theobald's Guaranteed Annual Income. It would also dispense with the last tinge of humiliation associated with government "charity," since when you cashed a check from IRS nobody (not even your banker) would know if it was supplementary income due to poverty or a refund due to overpayment of last year's taxes.
I personally think that these are great alternatives to our current reaction to unemployment.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Modern males are weak
Why do you change who you are to try to please a woman or to make her happy?
She either likes you the way you are or she doesn't like you.
You are being molded into an imaginary version of you.
Why do you put up with this?
Why do you go along with this?
You must dislike your life to be willing to have it completely changed.
Some guys let women change how they dress, what they watch on television, who they hang out with , how they talk.
I know a guy that gave up becoming a professional rugby player because his girlfriend didn't like it.
This idiot married her.
He had to have checkin's every night with her via phone.
He couldn't go to college dances because she didn't like it.
You guys....
Your fathers should be ashamed of you.
It is not about "making" her happy.
She should be happy, being herself.
If she isn't naturally happy then something is wrong in her life.
Something is wrong with her.
Then you are going to change you?
For her?
To make her happy?
By making you sad?
Then you want to be mistreated from then on?
Then you think that fighting is normal?
Really?
Just because most people have terrible relationships doesn't mean that you have to have one.
A lot of people are addicted to drugs, does that mean you have to be?
Then some of you idiots think "well it's about time to get married."
No, you only do that if you two are compatible and she respects you.
I am usually disgusted by television and film.
I am disgusted because men are almost always mistreated and disrespected.
I am amazed at the disrespect you guys put up with.
I am amazed that you guys want to be friends with women.
I saw the show New Girl.
I couldn't understand it.
Zooey Deschannel is hot.
If she says "I'm looking for a rebound."
Then I'm there saying my room is this way.
Really?
Young guys that are supposedly good with women and NO ONE tries to get with Zooey when she is craving dick.
Really?
Wow.
I've lost friends over girls; the girls not liking me. Which is some ridiculousness; how are you going to put a woman over your friends? Really?
Look: once she has your balls & spines...she only wants your wallet. She will cheat on you. You are only making life worse for yourself by submitting.
Everyone makes their own hell.
You are responsible for everything in your life.
Oh yeah: I hear you guys think that you will die in the year 2012 because of the Mayans or something dumb. Hey if you can predict the future, why did your civilization die?
It is not your chore to make her smile.
She makes herself smile.
You two are supposed to make each other happier together.
If she is making you unhappy, why are you with her?
The world today is insane.
She either likes you the way you are or she doesn't like you.
You are being molded into an imaginary version of you.
Why do you put up with this?
Why do you go along with this?
You must dislike your life to be willing to have it completely changed.
Some guys let women change how they dress, what they watch on television, who they hang out with , how they talk.
I know a guy that gave up becoming a professional rugby player because his girlfriend didn't like it.
This idiot married her.
He had to have checkin's every night with her via phone.
He couldn't go to college dances because she didn't like it.
You guys....
Your fathers should be ashamed of you.
It is not about "making" her happy.
She should be happy, being herself.
If she isn't naturally happy then something is wrong in her life.
Something is wrong with her.
Then you are going to change you?
For her?
To make her happy?
By making you sad?
Then you want to be mistreated from then on?
Then you think that fighting is normal?
Really?
Just because most people have terrible relationships doesn't mean that you have to have one.
A lot of people are addicted to drugs, does that mean you have to be?
Then some of you idiots think "well it's about time to get married."
No, you only do that if you two are compatible and she respects you.
I am usually disgusted by television and film.
I am disgusted because men are almost always mistreated and disrespected.
I am amazed at the disrespect you guys put up with.
I am amazed that you guys want to be friends with women.
I saw the show New Girl.
I couldn't understand it.
Zooey Deschannel is hot.
If she says "I'm looking for a rebound."
Then I'm there saying my room is this way.
Really?
Young guys that are supposedly good with women and NO ONE tries to get with Zooey when she is craving dick.
Really?
Wow.
I've lost friends over girls; the girls not liking me. Which is some ridiculousness; how are you going to put a woman over your friends? Really?
Look: once she has your balls & spines...she only wants your wallet. She will cheat on you. You are only making life worse for yourself by submitting.
Everyone makes their own hell.
You are responsible for everything in your life.
Oh yeah: I hear you guys think that you will die in the year 2012 because of the Mayans or something dumb. Hey if you can predict the future, why did your civilization die?
It is not your chore to make her smile.
She makes herself smile.
You two are supposed to make each other happier together.
If she is making you unhappy, why are you with her?
The world today is insane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)