 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Kefka |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 |
| User | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(restricted)|
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2320/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Ok, so, the release date was supposed to be 18th October 2004, right? So why haven't I been able to find Kirby and the Mirror Labrynth or Kirby and the Amazing Mirror or whatever the hell it's called in any store for the last week+ ? |
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2321/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Well, I was browsing the internet (ok, not really, I was looking for current issues), and I found something very eyecatching on the first page of a Canadian based site supporting same sex marriage... however, I doubt Bush would fight so hard to sleep with the religious right and then ditch them at the last second... |
Fact or Fiction? I didn't watch GMA on Oct. 26th, but did anyone here do so? I really want to know if this site is just giving out a bunch of bullshit or telling the truth? If it is the truth, then Bush has gone nuts. How can he support the legal union of gay people after opposing it his entire term? Also, if it's true, then I'm sure John Kerry will quickly come out and change his stance on it once again, saying that he now has decided to support it as well. But seriously, I think this article is bullshit as of now, because I can't find any transcripts saying that Bush was interviewed on Oct. 26th and that he talked about this at all. So, anyone care to tell me if it is true or not, and if it is, then your thoughts on whether it is just an election ploy or if he intends to follow through with what he (*cough*) said?
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2322/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Now the new question: Why would this pro-gay marriage site make a lie like this; I mean, it could cause some gay regulars there to like, vote for Bush now thinking they will be able to get married! So what were the site's motives!??! It makes no sense. |
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2323/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Wilford Brimley has taught me that Oatmeal is what I must eat to be strong. So I will vote Oatmeal. All hail Wilford Brimley. That strong bastard. |
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2324/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Who gives a shit whether Bin Laden still has access to a video camera? |
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2325/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
This is in the Craziness forum because: |
1) It's not worthy of being in General Chat 2) It's not worthy of being in debate forum, where I would rather put it 3) Politics are crazy, and deserve to be made fun of 4) Jon Stewart is crazy, and deserves to make fun of politics, among other things Anyway, I am giving my praise to America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction in this topic, with a desire to have people who have not read it yet, or have not heard of it yet, to go out, buy/steal the damned book, and fucking read it! This book is hilarious, even if you don't agree with Jon Stewart's beliefs (i.e. if you are Republican). To prove this to the general population of Acmlm's, or at least those that visit this worthless (or shall we say "humble") ludicrous (or shall we say "craziness") forum, I am going to provide a few random excerpts from the book. Yes. Random. Meaning I close my eyes, flip the book open to a... random... page, and proceed to pick a... random... article from that page. This book is written in the format of a history textbook, which is one of the things that it pokes fun at with its hysterical discussion questions and classroom activities at the end of each chapter. So, without further adue, here are some excerpts with no particular order from America : Of Course Your Vote Counts By Stephen Colbert (in Chapter 6, Campaigns and Elections: America Changes the Sheets) In every election, many people grapple with the nagging suspicion that their vote doesn't count. As a citizen and someone who is always right, it is respectively my duty and my pleasure to tell them they are wrong. In fact, our democracy depends on every citizen recognizing the value of his or her vote. And here is the value of that vote. In the most recent presidential election, 105,360,260 people cast ballots. That means each person's vote counted .000000949%. I defy you to find a mathematician who will tell you that number is less than or equal to zero. Okay, so we can agree, your vote counts. It counts .000000949%. Swish that around in your mouth for a while. How does it taste? Taste like freedom? 'Cause to me it tastes like jack-all squat. Things brings up a related, better question than "Does your vote count?" Namely, "Does your vote make a difference?" To answer that, perhaps a more visual comparison would be illustrative. Imagine your vote as a deer tick. And the election as the continent of Asia.  Fig.1 "Asia" . Fig. 2 "Deer Tick" Do you notice the relative size of these two things? See how the deer tick appears in comparison with the largest continent on earth? This gives you a rough idea of the difference your vote makes vis- (edited by Kefka on 10-31-04 06:57 PM)
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2326/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
I'm not sure if I read the same quote that you read, but it is the same quote you quoted. It seems he does believe people have the right to their income, but just not ridiculous surpluses. The way we are now, the richer you are, the easier it is to double the amount of money you already have. He says it shouldn't be that way, because if you are rich off your ass already, whether you earned your way to that point or not, you don't need twice as much money. It is logical that if you have 900,000 dollars, then you should be giving more money back than someone with 20,000 dollars, or someone with 800,000. How much more they give back seems to be the issue. |
However, I saw nothing in his post indicating what you said it did. Btw, what you said on fixed rates is not the libertarian ideal... if you REALLY wanted to go libertarian, then the libertarian ideal would be much closer to what you said already... there would be no government-funded services, meaning no taxes. The government would basically be a private organization/corporation, and if you wanted into their services, you would need to buy them. That way, you only pay for what you use. That's the libertarian ideal regarding that.
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2327/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
About your whole "no right to money" thing: |
It doesn't matter what tax system you use, as long as you have taxes. People will have some of their income go to the government's purposes. Whether the gov uses it properly (which they seem to have trouble doing) is a different issue (and yes, that issue can justifiably be brought up at this point, but that is not necessary). If you really want to have the right to all the money you make, then you don't have taxes. But that isn't possible in our society, so you don't have the right to some of your money (this is using your terms). What Ziff was saying was that the method he mentioned (though he didn't really go in depth at all on it after giving it a name, which is never good when you are talking about such issues, or any issue for that matter) is his ideal for making the tax as fair as possible (though it obviously won't be "fair"). Granted, there are probably better ways to tax than what he said, but there isn't too drastic of a difference between his preference and the Utilitarian method that you mentioned... what I interpreted from "progressive income taxation" (just based on the words, and not knowing too many of the details on it) was that (these numbers are just figurative examples, and not set rates for what would be done in this system) if you make 5 bucks, you are taxed 1%... if 10 bucks, then like, 4%... if 100, then like, 10%... basically, as your income increases, your percentage of taxation increases. I may have interpreted it wrongly, but I found this to be the same as the Ulitarian Fairness that you appeared to have supported in your previous post. "2. Utilitarian Fairness; Basically, this would require taking a flat percent of a person's utility via their income... and since there's a diminishing marginal returns on every dollar a person has, this kind of tax would be heavily progressive. Taking 10% of a poor person's income hurts him a lot more than taking 10% of a rich person's income would, for example, so perhaps it would be more "fair" to only charage the poor person 5% and the rich person 20% to achieve equal utility loss." Now, I agree with this more than I agree with Ziff's unexplained method of taxation, but what I am puzzled about is that you seemed to imply here that this is what you supported, and yet you are trying to go against it now... Or maybe I'm just not thinking clearly. I'm hungry. In your Utilitarian example (or definition, whatever), you seemed to indicate that the richer you are, the more money you should owe back to society. In Ziff's short briefing, he said the same thing word-for-word (well, almost). So: 1) I don't see what the big disagreement is about 2) It still would seem that any tax system has a portion of someone's income not "within their rights" 3) I don't see how what he said is any different as far as how much is not within someone's rights as the latter of the two solutions (though you showed disagreement with the first one) you gave. And about the libertarian debacle, sorry, perhaps I did blur it a bit too much, but I was just going with what I said based on something that someone I know who is a registered Libertarian who I talked with said. The Libertarian party is infamous for their desire of not wanting taxes, and that was the only solution I've ever heard people from that party give me when I ask them how we will pay for shit. So sorry about the confusion, most of which likely stemmed from my side.
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2328/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Well, looks like we agree now (until hahahalalala comes in and says otherwise) that |
1) Libertarian ideas would follow the same logic I said in regards to the taxes 2) We all agree on the utilitarian idea as a whole 3) That dancing Hitler never gets old
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2329/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Total number of kids: 0 |
Total number of drunk people my age: 3 Total number of drunk people in my house: 2 (no, I wasn't one of them) Total number of stoned people: 0 Total number of sexually active people: 5 Total number of virgins: 6 Total number of people at the computer: 1 (me) Total number of people doing other things in other rooms while using my house: 13 Total number of pieces of candy I have sitting in my room: 100+ (edited by Kefka on 11-01-04 12:34 AM) (edited by Kefka on 11-01-04 12:34 AM)
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2330/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Well, first off, here's something you should know about California prior to doing this little survey/"debate"... |
California currently holds a "three strike system" for criminals. If a person commits any felony (aka crime), is released from jail, and commits any other felony, regardless of what it is, and whether it is a more serious crime or a less serious one, the jail sentence will then be longer than the first crime... and if a third felony is done (again, its severity holds no relevance), it is a life sentence. Proposition 66 suggests... well, I will give you all the info on it from a non-biased source... (smartvoter.org) Should the "Three Strikes" law be limited to violent and/or serious felonies? Permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children. Summary Prepared by Attorney General : -Amends "Three Strikes" law to require increased sentences only when current conviction is for specified violent and/or serious felony. -Redefines violent and serious felonies. Only prior convictions for specified violent and/or serious felonies, brought and tried separately, would qualify for second and third "strike" sentence increases. -Allows conditional re-sentencing of persons with sentences increased under "Three Strikes" law if previous sentencing offenses, resulting in the currently charged felony/felonies, would no longer qualify as violent and/or serious felonies. -Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children. Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst: Over the long run, net state savings of up to several hundred million dollars annually, primarily to the prison system; local jail and court-related costs of potentially more than ten million dollars annually. Meaning of Voting Yes/No A YES vote of this measure means: The current "Three Strikes" sentencing law would be amended to require that a second and third strike offense be a serious or violent felony, instead of any felony, in order for the longer sentences required under Three Strikes to apply. The state would be required to resentence "third strikers" whose third strike was nonviolent and nonserious. In addition, prison sentences for specified sex offenses against children would be lengthened. A NO vote of this measure means: Current sentencing law would remain in effect, requiring offenders with one or more prior convictions for serious or violent felonies to receive longer sentences for the conviction of any new felony (not just a serious or violent felony). In addition, prison sentences for certain sex offenses against children would remain unchanged. Official Sources of Information Official WWW Site Full Text (pdf) Impartial Analysis [MY NOTE: if there is such a thing (edited by Kefka on 11-01-04 11:32 PM)
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2331/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Originally posted by Rebecca Daise Yea, that mindless ranting tag was very, very necessary. Couple things I'd like to point out: "It's NOT proganda, it's NOT hype, Bush is a VERY bad man." That's just false. I don't like Bush either, but to say that Michael Moore's material is not propaganda is to be shitting yourself. Another thing I find weird about what you say is: "This country is being ran off of fear, capitalism and a very conceited man." Bush wants us to have a fear of terrorists coming to this country so that we can actually feel protected under him. And... as for capitalism... sorry to break it to ya, but no matter who you vote for (even for the third party candidates) in America, you are voting for capitalism, because there is no way in hell that any president will have any shot at changing that system, even if they want to. And, as for saying he's conceited, glad you know that, but pretty much every major politician has some ego problems, and this leads to having some conceit (and if that's not a word yet, then I shall make it one shortly). Granted, Kerry may be less conceited than Bush, but it's a pretty safe better that both hold conceit. "Seeing Iraqi children with arms blown open. Watching Bush feed this bullshit to us, it horribly irritates me. It's not right. IT'S WRONG. Iraq had no threat to us. They didn't kill one American citizen, EVER. They made no threats on us. They never made an attack on us" While all this may be true, it doesn't matter who you vote for as prez: they are pretty much going to be handling Iraq the same way, because we are in a fucking mess there now, and there aren't too many options. Granted, Bush and co. are the ones who got us into the mess, but now that we are there, choice of action is limited. "I hope Bush rots in hell..." Glad to know I am dealing with a very vengeful person. I wait in fear for your response to my post. -------------- Oh, and on all that other stuff said later: 1) Yes, you do have to possess money and power to be a major politician. But that isn't just in America. That's anywhere... if you want to have significant power in a country, you need some Benjies to help you out most of the time. 2) Those dudes ARE living! They just can't think or do jack shit, and can't really feel much either. So are they human? Well, we could argue on this for centuries, but we all know that the abortion arguments are clich
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2332/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Well, as long as they don't kill a living kid in the 9th month, or in the near, near stages of birth, then it should be ok to have an abortion. But don't kill the kid when the kid has already become a kid (I do not kid). |
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2333/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
As a sidenote, that John Bunyard dude looks like a fucktard |
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2334/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Bush: 367 |
Kerry: 171 That will be the final result  Sadly
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2335/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
To anyone talking about a draft: |
STFU ABOUT THE DRAFT Even if Bush wanted to impose a draft, he would have to get the proposal past Congress. And 60% of both places would have to vote in favor of it. It wouldn't have to go to the states, because it is not a constitutional amendment, but nonetheless, do you honestly think that 60% of Congress would pass a draft if it was not an absolute neccessity? And if it WAS an absolute necessity, Bush could just impose it himself, like FDR declared war without Congress's approval. However, a draft will not be necessary. So shut up about it. EDIT: On a different note, I too believe that the situtation in Iraq reeks of White Man's Burden (we imposing a culture on them "for the good of their country..." because it is our responsibility to do so, being the "superior culture")... also, our conflicts with the Middle East, which have been expanding, has led to a McCarthyism-like happening on the homefront with people who are Muslim and people who are from Middle Eastern decent. There are several civil rights battles/issues we have now because of this and because of the anti-gay stands that Bush takes. Basically, Bush saying "I'm a uniter, not a divider" in 2000 was a lie then and remains to be now. EDIT2: Canada's in a mess right now too, by the way. Also, if you think that the results from Bush being the worst environmental president in our history made America look bad environmentally... well... let's just say parts of Canada have it 10x worse (*cough*BRITISH COLOMBIA*cough*) (edited by Kefka on 11-03-04 09:43 PM) (edited by Kefka on 11-03-04 09:45 PM)
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2336/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Oh, how convenient! I can just use my own quote from that other topic! |
Originally posted by Kefka
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2337/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Originally posted by Rebecca Daise For the first one, ever since America was founded. For the second one, ever since the banking system started getting bounced checks. For the third one, ever since video tapes were in existence. EDIT: BAD NEWS! Proposition 66 did not pass  It lost the vote, 46.6% to 53.4% So, the three strikes law stays the same in Cali... it's all because of those ridiculously misleading ads EDIT2: OTHER NEWS! (but not on Prop 66) Proposition 1A: Local Gov't Revenues YES (83.6%) Proposition 59: Public Records YES (83.1%) Proposition 60: Party Rights YES (67.3%) Proposition 60A: Surplus Property YES (72.8%) Proposition 61: Hospital Grants YES (58.1%) Proposition 62: Open Primary NO (54.3%) Prop 63: Mental Health Services YES (53.4%) Prop 64: Business Laws YES (58.9%) Prop 65: Local Government Funds NO (62.5%) Prop 66: 3 Strikes Amendment NO (53.4%) Prop 67: Medical Services Funds NO (72.0%) Prop 68: Gambling Expansion NO (83.7%) Prop 69: DNA Samples YES (61.8%) Prop 70: Tribal Gaming NO (76.1%) Prop 71: Stem Cell Research NO (91.2%) Heh, just kidding on that one YES (59.1%) Prop 72: Health Care Coverage NO (50.9%) <---damn, oh so close to getting it passed! That's my state for ya It's pretty whack, eh? We add so many new laws every year!(edited by Kefka on 11-03-04 09:53 PM) (edited by Kefka on 11-03-04 10:05 PM) (edited by Colleen on 11-03-04 11:21 PM)
Kefka |
Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2338/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours
|
Originally posted by ZiffskiOriginally posted by Kefka I thought that BC had some very serious mining and logging issues | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Kefka |
