As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

My marshmallow Americans, I have harglebargle [POLITICS]

15658606162

Posts

  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I believe in social capitalism. Free market with strong ethical limitations.

    Well thats something i also agree with.

    Though i think there should be robust legal limitations to.

    And some industries are too important to be left to private corporations.

    Karl on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    But what about the moon? Taxpayer dollars paid for the first landing there. And good luck getting anyone to recognize our dominion over the moon.

    MKR on
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    Quoth on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    How is making money off other people's backs a bad thing? I mean it's the what every working economic system ever is build upon.

    I mean, I got a bunch of resources, but alone I am not capable of doing all the labor with it, so I pay a lot of people to do the labor for me.

    I of course pay them less for the labor than I do earn with said labor so that I increase my resources and have my company grow.

    this begs so many questions

    precedent does not equal ethical soundness

    where did you get the resources

    why should they get paid less when they are doing the work that helps the company grow

    why should you get paid more when you are not doing the same amount of work

    Scarcity of resources and best allocation of skill. They get paid less because there are more people able to do that job. You get paid more because there are less people that can do what you can. Maybe the resource you bring to the table is Capital, and that has it's own value in the economy.

    but again, how did you acquire the capital... is it reasonable that someone who essentially managed to stick a flag in the ground first should get to keep said ground

    if i go to the grocery store and lick a cookie does it become mine

    Ownership comes from the ability to protect an asset.

    so if i lick the cookie and run away with it and the cops don't catch me then it's mine

    Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)

    Jigrah on
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    Quoth on
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    there comes a point where if people can't tell if you are trolling or if you are really just an odious human being

    maybe

    you are an odious human being

    like if you honestly can't tell if a person is racist or is just saying racist things to outrage people and get attention

    it sorta becomes irrelevant

    even if they aren't actually racist

    they're still an asshole

    you're probably right, Pony

    Doobh on
    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    Jigrah on
  • ArtreusArtreus I'm a wizard And that looks fucked upRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    Then the government will use guns to take it away from you. That is kind of how it works.

    Although in today's world it is getting harder to get away with taking land away from other people with guns.

    Artreus on
    http://atlanticus.tumblr.com/ PSN: Atlanticus 3DS: 1590-4692-3954 Steam: Artreus
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    you didn't answer any of the questions!

    oh, but I did. labor is a recourse that got a price, just like any else. so they get paid less because that is what we agreed upon.

    I get paid more because I own the resources thanks to my power to claim them and so get to decide who gets to offer me the labor and who doesn't. if a person refuses to work for the payment I offer I will find someone else who does.

    I got the resources from the previous owner. who got them from the one before him. a chain thta goes back till the first person who first claimed those resources.

    Run Run Run on
    kissing.jpg
  • ArtreusArtreus I'm a wizard And that looks fucked upRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    So how about that Friedrich List?

    Artreus on
    http://atlanticus.tumblr.com/ PSN: Atlanticus 3DS: 1590-4692-3954 Steam: Artreus
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right

    Quoth on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?

    Jigrah on
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Artreus wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    Then the government will use guns to take it away from you. That is kind of how it works.

    Although in today's world it is getting harder to get away with taking land away from other people with guns.

    this actually cheered me up a bit, thinking about it

    Doobh on
    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • lostwordslostwords Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    But are babbies considered assets to protect?

    lostwords on
    rat.jpg tumbler? steam/ps3 thingie: lostwords Amazon Wishlist!
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?

    i said i went to a grocery store and licked a cookie and ran away with it and you said therefore it was mine

    i stole a cookie but because i didn't get caught it's ok to you

    you said
    Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)

    Quoth on
  • UsagiUsagi Nah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)

    Usagi on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right

    You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.

    In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.

    Jigrah on
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)

    of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance

    doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government



    ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead

    Quoth on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?

    i said i went to a grocery store and licked a cookie and ran away with it and you said therefore it was mine

    i stole a cookie but because i didn't get caught it's ok to you

    you said
    Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)

    I didn't say that it was okay with me I said that at the point you had ownership because now you could protect the asset.

    Jigrah on
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right

    You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.

    In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.

    But Jigrah, government authority runs from the fact that the state has the guns

    violaters are punished, etc. etc.

    Doobh on
    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?

    i said i went to a grocery store and licked a cookie and ran away with it and you said therefore it was mine

    i stole a cookie but because i didn't get caught it's ok to you

    you said
    Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)

    I didn't say that it was okay with me I said that at the point you had ownership because now you could protect the asset.

    so you don't think it's okay but you do think it creates ownership

    seriously

    Quoth on
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, those were barbaric times. nowadays you and me luckily live in civilized nations where the state protects our property rights.

    if you don't agree with the government ... well tough shit. I agree that every form of government is in a way a form of dictatorship, but a necessary one for a peaceful human society to function. at least on a large scale.

    The government protects my right to own the factory. But it also does, or at least should, protect me from being exploited, or at least unbearably exploited, by setting minimum wages and regulations for sound work conditions, and protecting me from discrimination, so that the factory owner only gets to refuse my offered labor due to my level of skill and not my skin color for example.

    Run Run Run on
    kissing.jpg
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Dubh wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right

    You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.

    In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.

    But Jigrah, government authority runs from the fact that the state has the guns

    violaters are punished, etc. etc.

    I agree that government authority comes from the fact that it has the guns. The same powers that give it the guns also empowers it's citizens in ways that do not require violence.

    Jigrah on
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    I basically believe what mine is mine, but I only get to fuck over other people with it to a certain degree.

    Run Run Run on
    kissing.jpg
  • UsagiUsagi Nah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)

    of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance

    doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government



    ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead

    I understand your frustration and I mostly agree that it's a terrible and deliberately shady use of a law that has probably outlived it's useful life, but the fallout from Kelo is hopeful, the very public backlash has caused several states to put up bills limiting or eliminating the use of eminent domain for economic growth.

    Usagi on
  • ArtreusArtreus I'm a wizard And that looks fucked upRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)

    of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance

    doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government



    ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead

    It is seriously the way the world has worked for a long, long time. Nation-states take the land and own it. That is why the hunter-gatherer societies aren't around anymore. We pushed them out.

    Sure the way we did it was really, really shitty, but that is over now. I think discussing it is a moot point because we are not going back to a point where nobody "owns land, man" because somebody else will use their guns to take it.

    Artreus on
    http://atlanticus.tumblr.com/ PSN: Atlanticus 3DS: 1590-4692-3954 Steam: Artreus
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)

    of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance

    doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government



    ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead

    I understand your frustration and I mostly agree that it's a terrible and deliberately shady use of a law that has probably outlived it's useful life, but the fallout from Kelo is hopeful, the very public backlash has caused several states to put up bills limiting or eliminating the use of eminent domain for economic growth.

    usagi i was playing the devil's advocate and now i am stopping

    i have no frustration

    i like owning my house and would not appreciate the seminole indian tribe trying to take it back from me

    Quoth on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    itt jigrah supports theft if you can get away with it

    you heard it here first folks

    I said ownership is the ability to protect something. How the fuck do you run with that and say I support theft?

    i said i went to a grocery store and licked a cookie and ran away with it and you said therefore it was mine

    i stole a cookie but because i didn't get caught it's ok to you

    you said
    Yes, at that point you can do whatever you want with it (making the assumption that police were the last line of protection)

    I didn't say that it was okay with me I said that at the point you had ownership because now you could protect the asset.

    so you don't think it's okay but you do think it creates ownership

    seriously

    Well, please help me out then, how do you define ownership? In a meaningful way that has realistic application. That is the only way I have been able to define it, and has been something I have thought about a lot.

    Jigrah on
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Dubh wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    You get proven wrong, usually with three hots and a cot.

    right or wrong they have the might, so right or wrong they're always right

    You get proven wrong that the government has that authority, it does.

    In some countries might is only available through acts of Violence, in the United States there are other resources.

    But Jigrah, government authority runs from the fact that the state has the guns

    violaters are punished, etc. etc.

    I agree that government authority comes from the fact that it has the guns. The same powers that give it the guns also empowers it's citizens in ways that do not require violence.

    bingo

    Government protects us and that's why we choose to live under the rule of government

    at least, that's one theory on why we deal with it

    Doobh on
    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Look, they should have fought harder, okay

    Grey Ghost on
  • UsagiUsagi Nah Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)

    of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance

    doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government



    ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead

    I understand your frustration and I mostly agree that it's a terrible and deliberately shady use of a law that has probably outlived it's useful life, but the fallout from Kelo is hopeful, the very public backlash has caused several states to put up bills limiting or eliminating the use of eminent domain for economic growth.

    usagi i was playing the devil's advocate and now i am stopping

    i have no frustration

    i like owning my house and would not appreciate the seminole indian tribe trying to take it back from me

    gotcha, no worries this is just something that fascinates me because it's a huge local issue

    Usagi on
  • ArtreusArtreus I'm a wizard And that looks fucked upRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Usagi wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Yes. That is reasonable. As I said, a person or organization that comes upon new ground first gets to claim it.

    As nowadays all ground and all resources worldwide belonging to someone the only, legal, way to acquire them is to purchase them of the owner.

    the ground isn't new, it was always there and a bunch of people lived on it and got it taken away from them

    it only belongs to someone now because the government says it does

    what if i don't think the government has the authority to do that

    well, you can take it to the Surpreme Court but the track record of overturning eminent domain is a bit dodgy (see Kelo v. New London)

    of course the government has a vested interest in perpetuating that kind of malfeasance

    doesn't make it ethically right or a proper basis for government



    ok seriously i am getting tired of being teefs, i'm done, don't touch my shit or you'll get a mouthful of hot lead

    I understand your frustration and I mostly agree that it's a terrible and deliberately shady use of a law that has probably outlived it's useful life, but the fallout from Kelo is hopeful, the very public backlash has caused several states to put up bills limiting or eliminating the use of eminent domain for economic growth.

    usagi i was playing the devil's advocate and now i am stopping

    i have no frustration

    i like owning my house and would not appreciate the seminole indian tribe trying to take it back from me

    Yeah even though you were arguing with idiots it was kind of a losing battle.

    Besides, didn't they fight amongst themselves all the time anyway?

    Artreus on
    http://atlanticus.tumblr.com/ PSN: Atlanticus 3DS: 1590-4692-3954 Steam: Artreus
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    i could probably keep going by my heart's not in it

    i am busy doing research for my novel

    what is scarier, a giant squid or lots of tiny aggressive squid

    Quoth on
  • Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Aren't the Seminole technically still at war with the US because they never surrendered or signed that treaty?

    I may be wrong, but if that's true it's pretty badass

    Grey Ghost on
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    I think tho that a more civilized people has the right to take away land and resources from a less civilized one if it furthers the development of the human race.

    What I am saying is that the North should kick out the Texans and take their oil.

    Run Run Run on
    kissing.jpg
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    Aren't the Seminole technically still at war with the US because they never surrendered or signed that treaty?

    I may be wrong, but if that's true it's pretty badass

    the hard rock casino in fort lauderdale says no

    Quoth on
  • ArtreusArtreus I'm a wizard And that looks fucked upRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    i could probably keep going by my heart's not in it

    i am busy doing research for my novel

    what is scarier, a giant squid or lots of tiny aggressive squid

    Lots of tiny squid.

    With the big one, at least you can go for its eye or something.

    Artreus on
    http://atlanticus.tumblr.com/ PSN: Atlanticus 3DS: 1590-4692-3954 Steam: Artreus
  • Mr. ButtonsMr. Buttons Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    i could probably keep going by my heart's not in it

    i am busy doing research for my novel

    what is scarier, a giant squid or lots of tiny aggressive squid

    lots of tiny aggressive squid.... working as a team

    Mr. Buttons on
  • Run Run RunRun Run Run __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Quoth wrote: »
    i could probably keep going by my heart's not in it

    i am busy doing research for my novel

    what is scarier, a giant squid or lots of tiny aggressive squid

    tiny squid. billions of tiny squid. A redish carpet upon the waves.

    Run Run Run on
    kissing.jpg
  • ArtreusArtreus I'm a wizard And that looks fucked upRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I think tho that a more civilized people has the right to take away land and resources from a less civilized one if it furthers the development of the human race.

    What I am saying is that the North should kick out the Texans and take their oil.

    I don't think that this is right so much as it is inevitable.

    Hence the whole nation-states eating the hunter-gathering societies.

    Artreus on
    http://atlanticus.tumblr.com/ PSN: Atlanticus 3DS: 1590-4692-3954 Steam: Artreus
This discussion has been closed.