In your judgement, a normal person abandons their faith/philosophy when faced with death? Fascinating.

In your judgement, Sharia is the first example that comes to mind when you think of Atheist law? Fascinating.

Einstein,

It's a shame that we trade with these people at all. Unfortunately there's no societal will to condemn slavery when it offers cheap products.

I saw idiot on the news the other day say "they're called assault weapons for a reason."

This is categorically false. There is no definition for assault weapons, let alone a standardized one. It's certainly not the definition of "assault" classically used in describing "assault rifles," as the vast majority of weapons they describe share neither the power (round size/powder volume/velocity) nor automatic fire capability of assault rifles. Those firearms which fit the classic "assault rifle" definition already require special permits.

They describe anything other than a flintlock as an "assault weapon," and by doing this they seek outright gun bans while claiming to oppose only "assault" weapons.

Yet nations which pass gun control laws find that violent crime increases. Gun control on a federal level is obviously ineffective as well!

I started collecting links to cite as evidence, but everyone here [who disagrees with anything I say] is consistently too lazy to read them or respond anyway. There are multitudes of studies showing what I just said--in nations all over the globe. The only attempts to claim any measure of success measure only "gun" crimes and ignore the weapons which are substituted for guns when they're more difficult to get.

The "child" shootings are so high because they include anyone under 19, which includes many gangbangers. They're not white, so Obama and democrats don't care. And they use illegel guns anyway, so it'd only hurt tyrants' gun control cause if it was pointed out that they deliberately don't enforce nearly any gun laws on the books (there are many) in order to facilitate more crimes committed with guns (in order to fuel their disarm-the-people strategy to further tyranny).

The problem there is cultural, so lawmakers ignore it; it highlights the limitations of government power, and worse yet the damage done by generations living on welfare in Democrat-dominated neighborhoods where education is as horrible as the culture (drug problems, crime problems, 80%+ illegitimacy rate).

Obama stated that he wanted a national security force as well equipped as the military.

Nobody was shocked. Nobody asked what for--seriously, that doesn't beg the simple question of "why?". Bunch of ignorant wastes of life.

It was mostly homeless people taking free food and looking for more handouts. And the proud third-generation-jobless-welfare-recipients taking free food and looking for more handouts. And college students taking free food and looking for handouts.

They had no rational ideological platform. They were blaming banks for the corruption of the same government which they continually vote for. It was an embarrassingly ignorant display of selfishness and self-righteousness. While I certainly don't excuse banks as being innocent (and I go on about this at length frequently), the fact is that it was these same fools protesting the banks who elected the corrupt government officials who gave the banks tons of taxpayer dollars and encouraged (and sometimes demanded by law) poor business practices and bubbles via legislation and the fed.

Bubbles are great when you have taxpayer money to blow and borrowing is artificially cheap. If you get out in time you make a killing. If not, the taxpayer pays, not you. Why not ride bubbles? The "why not" is missing when taxpayers don't bail out banks and the Fed doesn't make borrowing artificially cheap.

Nobody at OWS has any idea what I just said. That government clearly and undeniably facilitated the crash and continues to incentivize bad/risky/costly behavior is completely lost on them. They know nothing about what they supposedly protest. They just know some banker stole millions of dollars of theirs which they somehow are owed, don't ask them how or why.

And all the while, they voted for and continue to vote for the corrupt lawmakers who made all the bad policy which resulted in what they claim to protest. All the while, they continue to empower those who would enslave them more completely in the name of escaping exploitation.

As The Yell points out, that these people were allowed to break all kinds of laws which no other organization would ever have gotten away with is just more evidence in favor of my position. Of course they're allowed to violate laws and damage property: They're seeking to empower those already in power. Leaving them be to trash city blocks is worth the damage if it's voices calling for more government power.

They're calling for more government-run universities and complete government control of funding/tuition. They're calling for government wage controls to ensure that the unproductive get more than their work is worth and owners/managers don't get extra for their skills/performance. They're calling for nationalization of banks. Of course they're hypocritically allowed to break laws by government officials in power: They're calling for more power to those government officials. The law can be ignored when the law-breakers are in support of those in power!

What I find hilarious and pathetic is that they're seeking to empower the same lawmakers/banksters who use the Fed to continually rob them of their earnings. But that's just the biggest theft in the history of mankind. They just ignore it--It's complicated and lawmakers/banksters say it's totally untrue and that they're all warm-hearted and responsible Santa Clauses who would never do such things.

It's easier to not learn and just demand free stuff, so it's what most people do. Most people can be trained with treats better than any dog. Forget the fact that everyone in power in the history of mankind has corruply sought more. That's, again, complicated and hard stuff! Learning and thinking ohnoes!

Haha so if your option is shoot someone or let them rape your wife and daughter, you'd let them rape your wife and daughter. Outstanding human being! I approve!

Einstein,

Everything you listed is unhealthy.

As I pointed out and Acolyte has repeated, the bacterium are not the problem but a symptom of it. Fixing diet eliminated the bacterium as far as they could tell.

You obviously don't take your health seriously. Are you seriously suggesting you can't help your weight when you've never even tried the proven science of nutrition and not eating unhealthy crap in large quantities to the exclusion of everything else?

What does how much you ate when you burned far more calories than you do now have to do with the appropriateness of those same portions now?

Because you burned 5000 calories/day when you ate 5000/day, now that you burn 500/day and continue to eat 5000/day, clearly it's not your portions?

You can't be serious.

If it's because you're weak, yes. If it's because you don't sleep enough, maybe.

This stuff isn't rocket science.

"I don't like discussing things with you."

You've never discussed anything with me. By implying that you have, you make yourself a liar. You've never responded to the content of anything I've ever said.

If you were to make some sort of argument that the money the rich pay in taxes (which is the majority of taxes payed) is ultimately produced by and taxed from the working, I could certainly respect that sort of argument. But the fact is, you've literally never attempted to make any such argument. You're all hot air and insults. You insult me. You insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that I should give you credit for arguments that you've never made or even hinted you wish to make.

"Take any product: gas, housing - if it is subsidized, or if it is taxed, and if it is the same price for the rich as it is for the poor, it is, in effect, a disproportionate tax on the poor. "

That everyone generally needs food, shelter, heat, and a few other things to live does not equal these things being "taxes." Seriously, this is basic English language skills you're lacking here, and if you want to argue that needs are inherently "taxes" with some bizarre reasoning, you should at least argue that case before insulting anyone because they don't share whatever view it is--never explained here--that you hold.

Thanks for your second last post. I've been arguing against the Fed for years. It's the source of inflation of the US dollar. You never speak about it. Do you know anything about it? How can you champion the cause against banksters stealing from the middle class via inflation (then deflation) w/o even knowing what the fed is!?

"You naively lap the the notion that they are legitimate and function as they are supposed to, even when historical facts and even current events point to the contrary."

No, government has messed them up royally too. My point is that you are naively presume some quasi "independent" moral rating agencies would accomplish anything. How would they be independent? Wouldn't government have to create them, staff them, and give them power in order to accomplish anything?

What are you even talking about? You're extremely vague.

" They CAN'T think differently, because they are the same, and share the same moral values, which is what resulted in the systemic folly which was the financial crisis.  Their homogeneity resulted in consensus in folly, and they are still there. "

Government caused the crisis. You know nothing about the subject. The race or lifestyles of bankers didn't cause the crisis. Their hobbies didn't cause the crisis. Free markets didn't cause the crisis. Government did.

" And when you see how taxes are used to suit the interests of firstly the rich who claim to pay most of the taxes, rather than the poor and middle class who ACTUALLY pay MORE when all is considered...."

Care to back up or explain that statement in any way? Obviously not, because you can't, because it's a lie.

" you can see that it is the poor and middle class are the ones getting shafted BY the rich. "

I'm getting shafted by government. Why do you hate the successful so much? Life is not a zero-sum game. My buying a car doesn't hurt you. I didn't steal anything I have from you. Why all the vague hatred for the rich? We know who inflates our currency: government and private banks (via the fed, via government authority). Yet you vaguely ramble about "the rich" as if any action taken in regard to them effects the government/fed corruption which actually robs us.

"Taxes should be seen as a penalty to charge the rich for disproportionately profiteering off an inherently unjust civilization..."

Do you mean unjust because it's free or because it's not as free as it should be?

"and those taxes should be used to remedy the system to make it more equitable and to solve the systemic injustice rampant in it...."

Oh you mean it's unjust because it's too free, and people should share in the rewards of labor equally regardless of their contribution. That's an idea called communism, by the way. It's been thought of before. It results in horrible human rights abuses and people becoming far less productive, resulting in high prices, shortages, and horrible standards of living for all.

"and all I get for my contribution for a PLAIN AS DAY explanation for the root causes and a viable solution to remedy the situation is ridicule...."

You vaguely ranted that banks owe the public money and violate people's rights. I simply asked what you were alleging, specifically, because it was unrelated to the HSBC topic. You've now explained that they function in somewhat free markets and you hate that, but it still doesn't relate to HSBC. You were rambling about something unrelated to the government corruption which let HSBC get away with serious crimes.