Jump to content

Obama: The New George Bush


lord_casek

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Libertarian perspective is so hated around these parts. It's like the ideology offends so many people.

 

Taking care of YOURSELF, OMG!

 

I could post excerpts from books or some other articles explaining how Unions are bad to support the case. But we wouldn't be down with the "collective interest of the people". Whatever the fuck that means.

 

So many groups of people want so many different things it's basically impossible to please them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Platform

National Platform of the Libertarian Party

 

Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado

 

Preamble

 

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

 

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

 

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

 

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

 

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

 

Statement of Principles

 

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

 

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

 

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

 

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

 

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

 

1.0 Personal Liberty

 

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

 

1.1 Expression and Communication

 

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

 

1.2 Personal Privacy

 

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

 

1.3 Personal Relationships

 

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

 

1.4 Abortion

 

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

 

1.5 Crime and Justice

 

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

 

1.6 Self-Defense

 

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

 

2.0 Economic Liberty

 

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

 

 

2.1 Property and Contract

 

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

 

2.2 Environment

 

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

 

2.3 Energy and Resources

 

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

 

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

 

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

 

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

 

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.

 

 

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

 

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

 

2.7 Labor Markets

 

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

 

2.8 Education

 

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

 

 

2.9 Health Care

 

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

 

 

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

 

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

 

3.0 Securing Liberty

 

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

 

3.1 National Defense

 

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

 

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

 

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

 

3.3 International Affairs

 

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

 

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

 

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

 

 

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

 

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

 

3.6 Representative Government

 

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

 

 

3.7 Self-Determination

 

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

 

4.0 Omissions

 

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Libertarian perspective is so hated around these parts. It's like the ideology offends so many people.

 

Taking care of YOURSELF, OMG!

 

I can't speak for anybody else, but all my non-12oz experience with libertarians has been resoundingly negative. I've taken part in a few forums on urban development issues and there's always ONE GUY that has to steamroller over the discussion with his libertarian viewpoint and turn the whole discussion into a raging DAOfest.

 

I think this is because for a Libertarian, any discussion on any subject is ultimately going to come back to Libertarianism. Its a goal that you all are ultimately trying to move us towards, I can respect that. But when the spectrum of opinions in a discussion doesn't typically include Libertarianism, it makes the constant injection of it irritating.

 

thats my 2 cents anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can get annoying. I lean towards Libertarian views but I've seen and experienced a few things that have tempered that.

 

It would be nice if you could just, you know, figure out a way to get/make/build whatever you need in any setting...but unfortunately that's not the way things work anymore. Most of us are dependent on a service economy that charges top dollar and provides as little as it can get away with (and prides itself on that). If you're lucky and live in a rural area where you can get creative and grow/raise your food and barter for various other things you might need, that opens up your options somewhat. However, if you're a city dweller you're completely in thrall to the system and if things get tight your choices are pretty grim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for anybody else, but all my non-12oz experience with libertarians has been resoundingly negative. I've taken part in a few forums on urban development issues and there's always ONE GUY that has to steamroller over the discussion with his libertarian viewpoint and turn the whole discussion into a raging DAOfest.

 

I think this is because for a Libertarian, any discussion on any subject is ultimately going to come back to Libertarianism. Its a goal that you all are ultimately trying to move us towards, I can respect that. But when the spectrum of opinions in a discussion doesn't typically include Libertarianism, it makes the constant injection of it irritating.

 

thats my 2 cents anyhow.

 

libertarianism, simply put is an ideology that answers one question... who should be put in jail/punished?

that is the basis of the functions of a 'minarchist' state.

 

its pretty irritating to the 'libertarian' to constantly hear only the alternative of the republicrats and demopublicans discussing who they will be taxing more this year, who they will be sending to war in what country this month, and what aspects of our lives they will be demolishing through their stupid ass regulations and mala prohibita laws. (libertarians favor laws that only punish mala in se)

 

i think there should be a libertarian in every debate about political plunder.

why not?

sure its off the wall to most republicans and democrats... instead of arguing over whether the top tax rate should be 35% or 37.5% the libertarian will say...'why have taxes at all?'

instead of arguing over prayer in public school, the libertarian would say...'why have public schools.'

 

if you cant answer the libertarian... then how can you defend the things you hold dear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are libertarians liberal or conservative?

 

You have a better choice than just left or right. The libertarian way

gives you more choices, in politics, in business, your personal life,

in every way. Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and

economic liberty. Today's liberals like personal liberty but want

government to control your economic affairs. Conservatives reverse

that, advocating more economic freedom but wanting to clamp down on

your private life.

 

Libertarian positions on the issues are not "left" or "right" or a

combination of the two. Libertarians believe that, on every issue, you

have the right to decide for yourself what's best for you and to act

on that belief so long as you respect the right of other people to do

the same and deal with them peacefully and honestly.

 

Today's liberals and conservatives have rejected America's heritage of

liberty and personal responsibility. They want to put us all in their

straitjacket. Americans built a great country without shackles. It's

time to take them off again. Break free of the useless left right

spectrum. Think freedom on all issues. Think libertarian. [2]

 

[2] Bergland, David, "America's Libertarian Heritage: The Politics of

Freedom," Orpheus Publications, 1773 Bahama Place, Costa Mesa, CA

92626, (714)751-8980, 1991.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

libertarianism, simply put is an ideology that answers one question... who should be put in jail/punished?

that is the basis of the functions of a 'minarchist' state.

 

its pretty irritating to the 'libertarian' to constantly hear only the alternative of the republicrats and demopublicans discussing who they will be taxing more this year, who they will be sending to war in what country this month, and what aspects of our lives they will be demolishing through their stupid ass regulations and mala prohibita laws. (libertarians favor laws that only punish mala in se)

 

i think there should be a libertarian in every debate about political plunder.

why not?

sure its off the wall to most republicans and democrats... instead of arguing over whether the top tax rate should be 35% or 37.5% the libertarian will say...'why have taxes at all?'

instead of arguing over prayer in public school, the libertarian would say...'why have public schools.'

 

if you cant answer the libertarian... then how can you defend the things you hold dear?

 

I think the Libetarian view is a very good view point, I think it is important that we have freedom of choice and not be tied into traditional left or right philosophies.

 

However, from a running of a country point of view I am not sure how it would work. the whole 'why have public schools' part kind of attracted me to respond. We need public schools, some people cannot afford to pay for education and their children need as much of a chance in life as people that can afford it. If people want to teach their children religious dogma then yes they should go to a private religious school. Public schooling should solely be based around facts and subjects like Math, Language, Science and the Arts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

being attracted to the 'libertarian' view point (i keep putting libertarian in quotes because im trying to show that there is a difference between the libertarian party and the libertarian philosophy) but not believing in its basic tenant, voluntary associations, is like me saying....'well you know, i think communism is a great idea, we need to abolish classes and all that, but you know, i just cant give up the idea of private property.'

 

it just doesnt work out.

you either believe in freedom and voluntarism or you dont.

these days we have people from bill maher to dennis miller to glenn beck to sean hannity trying to claim the 'libertarian' title. its about as useless a label as 'conservative' or 'liberal.' if you were a 'liberal' in 1900 you were basically a libertarian. if you were a conservative in 1950 you were basically what a liberal was in 1900. if you are a conservative today, you are basically what a liberal was in 1960. if you are a liberal in 2009 you are basically a full blown socialist.

 

as for public schools, if you take what we were sold... the fact that we must confiscate money (property) from everyone to pay for the parents who have children to go to school... because education has positive externalities like low crime rate among the educated, better paying jobs, etc. and that children will actually be educated and smart... the argument fails on all accounts.

 

we have to constantly keep lowering the 'standards' for it to even remotely look like children are learning anything.

 

we had to educate the children in order for them to stay out of trouble and to grow up in a crime free society, yet they didnt tell us that the majority of the crimes would take place IN the government schools!

 

the US govt gives out student loans and pell grants which drive the cost of college through the roof so our children can go to a university to party for 4 years, get out and do into a line of work they didnt even study in school. we arent supposed to teach 'religion' but the religion of environmentalism, marxism and statism is taught throughout the entire schooling system.

 

to address your last statement... that schooling should only address math and sciences and not religion... i must ask why? if you are stealing money from someone under penalty of law for non payment, why cant a religious person have a voice in how his money is spent??

this brings in the actual issue... taking the money from someone to pay for something they dont believe in. how would you feel if our great rulers decided that we must teach religion in school and all atheists must cough up the dough to pay for it? its not unlikely, during the progressive era in the US, morality was a big issue. this was the basis for national alcohol prohibition.

 

so this begs the question, if our children arent getting educated, if they are engaged in more crime than before, if we are arguing over what schools should teach, why not make them all voluntary?

do you also believe we should jail kids and their parents if they dont want to send their kids to any school at all?

lets face the facts... the kids of yesteryear who went to school for half the time that kids do these days, say in the 'greatest generation'...and grew up to be a better generation than what is being produced today.

 

even in the 19th century when de tocqueville toured the US before socialized schooling came into play... he noted americans were the most well educated of any people he had ever encountered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife actually spent some time being educated in an American High School and from everything she has told me American public schooling is nowhere near as good, public schooling is pretty pathetic and if you want a decent education you need to go private, so I can certainly see your point about why should you have to pay for something that is so obviously sub-par.

 

In the UK public schooling is, generally, of a good standard with a good curriculum, ok they do have schools that under perform but rather than being left to rot they are given help and you do see the schools turn around and start to perform.

 

I have no problem with children being home schooled, however there should be some kind of checking system to see what is being taught to them, it would be ridiculous for a parent to teach their child that the Germans won the second world war for instance. A parent doesn't have the right to refuse their child an education, that is like neglecting the child and almost abuse of that child's rights because they are ruining their life to not allow an education. But then the question arises as to who should check what is being taught, and to that I don't have an answer.

 

I have no problem with religion benig taught as a subject, but that is what it should be taught as, theory, like science is taught based upon scientific theory, it shouldn't be taught as the fact because there is no proof or evidence to suggest it is fact. But that only goes for public schools, if you want to teach your child religious dogma then sure send them to a private religious school where they can get taught this stuff as fact and hide the findings of science from them, but you would need to fund that themselves.

 

I don't understand the comment about crime in government run schools, there is more crime here in general society than in schools, by a huge majority!!

 

As for my interest in the 'libertarian' view, I say that because I don't believe that the left or the right have the answer and it should be up to you to decide for yourself what you think is correct, so many political parties have strayed from their original right or left leanings because neither works which is why most political parties just argue over petty differences and are all centre with leanings to the left or right.

 

As for parents being jailed over not making kids go to school, that is a thorny subject, a parent can be sending their child off to school everyday and that child could then be playing truant and not attending, is the parent supposed to hold the hands of that child all day in school? So no I don't agree with parents being sent to jail over that, however a parent who refuses to allow their child an education (either home schooled or at private/public school) then that issue needs to be addressed, not by jail though but again I wouldn't know the best way to approach this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with children being home schooled, however there should be some kind of checking system to see what is being taught to them, it would be ridiculous for a parent to teach their child that the Germans won the second world war for instance. A parent doesn't have the right to refuse their child an education, that is like neglecting the child and almost abuse of that child's rights because they are ruining their life to not allow an education. But then the question arises as to who should check what is being taught, and to that I don't have an answer.

 

i see what you are saying here.... but what happens to the public schools that teach garbage? they get more money to continue their garbage. i could go into a myriad of cases where schools teach things that are either false, half truths or total distortions, but... its sort of off topic.

point being... govt schools teach stupid and untrue things as well.

 

I have no problem with religion benig taught as a subject, but that is what it should be taught as, theory, like science is taught based upon scientific theory, it shouldn't be taught as the fact because there is no proof or evidence to suggest it is fact. But that only goes for public schools, if you want to teach your child religious dogma then sure send them to a private religious school where they can get taught this stuff as fact and hide the findings of science from them, but you would need to fund that themselves.

 

alright. i'd concede on this point, IF you allow the person who wants to send their kids to a non govt school to not pay taxes to fund the public school. which basically settles the issue. let people who want to send their kids to private schools, send them there, but you cant force them to pay for public schools like they do now. which will lead the govt school advocates to come back with, but, but, but, if we do this, then all the people who dont have any money wont be able to contribute to the public schools via taxes and there will be no education system because the rich are greedy, etc.

 

 

I don't understand the comment about crime in government run schools, there is more crime here in general society than in schools, by a huge majority!!

 

it was more or less a joke but has a strong dose of the truth in it.

when i attended my govt youth propaganda camp they were much more 'free' than they are now. now kids have to go through metal detectors, get searched every day, there is 10 times more drugs, etc etc. schools are much worse now than even when i was last in then 10 years ago.

 

As for my interest in the 'libertarian' view, I say that because I don't believe that the left or the right have the answer and it should be up to you to decide for yourself what you think is correct, so many political parties have strayed from their original right or left leanings because neither works which is why most political parties just argue over petty differences and are all centre with leanings to the left or right.

 

for the record, 'libertarian' isnt synonymous with just 'independent.'

to legitimately claim this label you must believe in the non aggression axiom. that is... keep your hands to yourself unless in self defense. this applies to all areas of life, including politics. simply put... do not initiate violence. most people can agree with this on the face. but when you start applying it to taxation for example is when people start getting hysterical. the non aggression axiom is violated if you elect a government to take away your property in the same way if someone steals it. there for taxation is unjust unless you consent to it, which is more or less a market transaction.

 

As for parents being jailed over not making kids go to school, that is a thorny subject, a parent can be sending their child off to school everyday and that child could then be playing truant and not attending, is the parent supposed to hold the hands of that child all day in school? So no I don't agree with parents being sent to jail over that, however a parent who refuses to allow their child an education (either home schooled or at private/public school) then that issue needs to be addressed, not by jail though but again I wouldn't know the best way to approach this.

 

well... the 'libertarian' would argue that, yes everyone has a right to an education, but there is no such thing as the positive right to have an education paid for your child by your neighbor. this violates the non aggression principle. you cannot steal your neighbors money to pay for your child's schooling.

 

compulsory schooling or put another way... the government claims the right to throw you in jail if your kid doesnt get a certain amount of schooling in also a violation of the non aggression principle.

what if the child learns more at home not in any formal 'schooling?' given that govt schooling is no good to begin with, why throw the parents in jail if they dont go to school.... you are violating the kids supposed positive 'right' to a good education in many cases by the simple fact of kidnapping someone's child and sending them to a propaganda camp.

 

but this is viewed as OK because society as a whole says its ok to kidnap kids and force them into a school for 6 hours a day because its for their 'own good.' yet the results are still horrific.

 

i think there is hope for you yet decyferon... just the mere fact that you are thinking of another alternative to all this than simply throwing someone in jail who doesnt live a certain way is a good start on your way down the road of freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print

 

This is pretty crazy, it doesn't really make for exciting reading (unless you're a policy/economics junkie) but it's a good rundown of what's going wrong right now.

 

Business as usual. The message I took away from this was that it's less about whether you're liberal or conservative at this point, it's more important to be to be objective and aware about what's going on at the top tier of US policy so you can realize how dire the situation really is.

 

BTW, this guy is a very left leaning writer but I think he calls it well enough across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what is going on in this thread but....I couldnt find a place for this.....

 

1000-saks.jpg

 

 

and to pay for the penalty I deliver the perfect rack....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wine rack

thebuzz.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ahaha ok ok...

4064_2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print

 

This is pretty crazy, it doesn't really make for exciting reading (unless you're a policy/economics junkie) but it's a good rundown of what's going wrong right now.

 

Business as usual. The message I took away from this was that it's less about whether you're liberal or conservative at this point, it's more important to be to be objective and aware about what's going on at the top tier of US policy so you can realize how dire the situation really is.

 

BTW, this guy is a very left leaning writer but I think he calls it well enough across the board.

 

Wow this is an amazing article. Well worth the read. It really seems as if Obama ran a campaign that was effective in gaining a lot of support from liberals, but his administration and policies reflect a completely different agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 2001, the United States has spent $39 billion on reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, including work on roads, bridges, dams and power plants. Most of the work is done by large international corporations which, in turn, contract with other international and even local companies.

 

DAMN THAT IS SOME FUCKED UP SHIT!!! ALL THAT MONEY GOING TO SOME OTHER FUCKING COUNTRY! WE DON"T EVEN HAVE ANY MONEY! THIS IS MORE THAN A LOT OF STATES ANNUAL BUDGET! FUCKING IMPERIALISM AT ITS FINEST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

OBITUARY

 

Born 1776, Died 2008

 

 

 

It does not hurt to read this several times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:

 

 

* Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29

* Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000

 

Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million

 

McCain: 143 million

 

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

 

Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

 

 

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

 

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

 

 

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

 

 

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

 

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

 

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...