angelofdeath Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 currently, the US has 4 times the prison population (imprisoned, on parole and probation ) of the peak gulag population in 1953 of stalinist russia for both common criminals and political prisoners. and the majority in federal prison are non violent offenders. and the US nothing but the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gutterball Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I am not ignoring anything, I think you are the one that does not see that the society you and I live in are a form of slavery, the fact that my travel is restricted, that I am subject to search, I can not start a business with out permits/laws/regulations, I can not choose not to pay taxes, etc etc is in fact a form a slavery...I know the shackles are not tightened...but I am sorry sir this is a form of slavery. Like I said, Try to resist, you will be met with a gun. Sounds like slavery to me. I do not need to be a world traveler to know these things. Sorry I was not blessed with the money to travel out side this nation. Maybe if i was not forced to pay state union salaries I could, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I am not ignoring anything, I think you are the one that does not see that the society you and I live in are a form of slavery, the fact that my travel is restricted, that I am subject to search, I can not start a business with out permits/laws/regulations, I can not choose not to pay taxes, etc etc is in fact a form a slavery...I know the shackles are not tightened...but I am sorry sir this is a form of slavery. Like I said, Try to resist, you will be met with a gun. Sounds like slavery to me. I do not need to be a world traveler to know these things. Sorry I was not blessed with the money to travel out side this nation. Maybe if i was not forced to pay state union salaries I could, Gutterball, did you consider your parents "slaveholders"? You should under your assertions. Either that or your an anarchists who does not want any structure to society. BTW, you do not know the meaning of slavery if you think you can compare it to permits/laws/regulation, which are totally different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 the parents analogy doesnt hold, as 'kids' do not share the same 'rights' as adults. the question of at which age they do share full adult rights is up for debate, and there is no use in having it here. and then there is that whole issue of, oh, say, the parents had to voluntarily contract to create a kid in the first place and the kid is incapable of acting on their natural rights until a given age. allow me to take the position of a free market anarchist for a second. it is not that they dont want any 'structure' to society, they just dont want the structure to come from a coercive institution that has control over a populace. an institution with a monopoly on force that citizens never consented to. they favor PLENTY of structure. property owners regulate their own property. private law and rules are everywhere. disney world has to keep its streets safe or they lose money. the shopping mall security keep the peace and catch shop lifters. owners of private domiciles restrict entry to their homes as they see fit. they can set whatever rules they want. did it occur to you that nearly every nation on the face of the earth is in a state of anarchy with each other? the difference between rape and sex, is consent. the difference between taxation and voluntary contributions is consent. it wasnt the work or the songs that made chattel slavery wrong, it was the whip. it was the fact they couldnt leave. it was the fact that they were told what to do. some slaves were allowed some freedom, they could leave the plantation here and there, but the fact remained someone else owned them. the government OWNS us. if they didnt own us, try to not pay your taxes, try to not show up for court, resist an arrest warrant for a non violent crime, try to smoke an illegal plant substance in front of a police station, try to carry a firearm to defend yourself into a federal court room. try not paying your property taxes and see what happens to 'your' property. try to open a kids lemonade stand in oregon without a permit. attempt to sell raw milk or dare to be amish and sell raw butter. the only way the argument that says governments do not impose slavery on people holds any weight, is if people voluntarily consent. if one person doesnt consent, and governments still impose their will on that person, that person is literally enslaved to the state. they are nothing but cattle on the feed lot. and the fedgov is the feed lot operator. the main difference between the statist position and the advocate of a free societies position is that governments are held to the same moral law that people are held to. this is what makes people mad. an insane amount of consistency applied to everything. stealing someones wallet is bad if a normal average person does it. but its fine and dandy if we get together, have an 'election,' vote to take away someones wallet, and throw them in jail if they do not comply. since when does voting make anything right? say 3 of my friends knock on your door and we demand your money or your life. you say, GTFO. we refuse and we say, 'well, we are democratic highwaymen... lets put it to a vote.' so we all vote.. 3 for robbing you, 1 against. you lose. tough luck. this is the essence of government. there is no difference between a government and the soprano family. they are a gang of thieves writ large. how easy it is to sit back and say there is no difference between 'slavery' and living under the authority of someone you didnt consent to. you simply think that slavery is only what blacks endured. or ancient peoples endured when they were chained to their masters and forced to work. it is very easy for the casual arm chair statist to defend such policies of coercive 'public goods' and 'law and order' when they are not the ones that are beating the rebellious nonconformist into the ground with a rifle butt while their wife and kids hysterically wail while they load the bloodied body onto the boxcar going to the re-education labor camps. how easy it is to sit back and claim you are simply keeping 'structure' to society as over 100K japanese americans were rounded up and sent into internment camps based simply on their ancestral background while the government seized and sold their property. how easy it is to say that permits/laws/regulations/tax codes that favor big corporatocracy and eliminate the little competitor from the market place is simply keeping 'structure' in society and has nothing to do with restricting freedom in anyway. you seem to think that as long as people are able to sit at home in their living rooms with their 'toasters, tvs and steel belted radial's' that everything is just fine and dandy and that every one is free. at one period in history, chattel slavery, the ownership of another human being, the ultimate control and regulation of a person, without their consent, was considered normal. hopefully in the next couple hundred years, great abolitionists will realize that the oppression citizens live under today is not normal. that it is not moral and that it is evil. they will realize that it is not normal for a government they never consented to in anyway, is telling them how to live their lives, what to eat, where they can travel, how they can defend themselves, what they can buy, what size their toilet tanks are, that they have to work hard to pay 50% of their incomes to the government to fund the bloated bureaucracies and economic black holes. when tyranny becomes law, resistance becomes duty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Angel, it is hard to reply to you because you argue with yourself in your reply, especially when you make assumptions about what I said. Using extreme examples and not really holding onto any one point in your argument makes it impossible to reply. If I understand you correctly, you are advocating for a free society without any government because we did not consent to it. But, you do not see, that if we do not have permits/laws/regulation from a Government elected by the people, your examples and much worse will come into existence, because only the strong will have power and they will use that power to take what they want. A self regulating society does not have the ability to be fair and will fall quickly to tyranny. Our government might not be perfect but, ultimately, it is better then almost any out there right now, even with the right wing. The downside is that it is so young, I am not sure if it has the ability to stay around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 it is actually much easier to illustrate the absurdity of your positions at the extremes. the only difference is degree. where as you seem to argue that one can be just a 'little' bit pregnant. or just a 'little' bit enslaved. no, you are quite free to live under any government YOU want, its just not right to force anyone else to do the same. personally, im in favor of the night watchman state. i would personally consent to a domestic police force and courts, properly restrained, that protect against domestic bad guys. i'd also consent to a defensive force capable of resisting foreign invasions, properly restrained. i'd consent to little else. i'd settle for a constitutional government. if we ever achieved this type of freedom, we could then talk about further reductions of government. doing so right now is sort of like trying to name an embryo, and no one is even pregnant yet. the very thing we do not need is 'permits/laws/regulations' that criminalize non crimes. that is, we should prosecute mala in se, we should legalize mala prohibitum. all this stuff you are referring to, restricts freedom. not only does it restrict freedom, business regulations exist almost solely to favor corporations and to keep smaller competition out. what is wrong with being free to choose if you want to drink raw milk or drink pasteurized milk? dont you trust yourself to make this decision? if we decriminalized heroin today, do you fear you will be come hooked on dope? do you think it is detrimental that you wouldnt need to open a 100K dollar federally inspected facility in order to sell one pound of cheese to your mother in law who lives next door? do you feel it is detrimental to your financial well being that you would be able to keep all your income? imagine a 15-50% raise. would you be worse off if we eliminated gas taxes and you automatically were buying gas that was 45-88 cents cheaper? (those record corporate profits, were only 7 cents a gallon. who is gouging who here?) as to your government not being perfect mantra... i already addressed this. the US is nothing but the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The problem with your whole view is "properly restrained". How would that happen if there was no one to do it? Your society would fall apart and be controlled by the strongest most violent person or group around. Other then that, I agree with alot of your points, even though I do not think they are realistic or have a chance in hell of becoming reality. I think that the worst thing going for this country is capitalism and the selling out of all our government to the highest bidder. But I also do not think the other extreme of a totally free society is better. As a society, we need laws and regulations to some extent to live with each other in a some-what decent society. If not, we would be ruled by warlords and tribes who use violence to stay in control. Take a look at Somalia to see a free society without government control. Or take a look at North Korea to see a society with too much government control. The answer is in the middle, but money makes honest government swing to far one way or another depending on who is paying the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 i dont see how you are taking issue with my stance in that post. there is no 'society falling apart' and being controlled by the 'strongest most violent person' as there is a government entity that keeps the peace. so your doomsday scenario is moot. this is actually what governments were originally instituted to do. see the virginia declaration of rights, which was the foundation for the declaration of independence. 1. . That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. when i said 'properly restrained' it meant the police force/army is properly restrained by law and properly checked by citizens militia's (nothing but an armed population) , private arms ownership, etc. this was the american system, based on the swiss cantonal militia system. i meant that they only prosecute mala in se, evils in themselves, and they do not kill former marines 60 times while serving a search warrant in pima county arizona, where they found no contraband whatsoever. one last word on the equation of slavery with government. the reason you cannot make this connection is the same reason why fish cannot tell they are in water. why the majority of the world before the industrial revolution didnt know they lived in poverty (because just about everyone did, it was life) because you cant see the forest for the trees, or choose not to challenge your world view, you cannot see that government is slavery because it is all you know. and to back it up, a good 'education' in a government youth propaganda camp makes sure you dont ever question this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I am not taking issue with your stance at all. I just do not think you see how the end state of your stance will end up with everyone being controlled by the strongest, because your ideal government will have no power and the people will be in control. That is, until someone comes along and challenges that and takes control, because the government would not be powerful enough to stop them. Also, anyone who is not part of the majority, will be subject to censorship or worse in a self regulated society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I am a public employee. Money wise we get shit compared to private business. I'm in the PW dept and if I were to take my chances in the contruction field i would probably make double. where we have it better is job security although with union busting, contracting and corrupt politicians ala South Gate , CA it could change. As well as our health benefits. As far as working hard or hardly working, i used to work hard but now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I don't have weekends off, paid holidays and sick time, or affordable health insurance, so why should anyone else? Fuck their union and their ability to organize themselves to bargain for higher wages. If I don't have that ability, No one should! No, I never read anything about the Labor movement of the early 1900's, I hated the book The Jungle, and I can pretty much say Unions haven't done a damn bit of good for the American working class. The only way to run our economy is by vesting all of the power into the hands of a few individuals. We have to cater to their needs by slashing their taxes, otherwise they won't operate in our state and give us jobs. This is the only way! Get rid of federal regulation and laws and leave it up to the states to decide. That way states can compete against each other, rolling back on minimum wage increases, environmental protection etc so they can create a "healthy climate for business". Again, this is the only way! Now to turn off the sarcasm button: Contemporary American Libertarianism is a crock of shit. Libertarianism originally sprung out of the enlightenment and it is supposed to be about liberty and freedom, but it fails to recognize the domination inherent in the owner/worker business model. The terms of a worker's labor are dictated by his owner, and if he doesn't like it, he can "leave and find a new job". Good luck finding any job where you actually have a say in the terms of your labor. The only solution AOD has ever offered me in this little predicament is that workers need to "invest and buy tools, land or businesses", but that just isn't plausible for most of the working poor. I would love to see him go to poor communities in Flint, MI or Camden, NJ and tell them if they want to succeed they need to invest with each other to buy property. If he said that to me, I'd punch him in the fucking face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 as for communism, there might be a manifesto but it will never exist, just like anarchy the nature of humans won't allow a utopia like that to exist. Correction, the nature of Western Civilization won't let that exist. There have been plenty of beautiful cultures, they have just been dissolved by globalization, imperialism, genocide etc.. The Mbuti (central Africa), Canela (Brazil), Inuit aka Eskimos (Canada), Kawelka (Papua New Guinea) and Maori (New Zealand) are just a few I can name off the top of my head that still exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I am not taking issue with your stance at all. I just do not think you see how the end state of your stance will end up with everyone being controlled by the strongest, because your ideal government will have no power and the people will be in control. That is, until someone comes along and challenges that and takes control, because the government would not be powerful enough to stop them. Also, anyone who is not part of the majority, will be subject to censorship or worse in a self regulated society. the end of my stance is a constitutional government. the government has power to protect property rights, so how can a 'stronger' power than the legal monopoly on force exist to the point of taking over the government, as long as the government does what it is supposed to do?? it has never happened in the US. you do realize that this country was created essentially by private citizens being armed. being armed in a much greater capacity than the government. this is the difference between being free and being oppressed. the swiss people are currently 'armed' in a greater capacity than the swiss government, as they have a militia system, not a true standing army. it is required that a swiss male serve in the militia and keep a sig 550, full automatic rifle, at home w/ an appropriate minimum round count. there are also 1000 firing points in switzerland, yet the 'strongest' people are not in control for their own narrow agenda. (they let the government assume this role) its really not that outlandish for the people to be more powerful than government. not only did thomas jefferson agree with this, he always believed in something similar. he stated that he would rather the accused in a crime have as many rights as possible, because its better a guilty man to go free than to imprison just one innocent man. so it boils down to whether you favor liberty or tyranny. but i just have to point out the illogical fear in your post. you fear if we limit government to protecting property rights, (this includes life and liberty)as it was originally intended to do in this country, that we will be ruled by a strong majority and people not part of this majority will be censored or worse. i'll ask you this: do you, with a straight face, think that we DO NOT currently live in this situation already under government? what you are describing is nothing but what government is. the framers of this country specifically intended for most power to be vested in the people. we didnt even have a standing army for a LONG time. the fear wasnt that someone would overthrow the government in washington, this was a given, because it is the right and duty of an oppressed citizenry to do so. they already knew this. the fear among the founding generation was that washington would send a standing army in to the states and rob the people of their liberty. the anti federalists were almost prophetic. washington may not of sent troops to rob their liberties, but they surely robbed their liberty by legislating it away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I don't have weekends off, paid holidays and sick time, or affordable health insurance, so why should anyone else? Fuck their union and their ability to organize themselves to bargain for higher wages. If I don't have that ability, No one should! No, I never read anything about the Labor movement of the early 1900's, I hated the book The Jungle, and I can pretty much say Unions haven't done a damn bit of good for the American working class. The only way to run our economy is by vesting all of the power into the hands of a few individuals. We have to cater to their needs by slashing their taxes, otherwise they won't operate in our state and give us jobs. This is the only way! Get rid of federal regulation and laws and leave it up to the states to decide. That way states can compete against each other, rolling back on minimum wage increases, environmental protection etc so they can create a "healthy climate for business". Again, this is the only way! Now to turn off the sarcasm button: Contemporary American Libertarianism is a crock of shit. Libertarianism originally sprung out of the enlightenment and it is supposed to be about liberty and freedom, but it fails to recognize the domination inherent in the owner/worker business model. The terms of a worker's labor are dictated by his owner, and if he doesn't like it, he can "leave and find a new job". Good luck finding any job where you actually have a say in the terms of your labor. The only solution AOD has ever offered me in this little predicament is that workers need to "invest and buy tools, land or businesses", but that just isn't plausible for most of the working poor. I would love to see him go to poor communities in Flint, MI or Camden, NJ and tell them if they want to succeed they need to invest with each other to buy property. If he said that to me, I'd punch him in the fucking face. i thought you said you were, (and im going to try to quote you) "never fucking talking to my ignorant ass ever again..." WTF happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I am a public employee. Money wise we get shit compared to private business. im curious, do you include benefits when you compare wage packages? do you have a pension? do you pay into it? if so, do you factor in these figures into your wages? granted, i know some government workers are not unionized and some state legislatures pay more of a market type wage than others, particularly here in the south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Angel, just because you think that is how it would end up, does not make it so. You can use the same arguements as the tea party, which is what you are doing, and you are as wrong as they are. Switzerland is a whole different country in many different ways. Apples and oranges. Your end state would resemble Somalia more then Switzerland. Stop using strawmen arguments to make your point. I am cool with agreeing to disagree. I already get enough teaparty talking points at work to know that we will never agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Angel, just because you think that is how it would end up, does not make it so. You can use the same arguements as the tea party, which is what you are doing, and you are as wrong as they are. Switzerland is a whole different country in many different ways. Apples and oranges. Your end state would resemble Somalia more then Switzerland. Stop using strawmen arguments to make your point. I am cool with agreeing to disagree. I already get enough teaparty talking points at work to know that we will never agree. i dont know how in the world you arrive at this conclusion. you do realize i am describing the constitution of the united states, right? if your scenario is true, why havent gangs, mobs and dangerous majorities over thrown the US constitution already? if switzerland is 'apples and oranges' how can you make a valid comparison of US constitutional government w/ somalia which is for the most part stateless? the even better question is, was somalia better off under a govt or without a government? PS. the tea party hates guys like me. look at the treatment they give ron paul. and he isnt even as radical as me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Ok angel your right and i am done debating with. You are just using extreme positions which are not based in reality. So I am done and will return to reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 haha, guess im just making to much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Ok, Harold, you and Angel go live in your "Libertarian" world and cuddle. That is, until someone comes along, who is stronger, whether from more weapons or more willingness to do violence and makes you their bitch. Because when people are so-called "free" country with a government that is "properly restrained", that is what will happen. Or large companies will take over through capitalism, which is what is happening to the US. I would not mind living in your make-believe world, but a major problem is that it does not take into account the evil and greed inherent in all men. Sooner or later someone is going to come along and take what they want, just because they can. Without a Government that is capable to stop this through a professional military and police force, someone stronger will take control. America does it and continues to do so throughtout the world. Also, without a capable government, alot of people will not be willing to help their fellow human beings in times of need, by saying "that is not my problem", which is what happens out in rural america right now. People are not able to handle true freedom without greed and evil taking over. It is not part of our mental being. And the reason I was done debating with Angel was because I know that there is no talking to people like him or you, because your viewpoints are severely limited to the falsehoods of youthful optimism, while people like me have been all over the world and know and have seen the evils that man does. So, believe what you want, but the reality is a whole lot different then your world views. BTW, I wish you were right, because it would make the world a much better place, but that just is not reality. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 im just going to go out on a limb here and assume you are just choosing NOT to comprehend my arguments in the least. i dont even know who you are arguing against when you said this: "without a Government that is capable to stop this through a professional military and police force, " i specifically argued that govts should control the military and the police and courts. so you keep making this argument as though i am promoting abolishing the military and police. and i've explained what i meant by 'properly restrained.' all that i meant by 'properly restrained' is that these forces respect peoples rights! that they abide by the 4th amendment. that the military isnt used to police the streets, etc. not only that, but the specific system of defense i am arguing for IS CONSTITUTIONAL GOVT IN THE US. no group has ever come close to threatening the monopoly of force that the US government holds. and no use bringing in the southern confederacy into this because they were not overthrowing anything, they were simply trying to leave. huge difference. not only has no one seriously threatened to over throw the govt protection services... in ww2, switzerland who doesnt even have a standing army, but a militia system, was never even involved in the war! why arent people just overwhelming those people with that silly idea of a 'properly restrained' government? but i do like the first line of your post. what on earth is wrong with allowing people to decide their own destiny? why must you enslave them to your preferred system? that is all any of this is really about. why cant you just let others live how they wish and leave them alone? would you support letting various states or localities secede from your preferred governments control? did it occur to you that the people themselves arose and threw off their own government when they created the US? why cant you live in a socialist world and i live in a free society? why must we force each other to live a certain way? i've offered this to many people but no one has EVER responded. i would never force you to do anything against your will. you are quite free to argue for bloated government workers pay, a command and control economy, etc. no one is stopping you from stroking off a check to pay your government workers. and since i would never use force against you and would never prevent you from exercising your rights, will you afford me the same courtesy? will you not throw me in jail if i sell a glass of milk to a neighbor? or .. *insert any non violent crime here* ? but the ultimate LOL, even though im not arguing for abolition of govt all together and would keep police and military services, is that you are scared that a violent powerful body would overthrow the order of society and rule everyone. which IS EXACTLY WHAT BIG GOVERNMENT DOES. so in effect, your doomsday scenario, ALREADY EXISTS. it used to be the new left was in favor of things being 'small and beautiful.' shoot even a well known new left historian argued that even under the constitution, this wasnt possible, that the articles of confederation were much more suited to each small locality defining its own destiny. now it seems to be that if we dont have one single top down solution to every single problem in society from a large monopolistic body on the shores of the potomac, that affects 310 million diverse peoples, then its the end of the world. the earth will spin off its axis. and what exactly is an extremist these days? who are these dangerous people who you cant talk to because they have such a narrow world view? well, of course that is anyone who doesnt fit into the ideological span between joe biden and mitch mcconnell. oh my, those dangerous extremists that dare to speak about things that werent handed down to us by our wise masters @ fox and msnbc. arguing over the top tax rate being 39.4% and 39.7% is perfectly a normal conversation to have. its not extreme. a 14 trillion dollar debt, an unfunded liabilities that are more than the entire worlds GDP, throwing people in jail for non crimes... not extreme at all. pointing out that US debt is bigger than the worlds GDP... extremist! call the SPLC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I will never agree with either of you and the same goes for you to me. I think you are not based in a realistic world and you think that I do not favor freedoms. I think your outcome will be a warlord controlled region and you think my outcome would be like 1984. So cool, we can stop talking about it (at least with me). BTW Harold I thought the same thing about your post above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 So enlighten us and tell us what you think, Harold. And please feel free to tell us what justifies your claims, because I seriously doubt you have any real world experience and are basing your claims on something you heard in college. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Harold, you are here to start shit without saying what you think. So go fuck yourself until you decide to actually say what you think. BTW, you are not understanding what I wrote and I feel no need to explain it any further to someone who does not have the intestinal fortitude to actual state what they think. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toughtaco169 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Looks like its spreading to Ohio and Indiana as well.... I hate to sound cliche and compare this to Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, because they have gone through some horrifying bullshit for a long time, but I will say they have taught the world that the power belongs to the people, and If you organize you can have your voice heard... Oh and one more thing, The supporters of the bill were expecting to gather 60,000 counter-protesters and even had corporately funded buses running people in, but authorities put their numbers around 150 the day of their rally. HA! thats great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.