Sharing Lungs - Deftones Online Community

both topics should be discussed more here.

no racism, sexism, antisemitism please.

thanks :)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/31/kansas.doctor.killed/


its not certain, that the murdere was some fundie, but its very supposable.

this is some nice food for the terrorist-discourse and a nice example of hypocrisy.

someone who is absolutely pro life kills someone who is against...

Who gives a shit about abortion?  I'm so sick of the fucking topic.  The dude killed another dude because he thought he was defending innocent children as directed by god.  But no one will touch the " god makes people bat shit crazy " topic.  No one will touch the " it is not ok to force your religious of moral beliefs onto others who do not agree topic "  Instead we all just rally around a politician who wants to force the same beliefs as we do on people and call it good.  Fuck that.

In more interesting news, what the Governator did to the California state primary process.  Now that is news.  It is very revolutionary and is a start to fixing our fucked up electoral process.

What did he do ?

I'm sure I could google that, but just to have a quick overview first....  ;)

long story short.  Instead of having politicians from the same party run against each other in the primaries he made it so that anyone who wants to run , runs against everyone else and those with the two highest popular votes run in the election.  Even if they are both democrats or both republicans or independents or whatever.  Also you don't have to be part of a political party to vote for a candidate in the primaries.  If I'm not a Democrat, but I want to vote for a Democrat to run for Governor of Cali, its all good. 

This was intended to give a voice to independents again.  America is most defiantly not a republic anymore because the people do not choose their elected officials anymore.  A small few ( super delegates or whatever they are called in different parties ) pick who wins primaries regardless of what the popular vote of their party says ( Hillary Clinton had more of the popular vote than Barrack Obama did in the last democratic primary ) Then they put two guys that they choose against each other and tell the public that they must vote for one of the two or else they are "wasting their vote".  Well, this shuts them up.  And allows independents to help choose higher quality politicians in the primary process to vote for instead of just the retards that are still willing to follow either party.  At least for California state primaries anyways.  I think this will eventually reach the US presidential elections.  But seeing as how most Americans are completely apathetic towards their government and politics, it might take a while. 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3665171/a-statement-or-an-aspiration.thtml

:D

Quote from: Variable on Jun 03, 2009, 01:20 PM
long story short.  Instead of having politicians from the same party run against each other in the primaries he made it so that anyone who wants to run , runs against everyone else and those with the two highest popular votes run in the election.  Even if they are both democrats or both republicans or independents or whatever.  Also you don't have to be part of a political party to vote for a candidate in the primaries.  If I'm not a Democrat, but I want to vote for a Democrat to run for Governor of Cali, its all good. 

This was intended to give a voice to independents again.  America is most defiantly not a republic anymore because the people do not choose their elected officials anymore.  A small few ( super delegates or whatever they are called in different parties ) pick who wins primaries regardless of what the popular vote of their party says ( Hillary Clinton had more of the popular vote than Barrack Obama did in the last democratic primary ) Then they put two guys that they choose against each other and tell the public that they must vote for one of the two or else they are "wasting their vote".  Well, this shuts them up.  And allows independents to help choose higher quality politicians in the primary process to vote for instead of just the retards that are still willing to follow either party.  At least for California state primaries anyways.  I think this will eventually reach the US presidential elections.  But seeing as how most Americans are completely apathetic towards their government and politics, it might take a while. 

i hadn't heard of this. i agree that this is a good idea. back when the presidential elections were going on you and i went back and forth over the "wasting your vote" topic. and i do think that with the current system voting outside the main two is a waste, but also agree that this system is a better way for people to vote for who they think are the best canidate and have an actual chance of that person winning.

Quote from: Nailec on Jun 04, 2009, 05:44 PM
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3665171/a-statement-or-an-aspiration.thtml

:D

lol.  What a fucking brown nosing pussy.  If Bush did something like that everyone would be mocking his intelligence left and right.  But Obama is soooo intelligent that there is no way anyone will question what he says. Its like he is cowering down to the world to try and make friends on a playground.  There is a very big difference between being a pussy, and being humble.  Obama is a pussy. And actually in no way at all do I buy that he is humble.

Quote from: devlin on Jun 04, 2009, 07:54 PM

Quote from: Variable on Jun 03, 2009, 01:20 PM
long story short.  Instead of having politicians from the same party run against each other in the primaries he made it so that anyone who wants to run , runs against everyone else and those with the two highest popular votes run in the election.  Even if they are both democrats or both republicans or independents or whatever.  Also you don't have to be part of a political party to vote for a candidate in the primaries.  If I'm not a Democrat, but I want to vote for a Democrat to run for Governor of Cali, its all good. 

This was intended to give a voice to independents again.  America is most defiantly not a republic anymore because the people do not choose their elected officials anymore.  A small few ( super delegates or whatever they are called in different parties ) pick who wins primaries regardless of what the popular vote of their party says ( Hillary Clinton had more of the popular vote than Barrack Obama did in the last democratic primary ) Then they put two guys that they choose against each other and tell the public that they must vote for one of the two or else they are "wasting their vote".  Well, this shuts them up.  And allows independents to help choose higher quality politicians in the primary process to vote for instead of just the retards that are still willing to follow either party.  At least for California state primaries anyways.  I think this will eventually reach the US presidential elections.  But seeing as how most Americans are completely apathetic towards their government and politics, it might take a while. 

i hadn't heard of this. i agree that this is a good idea. back when the presidential elections were going on you and i went back and forth over the "wasting your vote" topic. and i do think that with the current system voting outside the main two is a waste, but also agree that this system is a better way for people to vote for who they think are the best canidate and have an actual chance of that person winning.

My whole point that you never seem to have understood was that there is no longer two parties.  No such thing as the Democrats and Republicans anymore.  No such thing as the right and the left.  They are all one big party.  They have all merged into one.  And the whole electoral process is just one big charade to distract you from the real issues, and distract you from realizing that they are all saying the exact same shit.  If you didn't like McCain, you should not have like Obama.  Because their message was 100% exact in fundamentals, they just worded it differently.  So if you don't like one, you shouldn't like the other.  So go find someone you do like, and vote for them.  Quit supporting an unbelievably corrupt system that relies on voters ignorance and vote for someone real.  Who gives a shit what the odds are of them winning?  Either way the same exact person is going to get elected.  And if you still don't think Obama and McCain were not the same politically, you need to open your fucking eyes and do some more research.  We are NOT pulling out of Iraq any time soon, taxes ROSE on ALL Americans, We ARE preparing to invade yet another country, We are INCREASING troops in Afghanistan, the economy is STILL in shambles, we are STILL making stupid spending bills with no results, and the office of the president is still lying to you every chance they get.  And believe me, non of that will change with Obama being in office for more time.  You got duped

i fully understood what you were saying. but they are still presented and refered to as "the republican" and "democratic" parties. and i didn't get duped. i didn't vote. because i didn't feel strongly enough about either of the two canidates that had a chance of winning.

touche

But yeah.  I think that we should be taking steps to return America to a republic.  The people really don't have a voice at all anymore.  I think what they did in cali is a great place to start.

the enslavement is nearly complete, these glimmers of hope are only plastic fruit in bowls of burning styrofoam.  Towards an end of choice we are guided and thank you is the only utterance clear enough to be heard and understood.   

SAVE US! we cry as we tear our last shirts and cake our faces with ash

(hands lifted, palms skyward)

Quote from: Variable on Jun 05, 2009, 12:07 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Jun 04, 2009, 05:44 PM
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3665171/a-statement-or-an-aspiration.thtml

:D

lol.  What a fucking brown nosing pussy.  If Bush did something like that everyone would be mocking his intelligence left and right.  But Obama is soooo intelligent that there is no way anyone will question what he says. Its like he is cowering down to the world to try and make friends on a playground.  There is a very big difference between being a pussy, and being humble.  Obama is a pussy. And actually in no way at all do I buy that he is humble.

There is this article that has a quote form Obama saying that being the president is more difficult than he thought and sometimes he feels like quitting. Please do.

obama is a dark priest of pre isis worship

god monsterism

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Jun 06, 2009, 09:47 PM

Quote from: Variable on Jun 05, 2009, 12:07 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Jun 04, 2009, 05:44 PM
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3665171/a-statement-or-an-aspiration.thtml

:D

lol.  What a fucking brown nosing pussy.  If Bush did something like that everyone would be mocking his intelligence left and right.  But Obama is soooo intelligent that there is no way anyone will question what he says. Its like he is cowering down to the world to try and make friends on a playground.  There is a very big difference between being a pussy, and being humble.  Obama is a pussy. And actually in no way at all do I buy that he is humble.

There is this article that has a quote form Obama saying that being the president is more difficult than he thought and sometimes he feels like quitting. Please do.

can you post a link to this?

What do you guys think of cap-n-trade passing the house?

I for one am very upset. More taxes that will go straight to goldman-sachs. They will just continue draining us and draining us.  Isn't it lovely how Michael Jackson's death has overshadowed this important piece of news?

I think the whole fucking thing is ridiculous.   This is the obvious result of 1. the government being run like a private company and 2. Super environmentalist trying to control peoples lives in order to get what they want.

I'm never for raising taxes on the American public.  Say what you will, but taxing the energy companies WILL raise energy cost.  I am 100% certain of this ( didn't Obama swear up and down not to raise taxes on the middle and lower class? ). 

This is pretty much a way to let the government profit from pollution.  They are trying to make the guise that its about the environment.  But obviously if they are making money off of something, they wont try to truly stop it.  Not to mention that if all a company has to do is buy more ......pollution points?.....from other companies in order to make a product, they will, and they will charge it to YOU.  Then on the flip side, their sister company will not pollute as much, but will make a "green" product ( total marketing scam btw ) and sell it at a completely inflated price.  But people will pay for it because they got scammed into believing it actually makes a difference ( it clearly does not, idiots ) so in the end EVERYONE GETS MORE MONEY.....well everyone in the top 1% anyways.  The rest of us actually end up with less.  BUT OBAMA, HILLARY ( as if its the job of the sec of state to give a fuck about this) and McCAIN ALL SUPPORTED THE BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! exactly, weird how that works isnt it.  That the most popular leaders in the country all supported something that got them more money, them less, and they got applause for it.......people are insanely stupid. 

And the true reason that environmentalist support this bill isnt because they think it will subsidize pollution.  Its because they know that if the gas and electric bill is higher, you will use it less.  So its up to them to decide how comfortable you get to be in your home.  This should outrage people.  Its not progressive whatsoever

I am all for doing better for the environment.  A lot better actually.  But lets actually do something real.  I'm not going to get into all the ways this could happen.  But just FYI, Im for REAL action and change when it comes to being environmentally friendly.  Not this miniscule, made for profit bull shit that everyone is sold on.

hmhm we have been through this for several years now and i can only agree that you guys have to calculate with higher costs for energy.

but hat is the alternative? variable, what are your suggestions in order to "save the planet"? as long as the market is free, energy companies will seek to produce energy for the lowests costs (nuclear, carbon) making it impossible to stop global warming at all. some kind of regulation was necessary. the trading of those "pollution points" wont work on the long run, as they are pretty expensive.
actually thecompanies are now forced to establish renewable energy into their offering because in the long run, those energy forms will get cheaper (in germany "green" energy is actually almost the same price as regular energy)

what you can do now is to compare the offerings of your energy companies (i hope you are able to choose which company you get your energy from) and change your provider. if you have enough money: change to a provider with green energy.
this is the only thing you can do to keep the prices low. sometimes in the future, they will get lower by theirselves. actually this might not take as long as it did in germany, because the wind energy has developed pretty good in the last years, they are way more effective thant some years ago.

oh and: the government should actually use the money, they get from those "taxes" in order to push those green energy projects. i dont think the politics are able to keep the money for theirselves ;)

and the bosses of the company probablly dont get more money at all, as the competition now gets harder for them. (they have to compete with green energy companies now).

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Jun 27, 2009, 08:55 AM
What do you guys think of cap-n-trade passing the house?

I for one am very upset. More taxes that will go straight to goldman-sachs. They will just continue draining us and draining us.  Isn't it lovely how Michael Jackson's death has overshadowed this important piece of news?

Wow, what a coincedence.

Quote from: Nailec on Jun 27, 2009, 01:24 PM
hmhm we have been through this for several years now and i can only agree that you guys have to calculate with higher costs for energy.

but hat is the alternative? variable, what are your suggestions in order to "save the planet"? as long as the market is free, energy companies will seek to produce energy for the lowests costs (nuclear, carbon) making it impossible to stop global warming at all. some kind of regulation was necessary. the trading of those "pollution points" wont work on the long run, as they are pretty expensive.
actually thecompanies are now forced to establish renewable energy into their offering because in the long run, those energy forms will get cheaper (in germany "green" energy is actually almost the same price as regular energy)

what you can do now is to compare the offerings of your energy companies (i hope you are able to choose which company you get your energy from) and change your provider. if you have enough money: change to a provider with green energy.
this is the only thing you can do to keep the prices low. sometimes in the future, they will get lower by theirselves. actually this might not take as long as it did in germany, because the wind energy has developed pretty good in the last years, they are way more effective thant some years ago.

oh and: the government should actually use the money, they get from those "taxes" in order to push those green energy projects. i dont think the politics are able to keep the money for theirselves ;)

and the bosses of the company probablly dont get more money at all, as the competition now gets harder for them. (they have to compete with green energy companies now).

Quote from: Nailec on Jun 27, 2009, 01:24 PM
hmhm we have been through this for several years now and i can only agree that you guys have to calculate with higher costs for energy.

but hat is the alternative? variable, what are your suggestions in order to "save the planet"? as long as the market is free, energy companies will seek to produce energy for the lowests costs (nuclear, carbon) making it impossible to stop global warming at all. some kind of regulation was necessary. the trading of those "pollution points" wont work on the long run, as they are pretty expensive.
actually thecompanies are now forced to establish renewable energy into their offering because in the long run, those energy forms will get cheaper (in germany "green" energy is actually almost the same price as regular energy)

what you can do now is to compare the offerings of your energy companies (i hope you are able to choose which company you get your energy from) and change your provider. if you have enough money: change to a provider with green energy.
this is the only thing you can do to keep the prices low. sometimes in the future, they will get lower by theirselves. actually this might not take as long as it did in germany, because the wind energy has developed pretty good in the last years, they are way more effective thant some years ago.

oh and: the government should actually use the money, they get from those "taxes" in order to push those green energy projects. i dont think the politics are able to keep the money for theirselves ;)

and the bosses of the company probablly dont get more money at all, as the competition now gets harder for them. (they have to compete with green energy companies now).

Well first of all, we in no way have a free market in the US or the EU.  And to my knowledge, I can't choose who I get energy from where I live, nor was I able to in any other place I have lived.  This will remain the same as long as the government chooses to regulate the market instead of allowing a free market ( they are profiting from their regulation, why would they give it up and allow the best product for the consumer?)

And yes, they get to "keep" they money.  Do you have any idea how much debt the US Government has?  Its because every time they rake in a dollar, they spend 1,000.  Money doesn't get set aside for anything ( not even social security ) It all goes into one big pot that gets used to pay off the interest of our debt and then they spend more on whatever pet project they need to in order to get re-elected ( see pork barrel spending ) They will not set aside this money to help the environment, trust me. 

And you hit the nail on the head when you said that it would cost too much to keep polluting.  Thats the whole point.  It will cost too much, so they will have to raise their prices on the public. 

My solution?  Well how to save the environment is a completely different conversation.  But I can say this much, Government intervention will most likely not work at all.  I find it interesting that anyone would jump on board with the idea that you can tax yourself out of global warming.  They must be laughing pretty hard in Washington at all the people they tricked into believing this. A true free market buddy.  Make a true even playing field for these "green" companies that want to come up.  Make real competition.  But there is way too much special interest between the politicians and energy companies to let this happen.  Especially since the Government now owns auto companies that they need to succeed without any more competition than they already have. 

ok your situation there seems pretty much different to ours. if you cant choose from who you can get your energy, then i cant see how the prices would fall.


i dont see how a free market would establish more competition. isnt it possible that competition dissapears because one or two or three big companies rule the whole branch? and every new rival would have a hard time to underbid the prices of the biggies?

not only  the usa but i think almost every country has huge debts (which are not per se a bad thing and necessary to keep unemployement low).
the financial crisis increased these debts pretty much i think.

this leads to a problem of justice between generations. the generation of our parents and grandparents is (indirectly) responsible for the situation now. now they and we need to bleed for it. its pretty much comprehensable for me that our governments need more money from us. and hopefully those governments are clever enough to establish securties that let a financial crisis like this not happen again.

QuoteA true free market buddy.  Make a true even playing field for these "green" companies that want to come up.  Make real competition.

this true competition would only be fought on basis of what energy is more cheap. green energy could not win that fight. you damn know it. nuclear and other fossil energies are jsut too cheap.
the global warming is not about the monetary interest of poor americans. those interests have to step back behind the big threat to whole countrysides.

America has long enough ignored its duties to the whole mankind. the ignorance is not tolerable. no matter what china does.

i am a student with less than 300$ to live per month. i have to buy books, food and clothes for this etc.  nevertheless i decided to receive green energy. now it is almost as cheap as regular electricity because it isnt bound to the oil price and windmills have been supported by our governemnts. people in germany make huge demonstrations when some company declares to build another new coal-fired power station and often enough politics forbid to build those. 

so while we are demanding green energy for everyone, you are demanding for the contrary = the liberty to pollute the planet.

one thing i forgot.

it would be fair if the poors would get financial support from the government if the energy prices rise.

i think lots of people have a hard time to get enough food for their kids but a warm house during winter is a minimum to have in our nations.

there must be other ways to fight national debts. those necessary things arent the place for the government to make money.

what taxes to u actually have? what about a bullshit-tax? for things like alcoholc, tabacco, jewelry. something that would exclusively hit rich people?

You forgot to call Trey a jew hater.

lol, obviously

not at all funny.

but im curious y jerry named goldman-sachs as the only winners of this.

Actually, very funny. Because now you probably think I hate jews.

wait wait wait. are you? im uncertain now.

Obviously everyone on this board hates Jews.  I know that none of us know why we hate Jews.   But Nailec can explain it to us.

i hate to repeat myself over and over again.

antisemitic arguments may hav nothing to do with actual jews. they just refer to old jew- stereotypes.

examples:
-making a group responsible for a disease (see swine flu and black death)
-claiming, that a small group of people controls the whole planet with their money

a lot of antiamerican, anticapitalistic positions as well as conspiracy make use of those clichés.

it were these argument that actually led to the killing of jews multiple times in history. that is why everyone should be more aware of the danger of such critique as used by jerry.

you have every right decline the term "antisemitism" for those arguments and have a tighter term of antisemitism. but it makes argumentation as the above not a bit better. it remains shortened and dumb to make a group of people repsonsible for everything.

So you're saying that feeling like a specific non-jew organization or person or whatever is responsible for something negative automatically makes you an ant-semite? Where's the logic in that?

"something negative"

that term is too mild. add "that affects or controls a whole society".

if your flush doesn`t work and you curse all those dirty plumbers for it, that wouldn`t be antisemitic ;)


those anti-semitic arguments dont make you an antisemite automatically. just consider the context. if such arguments are made by those who obviously name jewish organizations, individual jews or the state israel in combination with them, then they are clearly antisemitic motivated. before that, those arguments could be explained as a lack of knowledge or intelligence.

while rightist extremists and radical islamists dont hide that they want the destruction of israel, they actually build a so called cross-front to leftists. its not by accident that all three groups wear the palestine-scarf as a symbol and some of their articles just sound like right-winged propaganda.

of course most of the time those leftists are irritated and become angry and defensive when accused with antisemitism (just as jerry). it aims that those people stat to reconsider their argumentation and the fact that they just sound like neonazis.

here is an example:
(http://www.all4all.org/images/2005/10/2150.png)

and american mosquito is shown and its entitled "The Exhausters".

it has been made by a german economy union (that is left) but its pretty similar to former national-socialist-propaganda and therefore can be called antisemitic.

But it has nothing to do with jews or Israel.

right. not directly.

but most of the times you dont have to look too far to find them actually named.

like i am still wondering y jerry brought up goldmann-sachs.

Are you just the grumpiest jew that has ever lived or what? I've known jews that lived through the holocaust that weren't this pissed off.

*sighs* i am not a jew.

Then shut up.

mega-lame

i haven`t read any of these texts, but maybe u want to as the seem to fit here.


http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=652

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-32.htm

jews are and have been running the world throughout history, why not be proud of that, i would.  They have always been "God"s chosen people", and if you study their history they have constantly been a fixture in the highest levels of power.  There is a jewish connection with many of the old royal european bloodlines (Merovingians), they obviously have a stranglehold on the worlds financial super structure, and they entertainment industry is basically owned by jews. 

Now why would a docile, insignificant race from some little inconsequential country in the middle east (that they were expelled from numerous times throughout history) have so much power?  And have had so much sway in the history of mankind? 

I'm not an anti semite but i think that SOMETHING is going on,  why would anti semtism even be a word otherwise.  Iv never heard of being anit Italian, or Anti Arab, or anit any other nationality/religion as an understood and widespread feeling

There must be some truth in all the myths

Oh god, I can't wait to see what's coming for you now.

no. just no. not that i am giving up. but he just makes it way to easy. i must be a troll, there is just no other explanaition for that.

QuoteI'm not an anti semite but i think that SOMETHING is going on,  why would anti semtism even be a word otherwise.  Iv never heard of being anit Italian, or Anti Arab, or anit any other nationality/religion as an understood and widespread feeling

yeah auschwitz was totally the fault of the jews. because there is SOMETHING going on with them.

omg

im no troll, and believe me i have no hateful or even negative feelings toward jews.  And i certainly dont think jews deserve anything bad that has ever happened to them. 

I'm just saying in a world of lies, half truths, and myths,  almost always there is some basis in reality.  And as a student of history I have personally recognized a discernible trend of Jews in positions of power in far flung locations

Maybe its all just some big coincidence, but I think that something, SOMETHING, is going on, other than just random chance
not necessarily devious or malevolent, but it just seems like there is something happening beneath the surface

Why exactly do the people from some little strip of land in the middle east have so much importance in the world?  Its not like all these theories and ideas are being pulled out of the world's collective ass,  you never hear about the scheming yemenis or the plotting bangladeshis, or God's chosen Hondurans 

which university are you going too? if it isnt an university in iran, then go visit the next doctor/prof and speak out what u just told us here.

get yourself a  book and go read, where all those stereotypes come from. its certainly not the jews that decided to go into the financial system. they have been forced to do so out of christian antijudaism and antisemitism.

the question is then: why have these prejudices prevailed throughout history and nearly everwhere in the world? (see Hugo Chavez)
i have no clear answer for this. but it has nothing to do with jews being as mighty and influential as the stereotype says. your post show it: its always the nameless jews that control everything. when it comes to hard fats, you will have difficulties to proove it.

an explanation would be that antisemitism quasi is the opposite of racism. while the racists finds himself superior to the other race, the antisemite feels controlled and mastered by jews. i guess financial worries and a lack of democracy amongst other things encourage both antisemitism and racism as party of the same medal.

QuoteWhy exactly do the people from some little strip of land in the middle east have so much importance in the world?

because its the only democracy down there and a nation that was founded to protect its people from total destruction. this is the main reason for zionism.


for once i forgive you as i think you just lack facts and dont know better. as a student, its your duty to question your beliefs even more.

Im actually a graduate from the University of New Orleans and my thoughts are based on facts.  I'm not as a paranoid as i may sound, its just in my personal research I have come across a shocking amount of evidence to imply some sort of higher importance or possibly a planned (ish) grasp of power by Jewish people. 

Recently I read Holy Grail, Holy Blood which basically says Jesus married, had children, and has a lineage that lives on today.  In the book, incalculable connections (through a very scientific and well sourced effort) are made to Jews being Kings (Dagobert and his line), holding extreme amounts of sway (Knights Templar,  Priory of Sion),  and generally being a massive object of attention.

How about the Crusades?  How about the fact that Christians worship a Jew?  And modern day you can't say that an inordinate (in relation to their population) number of powerful positions are held by Jews.  (Goldman Sachs, Ben Bernacke, Greenspan, the heads of A LOT of media sources, the film industry is basically inundated) Look it up yourself

Jews have always held an incredible amount of weight in the history of the world

As i said before, MAYBE, its all just some construed bullshit coincidence and it means absolutely nothing
But i just think its interesting that such a seemingly insignificant "race" has basically always been smack dab in the middle of innumerable world changing and affecting events

I'm not saying its some sort of evil agenda based on usurious inclinations, or anything people should worry about or even care about,  it just makes you wonder

* grabs popcorn and waits *

Will you share some of that popcorn with me?

did you bring some beers ?      :)

so whats your meaning to the (failed) attempt of health care for everyone.

i assume its one of the main topics over there in the news. here in germany, i have to search for articles informing me.

one quote that i find pretty adequate: "freedom, as americans understand it, also means the freedom to spend too much on a pretty inferior health care"

all the racist outgrowings against obama where just disgusting.

all in all i am really surprised, how far the old world differs from the new world when it comes to freedom and solidarity. while i learned that the usa is nation with many patriotic people, i am wondering why these people show so much fear and hate, when their government tries to get involved with their life.

Because our relatives came over here to get away from governments who were oppressing them.  Governments inherently fail 100% of the time.  They violate your natural rights, privileges, and freedoms 100% of the time.  The US social contract was conceived to let people have as much independence from government as possible.  Government was set up to maintain and army and a police force to enforce property protection.  Thats all the founding fathers envisioned ( in a nut shell ).  I want nothing to do with the government in my life.  They work for me, they do what I tell them, not the other way around ( besides me being a public servant myself in the Military ) But in my mind, when I signed up to do this job.  I was doing it to serve my fellow brothers, not to enforce Government policy on my brothers.  See the difference?  Fuck Government intervention.

As far as the health care issue.  I have been WAY to busy to keep up on current events like I used to.  But I'm 100% against universal health care or social health care or I pay for the health care of the losers who cant afford to pay it themselves because they made bad life decisions and I didn't, healthcare. 

All Joking aside, there is a much, much better way to go.  The Healthcare system in the US is totally fucked.  And we do pay WAY too much for it.  But it has nothing to do with too little government intervention.  It has everything to do with insurance companies.  Of course no one talks about this, because there is an agenda out there my friend.  It's late and I dont have time to get into all the details, but if you dont already know where Im going with this, or want to talk about it.  Just let me know and when I have more time.

My last point for the evening is that no matter how uninformed and idiotic the author of some article is for him to say that our healthcare is inferior because its not socialized, it does not make it true.  Hes just an idiot, and had no idea what he is talking about.  Any time the government is footing the tab in any kind of business, quality always goes down.  Because it becomes about saving money instead of good service, because there is no competition.  You still have a minimum standard you will be held to, but it will never raise above that.  Trust me, I would know, I work in government healthcare ( navy medicine ) it is the most offending and horrendous thing I have ever witnessed.  No one gives a fuck about these Marines.  About men who have sacrificed so much of their lives for what they though was right or just because the government asked them to.  No one gives a shit about them.  they just care about saving money.  Its infuriating because It takes dam near a year to get my friend who I know is fucked up an MRI of his knee because its a lot cheaper to just try motrin and physical therapy 3 times first before spending the money on the test.  Thats superior care?  Fuck that.

When I was a civilian working as an EMT in a civilian ER I got into a conversation with one of my ER docs about government healthcare.  He went to Canada for a couple years to work in their system and try it out.  He said that both of the systems had their ups and downs, but in the end he preferred the American system for a couple reasons.  The main reason being that he has more freedom to do what he wants with his patients because its between him and his patient. Not him, his patient, and some government case worker whos job is to save money.   

for example ( this was the real example he gave me ) He looks over and sees a patient who walked through the door 5 min ago in an agonizing amount of pain.  We could all tell right away it was more than likely a kidney stone.  So Quickly someone like me puts in an IV while the nurse gets morphine and the Doctor orders a CT scan.  5 min after walking through the door, this patient is getting a CT scan to see if he has kidney stones, and he is no longer in pain ( and no one as asked for insurance info or payment info yet ).  In Canada if this same PT came in.  We probably still would have treated the pain the same.  Unless there was a cheaper pain med they were pushing that month.  But we would have simple taken a urine sample and checked it for blood.  If there is blood in the urine, were all 99% sure its a kidney stone.  So whats the problem?  Well we are banking that the stones are small enough to pass on their own.  If they are, no problem.  We just administered great care with a great result and did it cheap.  But, if they are too big to pass then they will tell this poor guy to wait it out for months, maybe even a whole year before they do a CT to see whats going on.  This guy will live in excruciating pain every single day because the government is hoping he will just pass the stones on his own and they can save a couple grand on a CT and a urologist performing a surgery.  Rolling the dice on the quality of human lives, doesnt really jive with me.  Didnt for this doctor either.  In America we know in 10 min exactly what the deal is with those stones and they are either out the door because we know they are small enough, or we send them to Urology because we know they need help and were going to get it to them quick.  Which sounds like superior care?  The standard of car ALWAYS goes down when the government foots the bill.  Its a fact.  The standard of care is already too low in America because of insurance companies, Im not down to lower it any more because of the Government.

People understand this, and thats why we are resisting universal health care.  Because if you are informed at all, you would have to literally be an idiot to think its a good idea.  It has nothing to do with race ( come on now dude, give me a break with those kind of comments already ) and everything to do with the US people standing up and saying that we are supposed to be a free society ( supposed to be ) and you can't do shit like this in a free society.  You can't force me to give up my money ( steal my money ) and give it to someone else because YOU see it fit.  Thats called a forced transfer of wealth, aka tyranny.  You always preach about Nazis, I would think you would realize this. 

calm down everybody.

Trey, correct once again.  Here's a couple really good articles that really demonstrate my point of view better than could my own words.

What Is This "Free Market" We Keep Hearing About? Part I
By Tom Mullen
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=161

What Is This "Free Market" We Keep Hearing About? Part II
By Tom Mullen
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=179

Quote from: Saturday Night Whiskey888 on Aug 28, 2009, 05:14 AM
calm down everybody.

Calm down? We have been TOO calm. I'm glad people are actually caring about the healthcare issue or else that means more tyranny in our life instead of life, liberty, and happiness! I hate when people say things like, "don't talk about 'politics' with friends because thats a 'no-no'...."

----------------------------------------------------------

-Time to Get Out of Afghanistan-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 1, 2009

"Yesterday," reads the e-mail from Allen, a Marine in Afghanistan, "I gave blood because a Marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a [mine's] pressure plate and lost both legs." Then "another Marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both Marines died this morning."

"I'm sorry about the drama," writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die "so that each of you may grow old." He says: "I put everything in God's hands." And: "Semper Fi!"

Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is "like walking through the Old Testament."

U.S. strategy -- protecting the population -- is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about "deteriorating" (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.

The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." Just 4,000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is the size of West Virginia. The New York Times reports a Helmand official saying he has only "police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for 'vacation.' " Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial." To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American "success," whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a "renewal of trust" of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government -- his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker -- as so "inept, corrupt and predatory" that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, "who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot."

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's "culture of poverty." But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many "accidental guerrillas" to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.

georgewill@washpost.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where are all the "democrats" who protested against the wars brought on during the bush era....they are probably still under the Obama Hope spell. Well..HOPEFULLY they will wake up and see that just because a "democrat" is president, doesn't mean a was is happening. Obama has no intentions of  reversing what the Bush administraion implemented. That was never the plan. WAKE UP.

Awesome video!

THE UPRISING!
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tsxH0pvTvq8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tsxH0pvTvq8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Charlie Sheen sits down with President Barack Obama for 20 minutes...read on!

"CS -  Not exactly sir, but let's be honest. You're the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the buck stops with you. 9/11 has been the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your administration is reading from the same playbook that the Bush administration foisted on America through documented secrecy and deception.

PBO – Mr. Sheen, I'm having a difficult time sitting here and listening to you draw distorted parallels between the Bush/Cheney regime and mine.

CS – Mr. President the parallels are not distorted just because you say they are. Let's stick to the facts. You promised to abolish the Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it. You pledged to end warrantless wire tapping against the American people and now energetically defend it. You decried the practice of rendition and now continue it. You promised over and over again on the campaign trail, that you would end the practice of indefinite detention and instead, you have expanded it to permanent detention of "detainees" without trial. This far exceeds the outrages of the former administration. Call me crazy Mr. President, but is this not your record?....."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president.html

PBO – Now you sound like the First Lady.

CS – That's quite a compliment sir.

PBO – As you wish. Please continue.

lol

anyway, nice read, Jerry

Obama is pretty stupid for doing an interview with 911 truthers and paranoids.

I'd read it if the page would load for me.

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 08, 2009, 04:22 PM
Obama is pretty stupid for doing an interview with 911 truthers and paranoids.

My dad has been saying since before Obama was elected that he thinks Obama would (possibly indirectly or subtly) expose 9/11 for what it really is.

So this maybe fits into my dad's prediction? I don't know. I can't fucking read it.

Obama doesn't have the courage to do that.  That is a guaranteed death sentence.  He wont do it. 

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Sep 08, 2009, 01:28 PM
Charlie Sheen sits down with President Barack Obama for 20 minutes...read on!

"CS -  Not exactly sir, but let's be honest. You're the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the buck stops with you. 9/11 has been the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your administration is reading from the same playbook that the Bush administration foisted on America through documented secrecy and deception.

PBO – Mr. Sheen, I'm having a difficult time sitting here and listening to you draw distorted parallels between the Bush/Cheney regime and mine.

CS – Mr. President the parallels are not distorted just because you say they are. Let's stick to the facts. You promised to abolish the Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it. You pledged to end warrantless wire tapping against the American people and now energetically defend it. You decried the practice of rendition and now continue it. You promised over and over again on the campaign trail, that you would end the practice of indefinite detention and instead, you have expanded it to permanent detention of "detainees" without trial. This far exceeds the outrages of the former administration. Call me crazy Mr. President, but is this not your record?....."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president.html

QuoteAuthor's Note:  What you have just read didn't actually happen... yet.

lol the whole interview was fake.

Quote
Obama doesn't have the courage to do that.  That is a guaranteed death sentence.  He wont do it.

always easy to make a very wild thesis that noone can proove wrong or false.

I don't know what you said because you're ignored soooooo....fuck you.

i bet your avatar shows a jew to your eyes.

So it turns out the interview was a fictional one...so OOPS, MY BAD. I posted it right when  it was published.

hahaha whoops, but still, hopefully it awakens people to question their authoritay,

Quote from: Variable on Sep 08, 2009, 06:58 PM
Obama doesn't have the courage to do that.  That is a guaranteed death sentence.  He wont do it. 

I never said I thought he would. I wish he would, but I am 100% sure he won't.

My dad believes that if the public is informed by our own president, the truth about the atrocities that happened on 9/11 that maybe people will realize that certain things that goverment has claimed to be the truth and is widely accepted as truth is complete bullshit. Such as the kennedy asassination, the lies behind the moon landing and information we have regarding stuff we have discovered both on the surface of the moon and on the surface of mars...etc etc. He thinks that the government telling the truth about 9/11 would make the country completely reevaluate the "conspiracy theories" of the past and present and wake sleeping fucking sheep up and I couldn't agree more.

I think that before we can grow, we need to eliminate the lies. ALL of the lies.

Well the government straight admitted that they lied  about the Gulf of Tonkin ( the event that they lied about to take us into Vietnam ) But no one even seemed to care. 

But that wasn't murdering our own on our own soil. That was murdering our own in a country that needed to be "saved". We were brainwashed.

Thats way more death than 911 and the following wars ( so far )

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 09, 2009, 01:47 AM

Quote from: Variable on Sep 08, 2009, 06:58 PM
Obama doesn't have the courage to do that.  That is a guaranteed death sentence.  He wont do it. 

I never said I thought he would. I wish he would, but I am 100% sure he won't.

My dad believes that if the public is informed by our own president, the truth about the atrocities that happened on 9/11 that maybe people will realize that certain things that goverment has claimed to be the truth and is widely accepted as truth is complete bullshit. Such as the kennedy asassination, the lies behind the moon landing and information we have regarding stuff we have discovered both on the surface of the moon and on the surface of mars...etc etc. He thinks that the government telling the truth about 9/11 would make the country completely reevaluate the "conspiracy theories" of the past and present and wake sleeping fucking sheep up and I couldn't agree more.

I think that before we can grow, we need to eliminate the lies. ALL of the lies.

Your dad is a wise man! Wish more would think like him.

The problem with most people is that they honestly believe everything that MSNBC, CNN, or FOX reports. Those pundits are not reporters or journalists. They don't investigate. They're liars.

The problem with most people is apathy

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 04:25 AM
Thats way more death than 911 and the following wars ( so far )

That's not the point I was trying to make.

I know it.

Then why say it? I understand that Vietnam was a fucked and pointless war, but at least our government didn't directly murder their own citizens on their own soil.

I said it because I don't really see the difference between murdering their citizens on their own soil compared to foreign soil.  But if there is one, I thought for sure the staggering difference in the death count would make up for that difference.  Sending off US troops to an illegal and un winnable is still murder. 

I have completely forgotten what started this.

this thread was meant to be about important social and political debate, not that neonazi and antisemite 911 truther bullshit. plz make another topic for this.

my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 02:33 PM
my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

you are not telling me to shut up when you have acutally not a clue what the NWO theories are often about.

go to youtube and find out what alex jones says about foreigners.

or go to american free press and count, how many times israel or jews are mentioned.

you all think youre so subversive because you read those underground-authors. but it has a good reason they are underground and noone cares about them.

What are you even talking about?  I don't read a dam thing from underground authors.  The last two books I read were written by Jessie Ventura and Steven Hawking.  I don't hardly pay any attention to Alex Jones at all.  You're the one that reads these bat shit crazy authors that can turn literally anything into an attack on Jews.  The fucked up part is that you buy into it.  We were not saying a dam thing about foreigners or Jews.  I was talking about a historical even which is 100% true.  No conspiracy theories needed because the US government straight admitted it happened.  The office of the president said this.  No fucking underground authors you fucking jackass.  Don't come at me like that saying I read crazy shit or I don't know what I'm talking about when you have borderline insanity paranoia about the world hating Jews.  No one gives a shit about Jews.  I could fucking care less about them.  That doesn't mean I hate them.  It means I just don't give a shit what is going on in the Hebrew world 24/7.  like your insane obsessing ass does.  Get over it already because you are the one chasing shadows that aren't there.  You're the conspiracy theorist.  Josh and I were talking about confirmed events.  And just because you created this thread does not mean you control the contents.  We are more than on topic here. 

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 09, 2009, 09:39 AM
this thread was meant to be about important social and political debate, not that neonazi and antisemite 911 truther bullshit. plz make another topic for this.

oh my god i wish i could kick you off this fucking board!!!

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 06:17 PM
What are you even talking about?  I don't read a dam thing from underground authors.  The last two books I read were written by Jessie Ventura and Steven Hawking.  I don't hardly pay any attention to Alex Jones at all.  You're the one that reads these bat shit crazy authors that can turn literally anything into an attack on Jews.  The fucked up part is that you buy into it.  We were not saying a dam thing about foreigners or Jews.  I was talking about a historical even which is 100% true.  No conspiracy theories needed because the US government straight admitted it happened.  The office of the president said this.  No fucking underground authors you fucking jackass.  Don't come at me like that saying I read crazy shit or I don't know what I'm talking about when you have borderline insanity paranoia about the world hating Jews.  No one gives a shit about Jews.  I could fucking care less about them.  That doesn't mean I hate them.  It means I just don't give a shit what is going on in the Hebrew world 24/7.  like your insane obsessing ass does.  Get over it already because you are the one chasing shadows that aren't there.  You're the conspiracy theorist.  Josh and I were talking about confirmed events.  And just because you created this thread does not mean you control the contents.  We are more than on topic here. 

yeah, what he said...

please just leave you have nothing to say worth mentioning. your a pest, better yet a disease to this board

He didn't used to be this bad.  He used to be a kind of fun person to talk to.  But his dam paranoia has greatly intensified lately. 

It was all my fault. Sorry. :0(

Yes, baaaaaaaaaad Jerry_Curls, baaaaaaaaaad..............             :)

Fines proposed for not having health insurance

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

Fines proposed for going without health insurance

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – 4 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Americans who fail to sign up for a medical plan after health care overhaul takes effect could be hit with fines of up to $3,800, according to a new proposal circulated Tuesday by a senior Democrat. Meanwhile, on the eve of a major health care speech by President Barack Obama, a government health insurance option overwhelmingly favored by progressive Democrats appeared to be losing critically needed support.

Lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill with little sign that many of the difficult issues surrounding a health care overhaul can be easily resolved.

The proposed fines are part of a proposal from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee. Baucus was meeting Tuesday with a small group of senators trying to engineer a bipartisan compromise to break the stalemate. His plan would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans at a cost to taxpayers of under $900 billion over 10 years. Some experts consider that a bargain, since the country now spends around $2.5 trillion a year on health care.

The fines would be the stick to enforce a proposed requirement that all Americans get health insurance, much as auto coverage is now mandatory. The penalties would start at $750 a year for individuals, and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer carrots as well: tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

But the fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, saying it's too expensive to mandate. White House officials have since backed away somewhat from that stance, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

Meanwhile, an idea that Obama supported during the campaign and has since championed appeared to be in deeper trouble. Prospects for a government insurance option appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't essential for him to back legislation. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

-------------------------

^HORRIBLE

And here is what Ron Paul said a couple of months ago...

Introducing the Coercion is Not Health Care Act

Ron Paul Speech to Congress

May 21, 2009

  http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1222

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Coercion is Not Health Care Act. This legislation forbids the Federal Government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, and from conditioning participation in any Federal program, or receipt of any Federal benefit, on the purchase of health insurance.

While often marketed as a "moderate" compromise between nationalized health care and a free market solution, forcing every American to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled health care system.

If Congress requires individuals to purchase insurance, Congress must define what insurance policies satisfy the government mandate. Thus, Congress will decide what is and is not covered in the mandatory insurance policy. Does anyone seriously doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered will be determined by who has the most effective lobby. Or that Congress will be incapable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that will fit the unique needs of every individual in the United States?

The experience of States that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes health insurance more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely create yet another fiscally unsustainable entitlement program to help cover the cost of insurance.

When the cost of government-mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals and small employers, and the government, Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments will be reimbursed by the mandatory insurance. The result will be an increasing number of providers turning to "cash only" practices, thus making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find health care. Anyone who doubts that result should consider the increasing number of physicians who are withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Madam Speaker, the key to effective health care reform lies not in increasing government control, but in increasing the American people's ability to make their own health care decisions. Thus, instead of forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance, Congress should put the American people back in charge of health care by expanding health care tax credits and deductions, as well as increasing access to Health Savings Accounts. Therefore, I have introduced legislation, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (H.R. 1495), which provides a series of health care tax credits and deductions designed to empower patients. I urge my colleagues to reject the big government-knows-best approach to health care by cosponsoring my Coercion is Not Health Care Act and Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 09, 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 02:33 PM
my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

you are not telling me to shut up when you have acutally not a clue what the NWO theories are often about.

go to youtube and find out what alex jones says about foreigners.

or go to american free press and count, how many times israel or jews are mentioned.

you all think youre so subversive because you read those underground-authors. but it has a good reason they are underground and noone cares about them.

hey variable. its pretty late for me now but i have to do this. i am sorry for this last post coz i writed this when i was pretty upset. i write this before i read the answer from you to it:

i apologoize for what i write since i made a bad fault by not differentiate between you and others and between the 911 "trtuther" scene.

i know there are many people that arent satisfied with the official version of 911 and that have good reasons not to be satisfied. therefore it is ok to be on a mission for the real truth, if there is one and if it can be found out.

what i want to express here is that i dont feel comfortable when guys like you agree with jerry, who agrees with alex jones, who agrees with holocaust deniers and racists. there are other ways to question 911. free from this simplified NWO stuff that jerry posts on this board.

always be critic about the government and politics but plz dont work together with antidemocratic, antiamerican, nationalist, racist, antisemite forces. they shouldnt be your allies.

i have no idea who you are reading and who not. but please dont agree with jerrys god Alex Jones

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 06:17 PM
What are you even talking about?  I don't read a dam thing from underground authors.  The last two books I read were written by Jessie Ventura and Steven Hawking.  I don't hardly pay any attention to Alex Jones at all.  You're the one that reads these bat shit crazy authors that can turn literally anything into an attack on Jews.  The fucked up part is that you buy into it.  We were not saying a dam thing about foreigners or Jews.  I was talking about a historical even which is 100% true.  No conspiracy theories needed because the US government straight admitted it happened.  The office of the president said this.  No fucking underground authors you fucking jackass.  Don't come at me like that saying I read crazy shit or I don't know what I'm talking about when you have borderline insanity paranoia about the world hating Jews.  No one gives a shit about Jews.  I could fucking care less about them.  That doesn't mean I hate them.  It means I just don't give a shit what is going on in the Hebrew world 24/7.  like your insane obsessing ass does.  Get over it already because you are the one chasing shadows that aren't there.  You're the conspiracy theorist.  Josh and I were talking about confirmed events.  And just because you created this thread does not mean you control the contents.  We are more than on topic here. 

i just had the impression that when you said that Obama doesnt want to reveal the truth, youre 100% agreeing with jerry and his links to Alex Jones related sites. i guess and i hope that that is not true.

Quoteplease just leave you have nothing to say worth mentioning. your a pest, better yet a disease to this board

blablabla. watch your vocabulary. i know that you dont care. but as a german i have hard time that poeple compare other people to diseases. same goes for insects. i hope you understand.

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Sep 09, 2009, 11:43 PM
It was all my fault. Sorry. :0(

you all started this by quoting from americanfreepress. this made clear to me that you dont care for your instruments but only for your aims and ideology.

this "news" site was not only founded by a holocaust denier, but every 3rd article mentions and blames israel or some jews for everything bad that happens in America.

your friend Alex Jones has a lot of links to this site and other racists/nationalists that appeared on his show.

i guess Jones just offers the most easy way to "critisize" the government.

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 10, 2009, 02:50 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 09, 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 02:33 PM
my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

you are not telling me to shut up when you have acutally not a clue what the NWO theories are often about.

go to youtube and find out what alex jones says about foreigners.

or go to american free press and count, how many times israel or jews are mentioned.

you all think youre so subversive because you read those underground-authors. but it has a good reason they are underground and noone cares about them.

hey variable. its pretty late for me now but i have to do this. i am sorry for this last post coz i writed this when i was pretty upset. i write this before i read the answer from you to it:

i apologoize for what i write since i made a bad fault by not differentiate between you and others and between the 911 "trtuther" scene.

i know there are many people that arent satisfied with the official version of 911 and that have good reasons not to be satisfied. therefore it is ok to be on a mission for the real truth, if there is one and if it can be found out.

what i want to express here is that i dont feel comfortable when guys like you agree with jerry, who agrees with alex jones, who agrees with holocaust deniers and racists. there are other ways to question 911. free from this simplified NWO stuff that jerry posts on this board.

always be critic about the government and politics but plz dont work together with antidemocratic, antiamerican, nationalist, racist, antisemite forces. they shouldnt be your allies.

i have no idea who you are reading and who not. but please dont agree with jerrys god Alex Jones

Its all good bro.  I felt bad after I posted that too.  It just kind of pissed me off.  Honestly, you really do turn to that way too much.  There are other things that go on in this world. 

I just like to keep an open mind to all information.  If not, how do I know that I really know.  You know?

Quote from: Variable on Sep 10, 2009, 05:55 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 10, 2009, 02:50 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 09, 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 02:33 PM
my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

you are not telling me to shut up when you have acutally not a clue what the NWO theories are often about.

go to youtube and find out what alex jones says about foreigners.

or go to american free press and count, how many times israel or jews are mentioned.

you all think youre so subversive because you read those underground-authors. but it has a good reason they are underground and noone cares about them.

hey variable. its pretty late for me now but i have to do this. i am sorry for this last post coz i writed this when i was pretty upset. i write this before i read the answer from you to it:

i apologoize for what i write since i made a bad fault by not differentiate between you and others and between the 911 "trtuther" scene.

i know there are many people that arent satisfied with the official version of 911 and that have good reasons not to be satisfied. therefore it is ok to be on a mission for the real truth, if there is one and if it can be found out.

what i want to express here is that i dont feel comfortable when guys like you agree with jerry, who agrees with alex jones, who agrees with holocaust deniers and racists. there are other ways to question 911. free from this simplified NWO stuff that jerry posts on this board.

always be critic about the government and politics but plz dont work together with antidemocratic, antiamerican, nationalist, racist, antisemite forces. they shouldnt be your allies.

i have no idea who you are reading and who not. but please dont agree with jerrys god Alex Jones

I

Fuck yoooouuuuuuuu.

Stop pretending you know me. I don't even listen to Alex Jones. I may have seen 3 documentaries of his and read articles by him doesn't mean he's my god. You probably apologized to Trey because you're tried of being owned by him and his awesome writing skills. You're a horrible person. You spew out lies and try to make me look like something I'm not. It's always you CALLING me names like a little bitch and never try to disprove the articles or videos I post. I have never claimed you were anything [well I've probably said fag or stupid, but that isn't the same thing as NAZI or ANTI-SEMETIC] Stop fucking talking shit about me and be respectful. YOU DON'T KNOW ME.

this is exaclty why I hate discussing politics and religion on in the internet, or actually at all. you can't change people or prove them wrong, you will only end up fighting.

more love and less hatred, pls.

besides linking multiple times to alex jones articles, videos or websites you once quoted an article from americanfreepress. i took a look at this article and the side and for every clear thhinking man it is so obvious that this site promotes the ideo of a jewish world conspiracy. in the meantime i found out that one of the founders of this site is a holocaust denier which kinda confirmed my impression of the site. alex jones is connected to americanfreepress because he had guests on his show who wrote for this site.
if you dont see the problem i have with this, i give up all my hopes.

so why would you support institutions and people that promote that kind of hatred if you dont support it on your own?

how can i disproove your articles and videos? enough other people that know your country better did it for me. they make up imaginative "experts" and work with facts that are absolutely immun against any try to disproove em. which makes it a pseudo-argumentation. i know the ideology and that is enough for me. other people disprooved the moon landing conspiracies or the several alternative theories on 911.

watch this.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZyKR2-A0KPU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZyKR2-A0KPU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 09, 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 02:33 PM
my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

you are not telling me to shut up when you have acutally not a clue what the NWO theories are often about.

go to youtube and find out what alex jones says about foreigners.

or go to american free press and count, how many times israel or jews are mentioned.

you all think youre so subversive because you read those underground-authors. but it has a good reason they are underground and noone cares about them.

I fucking hate Alex Jones, not because he's an anti-semite, but because he's a naive piece of shit that just uses even more scare tactics which our society has had way too much of.

You can turn ANYthing into anti-semetism. Which is exceptionally retarded because of the way you do it. You link one person to another person who has an ideal that may be interpereted as anti-semetic. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS ORIGINAL PERSON OR THOUGHT IS ANTI-SEMETIC. BY THIS LOGIC I COULD PROVE THAT YOU ARE A WHITE SUPREMACIST. Shut the FUCK up with this anti-semite bullshit. It's beyond annoying now and has gotten into the realm of just pissing me the fuck off every time I see it.

Just so you know, I like you man, you've got a lot of interesting stuff to say, but this is just beyond stupidity and naivety.  I'm sorry if I came off like a dick, but you have no idea how infuriating that shit is.

alex jones is just too loud

seems no one here is interested in me explaining how 911 was an antisemtic attack (which doesnt mean that it was antisemitic only besides being antiamerican).

lol

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 12, 2009, 01:50 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 09, 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 02:33 PM
my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

you are not telling me to shut up when you have acutally not a clue what the NWO theories are often about.

go to youtube and find out what alex jones says about foreigners.

or go to american free press and count, how many times israel or jews are mentioned.

you all think youre so subversive because you read those underground-authors. but it has a good reason they are underground and noone cares about them.

I fucking hate Alex Jones, not because he's an anti-semite, but because he's a naive piece of shit that just uses even more scare tactics which our society has had way too much of.

You can turn ANYthing into anti-semetism. Which is exceptionally retarded because of the way you do it. You link one person to another person who has an ideal that may be interpereted as anti-semetic. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS ORIGINAL PERSON OR THOUGHT IS ANTI-SEMETIC. BY THIS LOGIC I COULD PROVE THAT YOU ARE A WHITE SUPREMACIST. Shut the FUCK up with this anti-semite bullshit. It's beyond annoying now and has gotten into the realm of just pissing me the fuck off every time I see it.

Just so you know, I like you man, you've got a lot of interesting stuff to say, but this is just beyond stupidity and naivety.  I'm sorry if I came off like a dick, but you have no idea how infuriating that shit is.

so denying the holocaust or thinking the whole world is run by jews (as american free press did and does) is just maybe antisemitic?

its a rethorical question anyways. my aim was not to piss of people but to open their eyes for these links that i think are pretty important. so enough now. i cannot force you to find out who is in alex jones`buddy club.

That's not the point. Damn near every fucking post you make is you spouting off about how anti-semetic someone is based on a club they are somewhat associated with that maybe one of the people in said club might be an anti-semite. Like I said before, by that logic, I could be an anti-semite because I have friends that know skinheads.

It's fucking retarded.

Srsly...can someone back me up in that I don't need this harrassment?

I kinda am.

Indirectly?

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 08:30 AM
seems no one here is interested in me explaining how 911 was an antisemtic attack (which doesnt mean that it was antisemitic only besides being antiamerican).

lol

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 12, 2009, 01:50 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 09, 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 02:33 PM
my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

you are not telling me to shut up when you have acutally not a clue what the NWO theories are often about.

go to youtube and find out what alex jones says about foreigners.

or go to american free press and count, how many times israel or jews are mentioned.

you all think youre so subversive because you read those underground-authors. but it has a good reason they are underground and noone cares about them.

I fucking hate Alex Jones, not because he's an anti-semite, but because he's a naive piece of shit that just uses even more scare tactics which our society has had way too much of.

You can turn ANYthing into anti-semetism. Which is exceptionally retarded because of the way you do it. You link one person to another person who has an ideal that may be interpereted as anti-semetic. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS ORIGINAL PERSON OR THOUGHT IS ANTI-SEMETIC. BY THIS LOGIC I COULD PROVE THAT YOU ARE A WHITE SUPREMACIST. Shut the FUCK up with this anti-semite bullshit. It's beyond annoying now and has gotten into the realm of just pissing me the fuck off every time I see it.

Just so you know, I like you man, you've got a lot of interesting stuff to say, but this is just beyond stupidity and naivety.  I'm sorry if I came off like a dick, but you have no idea how infuriating that shit is.

so denying the holocaust or thinking the whole world is run by jews (as american free press did and does) is just maybe antisemitic?

its a rethorical question anyways. my aim was not to piss of people but to open their eyes for these links that i think are pretty important. so enough now. i cannot force you to find out who is in alex jones`buddy club.

tell me how 9/11 was an antisemite attack?? that makes absolutely no fucking sense. many many people died, of all ethnic backgrounds. and the people who have suffered the worst from the aftermath are arab/muslim people... where is your logic?

and who in america is denying the holocaust?? as i have come to notice there is much attention paid to that era and event. every year in school we learned about it. there were huge blockbuster movies made about it (schindler's list), and you really cant even escape it.. but im sure you dont know that because you DONT live in america, you DONT go to school here, and you DONT have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about.. its sad really, you should self-evaluate your life and fanatical beliefs, youve become completely obsessed with these ideas. your dillusional. you have no backing. no one cares about you. your a fundamental radical who will prob end up commiting some horrenous crime over your belief just like a goddamnn mormon.

Quote from: wither-I on Sep 12, 2009, 02:35 PM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 08:30 AM
seems no one here is interested in me explaining how 911 was an antisemtic attack (which doesnt mean that it was antisemitic only besides being antiamerican).

lol

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 12, 2009, 01:50 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 09, 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 02:33 PM
my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

you are not telling me to shut up when you have acutally not a clue what the NWO theories are often about.

go to youtube and find out what alex jones says about foreigners.

or go to american free press and count, how many times israel or jews are mentioned.

you all think youre so subversive because you read those underground-authors. but it has a good reason they are underground and noone cares about them.

I fucking hate Alex Jones, not because he's an anti-semite, but because he's a naive piece of shit that just uses even more scare tactics which our society has had way too much of.

You can turn ANYthing into anti-semetism. Which is exceptionally retarded because of the way you do it. You link one person to another person who has an ideal that may be interpereted as anti-semetic. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS ORIGINAL PERSON OR THOUGHT IS ANTI-SEMETIC. BY THIS LOGIC I COULD PROVE THAT YOU ARE A WHITE SUPREMACIST. Shut the FUCK up with this anti-semite bullshit. It's beyond annoying now and has gotten into the realm of just pissing me the fuck off every time I see it.

Just so you know, I like you man, you've got a lot of interesting stuff to say, but this is just beyond stupidity and naivety.  I'm sorry if I came off like a dick, but you have no idea how infuriating that shit is.

so denying the holocaust or thinking the whole world is run by jews (as american free press did and does) is just maybe antisemitic?

its a rethorical question anyways. my aim was not to piss of people but to open their eyes for these links that i think are pretty important. so enough now. i cannot force you to find out who is in alex jones`buddy club.

tell me how 9/11 was an antisemite attack?? that makes absolutely no fucking sense. many many people died, of all ethnic backgrounds. and the people who have suffered the worst from the aftermath are arab/muslim people... where is your logic?

and who in america is denying the holocaust?? as i have come to notice there is much attention paid to that era and event. every year in school we learned about it. there were huge blockbuster movies made about it (schindler's list), and you really cant even escape it.. but im sure you dont know that because you DONT live in america, you DONT go to school here, and you DONT have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about.. its sad really, you should self-evaluate your life and fanatical beliefs, youve become completely obsessed with these ideas. your dillusional. you have no backing. no one cares about you. your a fundamental radical who will prob end up commiting some horrenous crime over your belief just like a goddamnn mormon.

i agreed with you up to the last sentence. then you just lost me. what do you mean by "just like a mormon"? are you refering to polygamy and underage wives?

i think the most obvious reference would be him commiting a "horrendous crime for his beliefs" just like 9/11 was fueled by.

i meant just that. commiting horrendous crimes according to the fundamental creed of "blood atonement". not polygamy.

have you read "under the banner of heaven"?

oh ok. no i have not. is it about

Quote from: wither-I on Sep 12, 2009, 02:45 PM
commiting horrendous crimes according to the fundamental creed of "blood atonement".

cause that sounds interesting. who is it by?

its written by jon krakauer. (he wrote "into the wild") its an amazing meditation on the founding history of mormonism both good and bad, and the fundamental beliefs some hold high and the deadly actions that ensue... i highly recommend it. its prodominantly non-biased which is good, there is practically no opinion from the author, just straightforward documenting and historical research. i had previously known little to nothing about mormonism and mormon culture and the book is very informative.. the polygamy aspect is disgusting thouhg. worse than i imagined. its pure sex slavery... and folk magic.

what i know of them is completely ludacris and disgusting. god living on another planet, native americans being banished jews, magic underwear and of course polygamy, and you could not be more right calling it a sex slave operation. but i've never heard of them involved with killings.

its all in there. check it out. some of it is quite disturbing. especially the history of brigham young - a regular old general

*the magic underwear thing makes me laugh soooo ridiculous
the native american aspect frankly pisses me off too. fucking rascists.

i'll definitly check that out. thanks.

and to think it was all started by one liar.

although mormonism is noooooo where near as rediculous as scientology. a religion based on the belief of aliens. started by a science fiction author.

Book sounds good, dogg.

Quotetell me how 9/11 was an antisemite attack?? that makes absolutely no fucking sense. many many people died, of all ethnic backgrounds. and the people who have suffered the worst from the aftermath are arab/muslim people... where is your logic?

and who in america is denying the holocaust?? as i have come to notice there is much attention paid to that era and event. every year in school we learned about it. there were huge blockbuster movies made about it (schindler's list), and you really cant even escape it.. but im sure you dont know that because you DONT live in america, you DONT go to school here, and you DONT have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about.. its sad really, you should self-evaluate your life and fanatical beliefs, youve become completely obsessed with these ideas. your dillusional. you have no backing. no one cares about you. your a fundamental radical who will prob end up commiting some horrenous crime over your belief just like a goddamnn mormon.

1.) i will try to explain this later. but calm down. it is really one interpretation you dont have to share and i will certainly not call you antisemite or anything if you dont share this interpretation. it will have nothing to do with who actually died on 911. 911 is certainly not capable of having just one single explanation. many people were traumatized and have other thoughts and emotions towards that event. and yeah. a lot of people that shouldtn have, actually payed the prize in the aftermath, but thats another subject.

2.) read more carefully and you will say who i accused being a holocaust denier. its Willis Carto, one of the founders of American Free Press. did i mention somehow that i think every american is stupid and doesnt know about the historical events? in all your hate against me, you should avoid those mistakes as they show me you just didnt read what i actually wrote.

too my shame, i have never seen Schindlers List lol.

and dude. "but im sure you dont know that because you DONT live in america, you DONT go to school here, and you DONT have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about". there is no need to try a chauvinistic argument against me. from what i read of you i am absolutely sure you have nothing to do with chauvinism, nationalism and shit like that.

"you have no backing" i am actually proud that my backing doesnt consist of youtube videos or radio shows but from philosophers and sociologists (is that the right term?)

" no one cares about you"

No U (just wanted to hold your level lol)

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 04:12 PM

Quotetell me how 9/11 was an antisemite attack?? that makes absolutely no fucking sense. many many people died, of all ethnic backgrounds. and the people who have suffered the worst from the aftermath are arab/muslim people... where is your logic?

and who in america is denying the holocaust?? as i have come to notice there is much attention paid to that era and event. every year in school we learned about it. there were huge blockbuster movies made about it (schindler's list), and you really cant even escape it.. but im sure you dont know that because you DONT live in america, you DONT go to school here, and you DONT have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about.. its sad really, you should self-evaluate your life and fanatical beliefs, youve become completely obsessed with these ideas. your dillusional. you have no backing. no one cares about you. your a fundamental radical who will prob end up commiting some horrenous crime over your belief just like a goddamnn mormon.

1.) i will try to explain this later. but calm down. it is really one interpretation you dont have to share and i will certainly not call you antisemite or anything if you dont share this interpretation. it will have nothing to do with who actually died on 911. 911 is certainly not capable of having just one single explanation. many people were traumatized and have other thoughts and emotions towards that event. and yeah. a lot of people that shouldtn have, actually payed the prize in the aftermath, but thats another subject.

2.) read more carefully and you will say who i accused being a holocaust denier. its Willis Carto, one of the founders of American Free Press. did i mention somehow that i think every american is stupid and doesnt know about the historical events? in all your hate against me, you should avoid those mistakes as they show me you just didnt read what i actually wrote.

too my shame, i have never seen Schindlers List lol.

and dude. "but im sure you dont know that because you DONT live in america, you DONT go to school here, and you DONT have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about". there is no need to try a chauvinistic argument against me. from what i read of you i am absolutely sure you have nothing to do with chauvinism, nationalism and shit like that.

"you have no backing" i am actually proud that my backing doesnt consist of youtube videos or radio shows but from philosophers and sociologists (is that the right term?)

" no one cares about you"

No U (just wanted to hold your level lol)

okay you obviously still have no point, whatsoever. you have not proven or disproven anything. you STILL have no backing or evidence to put forth.

AND HERE IS WHAT I QUOTED FROM YOU;
(i dont see anything about "willis carto" so im sorry if i didnt read ALL of your former posts, thats why i quoted SPECIFICALLY on this one! so dont pull that "you should have read all that i said) CAUSE I DID! AND I RESPONDED TO IT!

*and another thing! -im not quoting any "youtube" or "radio shows" ANYWHERE! FIND ONE. JUST ONE. EXACTLY YOU CANT. annnnnnnd trust me i know plenty about philosophy and sociology.  you still have nothing to say. im done bickering with your epic nonsense.

Quote from: wither-I on Sep 12, 2009, 02:35 PM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 08:30 AM
seems no one here is interested in me explaining how 911 was an antisemtic attack (which doesnt mean that it was antisemitic only besides being antiamerican).

lol

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 12, 2009, 01:50 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 09, 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote from: Variable on Sep 09, 2009, 02:33 PM
my fucking god with youre stupid shit already.  No one is fucking talking about jews. 

you are not telling me to shut up when you have acutally not a clue what the NWO theories are often about.

go to youtube and find out what alex jones says about foreigners.

or go to american free press and count, how many times israel or jews are mentioned.

you all think youre so subversive because you read those underground-authors. but it has a good reason they are underground and noone cares about them.

I fucking hate Alex Jones, not because he's an anti-semite, but because he's a naive piece of shit that just uses even more scare tactics which our society has had way too much of.

You can turn ANYthing into anti-semetism. Which is exceptionally retarded because of the way you do it. You link one person to another person who has an ideal that may be interpereted as anti-semetic. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS ORIGINAL PERSON OR THOUGHT IS ANTI-SEMETIC. BY THIS LOGIC I COULD PROVE THAT YOU ARE A WHITE SUPREMACIST. Shut the FUCK up with this anti-semite bullshit. It's beyond annoying now and has gotten into the realm of just pissing me the fuck off every time I see it.

Just so you know, I like you man, you've got a lot of interesting stuff to say, but this is just beyond stupidity and naivety.  I'm sorry if I came off like a dick, but you have no idea how infuriating that shit is.

so denying the holocaust or thinking the whole world is run by jews (as american free press did and does) is just maybe antisemitic?

its a rethorical question anyways. my aim was not to piss of people but to open their eyes for these links that i think are pretty important. so enough now. i cannot force you to find out who is in alex jones`buddy club.

tell me how 9/11 was an antisemite attack?? that makes absolutely no fucking sense. many many people died, of all ethnic backgrounds. and the people who have suffered the worst from the aftermath are arab/muslim people... where is your logic?

and who in america is denying the holocaust?? as i have come to notice there is much attention paid to that era and event. every year in school we learned about it. there were huge blockbuster movies made about it (schindler's list), and you really cant even escape it.. but im sure you dont know that because you DONT live in america, you DONT go to school here, and you DONT have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about.. its sad really, you should self-evaluate your life and fanatical beliefs, youve become completely obsessed with these ideas. your dillusional. you have no backing. no one cares about you. your a fundamental radical who will prob end up commiting some horrenous crime over your belief just like a goddamnn mormon.

Quoteokay you obviously still have no point, whatsoever. you have not proven or disproven anything. you STILL have no backing or evidence to put forth.

uhm yeah that is because i said i will explain the 911 issue later.

Quote
*and another thing! -im not quoting any "youtube" or "radio shows" ANYWHERE! FIND ONE. JUST ONE. EXACTLY YOU CANT. annnnnnnd trust me i know plenty about philosophy and sociology.  you still have nothing to say. im done bickering with your epic nonsense.

learn how to read. i never said that you are working with youtube or radio shows.

is this your tactics in a conversation? putting words into my mouth that i never said. just like you tried to make me look like i said that americans are denying the shoah while i clearly spoke about americanfreepress.


btw: flaming and trolling aren`t allowed on this board. so plz stop insulting me

I love this topic.  You know why?  Because this is exactly what happens in the real world of politics. 

i dont know if you think this is a good thing or not.

i personally appreciate hard fought discourses and debattes as this is the way, that brings progression to the society. it would be really sad if anyone shared the same opionion and just agrees all the time to anyone. of course inhuman ideologies should be excluded from all this.

all this should work without the argumentum ad personam.

It's sad if people share the same opinion and agree?  How do you think we as humans have gotten this far?  I do see what you mean though. Without some kind of debate or reasoning, there would be some sort of imbalance in the structure of society.

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 07:18 PM
all this should work without the argumentum ad personam.

Honestly, probably the most intelligent thing you've ever said on the board. 

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 06:52 PM

Quoteokay you obviously still have no point, whatsoever. you have not proven or disproven anything. you STILL have no backing or evidence to put forth.

uhm yeah that is because i said i will explain the 911 issue later.

Quote
*and another thing! -im not quoting any "youtube" or "radio shows" ANYWHERE! FIND ONE. JUST ONE. EXACTLY YOU CANT. annnnnnnd trust me i know plenty about philosophy and sociology.  you still have nothing to say. im done bickering with your epic nonsense.

learn how to read. i never said that you are working with youtube or radio shows.

is this your tactics in a conversation? putting words into my mouth that i never said. just like you tried to make me look like i said that americans are denying the shoah while i clearly spoke about americanfreepress.


btw: flaming and trolling aren`t allowed on this board. so plz stop insulting me

Dude you said that he quotes you tube and radio shows.  He said he has never QUOTED these things.  Not that he hasn't worked for them. 

And youre trolling all of us about being anti semites.  So chill. 

QuoteDude you said that he quotes you tube and radio shows.

no i didnt.

Quote"you have no backing" i am actually proud that my backing doesnt consist of youtube videos or radio shows but from philosophers and sociologists (is that the right term?)

this is what i said. i dont see where i adressed any particular person here. i just spoke for myself.

QuoteHe said he has never QUOTED these things.

i never said otherwise lol.

QuoteNot that he hasn't worked for them. 

what? "for them"? i wrote "with them" which means using them in an argumentation. i have no idea where wither is working aka what is job is?


dont try to trick me here lol.

QuoteAnd youre trolling all of us about being anti semites.  So chill. 

i just remember accusing jerry and probablly oldnewtype somewhen. i just warned some others not to get their info from racist/nationalist/antisemitc platforms.

enough distorion of words now plz.

I think he's referring to me when he's talking about youtube videos and radio shows.

Can Nailec please provide a link, article, or video proving Alex Jones is an anti-semite? That would be lovely because his wife is Jewish.

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Sep 12, 2009, 10:57 PM
I think he's referring to me when he's talking about youtube videos and radio shows.

Can Nailec please provide a link, article, or video proving Alex Jones is an anti-semite? That would be lovely because his wife is Jewish.

1. thank you. i was indeed referring to you.

2. i think i never said that Alex Jones is an anti-semite by himself. he is surrounded and linked to this scene.

the NWO- theorists are full of people that either directly claim that jews run the world or they claim that the world is run by a global elite and the financial system. the 2nd claim (besides being wrong) is at least structural antisemtism since they use anti-semitic stereotypes.

i think i could provide you with some info to some of Alex Jones buddy who are racists and antisemites. but i dont think its is worth the effort as you will probablly say that there is nothing wrong with having those people on your radio show.

in the meantime you could read this

http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_Domestic/9_11_conspiracy_theories.htm

it has been a while for me but i think there is some info on americanfreepress in this article.


you quoting from americanfreepress has started all this in the first place.

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 11:24 PMthe NWO- theorists are full of people that either directly claim that jews run the world or they claim that the world is run by a global elite and the financial system.

Oh shit. I'm an anti-semite. In spite of one of my closest friends being one of the jewiest jews I have ever met. In spite of the fact that I am fascinated with judaism. In spite of the fact that judaism is pretty much the only organized religion that I have  lot of respect for.

This is exactly my fucking point. STOP putting words into people's mouths if you want other people to stop doing that to you.

Idiot.

Also, what the hell happened to Cory?

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 11:24 PMthe NWO- theorists are full of people that either directly claim that jews run the world or they claim that the world is run by a global elite and the financial system.

What "theory"? Did you not read the newspapers? Magazines like TIME name-dropping "new world order" during the start of our financial collapse in articles? People like Lou Dobbs talking about the NWO on his show, your saviour Obama saying "nwo" during speeches...man. Research Bilderberg. The Queen bitch controlling GE [general electric] who owns MSNBC who spew out lies.

I just don't get how knowing that a family of 300 people running the world is an anti-semitic way of thinking. Its the truth.

Why hasn't Obama done anything to reverse the policies that the Bush administration put into place? Because that has never been the plan. He's just another pawn. ARREST BUSH if you're REALLY for the people!

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice"
-President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 10:44 PM

QuoteDude you said that he quotes you tube and radio shows.

no i didnt.

Quote"you have no backing" i am actually proud that my backing doesnt consist of youtube videos or radio shows but from philosophers and sociologists (is that the right term?)

this is what i said. i dont see where i adressed any particular person here. i just spoke for myself.

QuoteHe said he has never QUOTED these things.

i never said otherwise lol.

QuoteNot that he hasn’t worked for them. 

what? "for them"? i wrote "with them" which means using them in an argumentation. i have no idea where wither is working aka what is job is?


dont try to trick me here lol.

QuoteAnd youre trolling all of us about being anti semites.  So chill. 

i just remember accusing jerry and probablly oldnewtype somewhen. i just warned some others not to get their info from racist/nationalist/antisemitc platforms.

enough distorion of words now plz.

Are you fucking kidding me?  I know English isn't your first language but its all right there for you to read.  He got mad because he thought you were accusing him of quoting you tube and radio shows.  Then you came back in defense and said "learn how to read. i never said that you are working with youtube or radio shows."  Even though the word "working" never came up before you said it.  Then you went off about him putting words in your mouth even though it was the other way around.  I know you're not this dumb.  Read it again and look at the mistake you made. 

We all know that the only reason this arguing happens is because we're afraid of letting each other know we want to suck eachother's dicks.

I love me some jewish dick.

You got some rock? I'll suck yo' dick...

once again.  It always goes gay

nailec your a damn idiot

your an anti gentite and you need to shut the fuck up with your stupid jewish nonsense

QuoteAre you fucking kidding me?  I know English isn't your first language but its all right there for you to read.  He got mad because he thought you were accusing him of quoting you tube and radio shows.  Then you came back in defense and said "learn how to read. i never said that you are working with youtube or radio shows."  Even though the word "working" never came up before you said it.  Then you went off about him putting words in your mouth even though it was the other way around.  I know you're not this dumb.  Read it again and look at the mistake you made.

lulz man i guess i still dont get it.

QuoteThen you came back in defense and said "learn how to read. i never said that you are working with youtube or radio shows."

this sentence of me is synonym with " i never said your are quoting youtube or radio shows"

this is how i meant to use the word "work"

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 13, 2009, 12:35 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 11:24 PMthe NWO- theorists are full of people that either directly claim that jews run the world or they claim that the world is run by a global elite and the financial system.

Oh shit. I'm an anti-semite. In spite of one of my closest friends being one of the jewiest jews I have ever met. In spite of the fact that I am fascinated with judaism. In spite of the fact that judaism is pretty much the only organized religion that I have  lot of respect for.

This is exactly my fucking point. STOP putting words into people's mouths if you want other people to stop doing that to you.

Idiot.

Also, what the hell happened to Cory?

jajaja my friend is black so i cant be a racist? i probablly used this argument when i was 16.

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Sep 13, 2009, 12:44 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 11:24 PMthe NWO- theorists are full of people that either directly claim that jews run the world or they claim that the world is run by a global elite and the financial system.

What "theory"? Did you not read the newspapers? Magazines like TIME name-dropping "new world order" during the start of our financial collapse in articles? People like Lou Dobbs talking about the NWO on his show, your saviour Obama saying "nwo" during speeches...man. Research Bilderberg. The Queen bitch controlling GE [general electric] who owns MSNBC who spew out lies.

I just don't get how knowing that a family of 300 people running the world is an anti-semitic way of thinking. Its the truth.

Why hasn't Obama done anything to reverse the policies that the Bush administration put into place? Because that has never been the plan. He's just another pawn. ARREST BUSH if you're REALLY for the people!

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice"
-President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

you are absolutely right with most what you say here. but there is a semantic difference in the use of the term NWO. probablly there are more than two ways to read it, but i would differ betwenn how the conspiracy industry uses it and how most politicians use it.

the problem i have is with sentences like these:

"a family of 300 people running the world"

"Because that has never been the plan. He's just another pawn"

this implies to me that you think that there is something like a few puppet masters that control politicians and that act on a world-wide plan. it just ignores how complicated the world actually works. i am really not ignoring that there are people and companies that have way too much power like some banks and media companies. but they are not all the same. they have different interests and surely dont control the G8 or G20 or something.

i think when politicians these days are talking about a new world order, they mean  the changes, that are brought by the world wide financial and banking crisis.
1. the changes that already happened
2. the changes that have to be made in political decisions in order to handle this crisis. and because the economy is linked in most nations of the world, it will be necessary that the leaders of those nations find a solution that helps them all.

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 13, 2009, 11:19 AM

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 13, 2009, 12:35 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 11:24 PMthe NWO- theorists are full of people that either directly claim that jews run the world or they claim that the world is run by a global elite and the financial system.

Oh shit. I'm an anti-semite. In spite of one of my closest friends being one of the jewiest jews I have ever met. In spite of the fact that I am fascinated with judaism. In spite of the fact that judaism is pretty much the only organized religion that I have  lot of respect for.

This is exactly my fucking point. STOP putting words into people's mouths if you want other people to stop doing that to you.

Idiot.

Also, what the hell happened to Cory?

jajaja my friend is black so i cant be a racist? i probablly used this argument when i was 16.

also i remember that i somewhen explained to you, that modern antisemitic argument must not mean jews directly (therefore structural antisemitism) but come from older forms of antisemitism and may be a potent ground for the real antisemites in the world.

Here are some more NWO quotes...

"We are not
going to achieve a
NEW WORLD ORDER
without paying for it in
BLOOD
as well as in words and money"
-Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the July/August 1995 issue of Foreign Affairs.

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.
The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
- James Paul Warburg, appearing before the U.S. Senate on February 7th, 1950

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 13, 2009, 11:16 AM

QuoteAre you fucking kidding me?  I know English isn’t your first language but its all right there for you to read.  He got mad because he thought you were accusing him of quoting you tube and radio shows.  Then you came back in defense and said “learn how to read. i never said that you are working with youtube or radio shows.”  Even though the word “working” never came up before you said it.  Then you went off about him putting words in your mouth even though it was the other way around.  I know you’re not this dumb.  Read it again and look at the mistake you made.

lulz man i guess i still dont get it.

QuoteThen you came back in defense and said “learn how to read. i never said that you are working with youtube or radio shows.”

this sentence of me is synonym with " i never said your are quoting youtube or radio shows"

this is how i meant to use the word "work"

Well work and quote are not synonyms

sorry then. the german word for "work" can be used in many ways.

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 13, 2009, 11:38 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 13, 2009, 11:19 AM

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 13, 2009, 12:35 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 11:24 PMthe NWO- theorists are full of people that either directly claim that jews run the world or they claim that the world is run by a global elite and the financial system.

Oh shit. I'm an anti-semite. In spite of one of my closest friends being one of the jewiest jews I have ever met. In spite of the fact that I am fascinated with judaism. In spite of the fact that judaism is pretty much the only organized religion that I have  lot of respect for.

This is exactly my fucking point. STOP putting words into people's mouths if you want other people to stop doing that to you.

Idiot.

Also, what the hell happened to Cory?

jajaja my friend is black so i cant be a racist? i probablly used this argument when i was 16.

also i remember that i somewhen explained to you, that modern antisemitic argument must not mean jews directly (therefore structural antisemitism) but come from older forms of antisemitism and may be a potent ground for the real antisemites in the world.

I hate you so much right now, man.

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 13, 2009, 02:36 PM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 13, 2009, 11:38 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 13, 2009, 11:19 AM

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Sep 13, 2009, 12:35 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 12, 2009, 11:24 PMthe NWO- theorists are full of people that either directly claim that jews run the world or they claim that the world is run by a global elite and the financial system.

Oh shit. I'm an anti-semite. In spite of one of my closest friends being one of the jewiest jews I have ever met. In spite of the fact that I am fascinated with judaism. In spite of the fact that judaism is pretty much the only organized religion that I have  lot of respect for.

This is exactly my fucking point. STOP putting words into people's mouths if you want other people to stop doing that to you.

Idiot.

Also, what the hell happened to Cory?

jajaja my friend is black so i cant be a racist? i probablly used this argument when i was 16.

also i remember that i somewhen explained to you, that modern antisemitic argument must not mean jews directly (therefore structural antisemitism) but come from older forms of antisemitism and may be a potent ground for the real antisemites in the world.

I hate you so much right now, man.

yeah man settle down with that shit. you are REALLY overcompensating for the fact that your people did horrible things to the jews.  but calling people out for being antisemitic when they said something that had nothing to do with the jews. but you managed to play 7 degrees of kevin bacon and make some retarded connection because of the "modern antisemitic argument" is getting real old.  we get it your german and you are the jews biggest defender. now give it a rest.

haha omg this thread is a frustrating read.  I think the Jews running the NWO are paying nailec to say all this shit.

so this was posted on campaign for liberty, i thought it was pretty interesting.

Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny on 09/11/09
Last updated 09/11/09

The following letter to the editor was published in my hometown newspaper last week:

    As a progressive liberal, I believe health care to be an unalienable American right. All United States citizens are endowed with this natural human birthright. Our republic was founded upon the principle of equal justice and equal opportunity. Justice demands that our federal government fulfill this fundamental obligation and ensure that every American citizen has the opportunity to receive the very best medical care available.

    All Americans, from a newly-born child to an aging baby boomer, deserve equal opportunity to live and enjoy safe, meaningful and healthy lives. Working together, with unselfish hearts and open minds, we can guarantee that the life and health of every member of our community be equally respected, equally valued and equally protected.

    In our democracy, the federal government has a historic responsibility to care for the welfare of all of its citizens, regardless of their wealth or income, race or ethnicity, religion or nationality, gender or sexual orientation, ability or disability.

    In 1776, the Declaration of Independence founded our nation on the right to live a purposeful life. In 1789, the Constitution committed our government to care for the common welfare of all citizens. In 1865, Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address called for malice toward none and charity for all of our fellow citizens.

    Today, the time has come for all true American patriots to come together to establish universal health care. It is our moral responsibility and our sacred duty to build upon the legacy of our founding brothers to forge a more perfect and a more healthy national union.

I replied with the following letter:

    In his September 4 letter, Mr. Urban attempted to connect government-provided health care to natural rights and our nation's founding documents. His letter was littered with noble-sounding words and emotional appeals, but wholly inaccurate.

    Health care is unequivocally not a right. It's especially not an American right, as Urban stated several times. Are those living in other countries somehow less worthy? Life, liberty, and property are rights; health care is a responsibility. Don't confuse the two.

    Unlike rights, health care (and other goods and services) must be provided by someone. I have no more right to free health services than I would to a free shopping cart full of groceries. Whether I need a dozen eggs or an MRI, it is my responsibility to pay for them. If you need eggs or an MRI, please don't use the government to forcibly and anonymously extract money from me to pay for what you've received. Government "charity" is not charity at all, and it has destroyed real charity and created a permanent class of dependents.

    Urban appealed to the Constitution's 'general welfare' clause to legitimize federal provision of health services. This clause is a common excuse for government to do nearly anything it wants, as someone always benefits whenever the government hands out other people's money. 'General welfare' is not doing nice things for individuals, but for the good of the Union as a whole.

    The Constitution does not and cannot grant fundamental rights, nor can any document or proclamation-it instead prohibits our government from interfering with the rights that all people already have. It is this that made America unique and allowed liberty to flourish.

Which was edited (weakening it, I believe) by the paper's editors and published today:

    In his Your View published Sept. 4, Scott Urban attempted to connect government-provided health care to natural rights and our nation's founding documents. His letter was littered with noble-sounding words and emotional appeals, but was wholly inaccurate, in my opinion.

    Health care is unequivocally not a right. It's especially not an American right, as Urban stated several times. Are those living in other countries somehow less worthy? Life, liberty, and property are rights; health care is a responsibility. Don't confuse the two. Unlike rights, health care (and other goods and services) must be provided by someone. I have no more right to free health services than I would to a free shopping cart full of groceries. Whether I need a dozen eggs or an MRI, it is my responsibility to pay for them. If you need eggs or an MRI, please don't use the government to forcibly and anonymously extract money from me to pay for what you've received.

    Government "charity" is not charity at all, and it has destroyed real charity and created a permanent class of dependents. Urban appealed to the Constitution's general welfare clause to legitimize federal provision of health services. This clause is a common excuse for government to do nearly anything it wants, as someone always benefits whenever the government hands out other people's money. General welfare is not doing nice things for individuals, but for the good of the Union as a whole.

    The Constitution does not and cannot grant fundamental rights, nor can any document or proclamation - it instead prohibits our government from interfering with the rights that all people already have. It is this that made America unique and allowed liberty to flourish.

Ah well, at least it got published.

Among others, I received this message from a friend this morning (hopefully they won't mind me posting it here):

    I read your letter to the Editor this morning, and I understand where you are coming from. I challenge you, though, to really look at the people who want to take responsibility for their health care but have no means to. This is not a question of wanting to take responsibility, but rather being able to afford to take responsibility.

    You have a large family, and luckily you have a great job working for [my employer]. I'm sure you have nice benefits as well. But you can't tell me that you and [my wife] never struggled to make ends meet? And that's with both of you having college degrees. I challenge you to think of the people not like you. To think of the people who work unskilled jobs and make minimum wage. They cannot afford health care, and if they become sick-- well, it really is debt or death.

    Having the government step does not mean limitation of freedom. The government was set up for a purpose. Just like social security was set up for a purpose. Don't be afraid, Jon. Life is not black and white. Even though you are 30 something, I still challenge you to really look at poverty in America and not so much what Health Care Reform can do for you-- but what it can do for our country.

    You are a smart man. Look beyond yourself.

To which I replied:

    I would have addressed your points in my letter but it's limited to 275 words by the Free Press--not a lot of space to make a convincing argument for anything. Also, they added "in my opinion" to the second sentence (as if anything in the LTTE section isn't an opinion) and re-paragraphed my letter in such a way that several of my points were broken up and other points were uncomfortably combined.

    You mention Social Security, so I'll address that first. Social Security (like Medicare) is a giant Ponzi scheme that has only persisted thus far because it has been continually expanded. There is no actual money in the Social Security 'trust fund'. It will soon fail. In addition, it teaches people to rely on government (i.e. other taxpayers) for their support in old age, rather than making a concerted effort to save and/or having many children for support. Because people have fewer children as a result, there are fewer new taxpayers to support the aging population. People save less and spend more, consuming resources and leaving less money available for retirement.

    More to the main point of your letter, I certainly *am* thinking of people less fortunate than me. They should be seeking support from their family, friends, churches, neighbors, charities, etc. When the government provides charity or a 'safety net' for people, it completely erodes these important community connections and depersonalizes the act of asking for support and the act of giving support. This depersonalization also makes it easy to ask for help when you don't *really* need it, which leads to abuse and overuse. Additionally, the government has no real incentive to get people off the dole and back on their own, while a personal donor does. The 'War on Poverty' has been running for decades, and we still have just as many poor people even though we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars. All of the tax money needed to pay for that has a tendency to drive more people toward government support, since they have less money of their own to begin with.

    I currently have a $1200 bill to pay for an ultrasound and x-ray examination of my daughter's kidneys, all done in under 2 hours. At least half of that cost is due to well-intentioned government intervention. If I had any idea of the cost before the procedure was done, I would have sought a second opinion first and possibly pursued other, cheaper methods.

    There is an amazing amount of government in our health care system already, including health insurance mandates, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Health Service, myriad regulations of all drugs, medical equipment, and services, personnel licensing requirements, etc., etc. Complying with these regulations is terrifically expensive and makes health care unaffordable; it also makes costs rise much faster than the general rate of inflation. Government wage controls during WWII led employers to add health benefits to attract employees, which coupled insurance to employment, which causes all sorts of problems and makes insurance unaffordable for the self-employed and those with part time jobs. (And it forces people to stay in jobs they hate so they don't lose benefits.)

    Insurance companies, when they operate free from the government intervention that changes them from what they should be--insurers against catastrophic loss--into byzantine third-party payment systems (what we have in health insurance today), are the ultimate safety net.

    Adding more government complexity to the mix will not improve what would otherwise be a simple and affordable system if the government would just get out of the way. If car insurance were run the same way as health insurance, we'd be crying for national car insurance reform right now, too. You'd need a full time job to get car insurance, and the govt would require all insurance plans to cover gasoline, oil changes, and repairs. All mechanics would have to be certified by a state board. You'd have no idea how much an oil change cost, but it wouldn't matter because the government would be paying for it. Etc.

    I encourage you to read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson", online here: http://jim.com/econ/ It was key to my recently-developed passion for economics (passionate? for economics? weird, I know!) and laid the foundation for my political activism.

    Thanks for writing, and thanks for reading my reply.

Now I'm going to have to put in a few hours this weekend to make up for lost time at work! Besides, I need to earn a lot of money to help pay for everyone else's health care! :D

QuoteI think the Jews running the NWO are paying nailec to say all this shit.

lol allthough i think you were being sarcastic, its not the first time i read or hear this statement against someone who stands up for jews.


what are the alternatives to obamacare?

Awesome! Jonathan has a way with words.

I don't want the government telling me what kind of healthcare I need. I also don't need the gov't fining me if I don't want healthcare. That's bullshit!

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 13, 2009, 06:14 PM

QuoteI think the Jews running the NWO are paying nailec to say all this shit.

lol allthough i think you were being sarcastic, its not the first time i read or hear this statement against someone who stands up for jews.


what are the alternatives to obamacare?

did any of your family/ancestory fight in the war?
were they Nazis?
did they kill jews?
have you known any of these murderers whether family or not?
there are still survivors of that time surrounding you?
do you feel ashamed??
do you hate yourself?
do you also wish you could turn back time?
have you learned to forgive?

Quotedid any of your family/ancestory fight in the war?
were they Nazis?
did they kill jews?
have you known any of these murderers whether family or not?
there are still survivors of that time surrounding you?
do you feel ashamed??
do you hate yourself?
do you also wish you could turn back time?
have you learned to forgive?

what do you seek for? a psychoanalysis of my person?

let it go. your guilt has no room ro breathe in a world like this. move on.

so who's following the norwegian election? go AP!

I'm not... You give us a quick debrief ?     :)

i think i'm gonna pass. but i appreciate the interest.

congratulations to the red-red-green coalition.

i wish we could have that here in germany. unfortunatly our leftist party has an awkward agenda on foreign politics, including the immediate retreat from afhanistan and germany leaving the EU.

so i hope our social democrats (SPD) will again form a big coalition with christian democrats (CDU)

NEW WORLD ORDER

Found this on the C.I.A. website: 

The CIA in the New World Order:Intelligence Challenges Through 2015
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2000/dci_speech_020200smithson.html (https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2000/dci_speech_020200smithson.html)

some more..

New American Schools and the New World Order
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED348715&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED348715 (http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED348715&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED348715)

Just type in "New World Order" site:.GOV in www.google.com and see what pops up.

The New World Order does exist.

yeah fine and i am very glad that modern nations follow the duty to care for the whole world to fight poverty, starving, human rights violations etc.

again: it has nothing to do with a few mighty people that want to control the whole world. it will hopefully be a democratic process that embraces the needs of everyone.

what about the New World Order that started some more than 100 years ago? when the Bourgeoisie appeared and started to form the rest of the world around their capitalistic interests, causing economic dependencies, poverty, financial crisises, the global warming etc etc. to my eyes, the political class (that is of course way too often involved with the Bourgeoisie aka lobbyism) is doing good to establish rules that prevent more of the above-mentioned.

when you hear of NWO you probablly have something like Star Wars in mind, where the evil Darth Sidious and his clan are in control of nearly everything. i dont believe, that this is the case.

Yes, because my country "cares" about human rights violations.

(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6916/facedeform.jpg)
"Child with almost total deformity of the face; no recognisable features at all, and what appears to be one eye situated in the middle of the forehead."


The US has a dirty (DU) little (CIA) secret

A new book just published at the American Free Press by Michael Collins Piper, "The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America's Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire," details the early plans for a war against the Arab world by Henry Kissinger and the neo-cons in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That just happens to coincide with getting the DU "show on the road" and the oil crisis in the Middle East, which caused concern not only to President Nixon. The British had been plotting and scheming for control of the oil in Iraq for decades since first using poison gas on the Iraqis and Kurds in 1912.

    The book details the creation of the neo-cons by their "godfather" and Trotsky lover Irving Kristol, who pushed for a "war against terrorism" long before 9/11 and was lavishly funded for years by the CIA. His son, William Kristol, is one of the most influential men in the United States.

    Both are public relations men for the Israeli lobby's neo-conservative network, with strong ties to Rupert Murdoch. Kissinger also has ties to this network and the Carlyle Group, who, one could say, have facilitated these omnicidal wars beginning from the time former President Bush took office. It would be easy to say that we are recycling World Wars I and II, with the same faces.

    When I asked Vietnam Special Ops Green Beret Capt. John McCarthy, who could have devised this omnicidal plan to use DU to destroy the genetic code and genetic future of large populations of Arabs and Moslems in the Middle East and Central Asia - just coincidentally the areas where most of the world's oil deposits are located - he replied: "It has all the handprints of Henry Kissinger."

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

- Henry Kissinger, quoted in "Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW's in Vietnam"

(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7325/kissinger.jpg)
Kissinger: Bush's original choice to head the 911 comission.
He is fighting extradition to Spain and Chile to be tried for war crimes.

    In Zbignew Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives," the map of the Eurasian chessboard includes four regions strategic to U.S. foreign policy. The "South" region corresponds precisely to the regions now contaminated permanently with radiation from U.S. bombs, missiles and bullets made with thousands of tons of DU.

    A Japanese professor, Dr. K. Yagasaki, has calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The U.S. has used more DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. Four nuclear wars indeed, and 10 times the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere from atmospheric testing!

    No wonder our soldiers, their families and the people of the Middle East, Yugoslavia and Central Asia are sick. But as Henry Kissinger said after Vietnam when our soldiers came home ill from Agent Orange, "Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used for foreign policy."

    Unfortunately, more and more of those soldiers are men and women with brown skin. And unfortunately, the DU radioactive dust will be carried around the world and deposited in our environments just as the "smog of war" from the 1991 Gulf War was found in deposits in South America, the Himalayas and Hawaii.

    In June 2003, the World Health Organization announced in a press release that global cancer rates will increase 50 percent by 2020. What else do they know that they aren't telling us? I know that depleted uranium is a death sentence for all of us. We will all die in silent ways.

    To learn more:
    Sources used in this story that readers are encouraged to consult:

    American Free Press four-part series on DU by Christopher Bollyn. Part I: "Depleted Uranium: U.S. Commits War Crime Against Iraq, Humanity,"; Part II: "Cancer Epidemic Caused by U.S. WMD: MD Says Depleted Uranium Definitively Linked,"

    August 2004 World Affairs Journal. Leuren Moret: "Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,"

    August 2004 Coastal Post Online. Carol Sterrit: "Marin Depleted Uranium Resolution Heats Up  GI's Will Come Home To A Slow Death,"

    World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference, Hamburg, Germany, October 16-19, 2004

    International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan. Written opinion of Judge Niloufer Baghwat

    "Discounted Casualties: The Human Cost of Nuclear War" by Akira Tashiro, foreword by Leuren Moret

    -------------------

    Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who has worked around the world on radiation issues, educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials. She became a whistleblower in 1991 at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab after experiencing major science fraud on the Yucca Mountain Project. An environmental commissioner in the City of Berkeley, she can be reached at leurenmoret@yahoo.com.

How about the obvious human rights violation that Israel has been committing for 30 years? This video is NOT anti-semitic, just shows how the American media spins and distorts the truth..

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land: Media & the Israel-Palestine Conflict
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565#

o come on. reading all your epic articles and videos would cost me hours. and you know that i wont read anything related to american free press.

i know about israeli and american human rights violations. i guess the german media is not that much influenced by the por-israel lobby. and because i am reading news from different sources.

they are a problem and every time i hear of them i can just do the face palm because they make it somehow impossible to make anyone believe that your nation actually cares for human rights. i want to vomit every time i hear that israel plans another settlement or that someone "terrorist" was abused and humiliated in some jail.

anyways as democration nations with free media and equality we have a big chance to accuse the human rights violations commited by ourself and we have chances that they are actually heard and brought to the court. people living in dictatorships, facism or other non-democratic nations, dont even have that chance to be heard.

you can join some ngo and you probablly may change some things to the good.

in the coming years alot of people are going to be looking stupid. all along, how could you not see?? it happens time and again throughout history. BUT WE'RE IMPORTANT

im jumping on the bandwagon

Lets's Go NWO!!

Here's an issue I never see discussed.

Population control.

1 child per family, let the old and sick die. simple as that.

Really?

I mean, I think it's quite a bit more complex than that.

depends on how complex you make it.

make it a zero tolerance rule and it's pretty fucking simple.

I mean, the issue on a whole. I mean, 1 child is a little extreme.

I do agree though. Overpoulation is a disgusting problem that needs to be solved. On top of the fact that some families can't even take care of one kid, let alone the other 7 that they have.

if we're talking about developed countries or the US i'd say the first step would be to stop with most if not all welfare.  if people don't always have an impersonal safety net to turn to, i can guarantee they would exercise a little more judgement, and if they don't, it shouldn't be taxpayers' responsibility to take care of other peoples' choices, and if they really need help, they should need to seek it out from a family, friend, or nonprofit organization, most importantly because they're more personal, it's not just a form that you have to fill out to get free money.  then clearly the next step would be education on birth control and how much life sucks when you have infinite kids and don't live on a fuckin farm or something.  but it's pretty tyrannical to force people to have a certain maximum number of kids, and abort or whatever the ones after that number is reached.

maybe a calamity where the human race goes extinct is just what our mother earth needs

Probably

we should line up everyone in the world and say everyone who can live step forward

jews,  not so fast

bwahahaha

God.  Now we have to listen to this shit again

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Sep 16, 2009, 05:48 PM
if we're talking about developed countries or the US i'd say the first step would be to stop with most if not all welfare.  if people don't always have an impersonal safety net to turn to, i can guarantee they would exercise a little more judgement, and if they don't, it shouldn't be taxpayers' responsibility to take care of other peoples' choices, and if they really need help, they should need to seek it out from a family, friend, or nonprofit organization, most importantly because they're more personal, it's not just a form that you have to fill out to get free money.  then clearly the next step would be education on birth control and how much life sucks when you have infinite kids and don't live on a fuckin farm or something.  but it's pretty tyrannical to force people to have a certain maximum number of kids, and abort or whatever the ones after that number is reached.

i think your statementsounds like you want to step back into barbarism or some other ancient form of society, where you have to fight to keep yourself alive.
i am hoping that one day no one has ever go to work again and all the machines are doing the necessary shit for us.

education should really be the only way to prevent the earth from overpopulation.
+condoms should be free
+religious people that forbid condoms must stfu

The reason that I brought this up is because of how it relates to the NWO. If individual countries say "one kid per household" and that law is enforced, guess what, that's not gonna solve overpopulation in the slightest.

On the other hand, if there was a one world governrment, that law would apply everywhere and WOULD make a difference.

And here's another thing I am curious about; is everyone opposed to the idea of a one world government or just the NWO it APPEARS we are moving towards?

im down for a visit to the ministry of looooove

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 16, 2009, 11:48 PM

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Sep 16, 2009, 05:48 PM
if we're talking about developed countries or the US i'd say the first step would be to stop with most if not all welfare.  if people don't always have an impersonal safety net to turn to, i can guarantee they would exercise a little more judgement, and if they don't, it shouldn't be taxpayers' responsibility to take care of other peoples' choices, and if they really need help, they should need to seek it out from a family, friend, or nonprofit organization, most importantly because they're more personal, it's not just a form that you have to fill out to get free money.  then clearly the next step would be education on birth control and how much life sucks when you have infinite kids and don't live on a fuckin farm or something.  but it's pretty tyrannical to force people to have a certain maximum number of kids, and abort or whatever the ones after that number is reached.

i think your statementsounds like you want to step back into barbarism or some other ancient form of society, where you have to fight to keep yourself alive.
i am hoping that one day no one has ever go to work again and all the machines are doing the necessary shit for us.

education should really be the only way to prevent the earth from overpopulation.
+condoms should be free
+religious people that forbid condoms must stfu

no.  it's totally fucked up that somebody can just keep having kids to stay on the government dole.  I'm saying not-for-profit organizations are ALWAYS more efficient and effective than government programs based on the same principle, number 1 because their resources aren't earned through coercion and number 2 because if they don't perform their purported duties, they lose donors.  I can guarantee they would gain a shit ton of donors if number 1 people couldn't just excuse not donating because "oh, they're taken care of by welfare" and number 2 people had more money in their paychecks that wasn't taken to impersonally "help" someone.

I'm fucking steamed that you somehow got that I want the world to descend into barbarism out of that because I'm not an extreme, extreme, extreme, extreme (i could go on) progressive statist like yourself.  I'm really not looking at this from an "I want to fuck everyone over because I'm a tightwad" perspective, it's that the federal government needs to stay the fuck out of all of these issues because they are too distant from the actual problems to know exactly how to fix everything, they bring bureaucracy and inefficiency to every sector of society they meddle in, and always manage to screw over the poor and/or disadvantaged even harder.  Welfare. Does. Not. Benefit. Society.  It gives out help inefficiently to those who need it, and is abused by a large number of its users who don't.  Think about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the War on Poverty that's been going on for decades.  Where's the improvement in the poverty rate?

ah i get it now. u suggest feudalism. after all this comes historically after barbarism. (besides the years of barbarism in nazi-germany).
ok enough populism now. i really dont see why the upperclass should give their money voluntarily to non-profit organizations as soon as there arenty anymore taxes. everyone who is not lucky enough to have a job then would rely totally on the benevolence of other people. am i just underestimating the peoples good will?

and what has all this to do with the fight against world wide poverty? you can just make any comparison that you want, but you should proove if it really fits.
here we have the more or less well elaborated welfare state, there we have unique donations that dissappear somewhere because they go into a screwed system or a corrupt government.

i agree the welfare state lacks efficiency. but at least you can rely on it and its overall easier to control than thousands of non-profit organizations.

how can you be so hostile against your social system? did you never need it on your own?

lets go back to imperialism and just murder the fuck out of unsuspecting peoples that are horribly out matched and undeserving of their plight

we're alredy there arent we :)

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 17, 2009, 03:31 PM
ah i get it now. u suggest feudalism. after all this comes historically after barbarism. (besides the years of barbarism in nazi-germany).
ok enough populism now. i really dont see why the upperclass should give their money voluntarily to non-profit organizations as soon as there arenty anymore taxes. everyone who is not lucky enough to have a job then would rely totally on the benevolence of other people. am i just underestimating the peoples good will?

and what has all this to do with the fight against world wide poverty? you can just make any comparison that you want, but you should proove if it really fits.
here we have the more or less well elaborated welfare state, there we have unique donations that dissappear somewhere because they go into a screwed system or a corrupt government.

i agree the welfare state lacks efficiency. but at least you can rely on it and its overall easier to control than thousands of non-profit organizations.

how can you be so hostile against your social system? did you never need it on your own?

Umm I do believe you've missed the point I was making, but I can't be sure because of your English.  It's incredibly hard for me to discern what you're saying.  But what I'm talking about is actually progress through libertarian philosophy, the most successful and least oppressive form of government.

QuoteBut what I'm talking about is actually progress through libertarian philosophy, the most successful and least oppressive form of government.

dont say that as if it was a fact. this will be decided troughout history. every socialist and communist or egalitarian would go insane hearing that and would probablly have good arguments, why that isn`t the case.
for example i havent read any analysis of the worldwide banking and financial crisis, that didnt point out, that too much liberties basically caused the whole collapse. what would be the libertarians answer?


but i guess that libertarianism isnt one single school. i think there are variatians on how strong some positions within a libertarian system should be.

from what i read in this 5 minutes: the ideal libertarian state sounds pretty similar to the ideal communist one. the difference seems to be the means to this end.

Quotefor example i havent read any analysis of the worldwide banking and financial crisis, that didnt point out, that too much liberties basically caused the whole collapse. what would be the libertarians answer?

the reason is probablly that i dont know any libertarian community, newspaper, group or whatsoever here in germany. and our (economic) liberals will probablly gain 10% in the next elections and i count them to my enemies because they want me to pay my studies. those bastard!

free education for everyone!

Well I don't really see how you can debate that it's the least oppressive, since it's based on preserving individual liberty.  

You never read about the crisis being caused by the free market because you only read explanations given by those who support the Keynesian philosophy, the greatest economic fallacy ever created.  Read this and tell me that it doesn't make more sense than the explanations you've heard.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods111.html

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 17, 2009, 09:21 PM
from what i read in this 5 minutes: the ideal libertarian state sounds pretty similar to the ideal communist one. the difference seems to be the means to this end.

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 17, 2009, 09:21 PM
free education for everyone!

I honestly can't tell if you're just fucking with me here or not.  You'd have to be sooooooooooooo dense to genuinely believe either of those things.  But I mean I guess you've gone from diagnosing libertarianism as barbarism, feudalism and communism in your last few posts so I can't really put it past you.

QuoteBut I mean I guess you've gone from diagnosing libertarianism as barbarism, feudalism and communism in your last few posts so I can't really put it past you.

lol nice one. but to my defence: you spoke out the word libertarianism after i mentioned barbarism or feudalism. so i couldnt see that everything you said was based on the libertarian concept of the individuum. i just couldnt figure that you were relating to a whole political philosophy.

i would still claim it would totally end in barbarism if you would take the welfare from the people.


communism= free association of free individuals (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto)

wouldnt you say, this result in this definition sounds good to a Libertarian?

Quotehttp://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods111.html

will read tomorrow and hopefully understand

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
-Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal

FUCK THE QUEEN AND HER NAZI HUSBAND

(http://tnation.tmuscle.com/forum_images/d/a/da01f-120508princenazi.jpg)

The Georgia Guidestones

(http://www.globalfailure.com/images/myspace/Georgia_Guidestones_English.jpg)

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,00 in perpetual balance with nature"

WTF....

That actually doesnt look so bad

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Sep 18, 2009, 04:18 AM

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,00 in perpetual balance with nature"

WTF....

Aaaaaaaaaaaand why exactly is that a bad thing?

Y'know, other than the conclusion that you have already jumped to.

I think Islam is the answer

Have you ever heard of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan?  google them,  they look like they were a sight to behold

but the Taliban decided to blow them up with dynamite because "images" are evil or some backwards bullshit

"When the Afghani head council asked them to provide the money to feed the children instead of fixing the statues, they refused and said, 'No, the money is just for the statues, not for the children'. Herein, they made the decision to destroy the statues".

Not all Afghans or Muslims are that way

thanks for pointing that out variable,  i wasn't aware

I lol'd.

Here are some good topics to jump off of...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Eduardo Galeano
Global Research
Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:36 UTC
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14767

(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4065/lietome.jpg)

Is justice right side up?

Has world justice been frozen in an upside-down position?

The shoe-thrower of Iraq, the man who hurled his shoes at Bush, was condemned to three years in prison. Doesn't he deserve, instead, a medal?

Who is the terrorist? The hurler of shoes or their recipient? Is not the real terrorist the serial killer who, lying, fabricated the Iraq war, massacred a multitude, and legalized and ordered torture?

Who are the guilty ones--the people of Atenco, in Mexico, the indigenous Mapuches of Chile, the Kekchies of Guatemala, the landless peasants of Brazil - all being accused of the crime of terrorism for defending their right to their own land? If the earth is sacred, even if the law does not say so, aren't its defenders sacred too?

According to Foreign Policy Magazine, Somalia is the most dangerous place in the world. But who are the pirates? The starving people who attack ships or the speculators of Wall Street who spent years attacking the world and who are now rewarded with many millions of dollars for their pains?

Why does the world reward its ransackers?

Why is justice a one-eyed blind woman? Wal-Mart, the most powerful corporation on earth, bans trade unions. McDonald's, too. Why do these corporations violate, with criminal impunity, international law? Is it because in this contemporary world of ours, work is valued as lower than trash and workers' rights are valued even less?

Who are the righteous and who are the villains? If international justice really exists, why are the powerful never judged? The masterminds of the worst butcheries are never sent to prison. Is it because it is these butchers themselves who hold the prison keys?

What makes the five nations with veto power in the United Nations inviolable? Is it of a divine origin, that veto power of theirs? Can you trust those who profit from war to guard the peace?

Is it fair that world peace is in the hands of the very five nations who are also the world's main producers of weapons? Without implying any disrespect to the drug runners, couldn't we refer to this arrangement as yet another example of organized crime?

Those who clamor, everywhere, for the death penalty are strangely silent about the owners of the world. Even worse, these clamorers forever complain about knife-wielding murderers, yet say nothing about missile-wielding arch-murderers.

And one asks oneself: Given that these self-righteous world owners are so enamored of killing, why pray don't they try to aim their murderous proclivities at social injustice? Is it a just a world when, every minute, three million dollars are wasted on the military, while at the same time fifteen children perish from hunger or curable disease? Against whom is the so-called international community armed to the teeth? Against poverty or against the poor?

Why don't the champions of capital punishment direct their ire at the values of the consumer society, values which pose a daily threat to public safety? Or doesn't, perhaps, the constant bombardment of advertising constitute an invitation to crime? Doesn't that bombardment numb millions and millions of unemployed or poorly paid youth, endlessly teaching them the lie that "to be = to have," that life derives its meaning from ownership of such things as cars or brand name shoes? Own, own, they keep saying, implying that he who has nothing is, himself, nothing.

Why isn't the death penalty applied to death itself? The world is organized in the service of death. Isn't it true that the military industrial complex manufactures death and devours the greater part of our resources as well as a good part of our energies? Yet the owners of the world only condemn violence when it is exercised by others. To extraterrestrials, if they existed, such monopoly of violence would appear inexplicable. It likewise appears insupportable to earth dwellers who, against all the available evidence, hope for survival: we humans are the only animals who specialize in mutual extermination, and who have developed a technology of destruction that is annihilating, coincidentally, our planet and all its inhabitants.

This technology sustains itself on fear. It is the fear of enemies that justifies the squandering of resources by the military and police. And speaking about implementing the death penalty, why don't we pass a death sentence on fear itself? Would it not behoove us to end this universal dictatorship of the professional scaremongers? The sowers of panic condemn us to loneliness, keeping solidarity outside our reach: falsely teaching us that we live in a dog-eat-dog world, that he who can must crush his fellows, that danger is lurking behind every neighbor. Watch out, they keep saying, be careful, this neighbor will steal from you, that other one will rape you, that baby carriage hides a Muslim bomb, and that woman who is watching you--that innocent-looking neighbor of yours - will surely infect you with swine flu.

In this upside-down world, they are making us afraid of even the most elementary acts of justice and common sense. When President Evo Morales started to re-build Bolivia, so that his country with its indigenous majority will no longer feel shame facing a mirror, his actions provoked panic. Morales' challenge was indeed catastrophic from the traditional standpoint of the racist order, whose beneficiaries felt that theirs was the only possible option for Bolivia. It was Evo, they felt, who ushered in chaos and violence, and this alleged crime justified efforts to blow up national unity and break Bolivia into pieces. And when President Correa of Ecuador refused to pay the illegitimate debts of his country, the news caused terror in the financial world and Ecuador was threatened with dire punishment, for daring to set such a bad example. If the military dictatorships and roguish politicians have always been pampered by international banks, have we not already conditioned ourselves to accept it as our inevitable fate that the people must pay for the club that hits them and for the greed that plunders them?

But, have common sense and justice always been divorced from each other?

Were not common sense and justice meant to walk hand in hand, intimately linked?

Aren't common sense, and also justice, in accord with the feminist slogan which states that if we, men, had to go through pregnancy, abortion would have been free. Why not legalize the right to have an abortion? Is it because abortion will then cease being the sole privilege of the women who can afford it and of the physicians who can charge for it?

The same thing is observed with another scandalous case of denial of justice and common sense: why aren't drugs legal? Is this not, like abortion, a public health issue? And the very same country that counts in its population more drug addicts than any other country in the world, what moral authority does it have to condemn its drug suppliers? And why don't the mass media, in their dedication to the war against the scourge of drugs, ever divulge that it is Afghanistan which single-handedly satisfies just about all the heroin consumed in the world? Who rules Afghanistan? Is it not militarily occupied by a messianic country which conferred upon itself the mission of saving us all?

Why aren't drugs legalized once and for all? Is it because they provide the best pretext for military invasions, in addition to providing the juiciest profits to the large banks who, in the darkness of night, serve as money-laundering centers?

Nowadays the world is sad because fewer vehicles are sold. One of the consequences of the global crisis is a decline of the otherwise prosperous car industry. Had we some shred of common sense, a mere fragment of a sense of justice, would we not celebrate this good news?

Could anyone deny that a decline in the number of automobiles is good for nature, seeing that she will end up with a bit less poison in her veins? Could anyone deny the value of this decline in car numbers to pedestrians, seeing that fewer of them will die?

Here's how Lewis Carroll's queen explained to Alice how justice is dispensed in a looking-glass world:
"There's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't begin until next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all."
In El Salvador, Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero found that justice, like a snake, only bites barefoot people. He died of gunshot wounds, for proclaiming that in his country the dispossessed were condemned from the very start, on the day of their birth.

Couldn't the outcome of the recent elections in El Salvador be viewed, in some ways, as a homage to Archbishop Romero and to the thousands who, like him, died fighting for right-side-up justice in this reign of injustice?

At times the narratives of History end badly, but she, History itself, never ends. When she says goodbye, she only says: I'll be back.

Why is there military presence at the G20 summit? What the hell? I didn't know that protesters had weapons and were going to attack! Bullshit!

(http://www.pittnews.com/sites/default/files/blog6_oc.jpg)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/3952586536_385eb72044.jpg)

QuoteI didn't know that protesters had weapons and were going to attack!

uhm protesters are americans and americans have the right to bear arms. since some protesters probablly come from the antiimperialistic and extremist far left, there is a high possibility, they would use their weapons.

(http://photo.uol.ru/d/49992-1/schwarzer+block+-+129a.jpg)

those idiots basically throw with everything, they can get here in germany. even molotov cocktails.

i dont know if you have these extremists over there and i dont think they legitimize the military. the police should be able to handle them as the military probablly isnt trained for protesters.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XYpkqTubIwo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XYpkqTubIwo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Luke [the speaker] is so awesome!

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Sep 25, 2009, 10:19 PM
Why is there military presence at the G20 summit? What the hell? I didn't know that protesters had weapons and were going to attack! Bullshit!

(http://www.pittnews.com/sites/default/files/blog6_oc.jpg)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/3952586536_385eb72044.jpg)

Im confused by the first pic because those guys are defiantly not US military.  I don't recognize the uniform at all actually.  Maybe they are foreign military security advisors or something?  Maybe private citizen security contractors that just wear really motivated clothing?  Im not really sure.

But the second pic is much easier.  It's a bit harder to make out but its pretty obvious thats U.S. Army.  Probably the National Guard.  Which is a bit disturbing because youre not supposed to be able to use the U.S. military as a law enforcement agency on U.S. Soil.  Maybe they found some loop hole because of the location of the G20 Summit?

Anyways.  Thanks for posting that video.  Its a good reminder as to what is going on.   I feel bad for those cops though.  Most of them probably totally agree with what Luke was saying.  But the protestors were asking the police to give up their means of supporting their families for a moment that would be great then fade away and accomplish nothing.  We are only going to win this fight in the hall of congress and with political elections and legislations.  Not by harassing each other in the street.  Don't get me wrong.  I think its great the protestors showed up. But I can just see myself being asked to "keep the peace"  and totally hate my life when I have to conflict with good people like that.  Then taking a moral stand will only get you so far.  Far enough to lose your job and we lose yet another rational thinker in out countries security force.  I would gladly carry out a simple order like that to be around to protest and say no when they asked me to start rounding up americans and putting them in camps or shooting them or whatever.  Thats the day when we are all really going to need to come together as brothers

I was hoping you would be able to id the guys [whether or not they were military].

I totally agree with what you said in the 3rd paragraph, but there is still something that doesn't feel right about letting things like this go by without any opposition. Most people don't even know or care about what they talk about in these summits. How can they shut down all of downtown Pittsburgh and get away with the meeting of powerful countries and talking about new policies, etc. without the opinions of the public! How could they allow people to carry firearms at  townhall meetings about heatlhcare reform yet they use strong force against people who have no weapons and just want to stand up.

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Sep 26, 2009, 01:36 AM
[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XYpkqTubIwo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XYpkqTubIwo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Luke [the speaker] is so awesome!

UNBELIEVABLE!

Horrible, just horrible...cops take their time to take a photo-op with a nice, human trophy :(

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/thugs-cops-take-a-trophy

Some more footage:
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFYoyv2Gm1I&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFYoyv2Gm1I&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Fuck. That dude in a wheelchair that got maced...

...wow...

yeah man i just feel really sad after watching those. it really hurts "hope".

what is wrong with people in this world. we need to stand up now, together. how can we let this happen to us and the world

Wow... Pretty crazy...

why didnt allow they the protests? did they come too close to anything or anybody important?

who where the protesters? im sure there were heterogen groups.

while i am personally familiar with tear gas (it doesnt only affect people in the first row of the demo), this noise machine and the tear gas grenades shocked me too. i mean. when u use them you hit everybody that is near, not only some violent individuals. even the media wouldnt be safe from that.

I'm really glad I haven't ever been at something like that.  I know I would lose my temper and end up getting my ass beat and arrested when I tried to take on the force.

Here are some undercover, provocateurs at G20 protests caught on camera....

[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jrJ7aU-n1L8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jrJ7aU-n1L8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

^ Have you ever protested? It feels great to be able to scream for what you believe in, talking to others, causing ripples in the city, backing up traffic :-) Do it sometime.

I love how topics like the death of a celebrity gets so many, yet the death of our constitution gets no media coverage [and if it does, the MSM spins things around] and a lot of people don't seem to care [facebook, myspace bulletins...not that many people respond]. We have to keep spreading truthful information, fuck this left-right bullshit that always happens...they're both one in the same. We have to stick together!  Anyways, I'm just ranting, but here is another useful article:


Police Use Painful New Weapon on G20 Protesters

This technology has been deployed in Iraq as an "anti-insurgent weapon" -- it could easily be used as a torture tool.

By Allison Kilkenny, True/Slant
Posted on September 28, 2009, Printed on September 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/142921/

Pittsburgh police demonstrated the latest in crowd control techniques on protesters when they used "sound cannons" to blast the ears of citizens near the G-20 meeting of world economic leaders. City officials said this was the first time such sound blasters, also known as "sound weapons," were used publicly.

Lavonnie Bickerstaff of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police uses benign language like "sound amplifiers," and "long-range acoustic device" to explain the new weapons in an attempt to sanitize what is essentially a painful weapon that leaves no visible marks on its victims. The mob utilized a similar tactic on snitches when they would beat everywhere except the face. If victims have no outward bruises to show, the world is less likely to believe their stories of assault and harassment.

Unlike aerosol hand-grenades, pepper spray, and rubber bullets (all traditional methods of protest suppression also used at the G-20 protests,) the damage from sound cannons is entirely internal, and can only be preserved on video, but even then, the deafening noise cannot be fully appreciated unless one hears it in person.

(Footage of the sound cannons in action can be seen/heard below. It's clear from these videos that the extremely loud, high-pitched noise causes pain.)

The "long range acoustic device (LRAD)" is designed for long-range communication and acts as an "unmistakable warning," according to the American Technology Corporation (ATC,) which develops the instruments. "The LRAD basically is the ability to communicate clearly from 300 meters to 3 kilometers" (nearly 2 miles), said Robert Putnam of American Technology's media and investor relations during an interview with MSNBC. "It's a focused output. What distinguishes it from other communications tools out there is its ability to be heard clearly and intelligibly at a distance, unlike bullhorns."

Except, police aren't trying to send a distress call to allies 2 miles away. They're literally blasting this extreme decibel of noise directly into the ears of protesters (or any unwitting citizens) standing mere feet from the cannons. Depending on the mode of LRAD, it can blast a maximum sound of 145 to 151 decibels — equal to a gunshot — within a 3-foot (one meter) range, according to ATC. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports that permanent hearing loss can result from sounds at about 110 to 120 decibels in short bursts or even just 75 decibels if exposure lasts for long periods.

But there is a volume knob, Putnam notes, so its output can be less than max, purportedly to give us comfort in the knowledge that deafening citizens is left to the discretion of power-hungry police. On the decibel scale, an increase of 10 (say, from 70 to 80) means that a sound is 10 times more intense. Normal traffic noise can reach 85 decibels, reports MSNBC, but these sound cannons cannot be compared to standing beside a busy New York City road.

The BBC reported in 2005 that the "shrill sound of an LRAD at its loudest sounds something like a domestic smoke alarm, ATC says, but at 150 decibels, it is the aural equivalent to standing 30m away from a roaring jet engine and can cause major hearing damage if misused."

This technology has been deployed in Iraq as an "anti-insurgent weapon," and the sonic weaponry is also being used on protesters in Honduras. Seattle Weekly reports that this weapon could easily be used as a torture tool if one doesn't already think this is its only use.

Sonic weaponry is now being deployed domestically to put a chill on free speech. We're told this is the "humane" way to deal with protesters, but it's really just a convenient way to suppress citizens without the messy aftereffects of having to explain bullet holes to reporters. A bunch of protesters complaining about ruptured ear drums doesn't make for dramatic news.

Footage of the sound cannons in action:





VISIT PAGE FOR VIDEOS, THANKS







© 2009 True/Slant All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/142921/

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Sep 28, 2009, 11:07 PM
Here are some undercover, provocateurs at G20 protests caught on camera....

[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jrJ7aU-n1L8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jrJ7aU-n1L8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

^ Have you ever protested? It feels great to be able to scream for what you believe in, talking to others, causing ripples in the city, backing up traffic :-) Do it sometime.

I protested the anti war protest when Iraq first popped off.  My buddies and I showed up to the peace protest with hard hats and signs on baseball bats and hockey sticks that said shit like " dont be wack, bomb Iraq" and "smoke saddam not a bong".............We were some of the only people not to get shot with wooden balls by the cops.  Yeah, my political views have changed a bit.  Although most of the protestors were idiots and had no idea what they were talking about.  I do believe in their end game today. 

But you know I was thinking about it.  I didn't even treat a prisioner I took in afghanistan that bad.  He tried to kill me by blowing up an IED right underneath me ( thank god only the debt cord blew ) and I stopped an Afghan soldier from kicking his ass.  If I would have treated any taliban prisioners that bad I would be court martialed and locked up.  But its cool for American police to do it to American citizens in a peaceful protest....interesting.

Does anyone know if there has ever been any kind of legal action taken against cities whos police acted like this?  Seems like the ACLU might be trying to take this to the courts?

The thing that trips me out about the G20 summits protests is that they were on the defense hardcore. Like as if the protesters were terrorists screaming for blood. All the protection was unnecessary.

They have to be a little worried that someone in the crowd has a gun

Quote from: Variable on Sep 28, 2009, 10:55 PM
I'm really glad I haven't ever been at something like that.  I know I would lose my temper and end up getting my ass beat and arrested when I tried to take on the force.

yea. i dont know if i could handle it emotionally (in person) -as i can barely watching it take place on an embedded video, i would become enraged... the thought scares me

Quote from: Variable on Sep 29, 2009, 12:49 AMDoes anyone know if there has ever been any kind of legal action taken against cities whos police acted like this?  Seems like the ACLU might be trying to take this to the courts?

Think about the WTO riots, dude. None of those cops got charged with anything. A friend of my mom's (who wasn't at the protest) was walking his bike and groceries home in Queen Anne, not at all in the vicinity of the riot and got the shit kicked out of him by some of the riot police. They fucked up his bike and spilled his groceries everywhere and then just left him there. Dude went to the hospital with a broken rib.

WTF?  I have never heard of these riots.

But even if the individual cops wernt punished.  You would think someone would go after the city

...never heard of the Seattle 1999 WTO riot?

What the fuck?

Im not all underground crazy like you guys.  Ill look it up now though.

I like this form of activism :-)

Everything is ok!
[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qAQrsA3m8Bg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qAQrsA3m8Bg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

That was really good.

QuoteI protested the anti war protest when Iraq first popped off.  My buddies and I showed up to the peace protest with hard hats and signs on baseball bats and hockey sticks that said shit like " dont be wack, bomb Iraq" and "smoke saddam not a bong".............We were some of the only people not to get shot with wooden balls by the cops.  Yeah, my political views have changed a bit.  Although most of the protestors were idiots and had no idea what they were talking about.  I do believe in their end game today.

ahahahahahaha

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6923/1254275064504.jpg) (http://img7.imageshack.us/i/1254275064504.jpg/)

Fick, Ja!

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Sep 30, 2009, 06:36 AM
I like this form of activism :-)

Everything is ok!
[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qAQrsA3m8Bg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qAQrsA3m8Bg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

awesome

Quote from: Nailec on Sep 30, 2009, 10:15 AM

QuoteI protested the anti war protest when Iraq first popped off.  My buddies and I showed up to the peace protest with hard hats and signs on baseball bats and hockey sticks that said shit like " dont be wack, bomb Iraq" and "smoke saddam not a bong".............We were some of the only people not to get shot with wooden balls by the cops.  Yeah, my political views have changed a bit.  Although most of the protestors were idiots and had no idea what they were talking about.  I do believe in their end game today.

ahahahahahaha

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6923/1254275064504.jpg) (http://img7.imageshack.us/i/1254275064504.jpg/)

Fick, Ja!

and Im confused

Exactly what I was thinking.

lolwut

picture has nothing to do with your story :)

i just thought that some of you would like it

yeah its pretty cool

Here's an absolutely awesome, epic article about the gold standards and misconceptions about it, specifically Bernanke's.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=251

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/


there will be some deliciuos obama-hater tears today.

him winning the Nobel Peace Prize is so fucking random and odd. something tells me even this has ended up being all about brown-nosed politics.

is that a feeling or do you actually have any argument?

i mean, i am surprised too. who is not?

but the announce makes pretty much sense.

america has never been more popular in the world.

of course there is still no palestine state, afghanistan is no peaceful democracy and there are is trouble in iraq, but the history of this price shows, that they havent got such high standards.

Quote from: Nailec on Oct 09, 2009, 01:11 PM
america has never been more popular in the world.

I wouldn't say that. But this is kind of cool, even though he hasn't really done much yet. It hasn't even been a year since he was elected, let alone working in the oval office.
Only Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson are other presidents that have won it while in office, while Carter just won it a few years ago.

my only argument is simpe: he hasn't done anything yet! sure, he's promised this and that and painted up a nice future. but what if he suddenly turns around and starts another wat in a year or so?

to me it just seems really stupid and naive to give him the price at this point. and the only sense I can make of it is that it's purely for political reasons.

nah i dont think there are political reasons. its more like a commentary or evaluation on what obama is doing. srsly do you think the commitee needs money or something? the price doesnt come from the government in norway.

and of course it is very early to give him the price. and there is always the possibility that obama is going to start wars in korea, iran or pakistan in the future. but you cant say its all his fault when this happens. at least he is trying.

i read some commentaries that where saying: oh obama is having two wars, he has not destroyed any nuclear weapon and our clima still hasnt change. i mean, that is ridiculous to expect from one man alone. and it is very unfair.

he is trying to gather people around him who have the same thoughts on politics because he knows that he is relying on their help. this is all a huge united project.

Maybe they felt bad for the raping the IOC gave us last Friday

Quote from: Nailec on Oct 09, 2009, 02:28 PM
i read some commentaries that where saying: oh obama is having two wars, he has not destroyed any nuclear weapon and our clima still hasnt change. i mean, that is ridiculous to expect from one man alone. and it is very unfair.

is it ridiculous to expect from the allegedly most powerful man on earth? especially when he has promised such things? I'm not saying I expected him to accomplish everything by now, but why not give him time and let him show the world what he's capable of instead of rewarding him beforehand based on promises he made?

and "one man alone"? it sounds like you think he puts on a superhero costume and flies out in the night to save the world.

Quoteand "one man alone"? it sounds like you think he puts on a superhero costume and flies out in the night to save the world.

what? i was saying that others seem to expect exactly that from him.
like you did in this rethorical question.

Quoteis it ridiculous to expect from the allegedly most powerful man on earth?

Quoteespecially when he has promised such things?

there is no way he has promised that. this is exactly that kind of propaganda i am opposing to. just randomly claim things. all he has promised was change. if you understood this as a real-political promise than of course your dissappointed now.

just pointing the finger on obama and totally ignoring all the forces and lobbies that work against him is just so wrong.

perhaps he gets the price another time when mankind finally lives in communism  ::) ::) ::)

Maybe they gave it to him because when he finishes bankrupting the US we'll be a lot more peaceful?

I am actually genuinely insulted by this.  It's pretty much like they awarded him just because he's not Bush, and he hasn't done shit to change Bush's policies; HE STILL HAS THE SAME SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.  Nailec, we're not saying he has to have done everything he promised by now to deserve the Prize, but he.  hasn't.  done.  anything.  He just started with a higher global approval rating than any other president because #1 he's not Bush, #2 he doesn't belong to Bush's party and #3 because he's not a white guy that people can just assume is an evil "suit."  The fact is, he has escalated our war-mongering and bombings of innocent people using the exact same rhetoric as Bush and people just look the other way now because he says it nicer. 

he stopped the missile shield, his speech in kairo, investions in green energy, he brought america relatively mildly through the financial crisis, the list probablly goes on.

how can you say he has not done anything?

QuoteThe fact is, he has escalated our war-mongering and bombings of innocent people using the exact same rhetoric as Bush and people just look the other way now because he says it nicer

human rights > sovereignty

of course all the us troops do is bombing innocent people.  ::) ::)

you ever thought about that you use exact the same rhetoric as terrorists or nationalists?

Wow, you're really great at watching mainstream media and his speeches. 

1.  He didn't stop the missile shield.  He just changed it from air defense to water defense and gave it a more politically correct name. 

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/08/content_12195291.htm

2.  That was a very well-written speech, and it's great that he improves our country's image, but it's really all words that haven't been followed up with actions in the direction he's speaking of.  He's escalating all of our military operations in the Middle East.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkAXS0HTzkXeKMKJ8BFxiuculsPA

3.  All this "green energy" shit is not something good, despite what it sounds.  It's all fear-mongering based on the non-science of the global warming theory.  Moving towards sustainable energy is extremely important, don't get me wrong.  The transition to it should not be taxing people more and more and more and more for every little thing that they do when they don't have a choice to use anything but the non-"green" sources.  Humanity is working towards sustainable, efficient energy more quickly than ever before, and halting our economy with cap-and-trade is going to do nothing but slow that down. 

4.  Last time I checked we were still in the financial crisis, unemployment is consistently rising and the bad debts that fucked us over in the first place have not been alleviated under natural market conditions.

5.  You really think that world peace is going to be achieved by putting more troops into place rather than actual peaceful, not forceful, diplomacy?

6.  You have a really messed up concept of human rights.  I urge you to watch this video (there's six more parts linked in the related videos) and learn a few things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

- Hasn't gotten rid of the Patriot Act [horrible fucking name]

Congress' secret plan to pass OBAMACARE

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/07/congress%E2%80%99-secret-plan-to-pass-obamacare-confirmed/
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message895597/pg1

Leaders in the House and Senate have a plan to pass President Barack Obama's sweeping health care plan by Thanksgiving without any significant participation by the American public. CNS News has confirmed the details in our September 22nd titled "Passing a Shell of A Bill: Congress' Secret Plan to Ram Through Health Care Reform." Nicholas Ballasy reports "a senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told CNSNews.com that it is 'likely' that Reid will use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a 'shell' for enacting the final version of the Senate's health care bill, which Reid is responsible for crafting."

This story confirms the four part scenario that would railroad the bill through the Senate using a very unusual closed door procedure to craft the bill with no input from the American people.

The four stage plan to pass Obamacare has been publicly confirmed and is ready to be implemented. The following is a comprehensive update:

Step One: "The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus' (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday." Progress on this had been stalled and the bill was not passed by the end of last week. Foxnews.com is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office score of the bill will be released later today and a high score may further stall progress on the Committee's Vapor Bill.  Senate Finance Committee's progress on passing something out of committee – INCOMPLETE.

Step Two: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. CNSnews.com has confirmed that "the actual final text of the legislation will be determined by Reid himself, who will consolidate the legislation approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the still-unapproved legislation from the Senate Finance Committee. Reid will be able to draft and insert textual language that was not expressly approved by either committee." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will write the final version of Obamacare to be considered in the Senate with no input from the American people. This is an extremely complex procedure that will not be done in public, or in the form of a hearing, or a public conference committee, and only Senator Harry Reid, some other Senators chosen by Reid and Obama Administration officials will be allowed to read the bill before the Senate debate starts. Merger of the bills – IN PROGRESS.

Step Three: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. A senior aid to Senate Majority Leader Ried has confirmed that he will move to proceed to Senate Calendar Number 36, H.R. 1586, or another House passed tax measure, so the Senate can avoid the Constitutional mandate that tax bills originate in the House. Proceed to tax shell of a bill – CONFIRMED.

Step Four: This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. The Senate swore in new Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk on September 25th. Change Law of Massachusetts to allow for interim Senator – COMPLETE.

The final step in this plan is for the House to take up Obama care, without amending the legislation, and then sending that bill directly to the President for his signature. Matt Cover at CNSnews.com reports "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) won't rule out having the House vote on the Senate health-care bill without making any changes in it, which would allow the bill to go directly to President Barack Obama without having to pass through a House-Senate conference committee and another round of votes in the House and Senate–and a longer period of public scrutiny of what the text of the proposed law actually says." This scenario is in the process of being implemented and, if successful, it will result in Obamacare being on the President's desk in time for Thansgiving with minimal participation of the American public.

The San Francisco Examiner published an editorial today that exposed the fact that the American people can't see the bill. "When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better. Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama's signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn't been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office." The procedure being used, in addition to the exclusion of the American people from the process, should be of grave concern to all who want to participate in democracy and have a say in Congress' health care reforms that will touch 1/6th of the American economy.

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Oct 09, 2009, 03:23 PM
Maybe they gave it to him because when he finishes bankrupting the US we'll be a lot more peaceful?

I am actually genuinely insulted by this.  It's pretty much like they awarded him just because he's not Bush, and he hasn't done shit to change Bush's policies; HE STILL HAS THE SAME SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.  Nailec, we're not saying he has to have done everything he promised by now to deserve the Prize, but he.  hasn't.  done.  anything.  He just started with a higher global approval rating than any other president because #1 he's not Bush, #2 he doesn't belong to Bush's party and #3 because he's not a white guy that people can just assume is an evil "suit."  The fact is, he has escalated our war-mongering and bombings of innocent people using the exact same rhetoric as Bush and people just look the other way now because he says it nicer. 

good points.

Quote from: Nailec on Oct 09, 2009, 04:11 PM

human rights > sovereignty

of course all the us troops do is bombing innocent people.  ::) ::)

you ever thought about that you use exact the same rhetoric as terrorists or nationalists?

i think its cute how you are duped into believing the same rhetoric of promise and change (of Obama's) as your favourite little trickster Adolf Hitler applied when seizing the feeble hearts of your grandparents and an enire country (for the most part).

it really really funny how you are so revolted by crimes against nature, and are a human rights activist supreme (via internet message boards) AND STILL support the favour of a war -under THE SAME deception every ruler has implemented, that of; "we are doing the right thing to rid of terrorsim and restore democracy blah blah fucking blah...)

terrorism(definition); the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce for political purposes!
sooooooooo who's terrorizing who?? ;)
BRING THESE PEOPLE OUR DEMOCRACY AND WAY OF LIFE. even if we have to slaughter a few million in the grey area ;)

for once i wish you could be that innocent iraqi, or vietnamese, or jew, with your family caught in the crossfire, and THEN we will see what direction you throw your STONES!!

you have become the enemy through your fervent and deluded fundamental views, based off YOUR OWN fear and REGRETS.
the sad fact is your still a goddamn nazi, just of a different banner and creed. you have once again been heart-fucked by a goverment puppet. how does it feel to lose your mind and have your righteous bridge swept out from under your feet by the same army you bargain with... keep watching from a distance and pretend your all progressive, pseudo-intellectal mumbo jumbo while you feed the machine your own guts. keep clowning maybe you'll be bombed next

are you able to have any argumentation without insulting me?

Quote from: wither-I on Oct 10, 2009, 01:47 PM
i think its cute how you are duped into believing the same rhetoric of promise and change (of Obama's) as your favourite little trickster Adolf Hitler applied when seizing the feeble hearts of your grandparents and an enire country (for the most part).

Come on, man. Did you just compare Obama and Hitler?

Quote from: penguin in the desert on Oct 10, 2009, 02:29 PM

Quote from: wither-I on Oct 10, 2009, 01:47 PM
i think its cute how you are duped into believing the same rhetoric of promise and change (of Obama's) as your favourite little trickster Adolf Hitler applied when seizing the feeble hearts of your grandparents and an enire country (for the most part).

Come on, man. Did you just compare Obama and Hitler?

actually i am. its the principle. the promise. the false prophecy. there ae many things to compare. do i think obama will implement a racial genocide, no? but there ARE things to compare. he IS a war time leader, and in times of killing  i WILL compare with other killers ya dig


he's just another puppet. he's no good guy.

bring me real change. real hope. NOT 21,000 more troops. thats the farthest thing from it

obama reminds of of the great mayor of new orleans, ray nagin.

he's in it for the "white man" agenda

Quote from: wither-I on Oct 10, 2009, 03:06 PM

Quote from: penguin in the desert on Oct 10, 2009, 02:29 PM

Quote from: wither-I on Oct 10, 2009, 01:47 PM
i think its cute how you are duped into believing the same rhetoric of promise and change (of Obama's) as your favourite little trickster Adolf Hitler applied when seizing the feeble hearts of your grandparents and an enire country (for the most part).

Come on, man. Did you just compare Obama and Hitler?

actually i am. its the principle. the promise. the false prophecy. there ae many things to compare. do i think obama will implement a racial genocide, no? but there ARE things to compare. he IS a war time leader, and in times of killing  i WILL compare with other killers ya dig


he's just another puppet. he's no good guy.

bring me real change. real hope. NOT 21,000 more troops. thats the farthest thing from it

Yeah.  We need at least 40,000 more.

But seriously, here is my take on the troop levels in Afghanistan.  Were either going to do this , or were not.  By this I mean fight a war.  I would rather just pull out of everywhere and bring everyone home tomorrow and just focus on ourselves and border security.  But, since it seems like the large majority in congress think that its essential to our security to get a stable Afghanistan.  Fuck it, lets do it.  Send over enough people to get the job done.  Lets quit barely getting by and prolonging this and just send over what we got and do the dam thing.  Provide enough security to get the Afghan government and Security forces where we need them to be, without having to worry about them fighting a war in the building process.  Then get the fuck out.  This whole sending just enough troops to barely get by is bull shit.  It keeps it where were dying, but staying alive just enough to keep the country from getting back into Taliban hands.  Its stupid.  Sending over that large of a force would most likely save lives on both sides in the end.  The US live for obvious reasons.  Afghan lives because we would be able to provide them the security they need to not be intimidated by the Taliban and be forced to go fight with them or die (in a nut shell).  Make sense? 

Oh and I agree with your comparison of Obama and Hitler

^^ Wither-I. Great job at laying the smackdown! :-)

You know who are the terrorists now? WE ARE. TV programs show white, american men..."homegrown" terrorists are what this government has started to turn it's attention to. These homegrown terrorists are people who have Ron Paul stickers on their car, people who read the Constitution, people who obssess over the 2nd amendment...don't believe me? EDIT: The MIAC Strategic Report 09' [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-]  shows police how to spot out said "Terrorists."
They have tricked people after 9/11 that terrorists were "brown people", muslims, etc. They have turned the tables and made it so that WE are the terrorists. ANYONE can be one. Even your neighbor...

Home Network Awareness Program Announced
03/18/08
http://www.dhsnnw.org/hnap.html

The Neighborhood Network Watch announced today the start of a new community program, the Home Network Awareness Program (HNAP). HNAP is aimed at providing an easy way for people to get involved and to contribute to the efforts of the Neighborhood Network Watch as well as providing the group with valuable information on the states of networks that reside in the homes of our nation.

Participants in HNAP would collect sample network traffic from their own home networks as well as samples from networks within the vicinity. The Neighborhood Network Watch will be making a set of freely available instructions on how to capture network traffic, using the open source packet sniffer TCPDUMP, and how to log onto nearby wireless networks that maybe being operated by neighbors.

These samples of network traffic would then be sent to the Neighborhood Network Watch for analysis using the latest revision of the NNWKAA. The participants would then be sent back a rating for each network along with a rating for the area as a whole.

This allows the participants to not only find out how their own home network is being used but also valuable information about those around their home that may have large amounts of terrorist related traffic flowing over them. This also provides the Neighborhood Network Watch with the ability to see if there is potential terrorist cell activity in or around the participants homes.

The Neighborhood Network Watch will also be releasing a new public service announcement highlighting the goals of HNAP and a how to section on how to search for networks as well as how to capture network traffic.

To learn more about the Home Network Awareness Program click here.

How to sniff out your neighbor's network...
http://www.dhsnnw.org/HNAPDocs/NNW-HNAP-How%20To%20Sniff%20Wireless%20Traffic.pdf

They have started to make people snoop around...to spy on your neighbors. How would you like to see a DHS video from Colorado that shows the 8 SIGNS OF TERRORISM.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHjI6mj1jOA&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jHjI6mj1jOA&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Some words from a infowars article:

"Using a watch, a pair of binoculars, or donating to a charity are all potential Al-Qaeda behavior, the video implies.
Do you use e mail or the telephone to find out information about things? You're probably a terrorist, according to the DHS, which classifies such behavior as "elicitation," one of the eight signs of terror.

Do you occasionally monitor police radio, as thousands did during the recent G20 protests in Pittsburgh? You're a terrorist.

Do you notice surveillance cameras or occasionally attempt to watch big brother back? You're a terrorist.
Petty criminal behavior such as theft and trespassing is also flagged as a sign of terrorism."
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-video-portrays-average-americans-as-terrorists/

These people look like AMERICANS. I thought that terrorists were people from other countries who hate DEMOCRACY!

This all goes back to when the bailouts were starting. They knew the American people would get mad, so they are now starting to paint regular American as terrorits and you know, since terrorists are bad, lets get rid of them.

This government now uses social networking as a way to keep track on people...we can't get away from this surveillance. Want to see what the government wants this country to look like:

(http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt201/Pilikia_photos/fascistwetdream.png)


I know I might be rambling, but a lot of things are finally starting to connect [in my head]. THINK FOR YOURSELF, QUESTION AUTHORITY.



-

And here is my opinion on Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize thing...

If he had pulled out of Afghanistan, Iraq, got rid of Bush's policies, closed Guantanamo prison, gotten rid of the Patriot Act...then I would think he should be awarded the Nobel Peace prize. Yet, all his actions are the opposite of peace.

WAR IS PEACE

EDIT: Here is what Ron Paul has to say about Obama winning this "prize"...you should watch this

[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FbcDk-bNoc8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FbcDk-bNoc8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

QuoteYou know who are the terrorists now? WE ARE. TV programs show white, american men..."homegrown" terrorists are what this government has started to turn it's attention to. These homegrown terrorists are people who have Ron Paul stickers on their car, people who read the Constitution, people who obssess over the 2nd amendment...don't believe me? EDIT: The MIAC Strategic Report 09' [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-]  shows police how to spot out said "Terrorists."
They have tricked people after 9/11 that terrorists were "brown people", muslims, etc. They have turned the tables and made it so that WE are the terrorists. ANYONE can be one. Even your neighbor...

now without reading the article that follows i gotta say that i heard about a lot of hate speeches against the obama regime that really crossed the line from critizism to call for a violent revolution. my source to this would be several videos of the young turks radio show. probablly your number 1 hate show but as you probablly expect i like a lot of what is been said there.

that said i gotta admit that i like the tone of ron paul. he never gets insulting. he has a strong opinion and a stringent argumentation. unfortunatly he is on the wrong side to my eyes. couple of thoughts to your last video.

1.) where is the anti-imperialistic left aka the anti-war left.
well this left has certainly not been neutralized by obama. speaking for the german left i would say that they have grown up. the whole black block that is going out on the street and throws stones against cops or violently demonstrated against the g8 in Heiligendamm, consisted of kids who think that america is somehow shitty. most likely after 9/11/2001 the far left antifacsist started to reconsider their positions. as a consequence of that a big part of it stoppped to demonize usa and israel and started being interested in political islam and its ideology. that is just the far left. a part of it even supported the war in iraq (i did not, i took part in the anti-war demonstration in berlin).

2.) what about all the others?
well they just dont share Ron Pauls focus on the own nation. ron paul is absolutely right when he says that our involvement over there is somehow connected to terrorist attacks against the west. but most people just dont draw the conclusion that all we have to do is to stay in our own country. and i agree that it would be absolutely irresponsibly to leave afghanistan and iraq within a week or something.

the pro-peace movement just gives no good answers and concepts on what to do with extreme human right violations in other countries. i really cant understand how, in our globalized world, such things can be ignored. wither-i wished me that i should live in a country that is being bombed. i could counter to him that i wish him to be a gay women in iran.

just to be clear. war is the ultimatly last option to anything. a strong international community that oppose together against human rights violations and create pressure against those criminals is probablly one of the most important things. but just look at this fucked up united nations thing.
it is a complicated time and we got a lot of complicated situations. its just so easy to stay uninvolved with everything.

go damnit

Quote from: Variable on Oct 10, 2009, 10:05 PM

Quote from: wither-I on Oct 10, 2009, 03:06 PM

Quote from: penguin in the desert on Oct 10, 2009, 02:29 PM

Quote from: wither-I on Oct 10, 2009, 01:47 PM
i think its cute how you are duped into believing the same rhetoric of promise and change (of Obama's) as your favourite little trickster Adolf Hitler applied when seizing the feeble hearts of your grandparents and an enire country (for the most part).

Come on, man. Did you just compare Obama and Hitler?

actually i am. its the principle. the promise. the false prophecy. there ae many things to compare. do i think obama will implement a racial genocide, no? but there ARE things to compare. he IS a war time leader, and in times of killing  i WILL compare with other killers ya dig


he's just another puppet. he's no good guy.

bring me real change. real hope. NOT 21,000 more troops. thats the farthest thing from it

Yeah.  We need at least 40,000 more.

But seriously, here is my take on the troop levels in Afghanistan.  Were either going to do this , or were not.  By this I mean fight a war.  I would rather just pull out of everywhere and bring everyone home tomorrow and just focus on ourselves and border security.  But, since it seems like the large majority in congress think that its essential to our security to get a stable Afghanistan.  Fuck it, lets do it.  Send over enough people to get the job done.  Lets quit barely getting by and prolonging this and just send over what we got and do the dam thing.  Provide enough security to get the Afghan government and Security forces where we need them to be, without having to worry about them fighting a war in the building process.  Then get the fuck out.  This whole sending just enough troops to barely get by is bull shit.  It keeps it where were dying, but staying alive just enough to keep the country from getting back into Taliban hands.  Its stupid.  Sending over that large of a force would most likely save lives on both sides in the end.  The US live for obvious reasons.  Afghan lives because we would be able to provide them the security they need to not be intimidated by the Taliban and be forced to go fight with them or die (in a nut shell).  Make sense? 

Oh and I agree with your comparison of Obama and Hitler

I have alot of respect for you man.
really good points.

though it seems like we dont "want" to end this war, similar to vietnam... because we could if we really wanted to

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Oct 10, 2009, 10:44 PM
And here is my opinion on Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize thing...

If he had pulled out of Afghanistan, Iraq, got rid of Bush's policies, closed Guantanamo prison, gotten rid of the Patriot Act...then I would think he should be awarded the Nobel Peace prize. Yet, all his actions are the opposite of peace.

WAR IS PEACE

EDIT: Here is what Ron Paul has to say about Obama winning this "prize"...you should watch this

[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FbcDk-bNoc8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FbcDk-bNoc8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

awesome video.

he rejuvenates my faith in a politician to be honest and humble without any mudslinging...

variable  -    please explain to me again why we should finish the war in afghanistan? " Because our Congress thinks a safe and stable Afghanistan is important to our security"?   Why the fuck did we go there in the first place, what are we trying to accomplish, and why is it more important to dump billions  into that black hole and destroy the feeble lives of an entire nation while murdering them ceaselessly than to fix the myriad problems in our own country?   


the main reason we went there in the first place was to build a massive pipeline across it,  So why exactly 9 nine years later should we send MORE troops there?  To FUCKING fix afghanistan??  thats the most asinine thing ive ever heard.  Oh poor afghanistan, we want to save you from the evil Taliban, welcome us into your country for a decade while we lay waste to everything youve ever known in the name of peace. 

if you need to justify your penance and your commanded presence there then go ahead and convince yourself your doing something noble

hate to break it to ya,  our government doesn't give a fuck about afghanistan, the people's welfare in it, or the people anywhere, 

its all about control, and setting the yoke stones on our backs

I'm almost positive I said that if I had it my way we would pull out....pretty sure.  I then said that the large majority of congress think we need to stay.  So since I can't have it my #1 way.  The #2 way would be the way to provide security for US troops instead of letting us get fucked up from not having enough forces over there.

You have a really warped view of what the war in Afghanistan is.  I don't know why you can't take it from me, someone who has been there before and has no reason to lie to you about anything.  But I guess for some reason you think you know better than me? 

The fact is that we are not fighting a conventional war over there.  The goal is not to kill as many people as possible until the government gives up.  Its a counter insurgency.  The main focus in a counter insurgency is to get the people on your side, not kill them.  I have heard all that about the pipeline, but I don't think its true.  I have seen no such pipeline or heard of one outside of theory ( but I could be wrong )  I think we went to Afghanistan after 911 because everyone in the world knows thats where Bin Laden was hiding out and planned the attacks.  So congress believes that if we pull out right now, the country will become lawless again and become a safe haven for more attacks to be planned. 

So our goal? Well as they say.  To win the hearts and the minds of the people, provide them with security, and help them build an economy so they can prosper.  It's the whole flag waving spread democracy and capitalism to the world concept.  I'm not saying I agree.  But thats what the majority of decision makers believe so thats the way its going to be unless we elect some different minded people.  So since thats the way its going to be, lets do the dam thing and send enough troops to actually provide security for the Afghans and ourselves.  We are not laying waste to anything.  We are constantly spending millions on building  more infrastructure for them.  The country itself and the economy have grown and improved tremendously in the last 9 years.  We spend more money on rice and beans then we do on bullets.  Of course horrible things still happen.  But its not and intentional goal for the U.S. to go out and do these horrible things.  Usually its because the bad guys pick a fight in a populated area on purpose, hoping we accidentally kill innocent people so they can use it as propaganda to make people like you think people like me are the bad guy.  Ill break it down for you, its just not the way you think it is. 

Quote from: nonesuch on Oct 11, 2009, 06:48 PM
variable  -    please explain to me again why we should finish the war in afghanistan? " Because our Congress thinks a safe and stable Afghanistan is important to our security"?   Why the fuck did we go there in the first place, what are we trying to accomplish, and why is it more important to dump billions  into that black hole and destroy the feeble lives of an entire nation while murdering them ceaselessly than to fix the myriad problems in our own country?  


the main reason we went there in the first place was to build a massive pipeline across it,  So why exactly 9 nine years later should we send MORE troops there?  To FUCKING fix afghanistan??  thats the most asinine thing ive ever heard.  Oh poor afghanistan, we want to save you from the evil Taliban, welcome us into your country for a decade while we lay waste to everything youve ever known in the name of peace. 

if you need to justify your penance and your commanded presence there then go ahead and convince yourself your doing something noble

hate to break it to ya,  our government doesn't give a fuck about afghanistan, the people's welfare in it, or the people anywhere, 

its all about control, and setting the yoke stones on our backs

so on the hand your complaining that your government is pumping shitloads of billion dollars into this blackwhole.
on the other hand you point out that your government is really there for making profit with a pipeline.

which one is it now?

nailec, you talk like a fucking cop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdqyTmfDwk0

here comes the culture industry

thats probably the gayest song ive heard in the last aeon

Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack H. Obama
please watch:

[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2g7DKNdUHrM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2g7DKNdUHrM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]
click here for the rest of the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7DKNdUHrM&feature=PlayList&p=365A89A6428492A2&index=0

PArt7/14 is where it gets good...but I recommend watching all of it!

a week ago or something i read an article in german newspaper spiegel that pointed out how lobbyists succesfullly destroyed obamas plans for reforming the banking system. the article`s source is this

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2010&ind=F

my question would be: are subjects in governmental positions allowed to take money that they dont deserve (meaning they dont work for it) or how is this huge lobbyism working?

[youtube=425,350]RZum_o-GAEI[/youtube]

yep

fuck your policks

fuck your society

fuck your etc

and fuck you

FUCK YOU WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA-RES !!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Nailec on Nov 02, 2009, 02:15 AM
a week ago or something i read an article in german newspaper spiegel that pointed out how lobbyists succesfullly destroyed obamas plans for reforming the banking system. the article`s source is this

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2010&ind=F

my question would be: are subjects in governmental positions allowed to take money that they dont deserve (meaning they dont work for it) or how is this huge lobbyism working?

Obamas plan to "reform the banking system" was just a plan to federalize the banks even more.  Take more and more of the private sector and let the government run it.  This would be a bad thing.  So thank god they stopped him.  Even though I don't think they actuall stopped much.  Bush and Paulson started it and took over a lot of banks.  Obama just kept it going.  I notice a lot of media including the Obama camp really like to play the victom card with him when he doesn't get his way.  It's fucking bull shit.  We would all be a lot better off if banks went back to their origional purpose.  Being warehouses that secured and stored your gold or other medium of exchange for a fee.  We don't need fractional reserve banking or fiat money to expand credit.  If there was less money it would be more valuable and the instability of the boom bust cycles would not exist.  Obama's "banking reform" was/is heading in the total wrong direction.  But shit, how else are they going to pay for all these political promises?

yeah dude, the massive spending/credit expansion is the biggest thing i've been trying to explain to people.  and the number one response i get is "oh, i'm sure they're taking a lot more into account when they're writing/passing these bills than you're giving them credit for" and it's just like if they are, then that's worse!  they're not just stupid, they're knowingly fucking everybody over.  big time.

Oh they know it.  But a lot of then are Keynesians.  A lot of people truly beieve that this bull shit still works even though it has been proven wrong. 

according to obama, the recent amok showed the worst within human nature.

i cant believ how uncritcally that statement is. it goes along with all those that try make a monster out of Nidan Malik Hasan and try to exclude him from humanity.

what are you trying to say

that someone who decides to go amok is not a monster or controlled by a devil or some other mystical horseshit. that is just simplified bullshit to my eyes. and these explanations make the people blind to the social circumstances that are responsible for creating such a person. its just uncritical and shortened to just search for the problem inside the subject.


im not excusing what he did and he deserves jail / pschiatry for the rest of his life. but people should really ask under what conditions he could became a mass murderer.

shorter: someone becoming a mass murderer is certainly not something that lies within human nature.

http://www.ichwerdeeinberliner.com/10-soft-drinks

interesting blog at the first glance.

wow. that was fucked up.

He seems to find Germans to be a little on the pretentious side.

what a load of rubbish

haha no he really did a good job watching and analyzing the berlin-boheme.

http://www.ichwerdeeinberliner.com/13-techno

its like the author is talking about my friends

Awesome video! I love that uncomfortable face these scum get when WEARECHANGE confront them.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JXHDkcy9Wdo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JXHDkcy9Wdo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Fuck you Al Gore.

Have you guys been hearing about the hacked emails from the CRU [Climate Research Unit], located at the University of East Anglia, which show how manipulation[or lack of] of data about global warming is happening? This is amazing.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html

yeah and i read, that those emails dont proove anything :D

as usally, they were being read out of context.

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Nov 24, 2009, 09:32 AM
Awesome video! I love that uncomfortable face these scum get when WEARECHANGE confront them.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JXHDkcy9Wdo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JXHDkcy9Wdo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Fuck you Al Gore.

Have you guys been hearing about the hacked emails from the CRU [Climate Research Unit], located at the University of East Anglia, which show how manipulation[or lack of] of data about global warming is happening? This is amazing.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html

yeah, i read that yesterday, and i couldn't possibly be any less surprised.  i hope that this generates some genuine, widespread outrage, now that would be a surprise.

Wait a minute, did they say Alex Jones made the DVD they're handing out? Loons.

wrong thread, but have you heard of this case?

http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/4/SaGBYnSFK2Y

i read about it some days ago and until then i thought i could imagine the most horrible thing that could happen to me. but this guy tops it all. some german article said, that probablly about 1/3 rd of all coma patients arent in a coma at all.

this guy must rage so hard

Quote from: penguin in the desert on Nov 24, 2009, 11:10 PM
Wait a minute, did they say Alex Jones made the DVD they're handing out? Loons.

Maybe you should watch it? 90% of the documentary is other people talking.

TV Environmentalist Goes Nuts Over ClimateGate
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, November 25, 2009

If the juvenile and wildly erratic behavior of celebrity environmentalist Ed Begley, Jr. is anything to go by, the warmists are more upset about ClimateGate than they are letting on.

Begley appeared on Fox News yesterday to react to the explosive story of the hacked CRU emails which prove that climate scientists affiliated with the UN IPCC altered temperature data models in order to "hide the decline" in global warming since the 1960's, as well as engaging in academic witch hunts to ensure the work of skeptical scientists was blocked from appearing in peer-reviewed journals.

When asked about the scandal, Begley immediately resorted to invoking the words, "peer reviewed studies," uttering the phrase no less than eight times in an attempt to dismiss the hundreds of skeptical scientists whose stance on global warming proves that the debate is not over. Unfortunately for this clown, his constant repetition of the term only discredited his argument with each mention.

The hacked emails show that warmists conspired to conduct academic witch hunts in order to prevent studies which didn't jive with their agenda from appearing in peer-reviewed journals.

As the Telegraph's James Delingpole highlights, the exposé reveals, "A long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority."

Other emails illustrate how warmists embarked on a campaign to discredit peer-reviewed journals that dared publish studies which contradicted the man-made global warming hypothesis. The emails illustrate that the peer-review process is completely corrupted.

Warmists can invoke "peer-reviewed studies" until they are blue in the face, as Begley does in this interview, but the fact is that the entire foundation of the argument has been debunked now it is proven that an inherent bias to censor unfavorable studies from appearing in such journals has been in place.

The rest of the interview mainly consists of Begley having a tantrum, wildly gesticulating and waving his finger around like a drunken sailor. Implicit within his behavior is everything that has come to represent the climate cultists – a religious-style zeal in proclaiming absolute truth, an obstinate refusal to even entertain dissenting opinions, and an aggressive shouty posture indicative of someone in deep denial attempting to drown out anything that might contradict their flimsy argument.

Hilariously, Begley flip-flops within the space of twenty seconds, first claiming that the government should come into private homes to conduct energy audits, then almost immediately contradicting himself.

"You should have an energy audit in your home to make it more efficient," states Begley, before the host makes his point about the government coming into people's homes and telling them they can't have incandescent light bulbs.

"What kind of American believes that the government should come right into a private house and say you can't have this kind of light bulb," asks the host, to which Begley responds, "Nobody's going to come into your house."

Which is it Ed? You can't have your cake and eat it.

Begley then begins mumbling about children's toys and toasters before he flip-flops again by insinuating that cleaner air in LA is related to steps taken to combat global warming. The host puts him on the spot, stating, "That has nothing to do with global warming." Begley then admits, "I know it has nothing to do with global warming," raising the question of why he brought it up in a debate about global warming, as well as why he ludicrously then invokes seat belts and air bags.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCjHBGVree0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCjHBGVree0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]


---------------------------------------------------------


OH MY FUCKING GOD....Fuck Ed Begley Jr.and fuck Al Gore. This what people really think? This is the lengths the NWO goes to get us to believe in this crap? Having "celebrities" try and become models for their eugenic, population control dream? People wake up.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ful4Ezt_BK4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ful4Ezt_BK4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Let's start prosecuting these liars!

Hey Jerry, could you please enlighten me on the link between the NWO "bullshit" (my opinion) and climate change ?

I'm pretty curious there... And please don't me links to youtube videos or whatever, but your opinions, thanks...

Naw, it's alright. No need for me to express my opinion on the matters of the NWO and their actions. I have posted multiple opinions, articles, videos showing where I stand. I'm just here to post up important news now.

I'll just link to another video of a  CNBS shill talking head interviewing Senator Inhofe discussing Climategate:

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BXRmITwUyZE&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BXRmITwUyZE&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

He's not even listening to what the senator is saying, just interrupting.

QuoteHey Jerry, could you please enlighten me on the link between the NWO "bullshit" (my opinion) and climate change ?

im guessing the climate change skeptics fear, that the conclusions from the global warming will massively take away freedoms of the (a)nation and its industry and (b) the subject.

ad (a) for example there are laws that limit the amount of fuel a car may burn up.

nationalism is the basic ideology behind this all. they dont want anyone to boss the usa around, they want the usa to be the single most powerful nation amongst all nations. the identity of a nationalist is bound to its nation, so when the nation becomes weak, the nationalist developes an inferiority complex.

not saying that all clima sceptics are nationalists, but when they come from the conservative or nwo conspiracists fraction, then the chances are high, they are.


ad (b) i did never hear a climate scientists say that humankind should go live in the woods and never again use anything that produces CO2. so to my eyes, the fear, that this all costs us personal liberties, is totally made up. ok i am forced to seperate my garbage into paper, plastic, glass, bio etc. but i dont see this is cutting my freedom at all.


so in conclusion im really thinking this is a debate between the servants of the free market and science.

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Nov 27, 2009, 07:32 AM
Naw, it's alright. No need for me to express my opinion on the matters of the NWO and their actions. I have posted multiple opinions, articles, videos showing where I stand. I'm just here to post up important news now.

I don't want your opinion about the NWO, as I don't care about it, but I really want to know why you would link this NWO and climate changes debates ? It just makes no sense

Ok now I see what you were asking.

So the NWO is all about a one-world government, global governance. If you have been watching the news this past year, you might have seen that word being tossed around; global governance. Why? Why do these politicians keep pushing this idea of everyone on this world being governed exactly the same way? Because they want to control us, be their slaves. What does this have to do with climate change [like how they don't really use global warming anymore...because this planet isn't WARMING it is cooling. Climate changes...d'uh]? Well, the NWO has had to get everyone to believe in this fairytale of global warming, blaming HUMANS for the earths "warming." They have been implementing this ideology since the early 70's by the Club of Rome ["In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."]. Next month in Copenhagen, there will be will be a vote for all countries to have the same rules and regulations for energy use. This would be the beginning of the end of the USA's sovereignty. Living under a global governance is what the NWO wants and they won't...not as long as people are learning the truth. Truth like the emails from the CRU. The truth that they have been manipulating information in order to get people to believe in global warming. This could not have come at a better time. Watch the video of Ed Begly Jr. spewing non-information...it's hilarious.

EDIT: You think there are "debates"  about global warming? The jury is out...humans are the problem. They don't want "skeptics" asking questions. AL Gore is correct. You know, he is a scientist and he really did invent the internet.

I'm sorry, but if you don't see any of the following quotes to be disturbing, then there is nothing I say that will wake you up

From Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species, returning throughout the world." - Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941


And I'm the crazy one?

This video made earlier this week shows exactly what I'm talking about. Watch the whole thing. Great message.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/55fEAI26zEk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/55fEAI26zEk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Nov 28, 2009, 09:10 PM
I'm sorry, but if you don't see any of the following quotes to be disturbing, then there is nothing I say that will wake you up

From Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species, returning throughout the world." - Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941


And I'm the crazy one?

none of these quotes are given a source. so basically they are without value.

btw: earth first are radicals and shouldnt be taken serious. im guessing some other people you (the article) quote there, are lunatics, too. so why having a debate on positions that arent worth recognizing at all?

"EDIT: You think there are "debates"  about global warming? The jury is out...humans are the problem. They don't want "skeptics" asking questions. AL Gore is correct. You know, he is a scientist and he really did invent the internet."

if you would ever read a real book or real scientific studies, you would notice that there are big discussions and different opinions in this debate. (probablly not your fault because the media just loves to simplify and exaggerate and unfortunatly, scientific studies are expensive)
but the simple mind that you are, you cannot but threw all o the outer group into one category. recognizing diversity would make it too hard for you to identifiy the enemy.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

Then, after spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I drive back to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the Internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Quote from: Nailec on Nov 28, 2009, 09:58 PM
none of these quotes are given a source. so basically they are without value.

So I [or the article] provide you a bunch of quotes from these eugenics-loving figureheads and all you have to say is "SOURCE GIVE ME SOURCE NO PROOF." I know you didn't say it like that, but that is pretty much what you mean.  You really want to believe in this people. I can feel it in you.

Quotebtw: earth first are radicals and shouldnt be taken serious. im guessing some other people you (the article) quote there, are lunatics, too. so why having a debate on positions that arent worth recognizing at all?

Because these people SAY these things and they work within certain groups to help accomplish this goal.  I actually don't really understand your sentence at all. I tried to answer to what I thought you were saying.

Quote"EDIT: You think there are "debates"  about global warming? The jury is out...humans are the problem. They don't want "skeptics" asking questions. AL Gore is correct. You know, he is a scientist and he really did invent the internet."

if you would ever read a real book or real scientific studies, you would notice that there are big discussions and different opinions in this debate. (probablly not your fault because the media just loves to simplify and exaggerate and unfortunatly, scientific studies are expensive)
but the simple mind that you are, you cannot but threw all o the outer group into one category. recognizing diversity would make it too hard for you to identifiy the enemy.

I was being sarcastic. I know there have been debates and opposing opinions. The debates and discussions you have probably read about are most most likely peer-reviewed..so all-in-all they agree with each other that global warming is real and is man-made.

and I block you again.

Quote from: Nailec on Nov 28, 2009, 10:29 PM
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

Then, after spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I drive back to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the Internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

See, this is just it: I look at that all as a bad thing, and if saying that life is sooo much better because of all of these bureaucracies is your point, then you're an idiot.  That's hardly the point.  The point is that it's unnecessary (and detrimental for society) for many of those things you listed to be provided by government.  Do you really think it'd be pure chaos without gigantic federal bureaucracies regulating every activity in which a person can possibly engage?

I could go through each and every one of the programs listed and tell you why they're worse for society as opposed to better, but I'll just go with one example.  Look at the US Postal Service.  They do a shitty job, and the cost of sending first class mail constantly rises at a rate higher than inflation, rather than falling with increases in technology, etc.  This is because there is no fundamental need for the USPS to be competitive, as it is illegal for anyone else to send first class mail.  You don't think that UPS and FedEx, two of the most innovative and trustworthy companies out there would do a better job (i.e. not being able to lose as much mail, etc. because if they do, then they lose business to the other; and constantly striving for more efficiency) sending first class mail than all of the schmucks that they employ at the USPS? 

This logic can be applied throughout that whole little diatribe you posted.  I just don't get you socialists and how you can genuinely believe that a government entity is more responsible, effective, ethical, or accountable for its actions than a private entity.  If a private entity fucks up, in a free society it goes out of business and is replaced by its competitor who will hopefully do a better job.  This principle sort of applies to government, but to a far lesser extent because #1 there is no election cycle to deal with, meaning that companies can go out of business at the moment of it's customers' discontent, and people don't just forget about it during the 2, 4, or 6 years they have until they vote again.  #2 because the majority of entities you listed are headed by people that aren't elected by any sort of public vote, and #3 it's hard to vote for a senator or representative based on one, single thing that you're discontent with.

For someone who seems like a big human rights activist, it really seems like you feel like humanity's just a collection of retards that must be herded by one group who "knows best."

Quote from: Nailec on Nov 27, 2009, 01:41 PM

QuoteHey Jerry, could you please enlighten me on the link between the NWO "bullshit" (my opinion) and climate change ?

im guessing the climate change skeptics fear, that the conclusions from the global warming will massively take away freedoms of the (a)nation and its industry and (b) the subject.

ad (a) for example there are laws that limit the amount of fuel a car may burn up.

nationalism is the basic ideology behind this all. they dont want anyone to boss the usa around, they want the usa to be the single most powerful nation amongst all nations. the identity of a nationalist is bound to its nation, so when the nation becomes weak, the nationalist developes an inferiority complex.

not saying that all clima sceptics are nationalists, but when they come from the conservative or nwo conspiracists fraction, then the chances are high, they are.


ad (b) i did never hear a climate scientists say that humankind should go live in the woods and never again use anything that produces CO2. so to my eyes, the fear, that this all costs us personal liberties, is totally made up. ok i am forced to seperate my garbage into paper, plastic, glass, bio etc. but i dont see this is cutting my freedom at all.


so in conclusion im really thinking this is a debate between the servants of the free market and science.

You really think that all that cap-and-trade is going to do is going to make us sort our recycling to a greater extent?  You really need to research a lot more.  The intent is to tax every last thing that could possibly produce CO2, which in today's government version of science bears a completely false correlation between its levels and global temperatures.  Like seriously crippling taxes that are going to make not only the energy to power and heat our houses exponentially more expensive, but also raise the cost of every single thing one can buy.  And for what?  So giant corporations can pay their carbon credits to still be able to pollute, while smaller businesses not only suffer, but can't be started because of the new cost barrier?   So that all of the progress coming from all of the countries that go along with this bunch of bullshit can completely stagnate in the name of saving the Earth, while India and China, the world's greatest polluters anyways, are exempt?

IT'S NOT FREE MARKET (I USE THIS IN ITS CORRECT MEANING, WHICH YOU HAVE PROVEN TO BE IGNORANT TOWARDS) VS. SCIENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCIENCE ON YOUR SIDE.  LITERALLY.  IT'S ALL POLITICALLY CHARGED AND PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND IF POLLUTION DOES GO DOWN, IT WILL BE BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO AFFORD TO MAKE ANYTHING, NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE FOUND A WAY TO PROFITABLY, EFFICIENTLY AND CLEANLY PRODUCE PRODUCTS AND ENERGY.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk#)

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Nov 30, 2009, 06:27 PM

Quote from: Nailec on Nov 27, 2009, 01:41 PM

QuoteHey Jerry, could you please enlighten me on the link between the NWO "bullshit" (my opinion) and climate change ?

im guessing the climate change skeptics fear, that the conclusions from the global warming will massively take away freedoms of the (a)nation and its industry and (b) the subject.

ad (a) for example there are laws that limit the amount of fuel a car may burn up.

nationalism is the basic ideology behind this all. they dont want anyone to boss the usa around, they want the usa to be the single most powerful nation amongst all nations. the identity of a nationalist is bound to its nation, so when the nation becomes weak, the nationalist developes an inferiority complex.

not saying that all clima sceptics are nationalists, but when they come from the conservative or nwo conspiracists fraction, then the chances are high, they are.


ad (b) i did never hear a climate scientists say that humankind should go live in the woods and never again use anything that produces CO2. so to my eyes, the fear, that this all costs us personal liberties, is totally made up. ok i am forced to seperate my garbage into paper, plastic, glass, bio etc. but i dont see this is cutting my freedom at all.


so in conclusion im really thinking this is a debate between the servants of the free market and science.

You really think that all that cap-and-trade is going to do is going to make us sort our recycling to a greater extent?  You really need to research a lot more.  The intent is to tax every last thing that could possibly produce CO2, which in today's government version of science bears a completely false correlation between its levels and global temperatures.  Like seriously crippling taxes that are going to make not only the energy to power and heat our houses exponentially more expensive, but also raise the cost of every single thing one can buy.  And for what?  So giant corporations can pay their carbon credits to still be able to pollute, while smaller businesses not only suffer, but can't be started because of the new cost barrier?   So that all of the progress coming from all of the countries that go along with this bunch of bullshit can completely stagnate in the name of saving the Earth, while India and China, the world's greatest polluters anyways, are exempt?

IT'S NOT FREE MARKET (I USE THIS IN ITS CORRECT MEANING, WHICH YOU HAVE PROVEN TO BE IGNORANT TOWARDS) VS. SCIENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCIENCE ON YOUR SIDE.  LITERALLY.  IT'S ALL POLITICALLY CHARGED AND PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND IF POLLUTION DOES GO DOWN, IT WILL BE BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO AFFORD TO MAKE ANYTHING, NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE FOUND A WAY TO PROFITABLY, EFFICIENTLY AND CLEANLY PRODUCE PRODUCTS AND ENERGY.

Thank you. You write so eloquent [along with Trey] and say what I try to say, but much better. Even though I may say some outlandish things [well, according to most people] it feels good t know there are people who agree with you. :-)

Oh, you're welcome, man.  Thanks for thinking I'm eloquent, haha.  But yeah, I'm with you on most things, I have some trouble believing a lot of the conspiracy theories, I mean while they become more and more believable every day, I feel as though most of the damage comes from politicians just being straight retarded.  I can't honestly remember the last time a mainstream legislator talked about the current or possible bad latent effects of the mountain of laws, legislation and regulations congress has come out with since the great depression. 

And I think it's a shame that I go through all of the effort to write that and it appears I'm being ignored by Nailec.

QuoteAnd I think it's a shame that I go through all of the effort to write that and it appears I'm being ignored by Nailec.

are u really interested in a reponse or are you just writing that in order to underline how much of a toy i am?

i mean. most points are probablly some basic assumptions we both have and that we can not change. like i am convinced that most science is independent allthough it is being payd by tax money. youre convinced that scientists work for the government.

the "welfare state"-post was just trolling. but also. i love the welfare state. i agree that beaureaucracy is a huge problem, so is efficiency. though this doesnt bring me up from thinking that governmental intervention in some social systems is necessary in order to achieve equality. i just dont see how a private investor would ever spend the money to pay my studies. imho taxation is the best thing that happened to our societies. why? because it ensures that a lot more people can have they part in a democracy, can get education at all. youre right about the postal service though. really no need to give it to the hands of governments. but chances are higher that the private delivery service refuses to drive to a farm 10 km outside to  deliver one packet. so these private companies at least need regulations and rules that can be be sued by the customer. like it is a shame that soem  households here still have no internet available. i think this is a point where the government should intervene. else, those people without internet have worse preconditions to take part in the society. its not about forcing them to take part in society. it just about equality of chances.

No, you're the one making basic assumptions.  I too believe that we should always, always strive for less pollution and less overconsumption, that's pretty obvious.  And I admit that I really did believe in global warming myself, I mean how couldn't you with the liberal media running as rampant as it does with all of the climate propaganda?  But I didn't let that blind me from researching about it, mostly influenced by my boss who was big into Austrian economics and told me what cap and trade was really about.  There's also many, many scientists out there who disagree with the theory of global warming, and while I personally totally agree with them and think the points they make are so much more coherent and believable, it's so absolutely terrible to me for someone to be completely ignorant to them because it's not the politically correct view at the moment.

take a look at this site:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/ (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)

Not to mention that the greatest polluters are (in the US anyways) entities of the federal and state governments, who are no doubt going to end up exempt from the majority of these regulations.

It honestly blows my mind that someone could ever bring themselves to say something like "taxation is the best thing that happened to our societies."  Like, I'm well aware this is a highly controversial comment, but from a sociological point of view, having this kind of blind faith in the state (when it only gets less transparent in the way it has) based on some sort of promises to do things for the "good of the whole people" is an extremely slippery slope to a pure dictatorship.  But that's an entirely different discussion.

What you really don't understand, and this isn't opinion, this is fact, is that when the government provides payment for something, there is no incentive for whomever is providing that thing to do things more efficiently or effectively because they have an eternal "dummy" customer base in the form of the government.  For your internet on the farm example, a private company providing internet WANTS that farm to be their customer; if that customer is willing to pay whatever to get an internet connection out there, they will unequivocally set up the connection then and there.  But resources are not infinite, say that farmer cannot afford to pay for the connection.  The internet company still wants him as a customer, but obviously doesn't want to take a loss in the process.  So the farmer has to wait until technology becomes affordable enough to either get a satellite connection, or to get cable laid out to his place.  The point is, the company wants to expand their customer base, that's the entire point of their existence, so they will strive to get that extra customer by decreasing costs, and eventually reach one which is affordable for both them and their customer.  It's a win-win situation, with time being the only requirement.  The problem that arises when the government provides the internet to the farmer, is that now the taxpayers are on the hook for internet that's way more expensive than it should be, because the government is now the guaranteed paycheck.  So in this situation there is no incentive for the internet company to do things more efficiently, cheaply and effectively.  Which is really a horrible thing.  There's also the point that if internet or anything else someone deems necessary to living isn't available in one area, they can move.  I don't see how that's more evil or less compassionate than forcing someone to give up a higher portion of the income they earned to subsidize a part of society that would be served better by natural forces.  And that too is a slippery slope, pretty soon the government will be providing everything, at inflated values... i dunno, Jefferson said it better:

"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval

How old are you again?  Have you ever paid a mortgage and 30% of your income in taxes?

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Dec 08, 2009, 09:06 PM
No, you're the one making basic assumptions.  I too believe that we should always, always strive for less pollution and less overconsumption, that's pretty obvious.  And I admit that I really did believe in global warming myself, I mean how couldn't you with the liberal media running as rampant as it does with all of the climate propaganda?  But I didn't let that blind me from researching about it, mostly influenced by my boss who was big into Austrian economics and told me what cap and trade was really about.  There's also many, many scientists out there who disagree with the theory of global warming, and while I personally totally agree with them and think the points they make are so much more coherent and believable, it's so absolutely terrible to me for someone to be completely ignorant to them because it's not the politically correct view at the moment.

take a look at this site:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/ (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)

Not to mention that the greatest polluters are (in the US anyways) entities of the federal and state governments, who are no doubt going to end up exempt from the majority of these regulations.

It honestly blows my mind that someone could ever bring themselves to say something like "taxation is the best thing that happened to our societies."  Like, I'm well aware this is a highly controversial comment, but from a sociological point of view, having this kind of blind faith in the state (when it only gets less transparent in the way it has) based on some sort of promises to do things for the "good of the whole people" is an extremely slippery slope to a pure dictatorship.  But that's an entirely different discussion.

What you really don't understand, and this isn't opinion, this is fact, is that when the government provides payment for something, there is no incentive for whomever is providing that thing to do things more efficiently or effectively because they have an eternal "dummy" customer base in the form of the government.  For your internet on the farm example, a private company providing internet WANTS that farm to be their customer; if that customer is willing to pay whatever to get an internet connection out there, they will unequivocally set up the connection then and there.  But resources are not infinite, say that farmer cannot afford to pay for the connection.  The internet company still wants him as a customer, but obviously don't want to take a loss in the process.  So the farmer has to wait until technology becomes affordable enough to either get a satellite connection, or to get cable laid out to his place.  The point is, the company wants to expand their customer base, that's the entire point of their existence, so they will strive to get that extra customer by decreasing costs, and eventually reach one which is affordable for both them and their customer.  It's a win-win situation, with time being the only requirement.  The problem that arises when the government provides the internet to the farmer, is that now the taxpayers are on the hook for internet that's way more expensive than it should be, because the government is now the guaranteed paycheck.  So in this situation there is no incentive for the internet company to do things more efficiently, cheaply and effectively.  Which is really a horrible thing.  There's also the point that if internet or anything else someone deems necessary to living isn't available in one area, they can move.  I don't see how that's more evil or less compassionate than forcing someone to give up a higher portion of the income they earned to subsidize a part of society that would be served better by natural forces.  And that too is a slippery slope, pretty soon the government will be providing everything, at inflated values... i dunno, Jefferson said it better:

"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval

How old are you again?  Have you ever paid a mortgage and 30% of your income in taxes?

dont listen to this guy ^

he has a lake and a party boat in his backyard.
anybody with a lake and a partyboat in their backyard is not aloud to talk about getting fucked by the government.


lol man im awesome

too bad i'm arguing for people keeping more of the money they work for, whether it's stolen directly by income, property and sales taxes, or indirectly through the inflation tax, which is absolutely huge, and growing at an ever increasing rate since ben bernanke became the head of the Federal Reserve.  i don't see how making that argument benefits me when i'm "immune from getting fucked by the government," because it affects the people living paycheck to paycheck the most when they have to pay $4.00/gal of gas, $6.00 for a pack of cigs, twice as much for food, $475 for an ounce of danks, you see what i'm saying.  From the beginning of the dollar in 1792 until the beginning of the federal reserve in 1913, the dollar APPRECIATED about 14% or so, and since 1913, its value has depreciated 96%.  so it would've taken you 4 cents to buy a dollar's worth of shit in 1913.  that is the inflation tax, the government prints money to pay for all of their welfare/warfare state programs, corporate bailouts, etc and the value of our money goes down and down because there's more of it all of the time, which is the main reason why everything's so expensive and more so every day.  it's why people used to be able to provide for an entire family on one manufacturer's salary and now families NEED two incomes to survive, because their money buys less and less at a rate far more quickly than paychecks are increasing.  it affects the poor worse than any public welfare program could ever, ever help.

i know you're probably jk, but you're just eggin this nailec guy on.

of course i was kidding

here is my honest standpoint.

i think the people of the country have the ability to change our government, and its by getting off our asses and actually doing it. lets say the people on this board felt very strongly about where our countries/world is heading, and we truely wanted to make a change. we each would need to start by gathering our communities to start holding rallies and assemblies to let the government know that we aren't going to just turn a blind eye anymore.

if people began leaving their homes and actually speaking out on how they believe, i dont think the government can possibly still try and act as though they are in control. the only reason our government is in control, and becoming more and more greedy ( us gov ) is because they know they can get away with it. we have almost become desensitized to just how much power we all have, especially if we come together. but nobody puts it to use.


even on simple issues. like if all of us potheads really truely wanted it to become legal, all we would really have to do is assemble more often. try and come together in major cities monthly and hold rallies and such. but again, most people are unmotivated.


its really just become one big laughing stock. our government are all "men of god" yet we have never taken a peaceful resolution to basically anything. i just dont understand how the world has become so greedy and self driven, and nobody is doing anything to stop it.
and yes, i understand that i am a hypocrite for not doing anything about it myself.

(http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy301/alvarezbassist18/Untitled.jpg)

haha

but yeah, i'm totally with you man, and i mean i feel like it's happening, people are seeing that obama is just bush 2.0 and starting to be more skeptical of the government in general.  It's all just education.  If everybody knew and understood what was really happening to the country, not just the politically correct pseudo reality that's on every goddamn channel, fox, msnbc, cnn, whoever it is.  that and public education teaching that government never fucks anything up, that it's the eternal caretaker, that franklin delano roosevelt wasn't actually the worst president in US history, all that kind of shit.  but the internet is helping, and ron paul has helped so very much, there's gonna be statues erected in his likeness in the future.  I didn't know shit about the federal reserve a year ago, and now it's so clear that they are the main cause of all of our economic distress and more people are learning that every day.

rich bastard. im shocked you didnt vote republican

hell naw, the only rich people the current form of republicans help are the billionaires, and my family sure as hell ain't worth anywhere close to a bil.

p.s. both my parents are now unemployed, a big reason i'm so steamed about all this politics shit.  Both of whom have masters degrees and can't find jack shit for a job.

"The Corporation"

http://tvshack.net/documentaries/The_Corporation/ (http://tvshack.net/documentaries/The_Corporation/)

brilliant documentary. long and worth every minute. it covers all the basis. everything we talk about rolled into one.

"if we can make revolution a marketable trend, it can begin"

that's something i'm definitely going to watch and respond to more in depth, but based on the summary it really sounds like it's going to be a lot of missing the point, i.e. based on the assumption that corporations/profits are always bad, which i wholeheartedly disagree with.  It's not the fault of the idea of a corporation that there's the vast amount of exploitation that there is, it's the fault of politicians giving out favors to said corporations and regulating the industry (another form of favors) to prevent, viable, non exploitative competition from springing up.  In a free market, if a company or corporation is exploiting people for too much of a profit, people realize this, and investors see the opportunity to provide that product or service in a means that doesn't take excessive profits or exploit people.  And profits that don't involve screwing someone over are NOT a bad thing in the least, if you don't have profits, you don't have research and development, investment in new capital, and expansion of the business to CREATE MORE JOBS.  And isn't it strange that right now, with more regulation of the financial industry than ever before, that executives at big banks are taking home record bonuses and paychecks?  It's so abundantly clear that it's not corporations that are the problem, it's their collusion with governments, giving them privileges that they wouldn't otherwise have in a free market system (WHICH THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION) that's fucking the people over.

And i could be wrong, but i'm guessing a big topic of the movie will be how corporations exploit third world countries with poor wages, conditions, etc.  Now I am all for disallowing health-threatening conditions in the workplace anywhere across the globe, but a big point that people seem to miss is: there's people still taking these jobs despite the low wages because they live in an impoverished nation with no alternatives.  So, taking away these jobs means taking away the means for productive sustenance that the poor people might've had.  I mean obviously it's not perfect, but still, isn't making 1, 2, 3 (in extreme cases, there's a lot of outsourcing companies that actually pay people well) dollars a day better than zero dollars a day?  Another thing not usually taken into account is that over there, essentials cost fractions of what they do in the US, so a dollar goes a lot further.  So I don't see it as a disservice to bring jobs and capital to a third world country that would've gone without.  that's how you raise a population's standard of living, through production.

i realize i made a lot of assumptions not having seen the movie, but i'll retract any potential false statements i've made once i get a chance to watch it.

peace this

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBHrnQTinGY#)

Philosophy vs. Conspiracy by Jerry Salcido

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=459 (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=459)

Amazing article, a point i've been trying to make to lots and lots of people with anger directed in the right direction, but without a means of conveying a genuine solution.

glad to see such an article dude. its always a good feeling for me if people emphazise their distance to irrational and dangerous ideologies.

anyways. i dont see how something like a moral philosophy of freedom could be applied on economic issues. the campaign for liberty clearly has a complete view on how economy and the market should be arranged. so i fear that any philosophy those people do, would be deduced from teireconomic views.

not only the conspiracy industry but also the liberty movement seems a nationalistic movement to me. i have the impression that the liberty that they mean is actually the liberty that helps america to be a strong nation. while i want america to be a strong nation, i want all other nations to be free and rich as well. so my question would be: is the liberty movement able to achieve that goal.

Quote from: Nailec on Dec 31, 2009, 12:54 PM
glad to see such an article dude. its always a good feeling for me if people emphazise their distance to irrational and dangerous ideologies.

anyways. i dont see how something like a moral philosophy of freedom could be applied on economic issues. the campaign for liberty clearly has a complete view on how economy and the market should be arranged. so i fear that any philosophy those people do, would be deduced from teireconomic views.

that's because you and other socialists don't have an understanding of economics in the least bit.  you don't understand that freedom is the only thing that creates genuine equality, the equal chance to succeed based on one's own merit, not based on some predetermined rules set up by some "expert," who far, far more often than not, really has neither any experience in the private sector, nor any fathom of how the rules and regulations will affect the economy directly and in more latent ways.  History has proven time and time again that an economy cannot be managed in a top-down fashion and no amount of computers or regulators is ever going to be able to figure out how to do it.  It's readily apparent, especially in the last hundred years of US history but in other places as well, that the more bureaucrats and regulators that are added to the system, the more things get completely fucked up and the more people suffer.  An economy can regulate itself, and has the ability to do so without government intervention now more than ever before.

That's what you don't see, all of this poverty, all of this pain, it's all caused by people not being able to work to feed themselves, which is entirely attributable to government intervention.  Price controls, minimum wage, taxes, inflation, excessive regulations, etc.  These are all things that are making it impossible for people to get hired, to be able to work and feed their kids.  The government cannot give people jobs indefinitely, they have no wealth of their own.  They don't produce anything, they don't sell anything, the only thing they can do is take from one person and give it to another, and that's not how you sustain growth.

I don't know what teireconomics is, but i assume you mean that having people that are richer than others is evil in some way.  Well, there's one simple way to refute this: since the beginning of the progressive era in the US (roughly around the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt), the amount of government involvement in society has gone nowhere but up, and all that we've got is a greater distance between the standards of living of the rich and the poor.  How do you not understand that this is clearly, CLEARLY not caused by having a freer market?  You just really have absolutely no clue what capitalism truly is, it's not a system where big companies doing highly illegal activities get let off by a pussy-ass judicial system (a folly of government principles), or where the possible competitors are completely regulated out of their possible existence.  It's a system where genuine wealth is created, where contracts are upheld, where people have to be educated enough to make their own decisions based on their own principles and strong enough to deal with the consequences of their actions, and most importantly, where there's an abundance of jobs, because that's how one truly gets a better wage: making people compete to hire you rather than competing to be hired.  Not some government decree that says "an employer has to pay someone X amount and give them X amount of benefits and pay X amount of tax per employee," that's what makes them replace people with machines.  It's really not an unachievable state to be in, we're just headed in the complete wrong direction.  It's sure as hell not freedom that's putting up barriers for people to survive, succeed, and prosper.

And also, tiers exist in a society because some people have more natural skills than others, and some people have a better work ethic than others.  If you wanna say that someone who works tirelessly to better his standard of living has the same societal value as someone who doesn't work at all, that's just pure bullshit.  We want equality of opportunities to succeed, not equality of limitations.

Quote from: Nailec on Dec 31, 2009, 12:54 PM
not only the conspiracy industry but also the liberty movement seems a nationalistic movement to me. i have the impression that the liberty that they mean is actually the liberty that helps america to be a strong nation. while i want america to be a strong nation, i want all other nations to be free and rich as well. so my question would be: is the liberty movement able to achieve that goal.

Well, as you can clearly see through the last few decades, less freedom here hasn't meant more freedom around the globe, and not too many of the US's foreign efforts have resulted in more freedom around the globe, so the liberty movement is essentially trying to say we have to get our own house in order so that we don't go around preaching hypocrisy while also losing more and more of our freedoms at home, in other words, you can't spread the message of freedom abroad when you don't even believe in it at home.

A Hell of a Decade
By Peter Schiff
Published 12/31/09

In its recent look back on the first ten years of the century, Time Magazine proclaimed the period to be "the decade from hell." The editors made their case based on what they saw as the signature events of the last ten years, notably the ravages of terrorism, failed wars, and a global financial crisis. Taken together, these factors produced an era that Time is convinced will be remembered as one of the low points in our history.

As the media hates to dwell on the negative, the commentary was rife with notes of optimism about pending recovery. It could hardly be accidental that in the very next issue, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was named "Man of the Year" for his supposedly Herculean efforts to keep the economy afloat as we departed the Naughty Aughties. Although Time takes pains that to point out that the "Person of the Year" honor reflects impact rather than adulation, its profile of the Chairman was triumphant.

Even if you believe the "survived the worst/turned the corner" narrative offered by Time, it still should strike anyone as ironic that Chairman Bernanke, a chief architect of the economic problems that surfaced in 2007, should be held in such high esteem.

Apart from its misplaced reverence for the Fed Chairman, I would take issue with Time's entire characterization of what has now become history.

Under no circumstances could the past ten years be described as "the decade from hell." In fact, in terms of economic good fortune, the period shares parallels with the Roaring Twenties. I would describe this as a decade of sin that paved the way to hell.

Yes, we had spectacular problems like September 11th and the invasion of Iraq -- which were horrific for those who were directly affected -- but for most Americans, it was a time of unexpected wealth and unearned prosperity. Up to the days of the stock market crash, the economics of the decade will be remembered for cash-out refinancing for millions of homeowners, no-doc liar loans, no-money-down car purchases, eight-figure Wall Street bonuses, cheap Chinese imports, and trample-to-death holiday sales. In other words, the decade now closing gave us the biggest and most irresponsible spending orgy in U.S. history. The past decade was the party; the one ahead will be the hangover.

The fact that Time completely ignored these issues shows how poorly the mainstream media understands the forces bearing down on our economy. Yes, they were able to identify some of the adverse consequences we experienced this decade. That's the easy part. But as far as seeing the causes behind the effects, they haven't a clue. As a result, Time has no ability to see the underlying pattern and will happily encourage our leaders to repeat the mistakes of the past on a grander scale.

For now, Congress and the President remain as clueless as Time. To show its resolve to 'get to the bottom of things,' the Obama Administration has impaneled a commission to investigate the causes of the financial crisis. Do not expect the proceedings, which are just getting underway, to come up with anything but the most politically useful explanations.

Blame will be laid at the feet of 'ineffective regulators' who failed to 'get tough' with industry, banks, and corporate leaders who held the 'public good' hostage to their 'personal greed.' There is no hope that anyone who actually saw the crisis coming will actually be asked to testify. If they called me, I would be happy to give them an earful. Unfortunately, the only way my views will ever be heard by the powers-that-be is if I am elected to the Senate -- which is exactly what I plan to do next fall in my home state of Connecticut.

My sincere hope for the coming decade is that I can help our leaders see what Time cannot: we need to stop committing the economic sins that are leading us to hell, so that our stay down there will be as brief as possible. We need everyone to stop spending more than they earn. That is true not just for individuals, but for our government as well. Just this week, the Treasury Department removed its internal caps on bailout funds to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Meanwhile, another bailout was proffered to ailing GMAC. If we continue the same bad behavior, it might not just be one decade from hell, but several.

However, if we can confess our sins, and vow to reform our ways, perhaps this will merely be a decade in purgatory. Perhaps we can turn it into the decade of hope, hard work, individual liberty, savings, production, investment, sound money, de-regulation, exports, budget surpluses, capitalism, limited government, and respect for the Constitution. These traits will harden us to withstand the fallout from our reckless past.

As of yet, our troubles continue to snowball -- and I don't like a snowball's chances if we have a real decade from hell.

www.schiffforsenate.com (http://www.schiffforsenate.com)
www.youtube.com/schiffreport (http://www.youtube.com/schiffreport)

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw#)

hey alvarez.

with "teireconomic", i mean "their economics"

and plz stop your biting reflex. im neither a socialist nor do i find it evil if some poeple are richer than others.

happy new year.

rich parents for everyone!

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLTdMEP2vxI#)

Quote from: Nailec on Jan 01, 2010, 02:32 PM
hey alvarez.

with "teireconomic", i mean "their economics"

and plz stop your biting reflex. im neither a socialist nor do i find it evil if some poeple are richer than others.

happy new year.

rich parents for everyone!

I apologize for coming off like I'm "biting" at you, I just get incredibly heated by people that have no concept of economics and latent government policy effects, a group of people becoming more vocal all of the time.  There is no "their economics."  There is economics that works, and economics that doesn't.  There's two main categories: the Austrian School of Economics (the one that works (believes in free markets and private regulation by private regulators)) and the Keynesian School (and it's variations, essentially, it's the one that doesn't (believes in government spending, intervention, regulation, etc.)).  The Austrians are the ones that have predicted booms and busts, talked about central banks and how they subjugate the people, proven that the smaller (in relation to the people) a government is, the more stable and prosperous the society is, etc. 

Please, PLEASE read through this and try to get an understanding of economics.  The beauty of the Austrian School is not only is it correct, it is based mostly in common sense and is very easy to learn, even if one doesn't have any economic background.  I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Economics in One Lesson
by Henry Hazlitt

http://jim.com/econ/contents.html (http://jim.com/econ/contents.html)

AUDIT/END THE FED
AUDIT THE C.I.A.

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Feb 08, 2010, 05:35 PM
There is economics that works, and economics that doesn't.  There's two main categories: the Austrian School of Economics (the one that works (believes in free markets and private regulation by private regulators)) and the Keynesian School (and it's variations, essentially, it's the one that doesn't (believes in government spending, intervention, regulation, etc.)).  The Austrians are the ones that have predicted booms and busts, talked about central banks and how they subjugate the people, proven that the smaller (in relation to the people) a government is, the more stable and prosperous the society is, etc. 

First of all, I didn't read your link (yet, but might do later if I have some time).
Anyway, while I would wholeheartedly agreed with you in the past, and would still today, in a "perfect" world (I'll come back to that in a minute), I tend not to do so anymore these days.

Indeed, conceptually, regulation fucks things up because regulation is "ordered by" some persons, and these persons cannot have absolute knowledge and insight, hence will (may) take shitty decisions, that will probably create trouble, prevent people's liberty in the name of few issues to solve, etc.
Ideally, a self regulated society (or any kind of system while we're at it...) will work much better, as it will - by definition and by nature - tend to equilibrium, and find its balance.
I still agree with that, in principle.

Nonetheless (and that's a big one imho), that would only work when every actor will act towards efficiency (and actually even better, towards long term efficiency).
That's what I called earlier a "perfect" world. And I (definitely) don't think that's where we live in today.

It's easy to take economics example for me, and the crisis, because I work in an investment bank. What I (and pretty much everyone I'd say) saw with the past crisis is that banks do not work towards their long term survival and efficiency.
They were able to create products that would benefit them in the short term, without thinking further than few months, and wouldn't care about what would happen after. When I say banks, I'm actually talking about everyone there : FED, banks, hedge funds, insurances companies, retail subprime counselors etc.
They only looked at immediate profit, even if it was obvious that long term efficiency (and rentability) was way off with that.

Imho (again), that's only due to inadaptability of men to long term thinking (it's biological, you can read The Black Swan from Nicholas Nassim Taleb if you're interested with that, he talks about it).
That's basically the case with everyone, not only "bankers and related" :
- fishermen in Mediterranea complaining against quotas of red tuna fishing. Because it would reduce their living standard... Sure, but what about your children's one if there are no more tunas ?
- mankind in general regarding environment questions. Let's not debate about global warming and whatever there : obviously, Earth has limited resources, and there's a point where you will pay if in the long term if you take too much. Not that Earth will die or whatever (as Carlin stated it better than me, Earth doesn't care about humans, and will find a way to get better after us, even if it takes millions of years), but we will.
etc.

As long as men aren't able to live with a "long term efficiency" goal, self regulation won't - imo - be applicable. Even if that would be the best solution in an ideal world, I don't think it can be relevant as of today.
Solution is (that's unfortunate, I agree, but I don't see any other choice) therefore, and has to be, regulation. That means that few people will decide for the "good" of everyone else. It's definitely not working well these days, and solution might actually be even worse than the problem seeing how all governments around the world these days are scaringly bad for their people (I obviously know very little, but see how it is in France, US, China at least), and are all converging towards reduction of liberty for everyone, for the "good" and the "protection" of everyone.
That's still unfortunately the only viable option to me, and hopefully, one day, we'll see some responsible leaders (I thought that Obama might have been one before, but well, that didn't happen...) who'll be able to act for the long term efficiency of the people of the world, and after that people responsible, and ready to act indivudally towards long term efficiency.
We'll all (and children, grand children, etc.) be dead by that time I guess though, if it ever happens one day.


/end of long(er than I thought) rant

Yeah, I'm with you on most of that, besides a couple points. 

I am a strong believer in the concept of moral hazard, in that greed is given incentives by the government in many (in my educated opinion all) cases.  Take for example the housing crisis, it all started from the top-down.  The fed lowered interest rates so far and assisted in the proliferation of adjustable rate mortgages and other bad loans of the sort while saying absolutely nothing but "oh, this isn't an asset bubble, blah blah blah" and essentially encouraging this sort of behavior, so that was step number one.  Number two was the government incentives given to banks to make uneconomically viable loans to people who should have been renting or owning a house within their means (side note: I don't see what's so evil about people renting houses/apartments as opposed to owning them, not saying you believe that, but that was just the pretense of their regulations).  So that was another government interference, along with the fact that the US government (and probably others around the world? not sure about that) had gotten in the habit of bailing out firms that it felt were "too big to fail," so essentially these banks knew they were going to be bailed out if shit went down, which it did, and they were right.  Moral hazard is HUGE, and is behind 99.9% of every problem in economies around the world that are attributed to greed and short term gains.  In a free market, businesses operate with the intent of operating inevitably, using only their own (legal) tools to do so, without handouts, bailouts, and preferential legislation.  You remove those, and you see greed come into check because of fear of bankruptcy, because it would actually happen to all of the greedy scheisters that need special treatment as opposed to good sense to stay in business.  And it's not like fear would be the only regulation, there would be plenty of private regulating institutions with the same fear of bankruptcy if their regulations were either to strong or too lax.

On the topic of sustainability, that was the topic I myself was the most sort of sketchy about when I first got into the Austrian school of thought, but after some reading I've found that it's not really something that would be too terribly hard, and would genuinely strengthen the global economy rather than destroying it like all of the treaties and legislation of the past, present and the (hopefully avoidable) future.  Here's a couple of links to articles that helped me out with that.

http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_1_1.pdf (http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_1_1.pdf)
video: http://mises.org/media/1919 (http://mises.org/media/1919)
http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf (http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf)

As for the possibility of any of these ideas coming to widespread acceptance, I'm with you there, and I'm well aware of what an uphill battle it's going to be, but I've gotten such personal satisfaction from finally finding a political mindset that I can completely (logically and morally) agree with that I find it less and less of a chore to educate people every day, mostly because people (right or left) are generally so receptive to it.  Aside from that, I think once the dollar collapses, the US (and probably the world) will be at a very, very crucial fork in the road, and I'm trying to do my part to make sure we go forward, to personal liberties, non-entangling alliances, sound money, and economic freedoms rather than some frankenstein of socialism, corporate socialism in the case of the US.  But there's folks a lot smarter than I working towards the cause of liberty as well, it's come leaps and bounds since the last election, which is extremely exciting for me.  So it's hard for me to stay optimistic, but that doesn't mean I'm going to abandon my principles or the cause... or vote republican or democrat haha.

Since health care is the big debate around the states, I thought I'd post this nice article by a Libertarian Canadian.

The Evolution of Health Care Control
By Paul Murdock
Published 01/29/10

The Evolution of Health Care Control: America to Forgo Liberty by Following the Pattern of Canada

In Canada, one of Alberta's most prominent ex-Premiers boldly called for a two tier health care system. Here in American, politicians are secretly finding ways to force it upon us. Typically, we only hear about how universal and efficient public health systems are. However, if we examine the evolution of the Canadian Health Care system, we can see why we should be scared here in America.

First, it is important to note that provinces and territories are generally responsible for administering their own public health care plans. The federal government acts as a partial financial partner and enforcer of basic uniform, national standards. Sound familiar already? Progressively minded individuals wanted to provide care to the "poor" and the federal government naturally assumed there was a constitutional right to become involved. In Canada, the federal government has questionable constitutional authority over health care, except over specific populations including First Nations, Inuit, and military personnel. Yet, a clause providing authority in times of crisis allowed the government to justify itself. Anyone hear of a health care crisis lately?

The power of the citizen's vote was quickly diminished by the intruding federal government. Our ability to quickly remove politicians by popular vote and thereby influence events is key to our liberty. This is why the sovereignty of the state is essential. Our vote counts most at the local level such as municipalities, counties, and states. Thus, if you are liberty minded, it is important to keep laws and regulations as close to your vote as possible. Canadians lost this power as they ceded power to the federal government. The result was not pretty.

Prior to the 1940s, health care services were predominantly provided by private or charity hospitals and clinics. Canadians, generally, paid for their health care services out of pocket, through charity, or private health insurance. Doctors were in a similar position that we find here today, either in private practice or associated with a particular hospital or clinic.

In 1966, the federal government of Canada introduced the Medicare Act. Under this legislation, it committed to sharing costs with the provinces for all physician services, regardless of whether they were provided in a hospital. Moreover, the Act stipulated certain criteria which a province would have to meet in order to gain this federal funding. This was no accident, and the government was aware that no province could afford not to comply. The introduction of the national Medicare Act firmly established the federal government in the center of health care policy. Moreover, health care policy, like Medicare in America, quickly became the center of political power.

This is similar to what would occur in the United States. Obama promised that you can keep your current insurance and health care providers. Similarly, the federal government in Canada can also claim that it does not choose your health care services or the care you receive from your health care providers. However, the government's ability to indirectly influence policy through the conditions it attached to Federal funding insures compliance to federal mandates. Like in Canada, the power lies in money, which is controlled by federal law and regulation. Whom do you think will control this in the United States? Not you!

Naturally, the power of the federal government was quickly revealed. As a result, tensions grew between provinces and the federal government. Shockingly enough, this occurred after the Federal government informed the states that it COULD NOT AFFORD to live up to its end of the bargain. Provinces were left to foot the bill. Provinces were also furious about the health plan criteria the federal government now required.

In an attempt to make a reasonable living, physicians began charging fees and extra-billing to supplement the low reimbursement fees paid by the government. The federal response was to change the criterion in which funding was provided to provinces. In 1984 the government introduced the Canada Health Act. The legislation re-established conditions that the provinces would have to follow in order to receive federal health care funds. Central to the Act was the prohibition of user fees and extra-billing, and the establishment of other criteria deemed essential for the operation of provincial health care services.

Here is an obvious lesson in point. Once you give federal government the power, they are free to change the rules. Moreover, all socialist systems of health care including Canada and Europe have struggled to pay the increasing costs. This is no different than America. Yet, why increase government involvement to pay for health care, when every country who has tried, struggles?

In 2002, a federal commission on health care proposed even greater expansion of official power. The commission sought a relationship where each level of government was an equal partner in the public health care policy. Here we see the federal government seeking direct power from the Provinces. Additionally, the Commission recommended enacting a Health Covenant which would have set out a national vision and framework for public health care, and be binding on all governments. It also recommended that a Health Council of Canada be created, with the goal of fostering collaboration between levels of government. The end result is that the federal government now controls health care and the provinces are left with no sovereignty.

The laughable commission finally recommended the federal government increase its share of federal funding for health care to a minimum of 25 percent of provincial/territorial costs. Of note, this is half of the original proposal, made to entice the public, by the federal government decades earlier. Like the proposal in Canada, we have a government promising to fund health care by the billions. In the end the fate will be the same; too costly. The end result the same; less quality, restricted access, longer waits, and no way out. As we all know, federal projections fall significantly short, and the true cost will be in the trillions. The government will not be able to pay, the states will have to comply with federal rules, and your taxes will be increased. The true fate lies in the loss of your medical freedom and the erosion between state and federal powers.

The problems mentioned above are not restricted to Canada. Hundreds of thousands in Britain must wait for some type of medical care, with thousands waiting six months or more. France is in a similar situation. In Ontario, Canada, 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province's population) can't find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who'd get a doctor's appointment.

As a result, the goals in Europe and Canada are the opposite of the United States: Increase privatization and access to care. The Provincial Court of Quebec ruled that Canada's restriction on private care violated an individual's right to care. Consequently, doctors are leading a bold charge against Federal regulations. In addition to businesses arranging care for Canadians in the United States, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli organized a private Quebec practice. This is rare, but many believe it will become the trend.

Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: "The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture." In 2007, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain's nonemergency procedures; Labour aimed to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to provide vouchers for certain surgeries, offering patients the choice of a private provider. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.

Sweden's government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm's primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city's largest hospitals. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany; increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control).

Although American media outlets continue to praise health care in other countries, they neglect the important facts about American hospitals. In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country. Other statistics also support American superiority. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England.

If we use the Canadian health care system as an example we can see progressive losses of freedom as health care has expanded. Not only do they lose personal freedoms, but they have become deluded about their own system. In a recent survey found on the Canadian governments own website, more than 80% of all Canadians approve. As an expatriate Canadian, I do not, neither should Americans.

What Do Oranges, Furnaces, and Your IRA Have in Common?
By Tom Mullen


On Friday, an average American spent the entire day with the federal government without ever leaving his home. No, there was no knock on his door by some plain-clothes Gestapo. Neither was he treated to one of those infamous "no-knock raids" where a small army of thugs with various acronyms spelled out on their backs burst into the homes of the innocent and terrorize whomever happens to cross their paths. Nothing so dramatic happened that day. However, the long arm of the federal government made itself equally palpable nonetheless.

The first thing that he tried to do that day seemed innocuous enough. Being a native of Western New York and now living in Florida, he attempted to schedule a pick-up to ship some freshly-picked Florida oranges to a friend back home. He had purchased the oranges from a local orchard a day earlier, putting aside about two dozen for his friend in the wintry north. Anyone who has eaten oranges fresh from the tree here in Florida can tell you what a difference there is in freshness and taste from those purchased in grocery stores in the north when they are several days or weeks older. There is also a significant difference in price, especially this time of year. Oranges in Florida cost about $.40 per orange, while those same oranges cost about $1.50 each when purchased in Western New York.

For all of these reasons, our average American decided to do something nice and send a couple of dozen freshly picked oranges up north. That's when he had his first encounter with the federal government. It turns out that what he was attempting to do was extremely dangerous and therefore prohibited by USDA regulations. According to the USDA website,

Under current federal regulations, all shipments of fresh citrus are prohibited from leaving Florida unless they meet certain requirements, including:

    * Inspection of the grove within 30 days of harvest;
    * Treatment of the fresh fruit with a special decontaminant;
    * Issuance of a federal limited permit that must accompany the fruit. The limited permit confirms that the inspection and treatment have been carried out; and
    * Clear marking on the packages to indicate the fruit is prohibited from being delivered to other citrus-producing states.

The reason given for these regulations is that they are "designed to prevent the spread of citrus canker to other citrus-producing states while preserving Florida's fresh fruit citrus market." Surely the reader is familiar with citrus canker -- that pandemic scourge that rivals swine flu in its danger to all of humanity if not for the federal government and its regulations.

There are a few consequences of this legislation that the government would have us believe are purely coincidental. The first is that the federal government is now authorized to collect a tax, which is all the fee for the "limited license" really is. The second is that citrus growers are effectively insulated by law from any out-of-state competition. Ironically, the federal government supposedly derives its authority to impose such a regulation from the commerce clause of the Constitution — which was written to prevent protectionism by the states!

The effect of these regulations are that consumers everywhere — in citrus producing and non-citrus producing states — pay higher prices for oranges. For those states without citrus growers, the licensing costs and higher costs due to limited shipping options are passed on to consumers. This is what explains Western New Yorkers paying $1.50 per orange. Even in citrus producing states, consumers pay a higher price than they otherwise would if their in-state growers had to compete with out-of-state growers freely shipping their products into the market. Of course, the government and its "progressive" supporters would have us believe that these are merely necessary costs of public safety. It couldn't be that large, corporate citrus producers had anything to do with lobbying for and perhaps even writing these regulations, could it? Surely, the additional profits and insulation from competition are purely coincidental, aren't they?

Having resigned himself that he could not ship the oranges himself without the federal license, which was not cost-effective for two dozen oranges, our subject acquiesced to send the oranges directly from an orchard licensed to ship out of state (at a premium price) and moved on to his next order of business. He needed a furnace for one of his rental properties. Being a small businessman who owned or managed approximately 100 properties, it was his responsibility to repair or replace any home appliances that ceased functioning. As a furnace is a significant cost for a small business, he consulted a well-known internet resource to see if he could get a deal on purchase and installation. He found several vendors advertising low-cost installations for home furnaces.

The cost of the home furnace that he selected was about $800. The cost to have a licensed HVAC contractor install the appliance was approximately $1,700 (remember this is New York), for a grand total of $2,500. The vendor on the internet worked for one of the established HVAC contractors that sell and install these appliances. He was offering to sell the furnace at the advertised price of $800 and install it for $300. This represented a savings of $1,400 — significant for a small property management company. When the small businessman offered to accept the offer and pay by credit card, the internet vendor educated him on what was going on. The transaction would have to be executed in cash, because it would be in violation of federal regulations. Not wishing to run afoul of the law, the small businessman declined and acquiesced to pay the $2,500.

It should be remembered that the vendor was not offering to sell stolen goods. He was selling the actual furnace at the same price that the HVAC contractor was selling it at. The internet vendor was merely offering to do the installation labor at what amounted to a real market cost of about $300. Why can the HVAC contractor charge $1,700 to send the exact same technician to install the exact same furnace? Only because it belongs to a cartel that is created by federal regulation and licensing requirements. Again, the reason given is public safety. We can't have just anyone installing HVAC equipment or we would all be blown up within a week. It can't be that large, corporate manufacturers and HVAC contractors associations lobby the government to pass these competition-stifling regulations, could it?

What did our average American businessman do next to garner the attention of the federal government? Nothing. Frustrated and having spent an inordinate amount of time on two seemingly simple activities, he decided to call it a day. However, the fact that you are sitting in your home doing nothing does not necessarily mean that you are free from federal intrusion. While reading some personal e-mails, one popped into his inbox from his personal financial advisor. It concerned his IRA.

A few years earlier, he had decided to take a portion of his retirement savings out of his traditional 401K and put it into an IRA with a company that specialized in foreign stocks. His strategy was to protect his savings from the ongoing depreciation of the U.S. dollar and the structural weakness of the U.S. economy in general, which was and is based almost purely on consumption and borrowing. The firm with which he opened his account invested his retirement money in foreign companies with strong balance sheets that were paying dividends. Overall, the investment strategy was sound and relatively conservative. In any case, it was his money to do with as he saw fit. Or so he thought.

It seems that since "the crisis," the federal government had taken an interest in him in this respect as well — as always for his "protection." His broker informed him that a "Client Profile" that he had been required by federal law to fill out upon opening his account had to be filled out again. However, since the company that he opened the IRA with specialized in foreign stocks, he now had to mark "Speculation" on his risk profile. The company had to have this signed affidavit on file in order to legally continue to manage his account. This was all designed to protect him from unscrupulous fund managers who might buy foreign stocks with his retirement money without telling him how risky said foreign investments might be.

Absurdity abounds in this regulation. The stocks in our subject's portfolio all had strong balance sheets (modest debt-to-equity ratios) and were paying dividends. To invest in these, according to our government, is "speculation." However, to invest in U.S. Treasury bonds — the bonds of an enterprise that is currently losing $1.6 trillion per year, has over $12 trillion in debt, and over $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities — would qualify as "low risk." However, there is more to this story than pure government incompetence.

Consider the effects of a regulation such as this. There is some percentage of people who wisely got out of U.S. stocks and U.S. dollar-denominated assets in general over the past several years. However, after the misinformed propaganda campaign by our government against speculators as the cause of the recent financial and economic crises, there are a number of reasons that those people might not want to be labeled as "speculators" themselves. They might erroneously perceive speculation as unpatriotic or even evil, given what they have heard. The less gullible might fear more onerous federal actions against them once they are officially identified as speculators. In any case, this regulation is going to cause some people to close their accounts with companies that deal in foreign stocks or at least shift their assets back to U.S. stocks.

This is going to have the effect of raising the price of those U.S. stocks that these "speculators" decide to buy. That price increase does not represent real market forces at work, because without the regulation, the investors would have left their money in the foreign companies. Again, this is supposedly the unintended consequence of a regulation that is nevertheless necessary to protect the public. Who just happens to benefit? As usual, it is the large corporations whose stock prices will appreciate and who also just happen to fund the campaigns of the people who passed the regulation in the first place. Doesn't anyone see a pattern here?

None of these regulations actually benefit the public. The citrus and furnace consumers pay exorbitantly higher prices and are certainly no safer from danger because the corporate cartel member filled out a government form and paid a licensing fee. How many people have to die from FDA-approved drugs (or from the unavailability of unapproved drugs) before this is sufficiently clear to average Americans? In the case of the foreign stock investor, he is actually harmed by the regulation if as a result of it he takes his money out of safe, foreign investments in viable companies and puts it into shaky U.S. corporations or soon-to-be-downgraded U.S. Treasury debt.

Progressives supposedly support these regulations in order to protect average Americans from the large corporations that they vilify at every opportunity. As we have seen ever since their hero, FDR, instituted this fascist regulatory structure in the 1930's, they achieve exactly the opposite result. With each new set of regulations, large corporations grow richer, more influential, and more insulated from competition — all at the expense of the "little guy" that the regulations supposedly protect. To quote another progressive hero from the 1960's, "When will they ever learn?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html)


A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC
The emerging errors of the IPCC's 2007 report are not incidental but fundamental, says Christopher Booker

The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm – after three months when the IPCC and Dr Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost.

The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC's last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other "extreme weather events" were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The "science is settled", the "consensus" is intact.

But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.

All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC's 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.

Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge.

In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC's most shameless stunt of all – the notorious "hockey stick" graph purporting to show that in the late 20th century, temperatures had been hurtling up to unprecedented levels. This was deemed necessary because, after the graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report, it had been exposed as no more than a statistical illusion. (For a full account see Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion, and also my own book The Real Global Warming Disaster.)

In other words, in crucial respects the IPCC's 2007 report was no more than reckless propaganda, designed to panic the world's politicians into agreeing at Copenhagen in 2009 that we should all pay by far the largest single bill ever presented to the human race, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. And as we know, faced with the prospect of this financial and economic abyss, December's Copenhagen conference ended in shambles, with virtually nothing agreed.

What is staggering is the speed and the scale of the unravelling – assisted of course, just before Copenhagen, by "Climategate", the emails and computer codes leaked from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. Their significance was the light they shone on the activities of a small group of British and US scientists at the heart of the IPCC, as they discussed ways of manipulating data to show the world warming faster than the evidence justified; fighting off legitimate requests for data from outside experts to hide their manipulations; and conspiring to silence their critics by excluding their work from scientific journals and the IPCC's 2007 report itself. (Again, a devastating analysis of this story has just been published by Stephen Mosher and Tom Fuller in Climategate: The CRUtape Letters).

Almost as revealing as the leaked documents themselves, however, was the recent interview given to the BBC by the CRU's suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, who has played a central role in the global warming scare for 20 years, not least as custodian of the most prestigious of the four global temperature records relied on by the IPCC. In his interview Jones seemed to be chucking overboard one key prop of warmest faith after another, as he admitted that the world might have been hotter during the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago than it is today, that before any rise in CO2 levels temperatures rose faster between 1860 and 1880 than they have done in the past 30 years, and that in the past decade their trend has been falling rather than rising.

The implications of all this for the warming scare, as it has been presented to us over the past two decades, can scarcely be overestimated. The reputation of the IPCC is in shreds. And this is to say nothing of the personal reputation of the man who was the mastermind of its 2007 report, its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

It was in this newspaper that we first revealed how Pachauri has earned millions of pounds for his Delhi-based research institute Teri, and further details are still emerging of how he has parlayed his position into a worldwide business empire, including 17 lucrative contracts from the EU alone. But we should not expect the truth to break in too suddenly on this mass of vested interests. Too many people have too much at stake to allow the faith in man-made global warming, which has sustained them so long and which is today making so many of them rich, to be abandoned. The so-called investigations into Climategate and Dr Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann seem like no more than empty establishment whitewashes. There is little reason to expect that the inquiry into the record of the IPCC and Dr Pachauri that is now being set up by the UN Environment Programme and the world's politicians will be very different.

Since 1988, when the greatest scare the world has seen got under way, hundreds of billions of pounds have been poured into academic research projects designed not to test the CO2 warming thesis but to take it as a given fact, and to use computer models to make its impacts seem as scary as possible. The new global "carbon trading" market, already worth $126 billion a year, could soon be worth trillions. Governments, including our own, are calling for hundreds of billions more to be chucked into absurd "carbon-saving" energy schemes, with the cost to be met by all of us in soaring taxes and energy bills.

With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager "renewables" developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.) Let all that fluffy white "global warming" continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat. We have called into being a true Frankenstein's monster. It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size.

If Obama rams Health Care down America's throat he will have officially committed political suicide.  Massachusetts is proof that the future for the far left is not looking good.  I don't quite understand how spending a trillion dollars on a health care bill will lower the deficit??? Who are the kidding? 

http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA (http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA)


This is also a great dvd to check out if u got some extra cash laying around.  Its quite alarming.  Future isn't looking too good.  Especially when we run out of everyones fucking money. 

Quote from: stapezee on Mar 01, 2010, 06:29 PM
http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA (http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA)


This is also a great dvd to check out if u got some extra cash laying around.  Its quite alarming.  Future isn't looking too good.  Especially when we run out of everyones fucking money. 

How can you have an opinion on how good a movie is if it hasn't even been released yet.  Idiot.

Quote from: your sister gets me hard on Mar 01, 2010, 10:03 PM

Quote from: stapezee on Mar 01, 2010, 06:29 PM
http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA (http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA)


This is also a great dvd to check out if u got some extra cash laying around.  Its quite alarming.  Future isn't looking too good.  Especially when we run out of everyones fucking money. 

How can you have an opinion on how good a movie is if it hasn't even been released yet.  Idiot.

They had an hour long premier on Sean Hannity the other night.....IDIOT

Quote from: stapezee on Mar 01, 2010, 10:09 PM
They had an hour long premier on Sean Hannity the other night.....IDIOT

ok good now i know i don't have to check it out.

Quote from: bright lights, big city on Mar 01, 2010, 11:02 PM

Quote from: stapezee on Mar 01, 2010, 10:09 PM
They had an hour long premier on Sean Hannity the other night.....IDIOT

ok good now i know i don't have to check it out.

haha i know, im not a fan either, but Its a crazy documentary.  I heard this was gonna be on his show, so I watched it.  When it comes out you should definitely watch it if your interested at all about how America got into this situation, and how Obama is going to continue to spend money we dont have.  Its not some right wing bullshit, its pretty moderate.  Also shows how fucking terrible Bush was (which we already know) but also explains how this administration is not helping at all....

Quote from: stapezee on Mar 01, 2010, 10:09 PM

Quote from: your sister gets me hard on Mar 01, 2010, 10:03 PM

Quote from: stapezee on Mar 01, 2010, 06:29 PM
http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA (http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA)


This is also a great dvd to check out if u got some extra cash laying around.  Its quite alarming.  Future isn't looking too good.  Especially when we run out of everyones fucking money. 

How can you have an opinion on how good a movie is if it hasn't even been released yet.  Idiot.

They had an hour long premier on Sean Hannity the other night.....IDIOT

You watched sean hannity...IDIOT

Quote from: your sister gets me hard on Mar 02, 2010, 01:51 AM

Quote from: stapezee on Mar 01, 2010, 10:09 PM

Quote from: your sister gets me hard on Mar 01, 2010, 10:03 PM

Quote from: stapezee on Mar 01, 2010, 06:29 PM
http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA (http://www.generationzeromovie.com/?gclid=CLqvpfSSmKACFVth2godUkI6eA)


This is also a great dvd to check out if u got some extra cash laying around.  Its quite alarming.  Future isn't looking too good.  Especially when we run out of everyones fucking money. 

How can you have an opinion on how good a movie is if it hasn't even been released yet.  Idiot.

They had an hour long premier on Sean Hannity the other night.....IDIOT

You watched sean hannity...IDIOT

na dude I watched the documentary that was aired on Hannitys show.  what is your purpose?  I checked your posts and there nothing but worthless shit?  do u come around just to annoy us?  if thats your purpose, thanks! 

I hope that documentary isn't just some opposite-side-of-the-aisle of michael moore movie and is genuinely accurate.  But the trailer makes a point, history repeats itself, so very hard.  And everyone always thinks that they're living in some modern, special version of society, ground that's never been tread, when it's just some modern version of something that's already happened.  That's why I'm trying to refer all of the people that I can to this one historian from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Thomas Woods.  Here's a link to his podcast channel, every clip is so beyond valuable, and he's so fucking reasonable, pretty much the opposite of Sean Hannity's demeanor.  Definitely, DEFINITELY check him out.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=424 (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=424)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-3-2010/anchor-management (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-3-2010/anchor-management)

:D

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/aclu-forced-sue-obtain-legal-basis-predator-drone-program/ (http://rawstory.com/2010/03/aclu-forced-sue-obtain-legal-basis-predator-drone-program/)

Awesome article!

The idea of some young American, controlling this weapon with a joystick, killing someone far from them creeps me out. It's like a videogame to them! They aren't physically killling them, the drone did!

What the fuck, Texas?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/)

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Mar 18, 2010, 08:02 PM
What the fuck, Texas?

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/)

I read about that, it's some scary shit.  Those left-wing christians are a fucked up bunch, it blows my mind how society can keep coming up with new versions of old problems, i.e. how does nobody see that this is religious censorship/propaganda?  Here's a really good article I read about it.  mises.org has become my favorite website, so much goddamn information there without all of the extremist biases.

On a different topic, health care "reform" passed the house today.  God, I don't understand how liberals can be so mother fucking stupid.  Even if you buy into their (sometimes wayyy far fetched) sob stories, there's NOTHING in this bill that's going to help anybody long-term.  You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict that prices are just going to keep skyrocketing, that there is going to be some form or another of rationing (virtual colonoscopies are already not covered by Medicare even before extending government subsidies to the entire population, doesn't sound like much, but it's the definition of a slippery slope) and that the government is going to be on the hook for far, far, far more than the Congressional Budget Office admits.  Not to mention the billions upon billions of dollars in new taxes, raising the medicare payroll tax (even though that still doesn't make the program solvent) along with a host of other inheritance and other taxes.  Too bad the economy is going to tank and the dollar is going to inflate at unimaginable levels before any of these benefits are actually realized.

Yo Tarkil, should I look at movin to China?  I hear a lot of good things.

Quoteleft-wing christians

i doubt there is such thing as a left-wing christian.

every radical left position imho smust oppose against hierarchic ideas such as christianism.

im not sure if your doing this on purpose to call those guys leftists as you will probablly keep your right side clean of such regressive ideas.


and u would prefer china over the usa because you feel controlled by the government? just wow. enjoy your liftetime of jail when you teach someone about the idea of freedom in china.

x

Quote from: Nailec on Mar 22, 2010, 10:24 PM
and u would prefer china over the usa because you feel controlled by the government? just wow. enjoy your liftetime of jail when you teach someone about the idea of freedom in china.

haha you make a pretty good point there

and actually the comment about "left-wing christians" doesn't make any sense, if you are indeed responding to the Texas Board of Ed article, alvarez.

Personally, I like the amendment that replaced 'demoratic' with  'constitutional republic'. Texas Is The Reason people hate the U.S. (high five if you know why I made those capitalizations)

Hello, my name is Nailec and what is sarcasm?

Quote from: bright lights, big city on Mar 22, 2010, 11:27 PMTexas Is The Reason people hate the U.S. (high five if you know why I made those capitalizations)

TEXAS IS THE REASON...THAT THE PRESIDENT'S DEAD!

LOL

Quote from: Nailec on Mar 22, 2010, 10:24 PM

Quoteleft-wing christians

i doubt there is such thing as a left-wing christian.

every radical left position imho smust oppose against hierarchic ideas such as christianism.

im not sure if your doing this on purpose to call those guys leftists as you will probablly keep your right side clean of such regressive ideas.


and u would prefer china over the usa because you feel controlled by the government? just wow. enjoy your liftetime of jail when you teach someone about the idea of freedom in china.

The way I've come to understand the political spectrum is through the amount of central planning and communal aspects in a given society.  So under this assumption, communism would be on the far left and anarchism would be on the far right.  The Christians trying to initiate some form of control over what is taught in centrally planned schools sounds a lot more left to me by that definition.  I think the Christian activists have been wrongly grouped in with the right because of their association with Republicans, in my opinion that's one of the plethora of ways the Republican party has drifted towards the left since its inception, and at an accelerated rate since the presidency of Herbert Hoover.

And what I meant about China was only on a financial/economic basis.  It's more clear every day that they are going to emerge as the world's powerhouse economy while the US, Great Britain and much of Europe are going to be totally fucked.  I feel terrible for Germany, their ties to the Euro are going to fuck them in the ass when the other debt-ridden Euro countries go under.

i wouldnt say, were fucked in ten years. our societies recognized that "the pursuit of happieness" doesnt just mean we have to become rich.

over the past decades we have seen that the price for just maximizing our wealth is way to high. therefore we decided to care for those things, that have been left behind, when just caring for our profits: environment, health, emancipaion of the subject etc.

economical power is just one part in all this.

there is really no need to enviously look at china.

You really don't understand what you're saying, you're proving my point.  Germany is one of the better European economies because of its relatively lower level of debt.  This means the country as a whole is LIVING WITHIN ITS MEANS.  You're saving more money and spending less as an aggregate, and your country is in fact becoming more wealthy.  That's how economies truly grow, through savings and wealth/capital accumulation, there is nothing in the slightest bit evil about this.  This is what is happening, it's not that your society has recognized that "the pursuit of happiness" doesn't just mean you have to become rich.  You do realize how incredibly arrogant that sounds, right?  The way I think about what you're complaining about (how greeeeeeeeedy everyone is) is countries living BEYOND their means, such as Greece, and the United States.  Much unlike Germany, we CAN'T PAY FOR everything we've been consuming, let alone our foreign operations or our unfathomable, staggering welfare/entitlement obligations, stuff that's not included in the national debt, it's speculated to be between $70-150 TRILLION DOLLARS.  That's in-fucking-sane.  That's what I call greed, that's not accumulating wealth, it's accumulating debt and consuming more than you are rightfully due given your production.  So essentially you have everything backwards involving economics and the government.  Germany is good in the way you and I are talking about, but it's because they are genuinely creating wealth, becoming "richer" (in the very best sense of the word), without insane deficit spending and government over-obligation, GREED. For the love of god, will you please, PLEASE read this book and watch this video?

http://jim.com/econ/contents.html (http://jim.com/econ/contents.html)
Applying Economics to American History (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I#)

I would absolutely love it if you would just try to understand that we are not fighting for different things.  You just lack any concept of what the difference is between greed and wealth, and do not understand free market principles in the least.  It really, truly (and this is coming from hours upon hours upon hours of personal, private study) is not about being greedy and trying to fuck as many people over as you can while getting rich at the expense of others.  It's about the opposite, VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION, something completely lacked when you're talking about the government.  It's about discovering that even if you have the nicest, most benevolent people to ever be in government, they are BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION hampering the progress of society if they do much of anything besides protect the right to this voluntary association.  It's about creating wealth for every single person in the world, based on no arbitrary difference in culture, race, sexual orientation or otherwise, but only upon personal motivation.  It's about the least possible barriers to individual success.  It's about the advancement of society as a whole, so that society can then afford to support its destitute, disadvantaged, down on their luck, as well as giving them more opportunities to help themselves.  Watch that video, and listen to what Tom says about poverty, it's absolutely profound.

p.s. is there anyone else on this board besides my dogs trey and tarkil that genuinely understands libertarianism?  I'm just wondering if it's roughly the same ratio as it is with people i know personally, even the pretty conservative ones.  Still not too much mention of Austrian Economics or Ron Paul (one of the few living people involved in government that can be held up as truly unwavering in principle).  Says lots about where people get their respective educations.

i think its absolutely fine that there are people like you with a deeper understanding with the economical side of our societies. that is where politcians have to moderate between my utopian dreams and your economic knowledge to create a working reality.

the ideal politician indeed doesnt hamper down the accumulation of wealth by a voluntary association (a marxist term btw.).
but i have the impression that your just talking about the working class and ignore a huge rest of the society that has to be party of this voluntary association, too.

take SIEMENS as an example. it had some deals with Iran going that might have led to more wealth amongst germans. but big parts of the german society (left, center right) felt uncomfortable that this company, that once helped to build equipment for the nazis, is now helping a regime probablly seeking to destroy israel.

the politics recognized this and put pressure on siemens, that finally cut their deals.
this is what i meant when i said were not just blindly look at the economic side of an issue. wealth also includes these moral aspects. overall i feel better not getting the money out of those deals but instead i have a quit conscience.


while germany atm hasnt as much debts as other nations, we will be facing huge problems in the near future, too.
-talking about your society getting older and older > less people that gain money have to take care of more old people.
-other nations are critizising germany for its strenght in export. probablly we have to step back a little in order to support others (i dont know the eact circumstances and accusations here)

First, maybe the term "voluntary association" could have been coined by Marx, I don't have time to research it right now, but the concept of freedom of association was a big part of the American Revolution...  I don't understand if you're trying to call me a part-Marxist, but he criticized capitalism in many ways, and voluntary association is one of the major things that keep the bad human nature possibilities of capitalism in check.  In an economy with an abundance of jobs and voluntary contractual arrangements, it is not possible for a worker to be indefinitely exploited.  In an unhampered economy, this abundance of jobs both allows the worker to choose with whom he or she associates themselves, and necessitates that, because labor in this situation is scarce, that companies bid for their workers, therefore naturally, and more importantly without any need for force by a government entity, raising wages, safety standards and therefore standards of living.

You really, really, really need to watch that video.  I'm not being condescending.  The Austrian School of Economics and its concepts are extraordinarily easy to understand, they're explained via logic and anecdotal evidence rather than complicated mathematical models that don't always work and don't always reflect reality or take every factor into account.  

The issue with Iran is more complicated.  I'm not familiar with this story, my only question is whether Siemens finally capitulated because of being forced by the German government or because they realized the unpopularity of this decision would hurt their company.  It's also weird to me that somehow the people in the German government are more liberated from the Nazi image than Siemens.  Has there been publicized evidence that they've supported Pro-Nazi organizations or something?  Why is it just assumed they're being Nazi sympathizers because they're associating with Iran?  And after checking the Wiki about Siemens, it says the technology was for spying on their own citizens, obviously not an admirable pursuit, but that doesn't really have much to do with Israel.  I'm not saying it wasn't morally reprehensible for Siemens to sell these things to Iran, I'm just saying that if the workings of the deal were made public and it was that big of a deal to the people, Siemens would've lost a shit ton of customers.  And there's nothing free market about the military-industrial complex and no way to hold the free market accountable for that.

On Israel, I'm no historian, but these articles pretty well sum up my opinion on it.

http://mises.org/daily/3285 (http://mises.org/daily/3285)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul335.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul335.html)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block88.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block88.html)

I wrote this paper for my managerial psychology class, it's mostly about the austrian business cycle.  check it.

Politics, Power and the Free Market
By Corey Wright
Managerial Psychology
March 10th, 2010

   In today's United States of America, it is highly difficult to engage in any activity without having politics and/or power come into play somehow.  With the changes that have accompanied the Information Age and the increased ease of access to information of the financial, political, and human interest sorts, have come the politicization of nearly every aspect of human life, to an infinitely greater degree than was intended by the founders of our country.  One of the definitions of "politics" given by Merriam Webster is "competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership," and the definition given for "power" by the textbook is "the ability to change the behavior of others."  When one puts these definitions together, he or she comes up with a combined definition of "competition between competing interest groups or individuals for the ability to change the behavior of others and leadership."  I believe that this exemplifies the effect that politics and power have on our lives. 
       Since the topic of politics and power is so very broad, I decided to focus on their effect on the views of the populace with regards to the free market.  For every crisis in recent memory, and also to try to explain past crises, the leaders of this country have wrongly tried to lay blame on lack of federal regulation and intervention in the free market.  This wouldn't be such a wrongful accusation if it were merely an academic mistake, but unfortunately, it means the stagnation of our economy, the debasement of our currency, and a much higher than optimal unemployment rate in addition to the loss of many kinds of freedom.  I will explain how politics have led to widespread misconceptions of economic freedom by those in pursuit of more power, by illustrating a few cases that I feel exemplify these misconceptions.  I will start by speaking about the Austrian School of Economics as opposed to Keynesian Economics and how they are popularly misconceived.  I will then move on to a discussion about how they both relate to the global economic picture using examples from the United States: the Great Depression and the current financial crisis.
       I will start by briefly discussing the competing economic theories.  The school of Keynesian thought is fairly modern; it came about in the 1930s, during the beginning of Great Depression.  While every school of economics has many unique subtleties, the main view held by Keynesian Economics that I will try to refute is as follows: the government should use fiscal and monetary programs to stimulate an economy during an economic downturn.  Following this argument, I will then try to represent how Keynesian theory is politicized, and then used to achieve power through this government action.
      Within this school of economic thought Keynes argued "that governments should fight the Great Depression with heavy spending. With consumer and business spending so weak, he argued, governments had to boost demand directly" (Reddy, 2009, p.1). Their point of view says that essentially the lack of spending by businesses, consumers or governments is the reason that an economy loses steam.  Whenever the business and consumer end of spending ceases to drive the economy, the government should stimulate the economy through fiscal and monetary policy.  This is recommended to be done in two main ways: through the artificial lowering of interest rates by the central bank, and through government funding for products, services, and construction that might not have otherwise been undertaken in a government subsidy/incentive-free economy.  Robert Murphy of the Mises Institute sums up their argument as follows: "when there are idle resources lying around, the traditional economic problem of scarcity disappears. The government can prime the pump by throwing borrowed money around, and this can only boost total output, because employed workers produce more than unemployed workers" (Murphy, 2009, p. 2).  This is based on the assumption that prices should not and cannot fall to a level that would make them attractive enough to warrant demand from consumers, so the government needs to stimulate this demand. 
      The Austrian School of Economics, the oldest continuous school in history, has much the opposite viewpoint, as well as more of a focus on the long-term than the Keynesian School.  They argue that an economy cannot be brought back to stability, followed by growth, by using government stimulus.  In addition to this argument, they explain the "boom-and-bust" cycle through their business cycle theory.  Roger Garrison sums up the Austrian business cycle theory in his article "The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle."

The Austrian theory of the business cycle emerges straightforwardly from a simple comparison of savings-induced growth, which is sustainable, with a credit-induced boom, which is not. An increase in saving by individuals and a credit expansion orchestrated by the central bank set into motion market processes whose initial allocational effects on the economy's capital structure are similar. But the ultimate consequences of the two processes stand in stark contrast: Saving gets us genuine growth; credit expansion gets us boom and bust (Garrison, 1996, p.1)

In layman's terms, this theory says that an economy grows sustainably and in a far more stable manner by a growth in public savings.  It is based around what signals are sent to entrepreneurs by the current interest rate in terms of what levels of consumption is preferred by the public.  It speaks of different "levels of production."  The lower order stages of production are those that are more close to the actual consumer, such as retail stores.  Higher order stages are those such as research and development.  When savings grow naturally, consumers are signaling that they wish to delay their consumption to a later date, and the consequence of this extra savings is higher levels of available capital on bank's balance sheets, which in turn lowers the amount of interest a bank will charge.  This sends a signal to entrepreneurs that it is far cheaper for them to borrow to invest in more long-term projects (research and development, factory/store expansion, etc.) because of the large effect that interest rates have upon their costs.  This goes hand-in-hand with consumers wanting to delay their consumption.  Thomas Woods, in his article "Intervention and Economic Crisis," explains what ensues when interest rates are lowered artificially and entrepreneurs are given the signal to engage in more higher-order stages, while the public has not indicated a delay in consumption.

If consumption spending is not constricted, the lower-order stages of production do not contract. And if they do not contract, they do not release resources for use in the higher-order stages of production. Instead of harmonious economic development, there will instead ensue a tug of war for those resources between the higher and lower stages. In the process of this tug of war, the prices of those resources (labor, trucking services, et cetera) will be bid up, thereby threatening the profitability of higher-order projects that were begun without the expectation of this increase in costs... The lower-order stages will win the tug of war. Expansion in the higher-order stages will have to be abandoned. Some of the resources deployed there will be salvageable; others will have been squandered forever or will be of little to no use in later stages of production (Woods, 2010, p.1).

If these signals to entrepreneurs had come about naturally, by a genuine increase in savings, there would have been actual, material resources saved to see these longer stages of production through.  This is not so when interest rates have merely been lowered artificially.  When this lack of savings is realized by the aggregate investors, the correction, or bust/recession takes place. 
This theory came about through decades of study and theorizing, and was made most popular by Friedrich August von Hayek, a Nobel Prize winning economist from Vienna, Austria, who won his Nobel Prize in 1974 for this very theory.  It explains the "cluster of errors" that come about in an economy that is manipulated by a central bank.  When interest rates are artificially changed, then entrepreneurs are "tricked" into investing in the wrong time-oriented stages of production.  By this economic theory, a recession is a period where entrepreneurs are trying their best to correct these mistakes, to reallocate their resources to better fit the needs and wants of society.  How this disconnect is defined is the central difference between Keynesian theory and Austrian theory; the Keynesian thinks of these resources as idle, while the Austrian think of them as misallocated. 
       This correction of resource disbursement, in contrast to the popular viewpoint, is not only necessary, but a good thing for society, that is if this correction is allowed to take place quickly and naturally.  Thomas Woods, in his article "The Forgotten Depression of 1920" discusses a rarely mentioned historical case when the market was allowed to correct naturally after the Federal Reserve's first period of credit expansion.

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.
Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.
The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction." By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

This is in stark contrast with the strategy undertaken by presidents Hoover and Roosevelt after the bust of 1929, when the government and central bank tried everything in their powers to get the economy going again.  These radical new plans, however, only led to a perpetuation and increase of the imbalances in the economy which were not corrected until the latter half of the 1940s.
   This can also be related to the boom and bust cycles that have been experienced by those of us living today.  When the dot-com bubble burst (a boom also perpetuated by cheap money provided by the Federal Reserve), the Fed lowered the Federal Funds rate to a staggering 1% in an effort to delay a major recession.  This was effective, in the sense that the recession felt was very mild, but rather than resources becoming reallocated to viable alternatives, the speculation simply moved sectors from dot-com companies to housing, because with such low interest rates, it was seen as profitable in the long-run to invest in a something as long-term as a house.  The unprecedented demand brought forth highly inflated housing prices, and with fixed interest rates, there was nothing to rein in this sense that housing prices could never come down, a very dangerous view to have perpetuated through a populace.  When the bubble inflated in the dot-com stocks, it was more-or-less felt only by those who held those stocks and Wall Street.  A far higher percentage of people are involved in housing, so the bursting of this latest bubble was extremely hard to paper over, not to mention hard on the entire American population, as well as many abroad. 
   My point in researching and explaining all of this is to show its relation to politics and power.  There is hardly any area of politics that can affect an entire society's prosperity and well-being than the power of a government to manipulate the monetary supply and the allocation of resources in an economy.  It is no wonder that Keynesian economics is lauded by politicians on both sides of the spectrum, because it theorizes that the government can indeed centrally plan an economy.  The problem with this is that it fails to explain the root cause of the boom and bust cycle: the manipulation of interest rates by the government, or in the case of the United States, a central bank given a monopoly on the money supply.  The government cannot possibly know the specific interest rates demanded by each bank in the country at any given moment, so it is unable to guide the genuine, most efficient growth that is needed and wanted by society.  This power is not something that should be given to any single entity, and if analyzing American history since the inception of the Federal Reserve and noticing the subsequent devaluation of our dollar is any indicator, it has become far more difficult for the average person to make enough money to sustain himself.  In 1913, one ounce of gold cost $20.67; today, one ounce of gold costs $1,105.50, a loss of 98% from the value it once held.  That means a person needs to be paid 53.5 times as many dollars today to make the same amount as they would have in 1913.
   The government has made every effort to demonize the free market along with keeping itself vindicated from any fault.  This abuse of politics and power has done nothing but slow the sound economic education of society.  It has harmed the standards of living of not only the free, developed countries, but also those developing, poorer nations in need of a genuine wealth creating environment.


Bibliography

Garrison, Roger W. (1996).  The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle.  Business Cycles and Depressions: an Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://mises.org/TRADCYCL/THEORSUM.ASP (http://mises.org/TRADCYCL/THEORSUM.ASP)
Murphy, Robert P.  (Jan 12, 2009).  Does "Depression Economics" Change the Rules?  Mises Daily.  Retrieved from http://mises.org/daily/3290 (http://mises.org/daily/3290)
Reddy, Sudeep.  (Jan 8, 2009).  The New Old Big Thing in Economics: J.M. Keynes.  Wall Street Journal.  Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137373330762769.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137373330762769.html)
Woods, Thomas E. (Feb 27, 2010).  Intervention and Economic Crisis.  Campaign for Liberty. Retrieved from http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=650 (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=650)
Woods, Thomas E. (Nov 27, 2009).  The Forgotten Depression of 1920.  Mises Daily.  Retrieved from http://mises.org/daily/3788 (http://mises.org/daily/3788)
Gold values retrieved from: http://www.measuringworth.org/gold/ (http://www.measuringworth.org/gold/)

Christ. It's a fucking novel.

haha yeahhh, even with a page limit.  i got lots to say about such topics, wrote all of that in two sittings.  It's really interesting to me and I think the world would be a far, far better place if Austrian economics were taught in high schools.  Surely America wouldn't be approaching the precipice of our downfall at the moment.  Speaking of which, I found this little guy the other day.  Whew, it's pretty rough.

www.usdebtclock.org (http://www.usdebtclock.org)

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Mar 18, 2010, 07:22 PM
Awesome article!

The idea of some young American, controlling this weapon with a joystick, killing someone far from them creeps me out. It's like a videogame to them! They aren't physically killling them, the drone did!

Here is an awesome summary this guy, squarepusher, did of this video he recently saw....it deals with the government and its' involvement in the digital world, video games, and net-centric warefare...


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Some kind soul at another forum was kind enough to provide me with a link to this extremely pertinent video that I recommend everybody watch.

On-Demand Webcast: "Arming with Intelligence: Data Fusion in Network-Centric Warfare"

http://www.objectivity.com/media/data-fusion-and-network-centric-warfare/default.asp (http://www.objectivity.com/media/data-fusion-and-network-centric-warfare/default.asp)

This is a Flash video in the form of a web seminar - I will be providing screenshots of some of the slides along with my own notes and comments.

(Objectivity/DB, BTW, is apparently an important contractor to the fusion centers and the big military contractors - they provide solutions for the 'persistence layer' in a typical three-layered computer application)

QuoteObjectivity, Inc. provides distributed data management and object persistence solutions for government, business and science organizations, and is the enabling technology for some of the most complex and mission critical systems in operation around the world today.

(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5698/armingwi00png.jpg)

The first speaker is a guy called 'Fred Stein', from MITRE Corporation. (no explanation necessary really). He also taught at the US Army War College and wrote a book called 'Net-Centric Warfare'.

(http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/7893/armingwinew.jpg)

(http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6407/armingwi01png.jpg)

(http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3590/armingwi02png.jpg)

Quote"And I think what's extraordinary about it is the pace of change - that the folks born in that era were raised 'connected' - were 'raised' with the expectation of being able to reach out and touch friends on Facebook; were raised in expectation of not going to the enclycopedia of Brittanica or the library, but going to the Internet."

"And I think that's important during this future discussion - is the expectation of these digital natives - for they, in a military sense, fight the war on the frontlines. They, in a commercial sense, sell the product on the frontline. And the others, the digital immigrants, fossils, or naturalized citizens, often make the decision on what system to buy, what research to conduct, how much money to spend, what to put on the marketplace."

Now you got to ask yourself - what the hell? What business does MITRE have with 'videogames' - and why the emphasis on 'first-generation videogames', 'fourth-generation videogames', all the way up to the Xbox 360?

I have pontificated on this myself - 'videogames' are the 'medium' that drives this change to the 'information age'. They are the 'medium' that enables 'military simulators'. Notice that a 'military simulators' is not based on a medium like film, books or whatnot - no, it's based on what 'events' occur, and the interplay between 'intelligent agents' (AI) and a human element/human player (you).

And then we have the evidence of a popular military videogame, Jane's Fleet Command, being used in conjunction with CAESAR II/Eb.

CAESAR II Eb interfacing with Jane's Fleet Command videogame
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=102701.msg926209#msg926209 (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=102701.msg926209#msg926209)

MUST READ:Behavioral Modeling and Simulation:From Individuals to Societies(2008)
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=155880.0 (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=155880.0)

This document is all about 'videogames' from a theoretical point of view and how they can enrich currently existing behavior inference/command and control/crisis management systems such as CAESAR, JSIMS, and so on.

Then we have:

Flashback to 2001 - USA Today - Game creators join war against terrorism
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160855.0 (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160855.0)

And as a final note on this subject, see:

Video game developers skipping the 'consumer' middleman and selling straight to the military contractors - Total Immersion Software, Austin, Texas
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=163317.msg969961#msg969961 (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=163317.msg969961#msg969961)

(http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/5730/armingwi03png.jpg)

Quote"Defense Transformation is occurring. Secretary Rumsfeld started it. It continues today, it continues in whatever country you're from, from India to Turkey, to Singapore, to Poland, to Germany, to Britain, to Japan, and I've spoken in most of these countries.

It's a response to the changing strategic environment - how does the world relate to population shifts (My note: Mass immigration/depopulation/drop in global fertility in males), to energy shifts (My note: consuming less yet paying more - taxing you by the mile for your greenhouse gas emissions), to global politics. How does it react to those environments?

And Network-Centric Operations (NCO), then, is that emerging military response"

"Network-Centric Operations is equally capable of delivering bombs on target as it is equally capable of delivering the right information to the right people on target, or even medical facilities or medical aid (My note: Obamacare is part of 'Network-centric operations' then - that's why they have PositiveID in that bill, and the rationing of health care/triage. Why do you think the only form of 'socialized healthcare' you had in the United States prior to Obamacare was in the military? Why do you think 'rations', the primary food supply for soldiers, becomes your primary source of food during wartimes such as World War II?).

So it's a relationship between sensors - the people carry out the mission, and the decisionmakers."

Quote"The bad news is, if you don't like change, you are in real trouble, I think, for today"

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9019/armingwi04.png)

MY NOTE: Personnel locator is an 'euphemism' for - "tracking your whereabouts - tracking your location."

QuoteThe first camera [Film camera] captures the image, but captures it in the wrong format - and it is not networked. The next camera, you might suspect, captures the image in the right format, but isn't instantly networked. And of course, your audience knows where I'm going: for the third one is the now infamous phone camera - that captures the image in the right format, and is instantly networked - and in fact can be both a security plus and a security negative. But it is real and constantly a part of almost every mobile device.

You know what this is? They're using the public - the general public - as live on-demand ISR - Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. The authorities have access to the personal files/snapshots you take on your camera - they can datamine this together with all the other fusion data - for instance, using your phone as a 'personnel locator' - and get a more accurate snapshot of what it is you have been doing.

Another aspect to this is their insistence on being 'networked' - everything that is 'off the grid' is bad - because they can't access it, it can't be controlled. Arthur Cebrowski (head of Office Of Transformation during the Rumsfeld regime) made a similar remark I think some time ago:

http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/transformation/military-transformation-a-strategic-approach.pdf (http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/transformation/military-transformation-a-strategic-approach.pdf)

(http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/7990/interoperability.jpg)

Everything needs to be 'interoperable' - ie - accessible to all known computer systems (UNIX, Linux, Windows, whatever) - using service oriented architectures - software programming needs to allow for rapid prototyping (a shift away from 'compiled' programming languages and to interpreted programming languages - such as Ruby, Python, Cobra, whatever), and everything needs to be 'accessible' to the persons with the 'proper' authentication roles (ie - Administrator of the Global Information Grid gets to have access to EVERYTHING).

(http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/8764/armingwi06png.jpg)

QuoteThis whole idea of 'gaming' is fascinating - organizations now often coordinate their whole activities while playing a game. Things like that, I think, are just fascinating to observe and understand (My note; What he's talking about is 'wargaming' - joint 'wargaming' - 'Simulation' is part of Operations Research, and 'Operations Research' is the discipline that EVERY company works by - and who came up with 'Operations Research'? The OSS and the British intelligence agencies did back in World War II. So, modernday business is based on 'military' doctrine.)

(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2353/armingwi07png.jpg)
(http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/7571/armingwi08png.jpg)

Society Of Control - Gilles Deleuze (1990)
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=143941.0 (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=143941.0)

Quote"The administrations in charge never cease announcing supposedly necessary reforms: to reform schools, to reform industries, hospitals, the armed forces, prisons. But everyone knows that these institutions are finished, whatever the length of their expiration periods. It's only a matter of administering their last rites and of keeping people employed until the installation of the new forces knocking at the door. These are the societies of control, which are in the process of replacing disciplinary societies."

Indeed, just as the corporation replaces the factory, perpetual training tends to replace the school, and continuous control to replace the examination. Which is the surest way of delivering the school over to the corporation.

This is hell on Earth we're talking about. Continuous control, continuous stress tests - continuous surveillance. The new prison.

(http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3745/armingwi09png.jpg)

This 'slide' was apparently made for the Navy - hence the uniforms. The ability to talk in 'l33t speak' - using all these shorthands in place of speaking natural language.

Well, not only is this a further process in 'dumbing down' the 'digital native citizen' (as they term it), but you can notice a correlation between the way the military has traditionally used acronyms and shorthands for terms in ISR missions and the way people input text when instant messaging ('cu' - see you', 'ttyk' - talk to you later - 'lol' - laughing out loud, 'brb' - be right back - and so on).

So, talking intelligible English is apparently to be scorned in the future. This whole 'machine-to-machine' interfacing - machines being able to speak to each other - apparently they will use this 'l33t speak' too.

At this point, the 'webinar' (corny name that they came up with for this presentation) shifts to a questionnaire everybody has to fill out. Based upon the answers they provide for each of the questions, they measure his or her 'citizenship'.

(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/3292/armingwi10png.jpg)

Apparently, your ability to comprehend 'l33t speak' is a real measure of one's worthiness to exist in this 'New World'.

(http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/9984/armingwi11png.jpg)

Most of them are a bunch of 'old world fossils' - this discriminating factor is useful when separating the 'wheat' from the 'chaff' for the upcoming 'information age'."

This is where it gets good...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now they move onto the second phase of the presentation - the 'emerging theory of war'.

(http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/2931/armingwi12png.jpg)

Quote"The book [his book, 'Network Centric Warfare'] was an attempt to say: "Warfare and everything really changes in the crucible of information".  Other authors who have done a good job on this is 'The World Is Flat', I think was excellent, 'Blown To Bits', and my most recent popular books, is 'The Starfish And The Spider', and 'Wikinomics')."

(http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/6230/armingwinew2.jpg)

QuoteThe warfare leverages new relationships between sensors, weapons, platforms and decision makers.

It has to have an Information Grid (My note: The Global Information Grid, as conceptualized by John P. Stenbit, another NCOIC member) - you have to have something from which the information can flow over - that can be a wired grid, a wireless grid, or a combination."

(http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/4673/acquisition.jpg)

This is the 'shift' in software methodology - going 'agile' - this is why the OMG came up with UML (Unified Modeling Language), why they came up with representations/semantical makeup of data (XML) that is interoperable between systems, why the emphasis is now on SOA (Service-Oriented Architectures) and things like CORBA and SOAP.

(http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5357/gridpr.jpg)

Quote"So let me take you through some network-warfare examples.

What you see on the screen now is the grid. The grid is the blue. The red would be a sensor network, and the green would be an 'engagement network'.

This is Cebrowski's onion-layered 'grid' - the 'sensor grid/network', the 'engagement grid/network', the 'information grid/network'.

Let me further enunciate this by pulling a quote from a RAND Corporation document on the 'Revolution In Military Affairs' (paragraph is titled 'Today's Force Transformation/RMA Activities'):

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1029.pdf (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1029.pdf)

Past Revolutions, Future Transformations (1999)
What can the history of revolutions in military affairs tell us about transforming the US military?


(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/7836/rand.jpg)

National Defense Research Institute
RAND Corporation

Quote"Network-Centric Warfare. This RMA candidate was proposed by Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski and his colleagues in Joint Staff/J-6 (Cebrowski and Garstka, 1998). The network-centric warfare concept employs an operational architecture involving three grids to enable the operational objectives of JV2010 [Joint Vision 2010]: an "Information Grid", a "Sensor Grid" and an "Engagement Grid". The Information Grid provides the computing and communications backbone for the other two grids. The Sensor Grid is an assemblage of space, air, ground, sea, and cyberspace sensors and sensor tasking, processing, and fusing applications, providing battlespace awareness. The Engagement Grid, an asemblage of platforms and weapons, exploits this battlespace awareness to enable the JV2010 force employment objectives of precision engagement, dominant maneuver, and full-dimensional protection. Each of these three grids is connected and functions in a network fashion. (My note: What binds these 'three' disparate networks? Why, the Global Information Grid, of course - it's the glue that binds it all together)" - p107/132

(http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3939/agileloop.jpg)

What they show here is 'sense and respond' using the three layers (Information, Sensor and Engagement) and how the three layers/networks if you will communicate inbetween each other. Guess what? This is the reason why all your products are RFID-tagged - this is the reason why they want you to walk around with RFID national ID cards. That way, YOU'RE ON THE SENSOR GRID - and the UAV can pay you a little visit and know where you are at if push comes to shovel. This is how you submit to tyranny - in blissful ignorance of what they're rolling in.

(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/5262/engage.jpg)

'Precision engagement' using the 'engagement grid' - this will be used for future law enforcement and quelling of dissent/protests.

(http://digilander.libero.it/LeonardoColombi/images/Normal/ed_209.jpg)

Quote"You are illegally parked on private property. You have 20 seconds to move your vehicle." - ED 209, Enforcement Droid 209, Robocop 1 (1987)

---

(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1843/armingwi13png.jpg)

Will continue on this further as time allows.

Now, that was interesting for once, and not "conspiracy theory oriented", but plain factual... Thanks for that, and I'd be interested to read the rest if available.

Thanks !

since we were talking about cigarettes in the other thread I thought I'd post this article I found, bear in mind it's from 1995:

Are Cigarettes Doomed?
Mark Thornton

Some Americans are no doubt touched by Bill Clinton's concern for the health of children. His press secretary even declared that it was now the President's personal responsibility to prevent American youth from smoking.

But Clinton's ten-point program to prevent teenage smoking, designed by FDA Czar-for-Life David Kessler, will fail like all previous attempts at government nannyism. Worse yet, the program will backfire and retrace some of the progress already made in tobacco consumption. There is also no doubt that all Americans will be "touched" to pay for this program.

The main thrust of the program is to prevent teenagers from smoking so that they won't grow into adult smokers. It sounds innocuous enough, almost sensible, but Kessler's stated goal is to eliminate all smoking and all tobacco use. He won't stop at the vending machine when his policy turns up "out of order." He is quick to remind us that the FDA is not prohibiting tobacco use; that would be--in his words--"unworkable." That means that he would like to prohibit it but does not yet have permission to do so.

The Administration touts this policy initiative as a measure to help children and reduce the cost of health care. Let us not forget that the Clintons wanted to place a $2/pack tax on cigarettes to fund their health care reforms and discourage the use of tobacco. In reality, this is but one of the socialist ideas built into the Clintons' sidetracked nationalized health care agenda.

Can we be surprised? If government pays for health care, it eventually assumes the right to control the health of its citizens. This agenda also includes such possible policy initiatives as forced sterilization, increased use of birth control and abortion, a euthanasia program, a national exercise program, an enhanced anti-alcohol program, youth brainwashing to encourage children to rat on their parents, sanctions on fat people, taxes on luxury goods, controls on the environment, banning of dangerous sports, therapy for drug addicts, etc.

Of course, things could be worse. As Robert N. Proctor recounts in Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press, 1988), Gerhard Wagner--head of the Nazi socialized medical plan--like Kessler and other anti-tobacco agitators today, was constantly complaining about people smoking.

In particular Wagner attacked the "boundless propaganda issued by nearly every German magazine" encouraging people to smoke. His replacement, Leonardo Conti, established the Bureau Against the Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco. Nazi health officials pointed out that personal health was now an integral part of the German national interest, and that according to Nazi philosophy, "the good of the whole comes before the good of the individual."

Despite all of the protests that they would not ban tobacco, the Nazis soon began to ration cigarettes, close tobacco shops, force several types of citizens to stop smoking, and abolish smoking in buses, trains, government buildings, and public places.

Does that sound like the U.S. today? Higher excise taxes, required warning labels, government-imposed bans in planes and government buildings, attacks on advertisers, tobacco industry executives, and scientists.

The Nazis never reached their ultimate goal because military\economic collapse came before tobacco supplies were exhausted. But here, we have the "Smoke Free America 2000" program in place. And Kessler is backed by a newly vindicated federal smoke police, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF).

The Smoke Free America program will seek to use all voluntary means possible to eliminate smoking in America by the year 2000. Only at that point will more "convincing" means be applied to completely eradicate the problem. The target deadline provides the haunting reminder that millenialism is still with us and driving policy.

Ideology and philosophy aside, governmental attempts to stop smoking have always failed. Several states passed cigarette prohibitions during the Progressive Era that failed miserably, as did the more ruthless efforts of the Nazis. Canada recently tried a massive antitobacco program that raised the price of cigarettes to $5 a pack with absolutely no success or diminution in teenage smoking. The programs now advocated by Clinton and Kessler have all been tried and failed at the state and local levels; what makes them so sure that they will now work at the national level?

Making cigarettes more difficult to get is not so much a hurdle for teenagers as it is a challenge. Although widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats, it certainly doesn't seem to be in the spirit of family values to have the government, rather than parents, involved in this decision.

The battle between teenager and bureaucrat will come down to a matter of enforcement. If enforcement is lax, teenagers will easily obtain cigarettes and learn disrespect for law. If enforcement is draconian, teenagers will have more difficulty in obtaining cigarettes and we will all lose civil liberties in the process. In both cases, teenagers will get cigarettes and the foundations of American society will be further eroded.

Kessler says that the government will do everything it can to raise the cost of smoking until teenagers stop smoking. Let's see. Government has increased the price of marijuana by 10,000%, but teenagers still buy it. In fact, as the government increases the cost of tobacco, and makes it more difficult to get, we can expect to see an increase in teenage use of marijuana and other substitute products.

In response to predictable failure and frustration, the next steps will include a drastic increase in the tobacco excise tax and direct FDA regulation of tobacco as a drug. The tobacco excise tax route is particularly instructive of the government's ability or lack thereof to solve social problems. Higher excise taxes fall heavily on the poor and encourage people to smoke high tar and filterless cigarettes. If excise taxes are high enough, people resort to smuggling and the black market, as the Canadian experience clearly proves.

If the central government decides instead to allow the FDA to tax and regulate tobacco as a drug, then we are but a short time from a full-blown tobacco prohibition. Remember that narcotics prohibition and marijuana prohibition were initiated as regulatory and taxation measures. Once in the bureaucratic domain, however, these programs were quickly transmuted into outright prohibitions.

There is no doubt that this is exactly what Kessler wants, and exactly what he would do, given the opportunity. Under his interpretation of his powers and mandates, control of tobacco would mean the prohibition of its use because, as he sees it, tobacco possesses no useful or beneficial properties. The FDA and BATF would both gain considerably as a result.

Much progress has been made in the safe use of tobacco products. People forget that people used to chew and spit tobacco on a grand scale. Public rooms were filled with pipe and cigar smoke. But without any help or prodding by government, the market responded with the ready-rolled cigarette, then filtered cigarettes, then low and ultralow tar cigarettes. We've even got the smokeless ashtray. The industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars to invent a tar-less and smokeless cigarette. The government won't let them market it.

Economic progress also tends to result in less tobacco consumed. If government were really interested in reducing smoking and promoting health, they wouldn't interfere with the role of the family and self-responsibility.

One of the best keys to promoting health is what economists call time preference. Mature people have a low time preference, a longer time horizon. They have high rates of saving and capital accumulation and practice healthier lifestyles.

People with high time preference tend to live for the moment, spend more than they earn, and engage in risky activities and unhealthy lifestyles. Policies that promote free enterprise and individual responsibility have the positive effect of reducing time preferences while government nannyism, like the welfare state itself, increases time preference and exacerbates the problems of irresponsibility.

Clinton's concern for "our children," or at least the ones his attorney general isn't gassing, and Kessler's worry about our health, are but a smokescreen for totalitarian political ambition. That's what's behind curbs on advertising, bans on vending machines, and phony tobacco "education" campaigns.



Any opinions?

This guy writes some great fuckin articles, if anyone's bored.

Economic Ignorance and Liberal Hypocrisy at Dailykos.com

A liberal named John Sumner, who goes by the pseudonym Devilstower, has weighed into the debate originally inspired by my article "Liberal Delusions about Freedom." Sumner's article, "What Conservatives Mean When They Say 'Libertarian'," which appeared yesterday on the liberal website Dailykos.com, reveals a lot about the liberal mindset as well as the reasons why America today is suffering so many economic woes.

Sumner takes me to task for singing the praises of our American ancestors, who chose a federal government without such statist programs as income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, public (i.e., government) schooling, food stamps, corporate bailouts, foreign aid, a central bank, paper money, drug laws, and many, many more.

Sumner thinks that that type of society was absolutely horrible and cites the terrible things that were taking place in the United States in 1880, the year I pointed to in my article "Up from Serfdom." Sumner's response contains all the standard stuff that has long been taught in America's government-approved schools, where Sumner just happens to work as a substitute teacher.

You know, like the stuff that suggests that our American ancestors hated their wives and children, as reflected in their sending them into dangerous factories to work long hours. You know, like the stuff that suggests that liberals love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged while advocates of the free market just love the rich, greedy, and selfish people in life. You know, like the stuff that suggests that without the coercive apparatus of the welfare state, poor people and old people would just be dying in the streets.

As I have long pointed out, the problem with liberals is their dismally poor understanding of economics, and Sumner's article is just the most recent example of this phenomenon.

Permit me to explain why.

In their purported concern for the poor, liberals never ask the important question: What is it that causes wealth and prosperity to come into existence? The only question they ask themselves is, "What is the cause of poverty"?

But the latter is a ridiculous question because poverty has always been the natural state of mankind. Throughout history, most people have been poor.

Thus, the real question is: What are the causes of wealth? What is it that enables societies to break free of the chains of poverty? Why are some societies wealthier than others?

You would think that those would be important questions for a liberal, especially since liberals have long purported to be concerned about the poor.

Alas, those questions are unimportant to liberals. Sumner, not surprisingly, doesn't raise the questions either.

Instead, he points out all the bad things that were taking place in, say 1880, and then concludes that all those statist programs that our American ancestors rejected, and which are so beloved to Sumner, should be embraced. In other words, he's suggesting that the absence of the statist programs is the cause of the bad living conditions in American society that he laments. But his logic and his conclusions are faulty and fallacious.

No one denies that economic conditions were bad for many people in 1880. No question about it. No dispute there.

But in focusing on those bad conditions, Sumner makes a common mistake. He is comparing those conditions to conditions in which we live today or at least to some sort of ideal economic utopia. In doing that, he misses the important point, which is this: What were conditions for ordinary people prior to the Industrial Revolution? Answer: As Hobbes put it, life was nasty, brutish, and short -- that is, much, much worse than it was in 1880 America.

As bad as things were in 1880 America, it was a golden era compared to the pre-industrial age. This point was made as long ago as 1954 in a book entitled Capitalism and the Historians, which was edited by libertarian Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek. As Austrian economist Murray Rothbard stated, "Hayek contributed to and edited a series of essays that showed conclusively that the Industrial Revolution in England, spurred by a roughly free-market economy, enormously improved rather than crippled the standard of living of the average consumer and worker in England. In this way, Hayek led the way in shattering one of the most widespread socialist myths about the Industrial Revolution."

So, does that help clarify why I would refer to 1880 as a golden era? Not because of the bad things that were still existing (duh!) but rather because for the first time in history, massive numbers of poor people actually had a decent chance to survive and even prosper. In fact, in the 1880s there are countless stories of poor people actually becoming wealthy people! Imagine that!

And why was this so? That's the critical question, the one that liberals never ask. They just assume that wealth is a given, that there is this big economic pie, and that the state should confiscate the pie and redistribute it in the interests of making everyone have an equal share of the pie. What liberals fail to recognize, however, is that in doing so, they begin a process that ends up condemning people to a life of massive poverty, starvation, famines, and short life spans that characterized the pre-industrial age.

To explain why I consider 1880 to be a golden era, especially for the poor, let's consider a modern-day example, one that a good liberal like John Sumner would consider to be a model society: the socialist paradise of North Korea. In that country, everyone is equal in terms of economic condition. The state owns everything, and everyone works for the state. There are no profits, speculators, or entrepreneurs. Greed and selfishness have been stamped out of society. Total government ownership and total government control. Everyone works for the benefit of the collective.

In other words, a liberal dream!

Oh, did I mention that there is also horrific poverty, famine, and starvation in North Korea? Let's assume, just for the sake of argumentation, that each year some 10 percent of the North Korean population is dying from malnutrition or illness.

Now, suppose we asked Sumner to give us his recommendation for ending poverty in North Korea. What would he say? He would say: "Adopt a welfare state and a controlled economy! Create bureaucratic departments, modeled on the IRS and U.S. welfare agencies, whose job it is to confiscate wealth from the rich and give it to the poor!"

Do you see the problem though? Sumner would be doing what liberals always do: they assume that there is a pie of wealth to confiscate and redistribute. That's their solution to ending poverty. But he would be missing the obvious point: They already have total socialism in North Korea, which is precisely why there is no pie for Sumner to confiscate and redistribute. Everyone has nothing.

So, obviously the standard liberal statist solution for ending poverty isn't going to work in our North Korea hypothetical. Instead, we have come up with another solution.

Let's try a free-market-oriented solution, similar to the one that our American ancestors adopted and embraced. (I say "oriented" because freedom isn't really freedom when government is permitting people to exercise it.) Let's assume that the North Korea authorities place 60 percent of the land and buildings in North Korea under private ownership. They also enact a law that permits 60 percent of the North Korean populace to engage in any economic enterprise they want, without any permission or interference from the state. The people in that sector will be free to engage in any mutually beneficial exchange with anyone in the world. There will be no income tax, and people will be free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth. There will be no economic regulations whatsoever, including price controls, minimum-wage laws, and anti-speculation laws. There will be no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government welfare plan. No central bank and no paper money; the market will determine the media of exchange. No one will be coerced into helping another person but will be free to do so if he wishes. There will be no restrictions on emigration or immigration.

After 10 years, Sumner and I make a visit to North Korea. We discover that there is now an enormous difference between the liberated sector and the government-owned sector. In the liberated sector, there are no more famines, no more starvation. People's real standard of living is soaring.

That's not to say though that things are easy in the liberated sector. There is still much poverty given that it was only 10 years ago that people had absolutely nothing and were on the verge of starvation. People are having to work long hours in difficult working conditions, and that includes spouses and children. But everyone knows that those conditions are a blessing, compared to what is still happening in the government-controlled sector, where everyone is suffering much more horrific poverty and where 10 percent of the populace continues to die, year after year.

Now, I would call that a golden era, one in which 60 percent of the population was not only being saved but actually prospering.

What would Sumner say in response? He would say, "Why, that's just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! That's no golden era because the people in the government-owned sector are still suffering and dying. Hornberger must think that all that misery and death is a good thing. And look at how much poverty there still is in the liberated section."

Even worse is what Sumner would propose. Furious over the fact that people in the free-market sector now have more wealth than people in the government-owned sector, he would propose statist programs that would restore government control and ownership over the free-market sector. As a good liberal, what would matter to him is that everyone should be made equal, even if everyone is made equally poor.

Would his criticism leveled at me be valid? Would I really be praising the government-owned sector when I referred to this period as a golden one? Of course not! What I would be praising is that libertarian economic means -- i.e., the free market -- have been used to bring 60 percent of the population out of horrific poverty and given them a chance to survive and even to prosper, especially as the generations progress.

What would be my solution to the bad things still remaining? That's obvious -- I would expand private-property, free-market principles to the 40 percent sector, enabling everyone in North Korean society to experience the benefits of the unhampered market economy.

And this is precisely what was going on in the United States throughout the 1800s, notwithstanding the fact that there were a large number of people to whom free-market principles were not being applied, such as the slaves. But for the sector that was liberated, it was the most phenomenal era in history, insofar as living standards were concerned. People were actually going from rags to riches into one, two, or three generations.

The proof of the pudding was the thousands of penniless immigrants who were fleeing the lands of government control and regulation to come to the land of little or no income taxation, regulation, or welfare. They just wanted a chance to make it, all on their own.

Did I mention that 19th-century America was not only the most prosperous nation in history but also the most charitable nation in history? In a land with no income tax and no welfare state, it was voluntary contributions that built the churches, opera houses, museums, and so much more.

So, what was the obvious solution to those Americans who were not permitted to experience the benefits of economic liberty? Expand it to them! What was the solution to the restrictions on liberty still being enacted in the 19th century? Repeal them!

In fact, the best thing Americans could ever do today is enact a constitutional amendment for economic liberty similar to the one our American ancestors enacted for religious liberty: "No law shall be passed respecting the regulation of commerce or abridging the free exercise thereof."

The worst thing that could have ever happened was to return to the old, bankrupt idea of government ownership and control. But that's precisely where liberals took us, with their socialistic welfare state. Gripped by envy and covetousness and unable to control themselves as they saw the enormous wealth coming into existence because of the free market, liberals (or "progressives" as some of them like to call themselves) brought into existence in the 20th century a massive confiscatory and redistributive socialist system, one that has been taking our country down the road to serfdom, impoverishment, and loss of liberty, the road that humanity has traveled throughout the ages.

Liberals have long justified their socialist and interventionist schemes under the pretense of loving the poor, needy, and disadvantaged. And their favorite justification whenever their programs go awry is, "But we have good intentions." But good intentions are irrelevant. All that matters is reality, especially in terms of the immorality and destructiveness that have accompanied socialism and interventionism.

Sumner piously points out that 1880, the year that I used as an example of economic liberty, was characterized by the Chinese Exclusion Act. Of course, that couldn't be true given that the Act wasn't enacted until 1882. (Oh well, what's a couple of years?) But his real point in bringing it up was to imply that the period wasn't really golden because there was an immigration restriction on Chinese immigrants.

But let's use Sumner's example to show the rank hypocrisy with which liberals have long suffered. He complains about a law that excluded Chinese from freely immigrating to America, and rightfully so. Yet, look at what 20th-century liberals have done for decades: They've used immigration controls to exclude not only Chinese but also Mexicans, Nicaraguans, Africans, Haitians, and, well, the poor of just about every country in the world.

Isn't it the liberals -- the lovers of the poor -- under liberal icon Barack Obama who are continuing the building of that fortified fence along our southern border, to keep the poor from coming here and trying to sustain their life through labor? Isn't it the liberals who are conducting those raids on businesses all across the land, rounding up poor people who just want to work and improve the lot of their families, deporting them to their home countries where they can experience a life of hardship and poverty?

In fact, wasn't it under the regime of liberal icon Bill Clinton that U.S. forces were attacking defenseless poor people, including women and children, who had escaped socialist and communist tyranny in Cuba and were trying to make it to the United States? Didn't liberals forcibly repatriate those refugees to Cuba? Oh well, maybe Sumner would argue that is was for their own good, since in Cuba there is free education, free health care, and free everything else in that paternalistic society.

Please, Sumner, remind me again how much you liberals love the poor, because I'm tempted to say that an era in which there is only one group of people who are being excluded is golden compared to the massive numbers of poor people that you liberals have been excluding from our country for decades under the guise of immigration controls.

In fact, would you, as a good, poor-person-loving liberal, explain something to me that I've always had trouble understanding. As you know, the premier icon for you people is Franklin D. Roosevelt. You liberals say that his enactment of Social Security, the crown jewel of the socialistic welfare state, showed how much he loved the poor, needy, and disadvantaged.

Well, if that's the case, would you please explain to me FDR's attitude toward German Jews during the 1930s? Would you please explain to me why he refused to permit them to come to America when Hitler was willing to let them go? Weren't they poor? And while you're at it, can you please explain to me why he refused to let those poor Jews traveling on the SS St. Louis to disembark at Miami Harbor in the infamous "voyage of the damned"?

You see, I'm having a difficult time understanding why a man who purports to love the poor would do that to poor Jews. And I'm also having a difficult time understanding why you liberals would extol a man who did that sort of thing to poor Jews.

Please provide me with your best explanation on this, because I'm tempted to conclude that Roosevelt's Social Security plan had nothing to do with any purported love of the poor but instead everything to do with the love of power and with making as many people dependent on the federal government as possible.

Oh, and while you are at it, would you explain to me something about FDR's protégé, the liberal icon Lyndon Johnson, who brought Medicare and Medicaid into existence because of his purported love for the poor, needy, and disadvantaged? LBJ, as I hope you know, killed some million Vietnamese people, most of whom were poor, in an illegal war that was based on nothing but lies. He also sent some 58,000 of my generation to their deaths in Vietnam, many of whom were poor because that's who they were drafting to fight in that war.

Would you be so kind as to reconcile that one for me, because I'm getting real tempted to conclude that LBJ's Medicare and Medicaid plans were nothing more than a political power grab designed to put more Americans under the yoke of federal power and dependency?

While we're on the subject, I also have a question about liberal icon Bill Clinton, another purported lover of the poor, needy, and disadvantaged. During the entire 8 years he was in office, he killed hundred of thousands of Iraqi children with the brutal sanctions that he enforced against that country. His U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, another liberal icon, said that those deaths were worth the attempt to oust Saddam Hussein from power.

That's always been difficult for me to swallow. How can the deaths of poor, innocent children ever be worth a political goal such as regime change, especially given that Saddam had once been the partner of the U.S. government?

Of course, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the vicious attack by liberal icon Janet Reno (and Bill Clinton) on the poor people inside the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, including innocent children, given that today is the 17th anniversary of that horrific slaughter.

Oh, one final thing, Sumner. Please don't lump conservatives with libertarians, especially since there ain't a dime's worth of difference between liberals and conservatives. Both of you are statist to the core, and both of you are lovers of big government, big spending, big debt, and big inflation. And both of you are taking our nation down the road to serfdom, bankruptcy, and moral debauchery.

The only solution to the woes that you statists, both liberals and conservatives, have foisted onto our nation lies with libertarianism. Our American ancestors discovered the truth, and lots of Americans are now re-discovering it, which is precisely why you statists are so terrified.




Goldman Sachs and Federal Fraud

Commentators are debating whether the Justice Department will be able to prove its civil fraud case against Goldman Sachs. Unfortunately, they're missing the point. The Justice Department didn't bring its suit with the aim of proving that the company committed fraud. It brought its suit to get a massive amount of money for the federal government in a pretrial settlement of the case.

Here's how the racket works. The government knows that its litigation will cost Goldman Sachs millions of dollars in litigation costs, including attorney's fees, deposition expenses, bad public relations, and loss of revenues. So, the government calculates that the company will be willing to settle for a large amount of money to save itself from all that aggravation. The government accepts the settlement. The Justice Department lawyers celebrate that they've "won" the case. Federal officials, ever more desperate for more revenues to pay for their out-of-control spending, are exultant over the "free" monies that have been deposited into the government's coffers.

Many years ago, I was a young lawyer practicing law in my hometown of Laredo, Texas. One of my clients was the owner of a local trucking company. One day, he got served with a notice from the State of Texas assessing him with an enormous fine. The fine, the notice stated, represented the amount of extra burden that my client's trucking business was placing on the roads and highways of the state. The state was claiming that because the trucking industry used the state's roads and highways more than other people, it was more responsible for their maintenance costs.

I told my client that the state's claim was ridiculous. The state collects gasoline taxes to cover such maintenance costs. When trucking companies purchase gasoline, they're paying what the legislative branch has determined to be an appropriate amount. I advised my client to fight the lawsuit in that it was nothing more than extortion.

But there was one big problem with my advice. I don't recall the exact amount that the state was demanding, but let's say it was $200,000, which would have been an extremely large sum for my client, a small trucking company. The problem was that the state was offering to settle its proposed lawsuit for, say, $25,000.

So, my client was in a quandary -- whether to pay the $25,000 and get rid of the suit or fight the state on principle and possibly end up losing $200,000. My client chose to settle the suit. The state received a "free" $25,000, plus all the other settlement money that was being paid by other trucking companies that had received the same notice.

In the Goldman Sachs case, government regulations and regulators failed to prevent what they now claim is civil fraud. If economic regulations and government regulators can't prevent such things from happening, especially in one of the largest financial companies in the world, then what good are they? Isn't that the purported purpose of regulations and regulators?

The feds aren't going after Goldman Sachs on criminal charges of fraud, which would fall within the ambit of proper governmental powers. Instead, they're only going after the company on civil charges of fraud. They're seeking money, not jail time.

What's that all about? If investors have been defrauded, why can't they sue for their damages? Why shouldn't they, not the government, receive the money for damages they've allegedly suffered? What business does the government have suing for civil damages? It hasn't suffered any injury.

It's all about money. As the deficit becomes larger and larger, we can expect to see the federal government desperately looking for more ways to extract money from private businesses. Look at the record fine they just levied against Toyota -- $16.4 billion, an amount that Toyota has agreed to pay rather than incur expensive litigation. No doubt federal officials are celebrating this large amount of "free" money that will soon be deposited into their coffers. And don't forget: all those automobile regulations and regulators failed to prevent the Toyota accelerator problems from occurring.

The real fraud is the whole idea of a regulated economy. When public officials assumed the power to regulate economic activity many decades ago, they expressly represented that it would protect people from bad things happening to them. That representation was false and fraudulent. Regulations and regulators don't protect people. They simply lull people into thinking that the government is taking care of them. The regulated economy simply provides the government with another means of legally stealing or extorting money from the private sector to satisfy the ever-voracious financial needs of a bankrupt government.

A Time for Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iot13-2VzlI#)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=524_1273510578 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=524_1273510578)

havent listen to what he says, but damn this video is moving. as if we made mother earth lose a lot of blood :(

Yeah, it's pretty messed up, especially since BP portrays itself as the most "green" oil company out there, they donated the most money by far to Obama, and got an environmental exemption from his administration this year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?hpid=topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?hpid=topnews)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html)

Maybe if they weren't wasting all of their money on this wind energy bullshit they could afford to keep up their oil rigs.

Nailec, you absolutely have got to read this article, it's truly great:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=822 (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=822)

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on May 08, 2010, 07:41 AM
A Time for Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iot13-2VzlI#)

Looks like a good candidate.  If Republicans don't take back either the house or senate in November, America will never be the same.   

yeah, I agree, it's some scary shit.  We don't just need republicans though, I'm so beyond sick of all of the george bushes and sarah palins out there.  I mean sure, they're marginally better than democrats, but with so many of them it's the same kind of left-leaning violation of genuine conservative principles, just in a different way, i.e. foreign interventionism, a different set of subsidies, trying to defend from the politically correct bullshit in the wrong way, and my personal pet peeve, violation of free market principles.  I've been a huge fan of Peter Schiff since well before he even announced, his commentary on global economic conditions and his explanations for them are second to none.  If you tend to lean to the right, I would definitely look him up on Youtube or europac.net if you want truly non-biased, really interesting free market economic education.

Dr. Paul's pretty pissed about the Senate not passing the audit the fed amendment, and rightfully so:

Ron Paul ~ Unhappy About The Senate Vote on the Vitter Amendment to Audit the Fed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GmCjUB00uM#)

alvarez i promiste to read that article. but are you srsly saying that green energy is somehow responsible for the explosion? dou you really think bp couldnt afford to check their platform? or do you think they would have checked it if they had some more money?

or am i not getting any sarcasm?

i hope so :D

btw: if you want me to read an article it would be awesome if you could sum it up in 3 sentences or so. it makes it for me a lot easier to understand harder englisch texts if i read them with some kind of expectation towards the context etc.

Oh no, it's just the height of irony that they're supposedly the "beyond petroleum," self-hating, Democrat-supporting, earth friendly oil company and it turns out that they're the ones with lax safety standards.  I'm not saying that green energy is responsible, I'm just saying that it's a complete waste of resources that could have gone towards a safer facility or what have you.  I'm all for trying to develop solar energy and biofuels, but not devoting all of our resources to using technology that is a net drain, such as wind energy, current solar technology and ethanol.  That just slows down humanity's progress and starves people in third world countries whose energy either becomes too expensive, or just doesn't come about at all.

That article is about central planning and communal thievery vs. free markets and free association.  It's essentially explaining that no matter the intent behind central economic planning, all it ends up being is stealing from one person to give to another with no net gain for society.  It goes on to explain that socialism and communism never lead to greater standards of living for a people as a whole.  He talks about how capitalism channels human nature into something that benefits everyone and doesn't allow anyone to steal or screw people over and achieve any kind of long-term success.

You have to go into it with the realization of what capitalism genuinely is: a system where nobody has any government-given advantages, only having the ability to satisfy others to achieve success.  Not this bastard child of capitalism and socialism (corporatism) that has been the US since the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Corporations taking advantage of society and its resources, using government decrees to do so, is not free market capitalism in the least.

Corey, I'd love to sit in a room for several hours and just listen to you talk.

inb4 gay

Haha thanks brah, I'm down, and I'm also open to other forms of oral stimulation as well :P

Tell that to my friends though, they all hate how I rant on and on about politics, but shit is just sooo fucked up now and people have had their principles so mixed up by the constant liberal guilt-trip barrage from the media that (and I hope that this isn't as narcissistic as it sounds) I feel like it's kinda my duty to get all of my facts and philosophy straight myself so I can thoroughly and coherently explain what I feel is truly the most compassionate and just form of society.  Mostly because I really don't think that Libertarian theory is given anywhere near the justice it deserves.  Not to say that I'm necessarily smarter than anyone, I just think that it's a point of view that's either entirely misrepresented or completely left out of damn near every political discussion these days.

But hey, if you wanna listen to me talk for a couple minutes, I got on to this radio show that I listen to the other day to talk about the Federal Reserve, kind of relating to the topic of that long ass essay that I wrote for school that I posted a couple pages back.  Here's a link to it, my call starts at 18:10

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS050710_2nd%20Hr%20The%20Fed.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS050710_2nd%20Hr%20The%20Fed.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM)

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on May 14, 2010, 11:25 PMTell that to my friends though, they all hate how I rant on and on about politics

The reason people do that is because they either have no opinions themselves, they're too afraid to look at the world in a realistic manner or they're so enveloped in the mind numbing media bullshit that they just don't think they have any reason to care. Which sucks. I have this problem with my friends as well and it's really frustrating because it's not like I'm trying to force anyone into my opinion or anything, what I DO try and do though is get them to either open their eyes to other possibilities or try to get them to actually pay attention to what's happening in the world. I don't give a shit wether or not someone agrees with me, but when people just completely shut out the things that matter in the world just because it's scary, I get rather pissed off.

Yeah, and what's even worse is they have the same attitude as the majority of our legislators.  Do you tend to classify yourself in any sort of political philosophy?  Doesn't really matter if you do or don't, just out of curiosity.

Did you listen to that shit?  You should check out if Jason Lewis is broadcast in your area, he's the shit, total breath of fresh air in the field of punditry.

I don't claim to know enough about ANY political philosophy to belong to one, but I do quite like the idea of communal anarchism. But I don't see how that could be applied to the population we have today.

And I did listen to your part and a bit afterward. I'll probably listen to the whole thing later tonight. The guy seemed pretty interesting.

Yeah, I've read a bit about anarchist communism, but I am a huge proponent of private property rights for a whole lot of reasons, but the overarching reason is that people are a lot more liable to protect and preserve for the future resources that are exclusively theirs.

I kind of fluctuate between Constitutional Libertarianism and Market Anarchism, I really like the idea of how the United States would be if the Constitution wasn't essentially Washington's toilet paper, because I think in and of itself it is nearly a perfect document for restraining government... except for the fact that it didn't.  So that's a problem that I don't personally know how one can treat, and why I sometimes drift towards Market anarchism because the lack of government means the lack of government growth altogether.  There would be privately, voluntarily supported security organizations and courts that would be able to be kept in check by people being able to immediately cut off their funding if need be.  But the age-old question that I don't think anyone has come up with a good answer for is how does one give a monopoly of force to the government and expect it to stay within its own boundaries?  The United States Constitution seems like it was more than capable of doing the job, but they've managed to completely circumvent it in every single facet of the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism)

(http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5250/whiteobama.jpg)

Quote from: wax on May 16, 2010, 10:27 PM
(http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5250/whiteobama.jpg)

Lolwut.

And Corey, I meant Collectivist Anarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism)

Yeah, like I was saying, I really don't understand how you could have a system without enforced private property rights work in an optimal way for everyone because contrary to popular belief, resources are actually preserved far more equitably and effectively when they are not collectivized, just because of human nature.  I mean it's definitely shitty, but it's the principle that people are more likely to leave garbage at a community camp ground or natives are more likely to over hunt or over fish a property that isn't specifically owned by someone.  Same reason private wildlife preserves have greater security along with greater effectiveness.  When it's in a specific person's specific interest to preserve a property for the long run is when genuine scarcity of resources is realized and they are preserved to best be used to benefit someone's interest.  

I dunno, I also don't think that having wealth collectivized is a good thing, or even really necessary, because truly in this day and age, global wealth is in a sense already collectivized.  We're all the same race of people, all working towards essentially the same thing: a better life.  That's where the beauty of the unhampered free market truly arises; people all have the inherent need to survive, and the want to make a better life themselves.  Having a society where no particular group has a political advantage, and no one can simply take something from somebody who earned it without using political advantage, force or fraud "forces" people to have to benefit their fellow man in order to benefit themselves.  This kind of sounds bad in and of itself, but when you add capital, which (by Austrian definition) is anything that gives one the ability to produce more than he could with just his bare hands, it becomes very easy for one to produce more than he could possibly consume.  As an example of how productive someone can be in this day and age, even just look at someone flipping burgers at McDonald's.  Because of all of the capital at his disposal, that one person can clearly put out more hamburgers than he can consume, so instead of trading hamburgers for something specific he might need, his wages are paid in an intermediary, money.  Obviously this is simplified, but you see the principle, in terms of the vast amount he can now produce rather than he could with just his bare hands and a fire, he should have an equal abundance of savings (in the form of money rather than hamburgers or what someone might trade for hamburgers, i.e. money again) with which he can raise his standard of living.  In my mind what has been lost in society, among other things, is this purchasing power that he should now yield, because of insane taxation and insane monetary devaluation.  So now, because of political bullshit, people have to work so much harder than they rightfully should, and it's all been done in the name of some perverted form of collectivism (not really in the revolutionary sense like you were saying, though).  It's the same principle behind multi-million dollar CEO salaries, they make decisions that can make or lose millions for a company, so his skill set, his output, is worth the multiple millions of dollars that the company and its shareholders might not have had without his input.  Where you start running into problems is when you have organizations that aren't voluntarily funded paying ridiculous salaries that, because they aren't voluntarily funded, society may never know whether the funding was worth it.  Kind of a little tangent there, but it's just the key to all of that is private property rights, because I think trying to adjudicate and distribute collective property is inherently politicized and wouldn't lead to the necessary best use of capital that a market free of politicized intervention inherently provides.

Quote from: wax on May 16, 2010, 10:27 PM
(http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5250/whiteobama.jpg)

haha i knew i recognized that hair.  They could totally be brothers.

(http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/john-edwards.jpg)

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on May 12, 2010, 06:18 AM
yeah, I agree, it's some scary shit.  We don't just need republicans though, I'm so beyond sick of all of the george bushes and sarah palins out there.  I mean sure, they're marginally better than democrats, but with so many of them it's the same kind of left-leaning violation of genuine conservative principles, just in a different way, i.e. foreign interventionism, a different set of subsidies, trying to defend from the politically correct bullshit in the wrong way, and my personal pet peeve, violation of free market principles.  I've been a huge fan of Peter Schiff since well before he even announced, his commentary on global economic conditions and his explanations for them are second to none.  If you tend to lean to the right, I would definitely look him up on Youtube or europac.net if you want truly non-biased, really interesting free market economic education.

I haven't checked this thread in a while alvarez but I completely agree.  Im so tired of both parties.  Im so disappointed in this administration.  I feel like I'm some raging conservative and Im honestly not.  I'm a registered Independent but Its necessary for our country to vote these shitbag left wing nuts out.  If we don't take back either the House or Senate were absolutely fucked.  Cap and Trade will absolutely destroy our economy.  Can u imagine if gas went to 7$ or fuck even 4.  It would be over.  We also can not afford 13 million illegals on our new bullshit health care plan.  Amnesty will take away the 2 party system.   The libs are going to run this country into the ground,  plain and Simple.  But I think there's hope.  I respect Dick Morris's opinion and he thinks the republicans have a chance to take back both.  I doubt that will happen, but fuck I would love to see Pelosi get her shit knocked down.  We've seen what happens when we have a Democratic majority.   But the far right Palins aren't going to get it done.  We need more libertarian thinkers in this country because big gov just does not work. 

Yeah, I'm with you there, I don't think Palin is far right though, she's not really very conservative, and she only really goes by the Republican version of the "free market," which, while it beats the Democrat economic policy because it relies a bit more on free markets and most of all not disallowing ourselves from using our own natural resources, it's still pretty Liberal in my opinion.  I dunno, I'm kind of confused about where more mainstream Republicans think Ron Paul lies on the scale, because in my opinion, he's the most conservative representative of all, but people think because of his (truly conservative, but considered liberal at face value) stances on the Drug War and foreign policy that he's more liberal, when that's truly not the case.

But imagine how I feel when I don't even think Bush, McCain, Palin, etc. are genuinely conservative.  I feel like I'm pretty moderate mostly, it's just everybody's got their principles all fucked up these days because of public schools and the media.

you damn conservatives blaming everything on the media and public schools. the real problem lies in the belief of a two party system and no free beer

Quote from: goldpony on May 17, 2010, 08:59 PM
you damn conservatives blaming everything on the media and public schools. the real problem lies in the belief of a two party system and no free beer

This sucks for little Texas kids:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history)

Quote from: ben on May 18, 2010, 04:27 PM
This sucks for little Texas kids:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history)

not just texas kids. because texas has the largest school district in the country, whatever they say needs to be in a textbook is usually what the big publishers produce for everyone. i hate texas.

Quote from: ben on May 18, 2010, 04:27 PM
This sucks for little Texas kids:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history)

Yeah man, I've been talking about this for months. It makes you think, 'What else could be rewritten that I learned in school' and 'What else could they rewrite in the future about now?'.

Plus, the Ministry of Truth.

i thought the best was the clip of the tx school board meeting in which they were discussing civil rights leaders and someone from south america was left out because ONE person didn't feel he was popular enough to include. WTF people

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=texas+school+board&suggested_categories=25%2C22%2C27&page=1 (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=texas+school+board&suggested_categories=25%2C22%2C27&page=1)

Quote from: goldpony on May 17, 2010, 08:59 PM
you damn conservatives blaming everything on the media and public schools. the real problem lies in the belief of a two party system and no free beer

Well I went to a public school, and came out of high school as liberal as the day is long and loved shows like the daily show and shit like that, but that was all when I was very apathetic towards politics and after informing myself before the '08 election, I went straight past Republican, right to Libertarian.  I mean you're right about the two-party system, it is a bunch of garbage, and it is all essentially, except for an extremely select few Republicans, one big-Government bird with two different colored wings.  That is the problem, that at every public school (weird, since they're run by the government) teaches nothing but praise for bigger and bigger government, absolutely jack shit about true free-market principles, and that they can get away with it.  Take that Texas case for example, the problem isn't that specifically these retarded Christian bureaucrats picked the lesson plan, it's that any retarded bureaucrat can pick lesson plans at all.  That's a huge reason why the public schools are so shitty, and why I think they're so detrimental to society; because of these bureaucrats, the students aren't necessarily learning the best material, they're learning the material that is the most politically correct by whoever gets to pick their lesson plans.  And now, nobody knows what the fuck I'm talking about when I talk about free market principles, property rights, sound money, and Austrian Economics, and all think that welfare, public schooling, foreign aid, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, bailouts, eminent domain, stimulus plans, cap and trade, universal health care, basically just anything related to growing government, are just fucking great and have no clue why I would ever argue against them.  

Essentially, I don't know who else to blame for legitimately failing to educate our population besides the entities that educate our population.  I'd blame the parents, but hell, they learned the same bullshit that we're constantly bombarded by from the same system.

And, analogous to health care, I don't want free beer for everyone, I just want far cheaper, high quality beer that everyone has a right to buy or not buy at their discretion.

You should write a book. I'd fucking read it.

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on May 19, 2010, 01:29 AM


And, analogous to health care, I don't want free beer for everyone, I just want far cheaper, high quality beer that everyone has a right to buy or not buy at their discretion.

Change i can believe in!

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on May 19, 2010, 05:43 AM
You should write a book. I'd fucking read it.

haha maybe one day!  I've been considering it for awhile, I haven't figured out what I would specifically write about.  I was thinking maybe something along the lines of an explanation of Libertarian thought and Austrian Economics from the perspective of someone who has just recently been through this generation of schooling.  But I haven't really got far past that point, haven't had time for a whole lot besides my degree and I haven't really wrapped my head around the potential structure that book could have.  I'm thinking it could be like a collection of essays or articles and my commentaries on them, but I'm not sure if that would work right either.  Or maybe just a chapter for everything I didn't learn that I feel is important, I dunno.

You could probably sell this thread as a book haha.  PS I went back and read the first few pages and got a great laugh again out of all of that antisemitism junk.

Honestly, I think the best kind of writing is the completely unplanned kind. Just sit down with an idea for a direction to go, start in that direction and then just write what pops into your head. Don't stop. Then when you can't anymore, go back and edit. That's what I do.

yeah if i'm writing an essay, post or whatnot, I tend to go like that.  After thinking about it, I'd probably structure it like a chapter per argument I've heard from my peers.  Josh, if you're looking for a book to read, check out this one, it's one of my favorite books ever.  I post a lot of the stuff this guy, Tom Woods writes here, but this is the best because he just has time to explain everything, and you come away from it feeling like you know exactly how the whole world works... seriously.  It's pretty crazy.  It's about the business cycle and how it has to to with expansionary monetary policy and government policy.  He just straight up lays it all down in the most readable fashion imaginable, and none of it is even close to dubious, all of his sources come straight from widely available statistics that everyone can find and confirm, and he has soooo many citations.

Here's a link, anyone else should download this too if you're at all interested in why we're in this financial crisis.

Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse by Thomas Woods
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BFLZYM93 (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BFLZYM93)

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on May 20, 2010, 03:07 PM

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on May 19, 2010, 05:43 AM
You should write a book. I'd fucking read it.

haha maybe one day!  I've been considering it for awhile, I haven't figured out what I would specifically write about.  I was thinking maybe something along the lines of an explanation of Libertarian thought and Austrian Economics from the perspective of someone who has just recently been through this generation of schooling.  But I haven't really got far past that point, haven't had time for a whole lot besides my degree and I haven't really wrapped my head around the potential structure that book could have.  I'm thinking it could be like a collection of essays or articles and my commentaries on them, but I'm not sure if that would work right either.  Or maybe just a chapter for everything I didn't learn that I feel is important, I dunno.

You could probably sell this thread as a book haha.  PS I went back and read the first few pages and got a great laugh again out of all of that antisemitism junk.

I have been writing a thing here or there too ( I would be lying if I didn't admit it was slightly inspired by me recently watching californication ;) ) But we should co author a book on modern libertarianism in America.  We could be like the new Thomas E. Woods and Murray N. Rothbard.  But way sexier

Downloading that book and getting mad boners over it.

Thats a good pitch for amazon

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on May 20, 2010, 03:07 PM

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on May 19, 2010, 05:43 AM
You should write a book. I'd fucking read it.

haha maybe one day!  I've been considering it for awhile, I haven't figured out what I would specifically write about.  I was thinking maybe something along the lines of an explanation of Libertarian thought and Austrian Economics from the perspective of someone who has just recently been through this generation of schooling.  But I haven't really got far past that point, haven't had time for a whole lot besides my degree and I haven't really wrapped my head around the potential structure that book could have.  I'm thinking it could be like a collection of essays or articles and my commentaries on them, but I'm not sure if that would work right either.  Or maybe just a chapter for everything I didn't learn that I feel is important, I dunno.

You could probably sell this thread as a book haha.  PS I went back and read the first few pages and got a great laugh again out of all of that antisemitism junk.

antisemitism is not funny at all. you are trivializing the shoah!

haha, I wasn't laughing at antisemitism, I was laughing at you, foolio.

And its kind of hard not to when you're such a dam broken record.  I actually thought Nailec was joking for a min, to be ironic.  But nope, I'm pretty sure he was being serious.

totally serial

I just re-read some of the first few pages too.  Good times.  There are a few rather comical moments

Quote from: Variable on May 22, 2010, 04:59 AM
And its kind of hard not to when you're such a dam broken record.  I actually thought Nailec was joking for a min, to be ironic.  But nope, I'm pretty sure he was being serious.

Yeah dude, and especially after the rand paul shit recently, I've just started wondering just wtf these people want, if you could boil liberal "civil rights" or whatever down to an actual philosophy in any capacity.  Because there's so much just double standard, philosophically backwards bullshit.  It's pretty much just seems like if you think a racist thought, God makes somebody commit a hate crime somewhere.  I mean obviously for the political class it's all about nanny state, total regulation of every aspect of life, but I just don't understand how anybody else can really buy into it.  Is it all just white guilt or German guilt and trying to rationalize it in some way?  Because I look at Tiger Woods (obviously aside from recent transgressions), Oprah, Obama (whose election I think truly was a great step forward for minorities because I feel like race was such a non-issue, I mean except in the "positive" sense, I know a few white people who just voted for him because they thought it'd be "cool" or "progressive," but the vast, vast majority of people who had criticisms of him based them on policy), Michael Jordan, and all of the other "black" businesses and media exposure and just think, "isn't this the essential image of what civil rights activists in times past were arguing for?"  Like what more could they want?  Obama wasn't elected by affirmative action (well, probably not anyways :P).

I STRONGLY disagree with you on how Obama was elected.  I think race and AA played a HUGE part in him getting elected.  They have been hacking at it so long, that white people actually feel guilty for not sticking up for the black man 100% of the time.  Its pathetic.  It blows my mind how people don't see how classifying people into these collective racial groups is so dam inherently racist.  They are people.  Men and women.  Not black people or Mexican men or Asian women.  People and citizens.  It truly is that simple.  It's a whole lot more complicated and disgusting to group people all in different groups then automatically assume no one can play nice without initiating horrendously racist legal double standards.

But obviously I agree with what you are talking about with the civil rights movement.  Its way time for it to take a new turn.  And honestly, what the hell else could you want?  You have a legalized , racist, double standard.  But if you continue to tell someone that they are a victim, they will continue to believe it. 
Here is what I love though.  The large majority of people are all about racial profiling when it benefits the minority.  EG when a black kid gets into college with a scholarship even though he was highly under qualified compared to his white counterparts.  Everyone thinks its great because "statistically" he had a harder life and less opportunities.  Even though the possibility is there that he grew up rich as shit .
However, if you suggest that we pull over every single black person driving a BMW or Mercedes because "statistically" they stole it, or bought it with drug money, People are up in arms at how disgusting you are.  But as far as I am concerned, you can't have it both ways.  If you want to change a social behavior based off some statistical possibility, it needs to work both ways. 

I'm not for any of that though.  I believe in a truly equal and blind system.  Now, would this said system even be a possibility on the horizon if it were not for AA and positive racial profiling?  I don't know, probably not actually.  But, I think we are there.  Its time to have a little bit of faith in humanity and understand that societies truly can progress if you allow them to.  We are actually holding ourselves back, that's what's really sad to me. 

Agreed. I believe that a large portion of Obama's votes were people literally voting for him because he is a black man.

And while I think it's great that we can have a black president, I think it's terrible that we as a society look at him and say, "Hey, great! We have a black man as president" as opposed to just "We have a man as president".

And you have no idea how pissed off I get talking politics with friends because most of those idiots voted for him for that very same reason and are pissed about what he's doing. Vote for people based on their policies, not their charisma or the fact that they are brown.

He never led on to any politics though.  He was vague as shit about everything.  In a nut shell he said " I'm going to change shit! The end!" and everyone interpreted that message their own way and cheered for it.  They had no idea what he actually meant by what he was going to change, but they knew what they wanted to change, and for some reason they believed he was going to change those things, even though he never said he would. 
I say that while its important to vote based on politics, lets also demand that they state their actual politics too.  And truthfully at that.

he's giving you a national health service right?

um, something like that I guess.  He is trying to federalize healthcare.  I think thats a better way of putting it. Believe it or not, the history books should show that there was healthcare in America before Obama. 
So if you're asking if he is going to spend billions on revamping the existing system to replace it with an inferior system that takes away more freedoms and liberties from the people and puts more control into the hands of government.  Then yes, that is what he is trying to do.  That is change, ill give him that much.

I think a nation health service is important and a good move for the US, just look at Chi, his family had to finance his treatment, in the UK we pay higher taxes for it but when the shit hits the fan we have a health service in place to look after us. You can still have private health care here if you wish though.

I think a lot of the self proclaimed 'hard working' americans were pissed off that they'd have to fund the treatment of less well off american citizens i.e :

Tea Partiers Mock And Scorn Apparent Parkinson's Victim (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8#ws)

So i think Obama has done alright, it's quite a bold socialist move

Well if you're a socialist ( and I'm guessing by that last remark you are ) then sure, its a great move.  But seeing as how I am a Libertarian, I'm not a fan.
I don't think I really need to express my views too in depth.  I think just saying a Libertarian should be good enough in this case.

But to address a couple points you made.
Sure, health care in America was/is fucked.  But not because it wasn't ran by the government.  Health care is a commodity, just like any other business in America.  You purchase a product.  And the Chi example is actually pretty perfect.  1.  he should have had private health care to cover his accident.  He definitely makes enough money to cover health insurance.  So if he didn't ( I don't know the details ) then that was his bad for being irresponsible.  And I don't see why my taxes should go up because people aren't responsible enough to purchase health insurance, even when they can afford it.
Also, the way society is supposed to work, you don't rely on government for everything.  But community can be a powerful thing.  People saw a need for Chi, so they gave.  We saw a fellow brother in need, and tried to provide for him.  Which is what a community is supposed to do.  Not that we get taught that anymore.  Nope, now we are all just taught that the government should help us at every wrong turn we make.  Which is convenient.  It totally takes away a lot of responsibility and accountability from your everyday person.  But in reality it takes away liberties and lowers our quality of life.
I heard a lot of really intelligent ways that we could have reformed health care in the States and still kept it all private.  Most of it boiled down to insurance companies, and the way Americans use their health insurance.  Just imagine using your auto insurance to pay to change the oil in your car....sound ridiculous right?  Thats something you should expect to have to pay for so you save for it.  Well the same goes for medical.  It should sound preposterous that someone would use health insurance for a visit to their primary DR. for a cold, or to get an adjustment from a chiropractor.  Pretty much that you would use insurance for anything but an emergency.  But thats completely how we operate over here.  Which is stupid. 
A lot of health reform could go into the way hospitals are ran and Doctors get paid too.  Lets never forget that humans respond to incentives.  So do you really think putting the majority of Doctors on a salary and telling them that they get paid the same whether they treat patients or not, and they get paid the same whether the patients get better or not, is a good idea?  All courtesy of the American tax payer.  It is an empirical fact that when you socialize a health system, the standard of care goes down.  And I mean way down.  But ill probably pay THE SAME if not MORE for this inferior system.  All because people are too fucking irresponsible to save and plan.....Thats not how its supposed to work in a free society. 

And you say I can still have private insurance if I want right?  True.  But I still have to pay for the federalized health care.  SO why the fuck would I pay for two health care plans?  That is just a cop out political spin because they know these government plans snuff out the private plans except for the super rich who can afford this.  You have to be pretty short sighted,at least a little bit ignorant to the ways of the world ( maybe even slightly stupid ), and pretty fucking fearful that you wont be able to provide for yourself ( EG admitting that you're weak ) in order to support a plan like this.  Darwin would be so proud .

Quote from: Variable on May 24, 2010, 06:51 AM
I STRONGLY disagree with you on how Obama was elected.  I think race and AA played a HUGE part in him getting elected.  They have been hacking at it so long, that white people actually feel guilty for not sticking up for the black man 100% of the time.  Its pathetic.  It blows my mind how people don't see how classifying people into these collective racial groups is so dam inherently racist.  They are people.  Men and women.  Not black people or Mexican men or Asian women.  People and citizens.  It truly is that simple.  It's a whole lot more complicated and disgusting to group people all in different groups then automatically assume no one can play nice without initiating horrendously racist legal double standards.

Nah, I'm with you there.  I mean yeah, it was the same way for the majority of my friends, they got duped into thinking that because they're white, they're inherently racist and should feel guilty about it.  And I'm sure that played a huge role in his election, if not decided it altogether, but I was just trying to speak to the fact that are (or were anyways) in the closest society has ever been to having a lack of the "negative" racism because his CRITICISM wasn't based on race, at least from what I was hearing.  But yeah the whole positivism aspect of it was truly disgusting, I guess I was just trying to be somewhat PC by saying maybe there was a chance he got elected legitimately, haha shame on me.  

But yeah, I agree with you on the rest of that too.  I think it's just a basic misunderstanding of human rights with the affirmative action thing: that my rights end where your rights begin.  And for the rest of it, I just can't think of anything besides the Democrats race-baiting and the Republicans capitulating, or just not calling them out on their bullshit.  I mean obviously there's Republicans that engage in race-baiting too, it's just become so pervasive in society.

This is completely off-topic, but Trey, have you heard of Peter Schiff?  He's definitely my new favorite economics guy, and I have a whole lot of faith he'll take that Senate seat in Connecticut.

Quote from: wheresmysnare on May 24, 2010, 03:39 PM
I think a nation health service is important and a good move for the US, just look at Chi, his family had to finance his treatment, in the UK we pay higher taxes for it but when the shit hits the fan we have a health service in place to look after us. You can still have private health care here if you wish though.

I think a lot of the self proclaimed 'hard working' americans were pissed off that they'd have to fund the treatment of less well off american citizens i.e :

Your analysis is faulty on many, many accounts that I don't have time to address at the moment, but firstly, I want to talk about Chi.  You do realize that it wasn't just his family that had to pay for it, right?  Like I could state the obvious, but I'm pretty sure you've been exposed to at least a little bit of all of the charity that's been going on.  That's not his family paying, that's the self proclaimed hard-working Americans that funded the treatment of a less well-off American citizen.  The thing you're missing here is that people are extremely charitable when they have more than they need, but when they aren't FORCED to give it away.  That's why it's better, morally, ethically, and practically, to have a system that encourages, rather than discourages charity.

On the rest of it, I don't have time right now, but I'll just call you a retard as a placeholder until Trey or I can set you straight.

EDIT: Damn, Trey.  Just be way too quick for me, why don't you?

It's what we do

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on May 24, 2010, 04:30 PM

Quote from: Variable on May 24, 2010, 06:51 AM
I STRONGLY disagree with you on how Obama was elected.  I think race and AA played a HUGE part in him getting elected.  They have been hacking at it so long, that white people actually feel guilty for not sticking up for the black man 100% of the time.  Its pathetic.  It blows my mind how people don't see how classifying people into these collective racial groups is so dam inherently racist.  They are people.  Men and women.  Not black people or Mexican men or Asian women.  People and citizens.  It truly is that simple.  It's a whole lot more complicated and disgusting to group people all in different groups then automatically assume no one can play nice without initiating horrendously racist legal double standards.

Nah, I'm with you there.  I mean yeah, it was the same way for the majority of my friends, they got duped into thinking that because they're white, they're inherently racist and should feel guilty about it.  And I'm sure that played a huge role in his election, if not decided it altogether, but I was just trying to speak to the fact that are (or were anyways) in the closest society has ever been to having a lack of the "negative" racism because his CRITICISM wasn't based on race, at least from what I was hearing.  But yeah the whole positivism aspect of it was truly disgusting, I guess I was just trying to be somewhat PC by saying maybe there was a chance he got elected legitimately, haha shame on me. 

But yeah, I agree with you on the rest of that too.  I think it's just a basic misunderstanding of human rights with the affirmative action thing: that my rights end where your rights begin.  And for the rest of it, I just can't think of anything besides the Democrats race-baiting and the Republicans capitulating, or just not calling them out on their bullshit.  I mean obviously there's Republicans that engage in race-baiting too, it's just become so pervasive in society.

This is completely off-topic, but Trey, have you heard of Peter Schiff?  He's definitely my new favorite economics guy, and I have a whole lot of faith he'll take that Senate seat in Connecticut.

Quote from: wheresmysnare on May 24, 2010, 03:39 PM
I think a nation health service is important and a good move for the US, just look at Chi, his family had to finance his treatment, in the UK we pay higher taxes for it but when the shit hits the fan we have a health service in place to look after us. You can still have private health care here if you wish though.

I think a lot of the self proclaimed 'hard working' americans were pissed off that they'd have to fund the treatment of less well off american citizens i.e :

Your analysis is faulty on many, many accounts that I don't have time to address at the moment, but firstly, I want to talk about Chi.  You do realize that it wasn't just his family that had to pay for it, right?  Like I could state the obvious, but I'm pretty sure you've been exposed to at least a little bit of all of the charity that's been going on.  That's not his family paying, that's the self proclaimed hard-working Americans that funded the treatment of a less well-off American citizen.  The thing you're missing here is that people are extremely charitable when they have more than they need, but when they aren't FORCED to give it away.  That's why it's better, morally, ethically, and practically, to have a system that encourages, rather than discourages charity.

On the rest of it, I don't have time right now, but I'll just call you a retard as a placeholder until Trey or I can set you straight.

EDIT: Damn, Trey.  Just be way too quick for me, why don't you?

Ok, my whole point of bringing up the NHS was to use it as an example of how Obama has introduced change, as he said he would.

Saying that American society can rely solely on the charitable nature of 'hard working' American people is wishful thinking.  I'm fully aware that Chi was an exception to the rule, he had a fan base thanks to his line of work.

In summary, from a moral point of view an NHS is much more inclusive, you're putting your health care money into a communal 'pot' rather than into the hands of a private money making scheme/insurers hand. Having a singular health service, is something that 'you' the paying public will care about and you'll make sure it's up to scratch and if it isn't you kick up a fuss.

People, through no fault of their own can find themselves requiring health care. It's all well saying you are a liberalist but that's purely because it suits you to be and you couldn't give a fuck about anyone else who's fallen on hard times i.e. the elderly and the only reason you would help out someone is to massage your ego.

I live in the UK and have a steady job, I am happy and proud to pay for an NHS, it keeps not only me but my family, friends, colleagues looked after.

Now see, you really are missing the central point.  If you were to have a free market for health care, far lower taxes on both the general population and their businesses and the insurance companies, and far less regulation on both the insurance companies and the medical profession, you would not need the communal pot to steal (and you may not consider taxation theft, but #1 some other people might who are then forced to pay into a system that they don't agree with and #2 it is.  But why the fuck can't you just be given the money in your paycheck to give to a charity that quite probably funds a far more effective and ethical organization?) from one person to give to another in order to take care of these people that are down on their luck.  You have to understand that the natural charity safety net is bled dry when it's taxed to death, regulated to death, and when people stop donating because they themselves are taxed to death and can then just assume because the government is taking care of these people, they don't have to donate to charity for them to get care.  Do you think maybe that insurance companies might deny a few less claims if they got to keep more than 50-60 cents on every dollar they make?

A couple main points:

You really come off like a douchebag when you try to make it sound like it's ethical to force other people into charity when you only prefer out of convenience to get it taken out of your paycheck rather than get up off your ass and find a charity that would do the job far better than any bureaucrat-laden government hospital.

You absolutely do not understand that there has not been a true free market in health care ever, aside from early American history, and that was with obviously far more primitive technology.  You have no idea the kind of mass, cheap, high quality, global care that would come about with today's technology if it were actually allowed to flourish.  Like look at how far medicine has come in recent history despite, NOT because of, government intervention (all of which I, in principle, and Trey, in principle and especially practice, could explain).  If the government would just get the fuck out of the way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

And you're right, Obama did change things, but the way in which he changed them is the saaaaaaame old shit.  You watch and see if it works, you just watch.  First thing to happen: don't be surprised when insurance premiums go up, and all of the people that the administration thought were too rich to need the subsidies will then not be too rich to need the subsidies, and there will be massive cost overruns.  Tell you what they'll blame, the doctors and the insurance companies.  But hopefully by then you'll have figured out how bogus that is.

Bah I haven't had the energy to reply to things like this lately bro.  I feel like a broken record because we are always just explaining the same basic shit to people.  Its really simple to understand too.  But it just goes to show how much effort people have taken to go out and truly understand the world around them.  Because these concepts seem so alien to them. 
But I guess I could go to the store, buy some caffeine, and then come back and share a little bit about what I know about medicine and government intervention.  after all, this is my 5th day being stuck at a government ran hospital( and it will be at least 8 day total ) for something a person with private insurance in a free market medical community would get done in 2 days.

we can afford to keep you here for 8 days ;)

Quote from: Variable on May 25, 2010, 12:10 PM
Bah I haven't had the energy to reply to things like this lately bro.  I feel like a broken record because we are always just explaining the same basic shit to people.  Its really simple to understand too.  But it just goes to show how much effort people have taken to go out and truly understand the world around them.  Because these concepts seem so alien to them. 
But I guess I could go to the store, buy some caffeine, and then come back and share a little bit about what I know about medicine and government intervention.  after all, this is my 5th day being stuck at a government ran hospital( and it will be at least 8 day total ) for something a person with private insurance in a free market medical community would get done in 2 days.

Yeah dude, I feel like we've gone on about this ad nauseum too, but being a filthy Liberal just sounds way too nice these days for people to think twice about it.  God, could you imagine if Hazlitt, Rothbard and Mises were taught at every school across the globe?  How much farther would we have come, and how much smarter would the population be?  That's the kind of stuff that I think about all the time, if we actually had sound money and obeyed free market principles everywhere, what would the world today be like?  Real crazy to ponder.

But answer my question, biznatch.  Have you heard of Peter Schiff?

Quote from: Nailec on May 25, 2010, 12:55 PM
we can afford to keep you here for 8 days ;)

Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker's shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier's gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor's loss of business. No new "employment" has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

http://jim.com/econ/contents.html (http://jim.com/econ/contents.html)

Read it.  I have faith you can be turned away from the dark side.  You're still young, right?

i dont know what else i have to be ironic. i posted that smiley (  ;) ) for a reason!

im not that much of a cynic to find its a good thing keeping someone in hospital for 8 days when he could be cured in 2. though i am not sure if variable`s doctor probablly has good reasons for doing so...

ill still read your text though :D

ok read it. cool story, bro!

no now srsly:

1.) what exactly do you want me to learn from this? (i should probablly read the link you provided but i havent that much time right now)

2.) when the first reaction this crowd has is a reflection of the economic side of a crime while not thinking that the act itself (not just the outcome) was an unmoral act, that is not a moral philosophy i would share. similar examples can be found everywhere in the economics where companies provide nice products, but for a very high price or with unmorally means (like having children to do all the work etc.)

3.) the baker is an idiot when he hasnt an insurance that pays him for vandalism against him. that way he would share the cost of the window with many other members of that same insurance company and wouldnt have such a big harm.

3a) probablly an intersting discussion would be, whether or not a shopowneror every employer should the legally forced to be in some kind of insurance. why? if for instance his shop burns down he would probablly have costs that he wouldnt ever be able to pay back and lots of marketeers related to him would sit on their bills.


i just want to make clear to understand your analogy correctly

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on May 25, 2010, 04:02 PM

But answer my question, biznatch.  Have you heard of Peter Schiff?

Yeah I think I was actually introduced to him through you when you told me to watch "freedom watch" I havn't read anything of his, just heard him talk.  But I remember really enjoying what he had to say.  He is a very intelligent man.  You say he is running for the senate?

Quote from: Variable on May 25, 2010, 06:17 PM

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on May 25, 2010, 04:02 PM

But answer my question, biznatch.  Have you heard of Peter Schiff?

Yeah I think I was actually introduced to him through you when you told me to watch "freedom watch" I havn't read anything of his, just heard him talk.  But I remember really enjoying what he had to say.  He is a very intelligent man.  You say he is running for the senate?

Yeah, he's running for that slob Chris Dodd's seat against Connecticut's Attorney General.  But the real story is the primary, he's running against a really establishment, neocon guy and Vince McMahon's wife, who has pretty much bought the election so far, so it's been really interesting to watch.  Schiff is the shit though, he has a video blog on youtube called the schiff report that you might want to check out; I know you're pretty well vested in economics, but he talks about everything from a financial perspective, which I really get into.

Quote from: Nailec on May 25, 2010, 06:13 PM
ok read it. cool story, bro!

no now srsly:

1.) what exactly do you want me to learn from this? (i should probablly read the link you provided but i havent that much time right now)

2.) when the first reaction this crowd has is a reflection of the economic side of a crime while not thinking that the act itself (not just the outcome) was an unmoral act, that is not a moral philosophy i would share. similar examples can be found everywhere in the economics where companies provide nice products, but for a very high price or with unmorally means (like having children to do all the work etc.)

i just want to make clear to understand your analogy correctly

I do get that you were being sarcastic, and so was I to a degree, but the main thing that I was trying to get across is that while Germany (although I highly doubt they're footing any of the bill in this case) may have been able to afford those extra 6 days, and they may have provided people with jobs, no one will ever know the jobs that may have been created had the resources not been "wasted" on a longer hospital stay than was necessary.  I think you probably get that, but it's definitely one of the more widespread economic fallacies out there.

I'm not really getting your point about the crowd discussing the morality of it, I mean it's meant to be a short economics book, so chances are he was just trying to keep the discussion as simple as possible.  And you really are out to lunch with that other analogy with child labor.  Nobody wants their kids to work.  Here's a little thought experiment for you: do you think that back when our society was completely devoid of all technology and we were all living on farms, any government rules or re-distributions would have made it so children didn't have to work on the family farm or what have you?  That's what a third-world country is, a country that is so barren of devices to ease labor and increase production, that in order for the family to command the resources it needs to feed and sustain itself, the children are obligated to work or starve.  In these cases, no amount of child labor laws or food redistribution will actually help these countries BE ABLE to do away with child labor.  The economies themselves must become capital-intensive enough in order for the parents of a family to be able to sustain a whole family on just their own labor.  I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive to you, but it really is the way life works.  And you know what, kids in third world countries aren't forced into working in a factory owned by a foreigner, they do it because the conditions in their country are so bad (more than likely because of socialist policies) that they and their families are actually better off (in some cases merely more able to survive) than they would be.  So the solution is not to force all of these greedy capitalists to stop exploiting child labor, that will only kill families

Quote
3.) the baker is an idiot when he hasnt an insurance that pays him for vandalism against him. that way he would share the cost of the window with many other members of that same insurance company and wouldnt have such a big harm.

3a) probablly an intersting discussion would be, whether or not a shopowneror every employer should the legally forced to be in some kind of insurance. why? if for instance his shop burns down he would probablly have costs that he wouldnt ever be able to pay back and lots of marketeers related to him would sit on their bills.

Ok, seriously, this was meant to be an elementary example to just explain the principle that just because extra, non needed expenditures give people jobs, doesn't mean we should bemoan efficiency.  But I'll bite.  Yes, the tailor should have vandalism insurance.  I'm surprised you would even say that; wouldn't it be more compassionate to socialize his losses because the boy was in effect just one of those hurtful things in society that nobody like the tailor could prevent?  Of course not.  

And no, nobody should be forced to pay for private insurance, but the flip side to that freedom is that the tailor must fulfill all of his obligations, unless they are renegotiated to the maximum benefit of both.  But that's the beauty of the marketplace, these losses fall on the people that have made the decision to either not get insurance or to do business with the person who wouldn't get insurance, not on the population as a whole.  So it is self correcting, much unlike programs run by the government; they are run at a perpetual loss, the losses fall on the entire population, and it is not politically feasible to take away a freebie or subsidy that has been entrenched in a population (social security or amtrak, anyone?)

Gotta go, more on that later.

QuoteI do get that you were being sarcastic, and so was I to a degree, but the main thing that I was trying to get across is that while Germany (although I highly doubt they're footing any of the bill in this case) may have been able to afford those extra 6 days, and they may have provided people with jobs, no one will ever know the jobs that may have been created had the resources not been "wasted" on a longer hospital stay than was necessary.  I think you probably get that, but it's definitely one of the more widespread economic fallacies out there.

ha its sometimes ridicioulous how much german society loves having jobs. its almost absurd. while i see that at this time of history jobs are still necessary i would rather prefer societies that work towards as much freetime as possible or at least decreasing the working time bit by bit. if a new machine is invented that destroys jobs, everyone seems to rage about it. i dont know why people hate life so much that the prefer working.

QuoteI'm not really getting your point about the crowd discussing the morality of it, I mean it's meant to be a short economics book

yeah i was just irritated why the first thing a crowd would do, would be thinking about the economic side of this issue.

QuoteHere's a little thought experiment for you: do you think that back when our society was completely devoid of all technology and we were all living on farms, any government rules or re-distributions would have made it so children didn't have to work on the family farm or what have you?  That's what a third-world country is, a country that is so barren of devices to ease labor and increase production, that in order for the family to command the resources it needs to feed and sustain itself, the children are obligated to work or starve.  In these cases, no amount of child labor laws or food redistribution will actually help these countries BE ABLE to do away with child labor.  The economies themselves must become capital-intensive enough in order for the parents of a family to be able to sustain a whole family on just their own labor.  I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive to you, but it really is the way life works.  And you know what, kids in third world countries aren't forced into working in a factory owned by a foreigner, they do it because the conditions in their country are so bad (more than likely because of socialist policies) that they and their families are actually better off (in some cases merely more able to survive) than they would be.  So the solution is not to force all of these greedy capitalists to stop exploiting child labor, that will only kill families

sadly enough that is the situation for 3rd world countries. but im just no friend of relative morality. and if i demand a western company in the 3rd world to stop employing childs, i would not say that they are the ones that kill families. its the job of the countries government and the world society to prevent that.

QuoteYes, the tailor should have vandalism insurance.  I'm surprised you would even say that; wouldn't it be more compassionate to socialize his losses because the boy was in effect just one of those hurtful things in society that nobody like the tailor could prevent?  Of course not. 

nah i guess that would send some wrong signals towards employers. and the working class will not be too happy when they have to pay for the risks of employers.


besides all that: has one of you empirical fact for the thesis that less taxes mean more charity?

Quote from: Nailec on May 25, 2010, 08:09 PM

QuoteI do get that you were being sarcastic, and so was I to a degree, but the main thing that I was trying to get across is that while Germany (although I highly doubt they're footing any of the bill in this case) may have been able to afford those extra 6 days, and they may have provided people with jobs, no one will ever know the jobs that may have been created had the resources not been "wasted" on a longer hospital stay than was necessary.  I think you probably get that, but it's definitely one of the more widespread economic fallacies out there.

ha its sometimes ridicioulous how much german society loves having jobs. its almost absurd. while i see that at this time of history jobs are still necessary i would rather prefer societies that work towards as much freetime as possible or at least decreasing the working time bit by bit. if a new machine is invented that destroys jobs, everyone seems to rage about it. i dont know why people hate life so much that the prefer working.

QuoteI'm not really getting your point about the crowd discussing the morality of it, I mean it's meant to be a short economics book

yeah i was just irritated why the first thing a crowd would do, would be thinking about the economic side of this issue.

QuoteHere's a little thought experiment for you: do you think that back when our society was completely devoid of all technology and we were all living on farms, any government rules or re-distributions would have made it so children didn't have to work on the family farm or what have you?  That's what a third-world country is, a country that is so barren of devices to ease labor and increase production, that in order for the family to command the resources it needs to feed and sustain itself, the children are obligated to work or starve.  In these cases, no amount of child labor laws or food redistribution will actually help these countries BE ABLE to do away with child labor.  The economies themselves must become capital-intensive enough in order for the parents of a family to be able to sustain a whole family on just their own labor.  I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive to you, but it really is the way life works.  And you know what, kids in third world countries aren't forced into working in a factory owned by a foreigner, they do it because the conditions in their country are so bad (more than likely because of socialist policies) that they and their families are actually better off (in some cases merely more able to survive) than they would be.  So the solution is not to force all of these greedy capitalists to stop exploiting child labor, that will only kill families

sadly enough that is the situation for 3rd world countries. but im just no friend of relative morality. and if i demand a western company in the 3rd world to stop employing childs, i would not say that they are the ones that kill families. its the job of the countries government and the world society to prevent that.

QuoteYes, the tailor should have vandalism insurance.  I'm surprised you would even say that; wouldn't it be more compassionate to socialize his losses because the boy was in effect just one of those hurtful things in society that nobody like the tailor could prevent?  Of course not. 

nah i guess that would send some wrong signals towards employers. and the working class will not be too happy when they have to pay for the risks of employers.


besides all that: has one of you empirical fact for the thesis that less taxes mean more charity?

I uploaded a paper for you here:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RKPO3OPN (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RKPO3OPN)

Here's the basic point/summary of it: Writing in 1984 for the Journal of Political Economy, Russell Roberts found that private relief spending in America rose steadily until 1932, but then declined consistently thereafter as government welfare spending rose.  His conclusion: government welfare crowds out private giving almost dollar-for-dollar.  When government takes tax dollars for "charity," not only does it betray the voluntary nature of true charity, taxpayers in turn give less to private groups.

You're right that the point of an economy is to increase leisure time for everyone.  But the point is, the government cannot allocate an economy in a truly productive way.  It's literally impossible.

From what I can tell, we also agree on the fact that it's not corporations exploiting children that is the cause of child labor, it's the policies of the governments of the third world countries.  But i also look at them employing these kids (obviously not if it's in horrendous conditions) as altruistic because it truly helps their families survive.  I mean it sucks, and I would be completely for any magic bullet or foreign aid program that would cure that, but there really isn't, at all.  What's truly, truly needed by the global community is to stop the push for the rich countries just throwing money at the poor countries (which always ends up going straight to their corrupt governments, hurts the businesses of local farmers, and just pits one interest group versus another for allocation of the funds), and actually help the third world countries by encouraging free trade and sound economic and monetary policy so that they can actually finally build up their economies and help themselves.  All instead of just supporting their shit-ass governments and further impoverishing the population.

agreed on everything you said.

as far as i know there is something called "new humanitarism". actually i dont know if its the correct term, so plz dont quote me on that. but my guess is that it has become better due to the way, several NGOs work these days.

QuoteYou're right that the point of an economy is to increase leisure time for everyone.  But the point is, the government cannot allocate an economy in a truly productive way.  It's literally impossible.

explain why.

and yeah. the anti-globalization-movement will always blame corporations and too often stays silent about difficulties of other societies.

There's a whole lot of reasons that a government can't allocate an economy, I have to be semi-brief, but I can go into more detail if needed.  Here's a few reasons:

#1:  A government does not have any resources of its own.  It can only redistribute currently existing resources, and these re-distributions are inherently politicized so they aren't put into place where they would be used most effectively, or if they were guided by the invisible hand of the market.

#2:  A government does not have any "skin in the game" so to speak.  Meaning, the resources they allocate do not belong to them, and are not personally at risk if the investments were to "fail," but in terms of government investment, because the investment was deemed politically necessary, the majority of the time a failure is propped up by taxes ad infinitum. 

#3:  It can really only rely on statistics (side note: a lot of people don't know this, but it's been documented that one of the only things that held the Soviet pricing system together was that they could get Sears catalogs on that side of the ocean) or whatever is most politically correct at that moment in history to determine where to invest.

#4:  The losses of government projects are socialized.  In a market, the losses from any given project are taken by only those who invested, not by society, so the incentive to either stop the investment or make it profitable (or sustainable, whatever your preferred nomenclature) is far greater.

It basically boils down to the fact that every government reallocation is inherently disconnected from the market functions that determine whether an investment is viable or a waste of resources.

laughed so hard about this video

http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1067475.html (http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1067475.html)

russian parliament. 88 of 449 representatives are there and vote for the missing ones

i was gone for some time and there is actually no anti-israel rants going on here?

im so proud right now!

Well since you seem so disappointed, here's a good article.  Now I don't profess to be any expert on Israel or the conflict, but I would like you to explain why this article is wrong, if it is.

Israel and Palestine: A Statist War

Mises Daily: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 by Markus Bergstrom

In light of recent events in Israel and Palestine, it seems appropriate to put forth a suggestion on how this seemingly never-ending conflict could be solved. To end the ongoing violence in the region, many pro-Palestinians are calling for the complete abolition of the Israeli state. This is actually not a bad idea, but it only addresses part of the problem. The real solution is to abolish both the Israeli and Palestinian states — for as long as these governments exist, there can be no peace and freedom in the region.

Indeed, from a statist point of view, the conflict is in a constant stalemate; both the Israeli and Palestinian governments and much of "their" respective citizens are laying a claim on the same piece of land. Both sides also back these claims with separate religious and historical arguments in a word-against-word battle that is impossible to arbitrate in any objective manner.

Violence is of course a hallmark of the conflict. On the one hand, Islamist nationalists in Palestine carry out suicide bombings and grenade attacks against various targets in Israel, as they consider the Israeli government to be illegally occupying "Palestinian" land. On the other hand, the Israeli government bombs Palestinian areas where it claims terrorists are residing, often hitting and killing civilians instead. All these violent attacks incite counterattacks from the opposite party of the conflict, thus creating an unremitting spiral of violence.

The problem, however, isn't which side is right, i.e., which of the two governments is entitled to control all or parts of the Israeli/Palestinian territory. The problem is the very existence of these two governments to begin with — and the fact that they lay claims to any land at all.

Let's examine the two main proposals that are typically put forward by statists as a way to resolve this six-decade-long conflict.

First is the popular two-state solution, the general idea of which is that both governments should coexist side by side and reach a peace agreement that will put an end to the violence. A vital condition for these agreements is, of course, that the two governments — one "Israeli" and one "Palestinian" — come to a final conclusion on what piece of land should belong to what country.

At present the "State of Palestine" is split up into two different areas: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. These are located some 25 miles apart (40 kilometers), which would make it very difficult to form one Palestinian country without joining these two areas geographically first. If this were done, however, Israel would get cut in half instead, which would be equally impractical. National outrage would also ensue among Israelis, particularly those living in the areas that would come under Palestinian rule.

It's also hard to imagine the Israeli government voluntarily handing over control of the West Bank to a Palestinian government, especially since it surrounds most of the city of Jerusalem, which is not only the de facto capital of Israel but is also considered a sacred city by both Jews and Muslims. Governments also have a tendency to try to expand their jurisdictions. This is certainly the case with the Israeli government, particularly regarding its presence in the West Bank. All this means the two governments would forever argue (or worse, fight) over which piece of land belongs to whom, as they both consider all or most of it to be rightfully theirs.

But even if this particular question were settled between the governments, they would still face the same problems with violence as before. After all, the main dispute that most radical Palestinian nationalists have with Israel doesn't concern the much-debated Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but rather the existence of the entire state of Israel itself. These Palestinians do not want to live under an Israeli government, no matter how small, and at the same time they consider all of Israel to belong to Palestine. Hence radical Islamists would continue their war against Israel for what they see as the continued illegitimate occupation of Palestine. The Israeli government would in turn retaliate by bombing Palestinian areas as a form of revenge or alleged terrorist hunt, thus sustaining the spiral of violence. All such attacks also have a hydra effect — kill one Palestinian or Israeli, and a dozen friends and relatives will swear to avenge the death of their loved one.

Further complicating the matter is the internal struggle for power within Palestine between Hamas and Fatah, parties that strive for two very different goals. Fatah, whose present stronghold is the West Bank, has shown interest in working with the Israeli government to achieve a two-state solution. In stark contrast, Gaza-based Hamas's primary goal is to get rid of the Israeli state altogether. Given Hamas's popularity and their militant activism, the prospect of political cooperation between the two parties is not a very realistic one.

It is also naive to think that a magical peace agreement will suddenly come along and settle all disputes between the two nations and all involved parties, especially judging by all former peace agreements that have been tried up until now. The latest of these were the Annapolis negotiations held in November 2007 (which Hamas boycotted), where the aim was to have a final resolution by the end of 2008. The grim irony here is that during the very last week of 2008 more than 400 people were killed in new clashes between Palestinians and the Israeli government.

This is why one must remember the core cause of the conflict, namely that the very existence of the Israeli state will never be tolerated by all Palestinians, and will always be met with violence. It is also a battle between two rivaling states, each competing for political and military control over the same territories.

This leads us to the second, less popular solution to the conflict, namely to merge the two warring nations into one single state. This could eliminate the border disputes, but leaves many other problems that would render this alternative an impossibility.

One of the most obvious of these would be the process of lawmaking within this new, unified country. One can only imagine the mayhem that would ensue if, for example, the present-ruling Israeli Kadima party and the Palestinian Hamas party were trying to cooperate on legislation, especially since Kadima (as well as the Likud party) consider Hamas a terrorist organization — and vice versa, in a sense. The major political parties from both countries have vastly differing opinions on everything from internal affairs to foreign policy: Israeli politicians tend to be more westernized and base much of their ethics in their Jewish faith, while most Palestinian politicians tend to be more left-wing and strongly influenced by Islam. Should then the present-day Israeli laws be preferred, or should the new government strive toward creating an "Islamic state" of the kind that Hamas wants to build? (This is not to say that all Israelis and Palestinians have diametrically differing views on ethics and politics, but it's a big enough problem to cause internal conflict on a grand scale.)

Another problem with the one-state solution concerns the balance of power within government. Israelis greatly outnumber Palestinians in the area, which means Palestinian politicians would most likely constitute a minority within parliament, and perhaps even be reduced to playing the role of constant opposition leaders. This would hardly please Palestinians seeking to decrease Israeli political power in the region. In fact, this system could quite possibly land the Palestinians less political power than they possess today. If the tables were turned, and the Palestinians and other Arabs got the upper hand in parliament through, say, a reverse Palestinian diaspora, many Israelis would find themselves in fierce disagreement with the government instead. This would doubtlessly provoke aggressive protests and civil unrest among Israelis.

A very real concern in both cases, then, would be that a civil war breaks out between "Palestinians" and "Israelis," or that large groups of people in some regions, such as Gaza, the West Bank, or parts of present-day Israel, would try to break free from the national state and form autonomous mini-states, using violence if necessary.

The differences in ethics and faith between Judaism and Islam generally poses no problem for a Jewish and a Muslim family living next door to each other (as they are both masters of their own property and lives), but becomes a major danger and obstacle for peace when turned into politics. After all, Jews and Muslims were living side by side for 13 centuries in the Arab world, until the creation of the State of Israel sparked hatred and conflict between the two groups in the region. This is therefore not a predominately religious conflict, but a political one.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal wrote the following in an editorial in the Guardian:

   Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture.... We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

Indeed, when the UN decided to split up the Palestine Mandate in 1947 and create the Israeli state, 70 percent of the population in the area was Palestinian, while the balance consisted of Zionist pioneers who owned approximately 8 percent of the land. Giving a minority group political power over other people's land in any part of the world and between any kind of ethnic or religious groups is asking for trouble.

One must also remember that it's not just Palestinians who are paying a high price in human lives from this conflict. The Israeli government jeopardizes the safety and well-being of Israelis, Jews and other civilians all over the world by its very existence. Countless hijackings and terrorist attacks have been carried out over several decades by pro-Palestinians as a protest against Israel. In one of the most recent examples, two Israeli salesmen were shot in Denmark around New Year by a Palestinian man in what is thought to have been an act of revenge for the Israeli government's recent attacks on the Gaza Strip. Just as many innocent Americans have been automatically associated with the cruel acts of George W. Bush, so have many innocent Israelis been associated with the misdeeds of the Israeli government.

Israel is often hailed by western supporters as a beacon of democracy in a region with largely undemocratic governments. This democratic "triumph," however, is actually one of the biggest obstacles for peace in this conflict. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out in his book Democracy: The God That Failed and elsewhere, democratic governments do not fear going to war with other countries and wasting enormous amounts of resources in the process.

There are several mainly economical reasons for this. One is the fact that Israeli politicians do not actually own the government of Israel, but are mere administrators of it. Thus they have little economic interest in keeping a tight rein on government spending, as they are only spending other people's money and for a limited time only. It also means that the government is less worried about the market value of the areas it invades or occupies, since the politicians as nonowners aren't in a position to sell the war-torn land once they've seized it. Using bombs and military might to fight any perceived foreign threats thus becomes an all too "easy" way out.

Democratic governments often succeed in making the greater population support such military campaigns by portraying them as necessary and natural responses to foreign attacks on "us" and "our nation," hence playing on basic patriotic sentiment.

Furthermore, since the government's main revenue source is taxation, i.e., extracting money from "customers" by force or threat of force, there are no sales-based profit-and-loss calculations to take into consideration. For most governments, spending more than they earn is a rule rather than an exception. Indeed, the "national" debt of Israel has been trailing the 100%-of-GDP mark for several years, standing at more than 80% in late 2007.

Governments also have no competitors to fear, in the sense that no one else can poach their "clients" by giving them a better deal on police protection or other services presently monopolized by the government. "Value for money" is therefore a catchphrase that governments scarcely need pay attention to.

Contrast all this with the "third" solution: to abolish both the Israeli and Palestinian states. First, this would, without a doubt, free the region of a great deal of the conflicts experienced today. After all, the goal of all Palestinian militant groups — to get rid of the Israeli state — would now be fulfilled. Hence there would be no "need" for them to attack any parts of former Israel, as there would be no Israeli government to fight. In return, there would not be any "need" for former Israeli troops to bomb Palestinian areas in a war against terrorism.

Secondly, the private protection agencies taking on the task of offering police and military protection would operate in a radically different way than the present governments. Unlike politicians, the owners of such agencies would always have to take into consideration whether spending huge amounts of money on wars would be a good way of settling disputes. This decision would be made easier by the fact that these agencies have very limited budgets, thanks to their revenue stream coming from voluntary customers. Wars are costly and would dig a deep hole in any protection agency's budget, which they wouldn't be able to just crawl out of by raising taxes, printing money, or going into huge debt by selling the equivalent of government bonds.

Furthermore, the protection agencies would have to compete among themselves for customers, which means going out of their way to offer the "value for money" that governments so arrogantly disregard. This means good services at low prices, which also doesn't leave much of a profit share to be spent on wars. Customers would also be more interested in their protection agencies spending any profits on improving their protection and lowering prices rather than wasting money on senseless wars.

But isn't Palestine a largely anarchist society today? The short answer is no. While some parts of the West Bank are de facto in what could be described as a state of "anarchy," at least two governments are competing for control over these areas. Much of Somalia was also "stateless" for several years, but during that whole time at least three governments (the United States, the Ethiopian, and the exiled Somali government) were intervening and trying to destabilize and gain control over the country. Just because there is limited government control doesn't mean that there's no government control.

But what about the governments of Iran, Syria, or other neighboring countries? Wouldn't they seize the opportunity to invade the stateless Israel/Palestine area? For starters, it's difficult to see what the target of this attack would be. With the aggressive Israeli government gone, and Israelis and Palestinians living side by side with no ability to oppress each other through political means, there would be nothing for these bandit states to attack.

If the Iranian government or others saw the stateless Israeli/Palestinian region as an opportunity to march in and establish an Islamic state (which of course would require the use of force, just as with the creation of any government), they would have to fight the protection agencies first. This may, at a first glance, seem like a walk in the park for the Iranian military to defeat a group of private, independent protection agencies with much smaller "armies," but looks can deceive. There are basically two ways to defeat any large government army: one method is to have an even bigger and more advanced army, and the other is by using small militias and insurgency groups. There are countless historical examples of the latter: the Vietcong against the US military; the Taliban against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; the Americans against the British government during the American Revolution; and, for that matter, the militant Palestinian groups that have kept the Israeli army busy for half a century.

It's a lot more difficult to fight an enemy who doesn't "exist" or isn't clearly recognizable and definable than it is to fight a government army. This is, of course, something the US government has come to realize during the war in Iraq. At first the US military easily defeated the worn-down Iraqi-government army, but since then it has spent more than $500 billion fighting Iraqi insurgents who come out of nowhere and blend in with the locals.

Furthermore, many of today's Israelis are both well armed and well trained for combat, thanks to Israel's stormy past. This would likely continue to be the case in a stateless Israel, particularly among Jews, given the high number of rogue Islamic states nearby.

Conclusively, it is vital for the Zionist movement to realize that the idea of an Israeli land does not equate to, nor require, an Israeli state. It is also vital to realize that there can never be peace and stability in the region as long as there is an Israeli government, nor can there ever be a "free Palestine" as long as there is a Palestinian government. The only way to achieve prosperity is through peace and commerce, and that can only come through a stateless society.

A Statist Attack on John Stossel
By Jacob Hornberger
Published 06/04/10

If you want to understand why America is in deep crisis on the domestic front, consider an op-ed entitled "Tell Fox to Lay Off Our Civil Rights" by a liberal named James Rucker. The op-ed perfectly encapsulates the statist mindset that has mired our nation in paternalism, welfarism, socialism, and interventionism, along with the out-of-control federal spending, debt, taxes, and inflation that now threaten the United States with national bankruptcy.

Here's what Rucker says. He wants people to sign his petition to have Fox News fire John Stossel. What's his reason for trying to cost Stossel his job? Stossel made the long-time libertarian point that a free society entails the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason one wants. That's what freedom of choice is all about -- the right to make not only the right choices but also the wrong ones, so long as the choice is a non-violent one.

Or another way to put it is that freedom encompasses a concept called freedom of association. Free people have the right to choose the people they wish to associate with. The corollary of that principle is the right to not associate with people one doesn't wish to associate with. Libertarians have long argued that no one should be forced to associate with someone he doesn't wish to associate with for whatever reason.

To put the matter bluntly, under the principles of a genuinely free society, a bigot has a right to be a bigot. We can disapprove of his bigotry, and we can criticize and condemn it. We can ostracize and avoid the bigot. But the fact remains: If people are not free to choose the people with whom they wish to associate and not associate, then they cannot genuinely be considered free.

Rucker takes this principle and jumps to the old tired bromide that essentially says, "Well, if you defend freedom of association, then you must be a bigot yourself."

Moreover, Rucker summarily rejects the libertarian argument, which Stossel emphasized, that a free society will nudge people to higher levels of conscience, conscientious behavior, responsibility, and charity through the exercise of choice, and through such peaceful means as boycotts, social ostracism, moral condemnation, and the like.

How long have we heard this Rucker-like argument whenever we libertarians have condemned the war on drugs, a war that is, not surprisingly, as beloved to liberals as it is to conservatives. "Since you call for drug legalization, then you must favor drug abuse. And if we were legalize drugs, as you libertarians suggest, everyone would go on drugs."

The statist mindset simply does not permit the statist to comprehend the critically important part of freedom -- that freedom entails making bad choices. That's why statists embrace paternalistic government. They want the government to stomp out all bad choices by putting people who make bad choices into jail.

Why do you think we have Social Security? It's because children should honor their mother and father by funding their retirement. That's the correct choice. Why not simply leave young people free to keep their own money and decide whether to help their parents out or not? Because some of them would make the wrong choice! Under statism, that wrong choice simply cannot be permitted.

What do statists say about libertarians, who call for the repeal of Social Security? They say, "Calling for repeal of Social Security proves that libertarians hate old people and would love to see them dying in the streets, which is precisely what would happen if there was no Social Security."

Why do you think we have welfare? Because it's right that people help the poor. Why shouldn't people be free to keep their own money and decide for themselves whether to use it to help the poor? Because some of them would make the wrong decision! Statists cannot tolerate that. That's why we have an IRS and federal welfare agencies.

What do statists say about libertarians, who call for the repeal of the federal income tax and all welfare? "This just goes to show that libertarians hate the poor and hope that they all die, which is precisely what would happen if there were no IRS and welfare."

The world is mired in statism. In some countries, statists endorse book banning. Their reasoning is the same as that of Rucker's. People can't be left free to make the right choices as to what to read. The government must ensure that bad choices are not made. Leave it to the collective decision of society to decide the proper reading material for people, and leave it to the government to punish those who read the wrong materials.

But let's look at the positive side of things. At least Rucker is addressing his petition to fire Stossel to the executives at Fox News rather than running to the federal government to force his firing. Hey, that's the type of thing we libertarians say should be employed against bigots in a free society! Maybe we libertarians are making a bit of progress after all.

i just can't reconcile the above post. people seem to forget the reasoning behind things like Social Security, Welfare and Affirmative Action. The New Deal programs and their ilk were set up to protect the most vulnerable to the machinations of the greedy and dishonest.


Many elderly people were living in poverty due to not being able to work and not having any safety net. Also, those elderly people who made 'the right choice' by saving their money were burned when the banks and wall street went under.

welfare was set up because it was recognized that even when people living in poverty made the 'right choice' poverty tends to be feedback loop that is difficult to escape. similar to today were many people can't get a job because of poor credit. why do they have poor credit? they can't find a job and were forced to make 'bad choices' concerning credit in order to avoid poverty.

Affirmative Action was set up because it was recognized that if people are left to make their owbn choices on who to associate with and hire, it would take significantly longer (like maybe forever) for peopel to change their mindsets about the worth, abilities and talents of those different from them.

Do i always agree with this? no, but i see the flip side as well and have to believe our nation (and i speak only to the US) is better off for these decisions. it is hard for the generations that came after these things to see the need sometimes, but one only has to study history and determine what things were like before these were enacted to see the true worth of these programs.

Are these programs abused? yes, but again people are free to make their own choices and only themselves and God can judge whether it is moral to abuse these programs. sure the goverment can step up enforcement, but that would entail bigger goverment and intrusion into personal liberties in some cases.

Yeah, I've heard all of that before, but you really don't understand the fact that in a free society not only should people ethically be responsible for their savings rather than their neighbor, but it is far more possible to save for retirement.  When a country's government has sound money and isn't pillaging an economy of its resources and people hold dollars, the amount of products they can purchase goes up over time proportionate to the value of their money.  So when you save a dollar, not only do you receive interest, but by that time in an ever more productive society your real income or wealth has also increased, meaning your dollar can buy more goods because there is more available because of higher production.  So if this process is allowed to occur, which it hasn't in anywhere close to the way it should since the inception of the Federal Reserve and since FDR shoved Social Security (as well as numerous other interventionist measures) down America's throats (using all of the reasons you gave, which are fallacious on many levels which I would be glad to explain), people are actually able to save and multiply their real wealth without having to deal with all of this as well:

The Social Security Scam

Mises Daily: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 by Mark Brandly

The release of the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report indicates that the current economic crisis has negatively impacted the Social Security budget. It's now projected that by 2016 Social Security spending will exceed revenues. According to the report, the financial condition of the Social Security program "remains challenging" and "need(s) to be addressed soon." A look at the numbers shows us the severity of the Social Security budget problem.

Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system. This means that when you work, the government takes your money and gives it to Social Security recipients. In order to get workers to accept this system, the government promises to take other people's money and give it to you when you retire. Think of it as an exponentially larger version of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

As long as a lot of people die before collecting any benefits, or die without collecting many benefits, the system is financially sound. In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5-to-1. With people living longer, the worker to beneficiary ratio has fallen to 3.1-to-1 and within 20 years it's expected to drop to 2.1-to-1. Due to this falling ratio, over the years the feds have raised tax rates and now must consider further adjustments.

Let's look at the revenue side of things. Each worker's income below about $106,800 is taxed at a 12.4 percent rate. There are no deductions for this tax. All income is taxable income. Even those in the lowest income brackets have roughly one-eighth of their income taken from them to fund the Social Security system.

Few workers, however, understand the tax burden of the Social Security system. On their paychecks, they see that 6.2 percent of their gross pay goes to pay for Social Security. What they don't see is that employers match this tax payment with an equal 6.2 percent payment. It may seem that employers are paying half of the Social Security taxes, but that's not the case. Even though the employers are legally liable for one-half of the tax, they shift the tax onto workers in the form of lower gross wages. Therefore, the Social Security tax burden, 12.4 percent of each worker's gross pay, falls on workers. Half of this burden is hidden from the workers.

Currently, the Social Security Administration is running a budget surplus. For 2008, Social Security revenues totaled $805 billion and benefit payments and administrative costs were $625 billion, resulting in a surplus of $180 billion. Over the years, the system has run up an overall surplus totaling $2.4 trillion.

What has happened to this surplus? The SSA took in $180 billion more than it spent in 2008. However, the federal government spent this $180 billion on other programs. Since the funds were spent on something other than Social Security, the government declares that it loaned itself the $180 billion, calling such "lending" intragovernmental debt. For all Social Security revenues that are spent on non-Social Security programs, the Treasury department issues bonds to the SSA and those bonds are held in the Trust Fund. Surely we can have confidence in anything called a Trust Fund.

Think of this type of lending for a moment. The federal government is in debt to itself. Compare this to debt in the private sector. No business declares that it's deep in debt because it loaned itself money. It's the same with families. Parents don't lay awake at night trying to figure out how to repay the money they loaned themselves. The government, however, thinks that it makes perfect sense to collect $100 of tax revenue, spend the $100, and then declare that it now owes itself $100. This scheme is not limited to Social Security. Currently, federal intragovernmental debt for all programs totals $4.3 trillion.

How should we think about this intragovernmental debt? The Treasury department collects $100 in Social Security taxes, the SSA spends $70 on Social Security benefits, and the other $30 goes to, let's say, military spending. Since $30 was collected for Social Security, but spent on the military, the Trust Fund now has $30 of bonds. The bonds are simply promises of future taxes. The feds collected the money for Social Security and now they are going to collect taxes again for Social Security spending. The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes.

The interest on the bonds in the Trust Fund is another issue. In 2008, the SSA racked up $116 billion of interest payments on its $2.4 trillion of bonds, interest payments that were made in the form of more Treasury bonds for the Trust Fund. The government loans itself money and then issues bonds (read, higher taxes) to pay itself interest on that lending. This is not an insignificant amount. In the last ten years, the SSA has collected $754 billion of interest on its share of the intragovernmental debt.

Though the SSA is currently running a budget surplus, its financial position is rapidly deteriorating. With the glut of upcoming retirements, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is falling and Social Security spending is rising much fast than its revenue source. A year ago, the SSA estimated that the system would be solvent until 2017. Falling revenues due to the recession have resulted in a new estimate of 2016. At that point, the system will need additional tax revenues to be able to pay the promised benefits.

The Trustees Report declares that, starting in 2016, the "deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037." This is sleight of hand. The actual day of reckoning is 2016, not 2037. By 2037, the Trust Fund will be depleted. But the Trust Fund is irrelevant. Regardless of the status of the Trust Fund, if the current estimates are correct, beginning in 2016, the system will need significant additional tax revenues.

The shortfall starts in 2016, but increases rapidly. According to the report, Social Security–tax income will only be able to finance 76 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2037.

The report calls for "an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two" to bring the system into actuarial balance.

Making the system sustainable will require higher taxes or benefits reductions. These reductions could be achieved by either reducing the benefits per recipient or reducing the number of beneficiaries — say, by raising the minimum age requirements. The solution is to give workers a negative rate of return on the money that is taken from them. It would also help if some workers collected no benefits at all. Workers who are taxed and then die before collecting any benefits are a boon to the system. Maybe the federal government should rethink its war on tobacco.

This system is a massive income-redistribution scheme, taking one-eighth of most workers' incomes. The total tax burden is hidden from the workers. The tax revenues have been used to cover the deficits in the rest of the government's budgets, and the only way to make the system sustainable is to give the participants a negative rate of return on their money.

The Social Security system has run its course. It's unfair and it's economically destructive. It's time for the program to be abolished.

(end article)

And in addition to Social Security, Washington has taken innumerable measures to spur people to spend rather than save (who the fuck would want to save their money at 1 or 2%?), which has not only lead to a beyond gigantic financial mess, but has also created the kind of spending/debt-laden culture we live in.

If you want to know even more about Social Security, here's a wonderful (but 56-page) article:

http://mises.org/pdf/asc/essays/attarian.pdf (http://mises.org/pdf/asc/essays/attarian.pdf)

Abstract:

This is a concise critical history of the federal program of Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI), popularly known as Social Security. It focuses on a crucial but underexamined aspect of the program: how Social Security was marketed to the American public, the false consciousness which that marketing created, and how that false consciousness is a cause of the current political quagmire—and the likely meltdown of the program sometime in this century and its subsequent inability to pay full benefits on time to the retiring baby boomers.

Quote from: goldpony on Jun 04, 2010, 05:33 PM
Many elderly people were living in poverty due to not being able to work and not having any safety net. Also, those elderly people who made 'the right choice' by saving their money were burned when the banks and wall street went under.

welfare was set up because it was recognized that even when people living in poverty made the 'right choice' poverty tends to be feedback loop that is difficult to escape. similar to today were many people can't get a job because of poor credit. why do they have poor credit? they can't find a job and were forced to make 'bad choices' concerning credit in order to avoid poverty.

Do i always agree with this? no, but i see the flip side as well and have to believe our nation (and i speak only to the US) is better off for these decisions. it is hard for the generations that came after these things to see the need sometimes, but one only has to study history and determine what things were like before these were enacted to see the true worth of these programs.

Are these programs abused? yes, but again people are free to make their own choices and only themselves and God can judge whether it is moral to abuse these programs. sure the goverment can step up enforcement, but that would entail bigger goverment and intrusion into personal liberties in some cases.

And you also have to realize that all of these problems you cite were themselves functions of previous government intervention, most clearly the crashes in banking and wall street.  Have you ever heard of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory?

Quote
Affirmative Action was set up because it was recognized that if people are left to make their owbn choices on who to associate with and hire, it would take significantly longer (like maybe forever) for peopel to change their mindsets about the worth, abilities and talents of those different from them.

But this is a total fallacy for a number of reasons.  

1.  In a free market, if you turn down somebody for a position, not only can you be considered a bigot by society around you and deal with all of the consequences of that, but you also may have turned down the best person for the job.  Take Oprah or any non-white athlete, for an obvious example.  It would be absolutely stupid for someone to turn these people down because they aren't white, because they would be losing out on massive amounts of revenue, and there's no doubt that their competition would hire them in a heartbeat.  It's the same thing with any profession: if you're basing your choice for hiring somebody based on their race rather than their merits, you will be losing out on their potential merits and will give someone else without the bias the opportunity to benefit from those merits.  

2.  Nobody can claim to know how long it would have taken for slavery to have been driven away in complete market freedom because there were numerous laws by the government at both the state and federal levels before the civil war that prevented market solutions for slavery.  Same with Jim Crow laws, because the emphasis is on LAW.  The point is, #1 wasn't allowed to happen on many levels because of government intervention.

3.  This is a complete misconstruction of the principles behind rights.  The simplest way to put it is that every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property), but my rights end where your rights begin.  So to say that I have a right to a job means that someone has to violate your rights to give me a job, same with health care, etc.  You have to take from someone to give to another.  So somebody not giving somebody else a job is their right because the person that doesn't get the job has not had their rights violated, i.e. they are no worse off than they were before, they have had nothing taken from them and no violence was committed against them.  The opposite is true if you force someone to give someone else a job or health care, because you're violating their right to their property (or pursuit of happiness if you want).  So if they're a bigot, that is their right as long as they are not violating the rights of others.  This may sound evil to you, but also within those rights is the right for people to ostracize bigots or boycott entrepreneurs, and in the case of entrepreneurs, someone new who does not have the burden of racism or some other new advantage will be able to take their place.  

4.  If you enforce Affirmative Action/disparate impact combating/quota type programs across the board, you are pretty much indicting every person and organization as inherently racist unless they follow the programs exactly.  Do you really think that helps anything?

But really, just look at it from a market perspective.  Is it really in anyone's interest to be racist anymore anyways?

i agree with every point you make. i believe in free markets and the theory behind them as well as personal and ethical responsibility. however you have to remember these are rational arguements based on sound morals. call me cynical but not everyone operates with the integrity of you and me.

for instance the points you make about affirmative action seem to discount the thoughts, feelings and upbringing (i'm a firm believer, after having children and observing their behavior, that racism is learned) of those denying an equal oppurtunity. if everyone is a bigot, who is going to tell them they are wrong?

the tax burden arguement is interesting as well. again this assumes that everything is equal and no bias is involved. do i want a lower salary in return for a small handout when i retire? no. i would much rather earn more, have my employer act in an ethical manner in regards to pay, save and invest, have my financial advisors act in a responsible manner and retire with largesse. but as we clearly saw, the people in charge of our money and investments got greedy (surprise) and affected not just themeselves and their institutions but the financial security of the entire country.

again, i lean liberterian myself but i also see the role people play in this world and have to be pragmatic even if i dont agree. because it is anyones right to act how they please despite consequences.

What you're missing is that nothing that government can do can keep greed in check or make people responsible.  I mean look at all of these programs, you would think that we would be living in a utopia with all of these interventions made to take care of us.  Only the market can keep greed in check because if all unfair advantages given by government are taken away, people would have to unarguably benefit their fellow man to satisfy their greed lest some less greedy person threaten their profits.  Same principle behind racism, you could argue that people wouldn't care about a racist manager or what have you and would still patronize their establishment, but that is under the assumption that society is inherently racist or could revert back to complete racism, which I completely reject based on reason #1 I gave.  I dunno, I could be misunderstanding you, but through all of my research, I have come to the conclusion that there is no better regulator of behavior than the market.

Quote from: goldpony on Jun 04, 2010, 10:28 PM
the tax burden arguement is interesting as well. again this assumes that everything is equal and no bias is involved. do i want a lower salary in return for a small handout when i retire? no. i would much rather earn more, have my employer act in an ethical manner in regards to pay, save and invest, have my financial advisors act in a responsible manner and retire with largesse. but as we clearly saw, the people in charge of our money and investments got greedy (surprise) and affected not just themeselves and their institutions but the financial security of the entire country.

You should really do some research on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.  Economies don't naturally have boom and bust cycles, it is a function of manipulation of the money supply as well as interest rates that makes all of these entrepreneurs all of a sudden make mistakes.  I don't have the time to explain it right now, but I can refer you to a whole lot of material that proves that all of our fucked up finances are functions of government intervention.  To start out with, here's an explanation of the current crisis that I highly recommend:

http://media.mises.org/mp3/misescircle-greenville09/05_MCGreenville_2009_Woods.mp3 (http://media.mises.org/mp3/misescircle-greenville09/05_MCGreenville_2009_Woods.mp3)

If you lean Libertarian, you really ought to go peruse www.mises.org (http://www.mises.org) and search some various topics that you think you might differ from their platform on and read some articles.  You'll probably be pleasantly surprised.  It's completely scholarly, devoid of conspiracy theories, and I've never found such a wonderful resource.  And your jaw will drop when you realize the amount of revisionist history that's taught by our schools and propagated by our media.

I'd just like to point out that, as a person on welfare, it always bothers me when people say "do away with welfare". If it weren't for welfare and the state paying for all my medical procedures, I would be dead.

Also...I don't think anyone said anything about welfare, so I dunno where that came from.

I feel you Josh, and when I think of the problems with welfare, it's not the people that are physically unable to work enough to pay for their medical bills or whatnot that I have a problem putting on welfare.  To be completely honest, I wouldn't necessarily oppose that specific kind of welfare, but if I were to give my money to support someone like you, I would much rather give it to a specific, private charity rather than dump it in some government fund (one may say, but there's no charities around or not enough, but my response would be you have to ask yourself why there aren't.  And it's because of the things I mainly harp on: government intervention into medical care, people thinking that the government's got these people covered so now I needn't donate to help my neighbor, and the depletion of disposable incomes through taxes, regulations and absolutely beyond terrible monetary policy).  And also, the price of medical care is absolutely inflated like crazy right now; if we had a free market in health care, things would be a hell of a lot more affordable and someone like you would either need less assistance or would be able to raise their standard of living without giving up necessary medical care.

So yeah, I mean you could make the argument that within our current fucked-up system that welfare is necessary, and I would have a hard time disagreeing with you, but it doesn't solve the problem of a lack of private charities to take care of people in need, all of our unemployment-spurring policies, and the massive amounts of price inflation, most notably for medical care in this case, but also in energy, education, etc. etc. because those are also unneeded costs that people could use to help their fellow man.

Anyone here from Connecticut?

Schiff for Senate petition drive update (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrTQZTYdMhg#ws)

i really enjoyed that article about abolishing both palestine and israel.

Quote"our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

khaled meshaal should study the entire history of the middle east. he will find that this is the way that arabs came to control the majority of the land while the indigenous people are left with nothing, no land and no rights.

I just started reading this book, called The Roosevelt Myth.  I'm pretty excited about it; although I feel like I know the gist of a lot of the stuff he'll talk about, I really like knowing actual history behind things.  Especially since FDR was quite arguably the worst president in US history.  Here's a link to the book if anyone cares to find out why for themselves:

http://mises.org/books/rooseveltmyth.pdf (http://mises.org/books/rooseveltmyth.pdf)

Quote from: blixa on Jun 07, 2010, 02:30 PM
i really enjoyed that article about abolishing both palestine and israel.

Quote"our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

khaled meshaal should study the entire history of the middle east. he will find that this is the way that arabs came to control the majority of the land while the indigenous people are left with nothing, no land and no rights.

I do want to make it clear that I for sure don't, and I don't believe that the author support or sympathize with violent-natured Arabs any more than violent-natured Israelis.  I sympathize with the innocent people who have had nothing to do with perpetuating the bloodletting and while I don't profess to know the whole story, from what I've heard and my acquaintance with Libertarian theory, I don't really know what would really prevent deaths the best in the situation besides not allowing anyone in that area to achieve political power over anyone else.

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jun 08, 2010, 12:49 AM

Quote from: blixa on Jun 07, 2010, 02:30 PM
i really enjoyed that article about abolishing both palestine and israel.

Quote"our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

khaled meshaal should study the entire history of the middle east. he will find that this is the way that arabs came to control the majority of the land while the indigenous people are left with nothing, no land and no rights.

I do want to make it clear that I for sure don't, and I don't believe that the author support or sympathize with violent-natured Arabs any more than violent-natured Israelis.  I sympathize with the innocent people who have had nothing to do with perpetuating the bloodletting and while I don't profess to know the whole story, from what I've heard and my acquaintance with Libertarian theory, I don't really know what would really prevent deaths the best in the situation besides not allowing anyone in that area to achieve political power over anyone else.

i didn't say whether i agreed or disagreed. i did forward the article to my cousin who is a jew living in israel. she had some interesting things to say. she is rather pessimistic about it all. i find myself scoffing whenever i hear "peace talks" because, let's be honest, it's gotten viciously funny at this point. i don't laugh in disregard to the loss of life and the unstability of the region, i laugh because the word 'peace' has become a joke. i don't know how much disappointment palestinians and israelis can take but so far i can assume they can take just about more than most people.

Yeah, I don't know how one could be anything but pessimistic about that situation.  From the US perspective, I think we need to just stop giving out foreign aid and sanctions across the board and just trade freely with countries and set an example.  Then we stop enriching and empowering all of these shit-ass regimes.  Like if anything can be proven to just make things worse in the short and long runs, it's foreign aid and sanctions, but yet nobody can seem to wrap their head around the fact that there is nothing humanitarian about giving money directly to governments, no matter if the regime is considered good or bad by the world.  All that it does is expand the public sector, the sector that will be a net draw on their economies when the aid stops and they have to levy taxes to support them.  I could rant about this for pages, but it fucking blows my mind that we're going down the same goddamn path we always go down with Iran now.  Does anyone think that the sanctions will do anything but empower Ahmadinejad and his regime? 

Ron Paul 2012, for fuck's sake.

are you saying that we should just trade a nuclear bomb with iran?

so he would say thank you usa and then his antisemitism is gone just like that?

and then suddenly there are no more humanrights violations in iran?

No, I'm not saying we should trade nuclear bombs with Iran, der.  But I am saying that #1 the road we're going down with Iran right now is not going to yield any positive results, and #2 that enriching a populace through free trade is far preferable to enriching dictators in money through aid or in power through sanctions.  There's something you have to realize, some people are going to be antisemitic.  That's just the way it is.  But chances are, people on a person-to-person level are going to be far less likely to be militant and commit violence when they have property, a business, a family, etc. to worry about and defend, so that's the kind of environment you want to foster and sanctions and foreign aid (not to mention military action) do the exact opposite.

agreed. but i heard the recent sanctions really just hurt irans military sector.

Okay, anyone who is curious about how the problems with our environment are not failures of the free market and how property rights and free markets are genuinely the solution to help the environment really ought to listen to this.  It's guaranteed to give you a different perspective and hopefully turn you away from all of these Earth First-ers and all of those watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside haha)

Oh and just for Nailec, this professor is Jewish and is from Brooklyn, New York.

http://mises.org/media/1472 (http://mises.org/media/1472)

Alvin Greene for President!

Keith Olbermann Interviews Alvin Greene, Possible RNC Plant! Hilarious Interview. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxnTYPZOmK0#ws)

Alvin Greene Interview with CNN Must See! 6-12-2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDb7l0AAvUY#ws)

Haha, holy shit.

We can't legislate peace in our hearts.

Somethings gone terribly wrong.

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

Lawrence Solomon  June 13, 2010 – 8:50 am

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.  The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen experts," he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

"Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous," the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered "the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism."

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia –  the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK's most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC's co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on 'Climate scenario development' for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme's depiction of IPCC's exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here. (http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf)

Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.

Talk to me people.  It's been awhile since I've gotten in a good argument in this thread, I have a hankerin haha.

Something I've been thinking about lately: I just wonder why people so vehemently defend government as opposed to private action all of the time in so many facets of life and why I have to try so hard to convince them otherwise.  It's just really weird to me that our society has become that way over history, to just jump straight to government to solve all of the world's problems, almost like drones.  It's crazy to me that that's how the human condition has evolved, not to always favor freedom and realize that freedom is what we become more able to and should work towards, but to favor more and more control and micro managing of the world.  In the modern era I give Hollywood a lot of credit, but it's kind of like that short discussion we had in the vegetarians thread, that it almost seems like a socio-biological instinct to want to defer to government just as people usually, instinctively like meat (IMHO).

Just something I think about, I'd love your opinions.

I'd need some examples of the facets of life you mention to put forward any sort of argument. I mean if we are talking in huge general terms, society needs an organision in place to set and enforce rules and regulations that are perceived to be a pre-requisite of a civilised society.

Having a commonly funded Government is probably the most logical model to achieve the above. In some instances a Government is actually required to keep private enterprises in-line in order to protect public interest.

Privately funded organisations, by their very nature, have their own agenda, completely detatched from the needs of wider society. If it was all private organisations pitching for control of a Country you would have a huge mess on your hands and they would be able to set laws and statutes that favour them and penalise their competitors, i.e. a monopoly, you may aswell go and live in North Korea.

To go all neanderthal style:

We are pack animals originally right? one cave man wants to set all the rules, he is the biggest, so he threatens to beat the shit out of the rest of the pack. The other cavemen and women gang up on him and share a common goal which they view to be beneficial to their micro society. They take down mr big ape man and thus act as a democracy. This is what a modern day government is there to do, to keep big time charlies who are only out for themselves in-line and to serve public interest.

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jun 27, 2010, 01:15 PM
Talk to me people.  It's been awhile since I've gotten in a good argument in this thread, I have a hankerin haha.

Something I've been thinking about lately: I just wonder why people so vehemently defend government as opposed to private action all of the time in so many facets of life and why I have to try so hard to convince them otherwise.  It's just really weird to me that our society has become that way over history, to just jump straight to government to solve all of the world's problems, almost like drones.  It's crazy to me that that's how the human condition has evolved, not to always favor freedom and realize that freedom is what we become more able to and should work towards, but to favor more and more control and micro managing of the world.  In the modern era I give Hollywood a lot of credit, but it's kind of like that short discussion we had in the vegetarians thread, that it almost seems like a socio-biological instinct to want to defer to government just as people usually, instinctively like meat (IMHO).

Just something I think about, I'd love your opinions.

Maybe that "need" is created by people with power so that they can keep some power over the masses ?
I'm not talking about the bullshit conspiracy theories like New World Order, or whatever, but just that from everything I saw in the past (which is not much since I'm not that old compared to governments, democracies, etc.), people in power pretty much never do what's good for the people, but what's good for them to stay in power and benefit from that !

mmm... Intellectual debate, yummy!

This is a subject that's multifaceted from so many different angles. At its root, it's a debate on the role and organization of authority, so that, alone, can take on a conversation of its own. Coming back to the modern-day phenomena of an idea where government is the cure-all to any solution is interesting in that I don't think most people question why they may automatically assume, "Oh, the government will take care of that." That's a dilemma, and I think it shows that society has grown so detached, that threads of passivity and laziness are the loudest voices.

I consider myself to be a strong advocate for individual autonomy. I agree that human relationships within a greater, communal context necessitate some sort of order, and this isn't unique to humans. "Organization" and delegation of power, even in its most "simplistic" system, can be seen throughout any communal society of living organisms, from an ant colony to the way physiological networks are regulated in our bodies. But what's different in these other systems of organization and power that are at work are their efficiency and objectives. With subjects as complex as human beings, differences in culture, perspectives, location, family origins, or faith (anything or experience that has shaped you and I, as individuals, to think the way that we do, or make the decisions that we make) are all major factors that play into our individual needs and, consequently, affect our expectations and motives. More than anything, I would emphasize the presence of emotions as the main catalyst for our actions; we face feeling greed, resentment, pride, and envy.

Today's society is just a total tragedy. I think the popular passive view on individual responsibility and the without-guilt-and-hesitation assumption of "Oh, that's what the government is for," reflects total ignorance and laziness. If anything, it's a strong indication of people's personal views and how those view work in their own, individual daily lives. Thennn we look into statistics and trends of society - the obsession for convenient, unhealthy food, obesity, high rates of mental illness and the effects on families, the amount of debt the average person has, etc. It's all part of a greater picture.

How fucking UnAmerican is this.  The people in his district should be ashamed for allowing this man to stay in Congress for over 30 years.   People are concerned about our borders and our security, and this man is mocking them.  What a fucking piece of shit.  What has happened to the Democratic Party?  God i hope its a fucking blowout in November. 

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfhn5OsKQoI&feature=related#ws)

Quote from: wheresmysnare on Jun 28, 2010, 03:40 PM
I'd need some examples of the facets of life you mention to put forward any sort of argument. I mean if we are talking in huge general terms, society needs an organision in place to set and enforce rules and regulations that are perceived to be a pre-requisite of a civilised society.

Having a commonly funded Government is probably the most logical model to achieve the above. In some instances a Government is actually required to keep private enterprises in-line in order to protect public interest.

See, that's what I always hear from people: the convenience argument.  My belief is that civil society and free markets have their own means of setting and enforcing rules and regulations.  No, I am not arguing against the necessity for courts and other things to adjudicate disputes, but I do believe that what we should work towards is as much possible decentralization of these organizations in order for them to operate in the most ethical manner, and I also do not believe that completely private courts, completely private regulators, etc. should be illegal in a free society, and I don't think it would be ethical for taxes to fund their competitors.  A government is not required to keep private enterprises in order, like for real.  As long as you have a common law code that prevents force and fraud, people will be able to adjudicate their disputes based upon its principles and if any individuals or organizations go against those principles, including, and this is the very important difference between government and private entities, those who regulate and those who adjudicate disputes, everyone will be held accountable for their actions and punished in a manner acceptable by a greater majority of the people than even a democracy could provide.

Quote
Privately funded organisations, by their very nature, have their own agenda, completely detatched from the needs of wider society. If it was all private organisations pitching for control of a Country you would have a huge mess on your hands and they would be able to set laws and statutes that favour them and penalise their competitors, i.e. a monopoly, you may aswell go and live in North Korea.

To go all neanderthal style:

We are pack animals originally right? one cave man wants to set all the rules, he is the biggest, so he threatens to beat the shit out of the rest of the pack. The other cavemen and women gang up on him and share a common goal which they view to be beneficial to their micro society. They take down mr big ape man and thus act as a democracy. This is what a modern day government is there to do, to keep big time charlies who are only out for themselves in-line and to serve public interest.

You're absolutely right with most of what you're saying, but your argument leads to the absolute wrong conclusion.

Having a government, which is by definition given a monopoly of force, is truly the only way for a group to achieve lasting power over another.  Read what you wrote again; you're making my argument for me (North Korea?  That's not the government that's despotic?).  These groups that you speak of only came to or only could come to power by being able to manipulate GOVERNMENT to their own ends.  

Seriously, if you're trying to argue that without government somehow some massive corporation is going amass the crazy amounts of resources that it would take to literally take over the whole world, because that's where it would ultimately have to end, then what you're saying is beyond absurd.  Yeah, Wal Mart is going to build a gigantic army of robots and take shit over and nobody will be able to stop them.  Give me a break.  In a free society, where people are essentially allowed to vote multiple times a day with their dollar, there is absolutely no way your paranoid version of reality could take place, on even the smallest of scales.  Nowadays even if somebody is sexually harassed on a corporation's property, with nothing to do with the highest level management, the lawyer's are already up the owners' asses and out their mouths, and if a corporation is found to be doing something criminal, they're investors withdraw their funds almost immediately.  I'm not saying I agree with either the harassment or the reaction by today's litigious society occurring, but you're really trying to tell me that all of these people that advocate for workers' rights and all that will just all of a sudden go POOF?

And also, how the heck do you go about defining public interest anyways?  Have you seen the actions of, I could venture to say, any government around the world from time to time?

Quote from: tarkil on Jun 29, 2010, 03:08 AM
Maybe that "need" is created by people with power so that they can keep some power over the masses ?
I'm not talking about the bullshit conspiracy theories like New World Order, or whatever, but just that from everything I saw in the past (which is not much since I'm not that old compared to governments, democracies, etc.), people in power pretty much never do what's good for the people, but what's good for them to stay in power and benefit from that !

Exactly, that's essentially why I argue that we need to shrink government to its smallest possible level, arguably none.  Pretty much, politicians and whoever invest for political returns rather than economic returns, so we need to give away as little power as we can to these people and not let them control our lives or our property.

Quote from: stapezee on Jul 01, 2010, 02:28 AM
How fucking UnAmerican is this.  The people in his district should be ashamed for allowing this man to stay in Congress for over 30 years.   People are concerned about our borders and our security, and this man is mocking them.  What a fucking piece of shit.  What has happened to the Democratic Party?  God i hope its a fucking blowout in November.  

Yeah, that's Pete Stark/California for you.  He's a lunatic.  Check this one out.

Pete Stark Blows Up Over National Debt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0#)

Quote from: weakcure on Jun 29, 2010, 05:30 AM
mmm... Intellectual debate, yummy!

This is a subject that's multifaceted from so many different angles. At its root, it's a debate on the role and organization of authority, so that, alone, can take on a conversation of its own. Coming back to the modern-day phenomena of an idea where government is the cure-all to any solution is interesting in that I don't think most people question why they may automatically assume, "Oh, the government will take care of that." That's a dilemma, and I think it shows that society has grown so detached, that threads of passivity and laziness are the loudest voices.

I consider myself to be a strong advocate for individual autonomy. I agree that human relationships within a greater, communal context necessitate some sort of order, and this isn't unique to humans. "Organization" and delegation of power, even in its most "simplistic" system, can be seen throughout any communal society of living organisms, from an ant colony to the way physiological networks are regulated in our bodies. But what's different in these other systems of organization and power that are at work are their efficiency and objectives. With subjects as complex as human beings, differences in culture, perspectives, location, family origins, or faith (anything or experience that has shaped you and I, as individuals, to think the way that we do, or make the decisions that we make) are all major factors that play into our individual needs and, consequently, affect our expectations and motives. More than anything, I would emphasize the presence of emotions as the main catalyst for our actions; we face feeling greed, resentment, pride, and envy.

Today's society is just a total tragedy. I think the popular passive view on individual responsibility and the without-guilt-and-hesitation assumption of "Oh, that's what the government is for," reflects total ignorance and laziness. If anything, it's a strong indication of people's personal views and how those view work in their own, individual daily lives. Thennn we look into statistics and trends of society - the obsession for convenient, unhealthy food, obesity, high rates of mental illness and the effects on families, the amount of debt the average person has, etc. It's all part of a greater picture.

See, and I think about that alllll of the time as well.  It's totally the consequence of people trusting government to regulate and take care of society: then people don't regulate and take care of themselves.  It's truly a simple principle and while it may sound callous at first blush, it's not saying that people can't take care of other people, precisely the opposite.  People should seek care from other people who are willing to give help or organizations that are based on people's willingness to give help, not use government force to take from someone who's unwilling.  And when you go the opposite direction, towards more government help/control, the consequence is the dissolution of these natural means of assistance, most clearly the family, and it becomes a vicious cycle.  A similar principle applies to the regulation of business.  If the government is supposedly all-knowing and all-benevolent, we must only follow their rules, no more, no less.  The problem is, the government regulators are inevitably, by design behind the curve.

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jul 04, 2010, 07:42 PM

1. A government is not required to keep private enterprises in order, like for real.

2. Yeah, Wal Mart is going to build a gigantic army of robots and take shit over and nobody will be able to stop them.  Give me a break.  In a free society, where people are essentially allowed to vote multiple times a day with their dollar, there is absolutely no way your paranoid version of reality could take place, on even the smallest of scales.

3. And also, how the heck do you go about defining public interest anyways?  Have you seen the actions of, I could venture to say, any government around the world from time to time?

1. Banks would be an example, they are highly regulated by the FSA and the Government, however I would argue that if anything the Government need to impose more control over the banks based on the last decades evidence.


2. Wal Mart no, but if we are talking about letting private companies have carte blanche with finite resources such as oil they will be able to keep entire countries in a finincial choke hold, to a certain extent this is already true and I would even go so far as to say National Governments are already positioning themselves with the future in mind re. energy resources.

3. There are many corrupt Governments, i'm not disputing that but lets be honest trying to control what is basically mass disorder is not easy. Western Govermnments have bailed out banks recently, this was in public interest.

Having a Government is flawed, yes i agree, but suggest to me another workable model.

Oh but my friend, you have things so completely backwards.  You need to read some history that isn't completely propagandized.  I don't have a lot of time but I can come back and elaborate more later.

The current financial crisis and every single recession and depression is caused by government intervention into the money supply; in the case of the United States, it is the Federal Reserve.  When they inflate the money supply by printing up money to buy assets, it has effects that ripple throughout the economy, most notably raising prices and lowering interest rates.  The way interest rates are supposed to work in a market setting is like this: when people start saving more money by deferring their consumption to a later point, they start putting more money into the bank.  Because they are not using the money or more specifically, the resources that the money would command right away, more resources are available to invest into other things, and interest rates naturally become lower, telling entrepreneurs that there is more that can be invested.  When the Federal Reserve simply prints more money and gives it to banks by buying up assets on their balance sheet, this lowers the interest rate that they charge for loans because, similar to the first situation, they now have more money to loan out.  As a consequence of this, the same signal is sent to entrepreneurs to take out loans to invest into projects that would not pay for themselves with the higher interest rate.  So now long-term investments that would be too expensive at the previous interest rate now seem viable, but a problem presents itself: people have not actually saved more, deferred their consumption, so in reality there is not enough resources saved to sustain the investment boom that is created in this process.  This usually presents itself in the prices of stocks, as the values of the property held by the companies most affected by the boom becomes more and more in demand and scarce.  For example, during the inflation of the 1990s, the computer/internet industry took off and was the industry most affected.  Computer programmers, silicon, real estate in Silicon Valley, etc. all became far, far more expensive than they could have had the money supply not been manipulated, and this also drove up their prices in the stock market.  Housing was the most recent example: houses would not have been a good investment had the interest rate been at its true level, and the boom could not have been sustained without a constant stream of new dollars being pumped into the banking system.

Whew, I know I said I'd be brief, but hey, now you know the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.  Booms and busts are not created by the market, it is straight up, 100% government intervention.

And to your last two points, you're so totally misled.  There is no conceivable way for your doomsday scenario to play out.  In order for private companies to become rich, they need customers and investors.  Like really, just think about it.  How could one company get a hold of that many resources that they could hold the entire world hostage?  And what would they do if say people found a substitute good?

I also completely dispute that the world would be mass disorder without government.  Just look at the world around you and try to glance beneath the surface.  What good things around you were created by government?  Who do you think is more peaceable, the people that live and work in your town, or any government ever? You tell me one thing that has killed more people than government and I will give you a cookie.  And don't say poverty because then I'll have to explain to you how that is all caused by government as well.

Oh and also, every government is inherently corrupt, or creates the potential for corruption.

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jul 07, 2010, 05:59 AMYou tell me one thing that has killed more people than government and I will give you a cookie.

Influenza?

Chocolate chip would be nice.

Mmmm, doubt it.  I looked quickly and the estimate I found was 262 million deaths in just the 20th century.

It's one of those delectable monster cookies.

Ok just to get this straight, we pay taxes to Government in the hope that they do something useful with it.

Lets look at practical terms and things that will impact you and me rather than big business / economic theory...

You have a really shit winter, the public roads are fucked outside your house, you can't get to work safely, usually this would be sorted by the government and their highways agency but you have no goverment.

Who fixes the road? A private company - ok easy

Who pays for it? - The road users

Who knows you uses the roads and not? - A privately funded company - who pays for them - fuck knows

Who regulates who contirbutes payment? A private credit control company who seek recoveries from those who didn't pay - again who pays for them

Think of all the pies that the Government has it's finger in, you get to pay your contribution to all of it's many facets in one convenient tax. I mean, do you propose to have 100's of direct debits coming out of your bank account to pay for each private instituion.

AT the end of the day not everyone in soceity is financially independent, thats a fact of life, if you propose that we all pay our own way to private companies as we please you are condemning those who can't go out and work to a life on the streets.

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jul 07, 2010, 12:43 PM
Mmmm, doubt it.  I looked quickly and the estimate I found was 262 million deaths in just the 20th century.

It's one of those delectable monster cookies.

But throughout history?

And slightly on topic, I think a better taxation system would be one where you could dictate how your government spends your taxes. For instance, you could say "Fuck no, you ain't spending my money on buying missiles."

Quote from: wheresmysnare on Jul 07, 2010, 03:17 PM
Ok just to get this straight, we pay taxes to Government in the hope that they do something useful with it.

Yes, I understand that this is the talking point of statism, but I reject it on the grounds that because the revenues that government receives to provide these services is not based on voluntary contributions that are made based on quality, only forced contributions, i.e. taxes, the linkage of the profits and losses inherent in a market is broken; every single thing that is done by government is inevitably arbitrary.  Now this may sound evil to you, and I'm not saying that the government never gets lucky and makes a right choice, but there is virtually no mechanism to combat poor government investments because it's not like you can vote on an issue as specific as a road in your area or something, no matter how locally you're voting.  So as consequences of not having these mechanisms, you get things like the post office, the public school system, the road system, social security, medicare, medicaid, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, out of control welfare policy, farm subsidization, etc. that are all broke as a joke, that are dragging us down the tubes because our obligations are so much greater than our GDP, which is propped up significantly by government spending anyways.  On top of all of those, you get things like the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Education, the Federal Reserve (which has done more to ruin the world economy than 99.9% of people know), the EPA, the Minerals Management Service, Dept of Energy, I could go on for pages and pages.  All that these organizations do is completely weigh down our economy so we have absolutely no possible way of climbing out of our debt, and you really think once the world currency market stops buying dollars like there's no tomorrow and everything catches up with us that we're going to be able to afford all of this wealth redistribution bullshit?  You know that taxes aren't just an added inconvenience to an economy; they actually come from somewhere, right?  The point is, no matter what color statist you are, when you give the government the power to do shit like this, to manage our lives so in depth, it.  does.  not.  end.  and then, oops, your guy loses his chair and some guy from your complete opposite side has the same exact power you gave to your benevolent bureaucrat or politician.

Quote
Lets look at practical terms and things that will impact you and me rather than big business / economic theory...

You have a really shit winter, the public roads are fucked outside your house, you can't get to work safely, usually this would be sorted by the government and their highways agency but you have no goverment.

Who fixes the road? A private company - ok easy

Who pays for it? - The road users

Who knows you uses the roads and not? - A privately funded company - who pays for them - fuck knows

Who regulates who contirbutes payment? A private credit control company who seek recoveries from those who didn't pay - again who pays for them

Think of all the pies that the Government has it's finger in, you get to pay your contribution to all of it's many facets in one convenient tax. I mean, do you propose to have 100's of direct debits coming out of your bank account to pay for each private instituion.

Dude seriously, your argument is so bogus.  Why are you so obsessed with convenience?  I know i couldn't possibly sound more pretentious saying this, but having studied free market theory and economic history to a very deep degree, let me draw a kind of extreme analogy for where it sounds like your logic ends to me.  "Oh well I could walk two ways to work: one way I take an alleyway and get raped in the cornhole by gangsters every time I walk there, but I save five minutes over the other route.  Hmmm, out of convenience, I think I'll take the alley."  And that's even assuming that the government way would be more efficient, which I wholeheartedly dispute as well.

QuoteAT the end of the day not everyone in soceity is financially independent, thats a fact of life, if you propose that we all pay our own way to private companies as we please you are condemning those who can't go out and work to a life on the streets.

This would take a long time to fully respond to, but suffice it to say that nobody wants people to be out on the streets, that's what charities and myriads of other privately funded organizations are for.  Not to mention the fact that you have corporations like Target that do more for individual communities than you can shake a stick at, and no one forces them to, and you bet your fuckin ass they would give more if they got to keep more than $.50 of every dollar they made.  And nothing helps the poor and disadvantaged like having their dollar be worth more, for example being able to buy a double cheeseburger at mcdonald's.  Obviously it's not great food, but tell that to someone in Africa, that you can pick up pennies on the sidewalk for 15 minutes and buy a double cheeseburger.  That is what the market does.  And every single industry where the price isn't constantly falling is doing so not because of the market, but because of government failure. Health care, energy, and schooling being prime examples.

But I mainly want two things: for the safety nets to be private, and when I have more time to explain that I will, it's obviously not that I want disabled people or people down on their luck to be completely screwed and starving on the street.  And for us to stop incentivizing people to be financially dependent on a subsidy in the form of cash, regulatory or legal benefits from the government, which is EXACTLY what we're doing to a fucking gigantic degree, and that goes for private companies just as much as individuals.  The government should not be in the business of handing out advantages to anyone, but only protect the lives, liberties and property rights of its citizens.  There is not one area or industry that I can think of that would not be benefited by a strict adherence to private property rights and free market principles, and I believe I can reasonably argue that for any case.

Quote from: Necrocetaceanbeastiality on Jul 07, 2010, 11:36 PM

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jul 07, 2010, 12:43 PM
Mmmm, doubt it.  I looked quickly and the estimate I found was 262 million deaths in just the 20th century.

It's one of those delectable monster cookies.

But throughout history?

And slightly on topic, I think a better taxation system would be one where you could dictate how your government spends your taxes. For instance, you could say "Fuck no, you ain't spending my money on buying missiles."

You either really want a cookie or are misunderstanding my point :D  But yeah, you get what I'm saying, since governments started becoming dominant forces in society.

And that's totally my whole point with all the free market stuff.  That is how you choose precisely to whom your money goes, to whom you give support is one of the main ideas behind the whole thing.  It's like a virtually instant mechanism, especially when you compare it to the speed of trying to change governments.

I'm going to post links to some great Libertarian lectures on every topic I can find when I get a little bit of time.  Busy busy summer.

Same bro. Been soaking up as much of Seattle with the fiancee before we move to Portland.

fiancee ?

wa wa wee wa !!

Yeah dude. No idea when the wedding will actually happen, but I'll keep all you fellas updated. It'll probably be in Portland somewhere. All you cool, nearby dudes are super invited. I love all you guys.

Send some details man ! How come you're getting married ?!?


To stay on topic : a nice paper on Wall Street "reform" (http://tarpley.net/2010/07/15/obama-dodd-frank-finreg-monstrosity-delays-derivatives-curbs-until-2022/).
What a shame !!

Why am I getting married?

Why not?

Quote from: tarkil on Jul 16, 2010, 04:20 AM
To stay on topic : a nice paper on Wall Street "reform" (http://tarpley.net/2010/07/15/obama-dodd-frank-finreg-monstrosity-delays-derivatives-curbs-until-2022/).
What a shame !!

Do you agree with this guy?  It sounds to me like he's for even more draconian measures than those put in place by this financial overhaul bill, and while I disagree with the whole of this bill, I definitely don't do so because it didn't go far enough in regulating banks. 

He's really missing the point: that the CDOs and derivatives and all that aren't inherently bad things.  Reducing risk by pooling together investments is not bad, unless, and here's the key point, the underlying assets are far overvalued, or are in reality riskier than their price says they are.  The whole problem with the housing crisis was that the mortgage market as a whole became so overvalued, and as a result its investments seemed less risky than they would have without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who, to the chagrin of every American and many worldwide, are not touched in this financial overhaul bill, I might add) buying mortgages off of bank's balance sheets, political activist groups and legislative action strong-arming banks into making loans to people they might not have otherwise, numerous tax incentives for people to buy homes, and most importantly, the Federal Reserve constantly pumping new money into the banking system, thereby lowering interest rates to record lows, rates that STILL HAVEN'T CHANGED.  So with all of these things putting the housing market on steroids, making people think that housing prices can go nowhere but up (think stock prices in the 1920s and prices of stocks for computer companies in the 1990s) combined with interest rates being so ridiculously low, these investments were made to seem artificially secure, when in reality no matter how many times you securitized or bundled these shitty loans, they would all have to come tumbling down at some point because there truly wasn't enough resources to support the hyper-inflated market.  Think about it, at the end of the boom, people as an aggregate had borrowed against so much of their property's equity, they had to count on prices rising to pay their mortgage.  What kind of financial gymnastics would you have to do to get people to bet on that investment?

If you don't believe some of this or don't understand what I'm trying to say, please ask questions of me.  I'd really like you on my side :)

I'm just saying that none of these regulations would have prevented the housing bubble, or any other bubble for that matter.  But it doesn't matter anyways, the bubble today is in the United States' bond market.  You wanna talk about an overpriced market?  There it is for you. 4% on a 30-year bond in our kind of inflationary environment?  You gotta be kidding me.

it even works on a prius...


Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit - Available at BSRemoval.com - feat. Brad Stine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=201pgTaEseQ#ws)

Haha I posted that one facebook and some bitch friend was like "where is the don't like button". wah wah!

Quote from: tarkil on Jun 29, 2010, 03:08 AM

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jun 27, 2010, 01:15 PM
Talk to me people.  It's been awhile since I've gotten in a good argument in this thread, I have a hankerin haha.

Something I've been thinking about lately: I just wonder why people so vehemently defend government as opposed to private action all of the time in so many facets of life and why I have to try so hard to convince them otherwise.  It's just really weird to me that our society has become that way over history, to just jump straight to government to solve all of the world's problems, almost like drones.  It's crazy to me that that's how the human condition has evolved, not to always favor freedom and realize that freedom is what we become more able to and should work towards, but to favor more and more control and micro managing of the world.  In the modern era I give Hollywood a lot of credit, but it's kind of like that short discussion we had in the vegetarians thread, that it almost seems like a socio-biological instinct to want to defer to government just as people usually, instinctively like meat (IMHO).

Just something I think about, I'd love your opinions.

Maybe that "need" is created by people with power so that they can keep some power over the masses ?
I'm not talking about the bullshit conspiracy theories like New World Order, or whatever, but just that from everything I saw in the past (which is not much since I'm not that old compared to governments, democracies, etc.), people in power pretty much never do what's good for the people, but what's good for them to stay in power and benefit from that !

I'm sorrryy? So many journalists, pundits, globalists, etc. have consistently shown to us they want a new world order. They put out the facts for everyone to see that they are setting up a system of control that is akin to 1984. The slaves working for the Pharoahs as they think they are. Please prove that a new world order won't, or doesn't because it seems like we are in the beginning of it, exist.

Look up the video for 7/21 called "White House Apologizes After USDA Employee Fired" at the 6:21 mark. Just a little slip from a globalist; "Like it or not, the new world order."

There is so much proof it's astonishing.

First of all, the phrase "new world order" is not synonymous with the phrase "one world government". Second of all, governments of regions as small as the US barely function efficiently and in my mind, a one world government would function exponentially more inefficiently just due to the 7 BILLION people under it's control. It's just...unbelievably impractical.

Seriously, 7 BILLION people. You'd think quite a large number of those people would say "no way".

And then what? Establish a one world government anyway? That's an attempt at world domination, man. Do you really think that people wouldn't notice that? Wouldn't fight it? That's completely ridiculous.

Yeah, I kinda have a hard time with the prospect of world enslavement too, but I get a lot more disheartened when I see how hard I have to work to get people to actually understand what freedom is and how it really is better than coercion.  I do hope that the difference between the kind of tyranny that's been going on in America for years and has been getting worse for years and the kind of NWO shit Jerry is talking about would be discernible to the general public. 

That said, I am for one world currency: GOLD :D  That is how you can actually put a real check on government, and especially military spending.  Why do you think the 1800s were so relatively peaceful, especially compared to the 1900s?  Most governments weren't allowed to print up money to buy military supplies.  Seems obvious what needs to be done, END THE FUCKING FEDERAL RESERVE.

I love Peter Schiff

Why Not Another World War?
By Peter Schiff
Published 07/22/10

There is overwhelming agreement among economists that the Second World War was responsible for decisively ending the Great Depression. When asked why the wars in Iran and Afghanistan are failing to make the same impact today, they often claim that the current conflicts are simply too small to be economically significant.

There is, of course, much irony here. No one argues that World War II, with its genocide, tens of millions of combatant casualties, and wholesale destruction of cities and regions, was good for humanity. But the improved American economy of the late 1940s seems to illustrate the benefits of large-scale government stimulus. This conundrum may be causing some to wonder how we could capture the good without the bad.

If one believes that government spending can create economic growth, then the answer should be simple: let's have a huge pretend war that rivals the Second World War in size. However, this time, let's not kill anyone.

Most economists believe that massive federal government spending on tanks, uniforms, bullets, and battleships used in World War II, as well the jobs created to actually wage the War, finally put to an end the paralyzing "deflationary trap" that had existed since the Crash of 1929. Many further argue that war spending succeeded where the much smaller New Deal programs of the 1930s had fallen short.

The numbers were indeed staggering. From 1940 to 1944, federal spending shot up more than six times from just $9.5 billion to $72 billion. This increase led to a corresponding $75 billion expansion of US nominal GDP, from $101 billion in 1940 to $175 billion by 1944. In other words, the war effort caused US GDP to increase close to 75% in just four years!

The War also wiped out the country's chronic unemployment problems. In 1940, eleven years after the Crash, unemployment was still at a stubbornly high 8.1%. By 1944, the figure had dropped to less than 1%. The fresh influx of government spending and deployment of working-age men overseas drew women into the workforce in unprecedented numbers, thereby greatly expanding economic output. In addition, government spending on wartime technology produced a great many breakthroughs that impacted consumer goods production for decades.
So, why not have the United States declare a fake war on Russia (a grudge match that is, after all, long overdue)? Both countries could immediately order full employment and revitalize their respective manufacturing sectors. Instead of live munitions, we could build all varieties of paint guns, water balloons, and stink bombs.

Once new armies have been drafted and properly outfitted with harmless weaponry, our two countries could stage exciting war games. Perhaps the US could mount an amphibious invasion of Kamchatka (just like in Risk!). As far as the destruction goes, let's just bring in Pixar and James Cameron. With limitless funds from Washington, these Hollywood magicians could surely produce simulated mayhem more spectacular than Pearl Harbor or D-Day. The spectacle could be televised — with advertising revenue going straight to the government.

The competition could be extended so that the winner of the pseudo-conflict could challenge another country to an all-out fake war. I'm sure France or Italy wouldn't mind putting a few notches in the 'win' column. The stimulus could be never-ending.

If the US can't find any willing international partners, we could always re-create the Civil War. Missed the Monitor vs. the Merrimack the first time? No worries, we'll do it again!

But to repeat the impact of World War II today would require a truly massive effort. Replicating the six-fold increase in the federal budget that was seen in the early 1940s would result in a nearly $20 trillion budget today. That equates to $67,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Surely, the tremendous GDP growth created by such spending would make short work of the so-called Great Recession.

The big question is how to pay for it. To a degree that will surprise many, the US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans' personal savings. Both of those avenues are nowhere near as promising today as they were in 1941.

Current tax burdens are now much higher than they were before the War, so raising taxes today would be much more difficult. The "Victory Tax" of 1942 sharply raised income tax rates and allowed, for the first time in our nation's history, taxes to be withheld directly from paychecks. The hikes were originally intended to be temporary but have, of course, far outlasted their purpose. It would be unlikely that Americans would accept higher taxes today to fund a real war, let alone a pretend one.

That leaves savings, which was the War's primary source of funding. During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941—1945. Today, we don't have the savings to pay for our current spending, let alone any significant expansions. Even if we could convince the Chinese to loan us a large chunk of the $20 trillion (on top of the $1 trillion we already owe them), how could we ever pay them back?

If all of this seems absurd, that's because it is. War is a great way to destroy things, but it's a terrible way to grow an economy.

What is often overlooked is that war creates hardship, and not just for those who endure the violence. Yes, US production increased during the Second World War, but very little of that was of use to anyone but soldiers. Consumers can't use a bomber to take a family vacation.

The goal of an economy is to raise living standards. During the War, as productive output was diverted to the front, consumer goods were rationed back home and living standards fell. While it's easy to see the numerical results of wartime spending, it is much harder to see the civilian cutbacks that enabled it.

The truth is that we cannot spend our way out of our current crisis, no matter how great a spectacle we create. Even if we spent on infrastructure rather than war, we would still have no means to fund it, and there would still be no guarantee that the economy would grow as a result.

What we need is more savings, more free enterprise, more production, and a return of American competitiveness in the global economy. Yes, we need Rosie the Riveter — but this time she has to work in the private sector making things that don't explode. To do this, we need less government spending, not more.

Copyright © 2010 Euro Pacific Capital

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jul 24, 2010, 03:31 PMThat said, I am for one world currency: GOLD :D  That is how you can actually put a real check on government, and especially military spending.  Why do you think the 1800s were so relatively peaceful, especially compared to the 1900s?  Most governments weren't allowed to print up money to buy military supplies.  Seems obvious what needs to be done, END THE FUCKING FEDERAL RESERVE.

Fucking agreed.

Quote from: wither-I on Jul 21, 2010, 10:03 PM
it even works on a prius...


Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit - Available at BSRemoval.com - feat. Brad Stine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=201pgTaEseQ#ws)

haha dude thats fucking funny. 

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Jul 24, 2010, 03:45 PM
I love Peter Schiff

Why Not Another World War?
By Peter Schiff
Published 07/22/10

There is overwhelming agreement among economists that the Second World War was responsible for decisively ending the Great Depression. When asked why the wars in Iran and Afghanistan are failing to make the same impact today, they often claim that the current conflicts are simply too small to be economically significant.

There is, of course, much irony here. No one argues that World War II, with its genocide, tens of millions of combatant casualties, and wholesale destruction of cities and regions, was good for humanity. But the improved American economy of the late 1940s seems to illustrate the benefits of large-scale government stimulus. This conundrum may be causing some to wonder how we could capture the good without the bad.

If one believes that government spending can create economic growth, then the answer should be simple: let's have a huge pretend war that rivals the Second World War in size. However, this time, let's not kill anyone.

Most economists believe that massive federal government spending on tanks, uniforms, bullets, and battleships used in World War II, as well the jobs created to actually wage the War, finally put to an end the paralyzing "deflationary trap" that had existed since the Crash of 1929. Many further argue that war spending succeeded where the much smaller New Deal programs of the 1930s had fallen short.

The numbers were indeed staggering. From 1940 to 1944, federal spending shot up more than six times from just $9.5 billion to $72 billion. This increase led to a corresponding $75 billion expansion of US nominal GDP, from $101 billion in 1940 to $175 billion by 1944. In other words, the war effort caused US GDP to increase close to 75% in just four years!

The War also wiped out the country's chronic unemployment problems. In 1940, eleven years after the Crash, unemployment was still at a stubbornly high 8.1%. By 1944, the figure had dropped to less than 1%. The fresh influx of government spending and deployment of working-age men overseas drew women into the workforce in unprecedented numbers, thereby greatly expanding economic output. In addition, government spending on wartime technology produced a great many breakthroughs that impacted consumer goods production for decades.
So, why not have the United States declare a fake war on Russia (a grudge match that is, after all, long overdue)? Both countries could immediately order full employment and revitalize their respective manufacturing sectors. Instead of live munitions, we could build all varieties of paint guns, water balloons, and stink bombs.

Once new armies have been drafted and properly outfitted with harmless weaponry, our two countries could stage exciting war games. Perhaps the US could mount an amphibious invasion of Kamchatka (just like in Risk!). As far as the destruction goes, let's just bring in Pixar and James Cameron. With limitless funds from Washington, these Hollywood magicians could surely produce simulated mayhem more spectacular than Pearl Harbor or D-Day. The spectacle could be televised — with advertising revenue going straight to the government.

The competition could be extended so that the winner of the pseudo-conflict could challenge another country to an all-out fake war. I'm sure France or Italy wouldn't mind putting a few notches in the 'win' column. The stimulus could be never-ending.

If the US can't find any willing international partners, we could always re-create the Civil War. Missed the Monitor vs. the Merrimack the first time? No worries, we'll do it again!

But to repeat the impact of World War II today would require a truly massive effort. Replicating the six-fold increase in the federal budget that was seen in the early 1940s would result in a nearly $20 trillion budget today. That equates to $67,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. Surely, the tremendous GDP growth created by such spending would make short work of the so-called Great Recession.

The big question is how to pay for it. To a degree that will surprise many, the US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans' personal savings. Both of those avenues are nowhere near as promising today as they were in 1941.

Current tax burdens are now much higher than they were before the War, so raising taxes today would be much more difficult. The "Victory Tax" of 1942 sharply raised income tax rates and allowed, for the first time in our nation's history, taxes to be withheld directly from paychecks. The hikes were originally intended to be temporary but have, of course, far outlasted their purpose. It would be unlikely that Americans would accept higher taxes today to fund a real war, let alone a pretend one.

That leaves savings, which was the War's primary source of funding. During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941—1945. Today, we don't have the savings to pay for our current spending, let alone any significant expansions. Even if we could convince the Chinese to loan us a large chunk of the $20 trillion (on top of the $1 trillion we already owe them), how could we ever pay them back?

If all of this seems absurd, that's because it is. War is a great way to destroy things, but it's a terrible way to grow an economy.

What is often overlooked is that war creates hardship, and not just for those who endure the violence. Yes, US production increased during the Second World War, but very little of that was of use to anyone but soldiers. Consumers can't use a bomber to take a family vacation.

The goal of an economy is to raise living standards. During the War, as productive output was diverted to the front, consumer goods were rationed back home and living standards fell. While it's easy to see the numerical results of wartime spending, it is much harder to see the civilian cutbacks that enabled it.

The truth is that we cannot spend our way out of our current crisis, no matter how great a spectacle we create. Even if we spent on infrastructure rather than war, we would still have no means to fund it, and there would still be no guarantee that the economy would grow as a result.

What we need is more savings, more free enterprise, more production, and a return of American competitiveness in the global economy. Yes, we need Rosie the Riveter — but this time she has to work in the private sector making things that don't explode. To do this, we need less government spending, not more.

Copyright © 2010 Euro Pacific Capital

i lold :D

kind of on topic: how would you come by an argumentation, typically found amongst anti-imperialistic leftists, who claim that wars are fought for money. i mean i can see that certain companies would make nice profits with a war but i dont see how america would profit from that (except you would claim that all of american government is bought by these companies (which is probablly true to a degree)

Well, it's more of a political investment than a monetary investment.  The military industrial complex is a huge lobbying organization and definitely has an effect on the big-picture of our policies as well as the administration of smaller portions, but I don't think that's the main impetus, I really think it's just to appeal to/get the votes of the hawks and saber-shaking nationalists on the left and the right out there, and there's plenty on either side.  

The whole "we need to forcibly impose democracy on every non-democratic country in the world" thing has been huge since Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations blah blah blah.  And I absolutely hate it, just as much as I hate hippies, and by the way, since the overwhelming majority of hippies vote Democrat, the joke's on them.  Democrats started all of the big wars of the 20th century and Republicans traditionally ended them.  This whole neoconservative, George Bush shit really boggles my mind because it's definitely the area where they act the most like leftists; Christian Republicans really do too, but the two groups tend very much to overlap.  A true conservative foreign policy relies on the building of defenses, not policing the fucking world, and retaliate only when attacked and when you can be assured that the retaliation will overwhelmingly only affect the party that engaged a country.  But that's not to say I'm a hippie pacifist who would allow enemies to walk all over a country, I just think that national defense operations should be for defense, ironically enough.  

Side note:  Good statistic - The US spends 7 times as much yearly (~$700 billion) as the next highest country (<$100 billion).  Gee, I wonder if that helps some socialist countries stay afloat since we provide their defense.

Quote from: Nailec on Jul 28, 2010, 12:29 AM
(except you would claim that all of american government is bought by these companies (which is probablly true to a degree)

I would like to slightly correct that statement.  I claim that the problem is not that the government is bought by these companies (which I mean it clearly is), but that it has both the ability to be bought, and the ability to give privileges to certain people and organizations over others.  If the government didn't have any say in the economy whatsoever (which I advocate with all of my heart), there would be no reason for corporations to lobby Washington to raise barriers of entry to their competition, among the myriad of other activities that go on.

i need your voice once more.

what about the belief that it is a good thing to buy stuff for more money ( to make sure it wasnt made by children) or to buy fair trade products?


i myself am a student and i dont see much sense in buying fair trade stuff because i have not much on the bank. for example, if i would buy fair trade coffee, that would only mean that i cant afford some other product which probablly is bad for another producer.

i hope u know what i mean and can give me some input

Umm for the most part it seems like your logic is pretty sound.  I dunno, if you're sure about the integrity of the company and all that and it's important to you, I say go for it.  But what you were saying about having to spend less on another product is also very true, it mostly just comes down to is if the amount you think it will actually help is worth paying X amount extra. 

I dunno if i answered your question, so I'll wax on about the topic a little bit more.  I am personally not against child labor if it is voluntary, in that no one is threatening them with violence to work for them, they're not slaves.  But if the fact that they have to work in order to sustain themselves and possibly their families is a factor of poverty, then I think there are worse consequences if you take away a source of income from an impoverished family.  That income could mean their starvation, which I personally would regard as more torturous than working in a factory or what have you.  That's not to say at all that I'm against people paying more than the bare minimum or donating money or going to help these children, I just think it's crap to say that earning an income and supporting yourself is worse than starvation.  But think about it, the first factories built in industrialized society were shit, probably worse than the ones in these poor countries because of the technology, but you can't just all of a sudden put up a Japan or a Germany or whatever other modernized economy.  The capital investment needs to start from the ground up, and the solution to the problem is as close to completely unfettered trade as is politically possible so that countries can get access to the wonderful technology around the world.  So by that token, the ideologue in me says you should use the difference in price to support organizations that support global free trade.  But make sure it's actual free trade, for a true free trade policy is just two words: free trade.

freetradefreetradefreetrade

So, yesterday was a sad day.  Peter Schiff lost the Republican Primary in Connecticut to the wife of Vince McMahon, who set a record for spending in Connecticut at $25 million of her own money, and she hasn't even spent on the general election yet.  So that coupled with a complete media blackout (it was a 3-way race and the only media to ever mention anyone but the other 2 candidates were the local newspapers) made it pretty expected that he wasn't going to take the race, but he did get 23%, which is great for a self-financed non-billionaire.

On that note, I thought I'd post this video called "Why The Meltdown Should Have Surprised No One" by Mr. Schiff from last year.  It's kind of talking about the whole macroeconomic picture of the globe since the 1990s with an emphasis on United States' policies.  It's so fucking good, and he doesn't have any notes at all, he just says this all from his head.  The amount of knowledge he's got up in his dome is just astounding.  Definitely check it out.

Why the Meltdown Should Have Surprised No One | Peter Schiff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc#)

Vince McMahon? General Manager of the WWE?

Yessir.  Deep pockets if I've ever heard of them.  I followed the entire race, his scumbag wife only did one debate the entire time with the most cookie-cutter, political responses you could possibly give and just let her money and spokespeople do the talking for her for the rest of the race between the other two candidates, when even with the complete blackout, he was only 6% under the next guy..  Meanwhile, Schiff busted his fucking ass, raised around $2.5 million from individual people donating from around the country (myself included), and the media still would only talk about it like it was a 2-way race.  Not that I should've expected anything different, it's just truly disgusting that we as a country finally had a chance to send someone that would make a difference and once again, all people cared about was wealth measured in paper dollars.

People vote based on hype, not policies. Just look at who our fucking president is. It's disgusting.

Im calling on Republicans to take back the House, picking up 46 seats... Fuck, at leas I hope they do!  At least they couldn't pass Cap and Tax then.  Global Warming is a joke!  ;)

That'd be great! I love creationism and abstinence only education! And build that dagnabit wall to keep them mexicans outta our country. They tuuuk errr jurrbs!!!

Bit of a stretch, I know, but please....

Quote from: one weak on Oct 12, 2010, 12:31 AM
That'd be great! I love creationism and abstinence only education! And build that dagnabit wall to keep them mexicans outta our country. They tuuuk errr jurrbs!!!

Bit of a stretch, I know, but please....

Lol.

Quote from: one weak on Oct 12, 2010, 12:31 AM
That'd be great! I love creationism and abstinence only education! And build that dagnabit wall to keep them mexicans outta our country. They tuuuk errr jurrbs!!!

Bit of a stretch, I know, but please....

Yeah, I too am concerned that if we just elect Republicans they might start acting just like liberals, a la George Bush et al.  I just don't want them to come in talking all free market, private property, etc but then espousing those typical left-wing, evangelical values and then ruining the free market/capitalism name.

I still couldn't be more stoked on Ron Paul, that fucking guy is the shit.  Not to mention he's probably more devout of a Christian than most of these social justice Republican types, and he doesn't espouse any of those "they took our jarbs" or creationism shits. I'd also argue he's one of peaceful Islam's greatest allies as opposed to many Republicans.

Controlling a country as big as the U.S efficiently is impossible, it's a case of muddling through, trial and error, learning from past mistakes. Present political parties are made scape goats without fail, the next presidential canditates on the converibelt will point out the mistakes of the last in order to get into power. This endless cycle will continue but in my opinion it's a perfectly natural evolution.

The running of the country will gradually improve over time but there will always be growing challenges, history is already showing this. Each generation will discuss the pressing matters that are relevant to their place in this jigsaw, we now fret about banking institutions and wars, all of this is nothing new. Probably the most individual issues of our generation is the threat of global terrorism, that and the drying up of energy resources, both of which governments world wide are trying to get a handle on, it will be a messy process, that is for certain.

I hate it how you're all into politics and economy basically.
Metaphysics RULEZ

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Oct 12, 2010, 12:03 PM

Quote from: one weak on Oct 12, 2010, 12:31 AM
That'd be great! I love creationism and abstinence only education! And build that dagnabit wall to keep them mexicans outta our country. They tuuuk errr jurrbs!!!

Bit of a stretch, I know, but please....

Yeah, I too am concerned that if we just elect Republicans they might start acting just like liberals, a la George Bush et al.  I just don't want them to come in talking all free market, private property, etc but then espousing those typical left-wing, evangelical values and then ruining the free market/capitalism name.

I still couldn't be more stoked on Ron Paul, that fucking guy is the shit.  Not to mention he's probably more devout of a Christian than most of these social justice Republican types, and he doesn't espouse any of those "they took our jarbs" or creationism shits. I'd also argue he's one of peaceful Islam's greatest allies as opposed to many Republicans.

True story.  That and the rent is too dam high

Picture STOLEN!

(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs894.snc4/72735_1661627379437_1199785780_31826115_5483429_n.jpg)

That pic belongs to the people as far as I'm concerned

That's very gracious of you. Everyone deserves to know how high the rent is/how to have an AMAZING beard.

a nice definition of communism i found. i just want to show some of you guys, that not every commie out there loves stalin and mao and seeks to tax the shit out of you.

i imaged that someone like alvarez could sit down at a table with a communist as described below, and then tell him, why his assumptions of capital are perverted by false capitalism.

QuoteCommunism, anti-German criticism and Israel
An interview with Stephan Grigat by Jens Misera
(First published in ,,Israel Nachrichten", the German daily newspaper in Tel Aviv in 2004; first published
in English at http://info.interactivist.net (http://info.interactivist.net) in 2005)

Jens Misera: You are a member of the Viennese group "Café Critique", a pool of anti-German communists.
What is your definition of communism?

Stephan Grigat: Communism is a concept which cannot be defined in terms of the established social
sciences. Strictly speaking, communism is nothing more than the movement of materialistic criticism. And
communists, who detest propaganda, should refuse to deliver too detailed descriptions of a possible
communist society. Not because one could not imagine a society beyond the utilization imperative of
capital and the domination imperative of the state, but rather because of the simple reason that people
should talk about and criticise the existing reality in the first place. People who are only interested in how
the bananas will come to Europe and who will remove the dirt from the streets in communism – questions
which appear to be rather strange, by the way, in view of the fact that approximately two thirds of humanity
live in misery – those people don't find fault with the existing system anyway. But criticizing the existing
also basically implies, how it should be instead: Communism is not about a dictatorship of people over
people, but rather about a dictatorship of the will and the wishes of people over the objective-material
conditions of their existence. Therefore, materialistic criticism is about creating social conditions, which
enable people for the first time, to plan their lives self-confidently, that is, beyond the utilization imperative
and domination imperative of state and capital. This is not paradise on earth, where there are no problems
and contradictions any more, but a society established according to the requirements of reason, where no
one, anywhere in the world, must starve because he does not have enough means. Communism, in this
sense, has nothing to do with either traditional marxism nor with alternative renunciation ideologies. It is
neither about an equal distribution of misery, nor about consumption renunciation. "Luxury for everybody"
is much closer to Marx's intentions. Communist criticism does not want to create pre-bourgeois
circumstances, neither concerning productivity (with all necessary criticism of a technology developed
under the capital relation), nor concerning the emancipation of the individual from the chains of archaic
communities, which had begun just then. Communist criticism does not accuse capitalism of creating
luxury goods, but rather that such things are withheld from most people, although that would be not
necessary. Withheld not through the evil will of some individuals or the conscious acting of a class
(although this may play a role), but rather through the logic of a system, that is not oriented towards
people's needs, but towards the realization of capital. Communist criticism does not accuse bourgeois
societies of creating certain freedom rights and individual rights, but rather points out that a society that
requires such rights remains a violent society. We do not argue against the fact that the bourgeois citizen is
promised the pursuit of happiness (Glücksversprechen), but rather try to point out its ideological essence
and to clarify that this promise actually cannot be kept in a bourgeois society.

Yeah, i'll respond to that when i get a bit more free time for sho.

So who's gotten their vote on today? I was literally the first person at my polling place, i felt wicked cool :)

i did. there was actually a line this morning when i went. froze my ass off.

Voted this morning.  I just hope Boxer goes down. I hate that bitch.  Probably not happening tho. 

Quote from: bright lights, big city on Nov 02, 2010, 07:39 PM
i did. there was actually a line this morning when i went. froze my ass off.

You mean it's not just dead people that vote in Chicago? :P

Quote from: E-Money on Nov 02, 2010, 07:49 PM
Voted this morning.  I just hope Boxer goes down. I hate that bitch.  Probably not happening tho. 

It's California, and Boxer has a good rep here. I'm not excited about Boxer, but all the other candidates didn't do much for me, either. Fiorina is way too conservative for California.

I was not excited about the candidates for governor, either and I don't think Jerry Brown will do much for the state. Whitman would have fucked California to the ground. There is a slight possibility Brown won't fuck California to the ground.  I wish I could have confidence in at least one of the candidates. And no surprise, pot will not be legalized here. LAME.

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Nov 02, 2010, 10:01 PM

Quote from: bright lights, big city on Nov 02, 2010, 07:39 PM
i did. there was actually a line this morning when i went. froze my ass off.

You mean it's not just dead people that vote in Chicago? :P

hahhaha

wait, there's a candidate named boxer?

Quote from: alvarezbassist17 on Nov 02, 2010, 10:01 PM

Quote from: bright lights, big city on Nov 02, 2010, 07:39 PM
i did. there was actually a line this morning when i went. froze my ass off.

You mean it's not just dead people that vote in Chicago? :P

dang, my boy Giannoulias could've used some of those old Chicago tactics to win the Senate gig.

i keep reading in the news media here that the republicans are gaining ground.

Quote from: chick de la lynch on Nov 03, 2010, 04:25 AM

Quote from: E-Money on Nov 02, 2010, 07:49 PM
Voted this morning.  I just hope Boxer goes down. I hate that bitch.  Probably not happening tho.  

It's California, and Boxer has a good rep here. I'm not excited about Boxer, but all the other candidates didn't do much for me, either. Fiorina is way too conservative for California.

I was not excited about the candidates for governor, either and I don't think Jerry Brown will do much for the state. Whitman would have fucked California to the ground. There is a slight possibility Brown won't fuck California to the ground.  I wish I could have confidence in at least one of the candidates. And no surprise, pot will not be legalized here. LAME.

Boxer is just part of the problem.  California has 12% unemployment and is 42 Billion in debt.  They simply cannot afford to continue on the path they're taking.  The economy will fold under Brown's watch, and our own government most likely have to bail them out.  I'm bummed about prop 19...

Well, Minnesota proved again that they will not learn.  We voted in Mark "Premature Evacuation" Dayton today.  Like sweet, MN is already one of the highest taxed states in the nation, and he wants to add 2-3 new income tax brackets, as well as a new property tax bracket, in addition to disallowing people from having residency in low-tax states to avoid the income tax, a myriad of corporate taxes, and, get this, a state-run casino to raise revenue.  For fuck's sake.  I'm sending my resumes elsewhere, not joking in the least.  We've already been shedding homegrown businesses like a banshee, and now I'm sure the plague of people coming here from Chicago, etc. for illegal welfare benefits is just going to get all the worse.  While there was a lot of good news today, what a sad day for Minnesota; I had no idea the unions and farmers had bought so many people off.

Quote from: E-Money on Nov 03, 2010, 05:22 AM

Quote from: chick de la lynch on Nov 03, 2010, 04:25 AM

Quote from: E-Money on Nov 02, 2010, 07:49 PM
Voted this morning.  I just hope Boxer goes down. I hate that bitch.  Probably not happening tho. 

It's California, and Boxer has a good rep here. I'm not excited about Boxer, but all the other candidates didn't do much for me, either. Fiorina is way too conservative for California.

I was not excited about the candidates for governor, either and I don't think Jerry Brown will do much for the state. Whitman would have fucked California to the ground. There is a slight possibility Brown won't fuck California to the ground.  I wish I could have confidence in at least one of the candidates. And no surprise, pot will not be legalized here. LAME.

Boxer is just part of the problem.  California has 12% unemployment and is 42 Billion in debt.  They simply cannot afford to continue on the path they're taking.  The economy will fold under Brown's watch, and our own government most likely have to bail them out.  I'm bummed about prop 19...

Oh, don't forget about that lovely half a trillion dollars in unfunded pension liabilities.

Quote from: chick de la lynch on Nov 03, 2010, 04:25 AM

Quote from: E-Money on Nov 02, 2010, 07:49 PM
Voted this morning.  I just hope Boxer goes down. I hate that bitch.  Probably not happening tho. 

It's California, and Boxer has a good rep here. I'm not excited about Boxer, but all the other candidates didn't do much for me, either. Fiorina is way too conservative for California.

I was not excited about the candidates for governor, either and I don't think Jerry Brown will do much for the state. Whitman would have fucked California to the ground. There is a slight possibility Brown won't fuck California to the ground.  I wish I could have confidence in at least one of the candidates. And no surprise, pot will not be legalized here. LAME.

Can you be more specific at all?  I don't profess to be an expert on California politics, but I really don't get in what sense you mean fucked to the ground, and I certainly don't see how someone with some sense of fiscal restraint would do that worse than the governor-elect.  Care to enlighten me?

out of like 4 million votes in Illinois for the governor race, only 8,000 separate Brady/Quinn. they're already fucking talking about potentially doing a recount.

"U.S. is not greatest country ever"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44500.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44500.html)