>>>if you could control other people, take their things, make them do shit for you, well, a lot of people would and convince themselves they're owed or it's "right." >>>
Your ideas intrigue me. I quit my job, signed-up for welfare, food stamps, and free healthcare. Please send me your newsletter.
Why work when I can just be a parasite sucking money from others' paychecks? Keep up the good work my fellow Americans.
Does the AG have bodyguards? Freedom CAN be restored. "From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be wated with ther blood of tyrants and patriots. It is its nature fertilizer." = Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican Party founder, author of the Declaration of American independence, and the statute of Virginia for religious freedom
>>>>>Just imagine how much healthier our Republic would be if, instead of 60% socialists, 20% democrats and 20% republicans >> >>There, fixed it for ya.
Yeah. You "fixed" it like a dunce. There are no Socialist Party members in the Congress. The current makeup is ~60% Democrats and 40% Republicans.
My point was that Congress would operate a lot better if the 2008 election had resulted in (for example): 40% Democrats, 30% Republicans, 20% Libertarians, and 10% Socialists, because then no party could dominate.
No warrant; no search. No warrant; no wiretaps. No warrant; no entrance into private homes.
That may piss you pro-big-government tyrants off, but that's what the Supreme Law of the land says and it will continue to say that until you can convince people to amend the Constitution and strike-out that law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLpSY8d3gRc - "ACLU, Flex Your Rights, and ACORN volunteers go door-to-door in Southeast DC educating residents about their 4th Amendment right to refuse warrantless police searches."
Then vote Constitution Party instead. They don't support warrantless searches of any kind.
Also there's more offices than just the president. A third party will probably never win the top office, but I beat we could win enough seats in Congress so that neither the Rs or Ds would have a majority. The duopoly will have been broken.
The law is not a matter of opinion. The law is clear. Warrantless wiretaps are illegal, and anyone who endorses them is a criminal. First it was Bush who was the criminal, now AG Holder, and if Obama supports his AG then he too will be a criminal. The law is the law.
All it means is that they agree with him. "Bush is an enemy of conservative principles, and we need a new president in his place." - Rush Limbaugh. "Ditto." - listeners. It's just saying they agree with Rush's views.
I know a lot of fan of Rachel Maddow who are also Dittoheads. They agree with her views. Nothing wrong with that.
>>>It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.
You're right that spying needs to be secret, but you're wrong when you say these warrantless searches should be allowed to continue. It's illegal. The government is a criminal and guilty of breaking the law, just as surely as microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly. We punished microsoft, and now we must punish the United States leadership.
No man; no organization is above the law, or the will of the people, the ultimate source of all authority.
>>>We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.
We all need to learn their techniques. The future war won't be fought with guns, but with computer spying and hacking. We need to become like "augur" in Earth: Final Conflict.
I'm not surprised. Republicans and Democrats are just two halves of the same tyranny. They both desire power to control the people, and damn the constitution, and damn the requirements for searches.
Next time you walk into a voting booth, and elect a congresscritter, choose one that is neither R or D. We need a Congress that has no clear majority, due to the presence of third parties. Just imagine how much healthier our Republic would be if, instead of 60% democrats and 40% republicans, the ratio was 40% democrats, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 10% socialists. No party could dominate.
...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....."
Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.
Incorrect. Fascism is simply a "third way" that is neither private ownership (capitalism) nor government ownership (communism), but instead private ownership with government CEOs pulling the strings. It's intended to prevent the abuses. It's also sometimes called corporatism.
What you are discussing with disenfrachisement of voters is merely a return to 1800s America when blacks and women could not vote. Obviously I don't support such a thing. All I said was, "If you don't know who to vote for, because you don't know the people or their issues, then you should probably stay home." You are still free to vote, but you shouldn't. Voting blindly, picking Bush because you have no idea who that Kerry fellow is, is irresponsible.
AND: "'From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''.....
"In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups."
You didn't watch any of the videos, did you? This crisis could have been prevented in 2005, via Republican-led regulation of these very things you discuss, but the *Democrats* stopped it. You can hear their own words in the videos.
>>>Actually almost all the spending of the last 30 years was done by the idiots reagan and bush jr.
I don't accept your premise. First-off why only limit the last 30 years? Because you know we only had one Democrat during that time (Clinton) and he inherited a booming economy. Let's look at the last 100 years, so we can include the big spenders like Woodrow Wilson who forced us into a war the American people did not want, FDR who spent money like crazy (and imprisoned farmers who were simply trying to grow corn/feed their families), plus Kenndery and LBJ and Carter.
And finally Barak Obama who is going to increase our national debt from $130,000 per home to $200,000 by the end of second term (2016). Even Reagan never spent like that.
No, it would still allow moderates (like you and me) to vote, but would discourage people who willfully don't follow the issues. If you don't know the issues, then stay home.
How is it that, with such easy access to information, people still think the crash had anything to do with business? It was the Congress under Bill Clinton that mandated banks sell homes to people without money ("no money down" mortgages), and banks that said "no sorry you don't have enough cash" were subject to prosecution to racial discrimination. So rather than be prosecuted by Congress, the banks just said "yes" to everything, thereby created an artificial housing bubble which eventually burst.
Also like it or not, you'd be jobless without business. Don't believe me? Go to Michigan and try to find a job. Even during the boom (mid-2000s) Michigan was in sad shape because without businesses in that state, there's no place to work.
BTW you probably won't believe my first paragraph, so here's the videos so you can see yourself. Even after Bush, McCain, and other republicans tried to fix the impending housing bubble, Democrats refused to listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohp5IX3y098 The Obama and Housing Bubble connection. - Okay well you know how to search youtube as easily as I can. There are dozens of these videos, showing the Republicans argue to end the Clinton-era HUD program for "no money down" mortgages, but the Democrats stubbornly insisted the program should continue.
A job at Amway may not be great, but at least it's a job. Better than Michigan's current condition of joblessness. Oh well. Eventually the people there will get smart, like I did, and leave. I was in MI for one year and although it was a nice little city, I decided there was no future there.
It's funny how that didn't happen in the 1800s. We had all kinds of parties in Congress, like the Anti Masonic, Nullifier, Whig, Conservative, Law and Order, American, Free Soil, Greenback, Labor, Populist, Liberal Republican, and so on.
Today's Congress has none of them. Not one. What's changed? The Lie. "Don't vote third party," is the lie. Third parties won seats in Congress in the past and most-certainly can win seats today.
That's because the politicians encourage everyone to vote. That's because the politicians know most people have no clue - they just pick the name they recognize. Most of the time the name they recognize is the incumbent - "Hmmmm. Bush or Kerry. I never heard of Kerry, so I'll just pick Bush."
What we should be doing is encouraging people Not to vote, unless they feel very strongly about the person. It would weed-out those "I don't know who I'm gonna vote for" persons who really have no clue.
You should have elected the Republican. He was a businessman who, even in Michigan's power economy, managed to succeed and had plans to use his contacts to bring more business to Michigan, so everyone could get jobs.
Instead you re-elected Granholm, who had done nothing her first four years and hasn't done anything the second four years. She's just perpetuated the "do nothing and government will take care of you like a big daddy" welfare state. She's encouraged sloth not industriousness.
Corporations are assholes. Thieves. Degenerates. Scammers. (Yes even the so-called good ones occasionally scam the citizens. See amazon and the erased Kindles.) I've reached the conclusion that as of this year 2009, individuals may still be good (they have morals), and single-owner companies might still be good (again, constrained by morality), but corporations absolutely can not be trusted.
The only reason you defend NPR/PBS and their pro-liberal bias is because you agree with them: Governments should run every facet of your life, even down to how you arrange your home office/den. (Do a google - OSHA wants to regulate your home office.)
Slashdot Mirror
>>>if you could control other people, take their things, make them do shit for you, well, a lot of people would and convince themselves they're owed or it's "right."
>>>
Your ideas intrigue me.
I quit my job, signed-up for welfare, food stamps, and free healthcare.
Please send me your newsletter.
Why work when I can just be a parasite sucking money from others' paychecks? Keep up the good work my fellow Americans.
Does the AG have bodyguards? Freedom CAN be restored. "From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be wated with ther blood of tyrants and patriots. It is its nature fertilizer." = Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican Party founder, author of the Declaration of American independence, and the statute of Virginia for religious freedom
>>>>>Just imagine how much healthier our Republic would be if, instead of 60% socialists, 20% democrats and 20% republicans
>>
>>There, fixed it for ya.
Yeah. You "fixed" it like a dunce. There are no Socialist Party members in the Congress. The current makeup is ~60% Democrats and 40% Republicans.
My point was that Congress would operate a lot better if the 2008 election had resulted in (for example): 40% Democrats, 30% Republicans, 20% Libertarians, and 10% Socialists, because then no party could dominate.
Repeat after me:
No warrant; no search.
No warrant; no wiretaps.
No warrant; no entrance into private homes.
That may piss you pro-big-government tyrants off, but that's what the Supreme Law of the land says and it will continue to say that until you can convince people to amend the Constitution and strike-out that law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLpSY8d3gRc - "ACLU, Flex Your Rights, and ACORN volunteers go door-to-door in Southeast DC educating residents about their 4th Amendment right to refuse warrantless police searches."
Then vote Constitution Party instead. They don't support warrantless searches of any kind.
Also there's more offices than just the president. A third party will probably never win the top office, but I beat we could win enough seats in Congress so that neither the Rs or Ds would have a majority. The duopoly will have been broken.
The law is not a matter of opinion. The law is clear. Warrantless wiretaps are illegal, and anyone who endorses them is a criminal. First it was Bush who was the criminal, now AG Holder, and if Obama supports his AG then he too will be a criminal. The law is the law.
All it means is that they agree with him. "Bush is an enemy of conservative principles, and we need a new president in his place." - Rush Limbaugh. "Ditto." - listeners. It's just saying they agree with Rush's views.
I know a lot of fan of Rachel Maddow who are also Dittoheads. They agree with her views. Nothing wrong with that.
>>>It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.
You're right that spying needs to be secret, but you're wrong when you say these warrantless searches should be allowed to continue. It's illegal. The government is a criminal and guilty of breaking the law, just as surely as microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly. We punished microsoft, and now we must punish the United States leadership.
No man; no organization is above the law, or the will of the people, the ultimate source of all authority.
>>>We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.
We all need to learn their techniques. The future war won't be fought with guns, but with computer spying and hacking. We need to become like "augur" in Earth: Final Conflict.
Does the AG have bodyguards?
Does Nancy Pelosi have bodyguards?
I'm not surprised. Republicans and Democrats are just two halves of the same tyranny. They both desire power to control the people, and damn the constitution, and damn the requirements for searches.
Next time you walk into a voting booth, and elect a congresscritter, choose one that is neither R or D. We need a Congress that has no clear majority, due to the presence of third parties. Just imagine how much healthier our Republic would be if, instead of 60% democrats and 40% republicans, the ratio was 40% democrats, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 10% socialists. No party could dominate.
...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....."
Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.
Incorrect. Fascism is simply a "third way" that is neither private ownership (capitalism) nor government ownership (communism), but instead private ownership with government CEOs pulling the strings. It's intended to prevent the abuses. It's also sometimes called corporatism.
What you are discussing with disenfrachisement of voters is merely a return to 1800s America when blacks and women could not vote. Obviously I don't support such a thing. All I said was, "If you don't know who to vote for, because you don't know the people or their issues, then you should probably stay home." You are still free to vote, but you shouldn't. Voting blindly, picking Bush because you have no idea who that Kerry fellow is, is irresponsible.
AND: "'From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''.....
"In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups."
Thanks Bill Clinton.
Thanks a lot.
You didn't watch any of the videos, did you? This crisis could have been prevented in 2005, via Republican-led regulation of these very things you discuss, but the *Democrats* stopped it. You can hear their own words in the videos.
>>>Actually almost all the spending of the last 30 years was done by the idiots reagan and bush jr.
I don't accept your premise. First-off why only limit the last 30 years? Because you know we only had one Democrat during that time (Clinton) and he inherited a booming economy. Let's look at the last 100 years, so we can include the big spenders like Woodrow Wilson who forced us into a war the American people did not want, FDR who spent money like crazy (and imprisoned farmers who were simply trying to grow corn/feed their families), plus Kenndery and LBJ and Carter.
And finally Barak Obama who is going to increase our national debt from $130,000 per home to $200,000 by the end of second term (2016). Even Reagan never spent like that.
There was a reduction of the national debt during the 90s-era Republican Congress (1997, 98 and 99 to be specific).
No, it would still allow moderates (like you and me) to vote, but would discourage people who willfully don't follow the issues. If you don't know the issues, then stay home.
How is it that, with such easy access to information, people still think the crash had anything to do with business? It was the Congress under Bill Clinton that mandated banks sell homes to people without money ("no money down" mortgages), and banks that said "no sorry you don't have enough cash" were subject to prosecution to racial discrimination. So rather than be prosecuted by Congress, the banks just said "yes" to everything, thereby created an artificial housing bubble which eventually burst.
Also like it or not, you'd be jobless without business. Don't believe me? Go to Michigan and try to find a job. Even during the boom (mid-2000s) Michigan was in sad shape because without businesses in that state, there's no place to work.
BTW you probably won't believe my first paragraph, so here's the videos so you can see yourself. Even after Bush, McCain, and other republicans tried to fix the impending housing bubble, Democrats refused to listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE Congressman Frank says the housing bubble is a-okay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64 (time stamp 2:00) "to take greater risks with families that can not afford mortgages"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM (one Democrat after another telling Bush/McCain they have nothing to wrroy about)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohp5IX3y098 The Obama and Housing Bubble connection. - Okay well you know how to search youtube as easily as I can. There are dozens of these videos, showing the Republicans argue to end the Clinton-era HUD program for "no money down" mortgages, but the Democrats stubbornly insisted the program should continue.
A job at Amway may not be great, but at least it's a job. Better than Michigan's current condition of joblessness. Oh well. Eventually the people there will get smart, like I did, and leave. I was in MI for one year and although it was a nice little city, I decided there was no future there.
It's funny how that didn't happen in the 1800s. We had all kinds of parties in Congress, like the Anti Masonic, Nullifier, Whig, Conservative, Law and Order, American, Free Soil, Greenback, Labor, Populist, Liberal Republican, and so on.
Today's Congress has none of them. Not one. What's changed? The Lie. "Don't vote third party," is the lie. Third parties won seats in Congress in the past and most-certainly can win seats today.
That's because the politicians encourage everyone to vote.
That's because the politicians know most people have no clue - they just pick the name they recognize.
Most of the time the name they recognize is the incumbent - "Hmmmm. Bush or Kerry. I never heard of Kerry, so I'll just pick Bush."
What we should be doing is encouraging people Not to vote, unless they feel very strongly about the person. It would weed-out those "I don't know who I'm gonna vote for" persons who really have no clue.
You should have elected the Republican. He was a businessman who, even in Michigan's power economy, managed to succeed and had plans to use his contacts to bring more business to Michigan, so everyone could get jobs.
Instead you re-elected Granholm, who had done nothing her first four years and hasn't done anything the second four years. She's just perpetuated the "do nothing and government will take care of you like a big daddy" welfare state. She's encouraged sloth not industriousness.
Corporations are assholes. Thieves. Degenerates. Scammers. (Yes even the so-called good ones occasionally scam the citizens. See amazon and the erased Kindles.) I've reached the conclusion that as of this year 2009, individuals may still be good (they have morals), and single-owner companies might still be good (again, constrained by morality), but corporations absolutely can not be trusted.
Corporations are almost as bad as governments.
The only reason you defend NPR/PBS and their pro-liberal bias is because you agree with them: Governments should run every facet of your life, even down to how you arrange your home office/den. (Do a google - OSHA wants to regulate your home office.)
BTW thanks for the links.