What I said has nothing to do with the US constitution. It's a legal principle that originates from ancient Rome. There's real reasons behind it.
We don't prefer empty homes over occupied homes. We prefer freedom. The freedom to decide about one's own property. It isn't a civilized state that dictates what people should and shouldn't do with their property.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Well then the legal principle is wrong in my opinion. It is cruel and nearly sadistic to have empty homes and tell the homeless they cannot live in them.
I'm confused by this part. Why can't people get into these programs? I'm talking about employment agencies, work for the dole schemes, there are even some courses where they pay you to learn in Australia. There are free counsellors that can help with mental or drug problems. I don't know how bad it is in the US but here corruption is minimal, and people who get caught are dealt with harshly. There's so much help out there if you know where to look and put in the effort to start fixing your life.
I thought you meant programs like workmans comp, unemployment, etc. People use the programs to get jobs, but due to the large number of unemployed as well as the fact that companies are simply not hiring nearly enough, there are many issues.
What I was meaning is during the dozens of weeks that many bread bringers find themselves out of work anymore, they cannot get into programs to help stay afloat (And for example, pay their house bill) because of the saturation of scum that manipulate the system so they don't have to pay their bills and still live relatively comfortable.
I'm gonna throw my opinion in here. While I do agree that homelessness is tragic and sad, It shouldn't be my responsibility to make sure everyone has a home or is clothed and feed. That would be nearly impossible and incredibly expensive. The problem with providing everyone with free housing and or food is that it would promote a lifestyle that simply is not what our nation was founded on. I subscribe to Objectivism, basically why should my happiness and well being be dependent on someone else? True freedom is the ability to not have to rely on anyone else, and no one having to rely on you for their well being.
Freedom - exemption from external control, interference or regulation.
What i'm saying is, if a man was to truly be free then he would have no one controlling or influencing his decisions. I'm not really sure what you mean about the responsibility arguement.
In your statement, "By censoring body that would prevent him from making wrong decisions" do you mean jail?
That would be one of the many censoring bodies that is in the United States. (For a free nation, we certainly have very, very few freedoms. )
Look, I don't mean to say take a house from one person and give it to another. I simply mean that when these companies (ie banks) take houses from people because said people either lost their job due to the economy, or got a disease, or whatever, and the companies (ie banks) take the houses, that in my opinion is cruel, heartless, and simply wrong. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the oddball and nobody else has a problem with good men and women who were down on their luck and lost their house and now has to care for their kids while they live under a bridge or something, maybe it's just me, but I think it's cruel.
That would be one of the many censoring bodies that is in the United States. (For a free nation, we certainly have very, very few freedoms.
Well, in my opinion, we have a lot of freedoms.
I mean, there are certain freedoms that we have withheld, as Americans, that make no sense at all, but those pale in comparison to the ones that we were granted when this country was first founded. I still think that homosexual people should be able to freely marry if they want and I still think that prohibition does far more harm than good, but I'm just glad that we have freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to nonviolent protest, and freedom of religion.
I just think it's sad when certain groups of people are allowed to rule over certain groups of people. Like not allowing homosexuals to marry is just completely unfair and unfounded. Not allowing people to smoke marijuana, but waving tobacco and alcohol under our noses is completely hypocritical and it promotes dangerous drug cartels who profit from an illegal drug market.
There are certain freedoms that shouldn't be withheld and I wish that we, as citizens, had the ability to free ourselves from this sort of oppression. But we're Americans and we wouldn't know a good thing if it came out of the fucking sky. We're stubborn in our beliefs and we're completely self-righteous. We will never achieve true progress unless we decide what is best for the country as a country and I'm sure that, unless we get new party leadership, that will never happen. As long as we have Republicans who hate Democrats and vice versa, there won't be any true progress.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
That was a matter of national security. While I know that everybody I know cheered on Assange, you can't deny that he was treading on dangerous ground. Those documents are classified for a reason. He released over 30 years worth of diplomati wiretaps.
Anyway, we have freedom of the press. You can't deny it, I don't care how hard you try.
Before or after the lady got arrested for dancing.
We had it before and we still have it after. And I don't recall that particular instance (I don't deny that it happened), but this is something that we have to take up with the cities. If anything, it lies on the hands of the officers who arrested her. When I google "woman arrested for dancing," the resulting page is dominated with "woman arrested for dancing naked in cemetery" and "woman arrested for dancing in front of Jefferson memorial."
Anyway, we have freedom of speech. You can't deny it and, again, I don't care how hard you try. Go watch Bill O' Reilly and tell me that we don't have freedom of the speech or freedom of the press.
Too easy.
Again, this is just your opinion. The last time I remembered, the Westboro Baptist Church hasn't had any trouble picketing the funerals of soldiers. Sure, people are going to try to make it so they can't (I mean, who wouldn't?), but they're still going to do it and the law won't do anything to stop them. If they weren't allowed, they wouldn't do it. Take into account all the "Tea Party" protests there have been in the past two years. If our government were so against non-violent protests, then how come these people weren't immediately silenced with their "END THE FED" signs and their portrayal of Barack Obama as Adolf Hitler? It's not like this is the 1930's when Herbert Hoover sicked the tanks on the Bonus Army.
As long as you are part of the correct religion.
People might not like you because of your religion, but the state can't deny Jewish people having Synagogues or Islamic people having Mosques right in the middle of a town.
I corrected that for you. Either new parties or a new government.
What I meant by "party leadership" is what you exactly put. We elect our party representatives. I could say that the executive branch is led by a Democrat and both the judicial and legislative branches are led by both Republicans and Democrats.
I mean NEW PARTY leadership, not new PARTY LEADERSHIP. I would love to see the American people just flush out both parties and elect some Green Party representatives, but that will probably never happen. This war has been waging since we called those same parties Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
That was a matter of national security. While I know that everybody I know cheered on Assange, you can't deny that he was treading on dangerous ground. Those documents are classified for a reason. He released over 30 years worth of diplomati wiretaps.
Anyway, we have freedom of the press. You can't deny it, I don't care how hard you try.
That's a copout, and you know it.
We only have the freedom of the press when our masters deem it positive for themselves.
Before or after the lady got arrested for dancing.
We had it before and we still have it after. And I don't recall that particular instance (I don't deny that it happened), but this is something that we have to take up with the cities. If anything, it lies on the hands of the officers who arrested her. When I google "woman arrested for dancing," the resulting page is dominated with "woman arrested for dancing naked in cemetery" and "woman arrested for dancing in front of Jefferson memorial."
Anyway, we have freedom of speech. You can't deny it and, again, I don't care how hard you try. Go watch Bill O' Reilly and tell me that we don't have freedom of the speech or freedom of the press.
Yes, the Jefferson Memorial lady. It's perfectly acceptable to speak out, as long as the overlords are happy with what you are saying. Otherwise it's off to the jail with you.
Thankfully we have people who will protest (Like the dance protest at the Jefferson memorial for the lady). I can only hope that when bullets start firing at these innocent civilians, people like yourself will admit you were wrong. Well, correction, they have already been firing, but that's beside the point.
Again, this is just your opinion. The last time I remembered, the Westboro Baptist Church hasn't had any trouble picketing the funerals of soldiers. Sure, people are going to try to make it so they can't (I mean, who wouldn't?), but they're still going to do it and the law won't do anything to stop them. If they weren't allowed, they wouldn't do it. Take into account all the "Tea Party" protests there have been in the past two years. If our government were so against non-violent protests, then how come these people weren't immediately silenced with their "END THE FED" signs and their portrayal of Barack Obama as Adolf Hitler? It's not like this is the 1930's when Herbert Hoover sicked the tanks on the Bonus Army.
For the Westboro Baptist Church, remember, still Christian, still the right faith, so it's acceptable. If a Muslim were to picket funerals, or a Hindu, or an Atheist, or any other faith, head to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
As for the Tea Party, you have to understand, the political side that is for more visual use of violence is for the Tea Party. If the Tea Party were more Liberal, I have no doubt the "march on washington" would of ended with SWAT teams "dispersing" the crowds.
People might not like you because of your religion, but the state can't deny Jewish people having Synagogues or Islamic people having Mosques right in the middle of a town.
You mean the government cannot do things like put a christian cross for the 9/11 memorial and call it "secular", right? Because they did. Just sayin'.
I corrected that for you. Either new parties or a new government.
What I meant by "party leadership" is what you exactly put. We elect our party representatives. I could say that the executive branch is led by a Democrat and both the judicial and legislative branches are led by both Republicans and Democrats.
I mean NEW PARTY leadership, not new PARTY LEADERSHIP. I would love to see the American people just flush out both parties and elect some Green Party representatives, but that will probably never happen. This war has been waging since we called those same parties Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Just so you guys know, I'm not commenting because everything I could add is basically either being said by Link in one way or another or I have made threads on it in the past.
I hate our bullshit two party system as much as the next guy.
And I think the part where we get off is that I'm not really into the whole "buyers" and "masters" and "overlords" theory. I've heard it from George Carlin many times (one of my favorite commentators), but.. I dunno. I just started really looking around and I don't see how it could be possible. One could argue that they don't want you to see it because they're most effective that way, but I would still have a hard time believing it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If I were investigating government corruption, the first place I would look, personally, would be the Supreme Court because, frankly, the election of 2000 was bullshit.
And I favorited that video you linked, I'll watch it later. I watched the first two minutes of it and listened to the guy and we carry a lot of similar sentiments, but I stopped watching soon after. It's pretty interesting.
What do you think about the Green Party anyway, Link?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Well, in my opinion, that's not really an owner. He doesn't own as many representatives as he wish he did.
In my opinion, before Obama had to extend the Bush tax cuts, the Republicans clearly showed that they hardly cared about the people since they were against ending them for the rich even though Obama wanted to extend them for the people since, you know, we were in the middle of a recession when people didn't need to be paying more on their taxes.
Maybe it was just political theater, but I just couldn't fathom why one side of the same coin would blatantly spit in the face of the other one if their intentions were the same.
And reading the Green Party platform would be a pretty good place to start if you are ever interested. I read through the entire thing and I haven't looked back since. One of the only reasons why I still support Obama is because I don't want Republicans gaining any more power than they already have. I hope that the people see that this whole debt ceiling crisis was entirely manufactured by them to blast a hole in Obama's re-election chances. They put America in a bad spot just to play political warfare. They are terrible leaders and I hope they get kicked out for their blatant disregard for our financial stability.
But, yeah, the Koch (I like to replace the "h" with a "k" myself) brothers are poisonous. You can't deny that they have bought many Republicans like Scott Walker and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have a few more puppets in the House of Reps right now. But they are hardly owners. They merely own lunatics that will, hopefully, be voted out in 2012.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
First, I rarely take what a political party says for what they are actually for. Call me poisoned after dealing with the Dems and the Repukes, but I am just more cautious now. Research is a lot more in depth. As for Koch, no, he isn't our sole owner, but he is one of many. And while they cannot make us jump on command, they can make us do the important things that keep money in their bank accounts and power at their fingertips.
And as for the Bush tax cuts, we should take all the money we lost from them and mail Bush 43 a bill to pay.
Then bring our boys home from Iraq and Afghanistan and there we have it, the budget is far, far more balanced then it was previously.
I think it's ironic that Bush granted those cuts to the rich and, instead of creating jobs here, they outsourced their factories. They didn't create jobs here, they created them somewhere else. Completely false advertising.
And I don't know, dude, I think the Green Party may be our last saving grace. I mean, that's just my opinion and take it as you will, but I don't see anything going on and the things I do see either are entirely wrong or they're in the right direction, but not to the effectiveness that I wanted to see.
Koch industries is one of many entities that buys their right to control the decisions of people in the house, yes, but they will probably never, ever gain the ability to make us jump on command. Getting rid of those same people will effectively loosen their grip. It's almost as simple as that.
Edit: And I do support an end to the wars. They're ridiculous. We shouldn't have gone in to begin with, it wasn't our business.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
The fact that the jobs were created in other nations is not a fault of Bush, it is of the deregulation of the Reagan years. Between the deregulation and getting rid of tariffs, the bush tax cuts were exponentially increased in the severity of the damage caused.
As for the Green Party, like I said, I don't know enough about to them to make an educated opinion. I cannot say anything positively or negatively about them. I simply cannot. I don't know enough about them to do so, and without an extensive base of knowledge, I feel like I would be cheating myself if I were to do so.
And back to Koch Industries. They don't want or need us to jump on command. They have us working for peanuts when others in other nations work less and make more. As long as we keep running on the little hamster wheel, making the cogs of the machine go, and keep making more money for their bank accounts and thus more power for them, they are happy. And their happiness is all that matters. Our safety, our health, our well being, none of that matters. Just look at a fraction of the coal mining accidents that happen in West Virginia.
We are bought and paid for, and our overlords will make sure they get every last penny out of us before we die.
The fact that the jobs were created in other nations is not a fault of Bush, it is of the deregulation of the Reagan years. Between the deregulation and getting rid of tariffs, the bush tax cuts were exponentially increased in the severity of the damage caused.
As for the Green Party, like I said, I don't know enough about to them to make an educated opinion. I cannot say anything positively or negatively about them. I simply cannot. I don't know enough about them to do so, and without an extensive base of knowledge, I feel like I would be cheating myself if I were to do so.
And back to Koch Industries. They don't want or need us to jump on command. They have us working for peanuts when others in other nations work less and make more. As long as we keep running on the little hamster wheel, making the cogs of the machine go, and keep making more money for their bank accounts and thus more power for them, they are happy. And their happiness is all that matters. Our safety, our health, our well being, none of that matters. Just look at a fraction of the coal mining accidents that happen in West Virginia.
We are bought and paid for, and our overlords will make sure they get every last penny out of us before we die.
I'm guessing you also believe in the Illuminati and Zeitgeist is your favorite movie?
Well, I wouldn't doubt that at some point in history, there was an organization similar to the Illuminati, but the pop fiction idea of the Illuminati is horse crap. As for Zeitgeist, never saw it. Heard it was horse crap.
(I like the word Horse crap today. Lol!)
I am going to assume you think I am a crazed conspiracy theorist at this point. I would ask you to look into some of these things, but I know if some random guy online asked me to do so, I probably wouldn't so I'll leave it at that.
I feel that, without those entities, we would be running that hamster wheel anyway because we are used to a rhythmic schedule of wake the fuck up, go to fucking work, go home, eat dinner, and sleep. We created the hamster wheel ourselves, they don't have us running it. Koch Industries just watches us and thinks, "what can we do to make them work harder and get us more money."
Edit: I realize that is basically what you said about two posts ago.
And I brought up the tax cuts because it shows that Bush didn't even care. He didn't care. I'm sure he got a tidy sum from the leaders of the multinationals to keep them both satisfied.
And, dude, really, it's worth the read. I give you permission to take anything you read with a pound of salt. The only reason why I want you to read their platform is because I want people to realize that there is a better option out there. I know that's only my opinion (man, I've been saying that a lot lately), but I remember being so fixated on Democrats vs. Republicans that I got tired of the theater and searched for closure in a different party. Up until that point, I was very much an environmentalist and very much a progressive, so I just looked around and I found the Green Party. I did both them and I a favor and I read the platform and I realized that they are very much for the people. One of their ideas is to pass an amendment that would separate the rights of humans and corporations and make it so their rights were established by the people. Isn't that what both you and I would want?
4. Human Rights
We propose the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
I. The rights established by this Constitution and the laws of the United States of America are exclusively the rights of living, breathing humans, citizens of this country or residing therein. No corporation or other type of association or organization can have the status of a “legal person,” and thus cannot derive rights from such status.
II. These organizations have no permanent, constitutionally protected rights, though they may have such powers or immunities as are explicitly granted to them by legislative actions at either the federal or the state level. These powers or immunities may be modified or removed by later action of the same legislative bodies. In no case can these powers or immunities override the constitutionally protected rights of human beings.
Anyway, it's a good read, I'll just leave it at that.
Edit: On a side note, I'm glad this thread is becoming interesting again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well then the legal principle is wrong in my opinion. It is cruel and nearly sadistic to have empty homes and tell the homeless they cannot live in them.
I was never a fan of Capitalism. *Shrug*
I thought you meant programs like workmans comp, unemployment, etc. People use the programs to get jobs, but due to the large number of unemployed as well as the fact that companies are simply not hiring nearly enough, there are many issues.
What I was meaning is during the dozens of weeks that many bread bringers find themselves out of work anymore, they cannot get into programs to help stay afloat (And for example, pay their house bill) because of the saturation of scum that manipulate the system so they don't have to pay their bills and still live relatively comfortable.
Freedom - exemption from external control, interference or regulation.
I understand the idea of freedom, I simply wanted to have a discussion on Sneakydogs statement.
In your statement, "By censoring body that would prevent him from making wrong decisions" do you mean jail?
-I like this thread, makes waiting for August 1 much easier
What i'm saying is, if a man was to truly be free then he would have no one controlling or influencing his decisions. I'm not really sure what you mean about the responsibility arguement.
Freedom is one thing. Letting houses sit empty and forcing good men and women to live outside on the streets is another.
That would be one of the many censoring bodies that is in the United States. (For a free nation, we certainly have very, very few freedoms. )
Look, I don't mean to say take a house from one person and give it to another. I simply mean that when these companies (ie banks) take houses from people because said people either lost their job due to the economy, or got a disease, or whatever, and the companies (ie banks) take the houses, that in my opinion is cruel, heartless, and simply wrong. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the oddball and nobody else has a problem with good men and women who were down on their luck and lost their house and now has to care for their kids while they live under a bridge or something, maybe it's just me, but I think it's cruel.
I'm just sayin'.
Well, in my opinion, we have a lot of freedoms.
I mean, there are certain freedoms that we have withheld, as Americans, that make no sense at all, but those pale in comparison to the ones that we were granted when this country was first founded. I still think that homosexual people should be able to freely marry if they want and I still think that prohibition does far more harm than good, but I'm just glad that we have freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to nonviolent protest, and freedom of religion.
I just think it's sad when certain groups of people are allowed to rule over certain groups of people. Like not allowing homosexuals to marry is just completely unfair and unfounded. Not allowing people to smoke marijuana, but waving tobacco and alcohol under our noses is completely hypocritical and it promotes dangerous drug cartels who profit from an illegal drug market.
There are certain freedoms that shouldn't be withheld and I wish that we, as citizens, had the ability to free ourselves from this sort of oppression. But we're Americans and we wouldn't know a good thing if it came out of the fucking sky. We're stubborn in our beliefs and we're completely self-righteous. We will never achieve true progress unless we decide what is best for the country as a country and I'm sure that, unless we get new party leadership, that will never happen. As long as we have Republicans who hate Democrats and vice versa, there won't be any true progress.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Wikileaks said what?
Before or after the lady got arrested for dancing. (Freedom of speech includes symbolic representation per the supreme court)
Too easy.
As long as you are part of the correct religion.
I corrected that for you. Either new parties or a new government.
That was a matter of national security. While I know that everybody I know cheered on Assange, you can't deny that he was treading on dangerous ground. Those documents are classified for a reason. He released over 30 years worth of diplomati wiretaps.
Anyway, we have freedom of the press. You can't deny it, I don't care how hard you try.
We had it before and we still have it after. And I don't recall that particular instance (I don't deny that it happened), but this is something that we have to take up with the cities. If anything, it lies on the hands of the officers who arrested her. When I google "woman arrested for dancing," the resulting page is dominated with "woman arrested for dancing naked in cemetery" and "woman arrested for dancing in front of Jefferson memorial."
Anyway, we have freedom of speech. You can't deny it and, again, I don't care how hard you try. Go watch Bill O' Reilly and tell me that we don't have freedom of the speech or freedom of the press.
Again, this is just your opinion. The last time I remembered, the Westboro Baptist Church hasn't had any trouble picketing the funerals of soldiers. Sure, people are going to try to make it so they can't (I mean, who wouldn't?), but they're still going to do it and the law won't do anything to stop them. If they weren't allowed, they wouldn't do it. Take into account all the "Tea Party" protests there have been in the past two years. If our government were so against non-violent protests, then how come these people weren't immediately silenced with their "END THE FED" signs and their portrayal of Barack Obama as Adolf Hitler? It's not like this is the 1930's when Herbert Hoover sicked the tanks on the Bonus Army.
People might not like you because of your religion, but the state can't deny Jewish people having Synagogues or Islamic people having Mosques right in the middle of a town.
What I meant by "party leadership" is what you exactly put. We elect our party representatives. I could say that the executive branch is led by a Democrat and both the judicial and legislative branches are led by both Republicans and Democrats.
I mean NEW PARTY leadership, not new PARTY LEADERSHIP. I would love to see the American people just flush out both parties and elect some Green Party representatives, but that will probably never happen. This war has been waging since we called those same parties Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
That's a copout, and you know it.
We only have the freedom of the press when our masters deem it positive for themselves.
Yes, the Jefferson Memorial lady. It's perfectly acceptable to speak out, as long as the overlords are happy with what you are saying. Otherwise it's off to the jail with you.
Thankfully we have people who will protest (Like the dance protest at the Jefferson memorial for the lady). I can only hope that when bullets start firing at these innocent civilians, people like yourself will admit you were wrong. Well, correction, they have already been firing, but that's beside the point.
For the Westboro Baptist Church, remember, still Christian, still the right faith, so it's acceptable. If a Muslim were to picket funerals, or a Hindu, or an Atheist, or any other faith, head to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
As for the Tea Party, you have to understand, the political side that is for more visual use of violence is for the Tea Party. If the Tea Party were more Liberal, I have no doubt the "march on washington" would of ended with SWAT teams "dispersing" the crowds.
You mean the government cannot do things like put a christian cross for the 9/11 memorial and call it "secular", right? Because they did. Just sayin'.
Well, on this we agree at least.
Yay for agreement!
And I think the part where we get off is that I'm not really into the whole "buyers" and "masters" and "overlords" theory. I've heard it from George Carlin many times (one of my favorite commentators), but.. I dunno. I just started really looking around and I don't see how it could be possible. One could argue that they don't want you to see it because they're most effective that way, but I would still have a hard time believing it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If I were investigating government corruption, the first place I would look, personally, would be the Supreme Court because, frankly, the election of 2000 was bullshit.
And I favorited that video you linked, I'll watch it later. I watched the first two minutes of it and listened to the guy and we carry a lot of similar sentiments, but I stopped watching soon after. It's pretty interesting.
What do you think about the Green Party anyway, Link?
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
As for the green party, I currently don't have enough information about said party to make an educated opinion on it. Sorry.
In my opinion, before Obama had to extend the Bush tax cuts, the Republicans clearly showed that they hardly cared about the people since they were against ending them for the rich even though Obama wanted to extend them for the people since, you know, we were in the middle of a recession when people didn't need to be paying more on their taxes.
Maybe it was just political theater, but I just couldn't fathom why one side of the same coin would blatantly spit in the face of the other one if their intentions were the same.
And reading the Green Party platform would be a pretty good place to start if you are ever interested. I read through the entire thing and I haven't looked back since. One of the only reasons why I still support Obama is because I don't want Republicans gaining any more power than they already have. I hope that the people see that this whole debt ceiling crisis was entirely manufactured by them to blast a hole in Obama's re-election chances. They put America in a bad spot just to play political warfare. They are terrible leaders and I hope they get kicked out for their blatant disregard for our financial stability.
But, yeah, the Koch (I like to replace the "h" with a "k" myself) brothers are poisonous. You can't deny that they have bought many Republicans like Scott Walker and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have a few more puppets in the House of Reps right now. But they are hardly owners. They merely own lunatics that will, hopefully, be voted out in 2012.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
And as for the Bush tax cuts, we should take all the money we lost from them and mail Bush 43 a bill to pay.
Then bring our boys home from Iraq and Afghanistan and there we have it, the budget is far, far more balanced then it was previously.
And I don't know, dude, I think the Green Party may be our last saving grace. I mean, that's just my opinion and take it as you will, but I don't see anything going on and the things I do see either are entirely wrong or they're in the right direction, but not to the effectiveness that I wanted to see.
Koch industries is one of many entities that buys their right to control the decisions of people in the house, yes, but they will probably never, ever gain the ability to make us jump on command. Getting rid of those same people will effectively loosen their grip. It's almost as simple as that.
Edit: And I do support an end to the wars. They're ridiculous. We shouldn't have gone in to begin with, it wasn't our business.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
As for the Green Party, like I said, I don't know enough about to them to make an educated opinion. I cannot say anything positively or negatively about them. I simply cannot. I don't know enough about them to do so, and without an extensive base of knowledge, I feel like I would be cheating myself if I were to do so.
And back to Koch Industries. They don't want or need us to jump on command. They have us working for peanuts when others in other nations work less and make more. As long as we keep running on the little hamster wheel, making the cogs of the machine go, and keep making more money for their bank accounts and thus more power for them, they are happy. And their happiness is all that matters. Our safety, our health, our well being, none of that matters. Just look at a fraction of the coal mining accidents that happen in West Virginia.
We are bought and paid for, and our overlords will make sure they get every last penny out of us before we die.
I'm guessing you also believe in the Illuminati and Zeitgeist is your favorite movie?
(I like the word Horse crap today. Lol!)
I am going to assume you think I am a crazed conspiracy theorist at this point. I would ask you to look into some of these things, but I know if some random guy online asked me to do so, I probably wouldn't so I'll leave it at that.
Edit: I realize that is basically what you said about two posts ago.
And I brought up the tax cuts because it shows that Bush didn't even care. He didn't care. I'm sure he got a tidy sum from the leaders of the multinationals to keep them both satisfied.
And, dude, really, it's worth the read. I give you permission to take anything you read with a pound of salt. The only reason why I want you to read their platform is because I want people to realize that there is a better option out there. I know that's only my opinion (man, I've been saying that a lot lately), but I remember being so fixated on Democrats vs. Republicans that I got tired of the theater and searched for closure in a different party. Up until that point, I was very much an environmentalist and very much a progressive, so I just looked around and I found the Green Party. I did both them and I a favor and I read the platform and I realized that they are very much for the people. One of their ideas is to pass an amendment that would separate the rights of humans and corporations and make it so their rights were established by the people. Isn't that what both you and I would want?
Anyway, it's a good read, I'll just leave it at that.
Edit: On a side note, I'm glad this thread is becoming interesting again.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence