The problem with this is how Americans continue to mistake the office of the president as this all powerful dictator position.

The office of the president is not a kingship, it is not totalitarian. It is one branch of three and it's not even the most powerful branch. Congress is the most powerful branch.

So whenever we have these scandals (left or right) the focus is always on the president even though they may or may not have anything to do with it. I'm not saying they're blameless, but they're certainly not the ringleader. There may be no ringleader. Whenever we have this scandal, there's always this mistaken notion that it was some grand conspiracy with very specific aims and goals and I don't think that is typically the case. I think most of these scandals are simply born out of laziness or negligence or simply just protecting one's ass. Government is a big machine (even in the right wing fantasy of small gov't, it will always be big) and it's more likely it's some unintentional screwup than some pre-meditated maneuver.

IMO, this is most evident during Bush's administration. The guy is obviously not that bright. There was something else going on behind the scenes pulling the strings. Even though Obama certainly is far more intelligent, it still doesn't change a thing that there is a bigger machinery at work and one person alone doesn't steer the boat.

And no I'm not talking about some cliche'd Iluminati-style group. You've just got a large go'vt mechanism that wields a lot of power and it's run by fallible people which is a far simpler plausible explanation.

The only way it's going to be better is if people demand it. But we don't even have half the nation voting. So you have a better than 50 percent chance that any time you hear someone complaining about the gov't...they probably didn't vote.

This idea is old. We used to have kings and dictators, but eventually people demanded something different so they came up with councils and parliaments and congresses, etc that wielded the real power, but they kept the kings and queens as a distraction, as a symbol even though they lost the bulk of their power.

Again, I'm not saying the office of the president is blameless, i'm just trying to inject some perspective.

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

I wouldn't say anything, I don't think that it would be particularly effective. We all have our own idea of what morality is, and Stalin's is a very complex result of innumerable factors like upbringing, disposition and circumstance, and it would be a bit self important of me to think that I could argue that out of him. He lived, acted, died and left his mark on history. The paremeters set forth by the physical world and the collective actions of everyone else who has lived either as a contemporary or since has judged which of those actions have value and will live on. It's a messy process, certainly, but it's just how things work.

In other words, you don't have any argument as to why Stalin should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you do I invite you to post it here. How can you escape Ravi's charge that atheism is incoherent in the absence of any such argument?

Thankfully, we seem to be heading in a direction that diverges considerably from that Stalin would espouse. I think that a certain evolutionary tendency towards beneficial collectivism is responsible for that.

Mind you that I'm not arguing for a one world government here, but rather I think that a sense of connection and personal responsibility for the wellbeing of everything else on this planet, ecosystem and all, will bode well for how I and my descendants experience this thing we call life.

It's only one of many competing survival strategies, and nothing more.

So if Hitler had won and the world was in the grips of his totalitarian regime, this would just a particular evolutionary tendency playing out? What makes one better than the other?

"Do you believe that there has ever been a case where slavery has been justified, and do you believe that there has ever been a good reason for anyone to butcher a toddler with a sword?"

Why is it wrong to do either of those things?

You don't need high speed internet either, technically (I do, but I am a robot). Technically, you don't need a lot of things, it is all pretty much arbitrary when you talk in those terms. When you make people have to sign up for certain rights via some sort of process, it is the beginning of a real erosion of rights. I'll even meet people half way to say if you want to be in public areas with a gun, some kind of permit is needed like cars...I don't like it, but Ill give you that. But as long as I am not using it to commit crimes, your right to restrict my behavior is over...period. It might be that freedom comes with a hefty prices of dead people, innocent people, innocent people that we could of protected with ever increasing restrictions of social liberties. I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, lower murder rates than even some European countries of pretty good order. But they live in a totalitarian dictatorship, and I am not trying to make a scarecrow argument about totalitarian dictatorships and whatnot, what I am trying to say is people dying isn't the only important metric when talking about rights to do things.


It might be true that more people will die with lacks gun laws, it might be true that more people die because of lacks drug lacks, lots of things might be true about how freedom serves to make economics weak, countries less secure, more prone to internal strife and faction, it might be true that the seeds of freedom and the ability to self regulate cause harms that extend beyond ones self. Even so, I still don't think a better framework exists for conducting ourselves that doesn't cripple and stifle people who have done no wrong. If the price for a drunk driver is abolition, the price of a murder disarmament, the price of wreck less driving horse drawn carriage, then we have failed to address the underlying problem and snub out freedoms ability to creatively deal with complex social challenges via the creative process of problem solving.

I think history has shown that any attempts to snub out action instead of guide it fail miserably. Gun control starts and ends with people, not laws, I suggest we start there. Starting neighborhood gun responsibility programs, safety education for youths, ect...whatever, I don't know, I can't pretend to know what is the best way to address the complex issue of gun control for every community, the point is that is their bag, it can be done without force given the context of the USA. Not every country has that luxury, children roaming the streets with AK-47s is not a real problem in this country, nor would it be if gun control laws were more lacks. We do have problems, I don't want there to be any mistake about that, but I don't think the solution is wholesale elimination of thing that only CAN be dangerous, I mean, anything can be dangerous, ask the folks in Oklahoma about ammonia nitrate...you don't even need a licence to buy that stuff.

Point is, the world is dangerous, and I think freedom allows for a certain amount of that danger to exist. It is the price we pay. We should look to the unwritten code that manages us, the code of culture and community.

"The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

Pericles' Funeral Oration from the Peloponnesian War

The Fed and the World Bank can only fuck the world because of the illusory stranglehold they have on the cattle-We believe their paper to be of value and that the system works. Hard to rally behind a rout of criminals in their palaces when food and fuel isn't available just like it's hard for a majority of citizens to mount a physical campaign on Washington for a protest.....logistics.

These measures to add incrementally, additional features, capacities, etc. to existing laws??? To avoid accusations of a totalitarian crackdown, you know the routine and those who would that the United States be gun-free zone have plenty of time and money and the fucking media in their pocket.

Get me started on the privilege of driving? I daily see morons who, if the required tests for a driving license sane, would be riding a fucking unicycle to work. This includes you dumb-asses who stay on your fucking cell the bulk of the time you spend in your vehicle. I live in a city with over 6 million people, 150 square miles in the county, and everyone owns a car. Fucking nightmare of imbeciles on the road DAILY, plenty of whom should not be allowed to carry a loaded, 2-3 ton killing machine.

What was it Al Pacino said in "Heat??"....You get killed walking your doggy!"

Real simple for me: Hire police and create soldiers out of unhinged fucks who have control and power issues and give THEM guns?? Until my saliva can be used to melt steel or some unifying event turns the world into an idyllic wonderland of brotherly love, Guns. Explosives. Pointy fucking sticks. To protect ourselves from defective assholes and should the need ever arise, we'll make our decision then.

The world becomes increasingly more chaotic and non-linear by the hour...embrace it. We live in one of the most incredible times in human history and the planet my children inherit will be unrecognizable very soon and all change is quite a good thing.

You misunderstand the motivation for the language of stereotype used to describe the general dynamics of alcohol in Great Britain, i.e., a pub at every intersection-Hey man, alcohols' the last legal drug here in the states as well for the same reason: Governments and international criminals (same same, but different, as they say in Thailand) control the drug trade around the world. They limit which drugs may be manufactured or sold. They make incredible amounts of money doing so.

Governments and international criminals also corner the market on guns and artillery and ammunition and do their best to control the distribution and manufacture to insure one thing: Control and centralization of power.

We're not suggesting Brits are more prone to drunkenness and brawling than the same sort of tits in the U.S. I am simply suggesting sane remedies that do not involve baby-out-with-bathwater solutions to some seriously flawed fundamentals: societal and cultural evolution should be determined by sober consensus without emotion instead of this bullshit, "But what about the children?!" line of reasoning promulgated by criminals in power...A line that is trumpeted by so-called representatives and used as a tool (kind of like a gun is a tool) along with the complicit and effective tool of propaganda called market television, or major media, or whatever label for abject disinformation and agenda-pumping that benefits a few that some people who see owning guns as horrifying, have bought into.

The way to keep your children safe form psychopaths is to reinvent society and gradually change culture in a direction that heals the planet instead of raping it. Less fucking insane parents mean less fucking insane kids. Fuck licensing firearms, how about licensing parents before they plop out another?

How do you cure a country like North Korea, whose people for a few generations have been systematically trained in totalitarian shit-think?? It's a job no one wants to think about. As long as planetary ass-rape is the direction we are headed, guns guns guns my easily-insulted brother, and less shit-think. I'm not a fucking idiot, but my government is being run into the ground by cunts and assholes and douchebags who have most of the control over most of the guns and drugs! See how simple it is??

Guns violence by a FEW + International media coverage with a view to convincing people that guns (OF ANY KIND OR CAPACITY) are the problem = what should be an insult to your intelligence at the very least, and a goddamn warning shot across the bow that World Police State is what the cunts really want for humanity.

Gun control happens shortly after a gun is manufactured, unless you want to accidentally hurt yourself or another utilizing another kind of control. Self-Control maybe??

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evil, totalitarian, routing, internet' to 'syria, syrian internet, rerouting, internet routing, internet shut down, syria 2012' - edited by BoneRemake

You can't compare Picard and Mal. Picard had a prestigious position in a federation that had a fairly rigid moral code. Picard wasn't barely getting by. He represented the best of humanity during the best of times. Mal, on the other hand, was living under a totalitarian regime and was barely keeping food on the table. His life was a struggle. It would make more sense to compare him to Han Solo, Robin Hood, or other "thieves with hearts of gold".

I'll answer some of messengers questions:

"1. Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"

Gaza is now basically a prison camp, and yes, Israel is behind that, but thats not why Islamic totalitarian terrorists are fighting. They are not seeking freedom, they are seeking islamic totalism and the extermination of jews.

"2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?"
Yes, probably.

"3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?"

If the occupiers were muslims, imprisoning and ruling Gaza with an islamic iron fist, then yes, probably. It is a strange and sad fact that Islamic societies are rabidly anti-semitic and anti-everything-not-islam, and at war with any neighbour that doesnt conform to islam, while being strangely content and silent if oppressed by fellow muslims, as is the case in so many islamic countries, where were the islamic suicide bombers fighting the oppression of Saddam?, The taliban, kohmeini? Muslims, especially women, are suffering every day all over the place, and most of the suffering is NOT caused by Israel or the west, but by islamic or muslim thugs at the helm of an oppressed people. I'd love for the palestinians to have freedom, but not just from Israel, but also from the violent ideology of the terrorists claiming to fight for them.

"4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?

5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?"

Firstly, The enemy is not israeli civilians, secondly this question sets up a false dichotomy: obviously killing is worse than celebration, but celebrating the death of innocent people doesnt exactly show that you are ready for peace or reconcilliation.It shows that Hamas' tactics are not simply last-resort, desparate actions from an imprisoned people, but something they at some level rejoice in doing. If Hamas were the peace-loving hippie freedom fighters you seem to think they are, they surely would not celebrate like this?

It is a pickle.. Luckily i live in a country where police is much more civilized to handle situations by peaceful means. Even thou we have really fucked up search&seizure practices. Cops can't come to your house unless it's an emergency or they have sufficient proof that a crime that's happening in that residence is at least 6 months worth of prison. Mind you, we have very relaxed sentencing so 6 months is actually pretty big crime committed, for ex i got one case thru quick search: 7 times of break&entering, car theft and two attempts of car thefts resulted to six month in prison..

But.. So cops knock on your door and you open it (if you don't open the door, it's automatic warrant if they can see you're in but refuse to answer..). They say that they want to come in and search the place. They really don't have to have any evidence, just a suspicion of any petty crime will do. You deny their entrance. They have now sufficient proof that a crime is being committed right now since you refused a look-around (it's defined in the law, they can enter but not touch anything, can't open doors or drawers etc.) and the previous six months minimum limit is thrown out of the window...

You have a right to ask for a warrant and deny the search. But.. they can apply for 24h quick warrant by phone while keeping you detained and search the premises. If they find nothing, tough luck, you can't complain (or you can but it's tedious, long process that most likely will result to nothing..). If they find something, huuray for them, the search was justified.

Those are not cops fault, i understand that it's very effective practice and has a high percentage of success. But it's wrong in principle and opens doors to frightening methods for totalitarianism. It's the law that needs to be changed. It's the attitude "i got nothing to hide" of the majority that supports that practice, they can't see anything wrong with it. They are the one that needs a radical change in their attitude of privacy and freedom. But they are the ones most likely to follow to the bitter end and never lift a finger, ie the same masses this guy is talking about.

If Reps have a better sense of "how the world works," then why didn't they anticipate the mortgage-backed security crisis? Regulation is necessary, taxation is necessary and the freedom to marry who you want to marry is necessary to build a balanced and prosperous society. The Rep contradictions of "less gov = more freedom EXCEPT for marriage rights, women's bodies and more military spending" have been exposed to the majority as the fraud that they are. Obama endured relentless personal attacks, pointless filibustering and not a small amount of outright racism, lies and disrespect in a futile attempt to make him out to be the "worst president in history."

The people have spoken. Obama still came out on top, consistent to his values and gracious as he congratulated Romney on a hard-fought campaign. Taxing the top earners in the country a little more and cutting spending would be an effective way if paying down the deficit. How is this an illusion?

The Republican party needs to regroup. Their tactic of leaning further and further to the right (except in the last weeks) has soured too many right-of-center voters. If they argue now that they would have won "if only they had someone MORE conservative running," then they will surely lose again and again.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Actually, far from stupid I found him really on the point here.
Candidate A will "Give them things" ie. make their lives better.
Candidate B says, "Screw you, my rich friends need MORE!" ie. make their lives worse.
Why did anyone vote for Romney again? It's been shown time and again, Democratic Presidents have a better record on the economy, AND debt levels than Republicans. Yet this illusion remains that somehow by focusing 90% of their energy on helping 5% of the population the Republican will magically shrink the debt and make everything work, in spite of the fact that it's been tried numerous times, and it's failed every single time.

If you hear people talk about Obama and his policies they are simply uninformed about them. They're uninformed about everything whether it's what the deficit means to history to how the world even works. The PR industry works hard on producing massive amounts of propaganda and it does work. This is how you do things when you do not have the big stick like in a Totalitarian society, you have to manufacture everyone's consent.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Actually, far from stupid I found him really on the point here.
Candidate A will "Give them things" ie. make their lives better.
Candidate B says, "Screw you, my rich friends need MORE!" ie. make their lives worse.
Why did anyone vote for Romney again? It's been shown time and again, Democratic Presidents have a better record on the economy, AND debt levels than Republicans. Yet this illusion remains that somehow by focusing 90% of their energy on helping 5% of the population the Republican will magically shrink the debt and make everything work, in spite of the fact that it's been tried numerous times, and it's failed every single time.


If you hear people talk about Obama and his policies they are simply uninformed about them. They're uninformed about everything whether it's what the deficit means to history to how the world even works. The PR industry works hard on producing massive amounts of propaganda and it does work. This is how you do things when you do not have the big stick like in a Totalitarian society, you have to manufacture everyone's consent.

>> ^Sagemind:

In the political jargon and propaganda of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Communist International, western democratic states were referred to as "plutocracies", with the implication being that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals were controlling the countries and holding them in ransom. "Plutocracy" replaced "democracy" and "capitalism" as the principal fascist term for the United States and Great Britain during the Second World War. For the Nazis, the term was often a code word for "the Jews".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy


Are you seriously suggesting that someone who thinks this video demonstrates plutocratic tendencies are themselves antisemitic, totalitarian and/or fascist?

Point 1: If by misquote, you mean substituted a larger term (religion) for a smaller one (churches), I suppose I did. But without religion, there -are- no churches. I don't see any meaningful difference.

Point 2: Texas has worked damned hard to earn its reputation as a major-league collection of wingnuts. I'm not sure how you can justify getting upset when that reputation is assumed to be true. You have a problem with the reputation, maybe you should start blaming the people who are going out of their way to earn it...like Rick Perry, or the Texas Board of Education. As long as the state is trying to rewrite history to eliminate reality's liberal bias, you're going to be stuck with that.

Point 3: Perhaps I should have slowed down and spent more time in the step-by-step logic...I really thought most people who read her could follow the shorthand, but I did indeed jump about a bit.

In many ways, churches are no different than any corporation. They exist as a means to concentrate funds and offer the controller(s) of those funds a method of avoiding personal responsibility for misuse of those funds. On top of that, churches pay no taxes, although they still make liberal use of publicly funded services, -and- in many cases, they keep lobbying for public funds to be handed over to them as well. Now add how many churches are politically active and advising their cult members how to vote, and you might begin to see why I refer to them all as corporate welfare queens. Or maybe not...I don't know if you're even going to try to follow it or not, and don't much care at this point.
>> ^chingalera:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^chingalera:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Someone just explained separation of church and state to him.

Jeeez dude, you are about a party-liner ain't ya?? Texas would be the first state to "separate" from the diseased political system you so faithfully believe in and, as we observe, believe in as fervently as any bible-thumping proselytizer determined to beat a moot point into oblivion.
As the government of the U.S. continues down her retrograde path, churches will become for many, a last bastion of sanity exempt from a really retarded form of totalitarianism and fascism. Retarded, because folks who talk shit from the comfort of their programming who belie intelligence with their words should have seen the shit coming from miles away but were too comfortable in their delusion to see the boots and badges-

I was gonna...but then decided it's not worth it, then changed my mind one last time.
I suspect aAnyone who can call religion "the last bastion of sanity" is too far gone to make sense, but... Religion supplies a cushy lifestyle for priests...that's the sum total of it's accomplishments. Churches have, if anything, helped push the government down the path you so self-righteously condemn...and they preach and stump political issues all without paying any taxes. Yet more corporate welfare.
It's time for the -real- welfare queens to start paying their share...churches, Wall Street, Defense contractors, big Pharma, etc. Time to either start contributing to the upkeep of society, or be broken up (or strung up, as the case may be).

No, you misquote me and then infer bullshit in that same smug manner that libby there used and that anyone on the receiving end of such smug could expect after reading a gajillion similar quips. I said CHURCHES and meant the members of the same whose communal efforts keep the building's physical plant in order and supports the members in time of want or need. You know...The first places to get raided and ransacked when the jackboots come??
This didn't start about about religion: I started it when Potato-libro there took a jab at Texas and lighted upon another opportunity to bash "them ignernt conservatives, etc.", NOT UNLIKE a shitload of folks with "holier than thou" attitudes concerning politics and government. QUITE laughable really, because the opinions they have and the conclusions they have arrived at, are based on limited and incomplete information or worse, they have been programmed to do so through systematic efforts by do-nothings in colleges or universities.
Stormsinger, YOUR rant began with religion and politics and manically concluded with corporations and Wall Street....WTF??!! By the way, my solution as an anarchistic, soon-to-be expatriate is to use the BIG TEX method on governments and corporations. You hate em so much, be like the Hulk. SMAAAASH! Then burn, repeat.
Can we talk about how fucking progressive IDAHO is now??? Jesus Christ, Allah Mustapha!!
I suspect anyone who can start with anti-religion rants, switch to blaming churches for the state of America's demise, bash tax-exemption and somehow blame corporate welfare (whatever the fuck!??...see where this is going?) and arrive at a total solution by blaming BELTWAY INSIDERS AND THE SENATORS/CONGRESSMEN THEY HAVE BOUGHT for pharma, defense, etc. shifting the blame to people without any power or influence???....I'd have to call them schizophrenic! Which is how most rabid concerning politics ion one side or the other are to me. ALLL OF THEM, conservative or liberal. I could give a fiddler's fist-fuck about working within a failed system. I prefer to keep to the fringes of this broken machine and put as little of my resources or mentations into it.
But some, like stormie and libby here...well, hopeless fiends and junkies for the dance politic. Playing right into the hands of the corporations iffn ya axe me!

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^chingalera:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Someone just explained separation of church and state to him.

Jeeez dude, you are about a party-liner ain't ya?? Texas would be the first state to "separate" from the diseased political system you so faithfully believe in and, as we observe, believe in as fervently as any bible-thumping proselytizer determined to beat a moot point into oblivion.
As the government of the U.S. continues down her retrograde path, churches will become for many, a last bastion of sanity exempt from a really retarded form of totalitarianism and fascism. Retarded, because folks who talk shit from the comfort of their programming who belie intelligence with their words should have seen the shit coming from miles away but were too comfortable in their delusion to see the boots and badges-

I was gonna...but then decided it's not worth it, then changed my mind one last time.
I suspect aAnyone who can call religion "the last bastion of sanity" is too far gone to make sense, but... Religion supplies a cushy lifestyle for priests...that's the sum total of it's accomplishments. Churches have, if anything, helped push the government down the path you so self-righteously condemn...and they preach and stump political issues all without paying any taxes. Yet more corporate welfare.
It's time for the -real- welfare queens to start paying their share...churches, Wall Street, Defense contractors, big Pharma, etc. Time to either start contributing to the upkeep of society, or be broken up (or strung up, as the case may be).


No, you misquote me and then infer bullshit in that same smug manner that libby there used and that anyone on the receiving end of such smug could expect after reading a gajillion similar quips. I said CHURCHES and meant the members of the same whose communal efforts keep the building's physical plant in order and supports the members in time of want or need. You know...The first places to get raided and ransacked when the jackboots come??

This didn't start about about religion: I started it when Potato-libro there took a jab at Texas and lighted upon another opportunity to bash "them ignernt conservatives, etc.", NOT UNLIKE a shitload of folks with "holier than thou" attitudes concerning politics and government. QUITE laughable really, because the opinions they have and the conclusions they have arrived at, are based on limited and incomplete information or worse, they have been programmed to do so through systematic efforts by do-nothings in colleges or universities.

Stormsinger, YOUR rant began with religion and politics and manically concluded with corporations and Wall Street....WTF??!! By the way, my solution as an anarchistic, soon-to-be expatriate is to use the BIG TEX method on governments and corporations. You hate em so much, be like the Hulk. SMAAAASH! Then burn, repeat.

Can we talk about how fucking progressive IDAHO is now??? Jesus Christ, Allah Mustapha!!
I suspect anyone who can start with anti-religion rants, switch to blaming churches for the state of America's demise, bash tax-exemption and somehow blame corporate welfare (whatever the fuck!??...see where this is going?) and arrive at a total solution by blaming BELTWAY INSIDERS AND THE SENATORS/CONGRESSMEN THEY HAVE BOUGHT for pharma, defense, etc. shifting the blame to people without any power or influence???....I'd have to call them schizophrenic! Which is how most rabid concerning politics ion one side or the other are to me. ALLL OF THEM, conservative or liberal. I could give a fiddler's fist-fuck about working within a failed system. I prefer to keep to the fringes of this broken machine and put as little of my resources or mentations into it.

But some, like stormie and libby here...well, hopeless fiends and junkies for the dance politic. Playing right into the hands of the corporations iffn ya axe me!