>> ^shinyblurry:

That isn't an indictment against money, it is an indictment against greed. God doesn't care if you have money, but He does care what you use it for. He made Solomon the richest person on the planet. I think those who are rich should be using their money for the Lords work and giving heartily to the poor, so I do not support the aquisition of wealth for wealths sake. I think that is sinful. However, that is their choice, and it is not up to me, but it is between them and God.


Typical christian, thinks he knows what his god wants but ignores what he says... Just think about how much good works those stashed millions could be doing for the poor. Dare I say it, the 'God' conservatives put so much stock in is a *gasp* socialist...

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."
-Proverbs 21:13

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
-Proverbs 31:8-9

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
-Matthew 6:24

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
-Matthew 19:23-24

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
-Matthew 25:41-45

"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 17:5

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."
-Proverbs 22:16

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
-Matthew 19:21

"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."
-Proverbs 28:27

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
-1 Timothy 6:9-10

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
-1 Timothy 6:17-19

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
-Ezekiel 16:49

"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all."
-Proverbs 22:2

"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."
-Proverbs 14:31

"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor."
-Proverbs 22:9

"Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse."
-Proverbs 28:6

"A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 28:20

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
-Proverbs 29:7

"Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death."
-Proverbs 11:4

"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them."
-Proverbs 22:22-23

"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."
-Proverbs 23:4-5

"Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless."
-Ecclesiastes 5:10

"A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold."
-Proverbs 22:1

"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."
-Deuteronomy 15:11

"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have."
-Hebrews 13:5

"You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge."
-Psalm 14:6

"He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done."
-Proverbs 19:17

"A rich man may be wise in his own eyes, but a poor man who has discernment sees through him."
-Proverbs 28:11

"A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare."
-Proverbs 21:6

"The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall."
-Proverbs 18:11

>> ^marbles:

You know who's the biggest fan of socialism? Corporations.
You wanna punish those evil "capitalists"? Make them actually have to compete in a real free market instead of lobbying congress for special interests. Let them suffer the consequences of leveraging their business with 30 to 1 bets. Hold government accountable for colluding with them and giving them trillions in free "loans" to manipulate the market. Hold government accountable for ignoring and refusing to go after banking fraudsters, the same fraudsters that are "donating" millions to election campaigns and special slush funds for government officials.
Socialism always has and always will be a deception. On multiple levels. You give power to one group of people (government) to plunder from another and you think this group of people is going to be fair?
And if any government around the world does practice something closer to true socialism (like Libya for example), then we're going to bomb the shit out of you. And all you so-called progressives will be leading the cheer for it.


There is never a "free market" and "free maket " as a saying is redundant and useless people use it all the time to counter socialisum but it makes no sense.

for example say you removed governments from the markets compleatly and just let market forces dictate everything , who do you think would win out ? the people with the most money would and the people with the most money would use that money to advertise more and more so regardless of the actual value of there product or service they would still make money.

the deregulation of the markets is specifically what lead to the sub prime fiasco , and ethor way raw consumption based capitlosum is fundimentaly floored when there are finite resources and ultimately things have to be managed by what makes things better for people and not whats the most profatable thing to do.

I would be intrestead to know what you would define as "free market" because I'm prity sure that people using the term "free market" in reality mean highly regulated capitlisum but with the regulation coming from the general population and scientific consensus instead of what we have now where the regulation comes from cooperate interest.

If that's the case you are basically talking about a socialist society with capitlisum balted on not a "free market" capitlist society.

You know who's the biggest fan of socialism? Corporations.

You wanna punish those evil "capitalists"? Make them have to actually compete in a real free market instead of lobbying congress for special interests. Let them suffer the consequences of leveraging their business with 30 to 1 bets. Hold government accountable for colluding and giving them trillions in free "loans" to manipulate the market. Hold government accountable for ignoring and refusing to go after banking fraudsters, the same fraudsters that are "donating" millions to election campaigns and special slush funds for government officials.

Socialism always has and always will be a deception. On multiple levels. You give power to one group of people (government) to plunder from another and you think this group of people is going to be fair?
And if any government around the world does practice something closer to true socialism (like Libya for example), then we're going to bomb the shit out of you. And all you so-called progressives will be leading the cheer for it.

>> ^bcglorf:

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.
So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.
Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...
I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.
And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).
In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.
Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.
Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives
Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.
Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.


I'm picturing an infomercial right about now. Buy our world class American installed dictator right now and you'll receive many happy decades of watching your wife get raped, your lawn regularly razed, and your children going without food or education. But wait! There's more! In thirty of forty years (basically whenever we feel like it) we'll send in an army and take your lawn for ourselves so you don't have to worry about the dictator razing it any more!!!! Special discounts apply if you order before Libya.

1. America put Saddam in power, his atrocities are in large part America's fault
2. America has enabled many other dictators around the world, it's what they do when a leader doesn't follow their wishes
3. Knowing full well what outcomes these dictatorships have had (as intended) in the past, how do you know we wont get similar results this time?

We're talking about a country here, it has people that want different things, of course some Libyans are going to be happy that Gaddafi is removed, many will have wanted other outcomes, neither of us can speak for them, we are not Libyan. You say a few people dieing/getting bombed is ok to save a possible genocide. Would you kill your family to save your village? The people dieing in Libya are someones family, they are real, just because you aren't Libyan doesn't mean you can't feel empathy for them. Wake up man, you and your country are not the center of the world, you can't force your will on others unfairly without at least some repercussions. Your day is coming, and it's coming faster than you might think.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.

You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.

So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...

I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.

And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives

Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.

Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.

>> ^bcglorf:

You do realize you just admitted that if a country's people need a "less worse life", then America and a few of its allies should move in the planes and bomb them to 'improve' things.
Because bombing Gaddafi's forces as part of a UN mandate, and thus stopping their genocide of the rebels, was indistinguishable from deliberately dropping bombs on civilians. You don't seem capable of understanding the difference between the two. You shouldn't get so vested in things you can't seem to comprehend.
You're also making the assumption that Libya is going to be better off.
Gaddafi promised to commit genocide against Libya's people, that has been stopped. It is not an assumption that they are better off, it is a fact. If that will translate into a long term gain is an open question. I don't see how suffering a genocide under Gaddafi, and his further consolidating his power would improve Libyan's long term prospects. Can you explain how there is any ambiguity at all on this?
Is Iraq better off than before America invaded?
Yes. You seem to be among the ignorant majority that know enough about post-war Iraq to see how horrific it is, but know nothing about Saddam era Iraq to compare it to. It's hard to grasp, particularly given how hard it seems for you to grasp the previously mentioned simple concepts, but it is possible to be worse off than Iraqi's are today.
Iraq's Kurdish people(about 20% of Iraqi's) no longer fear extermination. Iraq's Shia(about 55%) no longer fear for their lifes as well. The remainder of Iraqis may now print pamphlets and voice political ideas without facing the death penalty. Saddam spent decades dividing the nation, sowing discord and letting everything in it fall apart or rot so long as his secret police and iron rule remained in tact. The country's infrastructure was in ruins and it's people were fractured and divided against one another from decades of Saddam's depravations. Iraq isn't a mess today because of the American invasion, it's a mess from decades of abuse and devastation under a tyrannical dictator. America's sin is not removing Saddam, but taking so cursedly long to finally go in and do it.


Look I admire the fact you're giving this a go and putting on your thinking cap, I really do; but let's look at each of your points.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
http://www.epic-usa.org/node/5620

Overall - the economy is worse, it has next to no industry or farming, health outcomes/life expectancy are worse, while education has improved. So even with this brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, the country was doing better in many areas than it is now, and this is not even looking at the subjective elements such as the hundred thousand dead civilians at the hands of US soldiers and assorted explosive devices. However even though things were perhaps marginally better with Saddam in power, I do agree that his dictatorship was brutal, and things were pretty horrific for many in Iraq. But guess what? Saddam's Ba'ath Party was put in power by the CIA - this is a well documented fact, feel free to look it up. America objected to the fact the previous ruler wanted to nationalize it's own oil reserves. So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives (subvert Gaddafi's genocide) you're being extremely naive. There are far better ways of saving lives than invading a country with bombs, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Perhaps it is from a Anglophone cultural distinctive to keep a large area of uninhabitable lands near your home?

"Julius Caesar, in his famous account of the Gallic Wars of the 50s BC, provided readers at home with a blood-curdling description of the Germanic tribes he encountered in battle:

'The various tribes regard it as their greatest glory to lay waste as much as possible of the land around them and to keep it uninhabited. They hold it a proof of a people's valour to drive their neighbours from their homes, so that no-one dare settle near them. No discredit attaches to plundering raids outside tribal frontiers. The Germans say that they serve to keep young men in training and prevent them from getting lazy.'"

- Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/romanpropaganda_article_01.shtml

You know even those numbers are lies, NR. For chrissakes, the liars switched from "jobs created" to "lives touched" late last year.

Sorry Dudes, I know you mean well, but you are defending the indefensible. Obama has failed, just like those of us who know socialism (or semi-socialism) fails knew he would. Couldn't care less that the moonbats hate him for not being Marx enough, His Earness has failed.

Government jobs are not real jobs as they do not reflect market needs. With government, when 30 desk jockeys can replace 300, the other 270 stay on board for the ride (and pensions). No wonder we're headed for Greece.

Here's a RADICAL idea: let people keep more of their own money, across the board. Recognize it's not the government's money, even if it prints the sh1t.

Another wonderful side effect of letting people keep the lion's share of what they earn: you get a properly-restrained government too small to rape and plunder in the name of "social justice" or any other bullsh1t of the day.

And lay off Herb Hoover, moonbats, he was an unwilling or ignorant ally of yours.

wiki:

Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted (Hoover) for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."[54] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[55]

Ironically, these policies pale beside the more drastic steps taken under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration later as part of the New Deal. Hoover's opponents charge that his policies came too little, and too late, and did not work. Even as he asked Congress for legislation, he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[56] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."




>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
And yet here we are with our current SCAMULUS not helping at all.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-eco
nomists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html
I'm calling FOUL, Keynes! You hear me? KEEEEYYYYNNNEEEEEESSSS!

That article says it created 2.4 million jobs. Its main point was that if you take the number of jobs it's estimated to have created, and divide it by the total sum of the bill, it was expensive per job. But it wasn't buying jobs, it was buying goods and services.
Of course you can get more jobs per dollar if the government just directly hires people, and puts them to work doing what needs to be done (like build cars, sweep floors, grow corn, etc.). But that's socialism, so instead we just buy stuff from the market, and let the market decide how many (and which) jobs get created.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I was referring to the 12 million illegal plundering invaders. This guy has a right to His Own Private Mexico but not on my dime or time.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^quantumushroom:
It shouldn't have to be explained why plundering invaders are bad for any nation's survival, even to liberals.
The only thing I'm 'sick' of is being RIGHT 98% of the time!
This guy is a citizen and you're calling him a plundering invader. You are quite sick, but most certainly not of "being right 98% of the time".



Why are you referring to them when they have nothing to do with this video? Try to stay on topic.

I was referring to the 12 million illegal plundering invaders. This guy has a right to His Own Private Mexico but not on my dime or time.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
It shouldn't have to be explained why plundering invaders are bad for any nation's survival, even to liberals.
The only thing I'm 'sick' of is being RIGHT 98% of the time!
This guy is a citizen and you're calling him a plundering invader. You are quite sick, but most certainly not of "being right 98% of the time".

>> ^quantumushroom:

It shouldn't have to be explained why plundering invaders are bad for any nation's survival, even to liberals.
The only thing I'm 'sick' of is being RIGHT 98% of the time!

This guy is a citizen and you're calling him a plundering invader. You are quite sick, but most certainly not of "being right 98% of the time".

I did feel a tad bad about my first response, but this is one of those issues where there is simply no gray area (or if you live in Britain, grey area).

Without common borders, language and culture, (and common sense) there is no nation, period.

It shouldn't have to be explained why plundering invaders are bad for any nation's survival, even to liberals.

The only thing I'm 'sick' of is being RIGHT 98% of the time!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Tribalism is a mental disorder. You're at least as sick as anyone else on this site.

Seems similar to one I got a few years ago:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issed by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Obama is conservative as fuck. He's worse then Bush.

"Fact" and opinion. Both wrong.

More warrantless wiretapping.

Same if not a minor decrease in torture.

Sold us out to Big Pharma Banks & Military Complex.

For fuck sake, he cutting community organization budgets and heating assistance for low income groups.

Just proves my point about the leftmedia. If they'd done their job you would've known he'd turn out this way. It's too bad this Obamian "conservatism" you speak of stops well before low taxes, free markets and the rule of law. And not bowing like a serf to foreign kings and the mayor of Tampa, Florida for fk's sake.

What the fuck else do you want to happen to prove that Obama is in no way liberal or progressive or whatever pejorative label you have for left leaning ideology?

How bout that whole POS unaffordable socialized medicine scheme 26 states have now filed lawsuits against? Remember that? Remember the failed scamulus? TARP? Bailouts? And yes Bush is also to blame, but only for starting crap that a "conservative" Obama would've tried to stop. But as we all know, NO ONE outspends taxocrats and by gosh, they'll prove it! Ever stop and wonder why crony capitalism looks so much like socialism?

The entirety of United States politics has shifted more and more to this crazy neo-conservative free-market less government-but-we-still-want-govern-who-you-marry-&-force-you-to-have-babies mentality since 2000.

Really? Abortion is still legal. Civil unions are recognized by many states. Government is an ever-bigger gorilla with a machine gun. Taxes will go up and the 'crats know it: "someone" has to pay for all this indolence and the 50-fucking-percent of Americans who pay NO federal income tax but suck up plenty of government entitlements.

The entire world is owned my wealthy bankers and war profiteers. They all favor the "conservative" mentality you hold because it makes them more money.

Wrong and wrong. You're prejudiced against the wealthy because you believe that life is a zero-sum game. In other words, someone has to "lose" at economics so someone else can "win". You believe that life is a lottery and those who have money have simply been "fortunate" without doing anything to earn it. If the liberal phantasy of giving everyone an equal share of $$$ (by force) were to come true, as long as markets were allowed to work, by the end of the week the poor would be poor again. You've been brainwashed by 12 years of government schooling followed by indoctrination at 'kollij'. Where do you think all those otherwise unemployable 1960s marxist dinosaurs are hiding from reality? The universities. No one busting their ass in the real world to survive only to hand over 40% to the federal mafia believes this BS. Yeah, life is unfair and freedom is hard. And BTW, no, I am not rich, and I don't believe I have a "right" to plunder my neighbor's wealth.

You're too narrow-minded and indoctrinated to understand that.

I hope you don't have kids. I would feel sorry for them.


You undermine your "devastating" talking points with personal attacks. I would hope you own a library card. And use it.

p.s. - Obama is Political Science Major who taught Constitutional Law.

Palin majored in journalism.. yet can't name any newpaper or magazine she reads regularly.

The "scholar" who doesn't understand America and is a total ingrate for the opportunities he received, now reviled as a clueless idiot by all except the diehards and the leftmedia VERSUS the "dumb" beauty queen who loves America and recognizes American Exceptionalism, and thus so terrifies the left they're still attacking her.

Now you can continue your point about who is more qualified as a president.

It's done. I would vote for this over the dangerous crypto-marxist who believes in unlimited federal power.

>> ^NetRunner:

Thomas Paine: "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
People you think sound like Thomas Paine:
<div id="widget_1982863756">

</div>

I can tell the difference, why can't you?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I wonder what he would say of Thomas Paine's works. Arguably, the voice of the revolution in America; his rhetoric is very similar to ours today.


"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

"He that rebels against reason is a real rebel, but he that in defence of reason rebels against tyranny has a better title to Defender of the Faith, than George the Third. "

- Thomas Paine

We can quote bomb all day really. But it doesn't address my question. When does rhetoric turn into something more sinister?

(ugh, quote fail)