FBI to investigate Wall Street's high frequency trading

No, because, "leftist" is a broad word. I've posted evidence that 90% of Liberal-Democrats support him, I don't know the number on Liberals and, others on the Left, who support him. But, it's gotta at leasyt be 50-51% or, the "majority."

The true Right, want(ed) to shrink government, lower taxes,(for everyone) and, go back to our founding principles. The mainstream Right today, however, have given that up in the name of military "protection."

By that definition of Conservative, Bush was the opposite of that; Bush expanded government, skyrocketed our debt and carried out pointless wars. Democrats throughout American History, have been known for these traits.

However, the main point I am trying to make, is that our system of government is wrong (at least in my country anyway)

We were founded on these principles, of freedom and justice, but, the wrong was made immediately.

The Wrong's are the very same things we talk about

-Only White land owners being allowed to vote

-Slavery

-Systematic murder of Natives.


and many wrongs still go on to this day:

-pointless endless wars

-corporate/government corruption

-Punishing people for non-violent Drug Crimes

-Drone strikes

ETC ETC ETC

I would go as far to say, that the US Government, is the biggest Criminal Organization in the world. Moreover, it is my own personal belief that 90% of Societies problems are caused by government; Therefore, it only makes sense logically, to give that power back to the individuals, make corporations accountable to those individuals, and, cut government out of the equation.

This wouldn't possibly focus wealth elsewhere, because they wouldn't have the power of force, as they do today. But, I don't believe Liberalism/leftists address that at all; they support Government institutions forcing us to buy into healthcare, not even considering how unfair it is to people who don't trust conventional western medication, and would rather medicate through natural means. They're also dumping the cost of the old people, on the young people. How is that "fair"?

I think Liberals just have to unjustified assumption, that government spending helps everyone. When, it's really our money, and we should
"Thank God we don't get the government we pay for." Will Rogers.

I'm joking


But really, we should withdraw all material support, from our government. We should stop paying for our own slavery to them..

I can't believe so many people can't tell how fake Obama is..

Didn't you hear what he said??

"I hope (legalized marijuana) doesn't lead to awhole bunch of paranoid people, that thinks the Federal government is spying on them"-Obama

Meanwhile, the Federal Government is spying on us, and Liberals think they are our "only hope" against corporations???

To me, they have the whole problem upside-down.

 

lol ok sure.

 

Leftist; always smug and, self-satisfied- but, whenever the wool in taken of their eyes, they cover them back up, and run home to their mother-government, that relies on force and violence, to achieve the will they seek.

and the government will take care of you. But, I think any prison or county jail will show you, how well the government "takes care" of the people.

 

yup, you got me. 100% accurate and not at all insane.

 

Not all of them. Better be sure there's a private one in your area... and be sure to pay for lots of expensive medicine, checkups and surgeries, because it needs to be profitable if you want it to stay open. Don't worry about the incentive, the doctors will be under a lot of pressure to tell you you're sick-- mentally, if not physically. The drug companies have sales quotas to meet!

Ummmm... so your kid is being indoctrinated because teachers won't tell them that evolution is a lie? Wow, good to know.

The public transportation in NYC gets massive amounts of funding from state taxes. Airports, buses, railways, subways, etc... all receive money from the government. It's not just about fares, it's also about maintenance, safety, repairs, real estate etc.

And not that you probably make a habit of going there, but libraries are pretty important as well, I think.

More ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_States

Yes, NASA doesn't even exist, good point. But even if it did, space exploration isn't exactly important or essential for the survival of the human race... so why do we even do it? It's a fucking waste of money!

And btw-- the arms industry is growing increasingly privatized, which is why more guns are being sold than ever before. I find it hugely ironic that you think it's great to be a gun enthusiast and everyone deserves to have guns, and yet you believe you're not directly supporting the war machines that require (surprise surprise) GUNS. Private manufacturers funding wars in Africa, Iraq (you don't think private armies were sent there, or had a role in starting the war in the first place, apparently-- the whole thing was about private oil tycoons and weapons manufacturers). You are directly supporting wars by buying weapons. You are directly supporting wars by denying climate change (solar doesn't depend on oil except in the manufacture of the panels).

Yes, private industries make iPods and other useless junk that we fill our lives with because we're bored or reality is too fucking painful... so your point is privatizing everything is a good idea because that's the shit that really matters?

PS: government funded the technology used to develop the iPhone-- all of these industries are interlinked and share their knowledge. It's called a gift economy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...-why-doesnt-government-have-a-slice-of-apple/

The fact is that practically all of the technologies you know and use were funded by the government-- corporations don't want to waste their own money on developing these things until they have relied on the government to develop them to the point where it's economically feasible to market and sell them for profit. In quite a number of cases, if they had to spend their own money on testing every single aspect of every single thing they developed, the whole company could go bankrupt before the thing even got to prototype stage... so innovation would stagnate.

You are completely oblivious and ignorant and you should be embarrassed, but instead you will just keep spewing the same shit over and over because you don't want to admit to yourself that you could be wrong.

Haha... yes, let's just cut all funding to the fire departments. They don't need a building, or trucks or hydrants or axes or protective gear. Volunteers can create massive traffic jams at the fire sites and throw handfuls of dirt at the burning buildings!

You're a genius, STP.

Who is profiting from the prisons?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pr...es-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289

The prison industry is driven by PRIVATE industries looking for cheap slave labor.

And in this article, it mentions that PRIVATE prisons are the biggest business in the entire prison industrial complex-- something that started under the libertarian Ronald Reagan and continued under his free-market obsessed successors. THIS is what you are fighting for, Stp... we are LIVING in the world that you are fighting for, except for a handful of remnants of the old, more egalitarian society that the right hasn't gotten their hands on yet.

All of this is a direct result of the huge influence of private free-market policies on the US government, the same ones that have weakened it into what is basically a 'legality for sale'-type enterprise.

The prison industry is a product of the same line of thought that causes businesses to go to China to cut costs, to hire illegal immigrants because they have no legal protection, to complain about taxation getting in the way of their profits-- greedy private businesses fuel the demand for cheap labor, which is driven by consumer demand for cheap products, which is driven by low wages, which is driven by private business and their attack on unions.

I have already explained on another thread why private highways are a terrible, horrible, insanely stupid idea. You will also pay for those, but chances are you will pay much more just to use those roads than you would have ever paid in taxes for health care, fire departments, hospitals, schools, technology, etc... COMBINED.

A private highway is a monopoly... instead of it being a public tax-funded service, you seriously think it's a good idea to turn it into a private business where the owner can charge you whatever they want? As you said, it's not like you won't be able to use that road-- so you will also have to PAY every time you do. And because there is no competition, there is literally NO incentive not to raise the price of using that road to the point where most people cannot afford it.

So yes, in your system you might be able to afford to WALK down the road once a week... you won't be able to get to the hospital if you have an emergency, you won't be able to buy food, and the owner will be able to use that highway to completely destroy his competition and create a monopoly in other businesses as well, but hey, at least you will be free and not have to deal with the oppressive government!

Total fiction... 'shooting their dogs' wtf are you even talking about? How is a private police force going to be better than the one that we already have, exactly?

You keep repeating this shit over and over as if it makes sense-- it doesn't. And citing individual cases of police corruption doesn't mean that all police everywhere should be sold to rich fucking businessmen so that they can control all of society, which is exactly what Ron Paul would do if he could.

They are the ones most likely to cheat on their taxes (probably because they believe what you do), so they are the ones most likely to go to prison. They go to really nice prisons because they are rich.

I don't think we're in a happy medium. Unlike you, I don't think that it's a question of black or white.

There are policies that work and policies that don't-- most of them come with their share of advantages and drawbacks. The trick to an effective system is to choose the policies with more advantages than drawbacks, and also which ones work best together.

BTW, you are the most ignorant person I have ever been sucked into a debate with. You don't even understand the full implications of what you support, you've just been hypnotized by the superficial populist rhetoric of Ron Paul.

Jesus you are so literal.

Yes, I know that you are probably aware of the existence of other countries, but you are fully and completely ignorant of how their governments work, their cultures, their societies, their laws, their regulations... and you have absolutely zero desire to ever understand anything about them. If someone talks about a concept that perhaps the US could stand to implement, you space out and don't understand it... or you start talking about the US again. You understand nothing except the bullshit 'founding fathers' BS you are constantly regurgitating... and to be honest, I really don't think you understand THAT either. You just use those words because of how they make you feel, and how you think it will make other people feel... there is literally no logic to what you are saying.

You can support the EXISTENCE of government without supporting specific ACTIONS of that government. I am constantly trying to get you to understand this basic fact but you are impervious to it.

You are the very definition of the useful idiot.

 

25

LOL oh of course you did, and its not like you never lie is it, oh actually you do…

What next are you going to say your dog eat it?

Anyway its not the length but the quality that’s important you often post long rambling rants that go nowhere and answer nothing…we don’t want more of them.

You do think in the most simplistic way.

Why are there homeless people in your society? Do you think the only thing government does is give money to homeless people?

And it also it highlights the way you ideas favour wealth and would most likely allow it to dominate the society in which they were followed.

You don’t want government to have legal power to tax or regulate - although from what I can tell you do want it to have coercive power to protect property and person (so in the example you would want the authorities to arrest and prosecute the robber).

As we have discussed, the problem is that tax cuts much more favour wealth and would likely increase its power and influence. As would non regulation. (and please don’t lie again and claim you have addressed those criticism because you haven’t).

It seems to me that you want ‘government coercion’ you just don’t want any ‘government coercion’ that could adversely affect wealth.

Also as pointed out many times before before the meaning of what freedom means is open to interpretation.

Freedom from harm, freedom from exploitation, freedom from hardship, freedom from sickness.

There is also peoples freedom of choice this can change according to a person’s circumstance and in a monetary based system wealth can dictate those circumstances.

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them freedom from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of freedom.

The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?

But government funds did help develop the computer through such things as Colossus, ENIAC and ARPANET But also on a fundamental level through the public money given to educating people and the public funds channelled to universities in the form of grants, their developments are then often used to assist private industry – so if anything it’s the other way around - it's government funds that helps develop and private industry that feeds off of their glory...

Also I’ve lived in a community with volunteer fire-fighters and they still had to be paid for through taxes, there had to be the building, the equipment, the training and paying the volunteers for their time and I think paying employers for the loss of an employee if they were called away.

Also the volunteer system worked because this was a low density community and accompanying low incident rate, in high density urban (or industrial areas) were incidents are high full time fire-fighters are needed.

If you have just an - ability to pay fire service – the wealthier might be able to pay into what is basically an insurance scheme but the poorer might not. In Britain before the public fire brigades, there used to be many fire services, people would pay and have a plaque on their walls to show they had paid - no plaque and even if a service arrived they’d just let the building burn down, same if it was a rival company that arrived first, they’d do nothing. Time and again ability to pay schemes would seem to favour wealth over other sections of society.

 

Okay, again you're blaming corporations, for something that is clearly the result of big Government, mixed with Big business.


The american Medical/pharmaceutical industry, wasn't always this expensive. You're totally ignoring too, that the 40 years Medicade has been covered through the government, is when prices skyrocketed, quality of care went down,and today, there are less people on insurance than 40 years ago, before government got involved. Liberals are quick to disregard that, and blame only the industry, without equal blame on government, because, it doesn't fit their agenda...

I didn't say that, and you know it. No, kids are being indoctrinated to be apathetic toward war, government and, the harsh reality we are faced with daily. They're told to sit down, shut up and, take everything the teacher says as fact, whereas, they lie to kids or, don't tell the whole truth on many different subjects.

NY is a blue state; Like I said, to ask me why i use "government services" in NY, is like me asking you why you shop at corporations and support them. The answer is, there is no way around it.


That doesn't mean I can't think it's wrong. I'll get more into why later in on this post..

Obama has been consistently cutting NASA's budget, while the budget for things like military and foreign aid to radicals, keep going up.

So it's you being ignorant

This argument doesn't make sense.

The military-industrial complex is made up of multiple different industries, including (but not limited to: ) Oil, banking, arms dealers and, sometimes even other industries out for opium or, resources.

However, me buying a gun, doesn't mean I support endless war, and that's a silly argument.

I don't support an institution having the power to start a war. Therefore, your argument voids itself out. Who do you Liberals think would start war? a majority of people just want to live day-by-day, without harm or force, but, the government inevitably and always violates our Right to do that.

It may not matter to you, but the freemarket is a supply-demand process. They offer you a product, you're not forced to buy it. You are so hostile against people deciding to buy products, and you're so defensive over government forcing people to buy products. It literally makes no sense.

Btw- you obviously have a computer, doesn't that make you a consumer of these very products?

All you broadcasting here, is my point exactly; Corporations are in bed with government. This is something anyone who know politics would know.

You're lying by saying that it's impossible for corporations to do it themselves. But, I do believe they push burden on the taxpayer. (Something they only do through government.) So, at least we agree, the government is doing corporate favors- although, we disagree on the motives/outcome. Either way, you merely echoed my sentiments that corporations use government so they don't have to use their money.

Of course liberals don't care, because, infinite money is exactly what we'd need to support 40% of the country from cradle to grave, and the 60% who are working would be paying the debts for everyone else, how is that "fair?"

That's hysterical- I can say the same exact thing to you, word-for-word.

You are over-emotional and pretentious and, you act like a baby whenever you lose an argument,and start calling names.

That's not what I believe, and you know it. Obviously you grasped the private police idea, a private fire dept. should be instinctive.

If you need their service, you pay them.

Don't tell me what I'm fighting for. That's total ignorance. You don't even look deeply enough into things to understand my views. You just think government is a game of chance "sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong." That statement screams conformity to me, and Ill explain why...

But first of all, it's presumptuous to assume that "free labor" is the only reason america locks up Millions of non-violent people. The government makes money from the drug cartels and, legal drug companies, to keep drug illegal. They're also probably involved in the drug racYouket, too.

Ronald Reagan was not a Libertarian by any means, and this is an ignorant misconception. He was a big-business Republican, who favored the wealthy with tax cuts, and expanded government, despite his small government rhetoric. But, that doesn't make the ideals of shrinking government wrong, because we never really tried it.


You're really "debating" on emotion, more-so than fact.
You take one little thing, and blow it waayy out of proportion, and you have all this hate and blame on voluntary human interaction, but yet, you defense forced human action, and straight up, it's totally hypocritical to me. I don't see things in black and white, but I do see when our freedom and individuality is being taken.

Ill get back to the rest of the misinformed left-wing propaganda later, it's going to take forever to answer and obviously you have a very closed mind, that believes we need to institute force to live together peacefully.

 

BTW- What h appened to the FBI arresting all these awful Wall Street tycoons?


I think you should hold your breath, I'm POSITIVE the US Government will do a speedy and honest job (even if they don't do anything else that way)

 

I did lose the post. I've been having trouble with one of my keyboard keys, so I was pasting that certain letter, (Ctrl + V) and, I must've accidently Xed out. But, I was very pissed about the whole thing, cause it makes me feel like I'm wasting my life debating with two very closed-minded people, that believe their perception is reality, and act like they're 100% right, even when they don't know what they're talking about.

You're so predictable, I KNEW when I was making that post, that you would try to play it of as I'm a liar.

I'm seriously mad, cause I feel like I'm wasting my time trying to "debate," when, all fraggle does is throw out personal insults, and all you do is try to discredit my character, or repeat the same Leftist assumptions, that are simply not true, but you can't be bothered to even picture a world where we don't have Government: searching teenagers for drugs, busting into peoples house, and yes fraggle shooting peoples dogs..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqgdRh7MHuk"]Police Officer Shoots Chained Dog Responding to Wrong House - YouTube



It's Even fucking worse sometimes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shxim8Lgkds"]Detroit police raid wrong house kill child.flv - YouTube

People don't deserve this, and it doesn't represent any form of a greater good; Government, is a manifestation of mankind's wickedness. on the left, they believe Government has moral authority over the individual- and I reject that notion totally.

I don't believe freedom is subjective either. The definition of freedom is to be free from bounds. I believe if you're not hurting anyone, then, the government shouldn't be involved in your business.

Now, Leftist are mistaking freedom, for Government benefits. But, I would argue that this creates a dependency on government, and despite the fact leftist may trust the government to keep the money flowing forever, the fact is, the US Government (Dem or Con,) will cut Humanitarian Spending, waaayyyy before the cut the military spending.

and, really you're less free if you're dependent on Gov. to live...


This is why I say, I'm not looking at the world in black and white. The two major political parties do that.

But, I'm saying, leftist do advocate force, because that's all government has done since we created them. This is why I believe we wont get freedom through Government; That's what america was supposed to be, but, right away, the government started going against our Rights.


This is why I believe true freedom is freedom at an individual level, providing you are not harming anyone else. It takes care of everything, but Leftists wont consider these Ideals, and I personally believe it is also due to greed, much like the "1%" you claim to hate.

 

Everything I said in the first post was true and accurate, and like a typical Leftist, you ignored it. "Lol ok sure." Tell me smart ass, what did I say that was inaccurate?

I think you Leftist think you're soo much smarter than everyone, and anyone who logically and sensibly attacks your views, are treated as "crazies" or "Right-wing gun nuts," yet, the US Government kills way more than the total number of gun deaths, and that's including accidents, suicides and, criminals who are shot in self-defense. and still- the number is much less than things like Car accidents and, Deaths by falling.

Hitler was into disarmament too; Because he knew it was impossible to control an armed mass of people. Liberals assume they're right, because they're on the "other side," but, both the political parties are the same policies, and I can prove that too.

So instead of making some ignorant reply to my sensible arguments, why don't you actually debate me???


I believe it's because the bottom line for Liberals is they're always right. Even when they can't defend their beliefs, they still make personal insults, and, ignore reality totally.

and I'm allegedly the "crazy" one

I hope for you own sakes, you wake up to reality quickly, because there is an agenda being pushed; but, it isn't that of the people's, and never will be as long as we grat them these extraordinary powers to control our very lives. There's no freedom in that, either.

 

The honest answer to your question asking why I don't debate you, is that I don't think you are capable of having an intelligent discussion without making wild accusations and going off on incoherent rambling tangents.

I don't think I'm always right, I just think that you're often wrong. I regularly challenge my worldview and my opinions, and my beliefs and values change when confronted with new information. Just because I don't read your posts and immediately change my opinion does not mean that I think I'm always right, it just means that I usually think that you're wrong.

 

due to complete and utter ignorance.

I told you to tell me where I'm wrong, and you post this?

Everything I say is true, to sit there and say I'm wrong and incoherent, is a load of Leftist Rhetoric. Leftist OFTEN claim I'm wrong, that "they don't support government force," whereas, government is only good for instituting force, and that's shown throughout history.


I think it is you Liberals who are incapable of debating. That's why you resort to name calling,and personal insults like you do. I mean, shit, I feel dumber just talking to you guys..

Everyone of their ideals have to be forced unto the populace. Yet, they act like they and government have more moral fabric, then the individual.


Government corruption is literally EVERYWHERE. To say I'm lying, only greater displays your ignorance, and you denial the government=force.

 

LIBERALS AND LEFTISTS ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

That is one thing you are wrong about.

You seem to have very little knowledge of the workings of any nations outside of your borders, which is understandable, but also means that you should probably not generalize so much.

As well, your logic is ridiculous. It seems that you assume that anyone who disagrees with something you say must also disagree with every single thing that you believe in. Can you show me where I made the claim that government corruption does not exist?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r1IPsldbBg"]Mariana Mazzucato: Government -- investor, risk-taker, innovator - YouTube

Just some food for thought.

As a side note, it's very difficult to engage in a conversation with you because of your sweeping generalizations and inability to keep to the topic at hand. If you're interested in receiving a better reception in this forum, may I suggest cutting back on the spiels regarding "leftists" and "liberals" (whom you incorrectly discuss to begin with, showing a clear lack of historical knowledge on the matter). Try something new dude.

 

This being your biggest problem. I believe you think this is a fact.

 

25

But you refuse to debate – debate is NOT ranting on about us all being wrong and you being right, a sensible argument is NOT telling us we are ignorant because we will not just accept everything you say.

I and others have told you what we think are wrong with your ideas – you refuse to address such criticisms in any sensible fashion.

This, as others have said, is your problem – you are a slave to a dogma that you do not question.

*

You wish for government – you just seem to want a form of government that would serve the wishes of wealth rather than the majority of people (little or no tax, little or no welfare, little or no regulation that might effect profit and a really weak government that could be even easier for wealth to dominated).

You rant about how bad things are and rile about the police shooting dogs and little girls not being able to set up lemonade stalls but your solution as has been show would most likely make a bad situation worse.

 

'Clearly'.

Quality of care has gone up for the rich and gone down for the poor. Prices have skyrocketed because of private abuses of the system. But yes, it IS a bad system... Canada's universal socialized medicine is much better.

And I guess you've never heard of Big Pharma.

In some ways this is true, mostly because of Bush's No Child Left Behind policies. But I definitely wouldn't call it indoctrination... there isn't enough discipline in your average school for it to be considered indoctrination. The apathy is there, though.

You're missing my point-- being that you seem to think that your taxes aren't buying anything that affects you personally-- they are. It's not robbing from the poor and giving to the rich, it's you paying for something that everyone collectively uses. That is the basic principle behind taxation.

No, military spending has gone down since around 2011. It went up in 2001 because of the whole two wars thing... Obama didn't start those wars. But it is nowhere near the levels it was at under Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

And I am not supporting cuts to NASA-- that is completely misrepresenting what I'm saying.

My argument isn't Obama=good, it is that social services overall serve to further equality and opportunity within society. You're constantly missing this point.

LOL-- yes, giving money to gun manufacturers definitely means you are giving your money to the war machines. And you are pro-drug. And in favor of deregulation, and against taxation, both of which help the banks and rich industrialists.

So you are far far more supportive of the war than someone who wishes the government was strong instead of weak.

You're making shit up.

Yes, okay, I think people should have to pay for infrastructure and things that they directly benefit from through taxation-- because it's a more efficient and less wasteful process than doing it through the free market.

This is why the Canadian health care system costs less and provides better quality care than the US-- because the rich pay their fair share, the poor pay their fair share and the result is longer, healthier, happier lives.

This isn't the same as forcing people to buy guns or iPods or things they don't need. Are you saying people would opt-out of Canada-style universal health care if overall they were paying less in taxes than they would in private health care costs? This is because your health will be partially funded by people who can afford to provide for others as well as themselves.

You are literally arguing that it is better for the majority to pay more money for a lower quality service.

And yes, I own a computer. I have owned it since 2009. I am not arguing that people shouldn't own computers.

And your plan is to get rid of the government so we only have corporations. Even if you don't know it, this is what you are supporting.

Somehow, if we do this, all of the corporations will finally reveal themselves as good guys who only want to help people but were being prevented from doing so by the government.

The corporations use the government because they are STRONGER than the government. So what you have in the US now is much closer to what you are arguing for than what I am arguing for.

You believe that the corporations are powerful because the government is strong, and I believe that the corporations are powerful because the government is weak.

A government that always acts in the best interests of the corporations while neglecting those of its people isn't a government at all-- it is a corporate tool.

The best defense against this isn't to completely remove all the barriers between the people and the corporations by lowering taxation and slashing social spending, it's to INCREASE the barriers by redistributing wealth through social programs and taxation.

Obviously spending tax money on corporate interests is NOT something I or anyone else on this board supports, but the way the global economy is set up makes it extremely difficult for any politician to do anything else.

Uhhh... you've been arguing in favor of tax cuts in every single post you've made here.

And Reagan attempted to privatize social security-- he then proceeded to use taxes to bail it out when that strategy failed horrendously.

Reagan started out as a true Libertarian but his attempts to pass Libertarian-style measures were economically, socially and politically disastrous and he spent a lot of time backtracking.

You constantly misrepresent the left as supporting corporations instead of social programs.

 

I never said they were the same, first of all. Secondly, being that Liberals are left-wing, Liberal, would be the Sub Genre, and Leftist, would be the Genre.

I know the inner workings of Governments everywhere. But, granted, America is a prime example of a forceful government.


However, the reason I don't get into the corruption of Foreign Governments, is because, it's not my intention to tell those individuals how they can live. Of course I would suggest freedom till I'm blue in the face, but, the UK has had a monarch for thousands of years, for me to oppose them, may offend people.


But as an American Citizen, the things that I defend our Human Rights, that the government doesn't have the authority in the first place, to violate. I am reacting to endless problems and, fake solutions to those problems, that the majority just accept as fact, at face value. That is why my logic makes perfect sense, because US Citizens don't like being forced into government programs, and we don't like government controlling 90% of the money we physically had to earn. I think Communism (which is what Liberalism ultimately favors,) would be like working all the time, for whatever goods and services the government DECIDES to give you.

My logic actually makes perfect sense, and this is why I say you Liberals are dodging. (I specifically want to explain to Mr Writer, why I believe Government represents force,) and I have individual replies thought up for everyone.


all I said in the first post though, was that the two main political parties are the same thing, and they're bought by corporations, and you said "lol sure."
What is your defense then, how do you justify immorality, in the name of making a fairer world??


"Did you ever wonder why we had to run for shelter, while the promise of a brave New World unfurled beneath a clear blue sky?" -Pink Floyd-

 

edit: not even worth it.

 

Yes they are. Every leftist I met dons the liberal label