On some. The ACLU was started by a socialist and is run mostly by socialists. My hero in economics, Milton Friedman, (my major in college) left the ACLU after they supported rent control back in the 50s.SlappyWhitey said:
OT: Administration wages war on pornography
- Thread starter jdelpi
- Start date
GASOLINEDREAM
Time to Play
Everybody voted for the Patriot Act--they thought they were doing a good thing. Now, Bush and ASScroft think it's a good thing. Most Dems, libertarians, and independents think it is not any longer useful. It needs to go!jdelpi said:
Kerry sure as hell won't support desecrating our sacred Constitution with his own personal fucking religious views.
i do think most politicians are scumbags, but I find the vermin in office right now more offensive than most administrations. THere's always some sort of bullshit legislation going on regarding censorship and crap like that, but this crew thrives on it, because it's in line with their extreme views on religion and thought control. Asscroft supposedly doesn't drink, smoke, do caffeine, etc. But I'll bet he has 10 "REAL DOLLS" and has sex with monkeys in his private life.
Howard Stern just got fined massively today, BTW. I do find it funny that CLearChannel is the one getting hammered. They give Bush like 10 times more money than they give Kerry and here he sends little Powell and his FCC on a mission to fine them because he's bothered by what's being said on radio--cause it's bad for his ears!!
mrthrax
riffer madness
i see that kerry guy on the news,he is just doing the same thing as any contender would,saying things people wanna hear,surely people can see thru that,i dont know the guys background but just looking at the guy i get the impression that he couldnt knock the crust of a rice custard!!!
Kerry is the typical politician. Says what he thinks you want to hear. Coming from Massachusetts, that makes him pretty liberal most of the time.
It's sick actually.
To take a contrary position to Bush, he's got himself hoping we do bad in the war and hoping the economy takes a dive. He's put himself on the side of France in world diplomacy for christ's sake!! I guess it makes sense since he grew up there.
I just hate politicians who hope America does badly just for their own politcal gain.
p.s. I'm no fan of the over-spending, over-reaching Bush administration either.
Vote Libertarian. If you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, evil is what you will get. That to me is "throwing your vote away!"
It's sick actually.
To take a contrary position to Bush, he's got himself hoping we do bad in the war and hoping the economy takes a dive. He's put himself on the side of France in world diplomacy for christ's sake!! I guess it makes sense since he grew up there.
I just hate politicians who hope America does badly just for their own politcal gain.
p.s. I'm no fan of the over-spending, over-reaching Bush administration either.
Vote Libertarian. If you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, evil is what you will get. That to me is "throwing your vote away!"
mrthrax
riffer madness
it seems hard to believe that an economy worth 10 trillion a year,(yes that figure was actually said by some so called expert)could have trouble with cash flow.
as they say more money more problems!
as they say more money more problems!
SLAYER85
Old School Youngin
i think the libertarian thing is just a bunch of new wave hippie crap, peace love and happiness man, right, if you keep your nose out of other peoples business on a global scale for too long then shit gets fucked up, this is why isolationism never worked in the first place. It works for a little bit then peple get smart and start doin shit that they shouldnt. Im happy w/ the govt right now, i mean i dont live a perfect life some shits dumb, but i think they provide for me just fine.
No one said "keep out." Libertarians don't support "isolationism." The libertarians just support the foreign policy of many of our founding fathers. Peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Libertarians are more than hippies. That's why so many of the Nobel Prize-winning economists are libertarians.SLAYER85 said:
JDelpi, is this the same Milton Friedman that you are talking about....CONSERVATISM AND THE RISE OF RONALD REAGAN
For many Americans, the economic, social and political trends of the previous two decades -- ranging from crime and racial polarization in many urban centers, to the economic downturn and inflation of the Carter years -- engendered a mood of disillusionment. It also strengthened a renewed suspicion of government and its ability to deal effectively with the country's deep-rooted social and political problems.
Conservatives, long out of power at the national level, were well positioned to exploit this new mood. It was a time when many Americans were receptive to their message of limited government, strong national defense and the protection of traditional values against what were seen as the encroachments of a permissive and often chaotic modern society.
This conservative upsurge had many sources. A large group of fundamentalist Christians, who regard the Bible as the direct and inerrant word of God, were particularly concerned about an increase in crime and sexual immorality. One of the most politically effective groups in the early 1980s, called the Moral Majority, was led by a Baptist minister, Jerry Falwell. Another, led by Pat Robertson, built an organization called the Christian Coalition which by the 1990s was a potent force in the Republican Party. Like many such groups, they wanted to return religion to a central place in American life. Television evangelists like Falwell and Robertson developed huge followings.
Another galvanizing issue for conservatives was one of the most divisive and emotional issues of the time: abortion. Opposition to the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, which upheld a woman's right to an abortion in the early months of pregnancy, brought together a wide array of organizations and individuals. They included, but were not limited to, large numbers of Catholics, political conservatives and religious fundamentalists, most of whom regarded abortion under virtually any circumstances as tantamount to murder. They were prepared to organize in support of politicians who agreed with their position -- and against those who disagreed with it. Pro-choice and antiabortion demonstrations became a fixture of the political landscape.
Within the Republican Party, the right wing grew dominant once again. The right had briefly seized control of the Republican Party in 1964 with its presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, then faded from the spotlight. By 1980, however, with the use of modern fund-raising techniques, the right overtook the moderate wing of the party. Drawing on the intellectual firepower of such conservatives as economist Milton Friedman, journalists William F. Buckley and George Will, and research institutions like the Heritage Foundation, the New Right played a significant role in defining the issues of the 1980s.
Like other conservatives, or the "Old Right," the New Right favored strict limits on government intervention in the economy. But the New Right was willing to use state power to encourage its view of family values, restrict homosexual behavior and censor pornography. In general, the New Right also favored tough measures against crime, strong national defense, a constitutional amendment to permit prayer in public schools, opposition to abortion and defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment for women.
The figure who drew all these disparate strands together was Ronald Reagan. Reagan, born in Illinois, achieved stardom as an actor in Hollywood movies and television before turning to politics. He first achieved political prominence with a nationwide televised speech in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater. In 1966 Reagan won the governorship of California, owing to a wave of voter reaction against the student rebellion at the University of California-Berkeley, and served until 1975. He narrowly missed winning the Republican nomination for president in 1976 before succeeding in 1980 and going on to win the presidency from Jimmy Carter. Reagan won overwhelming reelection in 1984 against Carter's vice president, Walter Mondale.
President Reagan's unflagging optimism and his ability to celebrate the achievements and aspirations of the American people persisted throughout his two terms in office. He was a figure of reassurance and stability for many Americans. Despite his propensity for misstatements, Reagan was known as the "Great Communicator," primarily for his mastery of television. For many, he recalled the prosperity and relative social tranquility of the 1950s -- an era dominated by another genial public personality who evoked widespread affection, President Dwight Eisenhower.
Reagan believed that government intruded too deeply into American life. He wanted to cut programs he contended the country did not need by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse." Throughout his tenure, Reagan also pursued a program of deregulation more thoroughgoing than that begun by Jimmy Carter. Reagan sought to eliminate regulations affecting the consumer, the workplace and the environment that he argued were inefficient, expensive and impeded economic growth.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/history/ch13.htm
Doesnt sound very Libertarian to me. Sure, he was just an economist in this administration but being a Libertarian, wouldnt he speak out against some of the things that were going on pertaining to other issues?
For many Americans, the economic, social and political trends of the previous two decades -- ranging from crime and racial polarization in many urban centers, to the economic downturn and inflation of the Carter years -- engendered a mood of disillusionment. It also strengthened a renewed suspicion of government and its ability to deal effectively with the country's deep-rooted social and political problems.
Conservatives, long out of power at the national level, were well positioned to exploit this new mood. It was a time when many Americans were receptive to their message of limited government, strong national defense and the protection of traditional values against what were seen as the encroachments of a permissive and often chaotic modern society.
This conservative upsurge had many sources. A large group of fundamentalist Christians, who regard the Bible as the direct and inerrant word of God, were particularly concerned about an increase in crime and sexual immorality. One of the most politically effective groups in the early 1980s, called the Moral Majority, was led by a Baptist minister, Jerry Falwell. Another, led by Pat Robertson, built an organization called the Christian Coalition which by the 1990s was a potent force in the Republican Party. Like many such groups, they wanted to return religion to a central place in American life. Television evangelists like Falwell and Robertson developed huge followings.
Another galvanizing issue for conservatives was one of the most divisive and emotional issues of the time: abortion. Opposition to the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, which upheld a woman's right to an abortion in the early months of pregnancy, brought together a wide array of organizations and individuals. They included, but were not limited to, large numbers of Catholics, political conservatives and religious fundamentalists, most of whom regarded abortion under virtually any circumstances as tantamount to murder. They were prepared to organize in support of politicians who agreed with their position -- and against those who disagreed with it. Pro-choice and antiabortion demonstrations became a fixture of the political landscape.
Within the Republican Party, the right wing grew dominant once again. The right had briefly seized control of the Republican Party in 1964 with its presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, then faded from the spotlight. By 1980, however, with the use of modern fund-raising techniques, the right overtook the moderate wing of the party. Drawing on the intellectual firepower of such conservatives as economist Milton Friedman, journalists William F. Buckley and George Will, and research institutions like the Heritage Foundation, the New Right played a significant role in defining the issues of the 1980s.
Like other conservatives, or the "Old Right," the New Right favored strict limits on government intervention in the economy. But the New Right was willing to use state power to encourage its view of family values, restrict homosexual behavior and censor pornography. In general, the New Right also favored tough measures against crime, strong national defense, a constitutional amendment to permit prayer in public schools, opposition to abortion and defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment for women.
The figure who drew all these disparate strands together was Ronald Reagan. Reagan, born in Illinois, achieved stardom as an actor in Hollywood movies and television before turning to politics. He first achieved political prominence with a nationwide televised speech in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater. In 1966 Reagan won the governorship of California, owing to a wave of voter reaction against the student rebellion at the University of California-Berkeley, and served until 1975. He narrowly missed winning the Republican nomination for president in 1976 before succeeding in 1980 and going on to win the presidency from Jimmy Carter. Reagan won overwhelming reelection in 1984 against Carter's vice president, Walter Mondale.
President Reagan's unflagging optimism and his ability to celebrate the achievements and aspirations of the American people persisted throughout his two terms in office. He was a figure of reassurance and stability for many Americans. Despite his propensity for misstatements, Reagan was known as the "Great Communicator," primarily for his mastery of television. For many, he recalled the prosperity and relative social tranquility of the 1950s -- an era dominated by another genial public personality who evoked widespread affection, President Dwight Eisenhower.
Reagan believed that government intruded too deeply into American life. He wanted to cut programs he contended the country did not need by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse." Throughout his tenure, Reagan also pursued a program of deregulation more thoroughgoing than that begun by Jimmy Carter. Reagan sought to eliminate regulations affecting the consumer, the workplace and the environment that he argued were inefficient, expensive and impeded economic growth.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/history/ch13.htm
Doesnt sound very Libertarian to me. Sure, he was just an economist in this administration but being a Libertarian, wouldnt he speak out against some of the things that were going on pertaining to other issues?
OK, I have to take some of that back......The great economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman turns 90 on July 31. President Bush, who invited him to the White House for a public toast and a private lunch to celebrate the occasion a few weeks ago, had some very nice things to say about him, for good reason.
Friedman, the president said, "has used a brilliant mind to advance a moral vision: the vision of a society where men and women are free, free to choose, but where government is not as free to override their decisions. ... (He) has shown us that when government attempts to substitute its own judgments for the judgments of free people, the results are usually disastrous."
The president did not mention the best example of such a disaster: The so-called war on drugs, which Bush very much supports and Friedman has been opposing since the day it was declared by President Nixon in 1972.
Writing in Newsweek in May 1972, Friedman took on "Prohibition and Drugs" in these terms: "On ethical grounds, do we have the right to use the machinery of government to prevent an individual from becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict? For children, almost everyone would answer at least a qualified yes. But for responsible adults, I, for one, would answer no. Reason with the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for and with him, yes. But I believe that we have no right to use force, directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs."
It is a view consistent with the notion of individual freedom as being guided by one's own judgment rather than government's: Individuals will do unto themselves what they will, correcting their mistakes the same way that the "invisible hand" of the free market corrects its own. It so happens that Friedman believes that invisible hand to be infallible a considerable flaw in Friedman's concept of freedom, especially when it is applied to individual choice. Anything human is fallible, free markets included.
But it is still better to fail by one's own hand (to be a drug addict, for example) than to be a victim of government's failure as it attempts to judge the good and bad of individual behavior (by putting drug addicts in prison). Just as government should temper the excesses of the free market by regulating it lightly, it should balance personal freedoms with the values and interests of society at large, which ideally complement rather than contradict those freedoms.
The drug war has been a complete failure along those lines, punishing individuals, wrecking individual rights, turning Americans against Americans and inner cities into war zones, jamming prisons to levels unparalleled anywhere in the world, corrupting police agencies, costing more to fight (in 2002, anyway) than the $1 billion-a-month Afghan war, and to date yielding not even a hope for victory. An end in itself, it is a perpetual war written into the nation's budget, its social fabric and its election cycles.
Friedman declared the war indefensible on moral grounds. President Bush, citing many free market successes tailored after the economist's ideas around the world, including China and Russia, noted how "the rest of the world is finally catching up with Milton Friedman." But Friedman's economic disciples at home have yet to catch up to him regarding one of the most damaging campaigns against Americans and individual rights in the nation's history.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/712646/posts
Friedman, the president said, "has used a brilliant mind to advance a moral vision: the vision of a society where men and women are free, free to choose, but where government is not as free to override their decisions. ... (He) has shown us that when government attempts to substitute its own judgments for the judgments of free people, the results are usually disastrous."
The president did not mention the best example of such a disaster: The so-called war on drugs, which Bush very much supports and Friedman has been opposing since the day it was declared by President Nixon in 1972.
Writing in Newsweek in May 1972, Friedman took on "Prohibition and Drugs" in these terms: "On ethical grounds, do we have the right to use the machinery of government to prevent an individual from becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict? For children, almost everyone would answer at least a qualified yes. But for responsible adults, I, for one, would answer no. Reason with the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for and with him, yes. But I believe that we have no right to use force, directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs."
It is a view consistent with the notion of individual freedom as being guided by one's own judgment rather than government's: Individuals will do unto themselves what they will, correcting their mistakes the same way that the "invisible hand" of the free market corrects its own. It so happens that Friedman believes that invisible hand to be infallible a considerable flaw in Friedman's concept of freedom, especially when it is applied to individual choice. Anything human is fallible, free markets included.
But it is still better to fail by one's own hand (to be a drug addict, for example) than to be a victim of government's failure as it attempts to judge the good and bad of individual behavior (by putting drug addicts in prison). Just as government should temper the excesses of the free market by regulating it lightly, it should balance personal freedoms with the values and interests of society at large, which ideally complement rather than contradict those freedoms.
The drug war has been a complete failure along those lines, punishing individuals, wrecking individual rights, turning Americans against Americans and inner cities into war zones, jamming prisons to levels unparalleled anywhere in the world, corrupting police agencies, costing more to fight (in 2002, anyway) than the $1 billion-a-month Afghan war, and to date yielding not even a hope for victory. An end in itself, it is a perpetual war written into the nation's budget, its social fabric and its election cycles.
Friedman declared the war indefensible on moral grounds. President Bush, citing many free market successes tailored after the economist's ideas around the world, including China and Russia, noted how "the rest of the world is finally catching up with Milton Friedman." But Friedman's economic disciples at home have yet to catch up to him regarding one of the most damaging campaigns against Americans and individual rights in the nation's history.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/712646/posts
Jono
Hail Satan!
now that makes a whole lot of sense to me. Isreal and Palestine are a great example of why you shouldn't for "alliances" it's awesome to help another country out but if they're both assholes and you're "allied" to one, you're on the side of an asshole. But it is good to have other countries as "friends" someone you can share knowledge and culture with.jdelpi said:
-Jono-
I've been a Libertarian for a long time now and never have I considered myself an isolationist. We have a right to defend our country as we see fit and that goes for our interests as well. I do not think our alliances have benefitted us at all, however.
Our alliances only seem to benefit our allies. When have they come to the help of the U.S.? How many times have we helped?
I happen to differ with the Libertarian party platform on the anti-war position in this case. I see terrorism as a building global threat and we need to nip it in the bud before it gets more out of hand. The last decade has shown us what apathy breeds. Establishing democracy in the middle east would do alot to help. This is a means of defending our country! President Bush recognizes this. He would even get my vote if his social issues were not so restricting.
Vote Libertarian...
Sure they may not win, but if enough people start to vote that way, the ideals would at least be included in the debate. Our fore-fathers would want it that way.
Our alliances only seem to benefit our allies. When have they come to the help of the U.S.? How many times have we helped?
I happen to differ with the Libertarian party platform on the anti-war position in this case. I see terrorism as a building global threat and we need to nip it in the bud before it gets more out of hand. The last decade has shown us what apathy breeds. Establishing democracy in the middle east would do alot to help. This is a means of defending our country! President Bush recognizes this. He would even get my vote if his social issues were not so restricting.
Vote Libertarian...
Sure they may not win, but if enough people start to vote that way, the ideals would at least be included in the debate. Our fore-fathers would want it that way.
September 11, Iraq, Iran, the rest of the Middle East, China, North Korea, troops in Eastern Europe in conflicts, Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, whatever. What we have now is not that great, especially when you consider we have the strongest military in the world, peaceful neighbors to the north and south and gigantic oceans on the east and west. Instead of just trying to keep America safe we go and look for fights. We get what we paid for.SLAYER85 said:
NP: Iron Maiden - 9/10/1979 Music Machine: London, UK
GASOLINEDREAM
Time to Play
I don't know if you mean physically or what. He's actually like 4 or 5 inches taller than Bush and contrary to Bush playing soldier back in the day, he actually carried a weapon was shot at, wounded, and killed the enemy.mrthrax said:
As for being a politician--he absolutely is. As for Bush being a President. He absolutely isn't.
Have a fun day!!
If there was a true democracy being set up in Iraq, who do you think would be in power? You dont think it would be someone who was Anti-American, do you? All the years that the Reagan administration supported Saddam against Iran worked out really well, didnt it?http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm This is a not a means of defending our country, this is a means of Junior finishing the job that Daddy didnt. Have you seen the footage of Junior speaking on August 7th, the day after the infamous PDB that was recently released? Hes not talking about terrorist activity, hes talking about Saddam. After 9/11, who did you feel more threatened by, Saddam or Bin Laden? If Bush was truly wanting to defend our country, why are the pages in the 9/11 report that pertain to Saudi Arabia blacked out? Ive heard that its due to national interest, well my national interest is knowing who is truly behind 9/11 and taking those people out. Talk about alliances that benefit our allies, cant get any better benifits than that. http://www.truthout.com/docs_03/072703A.shtml and http://www.china.com.cn/english/international/71198.htmCaptUSA said:
It's easy to understand the way people in the middle east feel. After all they went to schools that indoctrinated them into that line of thinking. It would take someone with a great open mind and intellect to overcome that kind of indoctrination.
Unfortunately, we have the same thing here. Our government (public) schools are run by teachers that have to be members of the liberal teachers union. Our press vote's liberal over 80% of the time. MTV is ridiculous! NO wonder kids grow up and never seem to be able to over-come this wrong thinking. They latch onto anything the media says to support their own beliefs no matter how insignificant. PDB...
I know it's hard but you have to be able to stop believing that dem's line. I'm not saying you must belive the rep's line either, but use some sense.
"finish daddy's business, PDB, big oil, easter bunny"
Unfortunately, we have the same thing here. Our government (public) schools are run by teachers that have to be members of the liberal teachers union. Our press vote's liberal over 80% of the time. MTV is ridiculous! NO wonder kids grow up and never seem to be able to over-come this wrong thinking. They latch onto anything the media says to support their own beliefs no matter how insignificant. PDB...
I know it's hard but you have to be able to stop believing that dem's line. I'm not saying you must belive the rep's line either, but use some sense.
"finish daddy's business, PDB, big oil, easter bunny"
Liberal Media......FOX news......WMDs..........understanding the Middle East.....blame it on the school system.....Chris Matthews......Libertarian.....PDB insignificant....... I dont watch MTV.....never mentioned big oil......CaptUSA said:It's easy to understand the way people in the middle east feel. After all they went to schools that indoctrinated them into that line of thinking. It would take someone with a great open mind and intellect to overcome that kind of indoctrination.
Unfortunately, we have the same thing here. Our government (public) schools are run by teachers that have to be members of the liberal teachers union. Our press vote's liberal over 80% of the time. MTV is ridiculous! NO wonder kids grow up and never seem to be able to over-come this wrong thinking. They latch onto anything the media says to support their own beliefs no matter how insignificant. PDB...
I know it's hard but you have to be able to stop believing that dem's line. I'm not saying you must belive the rep's line either, but use some sense.
"finish daddy's business, PDB, big oil, easter bunny"
You were doing better with the censorship argument. If it comes down to national security, Bush wins. Even if you think you have some good points, he still wins if that's the issue.
As for the religious right, it's no wonder the Rep's defend their issues. With the liberal public schools and liberal media, The only way to keep votes is by defending the way religious people feel. There are alot of them. Look at the Passion's ticket sales.
As for our allies, we defended France against Germany, Germany against the Soviet Union. Where are they now? Defending their own illegal interests in Iraq.
As for the religious right, it's no wonder the Rep's defend their issues. With the liberal public schools and liberal media, The only way to keep votes is by defending the way religious people feel. There are alot of them. Look at the Passion's ticket sales.
As for our allies, we defended France against Germany, Germany against the Soviet Union. Where are they now? Defending their own illegal interests in Iraq.
GASOLINEDREAM
Time to Play
This is a getting to be a fun thread! The idea of a liberal media and liberal everything is irritating. At times, yeah you can see it sort of. Most of the time, I think it's a myth. But don't tell me Fox News is fair and balanced, cause that's a bunch of bullshit too!
I don't know when Liberal and conservative became a bad and good word? In the dictionary definition, I would take "liberal" any day over "conservative", Personally, I hate the way both of these parties have divided up the issues over the last 25 years. Here, you take abortion, we'll take guns, etc. It's really f'ing annoying.
i am a lot like Bush in this sense--he doesn't give a shit what the other half of the country thinks about what he does. Well, OK then I don't give a shit what his half thinks either--I refer mainly to the issues of censorship and religion! The ultra-conservatives are all against government intrusion into our money and stuff like that. Well, that's fine with me. However, many of these same people think it's cool to intrude into our personal lives based on their own beliefs, morals, etc. It's OK they say, to have a teacher lead prayers (each under their own religion) in school and tell me what to watch and what to do or say. That just pisses me off.
Quite honestly, if we allow the government to start censoring things, adding "personal agendas" to the Constitution, forcing religion everywhere it doesn't need to be, then the terrorists have beaten us. That is how they would run things. Just look at the Taliban. I'm being an extremist here just to make a point! But, that is not what the U.S. is about. If these extremist people ran things 100% their way, we wouldn't have Anthrax or Slayer or Black Sabbath or Overkill to listen to. We'd be stuck with fucking Travis Tritt, the Osmonds, and Jessica Simpson!
I don't know when Liberal and conservative became a bad and good word? In the dictionary definition, I would take "liberal" any day over "conservative", Personally, I hate the way both of these parties have divided up the issues over the last 25 years. Here, you take abortion, we'll take guns, etc. It's really f'ing annoying.
i am a lot like Bush in this sense--he doesn't give a shit what the other half of the country thinks about what he does. Well, OK then I don't give a shit what his half thinks either--I refer mainly to the issues of censorship and religion! The ultra-conservatives are all against government intrusion into our money and stuff like that. Well, that's fine with me. However, many of these same people think it's cool to intrude into our personal lives based on their own beliefs, morals, etc. It's OK they say, to have a teacher lead prayers (each under their own religion) in school and tell me what to watch and what to do or say. That just pisses me off.
Quite honestly, if we allow the government to start censoring things, adding "personal agendas" to the Constitution, forcing religion everywhere it doesn't need to be, then the terrorists have beaten us.
That is how they would run things. Just look at the Taliban. I'm being an extremist here just to make a point! But, that is not what the U.S. is about. If these extremist people ran things 100% their way, we wouldn't have Anthrax or Slayer or Black Sabbath or Overkill to listen to. We'd be stuck with fucking Travis Tritt, the Osmonds, and Jessica Simpson! I never said he was doing a bad job, I was stating that he is a bit misdirected in his actions.(Wow, that sounds like a policitician, I should run for fucking office.) As far as our allies go, France helped us with the Revolutionary War against the British and we left them under German occupation for over a year before joining in WWII due to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor. Were we protecting interests? Who knows but its a give and take world. As far as your little attack earlier, dont chalk me up to being a knee-jerk reactionist and a "Liberal Media" whore. Just because I question our presidents actions doesnt make me a liberal. I didnt vote for either Gore or Bush in the last election, so dont be so quick to assume that I buy into the "Democrats Line", as you like to call it. Like I stated before, I was 110% behind this war until it turned out to be a farce and I refuse to buy into the "Republicans Line" on that issue. So, explain to me how the war in Iraq is going to help quell terrorism.........I mean, first it was the weapons, then liberation, now its going to help quell terrorism. While you are at it, explain to me exactly what "wrong thinking" is, since you mentioned it. Im really interested in what the difference is between "wrong thinking" and "right thinking".
Similar threads
