"Freedom" thread or something

I only want to take the opportunity to thank you all for still ignoring my first-post question... .

Gamemako wrote: manofmystery wrote: Also Gamemako, your comment on selling uranium in grocery stores is ridiculous. The point is that you believe things should be available regardless of potential harm (your friendly neighborhood nuke store!), or you draw a line involving public good. I'm not arguing whether or not the sale of raw milk should be legal or whether it should be permitted to cross state lines. Whether you agree with the current placement of the line is moot; he clearly and deliberately crossed it. In fact, if these customers were so nearby, they could have collected the raw milk themselves in the state and the entire business would have been perfectly legal. manofmystery wrote: It is an asinine assumption that the only thing preventing this from happening is government regulation.  I saw Anthony Bourdain eat some cheese made with raw milk, on tv, a few weeks back.  Better get him.  He might have made a conscience decision to intake something that could, potentially maybe, harm his health a bit! Consumption of raw milk is not illegal. You're arguing against a law that doesn't exist. //EDIT: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Further, the crime was not selling it, but selling it because he crossed some arbitrary line drawn by government on a map? All law is arbitrary. Only pure anarchy has no borders. //EDIT: Or pure, universal statism. All is the dominion of the One World Order!

^ It's certainly no less unethical than the mass killings that happen in modern day animal meat processing. And if something like chicken breat is more in-demand in America, does that mean the cruelty that goes on it more acceptable even though it is more prevalent by orders of magnitude? Seems a bit backwards to me. The modern way of meat processing is largely unnecessary, for survival at least. Humans do not need nearly as much meat as current Americans eat to lively healthily, and even less to flourish. It's less about necessity and more about pleasure now. 

The T wrote: ^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to proselytize. Slarti and all democrats, please read this good article if Obama let you down... .

"I wrote the piece in the form of a letter to my pro-Obama friends and said that by the end of his term, Obama’s administration would not look very different from that of George W. Bush. I told them that if I was wrong about my predictions, I would re-think all of my beliefs about our political system and about politics generally, and if I turned out to be right, I asked them to do the same."

....god damn


"many of them are disappointed in what Obama has done so far, and that many are feeling hopeless about the upcoming election, resigned to their belief that there is "no better alternative." Incredibly, some of them plan to vote for Obama again."

Well, this is also accurate, except instead of Obama again I am turning to Ron Paul (realizing he does fit my views surprisingly and some of his opinions make more sense than I thought).

Let's see what his alternative is to those Obama let downers...

"Ron Paul"

Ugh, he's got me on this one to the tee. I no longer feel like a unique and special flower

The T wrote: ^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to proselytize. Slarti and all democrats, please read this good article if Obama let you down... .

Hmm, the article reads a bit like someone needing some attention about how right they were (as in  "See?!  Everything isn't all better.  Obama has made mistakes,  and he is willing to take military action.  I was right, people!").    And nearly half the things on the list are precluded by "Well, this hasn't happened yet, but.."  or  "Okay I admit this is speculation, but.."

It's pretty weak, and we've heard it.   The reason Obama will likely be reelected is mostly because if economic news continues to swing upward, there's no real reason roughly the same percentage of voter will not prefer him to the other candidate(s).

The T wrote: Admin please close #2. Also, Slarti (not a Libertarian) opened a poll in the poll lounge which is obviously not a real libertarian thread (it's quite the opposite). And let's open this one with this: I'm not sure what to think of this. Sure, regulation is bad but taking protections away from workers in this state-corporate kingdom seems even worse. Opinions?.

I don't like it. Something smells bad about the bill. Working off the clock does not necessarily entitle you to monetary payment. This seems like a bill the city would use to prosecute companies on the behalf of workers which would only leave to adverse results.

From a non analyst, economical expert "street view" things seem to be slowly getting better.
Not gunna throw numbers and sh*t, I'm talking about what I observe.

My mother and I have been applying for jobs and generally seem to be getting more interviews, the financial situation for us is slightly better, others we know have been having success in getting jobs, saving up. People around just say "ya know things have been a better for us" etc.
Basically little things.

Emphasis of course on slowly improving, and little things...
But yeah this is no surprise, in 09 I said Obama was in the cat bird seat. That the economy will improve, he will be credited for "fixing" it, and the increase in craziness from the GOP would help even more so. In fact I thought it was a 110% guarantee. The economy has sludged way more than I thought, and the explosion in anti government sentiment surprised me (even if most Americans are jumping on a bandwagon and repeating whatever (insert personality) says mindlessly.

But yeah Obama will win against any of these jokes, and even if Paul gets the nomination there's plenty of fire to be used against him. I see the Dems really using the "racist" thing against him and his "soft views" on terrorism.
Quotes for emphasis on the BS of it so please don't go crazy about how those are lies 

Also his general views would be distorted as is the case with anyone. I'm sure some scary black and white commercial will be aired of ron Paul holding a molotov cocktail, looking over his shoulder, and lobs it on a school. The deep voice comes in then, "Do you want this to happen to our country in these sensitive times? Vote Obama November 6"

And the sheeple eat it up because of the Iranian boogieman. Well if it's not feasible, then by all means murder whomever you please.

 ^ I think there are far better and more subtle ways to assassinate at home; certainly not with a drone, an old fashioned "traffic accident" or "heart attack" is probably still preferred

The T wrote: One of the few democrats opposed to war, Dennis Kucinich, has lost his seat in recent primaries. It's as if in the US being against war is the worst possible idea for any candidate.

God damn, that's a shame. Always liked him.
Back in my full out liberal days he was like mah man in Congress, even now he represents what I still like deep down (but have no hope of)


And yeah, like or not he stuck to his ideals, one of the few true members of Congress along with Paul. Dedicated to anti war as you said.


First Russ Feingold (only real political hero I had) now him there were few people I truly like in politics, and all are being removed!
I doubt his anti war, alone, had much to do with it. Says his district got re drawn, and I'm guessing he was too progressive for the new district.



Edited by JJLehto - March 08 2012 at 09:54