Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
[QUOTE=sKiTzo;1064563717]So, you think that not meddling in the affairs and conflicts of the middle east and focusing only on national defense rather than a contrived offense program translates into isolationism? What's the insane rhetoric? He advocates peaceful world trade, building strong ties universally and defending our borders. To simply refrain from being the world agitator and creating war out of phony pretense (again and again and again) is not isolationism (and certainly not insane).[QUOTE]
Whether we like it or not, how some of the conflicts in the middle east turns out affects US national security. If Iran gets nukes....that will definitely affect our national security. We cannot just cover the US is a protective bubble or force field and not worry about anyone else. As for some of Ron Paul's insane rhetoric........one example is: "They attacked us on 9/11/01 because we invaded their country.
I am not going to argue with you over whether it was or was not a good idea to get involved in particular conflicts. My point is that if we do get involved, the objective should be clear. We should defeat the enemy and stick around long enough to make sure the government we leave behind is viable. And if necessary, we should assist them in rebuilding their infrastructure. We should not leave a power vacuum behind.Of course they're not nation building. I was being facetious using that term because that's the guise they go under when they invade countries under false pretense. They "liberated" Iraq. They "liberated" the Libyans.
Libya is a prime example that american and european news is not just censored, but designed and fabricated to deceive us into supporting the atrocities that are being committed.
However the dictator could also send troops or police to your front door and imprison or kill you for something as simple as "rhetoric against the state".There were no homeless in Libya because their "insane dictator" built homes for his people because in Libya, housing is a right of the people. Under this insane dictator, energy was free to Libyans - there was no power bill every month. Education was free (including college). Medical was free. If you wanted to study abroad or needed a medical treatment that wasn't available there, the Libyan government paid for it. Loans were at 0% interest by law. If you wanted to be a farmer you were given a plot of land, farming equipment, seeds, and whatever you needed. If you bought a car, the Libyan government covered 50% of the cost.
And you trust the country that has printed propaganda in decades in a state run news organization known as "Pravda" to tell you the truth?You can really see that these people needed to be liberated from this insane dictatorship. If you were wondering how the Libyan government could manage such exorbitant support of it's people, it's because Libya has one of the largest oil reserves and it was a nation truly for the people and shared its wealth among the people. Also, they didn't have a Rothschild central bank. They issued their own debt-free money. After Gaddafi was brutally lynched and the Libyan people were "liberated", the first thing that happened was a Rothschild central bank was installed.
It is now known that when they said Gaddafi was "bombing his own people", the russians, who were monitoring from space, said the evidence shows that NO SUCH THING HAS OCCURED. Does this give you an idea of the level of deception being perpetrated by the establishment using the media as their most important and successful tool?
There is a big corruption issue in American politics. However the biggest single issue that motivates it is not lobbyists. Lobbyists are going to lobby. The problem is entrenched power in the US Congress. And it will continue at the current level until a constitutional amendment is passed enacting congressional term limits.We have bigger problems than to worry about giving money that we don't have to other countries. If we are "cutoff" by a country because we didn't have any free money for them, there's no loss there anyway.
The problem we have in america is such that it has become a world problem. It's a problem that has gone rogue (if you know what I mean). It involves much more than just having a new president. Lobbyists for special interest groups who buy favors from our representatives in congress are our biggest enemies, hence, we have congress "sleeping with the enemy". The other major problem are the people themselves, who, like you said, are way too content being distracted. It's an ignorance they will regret woefully, but won't have to until they are physically unable to be distracted anymore when problems are manifest in and around the space they occupy. In other words, when it's too late.
My issue with voter ID isn't that it requires ID, but rather the difficulties acquiring and retaining an ID.
Relatively speaking, that is accurate. It may be relatively easy for me to get a piece of mail, drive 15-20 mins to a Driver's Licence Center, pay 10-30 bucks (or none, depending), and get my DL renewed.
But not everyone can do that as easily.
I'm not at all sure what would be required if you wanted to get an ID in the first place, since they simply use the old DL whenever I need to renew.
That's 1-3 hours work at min wage.
That includes organizing paperwork and people, transporting them to the ID place, or whatever is needed.
Anything else is questionable.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
If I were a minority, I would be offended. And considering that I have the option of retiring and receiving social security benefits, I am a Senior. I see no difficulties in maintaining a valid photo ID.