Re: List Updated... (UNCLASSIFIED)

PoA

 

What I liked about Sweden was that there was never a big rush to cram everything into 8 hours and then some.  They value time with their families and the workplace supports this.  Not too many colleagues or managers were uptight if someone just took a day off to spend time with the family.  The system worked okay and functional but not always expedient as one would need.  The stores had shorter hours so that families could spend more time together if they chose. 

 

I can't speak too much about the "law" in Sweden other than my own personal experiences and that it was abysmal at best.  However, if you are Swedish and want to beat your wife and child and get away with it time after time after time-then their laws governing this are fantastic....Hence my decision to stay in the US-where in kind-a US judge sent my American born 29 month old back to his criminal father and I was denied any time for discovery to get what I needed for trial.  So it is a real stretch to claim that I prefer either legal system.  My ex got away with this every time even though he was arrested.  An immigrant crapped on the floor of a store in Stockholm and was put in prison for 12 months.  There is no justice here or there.

 

They are clever with their wit and advertisement.  They like to have block parties and be social with their neighbor so that was nice.  They are ingenious with work place ergonomics and I have not seen anything come close to it here (would be great business venture if the dollar was not so low).

 

There are several parties in Sweden and it is a parliamentary system.  Interestingly,  the parties will combine so that they can attain enough power to win key seats and positions in elections. The last election-the Nazi party (I I am not mistaken-combined with another that I can not recall and took some key seats from the ruling social democrats).  There are many debate shows and many Swedes watch them.  When you engage the average Swede in a  conversation about politics and current world events, they are a bit more informed than one would normally expect.  It was not too unusual to see and hear the college students talking about politics, ideologies and world events.  Here in the US, I can't even engage my colleagues in these types of conversations and they are at a loss for an opinion for they have no clue what is happening in the world around them (this is mostly due to the nature of the job and time constraints).

 

But it is good to be home-problems and all.  Atleast I am not treated like crap because I am believed to be from the Middle East

 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:19 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

It is an interesting country and the culture is very different.

----
remember that culture in the US is unique - a heavy mix
we have a lot of cultural issues like most other countries
the law is subject to popularity

Some things I really like, others I did not.

---
expound please

 Their commercials are like the superbowl
commercials and they are  so bloody funny.

---
humor and happiness are popular
how important is you happiness?

They are quite clever.
---
the flavor of the day

I do not know how long they will be able to maintain their "social
democracy"

---
try to remember that we are a federal constitutional republic
the implication is that we are not subjects of a government
that said: we are in a war with those who want government to be a
provider
socialists want government, American want liberty and freedom
yeah, we want to be exempt from rule ... a utopian thought but worth
the struggle

having happy thoughts for S,
poa

On Jun 21, 7:42 pm, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is an interesting country and the culture is very different.  Some things
> I really like, others I did not.  Their commercials are like the superbowl
> commercials and they are  so bloody funny.  They are quite clever.  I do not
> know how long they will be able to maintain their "social democracy"
>
> S
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No religious censorship there.  Bible thumpers and itenerant godsellers
> > rule tv here for the most part.
>
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Funny...When I moved to Sweden I just about fell off the soffa when they
> >> commonly use it in their English shows that are broadcasted there.
> >> S
> >>   On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> It used to be 11, now it's 12.
> >>>   The "F" Word
> >>>   There are only TWELVE times in history when the "F" word has been
> >>>  considered acceptable for use. They are as follows:
>
> >>>  1. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?" -- Capt. E.J Smith of
> >>> RMS
> >>> Titanic, 1912
>
> >>>  2. "What the @#$% was that?" - Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945
>
> >>>  3. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?" -- Custer, 1877
>
> >>>  4. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that." -- Einstein, 1938
>
> >>>  5. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!" - Picasso, 1926
>
> >>>  6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC
>
> >>>  7. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo, 1566
>
> >>>  8. "Where the @#$% are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937
>
> >>>  9. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ass!" - Noah, 4314 BC
>
> >>>  10. "Aw c'mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton, 1998
>
> >>>  11. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this @%#*^ing mad." - Saddam
> >>> Hussein,
> >>> 2002
>
> >>>    And the new winner is!
>
> >>>  12. "I need a SEAL in my house like I need a @%#*^ing hole in my head."
> >>> -
> >>> Osama Bin Laden,  2011
>
> >>> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> >>> Caveats: NONE
>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: List Updated... (UNCLASSIFIED)

It is an interesting country and the culture is very different.
----
remember that culture in the US is unique - a heavy mix
we have a lot of cultural issues like most other countries
the law is subject to popularity

Some things I really like, others I did not.
---
expound please

Their commercials are like the superbowl
commercials and they are so bloody funny.
---
humor and happiness are popular
how important is you happiness?

They are quite clever.
---
the flavor of the day

I do not know how long they will be able to maintain their "social
democracy"
---
try to remember that we are a federal constitutional republic
the implication is that we are not subjects of a government
that said: we are in a war with those who want government to be a
provider
socialists want government, American want liberty and freedom
yeah, we want to be exempt from rule ... a utopian thought but worth
the struggle

having happy thoughts for S,
poa

On Jun 21, 7:42 pm, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is an interesting country and the culture is very different.  Some things
> I really like, others I did not.  Their commercials are like the superbowl
> commercials and they are  so bloody funny.  They are quite clever.  I do not
> know how long they will be able to maintain their "social democracy"
>
> S
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No religious censorship there.  Bible thumpers and itenerant godsellers
> > rule tv here for the most part.
>
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Funny...When I moved to Sweden I just about fell off the soffa when they
> >> commonly use it in their English shows that are broadcasted there.
> >> S
> >>   On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> It used to be 11, now it's 12.
> >>>   The "F" Word
> >>>   There are only TWELVE times in history when the "F" word has been
> >>>  considered acceptable for use. They are as follows:
>
> >>>  1. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?" -- Capt. E.J Smith of
> >>> RMS
> >>> Titanic, 1912
>
> >>>  2. "What the @#$% was that?" - Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945
>
> >>>  3. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?" -- Custer, 1877
>
> >>>  4. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that." -- Einstein, 1938
>
> >>>  5. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!" - Picasso, 1926
>
> >>>  6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC
>
> >>>  7. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo, 1566
>
> >>>  8. "Where the @#$% are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937
>
> >>>  9. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ass!" - Noah, 4314 BC
>
> >>>  10. "Aw c'mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton, 1998
>
> >>>  11. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this @%#*^ing mad." - Saddam
> >>> Hussein,
> >>> 2002
>
> >>>    And the new winner is!
>
> >>>  12. "I need a SEAL in my house like I need a @%#*^ing hole in my head."
> >>> -
> >>> Osama Bin Laden,  2011
>
> >>> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> >>> Caveats: NONE
>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: List Updated... (UNCLASSIFIED)

The issue of sustaining their economic ideology does not stem from Islamists that have immigrated to the country.  In the south of Sweden their are many immigrants from all religions  and countries that have settled there.  Their immigration laws do not always automatically give them permission to work and they are a strain on the resources.  However, more Swedish  people draw from the coffers than the immigrants.  Like many other nations, there is an anti-immigrant sentiment amongst some of the Swedes.  They promote themselves as progressive and immigrant friendly when the average Swede may not always agree with this policy (especially older Swedes).  There have been clashes and terrorist threats but not so many.  Several in Sweden thought that i was from  the Middle East and I was treated accordingly.  It was an eye-opening experience: 14 yrs of professional education and training, move there to work in their health care system, pay more in tax a month than most of them take home and be systematically discriminated against because I have dark hair and dark eyes.  It taught me a lot not to judge based upon a person's appearance or what i may percieve them to be.  In another time and place I may have been brought to the nearest tree and hanged because of unfounded hatred based upon  my looks and nothing more.

 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

They got muzzie problems now.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentropy@gmail.com> wrote:

It is an interesting country and the culture is very different.  Some things I really like, others I did not.  Their commercials are like the superbowl commercials and they are  so bloody funny.  They are quite clever.  I do not know how long they will be able to maintain their "social democracy"

 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

No religious censorship there.  Bible thumpers and itenerant godsellers rule tv here for the most part.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentropy@gmail.com> wrote:

Funny...When I moved to Sweden I just about fell off the soffa when they commonly use it in their English shows that are broadcasted there. 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

It used to be 11, now it's 12.

  The "F" Word

  There are only TWELVE times in history when the "F" word has been

 considered acceptable for use. They are as follows:

 

 1. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?" -- Capt. E.J Smith of RMS

Titanic, 1912

 

 2. "What the @#$% was that?" - Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945

 

 3. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?" -- Custer, 1877

 

 4. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that." -- Einstein, 1938

 

 5. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!" - Picasso, 1926

 

 6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC

 

 7. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo, 1566

 

 8. "Where the @#$% are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937

 

 9. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ass!" - Noah, 4314 BC

 

 10. "Aw c'mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton, 1998

 

 11. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this @%#*^ing mad." - Saddam Hussein,

2002

 

 

   And the new winner is!

 

 12. "I need a SEAL in my house like I need a @%#*^ing hole in my head." -

Osama Bin Laden,  2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: List Updated... (UNCLASSIFIED)

no shit?

On Jun 21, 7:46 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They got muzzie problems now.
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is an interesting country and the culture is very different.  Some
> > things I really like, others I did not.  Their commercials are like the
> > superbowl commercials and they are  so bloody funny.  They are quite
> > clever.  I do not know how long they will be able to maintain their "social
> > democracy"
>
> > S
>
> >   On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> No religious censorship there.  Bible thumpers and itenerant godsellers
> >> rule tv here for the most part.
>
> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> Funny...When I moved to Sweden I just about fell off the soffa when they
> >>> commonly use it in their English shows that are broadcasted there.
> >>> S
> >>>   On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> It used to be 11, now it's 12.
> >>>>   The "F" Word
> >>>>   There are only TWELVE times in history when the "F" word has been
> >>>>  considered acceptable for use. They are as follows:
>
> >>>>  1. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?" -- Capt. E.J Smith of
> >>>> RMS
> >>>> Titanic, 1912
>
> >>>>  2. "What the @#$% was that?" - Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945
>
> >>>>  3. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?" -- Custer, 1877
>
> >>>>  4. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that." -- Einstein, 1938
>
> >>>>  5. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!" - Picasso, 1926
>
> >>>>  6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC
>
> >>>>  7. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo, 1566
>
> >>>>  8. "Where the @#$% are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937
>
> >>>>  9. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ass!" - Noah, 4314 BC
>
> >>>>  10. "Aw c'mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton, 1998
>
> >>>>  11. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this @%#*^ing mad." - Saddam
> >>>> Hussein,
> >>>> 2002
>
> >>>>    And the new winner is!
>
> >>>>  12. "I need a SEAL in my house like I need a @%#*^ing hole in my head."
> >>>> -
> >>>> Osama Bin Laden,  2011
>
> >>>> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> >>>> Caveats: NONE
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: List Updated... (UNCLASSIFIED)

They got muzzie problems now.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentropy@gmail.com> wrote:

It is an interesting country and the culture is very different.  Some things I really like, others I did not.  Their commercials are like the superbowl commercials and they are  so bloody funny.  They are quite clever.  I do not know how long they will be able to maintain their "social democracy"

 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

No religious censorship there.  Bible thumpers and itenerant godsellers rule tv here for the most part.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentropy@gmail.com> wrote:

Funny...When I moved to Sweden I just about fell off the soffa when they commonly use it in their English shows that are broadcasted there. 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

It used to be 11, now it's 12.

  The "F" Word

  There are only TWELVE times in history when the "F" word has been

 considered acceptable for use. They are as follows:

 

 1. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?" -- Capt. E.J Smith of RMS

Titanic, 1912

 

 2. "What the @#$% was that?" - Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945

 

 3. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?" -- Custer, 1877

 

 4. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that." -- Einstein, 1938

 

 5. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!" - Picasso, 1926

 

 6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC

 

 7. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo, 1566

 

 8. "Where the @#$% are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937

 

 9. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ass!" - Noah, 4314 BC

 

 10. "Aw c'mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton, 1998

 

 11. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this @%#*^ing mad." - Saddam Hussein,

2002

 

 

   And the new winner is!

 

 12. "I need a SEAL in my house like I need a @%#*^ing hole in my head." -

Osama Bin Laden,  2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Hezbollah cartoon teaches kids to throw stones at Israelis and to try to die as martyrs

Hezbollah cartoon teaches kids to throw stones at Israelis and to try to die as martyrs barenakedislam | June 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM | Categories: Islam and the Jews | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-vGb

And may the Israelis fulfill all of their death wishes. H/T palwatch

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: List Updated... (UNCLASSIFIED)

It is an interesting country and the culture is very different.  Some things I really like, others I did not.  Their commercials are like the superbowl commercials and they are  so bloody funny.  They are quite clever.  I do not know how long they will be able to maintain their "social democracy"

 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

No religious censorship there.  Bible thumpers and itenerant godsellers rule tv here for the most part.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentropy@gmail.com> wrote:

Funny...When I moved to Sweden I just about fell off the soffa when they commonly use it in their English shows that are broadcasted there. 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

It used to be 11, now it's 12.

  The "F" Word

  There are only TWELVE times in history when the "F" word has been

 considered acceptable for use. They are as follows:

 

 1. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?" -- Capt. E.J Smith of RMS

Titanic, 1912

 

 2. "What the @#$% was that?" - Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945

 

 3. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?" -- Custer, 1877

 

 4. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that." -- Einstein, 1938

 

 5. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!" - Picasso, 1926

 

 6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC

 

 7. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo, 1566

 

 8. "Where the @#$% are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937

 

 9. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ass!" - Noah, 4314 BC

 

 10. "Aw c'mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton, 1998

 

 11. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this @%#*^ing mad." - Saddam Hussein,

2002

 

 

   And the new winner is!

 

 12. "I need a SEAL in my house like I need a @%#*^ing hole in my head." -

Osama Bin Laden,  2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: American Slavery

MJ.....I read this piece.  What are your thoughts about it and if the "US" was to do away with the constitution, then what should it be substituted with?

 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

American Slavery
By Chris Dates
by Bill | June 20th, 2011

"My subject, then, fellow citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July!" -- Frederick Douglass

I always hear folks saying, "if we could only get back to the Constitution". Well, in the spirit of the 4th of July coming up in a couple of weeks, I would like to examine the founding documents of this country with the hopes of pinpointing just where we went off track. Did we actually get away from the Constitution?

I would like to start with the Declaration of Independence. In my opinion, the Declaration is pure American poetry, and the first couple of paragraphs are beautiful. It's enough to make you proud to be an American again. Here we go-

The Declaration of Independence

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

I would like to examine this sentence very closely --

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed.

Do you see that word -- Just -- in there? I would like to define that word, as it was put there for a reason. It does not say "deriving their powers from the consent of the governed".

Just -- Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.

Armed with the logic of the Declaration, let's dive into the Constitution, and see if we really got away from this sacred piece of parchment. The Constitution claims The Congress has many powers, but the Constitution never really claims where The Congress got them from in the first place. Remember, the Declaration only claimed that Governments derive their "just" powers from the consent of the governed. I would like to dissect the Constitution here and see how just these powers the Constitution claims "The Congress" retains really are.

Article 1 Section 8

8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Is the power to tax a just power? I honestly do not believe it is. I think it is completely immoral, and I don't believe any mere mortal has possession of the power to tax.  Well, they might believe they have that power, but if any individual tried to exercise that power, it might get them severely hurt, or killed. What I mean by that is if you claim you have the power to tax, you also claim you have the power to steal. Simply changing the name of the action does not relieve a person of the morality of it. If murder is called by a different name, is it still wrong?  You do not possess the "power" to go over to your neighbor's house to lay and collect taxes on him; therefore you CANNOT give that power away. So, where does The Congress derive this power from? It's is not from the people, it is impossible. I would really like to focus on the morality issue here for just a second. Without The Congress claiming this power, none, and I mean none of this tyranny we have now would be possible. I'm sure some of you might think it would be worse without this power to steal; it might be (gasp) Anarchy! Although that is a lovely conversation, I do not want to get into that in this essay. Besides, my colleagues here at zerogov.com have done a very good job slaying that dragon.

The Constitution specifically says The Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, but it never says what the limit on this taxation is. I think I know the reason that no limit was put on taxation. It is impossible to put a limit on theft. Theft is either wrong, or it's not. It's an either/or proposition. Please, don't think I'm pulling and intellectual slight-of-hand here, taxation is theft. Beneath all of the bureaucracy, tax bills, and paperwork, lies is a gun. I have had many conversations with people who say "it won't come to violence if you just pay", this is where I ask them to give me their wallet. Of course, it doesn't have to come to violence if they just give it to me, they usually get the point, although I'm sure they got the point already, the red pill is a tough one to choke down. OK, back to taxation. How much would you, the "citizen", or "the tax payer", prefer is stolen from yourself? How much would you prefer is stolen from me? You see, if you do not stand on the principle that theft is morally wrong, then you have no principle to point to when the Government takes it all. You have nothing to point to in order to justify your outrage. Are you good with 10% theft? 20% theft? 50% theft!? If the issue of taxation always rests on a preference, it will ALWAYS differ between people. You either stand on principle, or you agree with theft. Period. People say, "But you are being provided a service!" I am an auto mechanic. I do not provide my services at the business end of my pistol, although it would be so much easier, but that is immoral, that is wrong. Wouldn't it be wrong of me to come to your house, repair your car, and then stick you up to pay for it? Of course that would be wrong. The Government is no different than me, if it's wrong for me, it's wrong for them.

The problem here is when you consent to theft; you turn your neighbor into a slave. If you consent to governmental theft, you also consent to governmental slavery. I feel no moral obligation to pay taxes; I pay them so men with guns don't come to my house. I pay them strictly out of self- preservation. Much the same way slaves kept working in order to avoid death. Since I have to pay taxes, I have to work longer to pay for the things that I need for my own life. This is slavery, and it is wrong on so many levels. Slaves work all day for someone else, only to have a couple of hours left in the day to try and take care of themselves and their families. Slave masters have always understood that you cannot work the slave and take it all, which would kill him. The only difference now, instead of having one slave master, we now have millions of slave masters, who, with a vote, can take more and more from us, making us work longer, and harder for our own needs. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, it does not matter if the money is being stolen to provide for the common defense, or the general welfare, or to feed starving puppies, it is still wrong. We are all on the plantation, and Democracy is the slave master. Of course, the intellectual elites of this world are all laughing at us, because we have bought into this huge scam hook, line, and sinker. It gives the quote, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist", a whole new ring doesn't it? It takes a special kind of evil to make a man act immoral when he normally wouldn't.

8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

What does this even mean? To borrow money on the credit of the "United States". I'm not the "United States"; you're not the "United States", so just who is borrowing this money? Why is the "United States" borrowing money? And the more important question, who is liable to pay it back? If the scumbags on Capitol Hill can borrow money on the credit of the United States, and pawn the debt off on me, I should be able to do it to them. I reckon it would go something like this, "I Chris Dates hereby borrow money on the credit on The Congress". This should relieve me of all responsibility of having to repay money that was borrowed. Of course, I have now just made all of the members of The Congress my slaves. Borrowing money in someone else's name and charging them to pay it back is so immoral it's sick, but hey, it's right there in this sacred document we love so much. We need to understand the severity of this line in the Constitution. This, in essence, is the power to not only enslave me, buy every generation of my family to come. There was no stipulation of when this money had to be paid back. There was no generational clause in there; it was left very bland for a purpose. This one line, along with the power to lay and collect taxes, gives The Congress the power to enslave every generation of Americans, perpetually. The Constitution is the blueprint for a perpetual slave machine. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it's the truth. I do not possess the power to borrow money on the credit of my neighbor, so I could not possibly give this power to some entity calling itself "The Congress". Do you have the power to enslave your neighbor? No? Then how in the hell did "The Congress" get that power?

I could go on and on here, but I think I have laid out a pretty good case.  The Constitution is an immoral document, and, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, it is unfit to exist. If it is to exist, a Government should never be based on it. It is a maker of tyrants, and a maker of slaves. If it is to exist, it should be held up for all generations to come as what not to do when deciding on government. It should be left in its pretty guarded glass case only as a reminder that it is wrong to enslave our neighbors, even if we use nice phrases and words like We the People, liberty, and security. The Constitution cannot change what is right and wrong. There is no getting back to the Constitution, we are here folks, and this is it. Nothing right could ever come from a wrong. Immorality only begets more immorality. The reason the government is wrong now, is because it was wrong at its inception. If men of virtue are only allowed to play by immoral rules, it is irrational to expect moral results. Which begs the question as to why men of virtue would play such a game? They wouldn't.

Happy 4th of July, slaves.

"No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle ­ but only in degree ­ between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." -- Lysander Spooner

http://zerogov.com/?p=1957

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: List Updated... (UNCLASSIFIED)

No religious censorship there.  Bible thumpers and itenerant godsellers rule tv here for the most part.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentropy@gmail.com> wrote:

Funny...When I moved to Sweden I just about fell off the soffa when they commonly use it in their English shows that are broadcasted there. 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

It used to be 11, now it's 12.

  The "F" Word

  There are only TWELVE times in history when the "F" word has been

 considered acceptable for use. They are as follows:

 

 1. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?" -- Capt. E.J Smith of RMS

Titanic, 1912

 

 2. "What the @#$% was that?" - Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945

 

 3. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?" -- Custer, 1877

 

 4. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that." -- Einstein, 1938

 

 5. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!" - Picasso, 1926

 

 6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC

 

 7. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo, 1566

 

 8. "Where the @#$% are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937

 

 9. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ass!" - Noah, 4314 BC

 

 10. "Aw c'mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton, 1998

 

 11. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this @%#*^ing mad." - Saddam Hussein,

2002

 

 

   And the new winner is!

 

 12. "I need a SEAL in my house like I need a @%#*^ing hole in my head." -

Osama Bin Laden,  2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

American Slavery

American Slavery
By Chris Dates
by Bill | June 20th, 2011

"My subject, then, fellow citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July!" -- Frederick Douglass

I always hear folks saying, "if we could only get back to the Constitution". Well, in the spirit of the 4th of July coming up in a couple of weeks, I would like to examine the founding documents of this country with the hopes of pinpointing just where we went off track. Did we actually get away from the Constitution?

I would like to start with the Declaration of Independence. In my opinion, the Declaration is pure American poetry, and the first couple of paragraphs are beautiful. It's enough to make you proud to be an American again. Here we go-

The Declaration of Independence

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

I would like to examine this sentence very closely --

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed.

Do you see that word -- Just -- in there? I would like to define that word, as it was put there for a reason. It does not say "deriving their powers from the consent of the governed".

Just -- Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.

Armed with the logic of the Declaration, let's dive into the Constitution, and see if we really got away from this sacred piece of parchment. The Constitution claims The Congress has many powers, but the Constitution never really claims where The Congress got them from in the first place. Remember, the Declaration only claimed that Governments derive their "just" powers from the consent of the governed. I would like to dissect the Constitution here and see how just these powers the Constitution claims "The Congress" retains really are.

Article 1 Section 8

8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Is the power to tax a just power? I honestly do not believe it is. I think it is completely immoral, and I don't believe any mere mortal has possession of the power to tax.  Well, they might believe they have that power, but if any individual tried to exercise that power, it might get them severely hurt, or killed. What I mean by that is if you claim you have the power to tax, you also claim you have the power to steal. Simply changing the name of the action does not relieve a person of the morality of it. If murder is called by a different name, is it still wrong?  You do not possess the "power" to go over to your neighbor's house to lay and collect taxes on him; therefore you CANNOT give that power away. So, where does The Congress derive this power from? It's is not from the people, it is impossible. I would really like to focus on the morality issue here for just a second. Without The Congress claiming this power, none, and I mean none of this tyranny we have now would be possible. I'm sure some of you might think it would be worse without this power to steal; it might be (gasp) Anarchy! Although that is a lovely conversation, I do not want to get into that in this essay. Besides, my colleagues here at zerogov.com have done a very good job slaying that dragon.

The Constitution specifically says The Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, but it never says what the limit on this taxation is. I think I know the reason that no limit was put on taxation. It is impossible to put a limit on theft. Theft is either wrong, or it's not. It's an either/or proposition. Please, don't think I'm pulling and intellectual slight-of-hand here, taxation is theft. Beneath all of the bureaucracy, tax bills, and paperwork, lies is a gun. I have had many conversations with people who say "it won't come to violence if you just pay", this is where I ask them to give me their wallet. Of course, it doesn't have to come to violence if they just give it to me, they usually get the point, although I'm sure they got the point already, the red pill is a tough one to choke down. OK, back to taxation. How much would you, the "citizen", or "the tax payer", prefer is stolen from yourself? How much would you prefer is stolen from me? You see, if you do not stand on the principle that theft is morally wrong, then you have no principle to point to when the Government takes it all. You have nothing to point to in order to justify your outrage. Are you good with 10% theft? 20% theft? 50% theft!? If the issue of taxation always rests on a preference, it will ALWAYS differ between people. You either stand on principle, or you agree with theft. Period. People say, "But you are being provided a service!" I am an auto mechanic. I do not provide my services at the business end of my pistol, although it would be so much easier, but that is immoral, that is wrong. Wouldn't it be wrong of me to come to your house, repair your car, and then stick you up to pay for it? Of course that would be wrong. The Government is no different than me, if it's wrong for me, it's wrong for them.

The problem here is when you consent to theft; you turn your neighbor into a slave. If you consent to governmental theft, you also consent to governmental slavery. I feel no moral obligation to pay taxes; I pay them so men with guns don't come to my house. I pay them strictly out of self- preservation. Much the same way slaves kept working in order to avoid death. Since I have to pay taxes, I have to work longer to pay for the things that I need for my own life. This is slavery, and it is wrong on so many levels. Slaves work all day for someone else, only to have a couple of hours left in the day to try and take care of themselves and their families. Slave masters have always understood that you cannot work the slave and take it all, which would kill him. The only difference now, instead of having one slave master, we now have millions of slave masters, who, with a vote, can take more and more from us, making us work longer, and harder for our own needs. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, it does not matter if the money is being stolen to provide for the common defense, or the general welfare, or to feed starving puppies, it is still wrong. We are all on the plantation, and Democracy is the slave master. Of course, the intellectual elites of this world are all laughing at us, because we have bought into this huge scam hook, line, and sinker. It gives the quote, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist", a whole new ring doesn't it? It takes a special kind of evil to make a man act immoral when he normally wouldn't.

8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

What does this even mean? To borrow money on the credit of the "United States". I'm not the "United States"; you're not the "United States", so just who is borrowing this money? Why is the "United States" borrowing money? And the more important question, who is liable to pay it back? If the scumbags on Capitol Hill can borrow money on the credit of the United States, and pawn the debt off on me, I should be able to do it to them. I reckon it would go something like this, "I Chris Dates hereby borrow money on the credit on The Congress". This should relieve me of all responsibility of having to repay money that was borrowed. Of course, I have now just made all of the members of The Congress my slaves. Borrowing money in someone else's name and charging them to pay it back is so immoral it's sick, but hey, it's right there in this sacred document we love so much. We need to understand the severity of this line in the Constitution. This, in essence, is the power to not only enslave me, buy every generation of my family to come. There was no stipulation of when this money had to be paid back. There was no generational clause in there; it was left very bland for a purpose. This one line, along with the power to lay and collect taxes, gives The Congress the power to enslave every generation of Americans, perpetually. The Constitution is the blueprint for a perpetual slave machine. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it's the truth. I do not possess the power to borrow money on the credit of my neighbor, so I could not possibly give this power to some entity calling itself "The Congress". Do you have the power to enslave your neighbor? No? Then how in the hell did "The Congress" get that power?

I could go on and on here, but I think I have laid out a pretty good case.  The Constitution is an immoral document, and, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, it is unfit to exist. If it is to exist, a Government should never be based on it. It is a maker of tyrants, and a maker of slaves. If it is to exist, it should be held up for all generations to come as what not to do when deciding on government. It should be left in its pretty guarded glass case only as a reminder that it is wrong to enslave our neighbors, even if we use nice phrases and words like We the People, liberty, and security. The Constitution cannot change what is right and wrong. There is no getting back to the Constitution, we are here folks, and this is it. Nothing right could ever come from a wrong. Immorality only begets more immorality. The reason the government is wrong now, is because it was wrong at its inception. If men of virtue are only allowed to play by immoral rules, it is irrational to expect moral results. Which begs the question as to why men of virtue would play such a game? They wouldn't.

Happy 4th of July, slaves.

"No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle ­ but only in degree ­ between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." -- Lysander Spooner

http://zerogov.com/?p=1957

Obama Pledge

 

Re: List Updated... (UNCLASSIFIED)

Funny...When I moved to Sweden I just about fell off the soffa when they commonly use it in their English shows that are broadcasted there. 

S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

It used to be 11, now it's 12.

  The "F" Word

  There are only TWELVE times in history when the "F" word has been

 considered acceptable for use. They are as follows:

 

 1. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?" -- Capt. E.J Smith of RMS

Titanic, 1912

 

 2. "What the @#$% was that?" - Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945

 

 3. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?" -- Custer, 1877

 

 4. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that." -- Einstein, 1938

 

 5. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!" - Picasso, 1926

 

 6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC

 

 7. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?" - Michelangelo, 1566

 

 8. "Where the @#$% are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937

 

 9. "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ass!" - Noah, 4314 BC

 

 10. "Aw c'mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton, 1998

 

 11. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this @%#*^ing mad." - Saddam Hussein,

2002

 

 

   And the new winner is!

 

 12. "I need a SEAL in my house like I need a @%#*^ing hole in my head." -

Osama Bin Laden,  2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Q&A: Ron Paul

campaigns
Q&A: Ron Paul
By Alex Altman
Monday, June 20, 2011

In his 12 terms in Congress, Ron Paul has waged many lonely crusades. Before he was a Tea Party standard bearer and a master of the online money bomb, the man known as "Dr. No" was a libertarian icon who regularly bucked his party's budgets and preached isolationism* against military intervention when his peers were girding for war. But while he's nurtured a devoted band of supporters, the Texas Republican has been a non-factor in his two prior bids for the White House. Paul is hoping his third bid for the presidency will be different. With the rise of the Tea Party, the center of gravity of the Republican base has shifted toward Paul, particularly on foreign policy. And while the political punditry has again written him off, his supporters believe Paul has the fund-raising might and grassroots army to make a credible challenge for the nomination in 2012.

On June 17, Paul spoke to TIME by phone from New Orleans, where he won the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference. A trimmed and lightly edited transcript follows:

Why do you want to be President?

To straighten out the mess that this country is in. To give this country more peace, more prosperity, a sound currency and a lot more security.

Four years ago, you demonstrated your fund-raising prowess and your appeal to a segment of fervent fans. But you weren't a top contender for the nomination. Why do you expect to do better this time?

Because the country is a completely different country than it was four years ago. People have come to realize that you can't continue these wars, and both sides now are putting a lot of pressure on the President to back off, especially when it comes to Libya. Also, people are now looking at the Federal Reserve as being a major contributor, if not the entire cause, of financial bubbles and these troubles we have. These are the kind of things I've been talking about for 20 to 30 years.

Were you surprised by the degree to which some of your Republican competitors echoed similar views on Libya and Afghanistan during the recent debate in New Hampshire?

You have to give them credit: they are listening and responding. Government is always a reflection of the people's attitudes. So this is a demonstration of how you get people to think differently, and politicians will respond. I was a little bit surprised, but very pleased, that they were taking an attitude much closer to mine.

You voted against the budget blueprint devised by Paul Ryan and backed by nearly all House Republicans. What would you do, if anything, to reform entitlements as president?

My goal would be to get the federal government out of the entitlement business. It will be a tragedy if we continue to do what we do, because we won't be able to finance them. If you look at Medicare and Social Secruity and Medicaid, they don't have the money. What I propose is a transitional period. Let young people get out. Take care of the people who have become so dependent on the government. Work our way out of it. Stop spending this money running a world empire and cut some of the budget that won't hit the poor.

I believe very sincerely that you could do this. If you change the foreign policy, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars rather quickly. You could get rid of your departments. What are we doing running the Department of Agriculture to the tune of billions of dollars? The Department of Energy, the Department of Education – we just don't need those things. You could address that and still not have to be seen as attacking health-care for children–even though my goal would be to make the Constitution strong enough and efficient enough that you could wean people off and let young people opt out of this soon and assume responsibility for themselves.

After this "transitional" phase is over, would there be entitlements?

It depends on what the people will tolerate and understand. If they really understood how the free market works and how our Constitution is supposed to be read, that's conceivable. We will not be able to fulfill the demands of the entitlement system, so we need a lot more people willing to go out and work and assume responsibility for themselves.

In addition to saving money abroad, what policies would you prescribe to spur economic growth here at home? 

I would work real hard on the tax code. I want the Federal Reserve to quit creating money out of thin air, because that distorts the economy. That's central economic planning by manipulating interest rates. Money should come from savings. Where are our savings? They're overseas. A lot of our companies made money overseas and don't want to bring it home and get taxed 30% or 40%. They've already been taxed overseas. Corporate taxes should be as close to zero as possible.

Then you need to have regulatory relief. The more trouble we get into, the more regulations they add on. They say the lack of regulations was why we had our crisis. Well, the regulations should be placed on the Federal Reserve, not on the businessman. You have to allow the liquidation of debt and the mal-investment. We should have allowed bankruptcies to occur rather than save weak companies.

People often call you the 'intellectual godfather' of the Tea Party movement. What's your appraisal of the current state of the Tea Party?

I think it's a mixed bag. It's normal when new groups of people come together that the views won't be uniform. When that all started during the last campaign, it was pretty uniform because it was based around our platform. It's a mixed group now. The issue that brings them together – although the details are still a little murky – is they're tired of the status quo, they're tired of the debt, they're tired of the failure of government.

What grade would you give the new House Republican majority for its performance so far this session?

Pretty good. The circumstances are so overwhelming. Some days I'm very happy; some days I get a little disappointed with the votes of the new members. But the sentiment against all this war going on, and bringing troops home, and not going into Libya, that's where I give them a very strong plus.

And if you were going to give them an A to F grade?

I'd give them a pretty good grade on effort, but I'd give them a C- on their realization of what they're really facing and not quite comprehending the whole issue. Take Paul Ryan. I didn't vote for his [budget], but I'm the last one to jump on him. Those who didn't want any changes, who didn't want to cut a thing, jumped on him and said he was an evil monster for even thinking about this. Of course, my complaint was he really didn't do anything. This year is the only thing that counts. These plans that tinker with things 10 years out are not comprehensive enough. He made an effort and people wanted to destroy him. They blamed him for losing the congressional seat [in New York]. Congress is basically filled with demagogues and power-mongers.

You said recently that fellow Texan Rick Perry represented the "status quo." Are there any competitors for the nomination who do not represent the status quo?

I think they all pretty much represent the status quo. How many others would bring the troops home? How many others want to audit the Fed – and get rid of the Fed someday? How many others want to repeal the Patriot Act? How many are saying the war on drugs is a total failure, a waste of money? So yes, they are the status quo, some more so than others.

Have you seen any of them introduce good new ideas?

No, but that doesn't mean they haven't had any. Maybe I just haven't paid enough attention. I'd be open to what they say, but none have caught my attention.

Your son, the senator from Kentucky, made some comments that suggested he was mulling  jumping into the race. Did you two have conversations about your respective plans?

We did not. I think he basically knew what my plans were, even though I never talked to him about it. We don't have many conversations about votes and things. About 99% of the time we probably agree. He did stay at my condo for awhile, but he got a place closer to the Senate. So I don't see him all that much. I see the other children a lot more because they live in Texas. Even though he's in Washington I probably see him the least.

Would you vote to raise the debt limit if the deal to do so contained spending reductions equal to or exceeding the $2.4 trillion it would take to raise the borrowing limit through 2012?

The promises to cut spending, which is supposed to be the temptation to vote for the debt increase, I think is a trick. Are they going to do it this year? Next year? Or is it going to be a 10-year program? There is no value to promises to make cuts in the future. In the 1980s they had a tax increase and it was agreed that for every dollar of increased taxes, there would be two dollars of spending cuts. What happened to the deficit in the 1980s? It still exploded.

You're known for voting your ideology. Are you willing to compromise this time around to enhance your chances of winning the nomination?

That would be like crossing your fingers as you take an oath of office. Instead of compromising, I work with coalitions. Some of my best groups have been working with progressive Democrats. They understand civil liberties and they understand war, and many of them, believe it or not, think deficits are bad. They like transparency of the Fed. I think working with coalitions without sacrificing any principle is the way to go. If you say now is the time to compromise, you're also saying your oath of office is worth about 50%.

What would a Ron Paul presidency look like?

There would be changes on Day 1. I'd do everything conceivable to trade with [foreign countries] rather than intimidating them. I'd try to relieve some of the tension. I certainly wouldn't have warships in the Black Sea trying to stir up a new Cold War with the Russians. That's crazy. The rest of it, you have to get a consensus, get Congress to pass laws. You could back off on regulations. The federal register is big enough. That would be a signal to the business people: Wow, he doesn't like taxes. You could do a lot to change the atmosphere, the intimidation that Big Government places on our business community.

Updated, 11:50 PM on June 20: As Paul's supporters correctly (and quite angrily) note, "non-interventionism" is a more accurate description for Paul's foreign policy that "isolationism."

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/20/qa-ron-paul/#ixzz1PwKqfpM4