I know it's wildly off topic, but i'd like to make the point that masturbation is not only harmless (unlike tobacco), but healthy - psychologically and medically.
Republicans, Religion and the Triumph of Unreason
- Thread starter ArghMonkey
- Start date
I know it's wildly off topic, but i'd like to make the point that masturbation is not only harmless (unlike tobacco), but healthy - psychologically and medically.
Of course it is but you know that there are states in the south of the u.s. that ban sex toys right? that sales of marijuana paraphenalia is illegal in many parts ...
People in Europe sometimes think Canadians are joking about how bad it is in the u.s., nope, they really are like that ...
Right, I seem to recall once when I was in Vancouver, that the "Vancouver Sun" reported on people who had been growing the stuff in the basement of their condo. Making lots of money but they did get apprehended for it. So Dodge, all you need to do is go for a short holiday in Vancouver, and spend some time in the right Coffee Shops, perhaps around Seymour Street or in Yale Town, and when tongues loosen quite a number of people would be able to tell you how and where to get the marijuana plants for growing and harvesting on your property!
I doubt he was serious but if he was the internet is the largest library to ever exist.
Just go to cannibusculture.com and surf the forums, you can openly buy all the equipment you could want here ...
One question; does that journalist who produced the article believe in the Islamic ideology of religion, or is otherwise a Socialist or Marxist?
One question; does that journalist who produced the article believe in the Islamic ideology of religion, or is otherwise a Socialist or Marxist?
The author is European but what does islam or socialism have to do with anything!?
One question; does that journalist who produced the article believe in the Islamic ideology of religion, or is otherwise a Socialist or Marxist?
The Independent is centre-left. It's certainly nowhere near socialism, though, unfortunately.
My question too. Maybe LiberalDemocraticTom could give his reason for why he would think that would make a difference?
The article is typical of liberals, particularly European liberals that really don't have a clue what is going on outside their warm, soft, government funded cocoon.
Why did the USA rise to the top of the pyramid? Because it allowed people to utilize their skills and ambition to the maximum extent possible, receiving the rewards of success as well as the penalties of failure, with little government intervention.
Why do we have the current problems? Because over the years, the power and intrusiveness of the government has steadily grown. It is not due to a "conservative" or "liberal" government, its due to government. The housing bubble was as much a result of government intervention and meddling as poor decisions by home buyers and mortgage companies, the loss of national wealth is the result of government largess and promises that are impossible to keep, the loss of manufacturing and production jobs is as a much a result of government tax and regulatory policy as the attractiveness of the overseas workforce, the loss of international respect is due to the Bush Administration.
Obama won the election because he presented an attractive alternative. He spoke a populist message that touched on long standing themes that do well in America, he presented himself as the "post-racial" candidate, he is young, well spoken, intelligent family man. He presented himself as the anti-Bush in all the right ways. Too bad it was all a mask to cover the real Obama just so he could win the election. The real Obama is the antithesis of America, as people would have known if they had looked at his actual record, and not been lulled to sleep by his words.
Why did the USA rise to the top of the pyramid? Because it allowed people to utilize their skills and ambition to the maximum extent possible, receiving the rewards of success as well as the penalties of failure, with little government intervention.
Why do we have the current problems? Because over the years, the power and intrusiveness of the government has steadily grown. It is not due to a "conservative" or "liberal" government, its due to government. The housing bubble was as much a result of government intervention and meddling as poor decisions by home buyers and mortgage companies, the loss of national wealth is the result of government largess and promises that are impossible to keep, the loss of manufacturing and production jobs is as a much a result of government tax and regulatory policy as the attractiveness of the overseas workforce, the loss of international respect is due to the Bush Administration.
Obama won the election because he presented an attractive alternative. He spoke a populist message that touched on long standing themes that do well in America, he presented himself as the "post-racial" candidate, he is young, well spoken, intelligent family man. He presented himself as the anti-Bush in all the right ways. Too bad it was all a mask to cover the real Obama just so he could win the election. The real Obama is the antithesis of America, as people would have known if they had looked at his actual record, and not been lulled to sleep by his words.
Another excellent posting, thanks Dave.
This is very true. Mostly Government and its ability to get debt so easily. Also, because debt is already in the trillions, billions do not matter anymore. We have become quite used to trillions now, so no one is resisting any longer.
Obama provided people with hope during his election campaign, especially after total disillusionment with Bush. For me it was an anti-Bush election campaign, and hoping for someone to trust. All of it very unrealistic of course, as most Presidents are limited by the political system and Government that have grown much too large and have become too complicated for even the best of Presidents to make meaningful changes. Time for an overhaul of the system?
And all signs of human civilization was erased from the continent resulting in slow economic growth, over trusting in gov't (How do you think they got food when living in ruins?) and fear of, well, everything not rapped up in a straitjacket and cushion.
No, not over trust in government, over the failure of government.
Government failed in its responsibility to put the interest of the nation above the interest of their own political party, their political carrers, and in the case of some select few politicians their greed.
Government has a role in improving the quality of life, I don't think anybody wants to live in anarchy. The problem is that government has too big a role in our lives.
I'm not disagreeing but we're talking about Europeans not Americans. they lived under gav'ts that controlled every aspect of their lives or handed them everything they needed after the war ended and the dust finally settled. The result in West and East is submitence to gov't.
Isn't a politician who puts the nation above their interest of their political party doomed to fail however? In light of the fact that almost all politicians in the United States need campaign contributions, and money is involved, how could they put the nation's interest above that? Probably one of the things that really need to be changed, the principle of having to fund large election campaigns?
There are 2 underlying problems: people can get rich being in an elected office; and people can make holding elected office a career.
Today, most people run for office because they want power, prestige and a career in politics. I believe it was Jefferson or Washington that said holding an elected office should be the culmination of a successful man's career. I occasionally run into college students that say they are getting a law degree because they want to go into politics. Holding a Congressional seat has become a career with a medical plan, retirement plan, transportation allowances, and more perks than any corporate CEO would ever receive.
Why do people spend tens of millions of doallrs to get elected? Because its worth it to them, holding a Congressional seat gives a person incredible power. If elected, they get to control Trillions of dollars, implement all kinds of social engineering schemes, they become the center of attention. And they seem to leave office much wealthier than when they entered office, and always walk out of the Capitol building straight into a very lucrative consulting or lobbying job.
If Washington was less powerfull, and we had term limits, I think we would have far less of a problem with the cost of elections and influences on Congressmen's thinking.
Agreed. Also if there could be less perks for the job, perhaps they have become too comfortable and cushy for them to want to change anything, including the big changes in Government.
Yeah make them pay rent and fuel for the jet and limo.
Way too much traveling going on.
Similar threads
