Well, that's what Bill O'Reilly says about Libertarians in one of his segments with a Russian woman that knows the meaning behind words.
Bill, you can have your protection, I just want my freedom.
p.s. I may want to do whatever I want, but just because I want to doesn't mean that I will.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Good for Russia and Israel
I just saw on Russia Roday that there won't be a need for a visa for Russians visiting Israel for 90 days or less. Good for them, now only if there was no need for visas, but it's a good start. Hopefully this idea will catch on.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Tax the Rich!
I get the argument behind the idea. The rich can afford taxes more than the poor. Of course, I think taxation is theft. I think it's a legalized form of slavery. If I'm taxed on 10% of my income I'm a slave for 1/10 of the work year. If I work 10 hours per day, I'm a slave for an hour. But slavery is slavery even if only for a mere moment...is it not?
So, what if I make $80,000 per year and my neighbor makes $100,000. Let's say for simplicity's sake, I don't get taxed (don't want to screw up the math). Let's say my neighbor has to pay 20%. Well, looks like we're on equal footing, right? He had to go to college longer, and probably a better one, so he's not getting a very good payoff.
Then my other neighbor makes $130,000. What if after taxes he makes "only" $75,000. You know, he can afford it.
So a simple question I have to ask: Why should I bust my butt to work hard and make a lot of money when I may make a little bit than a guy who doesn't work as hard and didn't have as good of an education?
Taxing the rich a lot kills ambition.
So, what if I make $80,000 per year and my neighbor makes $100,000. Let's say for simplicity's sake, I don't get taxed (don't want to screw up the math). Let's say my neighbor has to pay 20%. Well, looks like we're on equal footing, right? He had to go to college longer, and probably a better one, so he's not getting a very good payoff.
Then my other neighbor makes $130,000. What if after taxes he makes "only" $75,000. You know, he can afford it.
So a simple question I have to ask: Why should I bust my butt to work hard and make a lot of money when I may make a little bit than a guy who doesn't work as hard and didn't have as good of an education?
Taxing the rich a lot kills ambition.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The Private Sector and Government
Suppose we had a company that made disinfectants, floor cleaners, bleach, etc.
Suppose this company decided to water it down in order to save money, but passed it off as the pure product. Certainly the government would intervene. Certainly people would more or less call for their heads.
Well, why is the government exempt from this treatment? I'll admit, if government screws up enough, the other party may win next election (but that an be anywhere from tomorrow until 4 years from now). What if it's part of the system though? Like the federal reserve.
A company watering down it's cleaning products is like the fed printing money. They're watering down the value of the dollar. No one seems to mind though.
Suppose this company decided to water it down in order to save money, but passed it off as the pure product. Certainly the government would intervene. Certainly people would more or less call for their heads.
Well, why is the government exempt from this treatment? I'll admit, if government screws up enough, the other party may win next election (but that an be anywhere from tomorrow until 4 years from now). What if it's part of the system though? Like the federal reserve.
A company watering down it's cleaning products is like the fed printing money. They're watering down the value of the dollar. No one seems to mind though.
A prayer to the state
RNC time!
The invocation was quite partisan. I understand wanting to pray for a certain type of leader. I sure do, so I understand people praying for party X or Y. May not agree with their choice of candidates, but I understand.
It's okay to pray for good leaders. Of course, I think NOTA would be a good leader, but I'm not going to slaughter people for praying for Obama or McCain.
But what happens when it becomes politicized? What happens when slogans are tossed into a prayer? Well, I throw up, that's what. Country first should never, ever, be in a prayer to God. Perhaps the state, but never to God who cares more about if you served the poor and fed he hungry than if you served or fed the state.
A prayer for service to the state? Instead of praying that people give up their interest to serve the state (as if politicians aren't power hungry and self-aggrandizing), we should pray that more people give up their self interest to serve God in the priesthood. Or serve the poor through charitiy and volunteering.
And what is wrong with self interest? Often self interest brings good things. For example not many musicians play music to contribute, or serve, to the culture. Yet they serve society, for better or worse, through their self-interest.
Let's put the spiritual side of things away for a moment. Let's say I donated $100,000 to a charity to have an award named after me. Is that $100,000 worth the same if I did it annonymously? Of course! It may be selfish to do it so I can have something named after me, but the ends will be the same!
There's something scary about the melding of the Church and State. Especially when the state becomes the Church!
The invocation was quite partisan. I understand wanting to pray for a certain type of leader. I sure do, so I understand people praying for party X or Y. May not agree with their choice of candidates, but I understand.
It's okay to pray for good leaders. Of course, I think NOTA would be a good leader, but I'm not going to slaughter people for praying for Obama or McCain.
But what happens when it becomes politicized? What happens when slogans are tossed into a prayer? Well, I throw up, that's what. Country first should never, ever, be in a prayer to God. Perhaps the state, but never to God who cares more about if you served the poor and fed he hungry than if you served or fed the state.
A prayer for service to the state? Instead of praying that people give up their interest to serve the state (as if politicians aren't power hungry and self-aggrandizing), we should pray that more people give up their self interest to serve God in the priesthood. Or serve the poor through charitiy and volunteering.
And what is wrong with self interest? Often self interest brings good things. For example not many musicians play music to contribute, or serve, to the culture. Yet they serve society, for better or worse, through their self-interest.
Let's put the spiritual side of things away for a moment. Let's say I donated $100,000 to a charity to have an award named after me. Is that $100,000 worth the same if I did it annonymously? Of course! It may be selfish to do it so I can have something named after me, but the ends will be the same!
There's something scary about the melding of the Church and State. Especially when the state becomes the Church!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
In Awe of the Almighty God-State
MSNBC's post speech coverage is great. I'm sure there were more state-worshipping statements, but I was busy watching Family Matters.
Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rev. Eugene Rivers just went through the Litany of Saint Lincoln. Michelle Obama, glory to her name, is a descendant of slaves. Reverend Rivers mentioned America is unique, and great, because the North and South had a war and other nations didn't.
His truth comes marching home indeed.
Deacon Matthews mentioned how he hates Hollywood for making the south sypathetic. That's right, he wants to portray them as the devils they apparently were. Let Hollywood help those Sherman apologists, because not one Southerner was good. Let them be portayed like the germans portrayed those apparently hook-nosed greedy jews. Let them be portrayed as those monkey-like Japs our government so lovingly did.
What was the result? Six million people of a relitively small religious group murdered. Six million more of Jewish and Gypsy ancestry slaughtered. Tens of thousands of Japanese annihilated with an intrinsically evil weapon.
Deacon Matthews should know this.
Even if the Jews were trying to take over, is it ever right to commit a genocide? If the Japanese's spirit was strong, is it righ tto crush it by wiping out two cities?
Slavery is immoral. Humans can not be another's property. And yet the ends don't justify the means. Sherman's march was total warfare, which is immoral.
How can a man, supposively a worshipper of the Prince of Peace, glorify war instead of peace? There can be no mistake, they worship the state. Matthews is the Deacon to the reverend. And Olbermann is a promising young acolyte.
These false teachers called on hollywood to portray the Confederacy as an evil on the level of Hitler and the Union on the level of Saint Michael. And yet both sides seemed to be in the wrong. One advocated slavery while the other advocated statism.
Finally, Olbermann said that the CSA rebelled against the Union and were insurrectionists. If Lincoln didn't invade the South, there would have been no war. The South didn't want to take over the north too.
Everyone has a right to leave a country, whether a state/province, region, city, neighborhood, or individual. Why do I say people worship the state? Look at secessionist regions in the world. They treat each one as a schism if they aren't pro-US. South Ossetia and the CSA? No, they must remain within the one true faith.
On the other hand, they treat pro-US regions like the Church would if a protestant group asked to come home. Kosovo? Let them have their freedom!
It's one thing for a religious group to protest a schism since there is a true faith. It's another for a country sincce there's no one true country.
Although the South embracing slavery was reprehensible, there was something noble about it. It had a more Catholic/Anglo-Catholic culture. An air of dignity, a natural social structure (minus slavery of course), and a more easy-going attitude. The North? Although more "advanced", it was so much more irrational. Just take a look at the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
What was once a cultured society became the stereotypical Southern culture of today. When the northerners moved south during reconstruction, they brought their anti-Catholic and state-worshipping attitudes with them.
Indeed, the Civil War was the first of your modern wars-destroy life and property to bring around a good, then spend millions and billions on reconstruction.
The spread of state worship eventually led to America's nationalism which plagues Liberty to this day. The north fought for the slaves' Liberty, yet it was ironically the death of American-style Liberty.
Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rev. Eugene Rivers just went through the Litany of Saint Lincoln. Michelle Obama, glory to her name, is a descendant of slaves. Reverend Rivers mentioned America is unique, and great, because the North and South had a war and other nations didn't.
His truth comes marching home indeed.
Deacon Matthews mentioned how he hates Hollywood for making the south sypathetic. That's right, he wants to portray them as the devils they apparently were. Let Hollywood help those Sherman apologists, because not one Southerner was good. Let them be portayed like the germans portrayed those apparently hook-nosed greedy jews. Let them be portrayed as those monkey-like Japs our government so lovingly did.
What was the result? Six million people of a relitively small religious group murdered. Six million more of Jewish and Gypsy ancestry slaughtered. Tens of thousands of Japanese annihilated with an intrinsically evil weapon.
Deacon Matthews should know this.
Even if the Jews were trying to take over, is it ever right to commit a genocide? If the Japanese's spirit was strong, is it righ tto crush it by wiping out two cities?
Slavery is immoral. Humans can not be another's property. And yet the ends don't justify the means. Sherman's march was total warfare, which is immoral.
How can a man, supposively a worshipper of the Prince of Peace, glorify war instead of peace? There can be no mistake, they worship the state. Matthews is the Deacon to the reverend. And Olbermann is a promising young acolyte.
These false teachers called on hollywood to portray the Confederacy as an evil on the level of Hitler and the Union on the level of Saint Michael. And yet both sides seemed to be in the wrong. One advocated slavery while the other advocated statism.
Finally, Olbermann said that the CSA rebelled against the Union and were insurrectionists. If Lincoln didn't invade the South, there would have been no war. The South didn't want to take over the north too.
Everyone has a right to leave a country, whether a state/province, region, city, neighborhood, or individual. Why do I say people worship the state? Look at secessionist regions in the world. They treat each one as a schism if they aren't pro-US. South Ossetia and the CSA? No, they must remain within the one true faith.
On the other hand, they treat pro-US regions like the Church would if a protestant group asked to come home. Kosovo? Let them have their freedom!
It's one thing for a religious group to protest a schism since there is a true faith. It's another for a country sincce there's no one true country.
Although the South embracing slavery was reprehensible, there was something noble about it. It had a more Catholic/Anglo-Catholic culture. An air of dignity, a natural social structure (minus slavery of course), and a more easy-going attitude. The North? Although more "advanced", it was so much more irrational. Just take a look at the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
What was once a cultured society became the stereotypical Southern culture of today. When the northerners moved south during reconstruction, they brought their anti-Catholic and state-worshipping attitudes with them.
Indeed, the Civil War was the first of your modern wars-destroy life and property to bring around a good, then spend millions and billions on reconstruction.
The spread of state worship eventually led to America's nationalism which plagues Liberty to this day. The north fought for the slaves' Liberty, yet it was ironically the death of American-style Liberty.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
A Frenchman Tells the Truth
Not that I'm calling the French liars or anything. I mean, just look at the blog address!
Today on Fareed Zakaria: GPS (a very good show, from the few episodes and segments I've seen), the host interviewed a Frenchman and a German. The former said Barack Obama was an idealist and a realist, while the neocons are extreme idealists. Then he said Barack was a mixture of a neocon and Kissinger.
Take it from a man with a clear head, a rational man. Obama is no Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich (though I disagree with him on Darfur), or Cynthia McKinney. He's just going to start more wars that are more directly linked to the "war on terror" and genocide
Watch out Pakistan! Watch out Iran!
Turns out that entire nations are terrorist nations if they don't do enough in the eyes of the leviathan. And never mind about possible civil wars if moderates start attacking extremists. The legionaries will come to the rescue!
Yep, we should just kill the people instead of the source, mainly the American Hegemony.
I mean, I think you'd be pretty ticked off if someone decided to stay in your back yard or porch and threatened to shoot you if you tried to get them out, right?
Didn't the colonials have a revolution because the redcoats tried to have sleepovers?
Today on Fareed Zakaria: GPS (a very good show, from the few episodes and segments I've seen), the host interviewed a Frenchman and a German. The former said Barack Obama was an idealist and a realist, while the neocons are extreme idealists. Then he said Barack was a mixture of a neocon and Kissinger.
Take it from a man with a clear head, a rational man. Obama is no Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich (though I disagree with him on Darfur), or Cynthia McKinney. He's just going to start more wars that are more directly linked to the "war on terror" and genocide
Watch out Pakistan! Watch out Iran!
Turns out that entire nations are terrorist nations if they don't do enough in the eyes of the leviathan. And never mind about possible civil wars if moderates start attacking extremists. The legionaries will come to the rescue!
Yep, we should just kill the people instead of the source, mainly the American Hegemony.
I mean, I think you'd be pretty ticked off if someone decided to stay in your back yard or porch and threatened to shoot you if you tried to get them out, right?
Didn't the colonials have a revolution because the redcoats tried to have sleepovers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)