-
1. I get personal enjoyment out of it for one, and also it does open people's eyes that someone out there who is not a dumb red neck opposes them. It is a shaking moment that is good for them. 2. Do you actually consider the whole generation (1970something to 2000) genetaion we or were you part of some group called that? I am 18, I never thought
-
Seriously, screw the boomers, and their new counterparts (these "Generation We" tools). I love explaining to both groups of people how I am against everything they think is good; equality, democracy, "progress", their so called integration and diversity (Orwellian terms to describe their policing of cultures and the current state
-
Thank you for the great answers all. I have concluded that big business men screw one another whenever they can. Poor people can get benefits and live off the state. If they try to do this they will run into a lot of invisible walls. So basically middle class, small businesses.
-
Republicans say that the bottom 50% of the population income wise pays less than 3% of the taxes (some pundent said that). I have also heared people talk about how the government is set up to make certain groups of people unrealistically wealth (the didn't earn it). The supposedly do this through inflation and monetary debasement. For me it is hard
-
Some of those sentences just didn't make sense. It looked more like something that comes out of those "rant generators". I think it is a purity. I made that conclusion when I saw the word "quantum" being used to discuss economics.
-
It isn't so much Judeo Christian ethics as it is the preservation of the family as an institution. The state has been destroying that institution. He says that any conservative (judeo-christian types ect.) should oppose the state on the grounds that the state intrinsically opposes social cohesion and the family as an institution. I don't think
-
[quote user="JAlanKatz"] [quote user="AJ"]So buy some land, and maybe get a gun permit and an ID every 10 years or whatever. If you're way out in Wyoming or somewhere I don't think anyone will find out about any of that. It might be a risk, but probably way down on the list considering the situation you're talking about
-
[quote user="Jackson LaRose"] [quote user="Hairnet"] I don't think it would be statism, as the administrator would have had to earn the land, and as a consumer, I would enter any private city that didn't have legal services EXTERNAL to the private city. This means that the city administrator owner could provide protection
-
[quote user="Brainpolice"] I think that psychoanalytic methods, especially in its Freudian roots, is incredibly arbitrary and potentially dangerous. But I don't conflate that with psychology in general, which has moved on since Freud. The problem I see is essentially telling people what they think for them or attributing causes for people's
-
[quote user="Jackson LaRose"] Anarchy means "without ruler" in Greek, right? Now, is there really such thing? Even down to the smallest state, the "state of one", an individual is its own ruler, and is monopolizing a bit of territory at any given moment. Thoughts? [/quote] No. I do think that civilized society strives for