488 Forum Posts by "FightingForFreedom"
At 8/8/07 11:50 PM, MacGyverMan wrote: A person can get good financial footing by being responsible, paying bills on time and showing they are a good credit risk.
If they COULD do that, they wouldn't need a loan. However, its an unfortunate truth that somone with a serious illness, disabilties, or a poor education (which isnt always their fault) can't do that. The situation isnt uncommon. Recent immigrants, LEGAL immigrants, have a hard time paying for their kids education because they weren't educated in American but in El Salvador or Burma. People in wheelchairs, widowed mothers, and those with AIDS and cancer can't exaclty do all of these things. Thus they have bad credit and can't get loans.
Poor folks can get scholarships for further education, I know someone who is doing it.
Hebert Hoover made the same argument - that charity and voluntary scholarships should take place of government intervention. History proved him wrong. People simply aren't generous enough to it themselves.
Also I'm sorry If I gave the impression I'm agesnt public education, i'm not. however I do like the idea that belgium has, the goverment gives you an certain amount for education that can only be used for education and can be used at any private school of your choice.
Right but shoudlnt the government demand certain quality standards out of the schools it gives money to? Otherwise its just as big of a waste as you think public schools are. Yet, if they do demand this, than they essentially make the schools the same as government run public schools.
At 8/8/07 11:28 PM, MacGyverMan wrote: Everything is a balance, no sociaty could exist without goverment but also can't exist with too much goverment.
I think right now we have a good balance of capitalism and government regulation.
In a capitalistic society, the goverment must be there to enfoce the basic laws, run the courts and protect the people but after that the individual has freedom.
See your view really isnt a balance. Your view is pure unregulated capitalism. You want government in society but NOT in economics whatsoever. Thats not a balance. Thats pure capitalism.
If your starveling because some big monopoly is charging too much for soilnt green, leave and grow your own food.
People used to be able do that back when it was possible to maintain an adequite standard of living simply by producing goods yourself. However, the industrial revolution rendered this impossible and so the option to do everything yourself is no longer there.
If you get sick from eating shitty food from brand A then eat brand B's food
But if the government doesn't bust monomplies than their is no competion. You're stuck with shitty Brand A.
If you don't think your getting paid enough then work for your self.
Who pays you when you work for yourself? Other companies.
If you can't stay in business because some larger company does what you do for less then make your product better or more fitting to the customers wants.
Thats how it works today. Its why the Apple iPod is so popular - it beats out the competition. Do you think that the government artificially holds up any companies that aren't profitable? Not unless its to prevent a huge market crash, such as a bank totally failing.
Capitalism rewards hard work and punishes laziness, socialism rewards the slacker and punishes the worker.
But at the same time capitalism rewards greed and punishes the generous, while socialism rewards the poor and punishes the exploiters. So really a balance does work. But it has to be an ACTUAL balance. Not just pure capitalsim.
At 8/8/07 11:14 PM, MacGyverMan wrote: Loans? get a load from a bank or better yet save up the money when your kids are born.
Well its very hard to get a loan from a bank unless you have good financial footing. Most people in need of loans don't. Student loans are easier to get than bankloans.
As for the the second comment, you must honestly believe that poor people dont exist. Its not even as if the poor will be able to go to free community or state colleges because you say you're against public education.
Public schools are inefficient and do a poor job teaching, the united states is one of the richest countries in the world yet american students are less integent than other countries students, even much poorer ones.
Public schools may generally suck but they provide kids who made the horible mistake of being born into a poor family the ability to get an education. Even if it doesnt compete with welfare states like Sweden or Japan (who you probably despise) its still good basic skills that can get kids a job once they grow up. Which, by the way, is good for the precious economy.
social security, i can save up for my own retirement and make millions in interest while doing it, if the government takes my money i can't invest it the way I'd like and theres no garentee it will be there for me.
You probably can, but most people can't. Thats why you give a relatively small fraction of your earnings, which the government helped you get by giving you a free education and regulation a fair marketplace, so that 70 year old contruction workers and policemen don't have to work.
Gun control, guns give people power ageist a tyrannical government
Because thats how things work in 21st century America....
It seemd like FEMA did a shitty job with Katrina, they have people thousands of dollars and they go spend it on luxury items, it took them too long to to everything and they wasted millions in resources (parking lots full of unused buses)
Yea I agree with you there.
Why is my money going to unprofitable farms?
Because if the famers overproduce than crop prices go way down, the farmers make no money, they can't produce more crops, land prices fall, and the country slides back in to that good old Great Depression. Overproduction of agriculture is precisely what led to the Depression and farm subsidies prevent it from happaneing again.
And before the industrial revolution 70% of children died before adulthood, after the industrial revultion only 8%
Right... improved health was one of the great products of the industrial revolution. But along with it came a slew of other problems such as overpopulation, overproduction, poverty, and illiteracy.
At 8/8/07 10:58 PM, MacGyverMan wrote: Government regulation and intervention is the enemy of capitalism, capitalism is why we are using computers today.
Government regulation and intervention is the tamer of capitalism, without which capitalism would never be sustainable.
Picture a society without government regulation of monoplies and corporate crime. A society without a minimul wage, workers compensation, disabilty welfare, maternity leave, child labor laws, consumer protection, and environmental coservation.
Thats a society free of government regulations and intervention.
At 8/8/07 10:00 PM, damionford wrote: You make an interesting point but do you honestly think china will keep the bonds the U.S. sold are going to last forever and you also need to remember China and the U.S. may exist today and not tomarrow so the moment China sees the economy drop thier gonan Cash out those bonds
Well China cashing in those bonds would be hugely self-defeating because the United States Treasury would likely tank, essentially destorying the predominately dollar-based Chinese Yuan. It would make alot more sense for China to sell the bonds to foreign investors rather than cash them in. That would be even better than our current situation because instead of only fastening ties to China, it would connect us to many other major powers.
Most politicans from all over the politcal spectrum will have you believe that it is the mission of the United States to bring democracy to other nations. Conservatives will generally tell you that, for interests of national security, military force may be needed while liberals will generally say that it must be diplomatic, political, and economic forces that fuel the change. However, both would agree that democracy should be spread throughout the world
I challenge this assumption with a quote by President Woodrow Wilson "A world safe for democracy need not be a democratic world."
In other words, its not neccessary for the United States to push, coerce, or even really encourage democratic reforms in most of the world. Doing so is very costly; either in terms of diplomatic and political capital (such as the Bay of Pigs plot in 1962) or military and financial capital (such as the Iraq War). Often the price is both.
Instead the goal of American Foreign policy should be to simply prevent hostile nations from undermining the ability of other nations to intitute their own democratic movements. A prime example of this idea is Korea. Here we see the United States, acting with a true multilateral coalition, to defend the sovereignty of one rapidly liberalizing nation (South Korea) against another (North Korea). In doing this, the United States can creat a world that is safe for democracy. You see, the fact of the matter is that most nations are generally wise enough to devise a government that is, at the VERY LEAST, stable. As long as governments are stable and not agressive, it doesnt prohibit the democratization of their neighbors. When countries act hostile (agains, like North Korea) they must be stopped. However, nations thats simply practice different systems of government, such as Cuba, shouldn't be shunned for their non-democratic ways.
For instance, in the case of China, even though its liberal reforms may be questionable, you should not encourage democracy in the nation. However, if China wishes to inhibit the liberalization of Taiwan than THAT is a situation that requires force.
All I'm saying is that it makes more sense to create a world in which democracies can survive than to create world in which ONLY democracies can survive. Agree?
Its hard to find a politician or public official nowadays who isn't upset about our massive debt to the Peoples Republic of China. However, I don't think that this debt is something to moan about. They claim that it pushes us against the wall in negotiating with the nation and hurts our security. Yet, anything I think it helps our situation.
Because the bulk of the Chinese economic growth rests on the shoulders of American consumers, it would seem that China wants the United States, and its trade dollars, intact. Therefore, its highly unlikely that China will ever come knocking for its money back, lest the US tighten the valve on our Chinese imports - or worse - default on our bills.
But even more crucial is the national security that large debt to a powerful country entails. Essentially, because we owe so much to China, the nation has much incentive to keep our economy strong. Otherwise their loans go dry.
The reasons why foreign debt can be bad are clear, but it seems as if the situation is equal for both of us at the very least.
? I got one... I really don't like it. I'll sell it for like $250 first chance I get....
(Here)
There can't really be a civil war if there isn't a union to begin with.
StealthSteve,
Everything in your post made sense, except for this
At 11/6/06 12:04 AM, StealthSteve wrote: Being in a minority group shouldn't entitle you to special rights, but if your family had been shit on for generations and only recently you were given the same rights naturally afforded to people of a different skin color, then I think it's only right to have some sort of reparation made to you.
Even though you can't really walk a mile in another man's shoes, I think your problem is that you never even bothered trying to imagine doing so. A group gets stompered-on for centuries, and only within the past couple of decades have they been presented some opportunities for advancement (while still in the face of massive prejudice), and
Thats ludicrous
Your statement, in all its manipulative emotional appeal, fails to adress what I was even talking about. Historical oppression does not justiy contemporary privelege. I'm Jewish, yet I don't feel like anyone is indebted to me for what happened in the Holocaust or the various inquisitions - partly because I WASNT EVEN THERE and partly because IT HAS NO EFFECT ON MY CURRENT LIFE. Therefore African-Americans have absolutely no right to claim grievence on a slavery that they were born 150 years later than. Nor do any of these minorities, who you claim were "shit on for generations", deserve compensation for this prejudice. Its absurd and unwarranted.
The problem is that many of these racial organizations place their heritage on a pedistal of superiority. Whereas it is assumed that in this country we are all "created equal" they seek to "advance" their race beyond equality. That is the issue I am talking about. So in the end, you pretend to occupy the politically correct position of some mystical racial defender, but you know as well as I do that rhetoric and lofty statements amount to nothing.
your reaction is to take it as a threat to your lifestyle, the 'majority' lifestyle.
No, I fully embrace other cultures. For the most part, it isnt even the blacks or latinos who are doing this - its usually whites getting upset FOR them.
Ithe blacks or latinos who are doing this - its usually whites getting upset FOR them.
It's just a fear response... so the question is, what are you really afraid of?
Thats a very lame cop-out. The very first thing people do when attempting to defend race, gender, or ethinic relations is accuse the opponent of being afraid of said group. As if conservatives are afraid of gays or the GOP afraid of blacks. No. I'm not afraid at all. Im speaking what I believe to be true, and saying it quite clearly.
The Minority Carte Blanche on Racism
Few intellectuals of today’s world would ever condone, let alone support, the idea of racism and racial superiority, yet it has come to my attention that all ethnic groups are exempt from being labeled prejudiced except the male Caucasian. What we face today is what I refer to as reverse racism.
In other words, it is now completely socially acceptable for the minority to belittle the majority, instead of the usual opposite. Whereas African-Americans may joyously refer to whites as “crackers”, without any fear of retribution, a white man who mistakenly reciprocates by calling said man “black”, instead of whatever politically correct term he wishes to be called, is vigorously ostracized and declared a racist. This is ridiculous and a complete contradiction of what it means to be equal.
Today there are African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, and Native-Americans. All of the aforementioned groups have social amnesty over producing racial segregation. There are colleges for blacks, scholarships meant for Latinos, job positions held for Asians, and tax breaks for Native Americans; all established under the guise of “racial advancement”. However, all these societies do is destroy any form of cultural unity.
For instance - it is all good and well for there to be a United Negro College Fund, a Black History Month, the NAACP, and BET, but could you even imagine the kind of furor that would result in the creation of an organization meant for the sole advancement whites? If tomorrow a White Entertainment Television or a White History Month was created the whole country would be up in arms. This, my friends, is where the hypocrisy lies.
It is popularly believed that old American white men rule the world. The left-wing tells us that these people are evil, greedy, and immoral, yet then in the same breath tell us that it is wrong to stereotype. If we are told that holding an entire race responsible for the actions of a few of its members is wrong than why am I held me responsible for the evil things that some whites do, or what some Jews do? In our world it is impossible for anyone but a white to be called a racist. There is the double standard.
I do not expect this assertion to be understood by all, let alone accepted, but what I say here I do say in the interest of racial unity not segregation. We must all realize that being a minority group should not entitle you to any special rights. Nobody, nobody is more equal than another.
You guys are insane if you think any country is ever going to own the moon.
First of all, just because its there doesn't mean someone will claim it. Look at Antactica - no one country owns it. Antactica is simply a shared territory used for scientific research. It stands to reason that the moon, equally uninhabitable, will fair the same.
Second, theres no strategic reason, at least yet, for owning the moon. There are no valuable resources and there is definetly no arable soil. Even if there was, the amount of capital required to colonize the moon would outway any profits. What reason would a country have for taking the moon? Land? Demonstration of power? Either way the rewards are slim for such a massive undertaking.
Third, noone lives there - why does it need to be governed. Even if people move there the entire body can't exactly sustain a lot of people. It would be a waste of money to govern a territory that has no population.
I'd like to point something out.
At 10/21/06 05:23 AM, ForcedDj wrote:3. John EdwardsDon't care
4. Joe BidenWho?
5. Wesley ClarkDon't care
RepublicansWho?
3. Rudy Giuliani
5. Newt GingrichWho?
6. Bill FristDon't care
RepublicansDon't care
1. Rudy Giuliani
4. New GingrichWho?
How can you not know who Rudy Guliana or Newt Gingrich are, yet still attempt to voice an authoritative opinion on the election? Basically, your opinions are only derrived from mass media perceptions of candidates and exagerative humor. Do some research before you vote.
Seeing how the original poster fucked up the entire idea for the rest of us, here is a new version of the list:
Democrats
1. John Kerry
2. Al Gore
3. John Edwards
4. Joe Biden
5. Wesley Clark
6. Hilary Clinton
Republicans
1. John McCain
2. Jeb Bush
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Condaleeza Rice
5. Newt Gingrich
6. Bill Frist
According to several polls conducted by various credible organizations (Source) the most likely candidates are:
Democrats (Source)
1. Hilary Clinton
2. Al Gore
3. John Kerry
4. John Edwards
Republicans (Source )
1. Rudy Giuliani
2. John McCain
3. Condaleeza Rice
4. New Gingrich
Polls show that both Giuliani and McCain could beat Hillary, Gore or Edwards by a slim margin. Kerry could beat Rice and Gingrich. (Source)
What do you think?
At 10/19/06 07:59 PM, SitwiththeGuru wrote: Another election year is coming soon, 2008. Let's all nominate the contestants:
Ok this was rediculous
1. Al Gore - I think Al Gore is a good guy because he is democratic.
... So are abot 150 million other Americans - whats your point?
2. John McKain - He doesn't like black people, so we should not nominate him.
Its spelt John McCain and since when has he hated black people?
3. John Kerry - He reminds me of a younger version of Al Gore. I like him too.
How does this have to do his ability to serve president? Doesn't George W. Bush reminder you of a younger George H. W. Bush?
4. Condoleeza Rice - If we have a female president, it should be Hilary Clinton.
Why do we NEED a women president? Besides, what make Hillary Clinton a better candidate?
5. Hilary Clinton - She would make a good president, since Bill Clinton was good.
How the fuck does that work? Would you ever vote for Maria Shriver just because she's Arnold Schwarzenegger's wife?
6. George Bush - No way, not again!
HAHAHAHA. He can't run again due to the 2 term limit. Do you even know what you're talking about?
7. Jesse Jackson - I think it would be cool to have a black president.
Vote for a president solely based on his race? Thats not racist at all! I'm gonna vote for Brittany Spears for president because she's white!
8. Samuel Jackson - He would be okay, but not as good as Jesse Jackson.
Are you kidding. I doubt you know a single one of his platforms, if he has any.
9. Dick Cheney - He would make a bad president because he is like George Bush's wife.
Actually if anything Chenney is the man in the relationship. Since when has Chenney followed Bush's lead on anything - not the other way around.
10. Jeb Bush - No Way! Two Bushes are enough.
So it doesn't matter what his beliefs are, hes a bad candidate because his last name is Bush?
Vote now or nominate!
It seems like you know absolutely nothing about politics, the presidency, or elections and are just spouting out ridiculous opinions based on superficial or incorrect facts.
At 10/18/06 11:40 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Lies. It cannot be a citizen. It can only be an alien.
Here is the defnition that the Military Commissions Act sets:
--------------------
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
--------------------
That is a direct excerpt of the entire definition.
Full text is available here:
Source Text 1 (Library of Congress) and Source Text 2 (George Washinton University) and
When the United States Congress defines UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT this is the only definition it now goes by. Nowhere in the definition of UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT does it include the word ALIEN.
The word ALIEN by itself defined later on, but the definition of UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT never includes the word ALIEN. Period.
Whether it will be upheld is another question entirely. Maybe you should learn about the bill you talk about before you noob it up here.
I appreciate your concern, but you're wrong.
At 10/18/06 08:57 PM, Proteas wrote: Never mind the fact that he was beaten on a daily basis, starved, and forced to live in his own shit for 5 and a half years.... torture's torture, right?
Next time you see John McCain, wave at him for me. Make sure it's one of those over-the-head waves too, I'm sure he'll appreciate the gesture seeing as how he can't raise his arms above his shoulders anymore.
Did you even read the post? I'm against torture. Im using John McCain as proof because he was tortured and did not give reliable information, thus showing how those tortured will say anything to end the pain. Got it?
Torture.
Coercive Action.
Tough Interrogation.
Whatever you want to call it... John McCain said it best:
"I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse."
More importantly...
"Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering. "
At 10/18/06 04:48 PM, Grammer wrote: Terrorists don't deserve the same constitutional rights afforded to American citizens, and we have no obligation to give them any.
You are missing the point. This definition can apply to ANYONE - not just terrorists. The only criteria that is specified to become an Enemy Combatent (Terrorist) is that you have to go against the American government.
Of course I believe that terrorists don't deserve the same rights, but that doesn't justify giving the President carte blanche power to tell us who is a terrorist and who isn't. Thats why we have a judicial system. If the Supreme Court were to declare a person an enemy combatent I would have no problem with this bill.
The problem is that this bill makes the President become the judge, jury and executioner when in reality the constitution only allows him to be the latter.
At 10/18/06 04:01 PM, Grammer wrote: I am glad this bill passed. Enemy combatants don't have constitutional rights. As long as they are given trial when the war is over, I see no problem with this bill.
Right, but who decides who is a Enemy Combatant?
Is a protester of President Bush an enemy combatent?
What about someone who tries to assasinate him? If so, was Lee Harvey Oswald an enemy combatent?
What about someone who works for to impeaching the president - is he an attacker of America?
What about a disagreeing member of the Senate, a left wing comentator, a liberal judge... are they enemy combatents?
Its ridiculous, the line is so vague that anyone and everyone can be held or detained.
After a good almost 800 year run, habeas corpus is finally dead.
The killer? Congress.
The weapon? Military Commissions Act of 2006
Essentialy, this bill finally sets a definition for "enemy combatent" - basically whoever Bush decides is one. It also gives the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, an Executive organization (that Bush runs as a president), complete power over deciding whether or not the President is correct.
The implication is that much like that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which allowed the president (at the time John Adams) the ability to detain prisoners indefinitely and without presenting any evidence.
The law also allows such actions to be carried out on both citizens and non-citizens of the United States. Oh, yea, and people who are detained this way aren't protected by the Geniva convention so torture of them is A-OK!
Seriously. They exist to protect us, but whose protecting us from them?
At 9/22/06 09:08 PM, Stolzer-Amerikanisch wrote: Believe me when I say this....
No one fucks with America
Right.
Except for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Bolivia, Syria, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah.
Yea, except for those no one.
At 9/14/06 11:22 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: Dude, this post was 4 bellow yours when you posted.
sheesh.
Totally different idea. Hes talking about whether gas prices have changed much since to 80's and im talking about how gas prices suddenly go down right before elections.
But, yea, everyone thinks you're really cool now.
Has anyone noticed how low gas prices have gone down? Up to 20 cents in some areas?
I wonder if it has anything to do with the Congressional elections.... hmmm...
Funny how this only happens on even years...
At 9/10/06 04:21 PM, The-Stink wrote: Well you are the reason why it was tunring into a flame war, you just had to say bullshit, now didn't you?
Fuck you. For the past 3 pages, all you've done is make ridiculous character judgements off of casual forum posts. You determined that one person has no friends because she submitted a picture that wasn't her. In the same breath you told someone else that they depended too much on friends because they lamented on their moderating skills.
Vent your frustration at whatever you are angry at somewhere else. Noone here cares.
Many of you miss the point. I'm not criticizing American foreign policy or even the war on terror.
I'm simply commenting on how corporate America has devolved to the point where they actually enjoy disaster because it improves their possibility for revenue.
Paramount can make 9/11 movies, Viacom can make 9/11 shows, Gap can make 9/11 shirts, and WalMart can see special 9/11 flags.
Don't be surprised if in the near future we see 9/11 license plates and postage stamps.
At 9/9/06 03:00 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: America also turned WWII into profit. Whenever the United States engages in war, the US economy prospers. But such is the same for pretty much any other country.
World War II is a different story entirely.
First of all, the movies and TV shows came out far after the event. For example, in 2001, when the movie Pearl Harbor came out, the emotions of that day were no longer very strong or urgent. In other words, few who saw that movie were still schocked or angered by the attack. There was no exploitation. Same with Titanic, All Quiet on the Western Front, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, 13 Days, or JFK. All published after the intial shock was gone.
We all know where we were five years ago. The largest foreign attack on American soil in over half a century unfolded while most of us were still asleep. If you were aware, as I was, of the forces at work that day than you would have seen just what an extraordinary effect the event had on people. People were no longer black and white, Latino and Asian, or Christian and Jewish - they were American.
Yet five years later where have we come? We have turned what should have been a great unifying event in American history into a commodity to be bought and sold. We have turned 9/11 into a commercial holiday in which we are socially coerced to purchase flags, stickers, pins, and shirts - all just to prove that we care. We produce movies, TV shows, songs, and books to cater to those who are too stupid to realize the exploitation at work. Essentially, we have turned September 11th, into profit.
You are told that you must watch or buy or hear, as if you don’t remember something that happened just a few years ago. That is until you’ve shelled out $7 for a movie that shows you why people getting killed, makes them heroes. Dying does not make you a hero. The people who perished on 9/11 are excruciating losses to our countries yes, but are not heroes. They are simply people in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Ah, but the firefighters and the policemen and whatnot - they are heroes, right? Of course they are. Though, however noble and courageous these people are, they still do not need the media orgy that has surrounded the NYFD and NYPD. We’ve appreciated them and commended them for five years unrelentingly. By definition, it has increasingly become an extended human interest story rather than a real tribute to those brave men and women.
Many will try to manipulate you on this day. They will attempt to convince you that seeing this movie or buying that pin makes you a better person, more patriotic, or more American. Whatever they try to tell you, know this. The corporations who attempt to salvage monetary gain out of this tragedy are as guilty of deception as any enemy you or I can conjure. By exploiting the emotions of a grieving nation, these people are using terror as a weapon, using fear and sorrow to force individuals into buying into their philosophies. They are no better than the foes that brought the towers down in the first place.
You must not be deceived by those who would wish to profit off of national disaster. You cannot be tricked into manipulative consumerism. Most importantly, do not let anyone tell you what you are obligated to buy, sell, watch, or wear in honor of the victims. Honor the victims by shedding the ridiculous, superficial chains we have fastened on ourselves to commercialize this day.
Freedom does not have a price tag.
- Paul
(If you agree, or found this interesting at all, please repost it and help spread the truth)
Women shouldn't be paid the same wages as men. The fact is that they are less effecient employees.
If women get pregneant they are given paid maternity leave for 6 months. Why would you hire a young women if you knew you might get stuck paying her half a years salury for getting knocked up?
If women feel harrassed at the workplace they can sue or make other employees attend company-paid "sensitivity classes". Do men ever sue for sexual harrasment?
Most importantly; If there is ever a fire, a hostage taking, or a terrorist attack - who is saved first? Women and children. Pretend that the money men are paid more than women is a surcharge because men are fucked if there is every a dangerous situation.
