• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What is the "Left Wing" Agenda??? 8-18-05 Edit: No one has any idea

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Genx87
I think you know Stalin was severly mentally ill. His father regularly beat him and his mother and many attribute his heartlessness to this era of his life. Most of Russias worse atrocities occured during his reign and to be honest America is right up there in terms of atrocities.

This I find an amazing apology.

I am checking but when was the last time the United States extinguished about 30 million of our own?
Apology? I wasn't apologizing for anything.

Just pointing out the fact that he was mentally ill. Read up on mental disorders. They can destroy lives, and if you are in power those will most likely be other peoples lives.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Tab
So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?

When it responds to the will of the people not the Corporations or the Church.

Since when does the church vote or have enormous lobbies?
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Tab
So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?

When it responds to the will of the people not the Corporations or the Church.
I'm sorry to tell you people but the will of the people isn't fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Its fiscally conservative and socially conservative.

And we all know how characters who claim to be that turn out. Just look at our old friend Powell.

Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'
 
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Yea I'm sure their eating water-cereal :roll: Boohoo. Nik whines like a little baby the whole day because he meets one annoying person and we all have to hear about it.

People have gone over this before RossMAN thinks racists are fine but people who question Christianity aren't. And he has his own cult of personality in the OT, everyone thinks his decisions are A-OK and don't question it. Which is nothing be proud of IMO.

As for this whole brother thing, its quite obvious you guys are so used to hearing your own f***ing insipid bull**** that you never read what people with differing opinions have to say. Really what a bunch of rude pricks. I state I'm white FIVE HUNDRED TIMES. I'm sorry but don't ever talk about who I am, its obvious you can't pay attention to anything.
So the suffering of a person you don't like is less important than the suffering of a person you do like (or don't know)? I don't find this surprising.

I have never on any single occasion see RossMAN say that racists or racism is fine. Until you prove otherwise, I simply do not believe that. As to this whole "questioning Christianity" thing, I think you should know that, until not too long ago, it was the hip thing on AT to bash Christianity in ways that can only be described as offensive and discriminatory. Vicious ugly threadcrapping of religious-oriented threadcrap, insults, slurs, and bigoted remarks. It wasn't questioning so much as it was outright bigotry. Even anti-semitism in some cases. I don't know this, but I think eventually the mods got tired of the hate. I do not consider myself a Christian btw, but I am very religiously tolerant (and moderately studied). Those times when I did stand in front of the anti-Christian bigotry, I would be viciously attacked. Hell, just this spring I was viciously attacked via PM with anti-Christian and anti-semitic statements (by a member who is still here btw) simply because I posted a biblical quote in memory of a recently passed friend (who was a Christian). So don't give me this "questioning Christianity" crap. I know what it really is.

I knew/know you are white. Re-read my statement again with that understanding. It makes the hypocracy of your position that much worse, now doesn't it?
 
Originally posted by: Tab
I like what a lot of what you're saying Vic, but it's always easier to criticize than offer solutions. So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?
Slash it and privatize it. Give the power back to the states and the people. If the state of Massachusetts wants a welfare state, then it can, but it has to have it on its own. Same thing for everything else and everywhere else.

I won't force it though. If you have read enough, then you know that such a thing would be against my own ideologies.
 
Originally posted by: wildcat86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Tab
So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?

When it responds to the will of the people not the Corporations or the Church.

Since when does the church vote or have enormous lobbies?

Since Reagen went into office, thats a large factor that got him there before then church didn't involve itself in politcs.

Of course, I am not speaking on all churchs but there are very large political groups do what they think God tells them to do.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Creating a new man can be the same thing as creating a new religion. Who is this new man and how are we to create him.
Moonie, you know I respect you, but quite frankly your beliefs are a religion. And I don't go to church.
Maybe you can expand on this by addressing my previous post.
What would you have me address that I haven't addressed already? Quite frankly, I am sick of this thread.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tab
I like what a lot of what you're saying Vic, but it's always easier to criticize than offer solutions. So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?
Slash it and privatize it. Give the power back to the states and the people. If the state of Massachusetts wants a welfare state, then it can, but it has to have it on its own. Same thing for everything else and everywhere else.

I won't force it though. If you have read enough, then you know that such a thing would be against my own ideologies.

Can states like MA, NY, NJ, etc receive 100% of the Federal tax money they put into the system? Or do they have to give welfare to the other states like AL, MO, MS, KY, TN, UT, ND, SD?
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Yea I'm sure their eating water-cereal :roll: Boohoo. Nik whines like a little baby the whole day because he meets one annoying person and we all have to hear about it.

People have gone over this before RossMAN thinks racists are fine but people who question Christianity aren't. And he has his own cult of personality in the OT, everyone thinks his decisions are A-OK and don't question it. Which is nothing be proud of IMO.

As for this whole brother thing, its quite obvious you guys are so used to hearing your own f***ing insipid bull**** that you never read what people with differing opinions have to say. Really what a bunch of rude pricks. I state I'm white FIVE HUNDRED TIMES. I'm sorry but don't ever talk about who I am, its obvious you can't pay attention to anything.
So the suffering of a person you don't like is less important than the suffering of a person you do like (or don't know)? I don't find this surprising.

I have never on any single occasion see RossMAN say that racists or racism is fine. Until you prove otherwise, I simply do not believe that. As to this whole "questioning Christianity" thing, I think you should know that, until not too long ago, it was the hip thing on AT to bash Christianity in ways that can only be described as offensive and discriminatory. Vicious ugly threadcrapping of religious-oriented threadcrap, insults, slurs, and bigoted remarks. It wasn't questioning so much as it was outright bigotry. Even anti-semitism in some cases. I don't know this, but I think eventually the mods got tired of the hate. I do not consider myself a Christian btw, but I am very religiously tolerant (and moderately studied). Those times when I did stand in front of the anti-Christian bigotry, I would be viciously attacked. Hell, just this spring I was viciously attacked via PM with anti-Christian and anti-semitic statements (by a member who is still here btw) simply because I posted a biblical quote in memory of a recently passed friend (who was a Christian). So don't give me this "questioning Christianity" crap. I know what it really is.

I knew/know you are white. Re-read my statement again with that understanding. It makes the hypocracy of your position that much worse, now doesn't it?
Give me proof Nik is 'suffering' like the couple in Madras that has one pair of clothes between them or has any REAL financial problems and I'll apologize. Beyond that stop thinking you know everything. You really don't; I've seen far more than you can ever imagine.

I guess those 20 threads on ATOT about blacks aren't racist right? Lets see what would happen if someone started a thread on whites. LOL. Try to look beyond your blinders.

As for my note to Anand, here is the most 'offensive' (in your convuluted world) e-mail I have ever sent him:


Dear Anand,

I would just like to inform you that your forum has a large population of racists as evidenced by recent threads about blacks, hispanics and indians. Some of your moderators are utterly incompetent at dealing with these issues, either because of their background, or their tendency to just look away.

Regards, Nik


Christ I'm such a rude bastard I even put regards at the end of the email!!!


 
Originally posted by: Tab
Since Reagen went into office, thats a large factor that got him there before then church didn't involve itself in politcs.

Of course, I am not speaking on all churchs but there are very large political groups do what they think God tells them to do.
It's all apart of free speech. You can't take the right from others, no matter how you might feel about them and their views, and expect to keep the right for yourself.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tab
I like what a lot of what you're saying Vic, but it's always easier to criticize than offer solutions. So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?
Slash it and privatize it. Give the power back to the states and the people. If the state of Massachusetts wants a welfare state, then it can, but it has to have it on its own. Same thing for everything else and everywhere else.

I won't force it though. If you have read enough, then you know that such a thing would be against my own ideologies.

Can states like MA, NY, NJ, etc receive 100% of the Federal tax money they put into the system? Or do they have to give welfare to the other states like AL, MO, MS, KY, TN, UT, ND, SD?
Well said. Thank you.

Doubt he will have a good answer.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tab
Since Reagen went into office, thats a large factor that got him there before then church didn't involve itself in politcs.

Of course, I am not speaking on all churchs but there are very large political groups do what they think God tells them to do.
It's all apart of free speech. You can't take the right from others, no matter how you might feel about them and their views, and expect to keep the right for yourself.
This country was won by force, maintained by force, and that same group of men still run this country.

Who controls the past, controls the future.

Plain and simple.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tab
I like what a lot of what you're saying Vic, but it's always easier to criticize than offer solutions. So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?
Slash it and privatize it. Give the power back to the states and the people. If the state of Massachusetts wants a welfare state, then it can, but it has to have it on its own. Same thing for everything else and everywhere else.

I won't force it though. If you have read enough, then you know that such a thing would be against my own ideologies.
Can states like MA, NY, NJ, etc receive 100% of the Federal tax money they put into the system? Or do they have to give welfare to the other states like AL, MO, MS, KY, TN, UT, ND, SD?
There should be NO wealth re-distribution. Especially this state-to-state kind, which is taxation without representation.

I know what you're talking about and it sickens me. The liberal county that I live in (which is also the most populous in the state) has to pay a special personal income tax in order to fund the schools in the conservative rural counties elsewhere in the state. Less that $0.70 of every school dollar sent to the state capitol makes it back to our county, so our schools don't have enough money, but the rural counties receive as much as $5 back. Yet their favorite pitch in Salem is that they pay for us, when the reality is the other way around.

But here's the point: 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Doubt he will have a good answer.
:roll:
 
Originally posted by: Proletariat
This country was won by force, maintained by force, and that same group of men still run this country.

Who controls the past, controls the future.

Plain and simple.
Originally posted by: Genx87
I am checking but when was the last time the United States extinguished about 30 million of our own?
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tab
I like what a lot of what you're saying Vic, but it's always easier to criticize than offer solutions. So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?
Slash it and privatize it. Give the power back to the states and the people. If the state of Massachusetts wants a welfare state, then it can, but it has to have it on its own. Same thing for everything else and everywhere else.

I won't force it though. If you have read enough, then you know that such a thing would be against my own ideologies.
Can states like MA, NY, NJ, etc receive 100% of the Federal tax money they put into the system? Or do they have to give welfare to the other states like AL, MO, MS, KY, TN, UT, ND, SD?
There should be NO wealth re-distribution. Especially this state-to-state kind, as that is taxation without representation.

I know what you're talking about and it sickens me. The liberal county that I live in (which is also the most populous in the state) has to pay a special personal income tax in order to fund the schools in the conservative rural counties elsewhere in the state. Less that $0.70 of every school dollar sent to the state capitol makes it back to our county, so our schools don't have enough money, but the rural counties receive as much as $5 back. Yet their favorite pitch in Salem is that they pay for us, when the reality is the other way around.

But here's the point: 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I agree. In Missouri, the cities (STL and KC) pump in the most taxes in the state coffers but has the worst funded schools in the state.

NJ currently receives $0.60 for every Federal dollar they contribute. I'm sure NJ residents would like to see that 40% back.

Missouri has a very low state tax, as do most rural states and keep wages low enough on average that Federal taxes are kept to a minimum as well, thus putting the burden on more populous states. Texas is one of the welfare-giving states, just to let you know so this doesn't turn into a red vs. blue thing. 😉

These welfare-receiving states have to make a decision at some point: Will they raise their state taxes or cut basic programs (beyond Medicaid and the like)?
 
No idea bout those two quotes and what they have to do with anything. I like how you continue to pair me with Soviets. Convenient eh? I've learned not to give in though.

Haven't done it to our 'own people'?

You forget the Native Americans and the blacks that died in the slave trade?

Estimates say over 100 mil there. And I feel thats an underestimate. Imperial gov'ts have a tendency to under report deaths.

20,000 bodies counted at Jalianwala Bagh and the British report 1,000 deaths? Bulls***.

I really don't know why you are so hung up on god damn Russia and Stalin. I just explained he was out of his mind and had nothing to do with Communism. At least talk about Lenin.

But to admit that would be too much I think...
 
Originally posted by: Proletariat
You forget the Native Americans and the blacks that died in the slave trade?

Estimates say over 100 mil there. And I feel thats an underestimate. Imperial gov'ts have a tendency to under report deaths.

20,000 bodies counted at Jalianwala Bagh and the British report 1,000 death? Bulls***.

I really don't know why you are so hung up on god damn Russia and Stalin. I just explained he was out of his mind and had nothing to do with Communism. At least talk about Lenin.

But to admit that would be too much I think...
Where do you get your figures? There weren't 100 million Native Americans when Columbus landed, and there certainly weren't that many blacks shipped here in the slave trade. And considering that the Spanish were responsible for the vast majority of the Native American deaths (and smallpox an overwhelming majority of those), and the British for the slave deaths, I really don't know what point you're trying to make. That America is responsible for things it didn't do? Or is it that America should be held to some kind of significantly higher standard than any other nation, just so you can knock it down?

My point about Russia and Stalin is simple and IMO obvious. That only a totalitarian system (like communism) could allow such a homicidal madman to come into power (and have the power to do what he did). Whether or not Stalin followed true communism is irrelevant. What is relevant is that communism gave him the power to do what he did.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Proletariat
You forget the Native Americans and the blacks that died in the slave trade?

Estimates say over 100 mil there. And I feel thats an underestimate. Imperial gov'ts have a tendency to under report deaths.

20,000 bodies counted at Jalianwala Bagh and the British report 1,000 death? Bulls***.

I really don't know why you are so hung up on god damn Russia and Stalin. I just explained he was out of his mind and had nothing to do with Communism. At least talk about Lenin.

But to admit that would be too much I think...
Where do you get your figures? There weren't 100 million Native Americans when Columbus landed, and there certainly weren't that many blacks shipped here in the slave trade. And considering that the Spanish were responsible for the vast majority of the Native American deaths (and smallpox an overwhelming majority of those), and the British for the slave deaths, I really don't know what point you're trying to make. That America is responsible for things it didn't do? Or is it that America should be held to some kind of significantly higher standard than any other nation, just so you can knock it down?

My point about Russia and Stalin is simple and IMO obvious. That only a totalitarian system (like communism) could allow such a homicidal madman to come into power (and have the power to do what he did). Whether or not Stalin followed true communism is irrelevant. What is relevant is that communism gave him the power to do what he did.
Those figures include black slaves that died on the way to the United States drowning in their own piss.

As for the British? Weren't Americans originally British? Many blacks up til' Jimi Hendrix went to Britain because they recieved better treatment. I'm quite sure they were treated better in Britain.

But really, just what the hell is your definition of American dude?

If you look at it that way no one is American we are all immigrants like the British.

Stalin murdered his way to the top and was on of the most manipulating men ever. He'd probably do pretty decent making his way up in any country.
 
Originally posted by: wildcat86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Tab
So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?

When it responds to the will of the people not the Corporations or the Church.

Since when does the church vote or have enormous lobbies?

You don't hang around here much do you? 😕
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tab
I like what a lot of what you're saying Vic, but it's always easier to criticize than offer solutions. So, how do we end up with a goverment that is fiscallly conservative and socially liberal?
Slash it and privatize it. Give the power back to the states and the people. If the state of Massachusetts wants a welfare state, then it can, but it has to have it on its own. Same thing for everything else and everywhere else.

I won't force it though. If you have read enough, then you know that such a thing would be against my own ideologies.

How far do we go with that? My back surgery was about $98,000 and my parents only had to pay $500 of that. I don't know much on the healthcare situation, assuming we went to privatize that. Would we deny people medical treatment? I think most people have decided that healthcare is a right. What about the military and other services? Heh, this somewhat seems like I am constructing my own logical fallacy...

Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tab
Since Reagen went into office, thats a large factor that got him there before then church didn't involve itself in politcs.

Of course, I am not speaking on all churchs but there are very large political groups do what they think God tells them to do.
It's all apart of free speech. You can't take the right from others, no matter how you might feel about them and their views, and expect to keep the right for yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I am just saying that before Reagen, the church crowd didn't have any vast political organizations. They're plenty of people who refuse to vote for people that don't have their religious beilefs reguardless of their political ones. My mom will never vote for anyone who is pro-choice, even if it was Jesus.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Creating a new man can be the same thing as creating a new religion. Who is this new man and how are we to create him.
Moonie, you know I respect you, but quite frankly your beliefs are a religion. And I don't go to church.
Maybe you can expand on this by addressing my previous post.
What would you have me address that I haven't addressed already? Quite frankly, I am sick of this thread.

This plus why it is religious----------------->:

Yes I was serious about wanting to read your posts and maybe so much so that I should apologize to others for my focus here on you.

V: The Left worships government as a form of idolatry. Idolatry is the irrational expectation that an external force can solve all of one's problems (i.e. a lucky charm or a diet pill that promises "no change in lifestyle required"). The Socialist Left believes that, if everything were in government control, all problems could be solved. This belief is irrational because it has already been proven (repeatedly throughout history) that increased government control creates exponentially increasing government corruption.

M: This is doubtless true of many people, but it is not my idea of what it means to be 'left'. Your remarks, then, are just a stereotype and as such unfairly categorize thinking left leaning people in my opinion. I believe, for example, that external force can solve nothing because it is based on fear and fear creates what it is afraid of. I believe that man is infinitely perfectible and that the way to that is by polishing the apple, not by coercing behavior. That means it is a process of unlearning false behaviors by insight into their origin and nature. We are all perfect but we don't know it. We are thus all perfect citizens. We hate ourselves, however, and feel the need to feed the hole in our soul with all manner of vice and greed. The function of government is to be sufficiently removed from each particular individual as is possible and has sufficient power so as to be able to intervene sufficiently in our affairs that we don't kill each other or some gang becomes strong enough to run the show. A two edged sword of this type needs rational checks and balances.

I believe also that government should be scientific enough to address human need and the problems being human create. As I said corruption is a result of not knowing who you are. In this we are, I'm afraid woefully lacking in intelligent insight, but we do stumble along somewhat effectively via pragmatic instinct and the application of some common sense. But the issue is that the human insanity we call this world is the product of the environment we grow up in. There is such a thing as healthier and less healthy environments. The job of an intelligent state, in my opinion, is to promote where possible, a better environment, one that nurtures an understanding that our failings are the result of self ignorance. This in particular would be an effort to reduce a social structure in which competition includes the tactic of getting ahead by putting other people down. We act like sh!t because we believe that we are. We were taught that early and do not remember what is not self flattering.

Take a simple dynamic, the buzz over political correctness. Some people realize they were hurt by certain words and those words made them feel bad. What they often fail to understand is that once you are infected with a negative self image, it's yours, you own it and it is your job to undo what was done and nobody else's. But the move to lessen the evil done by words can lessen future harm. When you punish people, however, for using certain words you simply make them more defensive than before because you inevitably imply they are no good. They already believe that, unconsciously, so they get all uptight and self righteous. It is not force, you will not use these words, then, that is the way. The way lies in understanding the dynamic in all its various parts. The person who insults with words does so out of his or her own hurt and intends to hurt others. But the answer lies in him or her understanding what is really going on. The more a person moves toward real inner deep self respect the less he hurts others.

So what we want then is not government control, but intelligent government guidance. The notion that more government creates more corruption is true of everything and every form of organization. But it is not a matter of more government but government with the right emphasis and understanding. By the way, power corrupts people who are corruptible, that means people who hate themselves.

V: Psuedo-science worship is the false belief that science can solve all problems and/or answer all questions. As that belief is known not to be true, it is therefore a form of faith, and a form of idolatry similar to that above.

M: This sounds good but for the fun of questioning whether this conclusion isn't itself pseudo-scientific I'll bite. How do we know that science can't solve all problems. Define what a problem is.

V: "The planet" worship is the anti-humanist agenda and false mysticist belief that humans are not part of nature. Their rallying cry is that "there are too many of us." For some odd reason, these individuals never seem to want to volunteer for their own genocidal (mass-suicidal?) agenda.

M: Well somebody else answered this properly in my opinion. We are part of nature and we can practice population control voluntarily for the sake of the planet. Educated engaged economically comfortable people have small families, for example.

V: Damn straight, that's my thoughts exactly. Both sides want control over you, just in different ways. Fvck both sides.



M: In my illustration of politically correctness I tried to show that both sides are both right and wrong. Fvsk both sides is reactionary and the result of a lack of insight into how opposites arise out of a single cause when viewed at a higher dimension. The left is saying more justice and the right is saying hey, I'm not unjust. Look at all the good I do. Both are correct and and both are wrong in certain ways.

 
I don't think part of the left wing idea was to make me pay $2.65 a gallon for gas (and that's cheap).

You do realize that we had gas stockpiled, and we have been paying all this cash for gas that we didn't pay near the premium that it's at now.
 
Originally posted by: CreativeTom
I don't think part of the left wing idea was to make me pay $2.65 a gallon for gas (and that's cheap).

You do realize that we had gas stockpiled, and we have been paying all this cash for gas that we didn't pay near the premium that it's at now.

I don't understand your stockpile statement. You have seen Gas stations run out of gas???

 
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Proletariat
What the hell are you talking about? That book attacks a form of anarchy, it doesn't support it.

Are you even paying attention anymore.

I claimed the book supported all forms of anarchy? 😕

My point is to try and figure out exactly why do you believe "thinking for yourself" means ignoring the opinions and dialogue of a proven intelligent Libertarian poster and start reading cherry-picked pages from cherry-picked books linked to by a cherry-picked website suggested by yourself?

Maybe you should answer some the questions you've posed to me...

Proven intelligent by what?

Some red state message board run by fascists such as Rossman and Nik and populated by such attention whores as moshquerade? Lets not go into the racism. Man you are smarter than that. This place is almost a microcosm of everything that is wrong with upper-class America.
yeh, unfortunately someone brought my attention to your post about me Proletariat. 😕

how about just talking smack about those you are "debating" with? (and i use the term loosely).

after reading this thread i am wondering if you know the meaning of the word civil?
here it is just in case you are lost: "Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude"

you need to learn the word. civil debating gets you further than being a total commie jackhole.

so keep my name out of it unless i am debating an issue with you. :|

there... now you've got all the attention... whore. :| :| :|

 
First let me say being a republican has nothing to do with being rich . A poor republicon is someone who see's a rich man and says you lucky dog. good for you.

A poor democrate is someone who see's a rich man and says hay you got all the breaks pay more taxes give me some of your money I want you to give me your money.

Now lets get a look at the left and the people behind it.

1) First all of most academics are to the left. These are the people in law, medical profession. teaching . I will cover lightly what each is doing.
A) Law . Take the constition and change it an a manner so as to say that the constition is sit up so as to make law it so that the law RULES. Thats not correct our constition was set up to protect the majority from the minority. How is this being done.
1) adding amendendments to the constition that are illeagal. We did not need an amendenment saying that Blacks have equal writes or women had equal rights .
We needed only to change one word. Were it says all men are created equal. the word men should of been removed and replaced with the word People. Than if the law which failed us than as it is now would have done its job there would have been no slavery or woman sufferage. The law failed than and its really failing now .
Did you know a rapist getts less time in prison than someone who steals copywrited materials. THATS our law. The law tells me how I have to raise my child than the law should pay me to do it. The law says I have to pay child support and give that money to a barfly. the child see's none of that money. The law says I can't dump oil on my drive way . Yet Newyork city and others dump billions of tons of garbage in the ocean every year. and factories are still dumping into our rivers. The law says I can't pray in school. While our factories set up special prayer rooms for moslems. The law says its ok to kill a living fetus. This one werely kills me right here as my mom just died from bone cancer. the law says you can not mercy kill. I watched my mom for 3weeks suffer in complete agony . She wanted to go. But the LAW says no to that . The law says its ok to bomb women and children if were at war . The law says its alright to teach about homosexuiality in our schools. THE LAW IS OUT OF CONTROL.

B) medical I won't touch much on this except 200,000 people die in this country every year from mistakes made by these overpaid cowboys. The cost is way out of hand and climbing. To many in the profession for the wrong reasons. I could go on and on most of us already know. But the left wants to keep funneling more and more into the organizations under the pretension of the poor need more aid . Stop the BS socialize medical profession along with socialized law.

C) Teachers . The great deception . Our teachers our for the most part not all mind you but for the most part . People how couldn't make it in the real world that fell back on teaching as a last resort. The real job of academia is much deeper and evil at its core. History - distort it and make the truth transparent. War what exactly is war. Do the average americans ,russian chinesse ' japanesse or any other regular ordinary people want war . Absolutly not. Its the Power men in corrupt governments that make war including our own .

A true teacher with wisdom would fight the concept of war to their dieing breath. Its all about power and who has it . Hell I am simple and just want to live a good life same as most the people on the planet.

1) science they would teach us everthing can be explained. I like science its good for all men . but don't deny God because you can't explain his existance. Can they explain selfawareness no they can't but they would have you believe they can.

2) language 101 - To give good communication skills. But there is also a hidden agenda here. when the people in power want the truth to be covered up history can't be changed just muddled. So is what they do is take a word or words that are key to the truth and change the meaning of those words so as to hide the truth in that manner .

All these things are the work of the left , I will post about the right tomorrow but you well see infact their almost the same as the left just differant agenda's. I left so much out but I need not right a book here on the forums.
 
Back
Top