There has been a lot of rageposting recently. It will not be tolerated. That is all.

Political Resources
1. Open congress: http://www.opencongress.org/
2. Congresspedia: http://www.congresspedia.org/
3. Contractor Misconduct: http://www.contractormisconduct.org/
4. DOJ Doc Search: http://www.trainingdb.com/
5. Earmark Watch: http://www.earmarkwatch.org/
6. FedSpending: http://www.fedspending.org/
7. Follow The Money: http://www.followthemoney.org/
8. GovTrack: http://www.govtrack.us/
9. GovDocs: http://governmentdocs.org/
10. Legistorm: http://www.legistorm.com/
11. LOUIS: http://www.louisdb.org/
12. Lobbying Database: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists

SourceWatch - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>18869
>one of the reasons the german communist party fell apart so fast after the nazis banned it was that it's members just hopped right over to the nazi-party
This is completely and totally false. I am sincerely shocked at how blatantly you can lie.

I'm not even going to bother asking you for evidence because the evidence against your insane claim is so monumental. My only recourse is to believe that you are young and ignorant.

>>18869
That's like saying anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-socialism has similarity to state-capitalism or state-socialism. Regardless of the goal, if the means and the policies are different, then it's different.

The history of America is a gradual move over centuries with periodic reversal from market socialism to market capitalism to state capitalism.

>>18886
>That's like saying anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-socialism has similarity to state-capitalism or state-socialism.
Firstly, they are similar. They are both anarchism. No sane person would ever say that an anarcho-capitalistic society and an anarcho-socialist society would end up differently just because of what the revolutionaries are calling themselves. They are creating anarchy, thus no government, thus no law, thus no one telling anyone what is ok and not ok, so it would end up just like Somalia.

Sencondly, anarchism (as in leftist-anarchism in this case, as anarcho-capitalists tend to only be really similar to other anarchits in results), fascism and communism have great similarities. They all propose violence - and often revolutions - as the means to the end. The end being an utopia. They have all found some kind of enemy that must be eradicated before the utopia can be archieved, and the end justify the means in archieving it. They (mostly communists and fascists) base their ideas on the philosophical school of Hegel, who claimed that it was a predetermned necessity to have a dictator that takes over a nation and drives it into war against other nations. Their practical politics are also similar. (At least between communists and fascists, but looking at Somalia we can also determine that anarchism does about as well as it's two ideological brothers.) When the amercian economist George Reisman studied Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany he came to the conclussion that there was only two differences. In Soviet they wore red shirts and and had five year plans. In Germany they had brown shirst and four year plans.

As for >>18885 I guess he has never heard of the term beefstake nazi, which was a term used by german people of that time to describe the enormous amounts of ex-communists that poured into the nazi party after the ban on the communist-party (brown on the outside but red on the inside). It has

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>18879
<<So we should treat everyone as if they were an irresponsible dick just to be sure?

It's not like you can choose whether your smoke makes someone horribly sick. So yes, in this case, we will, because EVERYONE who's doing it IS being a dick.

>>18879
>So we should treat everyone as if they were an irresponsible dick just to be sure?

No, the most efficient and effective way to protect responsible people from irresponsible people is to pass laws limiting irresponsible behavior. Responsible people won't have any problems and it will stop irresponsible people from infringing upon responsible people's rights and privileges. It is up to the people to decide which laws should be passed through elective representatives, to ensure that the laws don't clamp down too hard and infringe too much on personal rights and freedoms.

>Assume that the system we lived in allowed for genocide. Would you still say that? I'm not trying to say that a ban on smoking is even remotely close to the evil of a genocide, just that this whole "this is how our system works, live with it"-argument is really stupid.

Well, there are some societies where genocide is the way, and if I were in that society, I would seek to change it. I like our system because it puts the decision-making in the hands of the people through representatives. It's not a perfect system, of course, you are the perfect example. You want to go about life like there are no irresponsible people who will look to exploit their freedoms at the expense of others. But you will never be able to please everybody under any system, something has to give.

The even better thing about our system is that it is malleable, we can change the fundamental structure of the system at both the federal and state level if enough people feel it necessary.

>>18883
Seriously. Irresponsible people aren't gonna stop being irresponsible just because you pass a law against irresponsability. The only thing you're doing is limiting the freedoms of responsible people.

>>18880
There are two senses of relevant in play currently in this discussion. There is the sense of "relevant to this discussion", sense 1. And there is the sense of "relevant to political discourse in general", sense 2.

You are using the former sense. I have not used sense 1 at all during this discussion. I have always been using sense 2. This is the cause, perhaps, for this misunderstanding.

Hopefully this will resolve any lack of understanding.

>>18849

How come americans always think 'what would our dear forefathers have thought about this'. Same shit as asking with every question 'what would jesus do'. The forefathers views are too old (world has changed), not enough was written to cover every question, and bringing their supposed views into a discussion is almost irrelevant. Treating them like they had some divine ideas is just being stupid. They were also just people, being pragmatic about running the state.

"When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote."

And those are the geniuses you trust?

>>18888
The thing is that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. It's there to protect the people from the government turning into an oppressive machine, and making one exception also means that you can make a second one, and a third one and so on...

Therefor the Constitution must always be considered. I'm not saying that it must be taken word for word. One of the most overused arguments against originalists is that an air force was never mentioned in the Constitution. No shit. Because you know, they had so many airplanes back then, and you know, Jefferson and Franklin and all the old folks had like a machine that could see through time...

We should always consider the original intentions of the Constitution. It's very likely that they intended the US to have a modern military that could protect the nation. The fact that they didn't write about airplanes is just because they didn't have any back then, which, yes, makes the formerly mentioned argument completely retarded.

Then we have that talk about taxes. The Constitution does state that taxes are a-ok. Does that mean that they can there's no regulation on tax levels? No. It also states that taxes shall only be used to fund the parts of the government which it has a right to do, and it also clearly states that the government only has the right to do what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Which translated to modern speak would say something along the lines of "The federal government has the right to protect each american's right to his/her own life and freedom, and the nation from enemies that threaten the life and freedom of americans, and nothing else. To do this the federal government can demand taxes, but only to fund those parts of the government which are protected hre within", and so on,, and so on...

And here comes the big thing that people don't seem to be able to grasp. Nothing of importance to the federal government has changed since then. There are still no reasons to censor free speech or allow people to kill each other. T

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, so their shouldn't be laws for or against it because of separation of state and church. It should be decided by the church whether to allow it or not. I'm not for or against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy because I don't see a reason to be vocal about sexuality.

>18820

You can find many exceptions since there's so many of them. But all cases taken into account, most are male. That's the generalization.

>18801

A background check, psychological testing, references, should be administered before adoption. The genders of parent(s) should also be taken into account. 3rd world adoption, even. Priority should be given to those who have the most qualifications. I would suspect that older, heterosexual couples who already have children, with a track record of success, would rank the highest.

Generalizations aren't a sin. If the majority of group X have characteristic Y, then it should be noted. Does anyone actually disagree with my generalizations?

>>18895

>Priority should be given to those who have the most qualifications.

You do realize that we have far more kids in need of adoption than parents willing to adopt, right? There's no 'priority' because there's no shortage.

"Hopeless", "Discouraged", "Disillusioned".

What do you mean 'you people'?

there is a disconnect in society between individuals, produced by insecurity. insecurities spawned by the warped image of humanity we employ daily, concieved conveniently by the same people whom exploit the corrupted systems such as government and economy.
This schism is our value system, based currently on not spiritual needs, but the items we can purchase in the market to make us separately happier.
The media, along with the majority of every other source of information perpetuates this shallow idea. the only places really concerned with human betterment are churches, and they're broken too.
Anyone who goes against this flow takes the chance of being mocked and losing their financial footing by either being fired or imprisoned.
the employment we seek to sustain ourselves physically and mentally simply takes too much time, focus, and energy away from us, and without employment, we starve, we become weak, we lose respect. that's the insecurity I'm referring to.
to effectively revolt would be to first set up a system that allows us to fall back on a safe area with food, a secure place to sleep and live without money.
anyone who has enough money to set something like this up is definitely one of those people who exploit (in ignorance or willingness) the system they wish to abolish. obviously this is contradictory; people with this much money are too happy to want to bring upon change.

tl;dr we are stuck, and anyone smart enough to understand why is discouraged by the near-invincible, corrupted establishments that rule the lives of themselves, their friends, and their family.

>>18818
Coke is for power brokers; crack is for slum-dwellers
tl;dr it's classism

You must have failed health class, crack is a lot worse for you. Not that cocaine won't mess you up irrepairibly, but crack will do it a lottttt faster.

Why debate over whether it's classism or racism? Let's realise that it's both and work to get all drugs legalised.

>>18811

it is.

>>18832

Prove it.

>>18810
None of those were really protest movements, though. They didn't show up with racist/stupid/over-the-top/poorly spelled signs. They weren't calling for another American revolution.

People are angry, but not everybody is angry because Obama is being a marxist fascist kenyan muslim nigger. Some are just angry and frustrated because Congress is deadlocked, getting nothing done, and government doesn't seem to work under either Democrats or Republicans.

I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a sweep of many incumbents, not just one party. After passing a shitload of earmark/spending bills in Congress, Republicans can't really stand up to the people and say they are fiscally conservative.

this dude right here was 5'4".

Kucinich will rise again!

The man in OP's pic should be president. The fictional character not the actor.