A heads up for all you politicos out there. Any posts falling exclusively under the bottom category of this triangle will result in a ban. 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.

Sandniggers have already taken over the UK the US won't be so easily pushed around by smelly camel jockeys like Europe is.

(USER WAS OXYCLEANED FOR THIS POST )

>>16134
Perhaps thats because they're FRESH OUT OF THEIR SHITHOLES. Give them time and they'll stop giving a shit. They'll adjust to the laws and customs around them like normal human beings.

>>16931

There's this little thing you seem to have not heard of. It's called the "New Testament."

The whole point of it was that what had been a sin was still a sin, but the cost of that sin was not placed upon the person who committed it any longer, and they could seek forgiveness instead of there having to be a stoning.

If you're going to criticize something, read the entire document first - not just the first 1/10th.

>>16935

Well, you've just shown that not only can the Bible be misinterpreted, but so can several thousand years of history. Nice job.

>>16947
>A Democracy and representative system can, too, oppress the bourgeoisie and fulfill Marx's prediction.
That's called social democracy, not communism.

>Right now it is, according to the communists, the employers that oppresses the employees. Yes, all employers excersise oppression, and all employees are being oppressed.

I know this sounds weird to you because it IS weird, Marx’s theories hardly apply anymore to modern day society. But you have to understand the times in which he lived. In Manchester he saw people having to work for 16 hours a day and earning just enough money to survive. He made the distinction between the property-owners and the property-less because that is what it was. The bourgeoisie had everything while the proletariat had nothing (it was all spent on primary needs).

This simply doesn’t apply anymore and if Marx was born now he would probably have never come up with his theory.

>The first, and least dangerous, is that the economical theories are wrong, which ensures that the economical politics Marx proposes constantly lead to economical collapse. The theories have not been created in an attempt to correctly describe economy or predict economical events (they are, in fact, completely useless for that). The theories have instead been created with solely one purpose: To create something that could give what looks like a scientific foundation for the historical theories.

Yes, it’s true but hey, it’s the 19th century, economics as a science had hardly even started.

>The other, and more dangerous, is that Marxism says that the workers shall take the power in a violent revolution and shall oppress others in what he calls the dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism's goal is to create a society where people are being oppressed.

This is nonsense, he has never said anything like “the dictatorship of the proletariat” the closest he gets is “the proletariat will be raised to the ruling class”. There is never anything said about oppression (although what is supposed to happen with the bourgeoisie is unclear) and the state in no way is meant to oppress the people. The representatives are democratically chosen since every worked was helping with the revolution anyway (no, this

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

>>16952
>Yes, it’s true but hey, it’s the 19th century, economics as a science had hardly even started.
Adam Smith managed to formulate a way more accurate theory before Marx.

>This is nonsense, he has never said anything like “the dictatorship of the proletariat” the closest he gets is “the proletariat will be raised to the ruling class”.
Unless you have the time and money to pick up and read more of Marx' writings I suggest you look up this wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

>There is never anything said about oppression
Yes there is. In the Manifesto he writes "Political power, properly so
called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing
another" as well as "The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all
the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into
a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of
political power by the proletariat."

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

>>16930
I respect your service to the country, but I must say you don't know much of what you're talking about. Your average Federal Court proceeding is not like Court TV.

1. In the case you are referring to, the information the Prosecution disclosed was not classified. Furthermore, the Prosecution actually elected to give the information to the court and to the defense in order to better their case. The information that was handed to bin Laden was little more than a list of names of non-undercover agents working mainly in Europe and the US. It didn't really help him hide.

2. Again, with all due respect, that is just not how it works. In Federal Court, the Prosecution does NOT have to immediately fork over every name of everybody involved and every piece of evidence. If the evidence is Classified, and the defense requests it, the Prosecution can simply say no. Think about it, you just can't give the names of every undercover FBI or CIA agent in a normal trial because the defense requests it. It's a different case if the judge requests it, but the judge does not have to disclose it to the defense either. Classified information is Classified for a reason.

3. Do you really think Holder would put them in Federal Court if he wasn't 100% sure he could get a conviction? Do you think the Judge or any jury is going to feel sympathy for any of the suspects? It's looney tunes to even suggest that "he could get off".

4. Prosecutions always pronounce the Defendant guilty before and during the trial. That's their job, to find the Defendant guilty. The Defense may have grounds to say that, but that doesn't mean the Judge is going to throw it out on those grounds. They barely ever do, anyway.

Also keep in mind we don't even know whether the Defense is going to pursue a not guilty verdict in any of the cases. Trying to plead not guilty in a case like KSM's would be stupid, considering the circumstances.

6. It doesn't matter if a foreign combatant is given a Miranda warning on t

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

>>16943
>3. Do you really think Holder would put them in Federal Court if he wasn't 100% sure he could get a conviction?

I don't think he really gives a shit if he gets a conviction because that isn't the reason he's doing it. He's doing it to put the Bush administration on trial and score political points against them and attempt to smear the CIA. I doubt guilt or innocence is even factoring into the equation.

>4. Prosecutions always pronounce the Defendant guilty before and during the trial.

That is WILDLY different from the President of the United States going on television and denouncing a defendant on national television. How do you think it would play out if the President went on national tv and vomitted up his opinion on some random case in Kansas? The defense would scream bloody-fucking-murder and for good reason.

>6. It doesn't matter if a foreign combatant is given a Miranda warning on the battlefield.

Oh really? So what happens if, during interrogation in the middle of a combat scenario, they admit guilt? As KSM did? We're plying him for information to protect ourselves as much as anything else. Shit, getting him to admit he did 9-11 was tertiary, at best. The primary purpose was to determine future attacks, particularly against civilian targets but also against those in the field.

Are we no longer allowed to interrogate on battlefields? What happens if ALL of our evidence against someone results from these interrogations? All out the window? NOW what?

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

>>16946
I'm not going to try and argue with you, as your mind is made up and your argument is separate from the facts (you didn't even try to rebut me, you just ad-hominem and straw-manned me). It all boils down to "I'm a civilian, I dunt know shit". So I hope you find peace someday.

Aw, I wanted the midget to win.

>>kings and que---uh,
>>sit on the shit throne called the EU

Someone's school failed the NCLB standards.

>>16938
>but slowly the federal government grow in size and gradually seize power from the state.

I think you mean the states begged the federal government to give them money.

Yeah. Workers unions. He called the "combinations", but it's the same thing.

Without them, you'd have no job, you'd be living on your children's meager wage after 20 hours of work a day with no benefits whatsoever.

>>16923
You mean that Marx foresaw the creation of labor unions? And that these are invaluable to the ordinary worker today? Well, no, he didn't forsee them, they had already excisted for quite some time by the time he was born. Thus their value to the average worker is also rather worthless to the debate as it's about if Marx' theories had any valid points or not.

>>16921
That may be, but Marx didn't think so. He thought that he described what he saw as not only the logical next step in the evolution of society, but also the only way society could evolve.

>>16868

Actually, we can toss aside any military that faces us right now with ease. We outspend every other competitor by a ridiculous degree. On top of that, we have nukes, which prevents anyone from being stupid enough to invade us.

>>16899

But thats mostly because of MAD

>>16868

Pollution says otherwise. If the PRC fails to somehow curb its massive pollution output the farmable land therein will fail. As will its economy and government.

No food, no political stability.

>>16883
>>It's actually an ABSENCE of political interference
Wrong. The current health insurance system could not exist without specific government interference that allowed insurance companies to form supply-side monopolies.

>>16890

What's profitable isn't always good for mankind. You realize this, yes? There's more of a profit to be made it continual treatments than cures; as a result, many companies focus on making things that can treat the symptoms better, not attack the problems. I mean, obviously you don't want to revert to a Communist government, but it's rather ignorant to say 'everything of any value was motivated by profit'. After all, wiping out smallpox was of considerable value, but at the same time, entirely unprofitable.

>>16891

>Wrong. The current health insurance system could not exist without specific government interference that allowed insurance companies to form supply-side monopolies.

Such as?

>>16901
>Such as?
The world legislation in anti-trust legislation ought to give you a hint.

Without government interference anyone with the capital could start their own health insurance buisness and they would be able to compete at equal terms with all the other buisnesses, old or new.

>>16881

The problem is, all the other systems are even worse.

It's an inefficient system because you get all sorts of people pushing their agenda resulting in a huge clutter of laws and policies that counteract each other or are found on different principals wich are all subject to change again after the far to short periods of being in power. As a result nobody gets what they want besides those that can afford to cheat to get their way.

This is why i am more in favor of fascism, it gets shit done because it has a clealy mandated agenda without the pretense of being fair and good for everybody, like democracy. It is more efficient and no worse in terms of lies and herding then democracy and in a way more fair aswell.

>>16886
Efficiency for the sake of freedom? A couple less "contradictory laws" for a tyrant? Yeah, no thanks.

People who live in this fantasy world babbling on about how "Communism was never used properly" "A benevolent tyrant would be awesome" are all fucking idiots who don't live in the real world. They're pseudo-intellectual hacks who think that their little fantasy land exists in a bubble and that they have all the magical answers to mankinds woes.

You know what happens when you put one man in supreme, unquestionable power? He will fucking do whatever he wants. Your rights be damned. Your welfare be damned. Because he is a human being he will, invariably, be more concerned with himself than with others.

That's the beauty of Democracy and Captialism. Both systems accept that people are solely out for Number 1 and uses that to better the lives of everyone else at the same time. Any form of fascism, communism, tyranny, monarchy, all rest on the hope and prayer that whoever happens to have arbitrarily given power-for-life won't turn out to be a madman.

Worked out really well for the Romans, didn't it? Worked out really well for the Germans, didn't it? These systems fail for a reason. They become massively oppressive and unsuccessful for a reason.