csgators

The US is rapidly deploying drones domestically, I'm sure they will all be unarmed and remain that way so there is no need for alarm. They'll call the judge after to make sure the targets were legit.

marharth, you didn't use the word force, other people did. You're the one that doesn't seem to understand that taxation IS force! Every new law is backed up with the threat of government force. Force is wrong yet you want to give more and more power to the only people on the planet that can legally use force to impose their will. Think about it for a while.

lol he band The gallows humor of someone with two strikes is so droll...swing batter... batter...swing. What did you expect from one who knows better than you and is superior to the point they want to force you via violence to live as they think you should.

No, no, that's not how it's supposed to go. I was supposed to be writing the over-the-top, Any-Rand-referencing replies. Do you want to start over? LOL, Ayn Rand isn't the best source of Libertarian ideas. She is a fun read though. Search youtube for Milton Friedman, he can present it much better (although like Ayn it's a dated argument). Watch Harry Browne or Ron Paul..oh wait I have an idea!!!! Read Thomas Jefferson and James Madison!!! Read Thomas Paine!!!! Those guys were crazy!!!!

LOL, you guys really like to belittle anyone with independent thought don't you? Keep submitting to the will of others slave. As long as you submit to the force of others that is all you really are.

lol he band Damn, what happened? Too much common sense? *EDIT* "Linking to a site hosting illegally modified console firmware and console modding tools." Oh...lame. Banned for information. I should have known.

This forum needs a like button. eodx9000 is kicking so much behind all I want to do is sit back and hit "like". I don't have the time or patience to try and educate our young friend on force and how government has a monopoly on it's use. marharth, you continue to support the use of force to make people comply with what you think is right. You really need to think about it for a long, long time. If I feel force is the right way to go and I get control, it is you that will be in the wrong end of the gun.

Now that we are forced to purchase something from a private company for the privilege of being alive what will they force us to buy next? The corporations already control Congress. iPhones? OnStar? Everyone must buy a chicken once a week? You laugh but this bill and ruling is a serious blow to liberty in the US. I would say it was the fatal blow if I didn't already think liberty was dead in the USA. RIP. * Edit: minor typo/spelling fix

I will by a good expansion but it better have a lot of content. Besides that I won't spend a dime after I bought a game. I BOUGHT the game already!!! Why should I have to keep spending. I don't buy a book a chapter at a time or buy an extra chapter that should have been there to begin with.

He never really did contribute anything of value. Ever. Why can't we bring back the time honored tradition of tarring and feathering people who abuse their public position to spout lies, sentiments of treason (unfounded claims about the President), or create a climate of chaos, ignorance, and fear? Then we could remove those people who make a living from this crap on both sides and just try to get on with our lives. Who decides? That is always the problem. Mob rule is not for me.

Every interview you have ever seem in the mainstream media has been heavily edited. I guess non of it was accurate. Just because YOU don't like Brietbart that doesn't mean he's wrong. He didn't fake documents like say....Dan Rather. Not everything in the media heavily edited to purposely hide the truth. Breitbart heavily edited those videos to make them appear to be something they were not. None of what you see in those videos actually happened within that context. I've seen the unedited video that was released....by Brietbart. It changed nothing in my opinion. It wasn't "heavily edited" some things were cut out. I have seen interviews from mainstream news that is edited as in a different answer is shown for a different question or where part of the answer is deliberately left out to change the meaning. Some people will not do interviews unless they agree to zero editing for this very reason.

Every interview you have ever seem in the mainstream media has been heavily edited. I guess non of it was accurate. Just because YOU don't like Brietbart that doesn't mean he's wrong. He didn't fake documents like say....Dan Rather.

Yet factually accurate. If you listen to Andrew's account he was pointing out how the crowd was racist (and they were). LOL. I'll take your word for it. Not. The media has never looked into Obama's past or if they have they looked, cringed and closed their mouths.

Thanks...fixed.

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/05/09/Obama-Closeup-2.png[/img http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii He used the "fact" that he was born in Kenya to sell books. He uses the "fact" that he was born in Hawaii to run for (and be) POTUS. I guess the "birthers" are still crazy though.

I thought you just needed happy thoughts and fairy dust.

Though I am loathe to be on the the same side, I must concur with the Khan's statement....it's duty and a privilege that has been dearly paid for. If you don't vote then you should sit tight and shut up for four years. If I don't vote, I still can express my opinion. It's called the "third party," something I am apart of. If an American doesnt vote, it means he doesn't support anyone who is running, and thus will express why he doesn't like any of the racers. Think of it as the Super Bowl. Someone doesn't want either team to win, but he still says why they both suck. So, if I don't vote, I have to shut up and hold my opinion? Last time I checked, EVERYONE was entitled to his opinion. I say I don't want to vote, and apperantly I loose my rights to say why I don't want to vote. I voted for RP, who never won, and thus I really don't want to vote because if I do, a terrible person will recieve my support, even though I don't support him. Where's the reasoning in voting for someone I don't like and don't want in the office? Why support someone I don't support? Just because I am an American, I HAVE to support someone running for president? If so, then I'll be ashamed to consider myself an American when everyone around me doesn't care for what this country was forged around. If I say I won't vote for Obama, I have my reasons and will NOT support him or vote for him. If I say I won't vote for Romney, I have my reasons and will NOT support him or vote for him. Give me a valid reason why I have to vote for one of two people I do not support and don't want in the office. There are actually other people on the ballot. Vote for the Libertarian or write in Ron Paul.

You and I have just stumbled upon that rarified and elusive common ground that I had begun to doubt we would ever find. :thumbsup: Kudos. I guess you've never taken a statistics course! I actually had it slightly wrong , "lies, damn lies and statistics" - Mark Twain Never doubt Mark Twain. Myrmaad, I also am happy to have found a point of agreement. It seems the one thing we can agree to do is to disagree!

I think you are correct. We all have data, video evidence and credible bipartisan sources to back us up. Life is not that simple. Lies, lies and and damn statistics!!!!!! I think we could look at the same numbers and come to different conclusions. We all have pre-conceived notions and different life experiences to draw on. What seems blatantly obvious to me is a mystery or is certainly wrong to someone else. Who is right? No one can convince the other that they are wrong. That is why Libertarianism is the correct form of government. No one is forcing their beliefs on others. As long as you are non-violent and pursuing your own goals and beliefs then great, have at it. Again, this seems obvious to me but to others, force by the majority is required for a civil society.

Socialist. :D Keep your terms straight. Doesn't matter who wins in november. the country is still going down the toilet, only difference between them is going to be the rate at which it proceeds. It's a toss-up over who will get us to the cliff faster..... Neither party (not just the candidates) have any idea how to 'fix' anything. They think they can just legislate a better economy, when they have already proven that they can only legislate a WORSE economy. Not to mention that they merely poke around at symptoms, in the hopes of 'looking' like they are actually doing something, but, leave the underlying causes to fester, and even enhance them. And even if they DID know exactly what they needed to so, not a one of those spineless corporate flunkies in washington would have the cahones to actually DO it. That would cut off their gravy train...... Nope, don't expect anything to change after november. More of the same. This. Really couldn't say it any better.

http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/62/2012/05/10/111558_600.jpg http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/205/2012/05/02/110999_600.jpg http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/12/2012/04/30/110818_600.jpg

I'm not a huge fan of China either but they do have 20% of the worlds population vs the US's 5%. It would only make sense they consume the most oil. They aren't the largest consumer however, the US uses more than double what China does.

If your legislation is shot down by the majority as being worthless, it's still your legislative bill and you are still accountable for it. You can thank the democrats that many of these measures have been voted down, but lots of measures that fund the parks do pass (or in essence defund the parks). There's a lot more to this, but I start to resent having to do your homework for you. *edited* never mind. It would do no good and I may want to download mods from this site in the future.

And they did it when? Oh you mean they talked about it, like Dems talk about Universal Healthcare and no war and stuff. LOL, nice.

Ummm....Teddy was a Republican. That is my point. Your point is that the parties have switched and a former Republican couldn't now get elected as a Democrat? I think you just undermined your own argument. The issues have changed and the way the parties have presented themselves have changed but the Democrats have always been about big government and racism. You completely missed my point. My point is that the entire political spectrum has changed. He is too far to the LEFT to be elected as a democrat. Not too far to the right. I think he could be elected as a Republican today. Then your ignorance of the subject is showing. There is no way he'd be able to be elected by the Republican party today, his signature legislation was the National Parks which the Republicans are dismantling at every opportunity. What parks have been dismantled again? Republicans had control from the late 90's through the mid 2000's, surely you can tell me what parks they privatized (or downright abolished and dumped toxic waste on since you seem to buy into the rhetoric of the far, far left).