So long as people force us to pay their organization and regulate how we do business, a true Free Market will never exist.   HOWEVER, instances where voluntary trade and cooperation without coercion occur can be considered Free Market moments.  When watching this film about Jackie Robinson, it really opened my eyes to just how segregation could only truly be defeated by Free Market principles.  For the most part, the South was segregated by law.  The Jim Crow laws forced many businesses to keep blacks separated from whites.  Businesses that wanted black patrons may not have been allowed to receive them, and people were basically zoned depending on their qualifications, w/e. So what happens?  MLB is a national business, owned by many different corporations.  I'm not going to get too technical on how it functions, but over all it was decided that blacks could have their own league in order to 1. satisfy their racism and 2. be able to play in the South without any problems. Of course, eventually certain people are all like "you know what, fuck the law, I want to integrate this awesome black player into my team, and i'm going to convince the rest of my guys that if they want a paycheck and a victory, they should cooperate."  Integration was a competitive advantage, and while the Yankees had remained a dominating team, eventually they saw the value of adding blacks to their team as well.  Competition, a principle of the free market. But going back to the film, what can we really say about the Free Market?  That a rich man who was against racism could integrate his team WITHOUT worrying about the law.  Of course, the law, at times, would try break up the games by the Brooklyn Dodgers, but the Free Market prevailed by use of media (free information) and incentives (MONEY).   I could go on and on, but in general, what do you all think about how Segregation was a law and the Market's attempt to end it due to self-interest?

I'm trying to develop ways to explain to people the morality of different positions of various degrees. I could try and explain indefinitely what I'm talking about, but most people won't read my entire shit, so here's an overview: Statism (Capitalism) - It is the duty of the government to protect the property of the people, to regulate the property of the people, and to direct service if need be.  This type of Statism includes Fascism (if allowing for private property) and Corporatism.  It is not a definite scale and can include Socialist aspects. Statism (Socialism) - It is the duty of the government to Nationalize all goods and services.  The people are employed by the government and the government regulates pretty much everything.  Fascism and Corporatism can still exist within a quasi-socialist country, however there would be less regard for private property.  Often State endorsed Monopolies would be more Socialistic than Capitalistic even though it is Corporatist. Anarchism (Capitalism) - The people abide by contract and property rights while not coercing others (murder, thievery, etc.)  Law is common law.  All human action is voluntary.  In the realm of this area are Libertarians, Voluntaryists, Anarcho-Capitalists. Anarchism (Socialism) - The people work as a collective to ensure the progression of society.  No one can own land or natural resources.  Law is to do what is good for the collective.  Theoretically no heirarchies in order to ensure Anarchism.  This includes Anarcho-Syndicalists, Anarcho-Socialists, Marxists. Other aspects of these things to note: Constitutionalism - Specific rights can not be infringed.  If a state exists, the state will have boundaries. Democracy - Many to all decisions are made by a majority vote.  If a state exists, this could allow for a Republic. Consider that societies could be high in Constitutionalism AND Democracy, or low in either, or high in one and low in the other. I've been quite busy and will only be much busier in the next few years, but part of my political writings (which ironically are just a hobby) will be to help others understand the arguments and morality of people who identify as many of these various spectrum created ideologies.  Now, what is in this debate only reflects a very brief overview of what I intend to expand on over the next few years in my free time writing.  But I'm merely curious what you all have to say about how you identify. My purpose in my writings is to help others in understanding the positions they either disagree with or agree with.  I've noticed in my debates (outside of Createdebate) with many of these ideologues is that they do not understand the opposing positions.  

Kids are interesting group of people in this country.  Often times we use to make laws in protection of kids from themselves.  the idea was that parenting was insufficient in making sure that kids grew up to be healthy, well-groomed individuals.  But now that we have laws protecting adults from their own actions, I find the government to be more about just legislating actions that it doesn't like. Now, the evidence against smoking cigarettes is pretty clear.  Cigarettes are bad for you.  Now, the studies point mostly to smokers, because no one smokes moderately (2 or 3 cigs a day), and while it may be possible that 2 or 3 are good for you, it isn't realistic to care about that.  If you're a smoker, you're killing yourself. However, why is this fact grounds for limiting what kids can buy?  Kids can buy dougnuts and cheeseburgers, bananas (too much potassium can kill you, even if it's just from eating a shit load of bananas), candy, windex, and all kinds of shit that can kill you from over exposure.  We know too much alcohol is dangerous, but hundreds of studies have also shown 2 drinks a day to be much healthier than abstinence.  But even if that wasn't the case, why is it illegal to sell a minor alcohol?  Why is it illegal for a minor to possess a bottle of alcohol?  Just because it's bad for you?  Because then you have some inconsistencies in your law making. And firearms, the scariest fuckin' things that mothers will try to push into their children's heads, are illegal for kids to buy in most states.  but what epidemic are we afraid of if we got rid of age restrictions?  Are retailers just going to sell guns (which are usually hundreds of dollars) to kids uncaringly?  Are children violent beasts craving for legal firearms? In general, why is it that being a kid means you can't legally do shit with your own body?  Is parenting not enough of control for these kids?  Is the government all of a sudden some wise entity that knows how to rear children properly?  More than the populace's parents?   Holy shit, I'd be so happy if our government was actually that competent. 

So a really interesting site that polls you on current issues and then matches you with your ideal candidate.  Take it and see who you ought to vote for :) http://www.isidewith.com/

Inspired by this video: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/newdebate/koth But the video is just interesting. But think about it, Government failed the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, would it do any better with a War on Zombies?  Give a couple of things, though:1. Zombies could be an actual threat, as opposed to drugs.  However, terrorists are a real threat, yet government has not made things better with the war on terror, resulting in major collateral damage and little results.  Interesting thought, terrorism is thought to be a cause of past government behavior, so the same COULD be with zombies (of course, complete hypothetical). 2. Use of Nuclear weapons on majorly infected cities is possible.  I don't know much about the procedure for major outbreaks, but zombies is something that's much harder to contain than other diseases.  I understand that the CDC have actually drafted proposals for this unlikely scenario (cause we're paying them the big bucks to do shit like that), but when shit hits the fan how much domestic collateral damage do you believe the government would be willing to make? 3. Also, how much can we expect for the government to be successful?  are we better off under a Conservative, Libertarian, or Liberal?  Or even Green? 4. The War on Drugs is over 4 decades old, the War on Terror about 9 years.  How long do you think this War on Zombies would last?  Would the government survive the first and second wave of zombie spreads? Now, the first thing you'd have to assume for the War on Zombies to start is that the first wave spreads quickly, most likely in different areas.  The Walking Dead and George A. Romero series suggested that the virus was in the air, so anyone who dies becomes a zombie.  So the first wave would be freshly dead coming from all corners.  There would be no way to stop it on its first outbreak.  The second wave would be the attacks of zombies on people, spreading even more.  This is most likely when the government would step in to try to stop the spread (unless it were responsible for the outbreak, which means it would try to stop it at the end of the first wave, making it easier, but not necessarily successful). Discuss: I notice that my topics, lately, have not gotten much action.  Maybe I'm too serious or w/e... but this shit is interesting.  Politics and Zombies, w/e, fuck you.

Arguments I come across certain types of people when it comes to legalizing either narcotics or firearms is "Do you really need an ak-47 to go hunting or defend your home" or "there's no evidence that marijuana alleviates symptoms that other medications don't" or "do you even need LSD?" Well, truly, we don't need anything but food and water.  This is proven because of Biology, and I know some philosotards would probably create some argument for or against that that would completely miss the point, so let's not go there. But why is it that we must prove that something is necessary in order to eliminate the regulations, restrictions, and bans on these goods and services?  Do we need prostitutes?  Some people feel they do.  Hell, I know someone who I'm sure needs prostitutes.  But proving this necessity to the government is a bit tricky, and this is why it's completely illegal in 49 states.  The States don't see prostitution as necessary, and they find it immoral enough to keep it illegal.  Unless we can somehow prove that it's absolutely necessary or would even provide the community with more "good" than "harm," prostitution is going to remain illegal. Same with drugs.  Medical marijuana is a joke.  Both anti-pot Conservatives and pro-pot Liberals will tell you that.  Medical Marijuana is definitely good for you, but all it does is create major red-tape for the markets that take advantage of medical marijuana.  It keeps marijuana from becoming what it should really be, completely legal and unregulated.  But marijuana is the least of our problems.  Slowly but surely people are figuring out that it's a harmless plant and it's absolutely bullshit to keep it illegal, but what about the other drugs that are illegal?  I'm talking about cocaine and mdma, stuff that people find to be dangerous.  These drugs will seem to always be justifiably banned just because their seems to be no benefit from the substances themselves.  Now, we can debate all day about the benefits of MDMA and LSD, but what good is it to politicians and anti-drug advocates who don't know dick about science? Proving that the drugs have any benefit at all should not be the only way to legalize a product.  The War on Drugs has wasted billions of dollars, ended and destroyed millions of lives, and has done absolutely nothing to keep drugs out of the hands of anyone (drugs today are cheaper, purer, and easier to get, yet the powers of government to continue this war has steadily increased).  As dangerous as drugs may seem to people or even a community, the attempt to keep them out of the hands of people has been far more detrimental with no results to show any worth.  And back to civil liberties, why is it that only wholesome goods and services can be considered worth legalizing?  Mostly, why do we have to prove to a bunch of bureaucrats that a product or service

I was watching an interview with Ron Paul and Eliot Spitzer, and I feel that from it... Eliot Spitzer is the only person to actually make good points AGAINST Ron Paul.  Sure, I agree with Ron Paul and not with Spitzer, but his ability to make GOOD points against Paul that actually make Paul have to reevaluate his own argument is quite impressive. If only more Liberals could provide a decent argument against Classical Liberalism.  I feel that Spitzer's point on the Clean Air Act was excellent, and while Libertarian scholars have made great arguments against it, Paul clearly was not at full scale against it.  As well, this will be able to strengthen Paul's later arguments when he does look MORE into the issues to see what exactly he could say if ever brought up again.  Paul, while being solid through most of the interview, did have issues with the point on New Jersey. Good, logical arguments that challenge each other are important.  Libertarianism, I wish, could be challenged more because I feel that in order to do it right, we need to hear out all the thought-out challenges (as opposed to the typical Conservative and Liberal bullshit that seems to completely disregard any of the facts that have already been brought forward again and again, as well as the many arguments of the philosophies in general that end with them saying "big government good; free people bad." For the first time, in a while, I've seen a good argument from a neo-Liberal against a Classical Liberal.  And it's from Spitzer, of all people.  A guy who used taxpayer's dollars to purchase hookers, while at the same time putting hookers in jail.  Clearly a point as to the problems with giving government money and power, but with that aside, Spitzer was able to actually challenge Paul.  This strengthens Paul for future arguments (as is the point of debate; I love being challenged on my views because it helps shape my views much more strongly.  Luckily, my written arguments I can give time so that I never seem incorrect or begotten, even though I know many of you believe you've defeated me, and sure, I make mistakes, but that helps shape my future arguments where I hope to not make the same mistakes). So I hope to see more of this type of stuff.  Paul is far from perfect, and my views are different from his (just much closer than Obama or Romney), and actual challenging questions are important.  Much better than his terrible debate with Chris Matthews where Matthews just says that Libertarians believe that it's okay for heroin addicts to raise children.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RGU78a1ba8

Often times, I see that an argument from some people is that not forcing all health insurance companies to provide birth control is an attack on women's rights... Another argument comes from public schools needing to provide free birth control to those who ask, courtesy of the tax payers. And another is funding for planned parenthood, from the taxpayers, which provides birth control and cheap-to-free abortions. Arguments from some is that cutting funding or mandates that would make abortion and/or contraceptives readily available, cheap, or free is an attack or limit on women's rights. Now, arguments about this come from so many directions.  Some wish to go by monetary stances, saying that birth control is expensive... arguments have been made against that pointing out that generic birth control is very cheap and just as good, or that spouses or boyfriends can split the bill, or that if it is not a health issue (which 99% of health insurance companies cover anyway), why not just use condoms?  But again and again... that is all ignored. Others wish to point out that abortions and contraceptives will limit healthcare costs... because irresponsible behavior is only a result of unwillingness to pay any money for things like contraceptives?  Or that abortions are a matter of money and not morality (many taxpayers don't like paying for others' abortions).  But really, even if either of these arguments are the case... how is it an attack or limitation on women's rights?  since when has women's rights become provisions for the right to have all the sex they want with all the consequences paid for by government (taxpayers)? And where in the Constitution does it say any of this?   I decided to look at the Bill of Rights and found nothing on the matter.  I did, however, notice the second Amendment.  The Second Amendment makes it quite clear that the American people have the right to own firearms.  So... considering how much MORE expensive guns and ammunition are compared to abortion and contraceptives... wouldn't it make sense for government to DEFINITELY pay for guns to those who want them?  If women's rights is free contraceptives and abortions, shouldn't second amendment rights be free guns?  (especially since guns are expensive and the right to them are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights... the thing where we get our rights from).

Level 1 - No sex.  Not because you choose, but because you can't.  You don't have to be a virgin, per se, but the reason why you lost your virginity was because of a very unattractive person, very drunk, or a prostitute.  In general, you can not just get laid, no matter how hard you try. Level 2 - Indiscriminate sex.  You're not that worried about disease or pregnancy.  You kind of just fuck whatever you can.  This doesn't mean that you won't use protection, but it's not a top priority for you and you'd be willing to risk it.  You're not a sex addict, but you have sex whenever you can and it is kind of your top thing on your to do list whenever you're at a social gathering. Level 3 - Purity.  Mostly for religious reasons.  You're saving yourself for marriage.  Not much else to say. Level 4 - Monogamous.  Not that you can't be monogamous in a relationship sense for the other levels, but when it comes to sex you only do it with your loved one... a serious boyfriend or girlfriend.  You don't just have sex while dating casually.  You date to find someone that you "love," and then have sex when you find that person. Level 5 - Sex without complications.  You don't just have sex with anyone, but if there's someone that you find physically attractive, you'll want to have sex with them.  You mostly use protection unless you've been casually having sex with someone that you trust.  You avoid relationships or feel that at your age or moment in time, a relationship isn't necessary.  Sometimes you believe in open relationships and marriages, if you are to get serious with someone.  Sex, to you, is something that doesn't require a significant other and is fun as hell and should be shared with many. Level 6 - Objective.  You have a similar mindset to Level 5, but you don't view sex in such a high light that the others would.  You, sometimes, don't even enjoy it in the same way.  You can, but not always.  You don't believe that sex needs love, and you don't believe that love needs sex.  You will often be distant from others.  Sex is fun, but it isn't necessary.  You'd be fine with never having sex if the opportunity never arose.  But you can still be eager to try it, just like any other experience that people engage in.  You aren't a robot, just indifferent.

Alright, so today's 4/20 and I was looking through my argument feed and was like "o.O... I'll worry about that later."  So instead of all the really long arguments with lots of interesting points that I don't want to shift through right now, I instead want to get your thoughts on how I view people: Baically, I see them as a pool of some crazy shit that happens to function properly.  When you see humans with disorders, I just think of them as machines with defective parts.  Depending on the severity of the defectiveness, you'd choose on whether to throw it away or try and fix it.  With humans, I find it interesting how defective they have to be to even be considered too broken to try to fix.   Consider a computer with a motherboard that is completely fried, and the CPU has been completely wiped and corroted.  Most of us would decide to just throw the computer away instead of buying parts to replace it.  This goas for a lot of shit.  But with humans, we will consider throwing them away the final option (in most cases).  I saw someone with a lazy eye and thought of them as a robot with a broken photon capturer.  It looks weird, but it still gets the job done (just to a limited extent).   Here's the main thing, though:  As a society, are we reaching the point of treating humans like objects instead of individuals?  If humans serve to benefit society, what happens with humans who end up being a burden or a harm to society instead of an asset?  Are individuals more important or is society?

Something I notice that some Atheists like to bring up is the whole "if God exists, whence cometh evil" argument.  Now, I can see how therem are flaws with religious beliefs and such, but I sometimes see people liking to say "God is a dick if he exists." Really, folks?  We're talking about the Transcendent and the Para-normal.  God, if he exists, lives outside of our simpleton, mortal understanding of shit like "God's Plan" or "Morality." I don't believe in God for the same reasons that I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  Never seen one and have never seen any evidence.  I'm not going to act all arrogant and exert my authority on the issues of Morality by saying "God is a dick if he lets children starve to death in Africa."  Why?  A dick in the standards of mortality?  Sure, I'd say so.  But God is supposedly immortal and para-normal and shit. So what I'm really seeing here is that when people say "God's an asshole for letting the holocaust happen" they're kind of just being... assholes.   Get serious, folks, and stop making Atheists look bad.

[From my Tumblr](http://eddieinternet.tumblr.com/post/20815566239/feminists-can-be-a-bit-catty) Not sure if the link came out right, but anyway, thoughts?  The post is meant to be a quicker view on things.  I'd expand on it, but I feel that the general, necessary viewpoint is all there. Once again, not all Feminists are bad and many of them fight for a noble cause.  But as the post points out, it doesn't always end up well. The first half is much less important than the second half.

This has been here before, but in the spirit of debateleader creating his own political spectrum, I'd like to post the actual political spectrum quiz, which will place you somewhere on the spectrum. [Go here to take the quiz](http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html) I'd say that it's quite accurate.  And the wording is better than the politicalcompass test, which has outdated questions that are badly worded.  

I was reading on Wikipedia about C-SPAN because I wanted to know if it was a public news source or a private one. I found it interesting because it is the closest thing you can get to fair and balanced (sorry Fox News, but having so much punditry is just gonna make things complicated). The whole idea is constant coverage of what goes on in government.  It's that really boring channel you skip with all the Congressmen debating about some bill in the house of representatives. so in the [wiki page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cspan#Public_and_media_opinion) it said *Despite its stated commitment to providing politically balanced programming, C-SPAN and its shows such as Washington Journal, Booknotes, Q & A, and Afterwords have been accused by left-leaning organizations of having a conservative bias* This I found interesing, considering that *A 2010 survey of C-SPAN's viewers found that the network's most-valued attribute was its balanced programming. The survey's respondents were a mixed group, with 31 percent describing themselves as "liberal," while 28 percent described themselves as "conservative", and the survey found that C-SPAN viewers are an equal mix of men and women across all age groups* Now, Fox News has been through similar mistreatments.  I understand the hostility towards Fox since it does have people like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, but the Pew Research Center has released stats on how Fox is pretty far up there in fair and balanced coverage. So what am I missing here?  forget about Fox News for a sec (i know that Liberals love to beat the hell out of that one), let's just talk about C-SPAN.  Is it also a Conservatively biased station?

I've disliked Michael Moore for quite some time, and films like Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine are real good examples as to why. He is a liar. But getting past all of Moore's dishonesty, I would like to bring about an argument that Moore used in his film Bowling for Columbine and something that I've heard repeated a couple of times: The NRA was formed the same time as the KKK "lol, no relation". The NRA came 6 years after the first KKK.  Now, even if it was the same exact year, that would mean *jack shit*, but let's say that 6 years is a small enough gap to suggest that there COULD be a relation.  Let's look at some gun control laws to see how much they helped minorities: The National Firearm Act was passed in 1934 which was Federal government's attempt to take down all the gang violence (created by various forms of prohibition earlier in those years).  Many gang members were immigrants (lol). Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed by LBJ during much opposition towards the War, including the Black Panthers who would roam the street holding shotguns in attempt to protect themselves from what they felt were abusive white cops.  All of a sudden, the white on black crimes (caused by cops, according to the Black Panthers) were going down.  So how does government react to its inability to be racist?  Take away their guns ;) Not to suggest that these laws were actually meant to be racist, but they're JUST as racist as the assertion that the NRA and KKK are related.  Especially since much initial requests for guns to be restricted was when blacks were trying to get their hands on guns in the first place.  That's right, the States' first gun bans were meant for blacks to be defenseless. Of course, since racism doesn't exist anymore there should be no reason to be against gun control, right liberals ;)  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/ http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html I've added citations as a bonus.  Yeah... this is one of the few times where my beliefs came directly from some other people's arguments as opposed to me just figuring something out all of a sudden (so I figure I'd give credit where credit is due).

This may be my first religious debate in a while (if I ever even made one), but I notice something about how religious people like to attack Atheists... all the fuckin time... "Atheists say that there is no God but can't prove it." Now, people have told these people over and over again that Atheism isn't the claim that there is no God, it is merely the disbelief in a God.  There are millions of claims that we ignore just because no evidence has been provided.  And, of course, the whole thing about BURDEN OF PROOF... and yes, that is FUCKIN' REAL when it comes to debates. So really, every single god damn time you folks say "yeah, well, I don't have to provide evidence that God exists because you don't have evidence that he doesn't" remember that you are committing a fallacy.  As well, for Atheists, the lack of evidence on the person who has the burden of proof (in this case, the person who claims that God exists) is already evidence for an Atheist.  It is not PROOF, it is evidence. But really, is this all you people got?  I know I try not to attack the religious that much (and I used to defend them back when most of the Atheists on this site were Liberal douche-bags who didn't know what they were talking about... like Bill Maher), but every single time I see this argument I feel that you guys are really trying to cling on to this one shitty, fallacious statement, no matter how much we show you how bad of an argument it truly is. So if you guys want to get serious, please stop being a bunch of big babies and realize that Atheists do not have the burden of proof. 

I notice that some people don't like to get far enough into a debate about corporate personhood mainly because... they don't have strong enough beliefs in the matter. Now, I could go on and on about how I personally view things, but my advocacy for Free Markets and Civil Liberties is kind of just dismissed as luney, causing many people to feel that they don't need to defend their beliefs.  So the argument will usually just be 1 of 2 main ones: 1. Corporations aren't people.  Therefore, Citizens United shouldn't be allowed to release a movie about Hillary Clinton after a certain date.  As well, Corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend money releasing any kind of politically driven films, or spend money to give out political beliefs, support a campaign, etc.  Corporations aren't people. 2. Corporations ARE people, and should be allowed to spend money on whatever they want.   Now, both schools of thoughts are also a problem when it comes to how the government should deal with corporations.  Most support the legal entity of a corporation.  Most support bailing out business in order to save the economy.  Most support subsidizing certain businesses.  Most support contracting certain businesses.   What I ask, though, is why are media-corporations allowed to spend whatever they want on political coverage, but non-media corporations aren't? Why are negative ads, which bring to light many truths about a candidate, less acceptable in spending than positive ads that usually just say "I'm a true American, and I love our families". Are the media corporations (like General Electric and NewsCorp) people?  If not; would you be against them spending unlimited money for political circumstances (as well, unlimited is a fallacious term, for no one has "unlimited money"). And then, in the very end, do you truly support the legal entity of a corporation?  Or would you prefer that shareholders would have to engage in business via contract?   There's a lot to discuss on this matter, and I hope that those of you who are passionate about this subject would be willing to defend everything you say when you answer my questions.  

I find this interesting because I was talking with my dad about defense spending, and he mentioned how much is needed to keep the president alive (he's in favor of high defense spending while i'm not, bt-dubs). I said "amazing how much we feel that the president's life is worth." Clearly much of our tax dollars is spent on protecting the president at all times in the likelihood of almost any possible scenario.  The amount of money spent on the rest of us (exclusively) is none.  Now, many say "yes, of course, that's how it must be; the president must be kept safe" and I ask... why?  Why is the president's life worth more than yours? Now, this may be an anarchic stylized post, but do not diminish my argument to "WHAT DO YOU WANT, ANARCHY?"  If that's all you can provide, I'd prefer you didn't answer in this debate.  I want someone to provide me with their reasoning for why the president's life is worth more than mine or theirs.   Sure, it is how things are done in almost every culture and every country, but that is not a defense either... remember, saying that others do things doesn't mean that it is "right" or "reasonable".  It merely says "I believe it is right because they do it too".  

This is a message from oldfag Anonymous to the newfags who liked wearing V masks when they would protest stuff.  It came out before Occupy Wall Street happened, but I find it relevant for anyone who thinks that "Anonymous" supports the movement: "People these days seem to think we are some sort of Internet vigilante group, That couldn't be further from the truth. We are the little voice in the back of your head that wants to fuck your hot sixteen year old daughter. We are the father who beats his six year old child simply because he spilled his beer. We are every chef that's ever spit in some random person's food for the hell of it. We are the pyromaniac who burns down the homeless shelter for shits and giggles. We are the person who rapes the same girl twice. We are that feeling you get when you beat your pets; and enjoy it. We see some guy hang himself live, we laugh. A wrestler kills his family, we laugh. Some maladjusted Asian shoots up his university, we laugh. Fifty-thousand die in North Korea, we laugh. AIDS ravages a continent, we laugh. An Austrian man locks his daughter in his basement for 24 years and fathers 8 children with her, we laugh. A religion invented by a psychotic writer swindles countless gullible fucktards out of their cash, we laugh, and then go kick his religion's ass just for the hell of it. We aren't some vigilante group righting wrongs. We aren't your friends, your buddies or your saviors. Your feelings mean nothing to us. We are human nature unencumbered by pointless ethics, foolish moralities or arbitrary laws and restrictions. We are every dark impulse you have; unrestrained and fully realized. We are what deep down, you wish you were. We exist as a means for instant gratification, purely at our own whim. We have no culture, we have no laws, written or otherwise. We are an autonomous collective, each an insignificant part of a whole. You cannot assimilate us, we do not change. You cannot defeat us, we do not exist. You cannot infiltrate us, we know our own. We do not sleep, we do not eat and we do not feel remorse. We will tear you apart from outside and in, we have all the time in the world. You operate under the delusion that we will someday be outdated, that we might even see the light. You are irrevocably wrong. You are not special, you are not unique and you aren't crusaders for justice. You're a blend of college age faggots who think that they can do some sort of good, and who are desperate to belong, to have attention. You have accomplished nothing, and you will fall. Enjoy your AIDS, faggots."

They would have debunked the claims of Jesus and his followers and Christianity would not exist. Unless, of course, they were telling the truth... that would just be insane.  Cato would then, being the skeptical yet open minded researchers they are, do research just to show that Jesus was right all along. Let's face it, if the Cato Institute existed 2000 years ago, we wouldn't need to debate the merits of Christianity and such.  All the skepticism would have been dealt with.  It would be Collin McGinn's dream of a post-theistic Utopia. Then again, the Christians would get all pissed and make claims that the Koch Brothers are just in allegiance with the Jews and Atheists in order to eliminate any possible uprising of Christians who would see that the Free Market actually appeals to the soulless and wicked.  Everytime a sound argument comes out of the Cato Institute showing how Jesus actually didn't turn water into wine, Christians would just say "I see your evidence, but you got it from the Cato Institute... they have an agenda."   "Are you going to dispute the argument?" "Why should I?  It's from an obviously biased source." Makes sense.  Christian Socialism was a big thing in Europe (still is).

So Ron Paul is in the running for the Republican nominee, and while it seemed at first that he wouldn't get it, I did like what he had to say a few days ago about being the only person of his ideals in the running.  The Mainstream is split up between so many Republicans that Ron Paul could actually win the minority votes (hell, I'd be willing to register as a Republican if it means voting for Ron Paul). But just because he has a chance, does this mean it will happen?  Are there enough Libertarians who would vote in Ron Paul as the Republican nominee?  And would Ron Paul actually win against Obama?  Libertarians have always had trouble running for office since they are an independent party not supported by most corporations, but as a Republican he would have a political machine to back him.  As well, he's the polar opposite of Obama, so it would bring a lively debate to the views on the role of government.  Ron Paul could easily get the support of the South since he is still a Christian man (Libertarian Christian, that's a rare one) and his biggest platform is on downsizing government, which Conservatives these days love to hear.  He can gain support from marijuana activists since he wishes to eliminate the Federal ban on all narcotics, and he can gain support from the gay marriage lobby (as well as not losing support from the Cultural Conservatives) for his view that government should just stay out of marriage and leave it to private contract. The main problem would be the issues of foreign policy, but he've more against the War than Obama and Conservatives would have to decide on voting in a revolutionary candidate like Ron Paul in exchange for finally ending the War and no longer giving aid to Israel. To me, the issues of gay marriage and foreign policy do hurt Ron Paul as he runs for the Republican nominee, but if he were actually to make the ticket, I believe that it would be quite an interesting campaign.  Ron Paul and his limited government, constitutional, individual liberties vs. Obama and his progressive increase in government powers.  

Well, I'm not going to say that I'm surprised that Obama has once again lied about what he would do once he's president (you know... open white house and shit like that), but I do feel that it should AT LEAST be pointed out that Obama is being a hypocrit.  As well, the administration claims that it's to not piss off radicals and that it's for National security, yet he didn't give a shit about National Security when he released so many top secret documents about the information we were obtaining from detainees (and the the way we obtained that information). 1. I would like to see someone defend Obama without saying "he learned that his ideology is wrong while in the White House". 2. I would like to hear what you folks think IS the right thing to do.  Consider the introductory statement I made, please.