If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2658
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7605 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2658 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | » | Last
 
  2008-09-27 07:35:38 AM
MCE "It would create yet another way for the government to ignore your 4th Amendment rights.

OK...

Let's look at what the Fourth actually says....

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This says that we are protected against "unreasonable searches"...

Not "warrantless searches"....


"If I am a domestic terrorist set on blowing up Atlanta, I have to be treated the same as if I were in organized crime or if were a serial killer."

And "warrentless searches" have been used against organized crime long before 9/11 ever happened and under specific situations have been ruled constitutional.

And that's kinda the point....

IF we can use it against organized crime then we should be able to use it against terrorists.

Also...

Every time you take a flight, go into a courtroom, go to a major sporting event, (heck) go to a Presidential rally you will be subjected to a warrentless search.
 
  2008-09-28 05:26:01 AM
Your argument does not compare apples to apples here. Everytime I go to a concert, courtroom, etc., I am subjecting myself to that search as a condition of entry. I have ELECTED to allow myself to be searched.

When they come knocking on my front door and demand access with no warrant, there is option on my part. Where is my implicit agreement now?


Not the same.
 
  2008-09-28 08:29:18 AM
"Everytime I go to a concert, courtroom, etc., I am subjecting myself to that search as a condition of entry. I have ELECTED to allow myself to be searched."

Mmmmmm.....

Not exactly......

Let's say that you have been picked for jury duty. Typically you don't have much of a choice but to go down to the courthouse.

So the next time I have jury duty can I say that I'll come down as long as I don't need to be searched?

And if you have an actual court date where you need to show up in front of a judge to take care of (whatever) you don't really have a choice but be searched.

And of course if a police officer detains you (even just for a short time) they will typically search you.

And what if my job needs me to fly somewhere? Unless I am going to quite my job, it isn't my choice to fly. My job sends me, but I am still subjected to a warrentless search.

But in any case....

We have been using warrentless searches against organized crime since before 9/11.

If we can use warrentless searches against the mob, why can't we use them against Al Quada?

And again...

The Fourth protects us against "unreasonable searches", not warrantless searches.
 
  2008-09-30 03:12:16 PM
dottedmint: Whidbey: "But we did. We decided to forgo UN protocol and history will objectively note that the Iraq "War" was a US/UK invasion with a handful of other countries that also acted without authorization."

Going in with a coalition of other nations is not acting "unilaterally".


Emphasis mine. You can think that there was more to the illegal operation than just us and the UK, fine.

But who was giving the orders?

So we did follow our rules....

Yes. Our rules. Not International law. I rest my case.

Nothing's ever going to change your position that we have the right to strike anywhere and for whatever reason we deem necessary.

This is why we need a UN: to keep aggressive countries in check and act as a forum for grievances. The neocon-run agenda is to eventually get rid of this token "authorization," I'm guessing.

It's going to take a lot of courage to stand up to your school of thought, dottedmint, it sends the message to the world that the US is something to be feared and eventually taken down.

Again, we are acting like an empire. Which is it? Republic Democracy or Enemy to World Democracy?

We can't have both.MegaCorpEmployee: Dottedmint, I'm bored.

Yeah, that's pretty much what we've got here: Iraq, 4th Amendment rights, abortion and taxation.

It always goes back to those few topics.

Personally, I've never been that big of a pessimist, I try to remain optimistic, but right now I really wonder how long this civilization/species has got left?

We can't continue with this exhaustive mega-capitalistic "global economy" jazz where the objective is to make as much money as possible and screw the future.

And it really isn't smart to bank on technology saving us. Nothing short of a breakthrough in fusion or warp speed capability is going to get us out of this.

"The rabble" is getting more educated despite our crappy school systems and media propagandizing...they're going to want their share from the 1% of the world hoarding it from them.
 
  2008-09-30 07:08:34 PM
Whidbey "But who was giving the orders?"

It doesn't matter....

Going into Iraq with a bunch of other countries is NOT acting "unilaterally".

"Yes. Our rules. Not International law. I rest my case."

You are ignoring what I've already posted....

UN Resolution 1441 says,

"Recalling that its resolution 678 authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

And

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"

The first Iraq war was ended with the ceasefire (resolution 687) and resolution 1441 states that Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire.

and

Resolution 678 authorizes Member States (such as the US) to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (this would include the ceasefire 687).

The whole point of a ceasefire is that fighting stops as long as the agreements of the ceasefire are met.

Since Iraq was not meeting the requirements of the ceasefire....

The war is back on....

And Member States are authorized to use all necessary means to enforce UN resolutions....

There is no need to have another resolution saying that action can be taken.... because it was already authorized in 678.

"This is why we need a UN: to keep aggressive countries in check and act as a forum for grievances."

Right....

And we found out after we went into Iraq that Saddam was basically bribing members of the UN....

There is a flaw in the whole UN idea....

Imagine if we were back in WWII.....

Hitler is invading country after country and killing countless innocents.....

There is all sorts of outcry about what Hitler is doing and the UN threatens to take action to stop Hitler....

But there is one country that either supports Hitler or is being bribed by Hitler that vetos the UN actions....

so it would take only one member of the UN to ensure that action can never be taken...

How is that a good system?
 
  2008-10-01 01:22:51 PM
dottedmint: UN Resolution 1441 says,

Nothing about giving any country the authorization to invade.

But keep believing the Lie.

The war is back on....

And Member States are authorized to use all necessary means to enforce UN resolutions....


Funny how the rest of the UN disagrees with you. But it doesn't matter. You're proving, once again, that the US does whatever the hell it wants without regard for policy, protocol or consensus. The very root of the hatred towards this country. You do realize that it's building to the point where someone will dare to attack us again because of the challenge we're laying down as an aggressive nation? We're not fooling anyone. Well, maybe you. I was fooled too. In 2002 when I bought into the BS myself.

Hitler is invading country after country and killing countless innocents.....

Saddam is not Hitler. Saddam was a tinpot dictator who, on the US/CIA payroll and using chemical weapons supplied by the United States committed atrocities against his own people.

Big difference.

Again, your attitude is unfortunately shared by the paranoid soulless people who really control this country. They use fear to maintain control, and plausibly deny any wrongdoing. It's not terrorism when we do it.

Wiretapping without accountability is not fascism when we do it. Russia and China are Big Brother, not us.

And it goes on and on. Iran is next. Like Iraq, they don't even have to have the possibility of possessing WMDs, they just have to be suspected of it.

Pakistan, too. Never mind that we don't have any official business conducting military operations in Warzistan, we're just going in there because "we say so" to capture a "terrorist" who should have been processed as a criminal from the get-go.

And yeah, no matter who's President. Part of me hopes Obama won't be picking up the Bush foreign policy reins, but I'm doubtful of it. Maybe, by some small chance he's simply saying whatever it takes to get elected.
 
  2008-10-02 07:00:02 AM
Whidbey "Nothing about giving any country the authorization to invade."

Sigh....

"Resolution 678 authorizes Member States (such as the US) to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660".

So when it says "all necessary means" it means "all necessary means" but taking military action????

When it says "all necessary means" that would include the option of military action.

Also....

Since Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire there is no need for further authorization....

There was authorization to use military action when the first Iraq war started. To end the war Iraq agreed to a ceasefire that said we will stop blowing you up if you agree to certain terms. Since Iraq was ignoring those terms (as pointed out in 1441) the ceasefire is suspended. With no ceasefire, the origional authorization is valid.

It really is not that complicated....

"Funny how the rest of the UN disagrees with you."

Correction Whidbey:

SOME of the UN disagrees with me, not "the rest of the UN".

"Saddam is not Hitler."

I was explaining the flaw in the UN system.

It only takes one country to prevent actions....

Some country is involved in ethnic cleansing, attacking it's neighbor, helping international terrorists and the rest of the world is saying that action must be taken.

However there is one member of the UN who supports this evil doer (for whatever reason) and they veto any authorization to take action.

And since one member of the UN vetos any resolutions, the ethnic cleansing, attacks, and support of international terrorists continues.

And that would be a good thing????
 
  2008-10-03 03:23:58 PM
dottedmint: So when it says "all necessary means" it means "all necessary means" but taking military action????

The language still implies that a consensus was yet to be reached.

Correction Whidbey:

SOME of the UN disagrees with me, not "the rest of the UN".


Fine. The Security Council disagrees with you.

And I'm not going to get caught up in another one of your traps.

You either admit the US ignored protocol or you don't.

Reading between the lines of a particular resolution that none of the other members of the Security Council found justification to act upon doesn't cut it.

I was explaining the flaw in the UN system.

It only takes one country to prevent actions....


Great. We agree that the power of veto should be eliminated.

Unfortunately, that means less power for the US. Less domination, more democratic process in the UN, opinions of smaller weaker countries with other ideologies begin to matter.

We don't want that.

McCain certainly doesn't, as his Presidency would continue the trend of marginalizing protocol until finally the UN is killed and replaced either by a military NATO coalition or some other even more politically ineffective body still controlled by the US.

Again: when we ignore the overwhelming consensus of the world, we suffer. We lose credibility. Never mind what Saddam did or what Iran is saying.

We are the losers who allow our government to behave like an empire when it clearly does not have that legal charge or right, either under our Constitution or international law.

The really sad thing is that our aggression is going to have the exact opposite effect intended:

Instead of stopping terror, we cause more of it. More social unrest. More economic instability.

And eventually another attack on this country, probably worse than 9/11. Also, keep in mind that Russia has outdated nuclear weapons systems that could fail, get hacked into, or otherwise be unaccounted for or their transport systems could be terror targets.

In other words, we're doing it wrong.
 
  2008-10-03 05:28:33 PM
Hey Farkers,

I stumbled across this interesting site that resembles 270towin.com This site however is hosting a free competition for users to pick the next President and win a $1000 to any charity of their choice. It's really simple to register and play. Check it out at: Peritus Pundit (new window)

Sincerely,
dirtybluedog
 
  2008-10-03 10:07:35 PM
Whidbey "The language still implies that a consensus was yet to be reached."

Hardly.....

This does not imply anything other than what it says....


"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

And it says that Member States are authorized to use "all necessary means" to enforce UN resolutions in Iraq.

It does not say that they are authorized only after another authorization....

It says that they are authorized to use all necessary means.

That really is rather simple....
 
  2008-10-07 04:20:32 PM
dottedmint:

That really is rather simple....


Not really. If it was really that simple, then why did the Security Council believe that a resolution to authorize force should have been drafted before any invasion of Iraq take place?

If it's so obvious that we were following protocol, why is there almost universal condemnation of our act, even by the very citizens of the so-called "Coalition of the willing" countries you point to?

The more I discuss these issues with you, it becomes even more clear that you believe we have the "right" to do whatever we please, that it's not aggression/torture/uprooting democracy/fascism whenever we commit these breaches of international law while also subverting and nullifying our own Supreme Law of the Land to in order to behave like an empire.

You never did answer the question:

Land of the Free, or American Empire?

We can't have both.

And I don't see why America would vote for another 4 years of this extremist attitude when it's clearly the minority position. Most of us still believe in a republican government where each branch of government does its job as spelled out, not twisted to exceed its measure or undermine its protections.
 
  2008-10-08 06:39:38 AM
If it's so obvious that we were following protocol, why is there almost universal condemnation of our act, even by the very citizens of the so-called "Coalition of the willing" countries you point to?

Gee.... Probably because most people have no clue what 1441 (passed by the UN) actually says.

The more I discuss these issues with you, it becomes even more clear that you believe we have the "right" to do whatever we please,

No... Not at all. I don't think we can do "whatever we please"....
 
  2008-10-08 02:41:56 PM
John McCain, 10/8/08 2:33PM EST

"Across this country, this is the agenda I have set, my fellow prisoners..."

Crowd: WTF?
 
  2008-10-15 06:51:05 AM
So does anyone want to talk about all the vote fraud that is being done by groups that support Obama?
 
  2008-10-16 07:30:25 PM
So does anyone want to talk about all the voter caging that is being done by the GOP?
 
  2008-10-16 11:24:20 PM
dottedmint: So does anyone want to talk about all the vote fraud that is being done by groups that support Obama?

Wow. I haven't been in here for years. I thought it would be all atwitter with discourse.

dottedmint: So does anyone want to talk about all the vote fraud that is being done by groups that support Obama?

Oh. I remember you.

Still not reading anything with actual facts in it, I see.
 
  2008-10-17 06:44:34 AM
So Bonnie, what do you suggest we do to make sure people do not use any of these fake names to vote multiple times?

And Calmamity are you saying that there isn't vote fraud going on right now?

Here's an article that you can read with some "actual facts"...

FBI, Others Probe ACORN for Vote Fraud
(new window)
 
  2008-10-17 10:50:27 AM
Ah yes, ACORN.

Ok, which of these two things actually happened?

1) Barack Obama launches secret plan to win the election. By getting a client he represented once in 1995 to register voters multiple times only to be easily caught and then finding out - after all that - the multiply registered voters could have voted only once per actual person if they even showed up to the polls at all.

2) John McCain blames underfunded and disorganized lobby group for causing current economic crisis.

Sounds like bad news... for Obama
 
  2008-10-17 04:02:01 PM
An historical look at voter caging by Republicans:

http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-152.html

For current voter caging by Republicans, please see easily googled news stories in states such as Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Montana, Colorado, and a few others.
 
  2008-10-18 09:01:29 AM
I can only guess by your lack of response Bonnie, that you don't really care about vote fraud.

So if I went out and registered (say) 100 fake names (as some members of ACORN have done) and got absentee ballots for each of those names you wouldn't see that as a problem?

How many fake names would be needed to flip some of these close states to goto Obama?

Should we not do everything we can to make sure fake names are not used to cast illegal votes?
 
  2008-10-18 03:27:36 PM
Maybe this has been brought up before. but can someone explain to me how it's *NOT* biased to artificially make your submissions equal parts commie, fascist and neutral?

If george bush ran out and killed 10 babies in the name of jebus and the republican party got behind him on the issue would it be fair to keep media balanced?
 
  2008-10-18 04:29:58 PM
I wonder what the NYU School of Law found in their study? Truth About Voter Fraud

Who else has been hit by lightning recently?

Mickey Mouse not voting this year.

No Match, No Vote: Republican voter caging

GOP strategy in Michigan found to be in Violation of Federal Law
 
  2008-10-18 06:25:25 PM
dottedmint: And Calmamity are you saying that there isn't vote fraud going on right now?

Jesus.

Here's the deal: This story has been a right wing Hail Mary pass from day one, and all the facts back up my assertion. Yes ACORN hired some people who wanted to pad their paycheck by registering Mickey Mouse seventeen times, and yes ACORN passed on those registrations, but they passed them on because they were legally obligated to do so and they flagged them as being possibly fraudulent.

I'm sorry that is sticks in the craw of the Republicans that there are people out there aggressively getting the poor and minorities the ability to vote. It sucks for you guys, and I understand why you're upset. But the fact is that ACORN is not some vast conspiracy. And more to the point, Obama's association with them was peripheral at best.

It's not like he was their keynote speaker in 2006.

The FBI is investigating allegations of voter fraud at the behest of a bunch of desperate Republicans. It's their job. Investigations are not condemnations.

The only- ONLY-- reason I give this absolute non-story any attention at all is that the Swift Boat assholes were completely full of shiat, tol\d outrageously unbelievable lies and were proven wrong at every turn, but it worked!

Frankly-- and I really shouldn't have to say this because there are many well vetted books on the subject-- if you want to scream and yell about voter fraud you need look no further than Diebold. The name has changed, but the commitment is the same.
 
  2008-10-19 09:02:40 AM
I gotta say that I love this "Nothing to see here" mentality that you guys are displaying.

We have thousands of fake names being registered in some of these close states and I'm supposed to believe that there is no fraud taking place.

Nobody would ever think of getting absentee ballots for these "made up" people.

Look....

I don't think that anyone who can legally vote should be disenfranchised.

However when someone votes using a fake name I am disenfranchised. Their fake vote just cancelled out my legal vote.

But again....

Thousands of fake names being registered to vote....

"Nothing to see here....."
 
  2008-10-19 06:19:20 PM
So does anyone want to talk about all the voter caging that is being done by the GOP?
 
  2008-10-19 06:58:29 PM
Lay it on me.

I'm sure it's nothing compared to the crimes against humanity being perpetrated by ACORN.
 
  2008-10-20 10:32:36 PM
So let's say that I get kicked out of my house....

Move to another state....

How exactly should we make sure that I don't vote both in my new state as well as the old state?

Heck...

IF I simply moved to a different city in the same state how would we make sure I don't vote in both cities?

Seriously...

How would you guys make sure that each person who can legally vote only votes once???
 
  2008-10-20 11:08:11 PM
wpcomics.washingtonpost.com
 
  2008-10-21 01:21:12 AM
...and you lost me.

Sorry. Glen McCoy is a shiatbag.

Soup4Bonnie: voter caging that is being done by the GOP?

I recently read an account from another Farker of this happening to him in the last election. Unfortunately, I don't remember the guy's name.

He was saying that he was gruffly challenged by some Republican operative and, having witnessed this happening to other people, decided that he would loudly ask why he was being harassed on his way to vote.

He was then approached by a lawyer who had been hired by the Democratic Party specifically to engage these Republican operatives in order to assure that people weren't intimidated out of their right to vote.

For this Farker (I wish I could remember his name), it was a telling object lesson, and what he came away with was that the modern Republican Party is intent on seeing that certain people can't vote and that the Democrats are spending money to ensure that people are allowed to vote.

Who do you want in charge, the folks who want to suppress democracy, or the ones who encourage it?
 
  2008-10-21 12:58:10 PM
Seriously...

How would you guys make sure that each person who can legally vote and is registered actually gets to vote instead of being purged from the register by some underhanded Republican voter caging scheme that has been going on for years???
 
  2008-10-21 10:45:01 PM
Bonnie... Bonnie... Bonnie...

The correct question would be....

"How would you guys make sure that each person who can legally vote and is registered actually gets to vote [BUT ONLY ONCE] instead of being purged from the register by some underhanded Republican voter caging scheme [trying to prevent vote fraud] that has been going on for years???

So how do we do that???

How do we make sure that everyone who can legally vote is able to vote, but of course only vote once?

And how exactly should the government do this without being accused of perpetrating some terrible "scheme" to disenfranchise people?
 
  2008-10-22 01:31:29 PM
The only way McCain is going to get in is via voter fraud. The guys hubris is unbelievable, he really believes it's his right to become president.
 
  2008-10-22 01:34:45 PM
Tova Wang, Vice President of Research, Common Cause:

It is unfortunate that some would seek to distract us from the real work that needs to be done to ensure a fair election in which every eligible voter can cast a ballot and all the ballots are counted. While there is simply no evidence of voter impersonation fraud at the polling place there is ample evidence of real people's votes that may go uncounted due to unfair practices of voter purging and other vote suppression tactics. Ultimately all this underscores the need for a system in which the government shoulders its fair share of the responsibility to ensure that Americans are properly registered and stay registered.

Brennan Center for Justice
Policy Brief on the Truth About "Voter Fraud":

Summary

* Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.
* Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud.
* Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct.
* Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.
* Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action.


Meanwhile, Mark Anthony Jacoby has been flagging his own voter registration molecules to where they're going and to where they're not, but apparently has not heard that you can get paid $175,000 by the McCain-Palin campaign for doing so like Nathan Sproul is being investigated for.
 
  2008-10-22 07:57:12 PM
LOL...

Too funny...
 
  2008-10-26 08:34:51 AM
Well...

Since nobody in here seems to want to talk about how to ensure that everyone who can legally vote has the chance to vote, BUT VOTE ONLY ONCE I guess it is time to try to change the subject.

Anyone want to talk about the current economic problem?

Cause?

Blame?

Fix?
 
  2008-10-26 10:25:37 PM
McCain Aides Attack Palin (new window)

Might as well just give it up now dottedmint and the rest of you Fark Independents™, the GOP has officially self-destructed.
 
  2008-10-29 05:53:53 AM
I have a quick question for one of you American Farkers if I may:

Is Shepard Smith generally considered to be biased/lean to the left or right?
 
  2008-10-29 12:19:00 PM
I'm not really much help in that area. I don't watch much network or cable news at all. From the few times I've seen him he looks like any of the other talking heads who get paid to put on make-up and read a teleprompter.

He's Murdoch's boy, no doubt, so I would say he is paid to shill to the conservatives and if anyone at that station actually gives the faintest appearance of being "Fair & Balanced" it's probably him.

But that's as prominent as being the biggest turd in the punch bowl.
 
  2008-10-29 11:12:07 PM
Thanks, that is pretty much how I had guessed it. I was curious after his disclaimer from the Joe the plumber interview.
 
  2008-10-29 11:26:32 PM
The forum has a thermometer O.o?
 
  2008-10-30 07:00:05 PM
Dotted Mint, you check out the latest Chomsky interview?
 
  2008-10-30 07:05:31 PM
He talks a lot about the economy, and where it might be heading: http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2008/10/daily-banter-exclusive-interview-with -noam-chomsky.html (new window)
 
  2008-11-02 06:36:11 PM
*
Forget the fact that Obama's aunt lives in a slum with no help from God's son, forget the fact that when he says "spread the wealth" he only means "yours" none of his, (ask his brother who lives in a cardboard house on $12 a year... again no help from God's son). Forget all that... Lets all concentrate on his newest revelation that he plans his own Civilian Army. How scary is that? Can you say Hitler anyone?
 
  2008-11-03 01:47:49 AM
Hitler.
 
SGF
  2008-11-04 12:26:04 PM
I noticed gas has dropped enough this week for swing voters to be able to fuel-up their SUV's and decide that maybe 4 more years in the Red is ok.

We need a conspiracy theory forum.

There probably is one but The Man is keeping it hidden
 
  2008-11-04 04:09:34 PM
I know everyone is watching the race for the President of the United States, but in New York, there is something interesting for the New York State Senate (note: not the US Senate) going on. It's possible for the Democrats to gain a majority in the New York Senate, or for the New York Senate to be tied 31-31 (I believe). Ordinarily, the Lt. Governor would cast the tie-breaking vote if necessary (similar to the role of the Vice President of the United States and the U.S. Senate), but thanks to Spitzer having sex with a prostitute, Paterson became Governor and there is no provision to fill the vacancy for the Lt. Governor position until the next gubernatorial election. New York could become even more dysfunctional.
 
  2008-11-05 12:17:20 AM
thanks, america
 
  2008-11-05 01:08:56 AM
Yes god bless us yes.

Do NOT fark this up. You have no excuses now. None. We are watching you very closely.
 
  2008-11-05 12:14:26 PM
What an outstanding night for the US
 
  2008-11-05 06:06:01 PM
Barakku: The forum has a thermometer O.o?

Apparently. It's in the center because I haven't been in here lately... :D

Banterist: Dotted Mint, you check out the latest Chomsky interview?

Oddly enough I just stumbled upon that one this morning and voila! You posted it. How Jungian...

Love the expression "financial liberalization."

And here I thought conservatives believed in a free market. No, I didn't...really...believe that. :doh:

There's a quote Chomsky loves to sport:
Until industrial feudalism is replaced by industrial democracy, politics will remain the shadow cast by business over society.--John Dewey

What a concept.
 
Displayed 50 of 2658 comments

First | « | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report