frogs

But these were Americans dumb enough to go kill strangers for pay and benefits. Why would we wan them in the US? But I agree Bush should be impeached, then we can get Monica in there ASAP, so she can serve mankind!

No, I think he's protestant.

"By the way: does anyone calling for impeachment actually know what that entails?" ~~~~~~~~~~ Monica knows!!!

"I don't know, I think the world would rather ally with Israel, than a country which denies the holocaust, and has dream's of wiping out the Jews." Ah, yes, good point. Instead, we should encourage jews to purchase little boys from strangers and cut skin off their "you know whats." Since that is what the jews proclaim their religion is founded on (Genesis 17). This not only sounds like fun, but makes perfect sense.

I agree totally! If we'd have sent all the troops,cops, sheriffs, and without weapons, the war would be over, and we would have saved a lot of money! And we wouldn't be taxed anymore!

Jesus was behind it, he knew Christmas was coming and didn't want to be upstaged. Besides... as all politicians know.. God is in charge so he wanted it to happen.

"You cannot debate so you resort to typical neocon/fascist/sycophant tricks. Go away. I'm done debating you." ~~~~~~~~~~ Good for you Poly! There are a number of folks on here that would love to change the meanings of words... just like in the book 1984! They are hoping to get a life someday, and feeling very desparate. No sense in debating their nothingness. They don't even really believe what they say. And thanks for the reference to Paul. It's great!

It is necessary that all land and buildings that are not being used be donated as living space to interested parties. This discouragement would likely cause some Wal-Marts not to open in the first place. And would make people less desparate to work at Wal-Mart or its' like.

I agree.. the carpenter's union was behind it all, but they had help from the steamfitters. But look at all the people that worked in the bldgs that can't steal our money anymore...

"If it comes to it, and although I hope for a better choice, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary in a heartbeat over ANY republican candidate .. and I'm sure that most of America shares that sentiment." ~~~~~~~~~ If Hillary gets some real nice breast implants, and a bunch of slots on Oprah, and The View, I think she could still pull it off. And it may help for her to get a minor handicap, but nothing to hurt her make-up.

Bailing would be a mistake, I agree! Let the people that are greedy enough to kill people they don't know, for cash and other benefits, let them all get killed over there, and then that will save the whole world a lot of money, and rid the earth of silly heartless mercenaries.

Actually, if we leave all the soldiers over in Iraq indefinitely, then they wouldn't be here! So that's probly the second best scenario. But we should get Clinton back in office because at least he did something worthwhile. (BJ!). He should be proud of that, at a minimum. Although, truth be told, Monica was pretty skanky lookin. He coulda done a lot better.

On the other hand, if all the soldiers get killed, the gov can't steal our money for war anymore, ..... Or can they?

THANK YOU. Finally a conscious person! I love it! Actually, if the people who believe in a war are the ones who fight it, and with only their own money, most wars would stop. Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam wouldn't have happened. It's all a scam. "Intelligent" people are all filled with great ideas that they want you to pay for!

Actually in some large countries, your vote elects someone who may (or may not), support your special interest, and then support others' special interests, as well, that you don't want, so that the final cost to everyone by way of economic controls,etc, is so astronomical, that everyone is knowingly hurt by it. The systems are set up so that whoever is elected will fleece everyone. If people were hipper, they wouldn't vote at all, which would support your statement a little wouldn't it!

If it is correct for the government to steal, then it's OK for the citizen's to steal. If it's OK for the gov to kill, then it's OK for the people to kill. If it's OK for the gov to have auto rifles, then its OK for the people to have them. That's called "equal rights". But, of, course, governments insist on a monopoly on these things, not because they want justice, but because they desire to steal everyone's money, which is easy when they have unequal rights. Adults on the government payroll generally think this is a great idea!

Better yet, let all the people who believe in the war go fight it, and with their own money only. Oooops, suddenly, no war. "A belief is only as strong as it's purse."

You said, "Right. So you think that roads just build themselves? " And food doesn't grow itself, oh, my, it does, doesn't it with a little non-governmental help. My, I didn't think of that. And buildings are never built without gov help. Well, OK lots of times they are I admit it. And if people didn't have electricity, they would never think of paying for it! Well, OK, they would just like when they need a plumber. And Roads, oh, that's right, you covered that one already. And people would never be able to pay for tires, oh, yeah, you're right, they do that already, and health care, oh that's right they do pay for that already, in the US. Well, now let's see, what else do people need that they aren't able to pay for with out gov help. Condos! Well, OK, sometimes they do. In truth, the best argument for anarchism is the President and Congress. That's all that is necessary!

"Best to open the job to everybody, knowing that intelligence is resident in more than just white protestant males.? Where did you get the idea that a white protestant male president could possibly be intelligent? Never happened, never will.

Pragmatists that can weigh both the benefits and costs in all things are the people with the true freedom of mind. The minimum wage earner in the US earns $8,000 a week, but will not see the money, due to government theft (that means taking someone's money, property, time or whatever belongs to them), government waste, government monopolies, and theft from the community. The list of these thefts is so long, that the government would prefer not detailing it all. The president and congress, would prefer just to keep taking everyuone's money and time, etc, and they have the pleasure of knowing, in their free minds (that have been bought and paid for by others), that they are making a little chunk from this scam.

Jefferson likely said no such thing - if he did you are probably quoting out of context since Jefferson was a enthusiastic and unrepentant supporter of gov'ts and states. For example, Jefferson did say this: IOW - citizens need arms to protect the integrity of the state - not to protect themselves from the state. There is a huge difference. Well, Jefferson did say that, but doesn't matter WHO said it, it's obvious, to anyone who doesn't aspire to be a thief that IT makes sense. Jefferson also said that a nation requires a revolution every 20 years to protect the people from the government. But, again, it doesn't matter WHO said it, any non-thief knows it's true. Which makes me think that at one time, if not now, you were on the government payroll! That's about the only way you can be this naive. Not to belittle you, I'm not perfect either. But truth is a simple thing, and stealing by anyone or any group is still theft, and abusive, and stupid.

Personally, I don't think the US needs a black president. Or a woman president. Or a handicapped president. Or a president at all. Think about it! What society needs a man, woman, handicapped or anything else kinda person, that is willing to make $250,000 a year, that is paid partly from folks making $10,000 a year. That "president" person is necessarily a crook, by definition. Now, why anyone would hire a crook to run a society is beyond my imagination. The MAJORITY of people in the US would rather not have a president, or congress, or taxation, but for some odd reason that option is not on the ballot, and they would prefer to defend their own property and selves without the aid of cops, who live off stealing their money and protecting the people that steal their money. I guess if we must have a president, a paraplegic would be the best, or someone in a total coma, but let he/she pay for his/her own health insurance, and work for free.

Posters with nics ending in "gs" don't exist. They're just a scam. So, frogs, now that I've written that, it must be true. Just like your comment, right? I certainly agree that a state has no 'rights' separate from its people. People create states. Who's to say they have no 'right' to do that? Logic and honesty. Have you met them? You run from them. Supporters of state believe they have the right to steal from everyone. George Washington said it best. "Make no mistake. Government is force." Force was necessary because the people didn't want it. Force would have been counterproductive to his aims if the people had supported his ideas. Some people fought with him for his promises, etc. , but an honest reading of the constitution will reveal to you its lie. I can't teach you honesty. The lie is the lie, no matter how you'd like to color it. All states do the same, because it's easy! But, force is always necessary, because the people don't want it. Even today the cops carry guns in the cities and in many cities it is illegal for you to carry one. Jefferson said the main reason for the citizens right to bear arms was to protect them from the government. Well, fancy that. But you have no interest in what is correct. You only wish to protect your legless life's construct, so no amount of reality is going affect that. I've been there! According to you, people create gang rape, so it's OK, then. All the voting of centuries, will only make things worse, as is evidenced in all the major cities in the US. Honesty is crucial to any logic, and any state, but in any state's government, honesty is not the rule, but the exception. Example. Every cop of 3 months or more in every major city, breaks the law every minute. How's that? Easy. They are sworn to uphold the law. It is illegal for them not to report lawbreakers. Every cop of 3 months or more, has seen a number of times the cops break the law, but don't report them. That is breaking the law and their oath of office. Every minute they don't report it, they are breaking the law. Is this what the people want? NO! So the people do not support the system at all really, and neither do the cops, but the cops are perfectly willing to support the system because they get their income from it and it makes them feel like big boys, now. So now your thoughts will flee to why don't they change the system? Very valid point! The system, according to Jefferson, and Washington, and many others must be changed from without the system. They are correct in this. So, in summary, all cops are thieves and law breakers, and support a system they don't even believe in, and neither do the so called representatives, mayors, and judges, etc... they all know it's all about stealing, but of course, they are not allowed by the system to say so, or they'd lose their jobs. The lies of the system are admitted in the newspapers everyday. To deny that is really to deny reality, not because anyone says so, but because it exists, it's real, it's undeniable, to any honest person. To the dishonest, 2 and 2 equals 4 in the US, and in Canada, but in China it's just a law firm!

You a making a moral judgement about gang rape. Who decides what is moral or immoral? In most societies gang rape is unquestionably repugnant, however, it if worthwhile asking why. If you think about it you will realize that the answer is because the majority of people said so. Ultimately that is where all of society's morals come from. That makes all of us slaves to what others decide is moral no matter what we think and our only practical option is to accept the terms or go find a cave in the mountains somewhere. Fortunately, our society does make free speech a virtue so your a free to rant about the morality of the "state". However, you will never change anyone's mind unless you can present a postive alternative that actual addresses the problems that "states" are designed to fix. I don't beleive such an alternative exists. Another good answer, and i thank you. Yes, it appears that you are willing to accept the morals and ideas of the majority. Einstein called that mindless. But, he was wrong about a few things, .. some he corrected later in life. I have had the privilege of changing more than a few peoples minds about morals, based on logic. I do have the option of living in a cave, of course, but choose to live among the abusers whose morals are created by the state, because it's more fun! Although I must keep "in step" to a degree, I take great pleasure in having the wherewithall to flaunt my mind's (if not my body's) freedom. It is true, the state can fine me, kidnap me, etc, but the great pleasure of my mind's freedom makes that very worthwhile! Once I had the pleasure of being thrown out of jail! Pronto! Hilarious! The little fine money they get from me, they will waste, so as not to appreciably advance their "morals". Gotta love it!

You can rant as much as you want about the "state", however, the overwhelming majority of people see the "state" as a legimate and necessary part of human society. Let's put this another way: why do you think you have any rights? Why should anyone else care about the "rights" that you claim to have? That is a VERY good point from the standpoint that very many people feel that way. I am glad you mention it. It is as logical as gang rape. Because that is exactly what it is. And the "gang" will give you any rights you like, so long as they can rape you. You can even vote for who you want to rape you first, or who you want to steal your money, etc. If the gang is the majority, let's say 300 million, "all but me", that doesn't make rape or robbery of me correct or advantageous, (even if I thought i might enjoy it sometimes!) In fact, the exact opposite is true, don't you agree? Maybe not. Let me put it this way. If 275 million people think it's a good idea to rape your mother (25 million against), then it's OK, because of vast majority rule? Do you always believe in vast majority rule, or only sometimes? I'd like to know, really I would. To me, the only "right" is decency, and that doesn't include rape or robbery. And everyone "should" care about decency, because it makes sense fro everybody. That's why it's called "decent". I may be wrong, but I sense that you have a strong desire to be right, instead of understanding what's right. It takes less logic, but creates lots of psychological problems. And don't worry, even if 275 million people believe in rape, I still do not.