On Monday, President Trump will officially propose his new budget plan, which calls for major cuts in domestic spending across the board, but which also seeks a large further increase in military spending, above and beyond the increases already planned.
Exact figures aren’t clear at this point, but what is clear is that the general direction of this budget is going to face major opposition within the House of Representatives, not just from the Democratic leadership, but from some Republicans as well.
It’s not just the heavily military-centric priorities that will fuel the opposition, though clearly that is part of it. The budget proposal also ditches the Republicans’ goal of a 10-year time-frame for a balanced budget.
Instead of a 10-year balancing, the new proposal envisions a 15-year time. Even that is based on projections of large economic growth that most economists say are not realistic, and potentially not even possible.
That money will be going into the US military, already the costliest military on the planet by far. The US military budget is so vast as it is, that it is larger than the next several countries combined, and it has already grown substantially in the last two years, while the other comparatively large spenders are trying to make cuts to the military to get their budgets in line.
Budget Committee Chairman Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) says that the plan is a “non-starter,” and that the House leadership has no plans to include the domestic spending cuts in their own plan, and effectively are going to disregard Trump’s proposal.
It won’t pass; so I guess it doesn’t matter. I hope he doesn’t realise merging the US with all of Latin America, or some other group, might ultimately boost potential GDP and the ability to fund a much larger military.
Things wouldn’t work out, but to compete with China, the US might need more territory and people. (I’m against “competing”.)
The same thing that always happens will happen. The GOP will get their military increases, in exchange for the Democrats getting their entitlement increases. Then they’ll argue about whether to raise tax rates now or just defer the taxation by borrowing, and mostly do the latter.
Most people don’t understand why I’m so pessimistic about the future. What might save us is a technological advance, improved real productivity. I guess that’s off topic though.
The recent push for Universal Basic Income is interesting. I guess it’s better to pay people directly than to provide inefficient services through the government. What could be less important than US imperial power, though? Of all the things to waste money on…
or maybe even CONTACT where an alien advanced civilization gives humanity that tome entitled “To Serve Man.”
I am not worried personally, I think they would pass on me, as I have little meat and plenty of flab.
lol
More proof both flavors of kool aid are still poison. Inverted totalitarianism would have it no other way. If you create a system that allows the “elite” to live off unearned income it almost has to be a ponzi scheme in order to keep it exclusive.
We can’t have the unwashed masses benefiting from anything now can we ??
“The GOP will get their military increases, in exchange for the Democrats getting their entitlement increases.”
It’s called “log-rolling.” Funny we never even accidentally get “reverse log-rolling.”
True. They never compromise on less.
Commanders in the military/Administrators in the Federal Civil Service spend every last penny they get budgeted for on an annual basis. In all of my years in both environments, not one penny is ever returned to Treasury (unless by some unintentional slip-up by an accountant). They fear that if they don’t balance out their budgets, the next FY’s budget might be less. This system always results in wasteful spending in the month or two prior to the end of the Fiscal Year.
That’s every bureaucracy. No commission or department EVER closes up willingly because its job is done.
Not because “job done” unless you count using budget excesses for off-site meetings and lobster and steak catered in.
The same thing that always happens will happen. The GOP will get their military increases, in exchange for the Democrats getting their entitlement increases. Then they’ll argue about whether to raise tax rates now or just defer the taxation by borrowing, and mostly do the latter.
Prez. Trump acts the fool so many times,,still better than Obama and hitlery.
Do you realize how many times you have said that? Sooner or later you’re going to have to admit that he IS Obama and Hillary.
Why ? Because he’s from the “red team” ? Or because he worships the almighty dollar while pretending to believe in a God that would have already struck him down with a bolt of lightening if he/she/it actually existed ?
You’ve completely fallen for the delusion of hating the person to the point of ignoring the fact that the policy remains unchanged.
You’ve been trained by the media to accept whatever turd comes along as better than the last turd. Who’s Rupert gonna prop up next ?
Dave, Trump is tackling problems that Obama and hitlery never did or would have,,like Trade Issues that are killing our jobs and industry, allies that take advantage of us, cutting taxes,and battling immigration outrages, and protecting our Bill Of Rights. And,,,yes wars there is a Creator, and he loves you and wants you to come home, he will forgive your evil acts, if only you will change your ways from that point forward and see the Light.
What the f**k are you talking about? Can’t you have a conversation without bring up abortion or a creator?
wars, What is more important than halting killing babies and knowing the Creator?????
Hey Jay, wanna buy some rapture insurance ? You realize, that when you are raptured, you wont be covered by life insurance, so, you need to cover your sinning relatives thru the end times. Send your initial premium to Trump Rapture Insurance…$500, no checks. I promise to not be saved so that I remain “behind” to pay out.
Dave S. Thanks for the thought but I am not a “rapture” guy. How about you, do you support abortion while condemning war??
“support abortion” ? I will tell you this, if I believed it was murder, I would be dead right now, as I would have gone to war over the issue. That anti abortion people are not at war, just tells me they don’t really believe it’s murder, just flapping gums.
Sullivan,,OK,,,war is not murder, so support it! You sound like a hypocrite to me, and worse.
That is just plain stupid.
You seem to support war as long as the Koch brothers get their way. All your pro birth BS kinda gets revealed in places like Venezuela where starving babies fit right into the plan of using the babies as hostages in order to take over the oil supply for the Koch bro’s refinery in Texas.
You really are a willfully ignorant man Jay. You are pro birth and anti life while being pro extortion. Despite the fact you’re among the ones being extorted…….
He just wants to keep women in their place Dave. Notice non of the pro birth nuts adopt any of these babies ? Ever notice how after their born they won’t have anything to do with them until they can trick them into dying for an elite loot and pillage mission ?
ALWAYS point out to these deluded folks that they are pro birth, not pro life.
Dave, Such a silly statement,,even from you!
When the conversation isn’t about either one. You’re the one who brought up that Trump is a fool for the umpteenth time and I commented on that. And yet somehow, someway you mange to bring up more creator nonsense which you have also done umpteen times along with your crusade against women’s reproductive rights.
wars, “reproductive rights”,,you have been deceived, never compromise with evil my friend, you always lose.
That’s is what they are whether you want to admit it or not.
We compromise with evil every time we support bombing and killing people in other lands.
Mary,so you don’t believe we should do both?????
Alexis de Toqueville had it exactly right in the mid 1800’s when he wrote about democracy in America. He said, “America is great because Americans are good, but if Americans ever cease to be good, then America will cease to be great.”
Misquote from you Mary. The quote doesn’t use “Americans”, but only “America”.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! I stand corrected.
And yet you voted for the anti christ !~
Dave, Anther indication of TDS!!! LOL!!
That “my friend” is reminiscent of that warmonger McCain, who would be plotting for more war every time he used that term.
For me, ending the wars is more important than saving babies. It seems worse to destroy a people than for numbers to be killed.
Numbers?
Babies. It’s worse to war than to have abortion.
You said “numbers” in your comment. Do you have any numbers as to how many babies have been aborted and how many people the U.S. have killed with war and bombs? It seems to me that a consistent life ethic would hold both to be equally wrong. Evil is evil.
You’re very much in activist mode this weekend.
The concept I want to express: A nation (also community, ethnicity, etc.) has value in itself, not only as the sum of individual lives.
If each ecosystem has only so much carrying capacity, then it’s ideal to preserve a variety of groups within each. It’s the idea that there’s beauty in that diversity.
Luch, That is the standard Diversity line, except when a certain Muslim Congresswoman tells the truth about Israel and it supporters buying of the Ghouls in DC!!! Gotta love it!!! LOL!!
I prefer unity to diversity. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
The problem is no one wants houses anymore. The push is towards individuals ruling themselves by “reason”, without tie to anything else. A global “house”.
I believe man is a social being. Aristotle wasn’t far wrong when he said the city-state is the fulfillment of man’s nature. We desire communities, and it is pleasant to have many of them in the world rather than one, under some tyrant or plutocracy.
And you don’t think your new world order won’t be ruled by tyrants or a plutocracy? Boy, are you ever naive.
Sure, but that’s a problem for foreigners to deal with. What I most don’t want is globalists ruling over me. To the extent reasonably possible, each polity should deal with its own affairs.
One factor discouraging oligarchy is, in theory, smallness of a polity – because the rulers are nearer the people.
“I prefer unity to diversity.”
Unity forced by the violence of the State is just as immoral as diversity forced by the violence of the state. I prefer liberty, and in that environment I’m willing to take my chances realizing my other goals.
The State will not tolerate any difference of opinions or views when it comes to multiculturalism and diversity. That’s were the real intolerance lies. From cake bakers to Christian ministers no one can hold a belief in the Bible without fear of being jailed and fined and called a racist or bigot.
Return to HTML Bible Homepage.
U.S. Abortion Deaths Compared to U.S. War Deaths
Each “” symbol represents 10,000 people (or fraction) killed.
Revolutionary War – 4,435 deaths.
Civil War (both sides) – 498,332 deaths.
World War I – 116,708 deaths.
World War II – 407,316 deaths.
Korea – 25,604 deaths.
Vietnam – 58,168 deaths.
Total killed due to abortion since 1973
44,670,812 (44 MILLION) deaths
as of April 22, 2004
Source: National Right To Life
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee…” (Jeremiah 1:5)
“He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15)
“And it came to pass , that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake with a loud voice, and said ‘Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb’.” (Luke 1:41-42)
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Genesis 9:6)
You forgot to count all the dead sperm.
How many of that 44 million were at the viable stage?
You were not viable at the earliest stages of your life. Yet your mother chose to give you life. What a loss for the world if she had chosen to abort you.
And that was her choice. If she had chosen to abort me I wouldn’t be here, simple as that. But that’s not the point. A baby is a young child or infant. A zygote is a zygote. An embryo is an embryo. And an undeveloped fetus is an undeveloped fetus. Saying early term abortions, which make up the vast majority of abortions, is killing babies is factually inaccurate..
Don’t think “zygote” is in the book. One would think God would edit his book if he thought this was important. I guess that’s why he sent trump to splain it all to us.
What book? ; )
Science declared many decades ago that “life begins at conception.” Since I take it you are an atheist, there is no point in even debating this. Nothing I could say would change your mind, and I am not even going to try. We either value all life or we don’t.
Whether life begins at conception or not doesn’t change the definition of baby. And at the time in my life(45 years ago)I was a “true” believer I still didn’t think the definition of a baby was anything but an infant or a small child. I value life when it becomes viable.
Life on earth began as single cell organisms.
How do you know? Were you there to photograph it?
yes – but i lost the photos.
Oh ok, we’re just talking about “life”. So “life begins at conception” for a horse, a dog, or even a kitty cat.
Why does God allow natural abortions (miscarriages) then?
Miscarriages occur because of some abnormality in the zygote or fetus causing it to die. Why do some people get cancer? Death comes to us all at some point or another in our lives.
John, Best not to question, or figure out the Creator, your mind is incapable, all of us are incapable.
Stop with the christian virtue signaling please. Your man made book of virtue signaling and bullshit is nothing but a control mechanism.
“The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” We kill our babies in the womb, and now our land is to be inherited not by our children, but by the hordes of people flooding across our borders. Demography is destiny.
Mary, So True.
“but by the hordes of people flooding across our borders”
Let me get this straight, you oppose abortion because white childbirth provides a countervailing demographic force to the “brown hordes?” I have heard many well reasoned and persuasive arguments against abortion. This is neither, but simply an appeal to xenophobia. I can’t be certain, but, I don’t think Christ would approve.
I once heard Pat Robertson describe abortion as “racial suicide.” I was horrified, that he thought a child’s value depended on his or her race.
I don’t view the hordes of people from other cultures crossing our borders as “brown” necessarily. I view them as people from different cultures that will one day suppress the American culture that I grew up with. I don’t seem to remember Christ saying that the nations, of his time on earth, should open up their borders to invaders. I don’t think he objected to national borders. I, for one, have no desire to see my vote diluted by newcomers who won’t have my same interests and values. I have no desire to live under Sharia Law. Democracy can be a tyranny of the majority over the minority. I am not looking forward to being a minority in my country of birth. Are you?
“I am not looking forward to being a minority in my country of birth. Are you?”
I am already a minority of one. The individual is the ultimate minority. While I do care about the specific nature of the oppression we experience, the mere fact that we are oppressed is more important than that. Democracy (if, by that, you mean “majority rule”) is necessarily tyranny over the minority, as it is tyranny over the individual. Any type of rule of one by another is tyranny. I prefer to be ruled by nobody, and to follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Closing a nation’s borders to job seekers (NOT invaders) is an act of violence. It is tyranny of the rulers against the individual, and not just the immigrant, but also, the native born citizen as well. Using violence to prevent a person from crossing an imaginary line between political jurisdictions (NOT a property line) is not only oppression and tyranny, it is inhumane. You have the right to determine whether or not to exclude people from your own property, you have no right to determine whether or not to exclude people from mine. If I wish to hire, educate, heal, transport, or otherwise just hang out with, an “illegal” immigrant, it is none of the government’s business.
Christ asked us to embrace self restraint with regard to the use of violence. I cannot see any way using violence to prevent someone from crossing a boundary between political jurisdictions is consistent with that. Do we use violence to prevent a person from crossing the “border” between California and Nevada at Stateline, even though there are significant cultural differences between Northern California and Northern Nevada? If not, how does this differ in principle from using violence to prevent someone from crossing the border between Mexico and the US?
It sounds like you believe in assigning the federal government the authority to be the arbiter of what is, and is not, a proper culture. Be careful what you wish for. We reap what we sow. Those who wield the “sword” of omnipotent government will perish by it. If you don’t wish to be forced to follow a foreign culture, don’t make the mistake of asking the federal government to force people to adhere to a culture you approve of. Nothing good can come from initiating violence. It always comes back to you. It sucks.
I realize mine is a perspective different than what you are accustomed to. I bear you no ill will, I just see many self described followers of Christ actually worshiping the State as the ultimate authority, and, I think it is a tragic mistake, and it saddens me. Our rulers try everything in their power to pit one group of people against another, all in a heartless game of political manipulation. Their goal is power, not virtue. “Christian State” is an oxymoron. The State is an institution of violence and control, and, it seems to me, that its existence is inconsistent with the teachings of one who put such a high value on freedom of conscience.
A nation that has no borders or cannot control them is no longer a nation. I suspect that you are for a one world government where there are no borders anywhere.
You should read “The Decline and the Fall of the Roman Empire” by Edward Gibbon. “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.” America is rapidly going the way of the old Roman Empire.
You prefer to be ruled by no one and instead follow the dictates of your own conscience. And what if your conscience is badly formed? If everyone felt the way you do we would have no law and order but anarchy. All kinds of evil things are done by people claiming to follow their own consciences.
Alexis de Toqueville had it exactly right in the mid 1800’s when he wrote about democracy in America. He said, “America is great because Americans are good, but if Americans ever cease to be good, then America will cease to be great.”
We already have conflicting views in this nation of what is “good” and what is “evil.” From abortion to war, the general consensus on any of these many issues is no longer there. America has gone from being a melting pot to a stewing pot. We are being Balkanized, and as a sheriff recently told the people in his county, Law Enforcement can no longer protect people from what is coming. Get a dog and make sure you have your guns locked and loaded with plenty of ammo. Those of us who are old enough to know what America was like fifty, sixty or more years ago, see the handwriting on the wall, and know that America is poised for a collapse. Like a volcano boiling and rumbling, it’s just a matter of time until the whole country erupts in violence. And there is no where for good people to run.
“I suspect that you are for a one world government where there are no borders anywhere.”
Why does the alternative to national governments always have to be a one world government? I thought I made it clear I was against the existence of any State (or government, if you will), and, therefore, was certainly against the idea of a one world State. Yes, I support a society with no political borders, but that is not “one world government,” it is, rather, “worldwide non-government.”
“From abortion to war, the general consensus on any of these many issues is no longer there.”
There has never been a political “consensus” on any of these issues. Which is why majority rule is flawed from the get-go. Any time you attempt to use State violence to impose someone’s view of what is right on everyone you generate conflict.
“Law Enforcement can no longer protect people from what is coming.”
That is not surprising, as it it the laws which are being enforced which are the cause of the present turmoil, as well as that to come. America is poised for a collapse because of our federal government, not in spite of it.
“And there is no where for good people to run.”
I agree, and if you wish to live in a non-violent world, the only way to make that happen is to quit calling on people to initiate violence, including calling on the State to initiate violence against peaceful immigrants.
Yeah, everybody is good. Kumbaya.
“Yeah, everybody is good.”
Even if that were what I believed, that is no more naive and groundless than the idea that all native born Americans are good, and all people in other nations bad.
I don’t mean to assume what your religious beliefs are, but doesn’t it make sense that a person can be “a child of God” just as easily if they are from a foreign country?
A nation that has no borders or cannot control them is no longer a nation. I suspect that you are for a one world government where there are no borders anywhere.
You should read “The Decline and the Fall of the Roman Empire” by Edward Gibbon. “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.” America is rapidly going the way of the old Roman Empire.
You prefer to be ruled by no one and instead follow the dictates of your own conscience. And what if your conscience is badly formed? If everyone felt the way you do we would have no law and order but anarchy. All kinds of evil things are done by people claiming to follow their own consciences.
Alexis de Toqueville had it exactly right in the mid 1800’s when he wrote about democracy in America. He said, “America is great because Americans are good, but if Americans ever cease to be good, then America will cease to be great.”
We already have conflicting views in this nation of what is “good” and what is “evil.” From abortion to war, the general consensus on any of these many issues is no longer there. America has gone from being a melting pot to a stewing pot. We are being Balkanized, and as a sheriff recently told the people in his county, Law Enforcement can no longer protect people from what is coming. Get a dog and make sure you have your guns locked and loaded with plenty of ammo. Those of us who are old enough to know what America was like fifty, sixty or more years ago, see the handwriting on the wall, and know that America is poised for a collapse. Like a volcano boiling and rumbling, it’s just a matter of time until the whole country erupts in violence. And there is no where for good people to run.
For some reason my reply to you was not printed.
It may be automatic spam detection. Did you include a lot of external URL links? I believe posts which include more than one link automatically get filtered out. Ask Thomas Knapp to see if he can find the reason why. I am quite interested in what you have to post. Try again.
Mary, look at the post on your disqus home page. If disqus filtered it out, it will say.
It went to spam for some reason. I don’t know why — there didn’t appear to be any content in it easily misinterpreted as spammy — but that’s where I found it. It’s published now.
It was probably internet censorship.
Suprem, So you are an open borders guy that wants to destroy the sovern status of the USA, and you appear to also be an anarchist. Good info. Thanks.
“So you are an open borders guy… and you appear to also be an anarchist.”
The implication is that these terms are meant pejoratively, yet no argument is given as to why these terms are necessarily bad.
An interesting note: For the entire time of my adult life when I was an atheist, I also believed that there was nothing inherently wrong with the existence of States. It wasn’t until I believed in God and understood the importance of freedom of conscience, that I could no longer sustain a belief in the State. A belief in God led to a belief in anarchism. While my intellect is not anywhere in the same league as Tolstoy’s, I think our epiphanies are of the same nature.
“I don’t seem to remember Christ saying that the nations, of his time on earth, should open up their borders to invaders. I don’t think he objected to national borders.”
Unless he was in prophetic mode, he wouldn’t have, seeing as how the definition of borders we work with today didn’t come into existence until more than 1,600 years after he walked the earth.
If you live in a town, county, or state, chances are you have “hordes” of hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands crossing your “borders” every day, but you’re not at all concerned with that while obsessing over smaller pro rata numbers crossing a single border.
The difference between Robert moving from Tennessee to Kentucky for a carpentry job and Roberto moving from Mexico to New Mexico for a roofing job is your fear.
“The American culture you grew up with” was a constantly changing hodge-podge of stuff taken from other cultures and still is. The instant it stops being such, it will begin to wither and die.
I used to live in a state that is now the Somalian capital of the world. I saw the undesirable affects of the importation of people who did not share my culture or values, and I voted with my feet and left. America is being Balkanized. They call it “seeding.”
Like seeks like. It is human nature. People of a particular culture prefer to be with people of that same culture. And when those differing cultures clash, look out!
Are you familiar with Ann Corcoran’s “Refugee Resettlement Watch?” You should check it out if not.
I’m pretty sure that the Somalian capital of the world is, um, Somalia.
As far as refugees go, I agree with you that they shouldn’t be “imported” (brought to the United States at taxpayer expense).
On the other hand, I used to live in a city that was the Bosnian Muslim refugee capital of the US (St. Louis), and they just plain made the place better in about every way. Low crime, great work ethic. The only indirect complaint I ever heard was that the area’s major hospital was hiring an interpreter so that they could communicate with women who arrived at the ER with injuries consistent with domestic violence. But hiring one interpreter for that when they constitute almost certainly the single biggest not-necessarily-English-speaking demographic in the area doesn’t seem to be an indicator of a huge problem there.
“I voted with my feet and left”
Then I assume you support the concept of liberty to cross political boundaries unimpeded, at least in the abstract.
What was that idiotic statement that white nationalist David Duke made: “I want to move to a country that doesn’t allow immigration.”
Liberty to cross state lines in the U.S.—yes. I can identify with what David Duke said. I am thinking Liechtenstein would be a good place for me to live. Like seeks like, and I want to live among people who share my same values.
Most of the problems caused by refugee immigration are directly attributable to US foreign policy. When people come here naturally, without having the countries they came from bombed into the Stone Age, they tend to support “American” values such as the work ethic and civil liberties. Otherwise, why in the heck would they come here?
“I don’t seem to remember Christ saying that the nations, of his time on earth, should open up their borders to invaders. I don’t think he objected to national borders.”
Unless he was in prophetic mode, he wouldn’t have, seeing as how the definition of borders we work with today didn’t come into existence until more than 1,600 years after he walked the earth.
If you live in a town, county, or state, chances are you have “hordes” of hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands crossing your “borders” every day, but you’re not at all concerned with that while obsessing over smaller pro rata numbers crossing a single border.
The difference between Robert moving from Tennessee to Kentucky for a carpentry job and Roberto moving from Mexico to New Mexico for a roofing job is your fear.
“The American culture you grew up with” was a constantly changing hodge-podge of stuff taken from other cultures and still is. The instant it stops being such, it will begin to wither and die.
“I have no desire to live under Sharia Law”
What utter nonsense. I’m more concerned with people like Pence cramming Christianity down my throat than I am of some imaginary scenario that would have me living under Sharia Law.
I realize there is no point in trying to reason with you on religious values. This is not a forum to do that, and frankly I am not a good enough Christian that I want to convert you. While we share many similar views on this website, we will just have to disagree. I oppose Mike Pence because of his foreign policy views which are rooted in his belief system. I am not so sure that Sharia Law won’t take hold in America some day. Other nations have been taken over by foreign ideologies, e.g. Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution and Old Testament Israel by the Babylonians, the Medo-Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans.
Thank you for not trying to convert me since it would be futile. And yes I also believe that we share similar views on our opinions of war. Still, I think the Sharia Law scare is something that the far right, and our religious fanatics(the Pences of the world) have used as scare tactics and I didn’t think anyone really bought into that. Sorry if I offended you. Keep up your ant-war stance.
I do agree with you that the war mongers use fear of Islam as a way of getting the public on their side to wage all these wars in the Middle East. “We have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Meanwhile we are letting them in here with our crazy immigration policies. Makes no sense.
Suprem,,I believe far more Black Babies are killed than Whites, so stop your silly race baiting please.
Well our ancestors did commit genocide against the poor Neanderethals.
Pat Robertson knew that appealing to some people based on Christian values would not work. So he appealed to them with demography which people of science and mathematics would understand. I believe we are over the 65 million statistic of abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade in 1973. That’s a pretty horrific statistic, especially since it is more than all the lives lost in our wars since the Revolution.
“Let China sleep, for when she awakens she will shake the world.” – Napoleon
If that were the case, all of history’s rulers would have been women.
I see you missed understanding of the quote.
Mary, AMEN,,I believe that is the truth! I salute you.
“believe that is the truth” …yes, quite. The core issue of religiosity is vocabulary. Consider these words….”know, believe, opinion, faith,understand, truth” ..In order to communicate effectively with those outside your belief framework, you must understand the nuances of these words. Well, unless you know everyone is supposed to believe whatever your opinion is.
Dave, Unless I have done the research on the statistics myself I can only say believe, not know, know is a strong statement.
Now, I will blow your mind, I ‘Know’ that in September 1994, at the rural Ariel School in the former Rhodesia, that a UFO landed outside a school playground and that at least 62 children, the oldest ones being 12 years old, saw entities come out of the craft and face off at arms length with several children, and conveyed, through thought and image transfer, information on technology and the environment. Check that out, if you dare.
Thank you!
Unfortunately the chart showing the deaths due to abortion and those due to our wars did not come up. If you google up “Deaths due to abortion compared to casualties in U.S. wars” you can see the stunning chart. This chart is not up to date however, and the actual counts up until today are not there.
“Forget about me at your own peril” – Marduk
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee…” (Jeremiah 1:5) – Further proof of reincarnation.
Except it’s more evil to keep a baby alive for the sole purpose of sending it to war as cannon fodder.
I don’t know of anyone that keeps a baby alive in order to send him or her off to war. Do you?
dave, Who does that, give us facts, not wild accusations!
The US does. Are we not at war in several different countries while witnessing religious extremists try to impose their will upon non believers ?
Why else would we add to overpopulation while we see an elite class completely remove themselves from the actual fighting of these wars ?
We’ve already seen the pro birth crowd murder several Dr.’s just like any and all terrorist groups do.
How come these pro birth people only care about the unborn ? Why do they not care about that same child after it’s birth ?
Dave, Give me facts on that outrageous last paragraph!! Also are you aware that you seem to be saying murder is the answer to overpopulation? I do believe over population is a major problem in this world, in some places far more than others. I will also put you down for reinstating the draft, with NO deferments, which I believe is a key to ending our wars for empire.
Yes, some have murdered “doctors’ who murdered babies, evil begets more evil, it knows no boundaries and always wants more.
Still waiting on your facts surrounding almost every claim you’ve ever made on this site Jay.
dave,,No facts? Than I will have to say you are intentionally misleading those people on this forum. A big hit to your credibility. 🙂
Luch, we can end both, don’t be deceived into thinking otherwise!
Quit with the christian virtue signaling already.
dave, are you beginning to feel pangs of guilt?
The creator is unknowable in its vastness & complexity… Where did all the matter come from…????
If you are truly pro-life you will be anti-war. Trump is not at all concerned that the Pentagon can’t even pass an audit or account for trillions of dollars. Where did that money go? It’s a third of the national debt. The MIC has Trump by the short hairs.
Well, the recent tax cuts for the rich and corporate have to be paid some way – what better way than to slash Granny’s Social Security check? And try to figure out some way to tax Food Stamps too. And don’t worry about the Establishment Democrats – Nancy and Chuck will go along as long as it is the under-class that gets crushed and not “their crowd”.
I’m not rich and i got a tax cut.
You must be the one off person in the US not worth over $250mil that did then…..
John Wells, and believe me, the truly rich love you for defending their tremendous cuts – good little peasant!
The taxes actually went up for middle class folks. It’s the typical shell game of slip a dime in one pocket while fishing a dollar out of the other.
It’s also full of little hidden clawbacks that don’t take effect immediately.
The tax plan as passed gets rid of the personal exemption, but more than doubles the standard deduction. So people gain a little there.
But after two years, the standard deduction automatically goes back down to its previous level and the personal exemption doesn’t come back. Voila, tax HIKE for everyone, back to more than it was before the “cut.”
Unless Congress dumped the second change. I know they did some alterations this year.
One of the fun parts is that the Republicans found a way to soak the rich that Democrats don’t like — the SALT (State and Local Tax) cap.
High-tax states were able to have their high taxes in part because those taxes were deductible from federal income. The Trump/GOP plan capped the deductible amount at $10k. So now Andrew Cuomo is whining because all the rich people are moving out of New York to lower-tax states and leaving him with less tax revenue than he expected.
So feudalism will be with us as long as we allow the concept of there actually being an “elite”.
Pretty much.
But I have yet to see a state-based economic system which doesn’t.
Some non-state systems seem to do without an elite, but they usually don’t seem to survive for very long above a small scale and/or under external pressure from states.
Federal taxes actually did not go up for middle class folks.
I don’t worry about and am not jealous of those better off financially from me. But, I do know and like that I had to pay $1000 less in federal income taxes this year.
Most of the people who hate the tax cut, don’t pay taxes in the first place and are worried about their welfare in the form of a Earned Income Tax credit which is a tax on taxpayers that goes to non-taxpayers.
Envy and jealousy are cardinal sins, Rich. You have time to repent.
Except it’s temporary. But if you like getting duped……..
Call your Rep and make it permanent when it will surely come to another vote.
John Wells,
In my life (76 years), I have been poor and at other times well-off. I remember one year having to pay over $60,000 in income taxes. And I was proud to pay – taxes pay for our civilization. I don’t envy the rich who right now pay very little in taxes – I see them as beasts who foul their own nests. And it is the greedy rich, who vote for “No taxes on Me!” – who will lose the most when our America falls – and it will fall. Their steak is not going to taste better, just because some other wretch has nothing to eat. Envy and jealousy are sins, but pale before the truly cardinal sin of Greed
Here is how America is failing:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
falsely attributed to Lord Tytler
John Wells,
Spare us anymore of this conservative happy horseshit. Civilizations only last so long as it takes the criminal class how to figure out how to corrupt the system to their advantage. And that is what is happening to America now. And today’s rich are yesterday’s criminals.
The biggest conservative heap of h. hs.. – is that the wealthy EARNED it. Baloney, they inherited it. I’ve heard that the figures are that 30 to 60% of America’s wealth is now not earned but inherited. The days of Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie are over – now it is the fortunate sons and daughters who are rich and, trust me, they are not wanting to pay their underlings a living wage or build great public libraries, or even build factories – they are living large, paying zero taxes and braying loudly against anyone who questions our system of aristocracy.
Don’t worry about us going back to “bondage” due to the rabble getting hold of the Treasury, the rich beat them to it.
Speak for yourself on your happy horseshit terminology.
Here is how America is failing:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
falsely attributed to Lord Tytler
I remember getting paid $47 every two weeks while in the Air Force in Taiwan lol
As far as cardinal sins, I’m happy to report that I’m not a comitter of any of those you mentioned.
Really, then how do you account for this?
Income Category 2016 AGI Percent of Income Taxes Paid
Top 10% Over $139,713 69.5%
Top 25% Over $80,921 86.0%
Top 50% Over $40,078 97.0%
Bottom 50% Below $40,078 3.0%
They won’t go along with this.
“They” includes a whole lot of dumbasses (just count the numbers who voted for Idiot or Dirt-Bag). Just wave the flag and play the Marine Corps Hymn at the Budget unveiling and most of the working class will go along with their own rape.
that is changing. Trump has lost at least 20% of his base.
new blood in Dems getting all the momentum.
antar, No he has not lost 20%, that is your dream,,and if the demoncrats keep up their idiocy, they will lose again,,Trump 2020 is very much in play.
rich, Let’s keep all the military worship at the Super Bowl,,everybody loves that,,then all stand while the anthem is sung, while the IRS is giving it to you up your ###! Ain’t Patriotism great!! LOL..
The war corporations will be happy with their puppet in the Whites House. Watch the Democrats, as always, they will vote in favor of the bill.
Will AOC eliminate military aircraft and tanks, too?
Yup, we need to outspend the rest of the world combined even more now on military because of the “hordes” of poor families attacking our southern border.
Meanwhile people will die for lack of healthcare, seniors will need to stretch that check even more (maybe more sawdust and less hamburger helper?) , bridges will continue to fall, levees will break, and our third world electric grid will pop off in the summer, among other joys.
Our rich people need to kill other rich people’s poor people somehow Caliman. It’s the cost of the death of the “American dream”.
Very few people will commit war crimes unless they are starving and live in a “sh*thole country”.
“hordes”
You forgot “brown”. Definitely, “brown hordes” are less desirable than simply “hordes”.
As society decays, the only trick left to politicians is to divide us and pit us against each other. This can be seen most prominently in the anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Is it? I see it much more in Democrats effort to divide us by playng the victimhood game, race, sex, sexual orientation. All victim categories growing by the day. That is not to say that there is no suffering of individuals, but to define problems as unprecedented, systemic and endemic — is absurdity.
With immigration, at least some broader issues are addressed— who will provide employment, new schools, health care, wellfare, and at whose expense. Thise that would like to shut up the immigration isue are doing a good job at reducing the debate to race and ethnicity. And are lousy at explaining that high levels of immigration are good for us. They can do it — as the proponents of immigration control seldom challenge their verbal acrobatics.
Ket me give credit whre credit is due. Among those concerned about the idea of no-borders, majority of them are against imperial America and imperial Washington. They are as a rule opposed to regime change subversions, military interventiins and forever wars. That is to say, this category of voters is more likely to care about us, as a nation, our role in the world, and our neglect of our own home. You can ridicule all you want their disappointed hopes as Trump lurches between extremes, and is unable or unwilling to stick to his promises — promises that got him elected. Sure, gloat. But we know who supported anti-intervention, anti-stupid wars, anti nation building neocon vision of the world — and these were NOT democratic voters for Hillary.
And so, having lost election, faults are being found everywhere. In toxic masculinity, racism, sexism — and of course, Russia.
It is just annoying that whenever Israel has a problem, it becomes a global one. First, we insured that Moslem world in totality is American and European problem. And after decades of percolating anti-Russian immigration sentiment in Israel, collective West must hate Russia as well. How boring.
“I see it much more in Democrats effort to divide us by playng the victimhood game, race, sex, sexual orientation”
So saying Mexicans are rapists and murderers stealing our jobs is somehow not divisive ?
You understand how scapegoating works right ??
Immigration is a problem due to capitalists wanting to drive down wages. THE END.
“Stealing our jobs” would be the least of our worries from Mexican rapists and murderers.
As they would be from non-Mexican rapists and murderers.
What makes a rapist or murderer worse for having crossed one of those magical lines your favored cult has drawn on a map?
Ask the families of, or the victims of those who have crossed the magical line. If murderers were let out of jail and they commit another murder, would the rationale be that there already were plenty of murderers in the community who had never been in jail?
Well, I can see how it’s possible to have an irrational response to being the victim of a crime — whether that response is based on “he was from the wrong side of a magical line!” or “he was a redhead!” or “he had spurs that jingle jangle jingled!”
I don’t see why policy should be based on irrational responses, though. A superstition is a superstition no matter how strongly its cultists hold to it.
Just using YOUR magical line terminology, Thomas. I thought that was irrational, too.
Thomas,,”magical lines”, “favored cult”,,,WOW, you are really off the wagon today, Thomas!! LOL!!! 🙂
No one has played the victim more than trumpsters. The victim presidents campaign and presidency has been just one monotonous bellowing and
whining. Brought to you by the it’s not my fault corporation.
They all are slaves to corporations. Trump did some brave talking against corporate greed and consequences, sample available in his inauguration speech.
Talking is one thing, reality another. In reality, corporate owning top echelons and their fiefdoms rule. And we as populace are still too confused. We still talk left-right-center politics as if it natters. We still talk capitalism-socialism as if it matters. Trump brought out in the open issues of pharma greed and consequences, issues of deindustrialization, rtc. None of it
took hold in public, whatever their voting persuasion. It is because public is still under the influence of wide spread illusion that fundamentally our governance system is good, and we are arguing the issues in the margin. Trump did suceed to plant two issues — out of control immigration and wars.
The elites of both parties are horrified — both issues were supposed to have stayed on the margin. Thus the flood of victim categiries, to drown all in the same basket of victimhoid, white whining about immigrants being the despicable one. Corporations, are in the forefront of leading the charge against “white” anti-immigrant “racism”.
But to explain it all by their desire for lower wages is utterly naive. Their power is based SOLELY on the inability of the governed to have a means of influencing or challenging their power. Without a coherent challenge, they can play this “bi-partisan” democracy game forever.
But if Americam evaporating middle class and American poor ever get a hint that the purpose of immugration is to destroy any nascent COHERENCE of political thought that transcends the idiotic left-right, racial, gender, capitalist-socialist and me-toism of every kind . The fact that the issue of FRANTIC push for more immigration has not made people think hard — I do nit know what will. The most anti-Trumpian constituency will pay for it, dearly. Yet, oblivious. The democratic faithfuls should be in the forefront of fight against obscene soending on foreign forever wars, “humanitarian” interventions, occupations, nation-building that builds nothing but misery and mass emigration from devastated places we chose to destroy. Yet, oblivious. Today, looking at the most conservative sites, comments by readers — I see more opposition to Venezuela imperial adventure then in the presumptive progressive readers comments. Why, let care very much for Venezuelan women suffering under notorious macho toxicity.
You see, we need more immigration. We need boats full of Venezuelans flooding Florida and Gulf shores. We need more greatfull voters caring only for their single issue, ascwe had Cuban voters in Florida.
No, rulung elite could not care less about divisive issues, they welcome them. All they care about is that population NEVER challenges key premisses of their rule. Financial global hegemony and military might to secure it.
But even such idiotic elite can count. Our national debt is extreme, and by running deficits — it can only get worse. And they cannot demand that people innovate, while appropriating their innovation patents. These elites cannot figure out their way out of a paper bag — yet, in spite of PLENTIFUL REASONS for getting together as Americans, we chase our own tail thinking it is the cause of all problems.
So, if there is ANYONE out there adressing AMERICAN problems hurting us all — I am behind them. And I do not care what race they are. They can even be white!
” brave talking against corporate greed”..right, talk, then he gave them the biggest tax cut for corporations in history, and deregulated any industry willing to spend some of those tax cuts into his greasy campaign purse. “out of control immigration”..no, data does not support that, more like fear mongering and white nationalism. And wars ? He has greatly escalated war in every theater possible. Not a single troop home, or even reduced anywhere. Nuclear arms race where there was diplomacy.
You may be willfully
misunderstanding what I say. Mind you — nobody is DEFENDING Trump’s fits and starts in troop withdrawal drama. A serious negotiations are going on with Taliban in Doha. North Korea, whatever the status — is a process leading to normalization of relations on the Peninsula. Syria — whatever the latest, remaining in Al-Tanf, aling with refugee camps, will not last firever.
It is no rocket science — there are political forces in our country that are dead set against US withdrawing one soldier. So — figure this one out please. When a president is talking about stupid wars, stupid nation building, etc. — it should give encouragement to populace to push for a change. President can do very little if there is no groundswell of support for his issues, Other then the lonely voices on the margins from what passes for left and right — there us no groundswell of support for geting our imperial global rampage under control.
And the trillions in costs that go with it. The reason? I am not sure that public cares that much to inconvenience itself and take time away from emoting on Facebook.
And no amount of data will be sufficient to convince some that out of control immigration is a fact.
Democratic party and the entire Republican established leadership are determined to crush every dissent on foreign policy. Even if it takes getting us all fight against each other.
So, go bash Trump all you want for NOT DOING what he said. Do you at least agree with WHAT HE SAID even if not delivered?
Somehow, I do not think so. Being antiwar, how?
By criticizing anyone in power who even tries to broach the subject?
So why would Trump appoint a convicted fellow to run yet another dirty campaign in Latin America?
Are democrats objecting to yet another mess we are getting into? Criticizing Trump is an easy and cheap exercise — how about standing for something — and supporting it when there is a glimmer of a chance that status quo is cracking?
As for getting fat tax cuts to wealthy capitalist system winners, and laughing at the losers — it is our system. Any shocks there?
These wealthy were supposed to use tax cuts to invest, as they are supposed to be smarter then the rest. It is not working. Whose fault is it — system or the liw quality people?
We clearly need a disruption. Donald has no choice. Suceed or fail, he will in spite of himself keep on distupting.
I heard all the words in trumps campaign, he never promised to actually withdraw from anywhere. He promised to defeat ISIS in 30 days and level ISIS cities. He did level their cities. Obama stated he wanted to end the war on terror authorization in 2016, I’m the only commentator to mention that on this site. Shall we send him another Nobel prize for saying that ? This “you dont support trump when he says something nice” reminds me of the “everyone gets a trophy” theory for grade schoolers. A president is supposed to be a leader, lead by action, and example. Of course I find trump personally disgusting, I feel the same about Dennis Rodman, but, Rodman delivers on the court, and will always be on my all star roster. If trump ever does something resembling sustainable progress anywhere, I’ll give a slow clap. Cripes, we are 2 yrs plus change in, at this point in Obama’s tenure, he had the Start treaty ready to go.
Even Raimondo must be wavering on this ass clown.
It won’t pass; so does it matter? (Maybe this will ultimately bring more military spending.)
The most annoying thing was the first omnibus bill, on which he “won” by acquiring more military spending, losing on multiple other conservative areas.
I guess he needs donors? Spending more on the military is really counter to what he ran on. He ran on spending on the US, not overseas. It’s not much better if the money is just wasted on the military…
Shame they aren’t out building solar plants.
He said he was the most militaristic candidate running and he chastised Obama for letting the military get degraded. That sure sounded like he planned on spending plenty on our military. Since then, he’s gone out of his way to give more than was even asked for.
Yes, but he also ran on other things. The movement wasn’t behind the militaristic bs; that only appealed to partisan Republicans.
To the extent that there was a “Trump movement,” it seemed to mostly be centered around 1) pro-war on immigrants and 2) pro-economic sanctions on American workers and consumers. I’d be surprised if non-interventionists constituted his margin of victory in so much as a single state.
He wasn’t Hillary is what I heard most from the “movement”.
Be interesting to know how many white supremacists went out and voted for the first time in their lives.
The immigration issue is pure scapegoating to cover up the destruction of the labor movement.
You can’t impose debt peonage without blaming someone else for offshoring jobs to ensure the death of organized labor.
“He wasn’t Hillary is what I heard most from the “movement””
If you are talking about this site, you are correct, but, in general, when speaking to the choir, Trump supporters focused on the immigration and trade hot button “evil others” issues. I know this from my experiences attempting to argue these particular issues with Trump supporters on forums which they frequent.
On antiwar.com, anytime someone was even moderately critical of Trump in their comments, they were never challenged on the basis of their arguments, but only “but, but…Hillary is Satan”. Perhaps true, but Trump would make a pretty good “Son of Satan.”
I was talking more about the people in my community. But I live in a small town where the issues you speak of aren’t as big of a concern to our locals.
“1) pro-war on immigrants and 2) pro-economic sanctions on American workers and consumers.”
Both of which are quite anti-liberty positions, and should not appeal to anyone seeking peace and limits on government power.
War on “immigrants”? A moratorium on immigration would not be a war, and he didn’t even run on such policy.
Anyway, spending in the US rather than on the empire was clearly part of his platform. Boosting market wages was clearly part of his platform also.
You might not understand trade, might not understand any hypothetical outside of “open borders, anarchy, chaos”; but trade has frequently been successfully protected. It has also frequently created more problems.
If you look at people like Coolidge and Hoover, they understood trade.
“War on “immigrants?””
Any “moratorium” on immigration would require organized, mass, State violence to enforce it. I can’t think of a better definition of “war” than “organized, mass, State violence.”
If you can’t distinguish, then I rather fear you, fear I might be attacked one day in your “war”…
The State is organized mass violence. It just isn’t as obvious in some situations as others.
But I notice that the left is unwilling to give up the welfare state in order to have free movement of people. Why is that? Some are claiming that it is because immigrants vote left and want more government.
Can we have a real discussion on the subject where some version of the race card is not used? My experience is the answer to that is no.
The left will not agree to let the welfare state go. They will also not even consider reduction of State power and centralization of that power. Even to end the wars. And yes: I have posed that question a number of times.
And so we are divided. And ruled. And the wars continue.
I, for one, would really like to get off this un merry go round.
“Some are claiming that it is because immigrants vote left and want more government.”
It would appear to me that immigrants do not vote left per se, if by “left” you mean socialist or big government. It would appear that immigrants, on average, simply prefer the Democrat version of socialism to the Republican version of socialism, because of the self evident fact that Democrats, on average, are much less rhetorically hostile toward immigration than are Republicans.
I have long maintained that immigrants are potentially the largest (almost unlimited!) constituency for liberty there could be. That would be true, at least, if self described advocates of liberty were as vociferous in defending their rights as they are the rights of medical marijuana users and raw milk vendors. I know if I were coming from a politically and economically oppressed country in the third world, I would be attracted to rhetoric talking about ending these restraints.
“The left will not agree to let the welfare state go. They will also not even consider reduction of State power and centralization of that power.”
Substitute “right” for “left”, and the statement is also true.
I disagree. The real right isn’t pro State power while the real left is. You and others think that the GOP is right. It isn’t. The GOP is a wing of the progressive bird of prey.
“The real right isn’t pro State power”
An interesting perspective, but not one commonly accepted by most savvy politicos. In the traditional view of things, the left is more in favor of civil liberties and peace than the right, while the right is more in favor of economic liberties than the left. Even that definition is flawed however, as the right favors more civil liberties in regard to gun rights, while the left is often more favorable to free international trade than the right.
If you want a completely different perspective, observe AWC’s own Thomas Knapp, who views liberty as extreme most left (i.e – extreme most anti-state).
I am in the middle of of this argument, viewing liberty as centrist. I view libertarians as radical moderate centrists, radical, because we advocate radical change, moderate, because we wish to moderate State power, and centrist, because we oppose right-wing and left-wing abuses of State violence with equal fervor.
Of the three perspectives, I believe mine makes the most sense (perhaps because it’s well, mine?)
My view of the right comes from history and from what remains of the old right.
I don’t think that those such as Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul is in favor of increasing State power. On the other hand, I am not aware of any on the left that are not in favor of increasing State power.
As far as personal liberty goes? You might be surprised that in the past, the right wing of the GOP was the peace faction. Also many of those who resisted state incursions into peoples liberty were on the right.
Here are the true facts: it was Progressives that were the pro war faction throughout most of US history. It was progressives that started both the alcohol and drug prohibition. Expandef the prison industrial complex. And much more.
Notice the praise those such as AOC gave McCain? Bernie Sanders reluctance to withdraw from the ME? These will be making an alliance with the dominant pro war elementsvin the Democrat party.
“My view of the right comes from history and from what remains of the old right.”
Nothing remains of the Old Right. I am quite well aware that the opposition to FDR’s war mongering and incursions on civil liberties were primarily by those who called themselves rightists. But that was over 70 bleeping years ago! The right hasn’t been pro-liberty in any meaningful sense (other than rhetorically) in my entire lifetime, and I’m practically a Geezer!
“I don’t think that those such as Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul [are] in favor of increasing State power.”
You are essentially correct about Ron Paul, however, he refers to himself as a libertarian at least as often as he does a conservative. Pat Buchanan? You’ve got to be kidding. He has no more than one or two libertarian bones in his entire body. His priority issues are definitely anti-liberty: curtailing freedom of travel and trade. He would simply be another Trump: focused on keeping them damned furiners out, and economically protecting his campaign contributors, while totally ignoring the ticking welfare state time bomb.
You mention Bernie Sanders and AOC. In the House, what about one of the most consistent peacemongers and drug war opponents, Tulsi Gabbard? She is by no means a conservative, and would never be considered right wing in any fashion. Yet, if she were President, the entire federal war on marijuana would be ended on day one, and ALL of our foreign entanglements would be reduced or ended within months. And, although a single payer “Medicare for all” health care system is not libertarian, it is arguably more libertarian than the Health Insurance Company welfare scheme we’ve got now. It is quite likely that a Gabbard Administration would be far more fiscally responsible than the current Trump administration, yet you could not claim that Trump is “left” and Gabbard “right.”
You’re simply blinded by your right wing origins, or, at the very least, pro-liberty right wing rhetoric. Do you not know the difference between rhetoric and reality? If you went by rhetoric, you would think that 8 years of Reagan would have ended the welfare state in its entirety, instead of doubling it in size!
Give me a break. There are pro-liberty elements on both the left and the right, and there are pro-tyranny elements on both the left and the right. We should work with the pro-liberty factions to limit State violence, regardless of party or what part of the political spectrum they identify with.
Nope. You obviously haven’t been paying attention. I have lauded Tulsi Gabbard and been pretty clear that I would support and vote for her. That in spite of her stance on Medicare for all. So, a swing and a miss.
You obviously know very little about conservative thought. The real thing isn’t anti liberty. I can give you some reading material if you like, but in my experience left libertarians (an oxymoron) is they are pretty closed minded.
As far as my alleged right wing origins? Another swing and a miss. Most of my teenage and ear!y years were rather leftist. But unlike most, I had an open mind and did the research others were too lazy to do. Then I actually went out of my way to talk to those people who I differed in opinion with. Those included communists, socialists and, among others, classical liberals, anarchists, libertarians and yes, true conservatives. I actually walked the walk while others pretend to be open minded.
I didn’t vote for Reagan. So another swing and a miss. Nor Trump either. I did attempt to encourage people in super blue states to vote for Jill Stein. That despite her deafening silence at the beginning in the assault on Libya. I also supported and send money to Cindy Sheehan. Not just because I despise Pelosi, but because of her principled stand on the wars and her loss which I sympathize with.
I also supported gay marriage. Obviously the State should not be involved in agreements between adults anyway, but if the government was going to intrude…
I don’t fit your or anyone’s cookie cutter views of me. Fact is I was libertarian long before it was popular. Knowledge of many viewpoints and after conversations of some names you might know of and many I had the privilege of conversations with has resulted in my beliefs. I still have an open mind, unlike so many.
“left libertarians”
Why do you view me as “left libertarian?” I am neither left nor right, I am a “libertarian libertarian” who advocates the establishment of a purely free market, voluntary society. That is neither a left nor a right position.
We’ve privatized almost everything the government does and yet you’re still bawling. You’ve destroyed the commons and allowed the wealthy to purchase policy and politicians. The entire globe is owned and operated by a handful of gangster sociopaths and yet you want to ensure no one can ever stand up to them.
You have a weird sense of “liberty”. You get beat over the head with a club and blame the club while worshiping the person(s) swinging it.
Gee. Who knew the schools, roads, police, military has been privatized.
dave’s definition of privatization is not “turning ownership over to private individuals”, it is “turning over control of the State to rich people.” As the State has always been, is now, and always will be controlled by rich people, we have the definition that the governments of all societies in the history of the world are libertarian. And I always thought that States were, well, statist! Silly me.
What the hell difference does it make ? And since when was the state ever required to make this happen? This libertarian alter history is just amazing ! No matter what the truth actually is, everything that has ever gone wrong is the fault of the state no matter who did it !!
“And since when was the state ever required to make this happen?”
Ever since the state was invented for the precise purpose of making it happen.
Are you trying to tell that lie again ? Got any actual evidence to support this claim Thomas ?
Trying to claim that organized violence didn’t or can’t exist without the state is another libertarian fairy tale.
“Trying to claim that organized violence didn’t or can’t exist without the state is another libertarian fairy tale.”
Well, it would be if anyone was claiming any such thing.
But no one is.
Right, you’re trying to claim that you know the intent of others when there’s now way you can.
Or do libertarians alone possess the ability to read minds to the point of guessing the intent of folks centuries ago ???
So rich people aren’t individuals ?? This is some brand new libertarian BS I’ve never heard before…… Please elaborate !
If you quit reading republican party talking points you’d know this.
Actually having been a teacher for a short time, having a partnet who retired a few years ago, having a family that has been in the teaching profession for several centuries? I think I have a pretty good perspective.
Roads? I own the property a couple thousand feet that “public” roads are on. And I pay taxes on that property.
“I notice that the left is unwilling to give up the welfare state in order to have free movement of people.”
And I notice the pro-war-on-immigrants crowd is not willing to tolerate movement of people in order to get rid of the welfare state. Which, if their claims about how much immigration strains the welfare state were true, would be the way to go.
Questionable at best. But since that strategy has worked out so well in California….
Oh wait. Things just got worse.
“The State is organized mass violence.”
So is private capital but you’re not against that. You keep forgetting who is behind the state. The state is benign, the people commanding it to take action are responsible for the violence.
The state is not “benign.” As you yourself point out, it’s a club that’s used to beat people.
Some of us want to take the club away and throw it away.
You seem to want to take it away and hand it to a different bully.
A strawman argument. No, I do not advocate giving a club to another bully. I advocate not enhancing the current State bully ‘s power to do me more harm.
As I said over and over again. My actions are based of defense of my property. rights. Immigrants raise my taxes . They also empower the State. You are now going to make the claim that immigrants do not raise my taxes. Factbis they already have.
So, whenever you want to discuss the issue instead of strawman claims? Go ahead.
sambor, Thomas’ reply was to dave, not you. Get over your persecution complex. I would think you would agree with Thomas that dave just wants to hand the club over to the State (another bully). You’ve gotten so obsessed with perceiving yourself being picked on, that you can’t even follow the flow of the commentary. You might consider an apology to Thomas.
Not sure what you are talking about. I view these messages on disquis. Disquis threads show the other party. Which shows the other party was Thomas.
Not my “persecution complex”. Perhaps it is yours.
Btw, those that imo are left libertarians seem to come down on issues from a leftist side and rationalize their position using cherry picked libertarian principles. They condemn other libertarians by using strawman arguements and often ad hominem’s. Such as implying racism. Which, of course ,is a tacic widly used by leftists.
Other tactics of leftist libertarians is to use lesser of two evils arguements while dismissing others using the same rational. Claims something is “more libertarian” that expands the role of the State because the current system is so corrupt or the system is inefficent are common.
Leftist libertarians, like most leftists, claim there is no real right. When confronted on this topic with an example of a person that doesns not fit the narrative they often again resort to the use of ad hominems. Pointing out that such a person isn’t a libertarian. Which is true of course but misses the point.
My acceptance of Tulsi Gabbard does not imply I, in any way, accept her Statist positions. Neither is it a lesser of evils position. It is simply prioritizing. When people are dying or having their lives ruined, I can’t undo that. I Will support those that will end the carnage as first priority. I will oppose her on her domestic agenda as a less high priority.
And btw, the old right never died. Leftists and neo-cons share the same fable that real conservatives do not exist. Not true. Of course, neo-cons are leftists anyway.
The reply was, in fact, to Dave, but no apology required.
LOL. Do you really think that psychopaths, opportunists, narcissists, and assorted unsavoury types aren’t attracted to State power? Really?
“Do you really think that psychopaths, opportunists, narcissists, and assorted unsavoury types aren’t attracted to State power?”
I guess you didn’t know that once a person leaves the voluntary sector, and enters the coercive sector (government “service”), they immediately lose all interest in using others for their own benefit, and become compassionate, thoughtful, public spirited citizens whose only consideration is the good of others. You know, examples of such good people are Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.
“War on ‘immigrants?'”
Yep. If you don’t believe me, ask Trump, who has put it in military terms (“invasion”/”invaders”) since before he ran for president, who sent US troops to the border pursuant to it, and whose “emergency” order relies on military funding to build the wall.
“You might not understand trade”
Well, one of us doesn’t. Or “market.”
Indeed, you absolutely do not understand trade, nor the market. You only rally for anarchy. Regardless, I would be much stronger against illegals. Any of the right-wing noninterventions would be 100x stronger against illegals than has been President Trump.
If trade worked as you claim, then many Asian states wouldn’t be so strong today. Protectionism has worked repeatedly, though it can also be misapplied.
“who has put it in military terms (“invasion”/”invaders”) since before he ran for president, who sent US troops to the border pursuant to it, and whose “emergency” order relies on military funding to build the wall.”
You forgot “who has committed a war crime in using poison gas to attack innocent people on foreign soil pursuant to it.”
Or one could use one of the other definations of “invasion”. Such as “an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity”. Or “a unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain”.
Synonyms include influx, inundation, inrush, rush, flood, violation, infringement, breech, infraction, intrusion into, encroachment on…..
You’re defination of “war on immigrants” is also a fail. “War is state of armed conflict between states, governments, societies…” “generally characterized by extreme violence, aggression, destruction and mortality…..”
So, no war on immigrants.
And yeah, go ahead and imply I’m a racist again Thomas. Great way of shutting down discussion. And also rather amusing.
“And yeah, go ahead and imply I’m a racist again Thomas”
I must be blind, I didn’t see one word about race in the comment you were replying to.
It was in an earlier thread. Thomas claimed I was upset because I might hear Spanish spoken. And more. Pretty clear he was calling me a racist.
Funny thing is, I’ve been anti war since before Thomas was born. Organized civil rights actions when discrimination was a real issue. That was before Thomas was walking.
But I also met many who did not fit convenient molds. Some of those wrote in the 30’s, 40 s and 50’s. And were conservative. Pro liberty, anti State and anti war. It was a great privlege.
I also knew and associated with a lot of leftists. So pretty balanced. As the years passed, I was fairly rare. Anti intervention, anti state, pro liberty. And pretty conservative. In the real sense anyway.
“I’ve been anti war since before Thomas was born.”
I thought the “71” meant the year you were born, but could it actually refer to your age? As a general rule, I think of myself as older than almost anyone I encounter online, but I have discovered some exceptions.
As far as the race thing, I sympathize a little with your position here, being that I have been accused of racism for taking a principled stand in favor of the legality of private discrimination. I guess because I see an actual principled reason for taking that stand, I believe those concerned about racism have often been unfair to me.
As far as immigration goes, however, I just can’t see a principled reason why a self described liberty advocate could violate their core belief in economic liberty to advocate State violence to legally restrict it. The only reason I can see is not “racism” per se, but the more general “xenophobia”, which can certainly have racist elements.
As I stated, however, I feel some sympathy for what you are going through. You might forgive Thomas, because I believe the reason he may have what you call a “knee-jerk” reaction on this is his own experience (which has also been mine, by the way) in which nine out of ten times a “liberty” advocate who supports State violence to suppress immigration has no reason other than “I don’t like immigrants, and it would be an emotional burden to let them come here freely, therefore principle be damned!” I certainly consider Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe to be of that ilk.
I don’t support State vio!ence. But it may be you do. I do not choose to pay for such things as government indoctrination centers. But if I don’t pay school taxes, the government sends armed thugs to my house to take my stuff and put me in a cage. Open borders increases my taxes. 21% increases in just one shot.
Frankly, I don’t care where people come from, their language color or pretty much anything. But I am aware enough to see how demographics is and has changed a already avarice system of government.
Pretty much I just want to be left alone. My argument on the so called free movement of people is defensive. To be called a racist because I will be impacted in my property rights as a result of this free movement of people and object to that is pretty disingenuous.
Answer is: get rid of the welfare state first. Then I have no objection to people going anywhere they desire. With the exception of private property that is.
And NONE of the above makes me a racist or anti liberty.
As far as 71 goes? That is a number that relates to a private matter. Not my age. But death of a individual I greatly respected.
“property rights”
That’s the problem. The immigration laws you support directly interfere with MY property rights. You have the right to determine who can and cannot enter your own property. You have NO right to determine who can and cannot enter mine. If I wish to hire, house, educate, heal, transport, or otherwise associate with an “illegal” immigrant, it is none of your precious socialist government’s damned business.
According to your logic, we should deport every native born citizen over the age of 65, as they consume, conservatively, 40 to 50 times the tax revenue that “illegal” immigrants do.
One should never endorse the creation of one form of tyranny as a response to the existence of another form of tyranny. The welfare state is a tyrannical system. So is the system of legal restrictions on freedom of travel. The fact that immigrants consume government benefits is a reason to abolish the welfare state, not a reason to restrict immigration.
Endorsing State tyranny as a response to State tyranny is not a principled position. Because of the law of Karma (you reap what you sow), advocating the initiation of violence can only lead to a greater amount of initiated violence, regardless of the rationalizations.
Do you have anything thing other than strawman arguements?
I’m not stopping anyone from entering your property. That’s bs.
On the other hand, you are advocating freedom of movement that results in the State grabbing more of my property via taxes. My position is defensive. Yours is aggressive.
As if you want free movement of people? Get rid of the we!fare state first. Taxes on property was the first aggression in this matter. I am within my rights to defend myself against that prior aggression. I am within my rights to empower others to defend myself and my property.
Under libertarian principles it is the first who aggresses who is at fault. And THAT isn’t me.
“Under libertarian principles it is the first who aggresses who is at fault.”
Exactly. And that would be the violent criminal gang attempting to impede travel over property it does not and cannot own because it has set a turf line.
Wrong. It would be the system of taxes which I am forced to pay. That came first.
Interesting. So you think that the state’s taxation system precedes its declaration of travel monopoly over a given geographic area?
Historically, that would not seem to be the case, at least in the US. The US started trying to limit travel in the 1880s and didn’t institute its primary general taxation scheme until 1913.
Here we go again with a tactic used widely by the left. Historical claims very similiar to the social contract nonsense. The comment is a non sequitur.
I made no clains of a historical nature. What I DID say is I have personally been impacted on taxes. Things and people that agress on my property is a violation of the NAP. I am within the NAP to resist and empower others to defend my property rights. This includes resisting those that seek to use the welfare state system as they are the aggressors.
Again, the initial aggression is against me in the form of increased taxes. I am an individual. NOT part of a collective.
If you are saying the State should own no lproperty, I would agree or the property has been stolen by the State already, I would agree. If you are saying that owners of said property have the right to have anyone on said property I would agree. If you are saying that those invited on that property because that property is in the jurisdiction of a particular State have a right to receive property taken by implied torce from others? Nope.
Now the sticky question arises. Does the owner of said property have a responsibility for harboring those who have received stolen property? If the owner of the property benefits from property the State has stolen?
Down the rabbit hole. A tangled mess and a trap. I only know that the amount of property taken against my will increases and HAS already increased directly due to immigration. I seek to limit that.
“I’m not stopping anyone from entering your property.”
If I own property along the border, and I wish to allow a Mexican immigrant onto it, and you empower the State to prevent that immigrant from crossing the border onto my property, yes, you are using violence to stop someone from entering my property. If you can’t see the essential nature of the State sponsored aggression in this scenario, you are either not being honest with yourself, or you are not thinking very clearly.
“I am within my rights to defend myself against that prior aggression.”
Then why do you not advocate deporting all native born US citizens over the age of 65? As I stated, they consume 40 to 50 times the tax revenue that “illegal” immigrants do.
You tend to wish to blame the victims of the welfare state (such as immigrants) for its existence. The welfare state exists because of politicians, not immigrants. There is no constructive discussion about repealing and eliminating the welfare state, just scapegoating immigrants, who are as much as or more its victims than you are.
You are right about one thing. It isn’t productive to discuss anything with such as you. As I say, you cherry pick libertarian principles to suit your narrative.
If someone knowingly or not receives property extracted from me by State force they are not innocent victims. They are accessories after the fact. If someone comes to this country in order to receive free stuff, they are not innocent victims as you claim. What they receive is stolen property. I am within the NAP when I seek to stop as much of the plunder as I can. And empower others to act on my behalf.
Yes, people that receive Social Security receive property technically stolen from others. The program should be ended. Those that paid into the system should be paid back by putting the State through bankruptcy. State property should be auctioned off and the proceeds distributed to the States creditors. Until this is done, what property is returned that has been stolen by the State is a return of plunder. I receive Social Security. I also still pay more in taxes overall than I receive. And I still provide far more goods and services into the economy than I take out. If you know anything about economics, then you know that the net is known as “savings”. And a lot of that is stolen by the State.
I think that if you were threatened by someone on your property who was robbing you, you would likely call the police. Essentially you have empowered the police to protect you from aggression. Under the NAP, you are justified. Same principle applies to those that seek to use the police to prevent the welfare system from increasing taxes (plunder).
You use specious arguments to support your positions. The fact is you claim innocence to those that will impair my property rights then claim I impair your property rights by seeking to prevent others from entering your property with your permission. I am not the aggressor here by stopping someone from received stolen property. It has nothing to do with you or your property nrights. If you wish to have someone on your property go ahead.
Again, the solution is not to further empower the State via additional parties to increased plunder. It is the direct opposite. Through multiple comments and positions you have taken, you are willing to expand the State. You claim that is justified because it protects your property rights. By doing so, you impact mine as a result.
You cite again and again violence of the State via arrest of those that violate the States laws. But violence isn’t the only form of aggression. Theft is also.
You could move to Afghanistan….. But I guess cuckservatives only preach their sermon and never have the actual courage to live it.
Another swing and a miss. Actually getting funny.
By the way, I waved my deferment and placed myself into the draft during the Viet Nam war. Even though I opposed that war and all the ones that followed.
Why? I had a friend who came back in a box with a three colored cloth over that box. Wasn’t right to have a deferment while others were put in harms way. My lottery number birth date missed by one. So, I wasn’t drafted.
You really have no idea…….
“Or one could use one of the other definations of “invasion”. Such as “an incursion by a large number of people”
You could use that definition but it isn’t true. So that puts and end to the fear mongering and scapegoating surrounding immigration.
So, complain to Wikipedia, Websters dictionary and other sources. Those are their definitions.
Nice blame shift !
So maybe you should complain to the greedy bastards who use immigration to artificially drive down the cost of labor ??
Oh wait, you wouldn’t be able to feel superior to people outside of the arbitrary border that was imposed upon them by state sponsored violence…….
” the greedy bastards who use immigration to artificially drive down the cost of labor”
Freedom of immigration is essential to an un-tampered-with labor market.
Limiting immigration is an attempt to use the state to artificially drive UP the cost of labor.
War on illegal immigrants; he’s pro legal immigrant and has stated that many times.
And according to the US Constitution, there’s no such thing as an illegal immigrant. So he’s spending all that money to prosecute a war against people who don’t exist?
We all know the difference Thomas. There are many things that aren’t in the Constitution that are now recognized as legal terms.
I didn’t say it wasn’t IN the Constitution. I said that it’s prohibited BY the Constitution (Article I, Section 9 and Amendment 10).
but it does say prior to 1808.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
Correct — after 1808, the Constitution could have been amended to create a federal power to regulate immigration.
But it was never so amended.
Read Amendment 10 to understand the consequences of that.
“”open borders, anarchy, chaos”
All societies are chaotic, by the mathematical definition, regardless of their politico-economic systems. They are not, however, equally disorderly. Mathematically chaotic systems are not necessarily disorderly. We find that the most complicated systems based upon the simplest principles tend to be the most orderly.
I think, to be more precise, you were implying that anarchic systems would be the most disorderly. I believe you’ve got it wrong. The most orderly societies, like the most orderly chaotic systems in mathematics, are the ones based upon the simplest principles. From the principle of non-aggression, which is both simple in concept, but complex in structure, we find the most societal order results.
As the State grows in power, more societal disorder is generated.
Sanctioning them all over the world would be a war on them though wouldn’t it ?
Trade sanctions? I’m against those except in extreme cases which don’t exist currently.
Thomas,,you are wrong! It was all about getting rid of the STATUS QUO of DC, hoping things would really change,,,and boy did we ever see the evil of DC rear it’s ugly head once and for all. Trump 2020!
You say he’s a fool. You say he’s beholden to Bibi. You say he has no balls. And yet you still say “Trump 2020!”. And you say this without even knowing who will be his opponent or if he even wins his own party’s nomination. Now that is real TDS.
“Even Raimondo must be wavering on this ass clown.”
I don’t think so. The more militarism displayed by Trump, the more JR calls him an “America First non-interventionist.”
Isn’t this foretelling the end of the American experiment in democracy?
Another step towards Trump’s Praetorian Empire
We’ve been living under a military dictatorship since 911.
The austerity of united states imperialism is following the path of corrupt rightwing totalitarianism. As the screw tightens unforeseen results spring from cosmic powered biology manifest as human. Look at France. Who could have guessed that a more perfect union there would be called yellow vests?
Wonder why the relatively huge non-coverage of the discord in France. If that was happening in a country that had oil, we’d be calling the leader a dictator and coming to the mob-aid of the poor *.
*people in oil-rich country.
It’s all a trick from the presidency to expose the War Party, I tell you! 😉
Or…more realistically, the War Party took power while antiwar.com is still rather hesitatingly coming to terms with this reality as their own most loyal supporters are still heavily divided on the issue. A bit of a pickle, right?
Personally I’m a great fan of Trump as being the greatest exposer of contradiction. But I don’t expect any desire for peace or diminishing government size or power coming from this White House. They’ll just try to survive for another 2 years.
It’s that famous 11-d chess that the president is playing …
“I’m a great fan of Trump as being the greatest exposer of contradiction.”
Yes, if anything good has come out of his election, it is society realizing that the empire (and its emperor) are wearing no clothes.
Hallelujah! We’ll soon hit rock-bottom.
Just what we all need -more wars,more destruction, and none of it has any link to real “defense”, which decent housing, jobs,infrastructure, health system for all, quality public education,fair courts would deliver to the people.
Be interesting to see what happens with tariffs, it is very easy for a Government to fall in love with new revenue that is a step removed from the taxpayer.
the MIC’s candidate