A Bitter Pill

So, normally I try to avoid traps on religion and politics — especially on the interwebs. But, nontheless, I was bored and decided to get into it.

So, somebody on a messageboard posts a topic entitled “If you believe in god, you’re a moron.”

Fort: Recent pope raving:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/13/pope.brazil.ap/index.html

“Blame COMMIES! and CAPITALISTS! and CONTRACEPTIVES!

And pretty much anything else that requires thought…” - Pope Dickhead the XCVenth

Okay, fine, so he has something against the pope and organized religion. I can understand that.

So, I reply/bite:

Gospel:

APARECIDA, Brazil (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI blamed Marxism and unbridled capitalism for Latin America’s problems on Sunday, and urged bishops to mold a new generation of Roman Catholic leaders in politics to reverse the church’s declining influence in the region.

“The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit,” Benedict said as he opened a two-week bishops’ conference aimed at re-energizing the church’s influence in Latin America.

But he added that unfettered capitalism and globalization, blamed by many in the region for the deep divide between the rich and poor, gives “rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness

Not to say I agree with him, but you need to read a bit more carefully. Just because some things a person say is wrong, does not mean EVERYTHING he says isn’t insightful or untrue

Which leads to more unearthing of his hatred

Font: Actually, Gospel, let me make a few of the things I said a bit more clear, so you understand:

If you BELIEVE in GOD you are a MORON.

That about sums it up.

Everything the pope says is laden with fairytales of skipping unicorns and guys who SOMEHOW live forever.

But go ahead, and eat that shit up.

I’m not sorry if I hurt some feelings. If you’re religious, then, well, I’m pretty damn sorry for you. You can’t just be happy being part of the Nitrogen cycle.

Uh, let’s try more logic

Gospel: You’re missing my point. I’m not saying I agree with the Pope, nor did I say anything he said is true. But, there are a few religious progressives, including some sects of Catholacism (blacklabeled as “buffet chatholics”) that do not hold the pope’s infalability to be true.

Pope == False ==> God = False ????

Not only are you lumping every chatholic together, you are grouping all flavors of christianity together. I am not having “hurt feelings”. I’m simply pointing out some misunderstandings in your original post.

Let’s see if it works…

Fort: And a point of mine is also being missed:

I don’t take the time to differentiate between sects of catholicism, or christianity, because it’s not worth it.

There is no such thing as religious progressivism. That’s like saying there is a such thing as polished shit.

Nah.. he’s still upset with teh g0dz0r

Gospel: You’re clearly taking the approach of scientific mind. To that extent, would a scientific mind not differntiate between opinions, and to that extent at least hold the possability that what people say could be true and could be false. Furthermore, your opinion could be true or could be false.

Everybody has a belief structure, I don’t see the need to attack peoples’ as a whole unless it is clearly causing problems. Was chrsitanity a vehicle of enslavement and ignorance in the past (circa 12-1300’s+) sure. But, it does do a whole lot of good too in the world in its current mutation. There is nothing in this world that is 100% good or 100% bad, I’m sure Stalin did something good for his country at some point.

You need to differntiate, because there will always be conservatives, extremists, and fanatics in any belief. Dismissal without listening is equally as ignorant as the approach hardcore bible thumpers take; your form of logic is no better than theirs, imo.

Eastern religions are more like philosphy than anything else. Eastern cultures are neither innocent nor any cleaner in terms of Taoism, confucism, and general culture than the Western world (if not worse).

You can find flaws in anything, bible, scripts, whatever. You can find problems with the constitution, acts, laws, ~etc. It just seems Christianity has become the new “safe” whipping boy for people’s angst. Not sure why.

Buddhism and Hinduism did not stop India from being one of the most class-est, tiered societies in the world. Buddism didn’t stop people in Japan from invading their neighbors. Religion isn’t always the savior nor the cause of human strife. If you look at the kill count — yes, religion is very high, but you have to look at the deeper history. How many people were killed over territorial disputes disguised as a holy war (e.g. Vandals “crusade” against the holy roman empire). Or, the famous Crusades … when all they wanted was Israel.

Religion, yes, is a powerful scapegoat — but a blame-all is far from true. Look how many people die(d) under communist, atheist regimes. Look how many people die over trbial conflicts in the Congo in Africa. People will ALWAYS find a reason to kill each other.

Simply put, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Religion does a lot of ignorant things, but it does a lot of good things simply from a social structure standpoint.

Being a “moron” knows no creed, race, or country. It is individual.

TL;DR … maybe that’ll work

Fort: To answer Gospel’s question of why Christianity is the new whipping boy, one word: Evangelism.

Citing the eastern religions, allow me to clear something up, I’m speaking of my disdain for the belief in ‘God’, that being, the humanized version of some sort of super bearded old white guy depcited in the new testament.

So, the far eastern enlightenment chasers aren’t my target at all.

Evangels, Christians, Catholics - That’s who I’m militant against. I know evils are aspects of the individual; they exist in every creed, race, or religion, however: Difference between an atheist pedophile, and an evangel one: The atheist gets caught. Meanwhile the other is sheilded by his local ‘church’ group because he’s ’such a great guy.’ I’ve seen this happen personally in my life, and it boils my blood, and yes individual quams have influenced my anger towards an entire group.

Other problem with evangels, christians, catholics: They think just because GOD has forgiven them, everyone else will as well. WRONG!

The former Nazi Pope can take his ideals of having infinite numbers of catholic kids taking over the planet, along with his kid-raping cohorts in the vatican and cardinal diasies, and he can cram them up his ass.

/end statement.

still more hostility ;(

But wait. A semi-intelligent responce!

Miang: eh, the fact that its intertwined so heavily into our government is my main reason for such a militant attitude towards faith in a god / the afterlife.

Essentially, you can either be a religious literalist, in which case you kill people for heracy, or be a moderate which truely makes no sense. If the bible is the written word of god, and he tells you to kill those who are not of the same faith as you, why is it ok to ignore that part while taking it upon yourself to set the moral benchmark for all the people living around you? Picking and choosing whatever verses are convenient for your social agenda do not reflect a divine relation with a higher being. Fanatic or moderate, both religious models have no logic in them what so ever, yet are still tought as law to unknowing kids.

My problem is that religion breeds ignorance. From birth its an easy answer for most people. In that sense, yes, it has served some function as a sound social institution, but its blatant hate for science and progressive thought has kind of proven to me that humanity will be much better off once we stop treating mythology as fact.

Not to say, of course, that there arent other very important social issues outside of religion, but yeah, its time for humanity to move on.

A good argument, but

Gospel: @ Miang (a very good post)

Define blatant disregard for science when most, including Einstein, have some sort of belief structure. Furthermore, you are assuming that religion or exposure to it will make people ignorant. I can tell you my friend, there is a lot more in this world (especially America) that makes kids ignorant. The fact 80% of history taught to young kids is incorrect and skewed is a sign of that.

Pick and choose? That’s somewhat true, and is the common line used against “buffet” catholics. But, morality is never absolute as you make it, and true Christianity is about the message. I am not saying I am a particularly religious person, but I am taking the vantage point for this argument’s sake.

Also, picking and choose what is “conflicting” in the bible is a matter of perspective. Who was Kaine’s wife? We will never know. But, even Jesus violated the Sabbath. See, with the bible, unlike the Tora, there is a “new” chapter–which separates Christianity from convectional orthodox Judaism. It’s not quite “fair” to pick out semantics in the bible. Just because on page 329402 it says one thign and page 239804932043290 it says another dosn’t make the thing as a whole crap. Again, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Do some people take it TOO FAR? Yes. Are there insane, zealous evangelists? YES! But, I highly doubt these people would be any more enlightened wether there was or is a religion at all.

If a child is so helpless they will never question god and make the choice on their own, they were incapable of independent thought to begin with. Just because there exists an “opiate” in your mind does not mean everyone needs to take it. You are insuinating that the pressence alone of religion will defile the otherwise enlightened and intelligent minds of people.

Yes, I agree, I dislike how integrated religion is in our government currently. But, the fact o fthe matter is this country has and always will be Protestant rooted. I really don’t think most human beings would disagree with most of the tenemants of religion (not killing, faithfulness, stealing, etc). And the fact Roe V. Wade allows a woman’s choice shows that the government is not a 100% theocracy. I just cannot except this “all or nothing” sentiment.

fort: There’s something I need to clear up with you, Gospel, about Einstein having a belief system. Dr. Hawking also is proported as to believing in a ‘God’ of sorts. Infact MANY highly advanced astro-Physicists of our time do not tote themselves as complete athiests.

There ‘God’ however, has nothing to do with personal morals, social codes of conduct, or the organization of an afterlife. They instead believe in the Universe as an alter-force; more then physical law, atleast human physical law, will ever be able to define.

Saying that they have some sort of belief system must be understood for what it is; a belief system. There’s no Bible for Einstein and Hawking, only scientific maturation. I have a belief system in the theory of gravity. It has no similarities in the slightest with dieism.

Furthermore, I’m sorry that this thread has developed in this fashion, though I must admit I foresaw a bit of it. Let me try to bring it back to its intended focus:

I hate the Pope. He is an outdated, archaic, dangerous figurehead. I hate Catholism, because they KNOW in their hearts that I’m lesser then a person for having critical thought. I hate Evangels, and nothing needs to be said furthermore about that. I hate Christianity as a whole, because it’s had it’s chance as a social control mechanism, and needs to proceed the way of the dinosaur, as fast as it possibly can. These are MY feelings. I reserve my right to feel them as passionately as I choose. I don’t care about evidence to the contrary. I shall stand as stubbourn as one of the bible-thumpers on this issue: The New Testament, in all of its forms and interpretations, is rediculous at best, murderous at worst, and arguably one of the largest wastes of collective human society’s time.

Let us not even begin to speak of Pan-Arabic Islam, because THEN I’ll get afluster.

But, then, a mystery poster comes and wins the internet…

yang: Because a group of people, albeit a scientific community, with a set system of belief isn’t a religion. . .
The religion of astrophysicists is still a religion and it is still ridiculously fallible. Hence why some of what Einstein and Hawking have already donated to the world of science is now wrong. No person is perfect, therefore no group can be perfect. And while Hawking himself is not a Catholic, there are many astro-physicists that are. There are many priests who are scientists and many scientists who follow the church.

Omg! How can this be?!!

You and every other person who hate Catholics and Christianity hate them because they have held back science, yet they have given much to its development. Genetics today owe their existence in essence to a Catholic monk.
The stream line thought of evolution and development also are in debt to the evil and oppressive Catholic church. While rooted in the Greeks, these theories probably would have been passed over and forgotten had it not been for a certain Dominican monk and his peers.
The church, and its doctors have been keepers of knowledge for thousands of years. Modern astro-physics, philosophy, modern science owes a great deal to Bonaventure, Augustine, Aquinas. Without them, Plato and Aristotle might have been lost for centuries. Kant, easily one of the greatest minds to grace this earth, while not a self-defined follower, admits to the great use and necessity of religion.
The Pope and many doctors of the church, both today and in history have been protectors of academics and have only sought to keep this vast wealth and give it to the community. The present pope is not the mystic his predecessor was. He is truly an academic mind, and if you had bothered to let fall your personal prejudices, you would have been able to discover this for yourself.

Perhaps you hate them because they limit your own personal code of ethics and beliefs because. . .they. . .um. . .beat you up for having them!
I see. Ok Fort, if this is the case, if you have encountered the modern inquisition, then I think you should notify the local authorities. (This might land you in a nice white cell with a pretty white jacket to compliment it. But! You will be safe from the Christian bullies.)

Because of their actions in the past?! I think it entirely fair to hold a group responsible for the actions of the fathers. So, let’s wipe out Germany and Japan, and every Native American Tribe. (Of course, they can wipe us out too.) Let’s also kill the remaining family members of Charles Manson and every serial killer. Because, they are responsible after all. My great great great great great grandfather was killed by a Viking, I think that means I can kill the descendants of the Vikings.

Or! You hate them because they believe in something you don’t believe in and they think you are wrong? Though, you think they are wrong. Um. . .well those SOBs! How could they be so mean and unfair?!!

To refer to the original article, the pope was entirely correct. “Unfettered capitalism and communism” are responsible for much of the poverty and destitution in Latin America. Any simple understanding of economics will tell you that. Of course, we must also attribute it to the corrupt governments and the narrow, irrational minds that continue to march on in their haze without accepting knowledge. (Perhaps we should hate them for their stupidity and lack of critical thought. . .)

While I agree (and you might claim I have no right to agree or make this agreement known to you) that it is by far and away your right to believe whatever it is you wish, I think for someone who values progressive thought and understanding so highly, you should take a look back at your own argument. By your own words, the parallel can be made for other systems, ethics, beliefs, etc.
Racism can be justified by your words:
X group of people have done this and some continue to do so. Thus, the group as a whole is bad and I personally hate them.
Genocide:
X group of people are worthless because in the past they have committed these sins, and I can and do continue to hold hate against them. Thus, wipe them out.

Hold onto ignorance and you do nothing but perpetuate the very same problem you claim to detest in the subject of your hate. Treasure your irrationality, and you further stem the sickness that infects humanity.
Your mode of thinking, while entirely within your rights, is horribly flawed, irrational, and a greater poison to society than the grand ‘injustice’ of a belief in God.
Clearly objectivity is not something you prize. Since that is the case, really you shouldn’t be arguing anything of import since you have proven yourself incapable of separating rational thought from your own personal bias. For shame. As Gospel said previously, many atrocities have been committed by every religion. Yet you choose Christianity as your target because it personally has affected you. Again, a narrow world view and extremely selfish. You care for your own personal grievances but not those of humanity at large.

The church has risen above, accepted its flaws, and will attest to its lack of qualifications (for instance) to speak on matters of science from the pulpit. Which is why evolution is a personal ‘belief’ within the church, not one of doctrine.

I find it very interesting that the institution you hate has risen above you in its ability to acknowledge its limitations and its quest to correct them.

I think the safer equation we should make is:

Those who desire to live in ignorance = Idiots. i.e. you

zomg!

America is Evil Shockumentery Checklist:
1. Theatrical movie music - check.
2. Random political speeches clipped in (out of context for the most part) - check.
3. Random segments spliced together giving no frame of referancfe and only making unresearched assumptinos - check.
4. Random “authorities” agreeing with you - check.
5. The internets said it was true - check.

I think that video might be hinting on some debatable points, but much like the enemy it tries to engage. Fearmongering met with even greater fearmongering.

I’m really opposed to heavy taxing which is why I do consider my a conservative in the very strictest and older sense (not to be confused with neoconseravtism).

But,

We are in a new day and age, and I was bend my will a degree or two to come in line with modernism. I think mistaking the US Government as peddling “Americanism” is stretching it. It’s the companies, the fortune 500, the marketing, and the general willed ignorance of most people.

– Addressing the income tax:
Regardless if it is law or not, it’s there. I can see the argument that the rich don’t pay enough or whatever you want to say… but if we’re gonna go the “all is fair and free” route then we should remove minimum wage laws and such. Income tax is represenative of the federal government having control of your life to a degree. Well, why should they bother business owners to fair practices and protection of labor unions? Let’s get rid of it all at once.

– Addressing strong government control:
As opposed as I am to strong government control and taxes, the confederate states were a pretty clear of example of what happens when the government can’t levy taxes or has little inter-state power. Founding fathers and some of the4 most brilliant men were for a stronger government. I’m not advocating abuses of power or anything like that, but simply trying to meet this extremist preview half way.

I think the video makes the mistake Michael Moore made many times (no, not being a hypcrotical fatass): tries to squeeze to many arguments under the banner of “things are fucked up”. Too many shockumenteries only point out problems without going deeper into the ramifications of the alternatives or how to handle those ramifications or transitions would be (e.g. if we did removee income tax, how to compensate the various budgets of the federal government, etc). It’s really easy to be negative, but it’s hard to be constructive.

I’d have to see the video, but I’m willing to bet it’s not very constructive. Legal or illegal, consequences are reality in so far as repealing the income tax would have dire ones. So, unless it offers reasonable solutions I really don’t wanna hear it.

Tax protester constitutional arguments

Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never “properly ratified.” One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states’ ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio’s date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment). These and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.

In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.,[12], the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes ‘income’ to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on “accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income, unless Congress makes a specific exemption as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party[13], gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances[14], and certain scholarships. [15]

The only court case since then that repeals any powers is from disability, injury, compensation, etc.

Murphy v. IRS

On August 22, 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service[16] and United States [Murphy v. United States]) that 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) is unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment to the extent that the statute purports to tax, as income, a recovery for a non-physical personal injury for mental distress and loss of reputation not received in lieu of taxable income such as lost wages or earnings. The Court stated:

At the outset, we reject the Government’s breathtakingly expansive claim of congressional power under the Sixteenth Amendment — upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments it advances here. The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as “incomes” every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the “Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact.”

The Court also stated:

In sum, every indication is that damages received solely in compensation for a personal injury are not income within the meaning of that term in the Sixteenth Amendment. First, as compensation for the loss of a personal attribute, such as well-being or a good reputation, the damages are not received in lieu of income. Second, the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment would not have understood compensation for a personal injury — including a nonphysical injury — to be income. Therefore, we hold § 104(a)(2) unconstitutional insofar as it permits the taxation of an award of damages for mental distress and loss of reputation.

The Murphy ruling is mandatory precedent only in the District of Columbia.

So, if conspiracy theorists are going to argue against the supreme court and not trust any of the three branches of government, then we shoudl just start a revolution because if this is true then the government is beyond hope anyways. Otherwise, statutory law and decisions should be recognized instead of randomly citing pieces of the constituion and trying to debase the 16th amendment under symantics.

In Summary:

Let’s take a lemon and make 40 glasses of lemonade out of it. Now, I understand the student may or may not have been racially profiled. I can accept that fact of life. I can accept the policemen may have went a bit overboard and used excessive force.

Now, the media spin. You give them an inch and they take a mile. First off, that is not a very non-violent protest when you tell them to fuck off, mention the patriot act, and a bunch of extraneous behaviors. Now, he said he was leaving, yet his reaction was to go limp? What was so hard about getting up and leaving?

Let’s assume the officers are out of control. So, why would you try to reason with them aggressively? Why not comply with their request to be escorted and THEN sue them later? Unless, of course, you feel your shocking will help the ACLU get more money. Even if this kid has a case, he’s definitely guilty of being a moron. And as far as students “pleading” with him, that dosn’t look like pleading to me. That looks like kids being stuck-up college students loving an opportunity to shove their finger in the authoritarian pie.

One bad move (by the police) met by another bad movie (by the student and students) equals a clusterF*ck. I suppose this UCLA student received a typical college education… one that lacks common sense.

Liberal Media Spin

Now, the full video with the swearing, student belligerence, telling them they are idiots on the spot.

Original Video:

So, now Senator (shudder) Hillary Clinton is speaking about Health Care. Now, I’m not questioning her ability to be a Senator–esp a junior senator which means she really can’t do crap. The thing is, though, given her previous and pretty much damning prior experience with minor administrative roles, I pray to god she stays as far away from the White House as possible. I’m no sexist, and if she was qualified for the position I’d give the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, she has proven herself worthless.

Here’s her talking about health care….

She . . . said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care–a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband’s calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.

“Health care is coming back,” Clinton warned, adding, “It may be a bad dream for some.”

Now here’s a 2003 entry from a LIBERAL economist Brad DeLong explaining why Hillary + White House = Bad

My two cents’ worth–and I think it is the two cents’ worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn’t smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to [Sen.] John Breaux and [Rep.] Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation’s health-care system . . .

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch–the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.

It bothers me greatly that Medicare and especially Social Security are major issues that are in dire straits, yet politicians on both sides choose to ignore it. The problem is people have emotional attachment to stupidity and thus the debate isn’t even on a level playing field. Given the track record of the government’s ability, I am still unsure why liberals and many Americans are so trusting of the government to handle their medical issues and retirement. The government is extremely conservative with their investments (e.g. your taxes) and generally banks yield what… 3..4%? The market continuously yields 8-10% given diversified investments.

You give somebody $10,000 and tell them to invest it. Most people with some knowledge will throw it to a professional investor, mutual fund, stocks, etc. I doubt many would throw it in a bank and hope the interest revenue will suffice for retirement. The age of pensions and traditional Social Security/Medicare is dead, and people need to accept that.

The party of “choice” (e.g. choice over one’s own body) is also the party that says you’re too dumb to use your own money. Interesting concept. Furthermore, investment professionals are also too dumb to handle your money (e.g. privatized health care, social security, etc). No, only the government bureaucracy is smart enough to make sure your 6.2% and 1.2% taxes are handled wisely.

I wonder if I get a refund when the social security and health care system explodes.

So, after publishing my previous article on the media spin and saturation, I got thinking about the Foley scandal. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t endorse nor condone sending naughty IMs to 16-year-old boys pages (or girls–funny how this turned into a gay issue as if being a straight pedophile is better than a homosexual pedophile). This is pretty simple. It’s about the fact he did something messed up. He took the appropiate actions and resignec, aplogized, and went into rehab. What else do you want him to do? Look at Clinton. I don’t give a crap what Clinton got sucked in what kind of office, but if he came out when confronted, then it would have saved us a niec big, expensive trial. He did nothing to damage our morality per-say, since I doubt the president is any longer (if ever) a figurehead of morality.

Now, look at the Harry Reid scandal. Not reporting huge profits to the ethics commitee dealing with zoning and disclosure is a pretty big deal. In fact, it’s a $700,000 deal. If some page’s parents’ didn’t bring up their kid well enough to report ot mommy and daddy when a nasty old man sends disgusting IMs, then that’s mainly a parenting issue. When a senator dosn’t disclose information which could defraud taxpayers, that’s a bigger deal. Of course, our liberal media friends aren’t covernig this story as heavily as the Foley case.

What’s my point? My point is this country has serious issues. When something involves sex the left and the right wings go nuts witht he spin cycle. Was Bill Clinton’s major fault about sex or morality? No. Like I said, it was about wasting money on a trial which could have easily been avoided. Was Foley a sick fucked up perv? Yep. Did he actually do anything amazingly illegal? No. So, why all the focus on some sick “homosexual” pedophile as opposed a man who defrauded taxpayers? I’m more outraged by the latter, why isn’t anybody else?

So, our friend mass media is mass-reporting the fact a plane crashed in Manhatton. Ok and? It might be a terrorist attack! But, wait, all officals and the mayor said it’s not. But MAYBE it is! Because, if it’s nothing we have nothing to report! So let’s just harp over and over it might be a terrorist attack and remind people how awfull 9/11 was. Let’s interview people with biased skews about how it might be a terrorist attack. Let’s SCARE PEOPLE FOR FUCKS SAKE. Ratings ratings!

I recall going to a jouranlism convention and hearing people harp on the news revealing the truth and balancing out politicians. Sadly, this may have been the case back in Watergate, but a lot of spin and big business bias has come along since then. The current state of news would make the legends roll over in their grave.

Then, after scaring people, big media wants to tell us the war in Iraq is going awfull. First off, like we don’t know that, and secondly, provide some balanced reporting (lol). Do people realize how many people die? Do people realize how many people died in all other wars? Do people realize nearly 41,945 people die a year from car accidents? That’s nearly 114 a day. Of course, the estimate of deaths “caused by the Iraq invasion” is up to 650,000. Oh jesus christ. Yeah, I know it’s bad, and I know we handled the war poorly, but JUST REPORTING DEATH STATISTICS IS MEANGINLESS. How many people died in Japan? Vietnam? Germany? How many people died in Turkey when an earthquake decided to swollow people up? How many people die din Indoonasia and other Indian Ocean countrie when a tsunami decided to engulff over 250,000 lives? Hell, 280,000 lives are attributed to being fat alone. Let’s go burn down McDonalds.

How many people know about the Khmer Rouge or about Stalin. People are too ignorant to process events in the perspective of history. Our politicial system divided into two extremist, polarized arguments. Pollsters and mass media will be the DEATH of this country with an overexposure saturation of pre-made opinions. The result is simply apathy or parrot-like repeititon of pre-cooked rhetoric. LOOK, THIS T-SHIRT MEANS YOU ARE EMPWOERED WOMAN ROAR. No, it means you’re a slut. LOOK, WAR ON IRAQ IS THE JUST CAUSE OF GOD, ok jesus I’ll fight for you! ZOMG WAR ON TERROR IS FAKE, REPUBLICANS R TEH EVILZ. Ok liberals i’ll go burn flags! TALLY HO. You know what real non-comfority would be? Making your own opinon, NOT wearing those slutty clothes or those polos from Banan Republic. Real non-confomrity would be thinking inside the box or outside the box, but not doing one because you want to be “different”.

So, some general sad facts are established within the course of human history: (1) Death will always happen when reconstructing a country’s poliitical/government system (2) Death will always happen via tragedy (3) Death happens (4) Lack of education will opiate the masses (5) the latter allows the masses to believe extrmist propoganda and mass media garbage. What do we do about it? We educate. Our K-12 need a serious revamping. I’m not talking about test scores and that kind of worthless bullshit, I’m talking about the fundementals combined with serious thought-prevoking shit. There’s no reason a 7th grader cant’ learn about sociology and physics. There’s no reason a 2nd grade shouldn’t have his times tables down. Education is empowering and liberating. If we deny people these tools we have seen the results. People will give into the McJobs and McSociety that is provided to them because they do not know any better.

So, N. Korea was finally dumb enough to test off their ~5 megaton nuke–effectivley cutting off their own nads.

First off, most countries could defecate something stronger than a 5 megaton nuke. Secondly, and more importantly, you have just given the world just cause. This is like a cop wanting to beat a la R. King, and then he sees you steal something. It dosn’t matter if it’s a candybar or DVD; you are screwed. I’m pretty sure the only peopel who would defend N. Korea at this point are the insane college liberal professors, idiot college students, and the UCLA–none of which has any credible opinions.

Does Kim Jong Il think he can take on the U.S. or the world? If he has any sanity left, no. It’s simply the king of a small pond doing parlor tricks to impress is people. Oh look, I don’t give a shit if the U.S. or the world tells me to do or not do things! I CAN MAKE BIG BOMBS TOO! Ooo, aaa.

Results?
1. Temporarly appeased country with short-term “happiness” as he put it. King of a crap kingdom gets to rule for a bit longer.
2. Pissed off China
3. Japan now has justification to move out of its post-ww2 agreements regarding millitary and weapons.
3b. Japan can make a hydrogen bomb faster than they can pump out more Cibics.
4. China remembers not to mess with Japan. See: 2

Unlike Iraq, if we decided to shell N. Korea, I’m pretty sure at least 18-20 million out of the 22 million standing army would vanish faster ipecac at a Cosmo party.

Of course, I’m sure most people interpret this as only relevant now with Bush. Psh, people ruin this country not just the president.

No, no they do not. They only support liberal fear tactics. ACLU: Supporting parts of the constiution and damning the parts they don’t like.

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/politics.html