Barack Obama on Gun Control.

Nope. You don't have free speech either. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, because you may impede another right to pursue happiness. ^^ ok maybe that's not the exact clause used, but every law had it's regulations.

 

Adding FACT in front of your opinions makes them no more credible. Once again, Hamas saying whatever, is fallacious by association. Either way, I can't blame them for wanting a man who is a post traumatic crackhead over a man who is actually willing to solve their problem.

Extremism may lead to terrorism, but it is the hardship that Israel and Americans have imposed on them that has lead to the extremism to begin with.

 

Is it also not credible that he CALLED REV. WRIGHT HIS MENTOR IN HIS BOOK, and WAS A LEADER IN THE MILLION'S MAN MARCH? Is that just my opinion too? I'm not saying that the fact that Hamas supports Obama implies that Obama supports Hamas, what I'm saying is that since Hamas supports Obama, Obama being president would likely lead to Hamas feeling like they have more power.

BullSHIT. You can't back that up for your life. Who was in Jerusalem first? Jews. Not harming anyone. Then we gave the Muslims the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and they're still not fucking happy so they kill innocent Israelis. You're right, totally Israel's fault. It's a lot of hardship to own 90% of the Middle East and to give Jews ONE FUCKING PLACE to rebound after the Holocaust, especially seeing as the Jews were there first.

As for Americans creating extremist thought - that's just completely misleading. Even in the roots of Islam, the Sunni/Shi'a split was the first form of Islamic extremism, when they used force to take people out of power. And in the Qu'ran itself it defines Jihad as the struggle and striving. In the earliest days, people implied this to mean convert everyone, be it by force or by ideology [only at some parts in history]. Was that caused by America too?

I'm not saying I don't respect Islam as a religion, but Islamic extremists are a threat to people everywhere, especially the people with whom I associate most (Jews/Americans).

 

1. He said it in a letter, not a book. I don't think you've read the book or letter, so I doubt you've judged his comment in context.
2. African-American men from across the country gathered on Washington's National Mall October 16, for a massive Million Man March advocating "unity, atonement and brotherhood". In one of the largest marches ever seen on the Mall, participants were asked to pledge to "clean up their lives and rebuild their neighborhoods".

Yes, an key organizer was a heavily Islamic and racially divisive leader, what's so surprising? Once again you imply that the March was about some massive Black Islamic take over.


In all honesty, noone gives a shit about who was where first. There were people before the Jews etc, there were people before us in the Americas (Native Americans). The root cause of the problem isn't an argument about who was where first, but whether having a strong military (Israel kicked the asses of like an alliance of 10) justifies keeping the land. I actually think that the STRONGEST, richest do indeed perhaps have justification to dominate inferior countries. It's happened all the time throughout history. But don't come back bitching and kicking when you get bombed back.

Just because you're Jewish or you're friends are Jewish doesn't mean you can't pull you're head out of you're ass and look at 2 sides. Post WW2, the Jewish, strongly influential in politics and economy desired a place of prosperity. With superior backing, they took it. The initial inhabitants were ousted. With no good way to fight back, they have used techniques that us "civilized" people and Jewish-Influenced media have deemed as terrorism.

 

BullSHIT once again. Nobody was forced to leave; the UN created the state of Israel, Jews moved there to avoid further persecution. Israel is roughly 20% Muslim - the Middle East [excluding Israel] is somewhere around 94% Muslim. Jeez, it's not like the Jews are kicking anybody out of where they live...

As for the Million Man March, again I emphasize; OBAMA WAS A LEADER, not just a supporter. BIG difference.

But honestly, it doesn't matter to me. I still feel McCain has better policies than Obama, both for internal and external affairs. And yes, to me it IS surprising that a man who is now running for president of a country with a strong allegiance with Israel, and a large population of Jews, is claiming he is not anti-semitic at all when he is close friends with William Ayers and Louis Farakkhan. GAH.

But yes, I'm sure you could blow shit up about McCain too, but not to such a degree.

 

What's wrong. The Million's Man march was a march dedicated to "take responsibility for their lives and families, and commit to stopping the scourges of drugs, violence and unemployment".

"1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and 1949 Armistice Agreements"

No, it wasn't just: Let's "draw lines" and make countries. The Jews didn't move there to escape persecution, Israel is TINY (hardly anything even compared to a state of the US), and nothing SPECIAL geographically besides being SURROUNDED BY A BUNCH OF ISLAMIC NATIONS. The Jewish moved there because they had the power to move there, and a religious backing. Most people at the time foresaw conflict to begin with. It was not some spontaneous terrorist campaign by any means. It was certainly calculated, the Jews succeeded with superior forces, the aftermath is guerrilla style suicide bombings.

You like Mcain's fiscal or moral? Funny seeing as I read your comments about abortion. If Mcain is elected, one of the very old, liberal supreme court justices is likely to pass away during his presidency. He is more than likely to appoint a conservative one to replace his post. Yea, that ONE judge could mean the difference in Roe V Wade and overturn abortion, among others.

 

At least McCain picked a damn good looking running mate I'll give him that. But he won't bring the change we need to get this country back on tack. We need Obama for that. He is better to fix the economy, health care, amongst other problems created by Bush.

 

I'm not a girl, I personally don't have *that* strong of an opinion on abortion. I care more about getting our economy out of the shithole, something Obama won't be able to do. And no, it's not "let's draw lines with religious backing" it's "let's go back to where we were before getting persecuted and undergoing five diasporas" - to the combination of the kingdom of Judaea and Israel, back WAY before Islam was even invented. Jews were kicked out, when they were somewhat strong, they got back in. Anything wrong with that? No.

 

The economy is cyclical, much like the Earth.

And, change for the sake of change, is bad.

 

Are you being facetious?

The economy wouldn't be cyclical without intervention.

 

Actually yes it would.


Let's say the stocks are at 1.

People buy, stocks go to 10.
Guy 1, buys a bunch at 10.
Stocks go to 12.
Guy 1 sells at 12, stocks go to 8.
Everyone sells, stocks go to 2.


And the cycle goes.

 

Small term cycles generally fade into the overall big picture. I'm talking about macrocycles.

 

You didn't state that in your previous post.
and, it's still a cycle.

 

"The economy" is generally considered to be large-scale.

The reason that we have "boom and bust" cycles is because of the Federal Reserve Bank's control of interest rates. When they raise them, the economy generally slows down, and when they lower them, the opposite.

 

True.

I'm not denying the fact that government involvement messed up the economy, or makes it even more cyclical. but it is still cyclical with the absence of.

 

The limited data we have on government-less economies (Iceland, Somalia, etc.) suggests otherwise.

 

Does Somalia even have a stock market? I know Iceland does, but they can be potentially seen as an exception. For this point to be debated, doesn't it seem fair to bring an example of:
*a governmentally controlled economy WITH NO stock market
*a governmentally controlled economy WITH a stock market,
*a government-less economy WITH NO stock market, and
*a government-less economy WITH a stock market?

Only then can we begin to see patterns, and even so not fully - who knows if it is just an exception? However, to base your evidence on these two countries would not be sufficient, IMO. And I know you said, "etc." but what is the "etc." you are referring to?

 

A country does not need to have a stock market to be economically successful.

I was referring to Iceland of around 1,000 years ago.

Correct, which is why I said that the limited data suggests otherwise.

 

He moved to Indonesia not Africa you dumbfuck.

Stop watching Fox news and get outside the big red bubble you live in.

 

The current population of Iceland is around 300,000. What do you suppose it would have been 1000 years ago? And could the economics of this rural Viking state be applied as a model for anarcho-capitalism in America today?