|
|
 |
striker |
+ |
Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at 1:59 PM As most of the country threw out bush loyalists and republifascists in a MASSIVE repudiation of the horribly run and pointless WAR in Iraq, these SAME americans, apparently unaware of their hypocrisy, voted to CONTINUE the war on americans possessing certain drugs. It's an interesting duality in the feminine american mindset. In one breath they say they hate war, hate a pointless war, hate an unwinable war, hate an expensive war, hate a deadly war, hate those who got us INTO said pointless war, which by the way is against a FOREIGN nation, while out of the other side of their mouths vote almost exclusively to CONTINUE a pointless, unwinable, expensive, deadly war that is being waged HERE AT HOME against americans. As I look at the results of two faced americans voting to continue a pointless, expensive, deadly, unwinable war on THEMSELVES, I have to have a little pity on their ignorance because they are clearly unaware of their own hypocrisy. —striker |
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Recovery |
+ |
Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at 5:00 PM The United States is a de facto oligarchy. We who were born and raised in this so-called land of the free and home of the brave naturally resist such blunt accusations. We all like to believe we live in a free, democratic society. But a child need only observe the antics of the Republicrats and Demo(CRAP)ublicans to quickly realize there is more than meets the eye. Instead of addressing the needs of their constituents, these craven swindlers are more interested in lining their pockets and engaging in absurd intrigues in the corrupt Washington court. But we mustn't be too hard on these men and women. After all, they are only servile footmen carrying out marching orders from a sinister international cult of amoral usurers and fascist sociopaths headquartered variously in Geneva, Rome, and the Hague. —ZT-In-Recovery |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at 6:55 PM Why do I feel like I've read that before, ZT? —anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Recovery |
+ |
Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 5:36 AM Why do I feel like I've read that before, ZT? —anobody Because it is the fundamental position of the American Rule-Of-Law Party that individual sovereignty must remain paramount, we cannot brook the hypocrisy of those "conservative" Republicans who claim to reject bureaucratic encroachment on personal freedoms, yet put restrictions on personal behavior (anti-drug laws, anti-sodomy laws). Nor can we rely on "liberal" Democrats, whose efforts to regiment society through excessive taxation and misguided attempts to improve conditions for the poor through social legislation (affirmative action, anti-gun laws) have resulted in a snarl of bureaucracy and crippling litigation whose only beneficiary is an ever-growing swarm of lawyer-profiteers. Both these approaches undermine true democratic freedoms and individual rights to liberty, self-defense, and property. The Rule-Of-Law Party calls for the abolition of any and all restrictions on drug and weapons possession and an immediate suspension of all environmental-protection laws that infringe on the right to property ownership. —ZT-In-Recovery |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 11:17 PM Just from reading that, I think I'd just assume vote Democrat... or Republican rather than Rule of Law. Much as I'd like to see drug laws revamped and victimless crimes decriminalized, I really like government protecting the environment and putting restrictions on guns. What I really want (or at least think I want) is government that's actually fiscally conservative and socially liberal (as opposed to the Republicans who claim to be conservative but aren't at all when it comes to money, the environment, or individual rights, and the Democrats who've bought into the idea that liberal is a bad word).
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Recovery |
+ |
Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 11:19 PM The American Rule-Of-Law Party believes in a strong centralized authority to promote the general welfare and provide for a common defense, as stated in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. The United States is too vast to be governed locally. However, the American Rule-Of-Law Party rejects the assumption that a strong centralized authority can abuse its power and make up a mandate as it goes along. It is with this in mind that we call for an immediate dismantling of the U.S. tax code. The labyrinthine bureaucracy of the IRS has supplanted whatever remains of reason and self-determination in the American character. It has crippled free enterprise and curtailed the prosperity of millions of hard-working people. According to the Rule-Of-Law plan, active civic (not civil) service would replace the yearly 1040 tax form and, indeed, our parliamentary governmental structure. (This latter point is a subject on which my shortsighted colleagues in the Libertarian Party are curiously silent.) As in Israel and Switzerland, Americans between the ages of 18 and 27 would be expected to serve in the armed forces for a minimal tour of duty of two years. Americans ages 28 to 55 would be required to serve on reconstructed, quorum-based democratic deliberative bodies, based on ancient Greek models of governance. High offices would be based on Roman models, but individuals who serve in these posts would be selected by a national lottery. Thus, any American age 35 or over, male or female, black or white, gay or straight, religious or atheist, could be chosen president. This will not only eliminate our present corrupt "professional" bureaucratic and political class, but endow Americans with an empowering sense of responsibility not present in these days of media-brokered elections and smothering corporate lobbying. —ZT-In-Recovery |
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 11:27 PM ZT, I thought you weren't going to argue politics (or anything) with anobody anymore. Someone needs to take away your computer, and you need a nap. —greymatters |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 11:33 PM I don't think we're exactly arguing, my color deficient friend. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Recovery |
+ |
Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 11:43 PM Accusations put forward by the mainstream media, the Washington political elite, and the Libertarian Party claim that the American Rule-Of-Law Party, its founder (the late Edgar Mayo Sr.), and its current leader (myself, Edgar Mayo Jr.) espouse anti-Semitic and seditious sentiments. The anti-Semitism charge is a tired accusation leveled by individuals who wish to quell genuine and honest public debate, and does not dignify a response beyond our steadfast and long-held assertion that our quarrel has never been with the Jewish people, only the Jewish banking and media elite. Our critics also claim to be horrified by my radical rejection of the U.S. Constitution, particularly Articles I and III, which established both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. Far more radical to me is the present system, whose structure continues to reflect the anti-pluralistic philosophy of its patrician, slaveholding framers. Only by directly empowering the individual may we guarantee that individual's freedom. A vote for the American Rule-Of-Law Party is neither treasonous nor anti-American; indeed, it is the patriotism of our critics that should be questioned. It is they who stand in direct opposition to government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Dismiss, also, the prattling of the complacent, blinder-wearing dimwits who accuse me of being a quixotic fool. A vote for me is a vote to reverse centuries of elitism and exploitation and reaffirm the democratic, republican virtues we cherish. —ZT-In-Recovery |
|