|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ontheway wrote: |
What I'm saying is that the law itself (regulating free speech in any way) is itself an illegal law. The law doesn't have to be changed. The government itself becomes a criminal when it violates the rights of individual citizens. The government and its agents are criminals. When governments violate the rights of the people it is our right and duty to abolish that government (as Jefferson wisely told us). Liberty is paramount to other political issues. Those who would sacrifice Liberty for security will have neither (Franklin?).
These issues are not new. The US government has joined the other governments in the world as a fascist socialist welfare warfare state. Liberty in the US has been in its deathbed since 1914. It passed away under Bush Jr. A rogue nation, as it is so aptly put in another thread.
Of course, it would be a major project to round up and prosecute these criminals. Nuremberg II will have to wait until the people of the world, and especially the US, wake up. |
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| It gives me a chuckle when the liberals say "freedom is dying" and then vote for the bigger-government, less-freedom party. |
Nice cliche. Seeing as how for the last, oh, 25 years only the Democrats have reduced spending and government. Yeah, I saw your little nod to reality, but it was little. You still cling to stuff that hasn't been true since around the time you were born. |
Yep, Republicans are the party of small government and fiscal prudence: ..
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Date ................. National Debt ................ % change
12/30/2005 ... $8,170,424,541,313.62
11/30/2005 ... $8,092,322,205,720.65
10/31/2005 ... $8,027,123,404,214.36
09/30/2005 ... $7,932,709,661,723.50 ... +7.5%
09/30/2004 ... $7,379,052,696,330.32 ... +7.3%
09/30/2003 ... $6,783,231,062,743.62 ... +8.9%
09/30/2002 ... $6,228,235,965,597.16 ... +7.2%
09/28/2001 ... $5,807,463,412,200.06 ... +2.4%
09/29/2000 ... $5,674,178,209,886.86 ... +0.3%
09/30/1999 ... $5,656,270,901,615.43
% change since Dec 99 = + 44.4% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe, but the war was an optional cost and spending on the Corps of Engineers is less than on the president's office. Halve the presidential costs and avoid the billions to be paid by insurance companies, not the budget.
The Iraq venture has so far cost around 500 billion USD: 1,700 USD for every man, woman and child.
Debt of course is the 3rd largest cost to the taxpayer.
And social security costs are accounted off-balance sheet and are not included. However you cut the pie, every single man woman and child in US has (8.1 trillion / 300 million) = 27,000 USD as a millstone round his neck.
By way of comparison, the equivalent figures for UK are (480 GBP billion / 60 million) = 14,000 USD.
(We're probably enough off-topic already - a new thread maybe?)
Edit: hey, where did Gopher's post (to which mine was a response) disappear so fast? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| ...where did Gopher's post (to which mine was a response) disappear so fast? |
I had a second thought about getting into a discussion on economics and economic policy, so I deleted it.
I had asked you whether it was fair to leave out the several natural disasters and the two wars that have occurred in the W. Bush Administration when you cited your data above.
Thanks for the response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Wangja wrote: |
| ...where did Gopher's post (to which mine was a response) disappear so fast? |
I had a second thought about getting into a discussion on economics and economic policy, so I deleted it.
I had asked you whether it was fair to leave out the several natural disasters and the two wars that have occurred in the W. Bush Administration when you cited your data above.
Thanks for the response. |
Yes, and thanks for the explanation. As I say, perhaps it warrants a separate thread - it's a fascinating subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a thought on shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Isn't the whole point of the right to free speech to protect free expression of opinion? The exclamation 'Fire!' isn't an opinion.
The issue is complicated by the laws on 'hate speech'. FWIW I think the leader of the BNP should be free to express his opinions, anti-Muslim or not. It's not as if he was inciting a crowd to acts of violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| It gives me a chuckle when the liberals say "freedom is dying" and then vote for the bigger-government, less-freedom party. |
Nice cliche. Seeing as how for the last, oh, 25 years only the Democrats have reduced spending and government. Yeah, I saw your little nod to reality, but it was little. You still cling to stuff that hasn't been true since around the time you were born. |
from your previous posts i see that you have a slightly skewed vision of politics and pretty much everything else. democrats centralizing government is NOT a cliche. its the truth. how can democrats reduce spending by promising bigger spending on public programs? it goes against everything the dems stand for which is greater public spending and 'free' programs and services. this can only be done with a more central government that delights itself on taking your money and using it for 'free' programs for those they deem fit.
the republicans are a bunch of centralist statists nowadays too, but to argue that the dems are into reduced spending and small government flies in the face of everything that they stand for and is therefore a laughable statement. |
Silly me.... who was it that balanced the budget after the massive bloating during the 12 years of the Reagan Bush era? Who is bloating it again?
Please... Talk about skewed. And thank you for the response, which is a nearly perfect example of cliche assumed to be fact.
Wangja provided the numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| It gives me a chuckle when the liberals say "freedom is dying" and then vote for the bigger-government, less-freedom party. |
Nice cliche. Seeing as how for the last, oh, 25 years only the Democrats have reduced spending and government. Yeah, I saw your little nod to reality, but it was little. You still cling to stuff that hasn't been true since around the time you were born. |
from your previous posts i see that you have a slightly skewed vision of politics and pretty much everything else. democrats centralizing government is NOT a cliche. its the truth. how can democrats reduce spending by promising bigger spending on public programs? it goes against everything the dems stand for which is greater public spending and 'free' programs and services. this can only be done with a more central government that delights itself on taking your money and using it for 'free' programs for those they deem fit.
the republicans are a bunch of centralist statists nowadays too, but to argue that the dems are into reduced spending and small government flies in the face of everything that they stand for and is therefore a laughable statement. |
Silly me.... who was it that balanced the budget after the massive bloating during the 12 years of the Reagan Bush era? Who is bloating it again?
Please... Talk about skewed. And thank you for the response, which is a nearly perfect example of cliche assumed to be fact.
Wangja provided the numbers. |
who is saying anything about republicans. so you prove that democrats are small government because the republicans are centralists? nice logic.
two parties can be guilty of the same crime.
here's a hint. people who make their life in government, both dem and rep are usually vying for more government power and the centralization of said power. anything that can secure power, money, and security for most people in the government will be welcome, and that is usually accompanied with more power being allocated to an ever expanding leviathan. everyone in government, apart from the sacred libertarians and others who enjoy freedom, want big government. if you worked for a company wouldnt you want it to expand, succeed, and become wealthier? or would you prefer it to shrink, along with your presitge and pocketbook? that's the way these people think. it's the way all humans do.
THE REPUBLICANS WANTING BIGGER GOVERNMENT DOESNT AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT THE DEMOCRATS. In their own way, they are both calling for the expansion of government. There is no way to disprove this, as it there is historical and economic evidence on both accounts. You can look at Reagan and I can look at 'it ain't my money so let's have a shopping spree' Gerald Ford.
all government is bad. anything that tries to control your money, your body, or your given freedoms is full of sh*t. democrats included.
Last edited by ChimpumCallao on Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
double post.
the government should really do something to prevent such mistakes.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| all government is bad. anything that tries to control your money, your body, or your given freedoms is full of sh*t. democrats included. |
I'm sorry but this is hilarious!
A great laugh thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes,
"All government is bad. Anything that tries to control your money, your body, or your given freedoms is full of sh*t."
How true. The Ds and Rs act as a team. Tweedledee and Tweedledum. They are almost identical. They are both evil, big government parties. The only exception in Washington is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.
The two big government parties have colluded to keep all other parties, and even members of their own parties off the ballot since the 1930s. America's last truly free elections were in the 1920s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
OTW wrote:
| Quote: |
America's last truly free elections were in the 1920s.
|
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
| THE REPUBLICANS WANTING BIGGER GOVERNMENT DOESNT AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT THE DEMOCRATS. |
Blah, blah, blah.... Ok, the salient part: I never said Dems weren't capable of it. I simply pointed out that between 1980 and now, it hasn't been true. Reagan/Bush presided over the biggest addition to the national debt/budget deficit ever up to that time. In the Clinton era, we saw a balanced budget. Then came the second Bush, here we go again.
When you have to go back almost thirty years, you're reaching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
| THE REPUBLICANS WANTING BIGGER GOVERNMENT DOESNT AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT THE DEMOCRATS. |
Blah, blah, blah.... Ok, the salient part: I never said Dems weren't capable of it. I simply pointed out that between 1980 and now, it hasn't been true. Reagan/Bush presided over the biggest addition to the national debt/budget deficit ever up to that time. In the Clinton era, we saw a balanced budget. Then came the second Bush, here we go again.
When you have to go back almost thirty years, you're reaching. |
budgets are not the only facets of big government. pretty much every administration has expanded its powers from the previous one. i can't believe you'd take the budget and believe that was the end all to your argument. anyway, with every law and every social program, leviathan gets bigger....government is bullsh*t. at least we can agree on half (as I think both the democrats and the republicans suck and are statist pigs).
God bless Ron Paul, our man on the inside and Lew Rockwell's golden boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Do you think the men on trial should be locked up for what they said, and if so, why? |
This is precisely the opposite of what I actually did say. |
So, you do think they should be free to say what they did. Good, we are in agreement then. |
What I really meant is that YOU should be free to defend, apologize for and (secretly, of course, while denying it) support them. And then come around here and tell us about it.
I want to give you every chance to associate yourself with these racist thugs in every way possible, bigverne. That's how we can come to judge the other things you say on this and related topics.
I'm serious about this. Free speech means bigots can say what they like whenever, wherever and about anything - and the rest of us can keep score and keep an eye out on you.
On the other hand :
| Quote: |
| Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again! |
Maybe that's what we have now ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
