Pro tip: if your friends are dealing drugs, stop being friends with them.
That’s why you grow your own. I don’t grow since I’m anti-ag of course but you never know who’s working for the police. Better safe then sorry.
You’re my anti-drug.
Rochdale grooming trial: Police accused of failing to investigate paedophile gang for fear of appearing racist# FYI: The English refer to people from the Middle East as “Asians”. They don’t use the term the same as we do in America. I’m sure context would have been enough, but I thought I’d just make it clear.
Here’s some redistribtution for you…
ILLEGAL Immigrants Receive $Billions Yearly via IRS Loophole INCOME TAX FRAUD
The followup he mentions at the end…
(it’s great when news stations create their own youtube channel)
And this is why the IRS is doing this:
Here’s some redistribtution for you…
Haven’t watched the video, but I assume they can get out of paying taxes. If so, that’s wrong how?
What the hell is this? I don’t get it at all. How does it even help 10:10?
It makes sense in light of a recent conversation I had with a progressive on Reddit. After a long convo of him calling me names and me trying to kindly convince him, he wrote this:
There is no need to discuss the details when we disagree about the fundamentals. Even if it would be shown that social security could realistically be replaced by libertarian pipe dreams, I would still oppose them because I adhere to the view that positive rights do exist. Only anarchists, the worst kind of people, can be consistent in their view that all rights are negative. Anybody else is either dishonest or a fool.
In fact, I don’t see any merit in arguing with libertarian vermin at all (although I keep finding myself in that situation). I should rather emulate Christopher Hitchen’s approach and simply proclaim that "there’s nothing to argue about with that. [I don’t have an argument with them,] I want them to be extirpated.
I guess this is it.
That’s a perfect example of one of the greatest ironies of our day…the very people who spend the most time and energy thinking about, debunking, and demonizing creationists, are more like them than anyone else. Notice the similarity between the comments that guy made and the stated position of the geologist mentioned here:
They are long lost bretheren. Cut from the same cloth. Their fundamental methodology is the same. They just apply it to different things.
Dawkins’ argument can be enhanced by noting that the very same process of reasoning he explains by which we conclude that animals are related in a family-tree (and we didn’t need DNA to engage in this reasoning process, DNA just “turns up the resolution” on the very same reasoning process) is employed when placing any historical fact in a causal relationship with any other historical fact, including all the purported historical facts in the Bible. So, the Creationist is in the position that he has to throw out causality en toto if he wishes to consistently reject evolutionary theory. Either that or he must “special case” biological data so that the reasoning of causality applies in every field of study except biology… or geology, or ____________ wherever it happens to be inconsistent with creationism. And this is, in fact, precisely what creationist arguments do.
Clayton -
Operation Hot Mic
I hope that’s not an attack ad. If it is, then they’re being dishonest.
Can we go back in time?
It’s also quite similar to (if not exactly the same as) what statist arguments do. Shermer begins to touch on this here:
(also notice the similarties between what he talks about here, and what’s currently going on in the “anarchism: what about the bombs” thread.)
How so?
It makes it seem from his words that he is in league with the Russians to do something sinister. The context was nuclear arms talks, not some crazy shady dealing.
[view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMf89xPcKxg]
Friend sent me a link to why a democratic government in Somalia would be a good thing by showing footage of the northern area of the country called Somaliland which does indeed have just that.
So lemme get this straight. You don’t watch the video and instead just make an assumption as to what it’s about. Then you proceed to ask a question based on this assumption which is based in literally nothing.
Did you seriously just waste forum space for this? The video isn’t even 7 minutes long. You’d get your answer in the first 24 seconds. Who are you and what have you done with Wheylous?
Note that southern Somalia was relatively peaceful from the period 1993-2006 from the time US troops withdrew until the Ethiopians invaded at the behest of the UN in yet another boneheaded attempt to “bring democracy” to Somalia. There was no government to speak of during this period.
The documentary misleadingly paints southern and northern Somalia one color when, in fact, northern Somalia - called Puntland - is completely autonomous and has been for going on two decades. Its “government” is more of a showpiece - law is administered through the traditional Xeer system (customary, clan law). It is not war-torn like the region surrounding Mogadishu. This is where the much-famed “lawless Somali pirates” come from.
It is Xeer, not its statelessness, that really sets Somalia apart from other countries. The Pashtunwali of the Pahstun Afghanis is equally remarkable and similar in some respects.
It’s a bit of a misnomer to say that even Somaliland “has a government” since it’s not the sort of government that anyone in the West would recognize - just look at their budget… $5-$30M. It is a night-watchman government, if that. Somaliland’s government is not in a position to impose economic controls which makes it anarchy in the sense that libertarians are always on about.
Also, it is important to note that the concept of “border” doesn’t mean as much in Somalia as it does here. People freely move across the borders not only between Somaliland, Puntland and southern Somalia but also Kenya and Ethiopia which have sizable populations of ethnic Somalis on their side of the border opposite Somalia. In particular, the Somalis on either side of these borders regularly do business with one another, paying whatever bribes are necessary to cross the border. The basis for this trade is not their political systems which are useless since they are trading across borders. Rather, it is their traditional, clan-based law system - Xeer - which is the common foundation for Somali law and commerce.
Clayton -
Yeah, I was confused as to why he didn’t take note of Puntland. I like how the guy is willing to go into these dangerous countries like that and report on them because at one point that is what I wanted to do. It’s just whenever I hear the words “democracy” littered throughout I get really annoyed. It’s like they pay no attention to how individuals in those countries interact with each other on a voluntary basis and just focus way too much on the advancement of government controls in said regions.
I actually have a book on Somali customary law written by a Dutch libertarian on my bookshelf which I haven’t read yet. Law of the Somalis I think it’s called. What’s fascinating is the fact the guy lived in the Somaliland area for around twenty years studying how the people lived and even contributed to building a seaport (if I’m recalling correctly). I’ll defintely need to get onto it sometime.
Somalia has always interested me though. The pirates are given too much coverage for my liking. I think if the Somali’s weren’t so hardcore into promoting an Islamic regime and focused on the much better Xeer, they could sky rocket. Sadly, the cynic in me sees Somalia eventually becoming overtaken by the UN.
Funny how much it changed since the 1960’s
Willard Worried About Ron
UPDATE from Rick Miller:
I am glad to see the coverage, but dismayed at this (and other) commentator’s constant use of the phrase “taking over” the delegate process. This has been a talking point ever since Paul’s strategy has shown fruit. I believe it is called winning, people!
What we are seeing is the passion for Ron Paul, but the real story is the lack of genuine enthusiasm for Romney! Apparently, he can not compel enough people to show up to take part in the delegate process, or has deliberately chosen to ignore these contests for some reason. As has been mentioned, if these delegates abstain during the first vote, it could result in a second round of voting- leading to a Paul victory. Or, the Republican party can choose to destroy it’s position as a major party by engaging in some shenanigans.
No matter the result, it is nice to see the message of liberty gain some mainstream attention and bring more people to the cause. Also, Paul’s campaign has been a constant reminder of the futility we face in choosing candidates who differ very little, and all share a common bond- the love for the State as a tool to inflict their social vision upon others as they enrich themselves. It is no wonder, in these days of big government and central planning run amok, and the inevitable chaos that ensues, that people are uninspired by a candidate who offers more of the same. Unfortunately, we are usually forced to choose between “the lesser of two evils.” The difference in this race is Paul- a legitimate and credible alternative to the two evils.