Political Leanings?

[Guest]

Ok, i assume most of you are conservative or libertarian, so probably
mostly republican, but is ee u guys don't exactly love republicans. so
what party are u in?

 

[JD074]

I'm pretty much a Libertarian. I have more concern about
issues concerning white males than Libertarians generally do,
but I'm still an individualist first and foremost. I have a sense of
loyalty and concern towards my race, but even that is
subservient to my conviction that the individual must be
protected from coercion. The group is important, but the
individual always comes first. The individual should be free to
live his life however he wants to, as long as he does not deny
anyone else that same freedom. Liberals and conservatives
are both wrong because they want to sacrifice the individual to
the group in various ways, and to varying degrees.

Liberals and conservatives are both too bad for business.
That's the worst part about politics: the way that both liberals
and conservatives harm the economy. Commerce is the way
that modern man meets his needs and wants. If you harm the
economy, you harm modern man and modern society.
Liberals want to stifle the economy with taxes and regulation.
Conservatives want to manipulate government by seeking
benefits for themselves and their business allies. They want to
implement protectionism to help certain companies/ industries
at the expense of others. Liberals do that, too, but
conservatives are particularly notorious for it. They're all
seriously harming the economy, and therefore society, and
therefore the individual.

Too many conservatives have been brainwashed by Bush and
the Republican Party. Once upon a time, conservatives were
isolationists. They didn't want to meddle in other nations'
affairs. They wanted to mind their own business. Now they're
gung ho automatons who mindlessly glorify the grisly spectacle
of war. Perfect pawns for big government. Liberals are
probably a little bit better, on average, when it comes to human
rights and civil liberties. But they want the government to be
everybody's mommy, making them the perfect pawn, as well.
People in politics want to convince everyone that big
government is necessary, because the more the goverment is
perceived as being "needed", the bigger and more powerful it'll
get. And the more powerful they'll get.

True Libertarians (not the morons who also support war like
the conservatives) are better than the left and the right
because they want to protect the individual.

 

[bigunreal]

I share much of JD074's philosophy. I consider myself a
populist-libertarian hybrid. I believe that both "competing" parties
are worthless and do not disagree on any issue of real significance. In
other words, my vote doesn't revolve around the miniscule variances in
prescription drug plans or the legality of gay marriage. The top issue
for Americans now is clearly immigration. Neither party will do
anything to stop the cultural suicide that has been taking place for a
few decades. Unless the issue is addressed in the very near future,
some kind of ethnic conflict is inevitable down the road. I also think
that corporate corruption and the distribution of weath are questions
of importance. As an admirer of Huey Long, there is a strong "soak the
rich" side of me. I don't think any individual should a be a
billionaire, or even a multi-multi millionaire, and I think everyone
willing to work should be a paid a living wage (not the ridiculous
minimum wage, which is valuable only to high school students unless it
is tied to a maximum wage, an idea which hasn't been suggested in any
way since the days of Huey Long). I also feel that unless the
government and media come clean about the truth of most modern
political events, from the JFK assassination to 911, we can never hope
for honest government. Just my two cents worth.

 

[jaxvid]

Yes, I'm a libertarian too (once fairly active in the Libertarian party) although I disagree with their typical positions on immigration and abortion. I also think that the dissolution of western culture and the surrender of our manufacturing base to the third world and Asia is a bad thing although I do not see a libertarian way to resolve it.

 

[JD074]

The concept of "immigration" is based on a false
premise, "political territory." Unlike the so-called
"monopolies" that the government pretends to
protect us from- when in reality they're just benefitting
themselves by attacking successful businesses like
Microsoft- the government is a monopoly of the worst
kind. Poliical territory is just the way that
governments protect their monopoly on coercion,
economic control, and oppression. It's not sacred by
any stretch. In a truly free world, immigration
wouldn't be a problem because there wouldn't be
any tax money for them to exploit. They could either
work, receive charity, go back home, or starve. And
criminal activity engaged by immigrants (and
Americans) would plummet because private security
services would do a better job of preserving the
peace than the government.

I don't believe in "distribution of wealth". Who's going
to decide how to "distribute" our wealth? Politicians
and lawyers? No way. Voters? Mob rule.
"Distribution" of wealth is plunder, plain and simple.
It's socialist, and we've had way too many examples
of the horrific, bloody failures of socialism to support
any form of it. Any centralized planning of the
economy is doomed to fail, harming millions upon
millions of people in the process. The "great
conceit" is in thinking that we can control the
economy in any way. We can't. Nobody is
omnipotent enough to be a "philsopher king" who
knows what's best for a country or the entire world.
Not voters, not politicians, nobody. We just have to
leave the market alone.

There's nothing wrong with someone having
millions or billions of dollars as long as they get it
honestly. Work, inheritance, investing, and even
gambling are legitimate ways to make money. Hey...
the more the merrier. Money is good. Dishonest
ways of making money would be any type of
protectionism (subsidies, tariffs, corporate welfare),
involuntary taxation, robbery, etc. When corporate
executives and politicians conspire to restrain
competition in some way, that's dishonest. When
activists extort corporations, that's dishonest. If a
mugger takes someone's wallet, that's obviously
dishonest. But if I produce a product, sell it to lots of
customers (who are voluntarily giving me money in
exchange for what I'm giving them), and make
millions of dollars in the process, nobody has the
right to deny me that money. This right of voluntary
exchange is one of the most basic rights
imaginable.

I don't believe in minimum wage laws or any other
form of centralized planning of the economy because
they always backfire. I read a great book recently
called "How Capitalism Saved America" by Thomas
Dilorenzo. This is a short, easy to read introduction
to free market thinking that I highly recommend. It's
a great blend of economic history and theory, and
explains why minimum wage laws, and all that stuff,
is bad for the economy- and therefore, bad for
society. I know I sound like an "evil capitalist pig,"
but the economy is the most important issue, in my
opinion (along with individual rights, of course).

Bigunreal, Care to give your thoughts on JFK and
911?

I agree that Libertarians are soft on abortion. I think
it's just because they don't want government
meddling in yet another aspect of our lives. They
probably know deep down that it's a human life, and
therefore should be protected. Like I said before, I'm
not really against immigration. I am against them-
and Americans- freeloading off of taxpayers.
Taxation is involuntary, and therefore immoral. In a
free market, people would simply pay for the
services they need, whether its roads, medical care,
schooling, private security services, legal arbitration,
or anything else. The government is a monopoly
and that's why it's so awful. Get rid of the
monopolistic government and immigrants won't be
able to freeload off of hard-working Americans. You
all probably won't agree with this, but I think
immigrants should be free to come here as long as
they are peaceful and hard-working. Every society
needs more good citizens and workers. We all
should be free to go wherever we want as long as
we don't trample on anyone else's private property
and individual rights.

I'm not really concerned about outsourcing either.
That's probably a result of the strangulation of the
economy as a result of the corrupt influences of
politicians, many corporate executives, lawyers, and
activists. The free market solution would be to free
up the economy, and then corporations could hire
Americans again. It would be up to them though.
Why shouldn't Americans compete for jobs? If
somebody else can do a better job than I can,
whether they live in America or India, why shouldn't
they get the job instead of me? If it helps
businesses to run more efficiently, that'll help the
economy, which will help our society. There's
nothing wrong with competition.

I totally disagree with the sentiment that "they're
taking our jobs." They're not "our jobs." They're the
business owner's jobs. A business is private
property, and the business owner should be free to
hire whomever he wants. Or not hire whomever he
wants. He should be free to hire Indians or Chinese,
or to not hire blacks or women, if that's his
preference.

As for dissolution of our culture, once again,
government is the worst destroyers; it controls us,
stifles us, and oppresses us. In a free market, a
business has to answer to the customer; it can't
force the customer to do anything that he doesn't
want to do. So business alone can't destroy us.
Government holds the monopoly over destruction. Edited by: JD074

 

[bigunreal]

JDO74, we have a lot in common, but we do disagree strongly on the
issue of protecting American jobs and immigration. You also have a lot
more faith in big business and the marketplace than I do. I admire
Thomas DiLorenzo's writings about Abraham Lincoln. Have you read them?



My basic feeling about outsourcing, "protectionism," etc., is that
someone, in any society, has to clean the toilets and mop the floors.
Not everyone can be a programmer, or analyst, or Vice President in
Charge of Looking out the Window. We once had an industrial base in
America, and that made it possible for most everyone to achieve at
least a part of the American Dream. However, because our cost of living
demands that every worker be paid at least a certain mimimum amount of
money in order to eke out an existence, our unskilled workers can never
hope to compete with the slave wages big corporations pay workers in
Mexico, Taiwan, etc. I agree that government should not be involved in
central planning, but the basic greed in human nature has made it
imperative that legislation be passed in order to get such things as
vacation and sick leave, the 40 hour work week, and regulations against
unsafe working conditions for the unwashed masses. Without this kind of
legislation, we would still have 7 day, 12 hour work weeks for many
unskilled workers, wtih no overtime, and child labor. The sad fact is
that the bottom line for every successful big businessman is profit
margin, and without interference many of them will do anything they
have to achieve the largest profit, regardless of who gets hurt along
the way. I have no doubt, for instance, that many of our most
successful corporate icons would employ small children in a heartbeat,
if they could get away with it. No question about it, IMHO. Anyhow,
since we do not have an industrial base any more, and since human
abilities differ to such an extent that many people just are not
capable of being trained for even lower level I.T. positions, we have
to ask how all those millions of people are going to live their lives
in a country like ours, with its very high cost of llving. Unless we
take the Darwinian concept of Survival of the Fittest to its logical
end, and just let them die out because they can't compete at that
level, we have to come up with another solution.



As for immigration, I think it's the biggest issue facing Americans
today. Of course, it's ignored by almost all politicians, who fear the
Hispanic lobby almost as much as they fear the Black lobby. The literal
face of America has been changing, and will continue to change
drasticallly, if nothing is done. We were not founded to be a
mulitcultural melting-pot, or any kind of pollitically correct
eperiment, and by becoming so ethnically diverse we ensure that some
kind of racial and ethnic warfare will erupt in the future. Illegal and
legal immigrants will take jobs Americans won't, because Americans do
not join together ilike immigrants do, with large families of Aunts,
Uncles and Grandparents living under one roof and pooling their
resources. Also, the standard of living in Mexico is so low that even a
job at McDonald's and sharing an unsightly little apartment with many
others is a vast improvement to them. Unless we expect our unskilled
citizens to lower their expectations down to third world levels, we
have to do something about that vast mass of fellow human beings. Every
time a factory worker is laid off, for instance, we have to
consider the effect that has on his family, and society at large who is
losing more civil and competent laborers for teeming numbers, many
illegal, who won't even attempt to learn English. That is not an
improvement to anyone except the big businessmen who are reaping larger
profits and bonuses with every new layoff and outsourcing and every new
crop of illegals to do their dirtiest work for a pittance.



I have been researching the JFK assassination for over 25 years.
Basically, a 10 year old child can see through the official fairy tale
in about five minutes. It's that impossible. I have no idea who the
actual gunmen were, but I suspect that some conglomeration amongst the
CIA, FBI, military officials and powerful private interests planned and
carried it out. I am also open to the possibility of Israeli-Mossad
involvement, as suggested by Michael Collins Piper in "Final Judgment."
As for 911, I think the official story is again an obvious
impossibility, and was designed to stigmatize all Arabic people. The
simple fact that all those planes were flying around for as long as
they did, without any defense mechanism kicking into place, should make
us question the trillions of dollars we've spent over the years for
just such an event. Bush's actions at the school and afterwards need to
be scrutinized, too, but I don't expect our controlled establishment
press to ever do that. Basically, I don't think the WTC buildings
imploded and fell down like that solely from the impact of the planes.
There must have been some explosives inside those Twin Towers. Anyhow,
that's my take on it.



Hope this wasn't too long, but I find all this stuff very interesting.

 

[Charlie]

While political borders can be artificial the boundaries between ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic groups are natural. The utopia of a pure libertarian existence or lassaiz-faire capitalism will not lessen differences. If anything the success differential between groups will ensure dsytopia.

In its disregard for human nature libertarianism is as witless, and as dangerous, as communism.

 

[JD074]

I wouldn't say that I have faith in "big business" because many
of their executives are like the "mercantilists" that Dilorenzo
writes about. They're part of the problem. A marketplace that
is free from political interference would, by definition, also be
free of the mercantilist-type of business executives. Because
political interference is precisely what they use to gain an unfair
competition over others. That's not capitalism.

I'm sure you could predict that I'm not a big fan of the word
"greed". Like I said before, there are dishonest ways to make
money, and there are honest ways to make money. There's
no evil in the pursuit of money per se, only in violating
someone else to get that money.

According to Dilorenzo and other free market thinkers, it was
actually capitalism that eventually put an end to child labor,
shortened the workweek, and improved workplace safety, not
politicians and unions. They're always taking credit for
business achievements. It's hard for people to believe this
because we've all been so brainwashed to believe that
business is evil. He explains all of this better than I could, so I
would recommend anyone who's interested in these subjects to
read that book. It's only about 250 pages of text and very easy
to read.

Nobody has to get hurt in order for businesses to get their
profit marigin. Business, true business free from political
interference (including the mercantilists who use that
interference for their own ends), is about voluntary exchange.
It's about consenting human beings trading value for value. In
a free market, businesses must answer to their customers;
they can't just do whatever they want.

People should have to either fend for themselves, or receive
help from people who are volunteering that aid. It's not really
my concern whether the immigrants starve or freeze or
whatever. As long as they do not violate other people's rights,
I'll leave them alone to make it, or not make it, in our "country",
or any other territory.

If ethnic diversity is unnatural (and it probably is, at least to a
certain degree,) then free people should be left alone to figure
out their own private solutions to that problem. Whether it's set
up ethnic neighborhoods and communities, not hire people of
other ethnic groups, move to another community or another
country, etc. It should be up to the individual and private
organizations to figure out peaceful solutions to the issue of
ethnic diversity.

Capitalism wouldn't have to lessen cultural differences. As long
as individuals are free to devise their own ways to deal with
those problems, why should we be concerned with lessening
those differences? Just leave people alone to be the same or
different or whatever.

If there's "dystopia," then we need privatized security and
privatized legal arbitration so that individuals and private
organizations can deal with that in an effective manner.

I don't think capitalism and Libertarianism disregard human
nature. In our minds, individualism is better than
anti-individualism. Everything else is opposed to that, even if
they don't realize it. Anything that disregards the rights of the
individual is disregarding human nature. We're meant to be
free.

 

[Charlie]

Freedom has many definitions. For example, African-Americans believe freedom includes access to unearned income and status. Compare this to White Americans who imagine welfare a temporary state tinged with regret and shame. The differences extend to rape, premarital sex, out-of-wedlock births, robbery, murder, acceptable language, dress, and hygiene.

African-Americans enjoy group consciousness and therefore impose their vision of freedom, to be as nasty as they wish, upon general society. White Americans suffer the illusion they are mere individuals and thus their access to civil society fades. Throw in other groups, each with notions pecuilar to itself, such as the Hmong reluctance to obey property rights and the injunction against murder, and let the good times roll. At least per Libertarian cant. We'll just hire arbitrators to sort it all out.

Capitalism? Pure business? Arguably history's greatest traders were the Phoenicians (probably true, even the richest man in Mexico today is that Lebanese scoundrel Carlos Slim). Practiced a religion which involved infanticide. Tens of thousands of sacrifices to a moon god or something. Arabs have been sharp dealers for thousands of years. Damn fine slave traders, even now. Pious Yankees brought Africans to America. Good Christian Mr. Tyson has flooded Arkansas with illegal aliens to cut up his chickens.

Point being capitalism is not related to morality. Which is beyond DiLorenzo, the same 'scholar' who pretends Lincoln's low view of Negroes is a shocking revelation. Capitalism does not provide uplift, nor degradation.

What does provide morality is group values enforced by group will. Group, singular.

 

[JD074]

Freedom does have many definitions. For me, freedom means
the protection of the individual from tyranny, whether that
tyranny is practiced by whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians,
Arabs, or anyone else. Gaining "access to unearned income"
when it is not volunteered is the opposite of freedom,
regardless of how it's regarded by blacks or anyone else.
Without government, those "nasty" blacks that you refer to
would have much less power over us. They could still commit
crime as they do now, but if we're so smart, we could figure out
a way to deal with them with private security and other things.

Blacks may benefit from their group consciousness (even
though they seem quite busy killing and robbing each other
despite that unity), but that doesn't mean that we should stoop
to their level. Individual rights must be upheld above all, or
else one's political philosophy will always lead to tyranny in
some form or another. Just because our enemies are
tyrannical doesn't mean that we should be, too. We must be
above them. And I don't mean to imply that I'm pro-diversity. If
it's truly unnatural, white people will find a way to deal with it-
especially if we ever gain much more freedom from
government control. We could deal with the problems in our
communities much better without that lumbering, foolish bully
constantly breathing down our necks.

Capitalism is related to morality because it is about voluntary
exchange, unlike government. As for the slave trade,
infanticide, and other abhorrent practices, capitalism gets
better. Just like there used to be child labor in America, there
isn't anymore (even though unions like to take credit for that).
Despite the imperfections of the past (and present and future),
commerce actually advances human existence; that's what
makes it inherently "uplifting". The government is not about
voluntary exchange; it is about controlling people.

Do you think that "group values enforced by group will" are
more imporrtant than the individual and his freedom and
well-being? Doesn't that often lead to tyranny, like with Nazi
Germany or Mao's China or any other dictatorship? Those
who believe that the group is more important than the
individual makes an easy pawn for politicians and dictators.
Hiter told his people to sacrifice themselves to the group. The
nation/ race must come before self. Any form of tyranny can
be justified by proclaiming that it's what's best for the group.
And who decides what's best for the group? Why, the dictator,
of course.

That's why most White Supremacists are just as sheep-like as
the feminists, Afrocentrists, socialists, environmentalists, and all
the other creeps out there who want to sacrifice the individual
to some cause. We are not immune from such stupidity just
because we're white. Look at how Bush manipulates the white
conservatives. He occasionally throws them a bone with gay
marriage and stem cell research, and they re-elected him
because of his "moral values." He's been an awful president,
but hey, he's a born-again Christian! He's got moral values!
He's a buffoon, and they're even bigger buffoons for being
duped by him.  Edited by: JD074

 

[Charlie]

Wow, you waited a whole ten seconds before whipping out the Nazi reference. Good for you.

The simple truth is people need to be controlled. Think not? I intend to turn your pre-teen daughter into a crank whore. She is willing, taking her cue from Daddy's belief commerce mutually agreed upon is inherently good.

Or, even better, you decide to turn your own daughter into a crank whore (or would you go for the crack whore route?). Nobody's business but your own, right?

Singapore is a mighty fine place to live and run a business. All due to an EVIL dictator named Lee Kwan Yu. America should be so lucky. But at least we're free of the tyranny of safe streets, orderly and effective schools, low taxes, and honest government.

Know what they do to drug dealers in Singapore? They kill them. Isn't that awful? So unfair! It makes me want to cry. Those damn Singaporeans! Like a bunch of Oriental Nazis! To Hell with the Yellow Swastika!

 

[JD074]

I know, whenever someone doesn't like
someone else's political views, they call them a
"Nazi" or "fascist." Too true. But Hitler made so
many comments about sacrificing the individual to
the group that it's a legitimate thing to mention in the
context of this discussion. But I also mentioned
Mao, socialists, feminists, etc., so I think it's pretty
even-handed. And I'm not making a personal attack
on anyone in particular.

At any rate, "group values enforced by group will" is a
sickening idea. It is that type of thinking that leads to
the empowerment of tyrants like Hitler and many,
many, many other dictators.


"But at least we're free of the tyranny of safe streets,
orderly and effective schools, low taxes, and honest
government."


Yeah, thanks to incompent, ineffective government.
We need more power and freedom to take care of
our problems.

As for drug dealing, it's just like government to
empower thugs. For some politician or dictator to
tell grown men and women what substances they
can and can't put in their own bodies... how insane.
We learned from our mistake with alcohol, but
somehow we can't put two and two together when it
comes to other substances. A "victimless crime" is
no crime at all. It's just another example of control
people/ protect people from themselves/ sacrifice
the individual to the group- type thinking.

And I should mention that a "pre-teen" is a minor, not
a consenting adult.

 

[Charlie]

Individual sacrifice for the common good is hardly unique to communism or fascism. The ancient Spartans, Athenians, and even Christians were very much into group norms. The thing that most made Rome Christian was the Christians' willingness to extend communal behavior to periods of military service. Not only were they willing to serve and die for a religion but they also were willing to serve and die for a legion.

What seems confusing is the West's unique capacity for individualism. But the only thing which enables individualism to flourish is the willingness of the group to defend the individual. Other societies have no tolerance for eccentricity or genius. Libertarians in the West are like fish in water. Once out of the West they, or at least their cherished principles, die.

The trick is to find a happy balance between the individual and the defense of society. Individual freedom has expanded, but it will always be countered by group interests. So no kiddie porn for now.

Minor? A societal construct. But most things are. Much to the chagrin of NAMBLA.

 

[jaxvid]

Wow you waited a whole ten seconds before pulling the kiddie porn/NAMBLA thing out about libertarians!

Seriously though I think you have hit on an important point. Libertarianism may only work when you have a critical mass of rational people. In non-white societies it ain't gonna work. Took me a while to realize that.

 

[JD074]

I don't know what's so noble about dying for
something. That's an unpopular sentiment, but I
don't care. Once you're dead, you're dead. It's
natural to desire to protect oneself and not die. Isn't
"the glory of sacrifice" just propaganda that's been
used for centuries to get people to go against their
natural self-interest and support political leaders'
ambitions? For example, I don't respect the gung ho
automatons who support Bush's war against Iraq.
The Toby Keith's of the world just seem dumb to
me.

But the only thing which enables individualism to
flourish is the willingness of the group to defend the
individual.

True, to the extent that people organize, work
together, develop rules of conduct, etc. But a central
political power isn't necessary for this. People could
organize themselves in a privatized society. That's
the idea behind capitalism and true Libertarianism
(not the half-assed "limited government"
Libertariamism). People need to work together, but
we don't need to sacrifice ourselves. The great thing
about capitalism is that people can pursue their own
interests, while indirectly benefitting society in the
process.

Other societies have no tolerance for eccentricity or
genius.

Their loss.

The trick is to find a happy balance between the
individual and the defense of society.

That's capitalism. People pursue their own interests
by working together. It organizes and advances
society through voluntary action.

I]Individual freedom has expanded, but it will always
be countered by group interests. [/i]

But we can agree that not all of those "group
interests" are good, right? Is this the same group
interest that says that it's wrong to smoke marijuana,
but okay to drink alcohol? How stupid is that? We
need the freedom to live our own lives, while having
a modern society that polices itself in a rational way.
I think that's possible in a capitalist society.

Minor? A societal construct. But most things are.
Much to the chagrin of NAMBLA.

Yes, it's a social construct, but those constructs are
advanced by capitalism. We become more civilized
through voluntary action and individual freedom, not
less.

 

[jaxvid]

You libertarian individualists need to join together in a single-minded group to advance your interests.

(words of wisdom from my grandfather)

 

[Charlie]

Nothing to do with nobility. Intergroup relations, successfully done, require a degree of game theory. "We are so unreasonable that if you attack one of us we will risk death to punish you by death. Of course we could be bluffing, but surely you remember what happened ten years ago." One example of this playing out happened in the Federal Pen in Marion, IL. A group of Blacks attacked a group of Whites. No Whites were killed or seriously hurt. But the Whites, in subsequent years, managed (so far) to kill four of the Blacks involved. Seems to have had the desired effect.

Or, as in the case of Jews in Mexico City, "We are so crazy we will not pay kidnap ransom, even though we know you will probably kill the member of our community you kidnap. You see, there is no profit in kidnapping a Jew in Mexico City. Lebanese maybe, but not Jews."

How was the West won? The Spanish couldn't do it. The Mexicans certainly couldn't. It took Scotch-Irish nutters to successfully whip the Indians. They would chase Indian war parties to the ends of the earth. Any attack on a White had to be repaid many times over. They even made a movie about it, 'The Searchers'. "An Indian will chase something until he thinks he's chased it enough. He can't believe there is something that won't give up. A White man just keeps coming. He just keeps coming."

People are not logical. They operate in a sea of fear, deceit, greed, anger, and hatred. Viable contracts require agreement beyond the particulars of the matter in question. That the oil industry won't be nationalized. That the banks won't convert dollar accounts to peso accounts. That the apartment building really has 120 units and that the office building's leaseable square footage doesn't include the janitor's closet. And that's the easy stuff. How do you negotiate sex mores, bass speaker volume, etc.? Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Whatnots have been negotiating for thousands of years on the Subcontinent. And they still can't agree other than to stage bloody riots on a regular basis.

The only way to get a diverse population on the same page is by force. Capitalism is too weak. Merchant greed naturally leads to no man paying for his sins. Today's miscreant may be tomorrow's paying customer.

 

[white lightning]

I just want to say well done to both JD074 and Charlie.
I enjoyed reading your discussion as it went back & forth.You are both very intelligent and it is an assett
to this discussion board to have you guys here as well
as everyone else too.Keep it up guys.

 

[right winger]

I second white lightning's sentiments. Your back and forth makes for excellent reading.