Anti-Neocons

The USA still has the highest standard of freedom of speech in the entire world. Screw Canada.

_________________
"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him." ~ Jonathan Swift

yeah, I agree with Iconoclast in a way. The U.S. is really good about Freedom of Speech.. we have one of the greatest protections in the world of it.. despite what the media and government will supress. In a pure doctrinal sense.. The First Ammendment and the judiciary that backs it up is near perfect. It's citizens who will eventually go on to mess it all up. There's problems, but it is really good.

_________________
Render unto Cesar that which he has rendered unto you - hardship, imprisonment, torture, and eventual death. Fuck Cesar. Let him be hanged.

we have a low standard of freedom of expression. And freedom of the press is a joke, our media is totally controlled.

In most european countries no one is going to freak out if a breast is shown on TV but in the US the xtians would have a coniption fit about it.

you can't talk about religion here, and you and can't talk about politics unless you are inside the right-left paradigm.

You have the right to free speech in so far as you can pay for it. Say too much and youget censored.

What is good about Canada and other nations is the lack of an overwelming military industrial bureuxcarcy. the discrepancy of wealth is larger in the US than even India, in fact it is the highest in the world.

We are the only nation with military bases all over the world. We are an empire.

I'm not talking about expression in the media or how well our expressions are able to get out. That's a cultural issue. On the legal side and concerning the constitution, we've got better protections than many. I've read many times that at any time they want, the British police could invade a broadcaster's place of business, confiscate all of their papers and information, all without any warrent.

Not only that, Britian (as well as Canada and Austrialia) have insanely fascist lible (not sure if I spelled it wrong) laws. They have MUCH less protection than Americans in what they can say about a Corporation and whatnot. Or in the case of the Christians in Australia, what they can say about Islam. Say what you will about religion or WHATEVER.. but in all legal terms, we have much "freer" speech than Canada, the U.K., or Australia. And that's something I'm actually proud of.

Now, the disgraceful part is how truthful voices get discouraged, how Neocons and Corporate voices monopolize the media, and how people are divided by pundits and politicians when they should be uniting against those tyrannies. Duh, these things totally need work. But in a legal sense, we really do have a great Constitution (Ammendments included).

_________________
Render unto Cesar that which he has rendered unto you - hardship, imprisonment, torture, and eventual death. Fuck Cesar. Let him be hanged.

I am a short, tiny, irritable lawyer. The Federalist Papers express my views adequately. And it isn't the ideas, IT IS HIM. What possible philosophy COULD Bush have? He cannot pronounce the word, let alone spell it. He WANTS, by right of birth. I DON'T WANT him, by right of sentience.

_________________
Is Bush WORSE than James Buchchan?

I'd just like to address something...

When they refer to "equality," most socialists I've known aren't so much concerned with making everyone the same as flattning enormous social inequalities--by fostering material equality.

That said, I think the degree of heirarchy that exists in modern society is contrary to the evolved needs and expectations of a human being.

_________________
planet over property
community over competition
well-being over wealth
cooperation over control

EXACTLY, it is almost as if it were driven by jealousy.

I think the stock market allows for too much of a monitary insintive for politicians to not use the government as a meduim for expanding the worth of companies they buy into and then increase the profti marigins of by awarding them government contracts.

Nowhere have people been willing to work as well for the common good as they do for their own benefit. That's the big flaw in socialism.

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter
"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman

Google version of War by Deception
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed



ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you

I don't know that "jealousy" is the motive.... I'm not a socialist in the traditional sense but speaking for myself, I find it sickening to see the executive aristocracy in this country flitting around in outfits that cost enough to feed entire Third World families for a year.

A point commonly missed in these discussions is the fact that these people's exhorbitant wealth doesn't appear from nowhere. Traditionally, the workers produce the wealth that makes the rich rich. The West has merely outsourced much of its proletariat to the Third World. The staggering luxury enjoyed by the Western nations is made possible by the abject poverty of most of the world. You can't have one without the other...for us to be rich, they must be poor. If anybody thinks that's fair, I hope their children are starving peasants someday.

_________________
planet over property
community over competition
well-being over wealth
cooperation over control

The primary fault of socialism was it's failure to meet the needs of the individual. It identified the common good with the State and relied upon the people's allegience to the State. Officially, it assumed the individual benefits when the State benefits, but I'm not sure how much most socialists really believed that.

The primary fault of capitalism is it's failure to meet the needs of the collective. It relies upon individuals acting in what they percieve to be their best interests and assumes the whole will benefit.

The trick is to get what's good for the individual and the common good to overlap as much as possible. We need to create situations where people can act for the collective good and recieve benefits themselves that they can actually see. I think that would have to involve some sort of localism, which I'm very much in favor of.

_________________
planet over property
community over competition
well-being over wealth
cooperation over control