I'm asking what US laws the US is breaking by starting the wars.

As for who should own nukes... if somebody has to have them (nobody does, now), then it might as well be the US... because they've had them for 60+ years, have had ample opportunity to break them out, and never have. Actions speak louder than words.

I mean, I don't see how you can look at Iran, who've pledged the destruction of Israel, and the US, and say "Ya, they're the same", and if it's OK for the US to have nukes, it's OK for Iran, because clearly Iran will show the same restraint in their use as the US has. For all its faults, the US hasn't declared that their political goal is the destruction of another society (not since the 80s, anyway), and there is internal consequence to the US using nuclear weapons that doesn't apply in Iran.

wow, some of this is pretty unbelievable

In the country I live in, with the morons who are currently getting elected (both parties), pretty much every individual right needs to be in the constitution to avoid being legislated away.

The same people who are electing these morons are the people who you and amplify trust to take care of each others' children and respect each others liberties. Not gonna happen. Wish it would, but it won't.

ack

are you registered libertarian?

do you vote libertarian?

I am not regtered with any party. I do usually vote 3rd party, more often libertarian than not.
In 2000 I made an exception to my 'no democrats or republicans' general policy and voted for Al Gore because I thought the short-term need to prevent W being president outweighed the long term need of trying to increase 3rd party viability.

I also might vote for our republican candidate for governor in Washington state, Dino Rossi, this year. The democrat in office, Gregoire, made online poker a felony during her last term.

how do you vote, mets?

usually republican

i voted ron paul in the primary but didnt agree with his antiwar stance. But i do agree that govt in general has gotten too big, and i believe in most of the republican economic policies while wanting to preserve people's liberties

so i think im probably mostly a libertarian at heart but im reged republican and still usually vote republican

Full disclosure: I voted for W twice. Sorry about that.

i followed the 2000 us race in quite a lot of detail, including the conventions and all, and i was sold on W being the better choice. I guess you never know, AG might have been worse.

Theory: If Bush is better spoken, or Bush is a democrat, he's not the considered the villain like he is now.

disagree. I don't think of bush as a villain, in the same way as i wouldn't think of an octopus as a villain if it crashed a car i tried to get it to drive. He was just not capable of doing the job. Many of the people around him, however, i do think are villains.

Cheney is almost out of a Bond film.

i voted for W twice

and i still think he is better than gore or kerry wouldve been

I have no idea who this is, but i wiki'd, & if you'd like to tell me why you don't like her, grand.

I don't think that the media is controlled per se, but i do thing that there is a lot of effort going into controlling the discourse of international relations/politics, which is perhaps a more pretentious way of saying the same thing.

Lately i've been thinking a bit about human rights. I think they are a fascinating, and almost entirely illusory, concept.

I'm a registered Democrat (purely for historical reasons), but I lean more toward a mixed libertarian-republican view. I'm basically against the bible-thumping right wing side of the republican party and support individual responsiblity and rights.

I voted for W twice and would still vote him over Gore or Kerry.

As a taxpayer there is nothing that gets under my skin more than all the democratic supported entitlement programs. It's my money damn it!

And in my humble humble meaningless opinion McCain >>>>>> Obama

Any time a candidate looks me in the eye, points his finger, and says that he wants to raise my taxes, he isn't going to get my vote.

kokiri, maybe the chapter on "Human Rights as Property Rights" might interest you (and hopefully make you want to read the rest :P):
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fifteen.asp

I stand by it, but it's obviously just my opinion.

I started writing a whole lot about my dissatisfactions with strict deontologicalism and strict consequentialism, as well as the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian parties, but chose to delete it. I find it hard not to engage in political debate without either saying things that unintentionally appear to be trolling (or intentionally trolling -- it's pretty fun). I POGgers too much to get involved when I know I'll either get heated myself, or start provoking other people, so I'll probably just observe from here on out.

Madtown is a wolf
lynch madtown

San Francisco to decriminalize prostitution?

[ ] puzzle
[ ] other game

[ ] you're forced to post in this thread or read it

lol-wat prostitution is a crime?

since this thread sucks really hard and its just 3 or 4 people trying to prove how smart they are by copy pasting MSNBC heres a real game

How long in days would it take the USA to take over certain countries. By take over, lets just go with a definition of conquering the countrys military. Other rules of this engagement is no nukes or WoMD allowed for either side, just military and their regular weaponry.

My initial thoughts to be expanded on as im sure you cant wait to hear are:

Mexico - 1.5 months
Canada - 3 months
Chile - 12 to 16 hours
Germany - 2 months

I just stared reading so perhaps this has been covered already

but I think a couple possible reasons for the war have been overlooked

1) the war is adding billions and billions in debt which is good for the banks

2) not taking the oil is better for the oil companies than taking the oil

2a) Saddam was pumping too much oil and gas prices were too low

2b) gas prices are no longer low

More government borrowing = less available funds for the private sector, which is good for no one really. Moreover, at some point more US borrowing = US government no longer a AAA borrower, which is also pretty bad news.

It does feed into the question of bush's presidency, since both mets and mark cited tax burden as a key pro-bush plank. More borrowing is simply delayed taxation, and i think it's hard to argue that bush has really been a small government conservative.