-
Rights, -isms, freedoms...
I take responsibility for myself. As an American, I have the "right" to say what I want, worship the God I choose, and bear arms against enemies. I will accept the "you're closed minded, and a fool" comments because I believe in Jesus, since I have the right to believe in Jesus, and others have the right not to. I also have the right to have an opinion about Muslims. Are all Muslims bad? No, mislead (IMHO), but not all are "bad". Should radicals be tolerated? No.
It's funny (sad) that our country would argue that those who invade America, or work against America should be given American rights. Why? Obviously, they (and their ideals) should be against our systems, avoid our lawyers, and deny themselves of our "infidel" ways.
Freedom of Speech. It came at a high price. You can ask whatever question you want, that doesn't mean that you will like the answer, or be immune from "name calling" (if name calling bothers you, then get off the playground and tell the teacher).
Muslims need to get a grip on their own people. Either by making a "they don't speak for us" comment, or tough it out about the blanket statements against Muslims.
If you are a bleeding heart liberal who wants to hold hands with the world and sing Kumbaya, then don't cry when all your rights are curtailed, because you don't like how others express theirs.
-
Good luck trying to find moderate Muslims who speak out against the extremists. The term moderate Muslim or moderate Islam was invented in the USA. In the middle east, there is only one Islam, and it's extreme. Ever wonder why u never see Muslims standing up against Muslim terrorists?
-
[QUOTE=anna5;954467]And the difference between Teapartiers and anarchists is .... [/QUOTE]
Quite clear.
-
[B]Soctt F[/B] Thanks for your thoughtful response and for the references. I have watched Chris Martenson's Crash Course and it's very good. I posted my last comment a little hastily, it could have been worded better.
I've seen end of Surburbia. I'd like to check out your other suggestions, but it will have to wait a while; I'm in the hospital with my son and they have all kinds of firewalls set up that limit internet sites. Also the internet keeps getting disconnected. I think I'll just read from now on and not post anything.
[B]Grok[/B] I agree with you corporations are fascists. And for the record I am not a Statist.
-
[QUOTE=Rusty;954537]
Muslims need to get a grip on their own people. Either by making a "they don't speak for us" comment, or tough it out about the blanket statements against Muslims.[/QUOTE]
I guess it didn't make the news that many muslims did in fact speak out against these attacks and condemned them? I can't find you a link right now but they had signs written in English even saying shit like "America...sorry for these assholes misrepresenting our religion..."
but anyway,
[img]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/392396_415606561840657_1670264745_n.jpg[/img]
-
[B]Urban Forager[/B] You're welcome. For the others following the economic free market arguments, I have some visuals for how much world economies depend upon petroleum. You won't hear this from either political party.
1) the world uses nearly 89 million barrels of oil each day. Since barrels are simply 42 gallon measurements I'm going to convert that into 55 gallon steel drums....something everyone has seen. 88,000,000 barrels of oil would fill 67,200,000 steel drums. At each being 3 feet tall, if you laid all those drums on their side to make a pipeline they'd stretch 38,182 miles long. Here's the math:
(88,000,000 x 42gal) / 55gal = 67,200,000sd
(67,200,000 x 3ft) / 5,280ft = 38,182 miles long
Since the circumference of the earth is 24,900 miles long the volume of oil the world uses in 55gal steel drums would encircle the earth 1 1/2 times....each and every day. You could encircle the earth with steel drums of oil 560 times every year.
Now here's were things get scary and relates to those videos such as Prof Rick Smalley: The International Energy Agency (IEA) has officially said conventional oil peaked in 2006 and is now in declining production. Anything that makes up that difference (if it can) will have to come from expensive to get unconventional oil plays - stuff like Canadian tar sands and deep water Gulf of Mexico.
Just to offset the IEA has said the global oil industry much put online the equivalent of 4 new Saudi Arabias worth of oil between 2008 and 2030. IOW over the next two decades the oil industry must put online a new Saudi Arabia worth of oil every 5 years...just to keep oil production capacity at it's current volume. However, developing countries such as China are demanding more and more oil to fuel their economic expansion. So the IEA says the oil industry actually needs to put online the equivalent of 6 new Saudi Arabias. So where's all this oil going to come from?
Now that we are in a presidential election cycle everyone ought to keep these stats in mind when listening to political rhetoric. If that oil doesn't come online then everyone's future is going to suck. Oil will be too costly from most people and rationing will return. And since there's an estimate of 10 calories of oil to produce 1 calorie of food a lot of people could go hunger. Food choices would be limited and expensive. Like Smalley says in his lecture: if we can't find a replacement for oil then the 21 Century is not going to be a pleasant place to live.
-
The un wants to limit free speech now, good thing the us avoids giving power/rights to international bodies
-
[QUOTE=kenn;964068]The un wants to limit free speech now, good thing the us avoids giving power/rights to international bodies[/QUOTE]
I thought Obama gets his permission to send US troops to war from the UN.
Am I mistaken?
-
Ben Franklin is credited with saying something along the lines of "anyone that is willing to give up an essential liberty for a little security, deserves neither liberty nor security" Still applies. Limit free speach in the interest of not offending someone's sensibilities? Nope.
-
[QUOTE=ssn679doc;964181]Ben Franklin is credited with saying something along the lines of "anyone that is willing to give up an essential liberty for a little security, deserves neither liberty nor security" Still applies. Limit free speach in the interest of not offending someone's sensibilities? Nope.[/QUOTE]I'm sure this worked wonderfully 250 years ago, when everyone's opinions stopped at our shores. My thoughts however, were along the lines of careless speech that results in the death of innocent people half a world away. It's all well and good to point the finger at the murderers as responsible, but if you [I]knew[/I] your words could result in the death of others, would you still say them? Or would you consider that not every culture thinks/reacts the same as Americans and temper your speech?
I'm all in favor of free speech, but I think I would choose my words more carefully, considering the current climate of the modern world.
