Well, as I found, it GOT BETTER. I then found a site on a Link bar that directed me to this article:

http://www.ironhymen.com/boysprivates.asp

Which says and I QUOTE: "The stuff that comes out of boys every time they use you has as many calories as seven whole pints of Häagen-Dazs. That's why all the girls who do "it" always get so fat and ugly and have that ulcerated skin that screams to everyone in church, "I am an insatiable slut!"

*This site is a joke, combating the stupid things crazy religious political 'publicans usually shpeel.*

Quote

“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

– John Adams

Looks like everyone is panicking since a recent poll showed the Yes campaign is finally in the lead, though I can't say I blame you Scotland.

If wonderful, unwaveringly socialist Scotland leaves the union, what happens with the rest of us? Will it be a permanent tory government, or will something have to give? I'm not sure, but I don't think it's going to be very pretty.

The TUC secretary or someone was just warning everyone about the re-emergence of a Downton Abbey style society here, before the BBC News channel cut her off in order to tell us about the Duchess of Cambridge being pregnant again. You couldn't make it up.

I wonder if we'll go back to the days of the industrial north against the well-to-do south? Minus the actual industries, of course.

I still can't blame you if you leave.

*sighs*

Where's that website gone that was all about Independence for Yorkshire...? Hmm... perhaps we could team up with Wales...

And yes, it frightens me, with good reason. If UKIP have any parliamentary success whatsoever, they'll be teaming up with the likes of the EDL and the BNP before anyone has the chance to blink, and what then? Especially if socialist Scotland leaves us? If the election in 2015 is another historic "undecided" result like before? Combined with the weakened left and the idiotic complacency (silent support?) of the establishment... well...

I know there are a lot of ifs, but there seem to be an awful lot of things converging in the not-too-distant future. It could well be the makings of a perfect storm. I make no predictions, but I feel a very singular sense of dread when I think forward to the election in 2020.

I hope I'm wrong.

I laugh at UKIP along with the rest, but they aren't really funny. Not at all.

1) If they were legal, couldn't reputable businesses sell them at lower than street prices for a higher quality product since they would obviously want to keep repeat customers?

2) Wouldn't this free up scientists to do research and possibly develop safer, lesser lethal forms of these drugs?

3) This could free up marijuana for medical use as well without the government red tape.

4) For the drugs that require needles, couldn't the medical field OPENLY encourage using new and sterile needles (this would help prevent the spread of blood borne diseases)?

5)There could also be places for these goings on (like how smokers have their hidey holes in some buildings) that would keep it away from young children and children in general.

6) Reputable business would be far less likely to sell to minors due to steep potential penalties and other such consequences.

What do you guys think about all this?

Ok, flash forward to the 2009 swearing in ceremony. This one's cost is estimated at $160million (public funds - AND - a true record breaker.) In fact, President Bush has declared a 'state of emergency' in order to allow the federal government to release those funds for this use. (Never been done in the history of the US) Right now, we're in the middle of TWO wars and Severe recession which is teetering on a total economic collapse.

But yet, outside of a news report I found from Britain, there's no PEEP of the same outrage for this outlandish expendature from those media outlets that gave the Republicans hell in 2005. In fact, all I've seen is glowing compliments by the press for this swearing in ceremony.

So if you're a Democrat - give us the reason that it was TERRIBLE for Bush to spend $40million (private donations) during a good economy - but GREAT for Obama to spend $160million (public funds) during a severe recession...

Highlights: Palin explicitly promoted "teach the controversy" by calling for the misnamed "creation science" to be taught in public schools (as now well documented in Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District, it's known that "creation science" is nothing more and nothing less than a method of putting young-earth creationism in public schools)... ...It also appears that Sarah Palin is a member of a misnamed group called Feminists for Life. FFL in fact engages in "cultural appropriation" of women's suffrage icons to promote a very woman-unfriendly agenda that--despite attempts to sound "not like those crazies in Operation Rescue"--would not only criminalise abortion but the IUD and hormonal birth control methods, and potentially everything outside the rhythm method (the term "abortifacient birth control" is a codephrase in the dominionist "pro-life" community for hormonal birth control--partly due to a unique urban legend claiming "the pill" and other hormonal birth control causes abortion and partly because of a unique definition of pregnancy beginning at conception rather than at implantation (the latter is what most mainstream OB/GYNs use) and thus making anything preventing implantation potentially "abortifacient").

FFL promotes such fun bogosities as "post-abortion syndrome" (the idea that having an abortion will inevitably lead to PTSD and insanity), and promotes mandatory waiting periods and misinformation guidelines that can be insurmountable for poor or rural women--even those forced to make the most heartbreaking choice because of a nonviable pregnancy. In fact, one of their biggest causes isn't feminist at all--they actively promote the idea that the best choice for women is to stay home as fulltime mothers, and it can be well argued that the only traditionally feminist viewpoint they really support is women's suffrage!

One of the big things FFL promotes is deceptive "pregnancy counseling centers"--where pregnant teens are forced to essentially listen to an altar call on how "abortionists want to murder their children" whilst a pee-stick test clears--and if she tests "yes", she gets a hard-sell to keep the child or to check herself into a dominionist-run "halfway house for teenage moms" where she will ultimately be forced to sign her kid over. (Yes, there is an entire private adoption industry in the dominionist community--mostly focusing on adopting out the infants of poor teenage mothers who have been forced to give their kids up and who have been either scared into it or checked into such facilities by their parents.)...

In short: This is nothing less than a stealth Dominionist ploy to sneak one of their own into a dangerous position of major power (and need I remind you of McCain's age/health history in regards to this potential implication??). PLEASE pass this link around to as many people as you can. The threats Palin poses, especially to women's rights, are very real and frightening.

Vote for Obama as he swore he would protect a woman's right to birth control and abortion, not these two so called mavericks.

Beth

cheers!

So, thoughts?

Rant One:

Charity organizations that broadcast commercials on TV. These people piss me off more than any other type of ad. These people are always, always asking for money to help people outside of the country. America in general has a lot of problems that we need to fix, before we go out and spend millions of dollars to help people in other countries. Not only are gas prices and groceries causing a 'new depression', some people think, but the lack of jobs and the increase in homeless people in our OWN country is bad enough to need help.

I was talking about this to a British friend of mine, she said that the homeless in America are normally alcoholics who drink their lives away. I told her that there are also homeless children, and it's not their fault at all. She said to blame the parents. I told her if she's going to use that logic, then why shouldn't we blame the people from Africa or India for the state they're in? Why should other countries get special treatment? Does being from a 'third world country' make your poverty any more special than somebody on American soil?

If she was going to say that the homeless who drink themselves out of a job and home, don't deserve help, why not help the children then? Is it to keep an image? Why do these charity organizations not help the people around where they live? They're always preaching about how the conditions are so bad in other countries, yet there are also people in their own damned home towns that are eating out of the trash behind KFC to survive, people who collect cans just to keep them and their children alive. People living in their cars, on the streets, so on.

These people don't CHOOSE to be without a home, why don't they matter?

Hell, even I, a completely healthy nineteen year old, am having a hell of a lot of trouble finding a job. Many jobs nowadays require at least a year or two of college, or you don't stand a chance. A lot of people can't afford college.

This is something that I can't stress enough, it's not to be racist, it is entirely true. I mentioned a while ago that in my home town, during cherry picking season, a lot of illegal Mexicans come to pick cherries, they don't need ID, they don't get checked or drug screened, it's the ideal job for illegal immigrants. They ARE taking our jobs, even if you live in a place that illegal aliens don't go to, it happens elsewhere, and people are finding it harder and harder to get a job, or run a business, because illegals will do it for half as much, with twice as many people. ( A guy here was recently forced out of his janitorial business because of illegal immigrants doing the same work, for $5 an hour, and using three times as many people.)

None of this is the people's fault, yet still no one does a thing, they insist on helping out poor people in Africa. I believe this 100% to be because they want to have an 'image', as something that helps the 'needy' people from a third world country, so they can get more donations.

... And that's enough of that... You've got my point.

Rant Two:

Feminism. If you're going to preach about equal rights, and how you're being suppressed... Don't start a protest with "MEN ARE INFERIOR." it's the most hypocritical thing you could possibly do. Wanting equal rights, and then putting down men, SUPPRESSING them, crying sexism at the slightest comment, the fact that you can't get hired, the fact that your CLOTHES COST MORE.... It's just completely illogical, hypocritical, and frustrating. It makes me glad though, that Susan B. Anthony made it possible for you to go to jail, as I'm sure many of these feminazis would commit murder just so they could say men are inferior to them.

This adds onto the jobs I was talking about. A woman can call sexism, if she feels like she's not being hired because she's a woman. This does not work both ways, a lot of people from my home town tried this on a convenience store in town, they didn't have a SINGLE man on the staff, and would not hire one. There was an attempted law suit against them, but the guy lost.

Sexual harassment as well, it does happen both ways. In middle school, I was being sexually harassed (Crotch and ass groping) by a girl there. I had told the principal (Woman) about it, and all she did was ask the girl if it was true, when the girl said it was the other way around, I GOT EXPELLED INSTANTLY.

This is probably because if the girl had told her parents, they could have sued the school for not doing anything about it. And the only reason they could do something like that and win, is because of feminists preaching the mistreatment and suppression of women, by men.

You probably have this rant down by now, on to the next.

PETA and vegetarianism:

I'm going to start this one by showing you some videos, and things that these people are claiming. I probably won't have to do much ranting after you see them.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xhFf1vXEltA

And I just have to bring this up, what does this have to do with ANYTHING?

Taking your clothes off for a bunch of people, is going to get your point across?

Okay, onto the rant.

PETA talks about saving ALL animals, releasing ALL animals from captivity. This means no pets, yes, pet lovers who donate to PETA don't get this. They say that having a pet is unethical, even if they would have died without you. In their world, every single animal is to be released from captivity, this means endangered species, like Pandas, who can't seem to breed without help (I think it's because they're vegetarian.. XD!), sick animals as well, who will die if released into the wild.

Releasing all of the animals won't do any thing, they'll just eat each other anyways, and animals eating meat? THAT'S HORRIBLE! They aren't supposed to eat each other, that's MURDER remember? Well think about this. PETA rescued over 2000 animals a few years ago (I'm too tired to look it all up) Out of the total number of animals, they put all but under 800 of them to sleep. (See: http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY )

They also showed in the first video, that the grain used to feed the cows and livestock, could be used to feed starving children in Africa. (See rant one) But if we aren't eating the cows, to feed us, and then giving the grain to another country, what will we eat? Dedbeet13 (Think that was it) said it best, look at the related videos on the first link.

There was also another video I found, I think it was by dedbeet as well, it was an actual video that PETA had on their site, showing Jesus as a near evil looking man, who... Well if you check that guy's profile, you can find it, it was pretty retarded. Saying that Jesus was a murderer, because he ate fish... I mean, I'm not religious, but what the fuck? Attacking a religious idol because he ate meat? Guess what PETA, your PARENTS ATE MEAT, and if THEY didn't, then I'm sure your grandparents did. Get a job, shave your legs, and start caring about people, and less about what we eat.

This is all, hope you enjoyed.

She is late in her attack on Obama, she has been attacking the others but not the person who is now the front runner of the candidates right now. That should have happened earlier in the process, but she had people bending her way back then now Obama has won the people over with his constant talk about what he would do and what his plans are for the country, but Hilary is basically stating the same thing over again that the other side is basically saying with no serious change.

And another thing that has hurt her campaign - BILL CLINTON!

She really needed to tell Bill about three months ago, to go take a bloody nap and let me handle this, you ain't a candidate anymore, Bill. He has hurt her campaign more then she has.

She still think that she has the chance to win it, I say look at all the people who she once had their votes have now defected over to Obama since the other states started to hold their primaries and start to say I will fight this fight another year and back Obama and let him start his campaign against that other's side's nomination John McCain. She is not ready to become the first woman president, not at this time. She can wait for the next round. Seriously!

Hilary Clinton is not ready for the big time as in the presidency of the United States.

I seriously do not think that Hilary or McCain is right for this country. They both are is too political. We need a total fresh face in the White House and Obama is the one.

Beth

The federal government should play a role similar to that of a police force, in that it must provide a means of prevention and recourse for members of society who are wronged by other individuals, with wrongs and their consequences to be determined by the society in question, with judicial oversight to determine validity. The purpose of the legislature is to craft the laws, but not to interpret them, and is meant to serve the interests of the people, not anyone specific group. When so called minority causes begin to have champions, everything becomes a minority cause. The government is not supposed to solve squabbles between separate interests, but rather to provide a means for those interests to work out their own deals. Rather than creating an ever increasingly complex tangle of rules, it should provide a means of negotiation impartial to both sides. Only where a violation of the rights granted by the system occurs should a law be necessary. It is the responsibility of the Executive branch to ensure an orderly and effective means of running this government; so long as the rights of the people are not violated it should not worry about the means so much as the consequences. Failed programs should be terminated and replaced, not fixed or expanded.

The conflict faced by government is the depth of its role in common affairs. Modern candidates seek power, not progress, and are willing to promise goals which can only be accomplished through the expansion of their power. This places an unfair burden on the federal government, especially as consecutive generations of politicians seek to their own agendas, modifying or undoing the accomplishments of those who came before. To call this orderly chaos is unfair; there is nothing orderly about it. Instead ever increasing levels of bureaucracy are added to disguise the running conflicts that never seem to be resolved. Thus to be truly effective, higher levels of government should be given less responsibility. The federal government should have only three major areas of responsibility: security, financial, and mediation.

The Roles Expanded

Security- Just as each township and village has its own police force, so must the federal government act to ensure the welfare of the citizens. First, strong international presences through an unequivocal force of arms. This must be recognized for what it is: a means of defense rather than a means of destruction. As each successful government would be seeking a similar position it would be all too easy to fall into an arms race, and steps should be taken to prevent this. While the sharing of military technology with unfriendly hands would be terrible to consider, joint military operations so that each government might have some idea of the capabilities of its fellows would be useful, as well as a good way to promote constant investment in the forces necessary for defense. Finally, a strong intelligence initiative is important, so that those responsible for security are aware of changes both to and by a noted threat.

Financial- First, the government must provide a universally accepted currency of good value. This will in turn help ensure the financial ability of its citizens. In order to accomplish this the government must act more as a wise business man rather than as an over generous parent: willing to spend its money wisely, and even take a few risks, yet unwilling to just give it away to any who might ask. No one district or state should ever get back more than what it gives to the federal coffers, unless that money is being spent on a federal, and only a federal, project. This includes such things as new military bases, FBI offices, and other buildings necessary for the execution of federal programs.

Second, programs such as welfare and so called “universal healthcare” should be abolished. Any attempt to run such programs eventually turns them into political weapons, which does nothing more than defeat their intended purposes while at the same time crippling those who might find themselves dependent on those programs. Instead of welfare, a work substitute program, used to staff such things as custom and immigration agencies for those who are unable to find work, while funds for social healthcare initiatives should be invested into the hospitals directly, with only a few minor restrictions on how the funds might be spent, and even then those restrictions would be aimed at ensuring the money is spent on patients and their care, rather than on those running the operations. (It is acknowledged that there are those who are incapable of functioning in society, for whatever reasons. While the government should aid in financially supporting their care, it should not be allowed to dictate the terms of said care. That should be left to the communities where those individuals live, as there is likely to be an increase of specific interest from said communities.) A program such as Social Security is acceptable, as in this case the government should be acting as a bank, merely putting aside money earned by an individual for that individual’s later use. While finding ways for that money to grow through interest, the government should at no time be allowed to “loan” that money to itself.

Any funding left over after the above needs have been met should be reinvested into the communities from which it comes, with a small amount held in reserve for emergency relief situations, and for the easing and prevention of national debt. This would provide continued support for education, social programs, and similar constructs necessary for a healthy society could be funded, while specific problems and needs could be corrected and handled at the community level, as this is where it is most likely to be noticed, and easier to handle.

Mediation- The purpose of the courts is to rule in criminal matters, assign blame where blame must be assigned, and to negotiate settlements between two wronged parties. This should be left to the courts and the courts alone, to prevent special interest groups from trying to sway opinions. Law should be the tool by which disputes are framed, not decided. When the way to settle a dispute is to write a new law, it is likely to turn in favor of the group best able to influence the situation, whether or not they are in the right or wrong. The courts then, especially those elected, are most likely to be neutral, for a judge that seemingly serves a specific interest rather than that of the people is not likely to hold the bench for very long.

Finally, the federal government should only pass such laws as are necessary to ensure an equal status amongst the states. This follows on things such as abortion, drinking age, and regulation of interstate commerce. If one state denies a service then all states should deny the service; it also follows that if one state provides a service than all states should provide a service and that the federal government should decided between the two, preferably through national referendums, voted on during regular election cycles.

Please, criticize and critique. The entire point to writing this was so that I might discuss it with others.

2. Understand that what one member posts as his/her view, may not be something that you agree with. Politics and related subjects are volatile in nature to discuss, if one allows that to be so in his/her reaction to a particular topic. If the topic content is something you dislike, and you find yourself not wanting to participate; stay away from that topic. That'll help keep things from devolving into a mess.

3. Please understand that what the original poster puts in his/her topic is THEIR opinion of whatever the subject matter is that they are posting about and would like to discuss. You do not have to agree or disagree with that person to participate in the discussion. I expect that views will vary widely from topic to topic. No problems with lively discussions between us all, but no personal attacks if one does not agree with something posted. That will get the topic locked and the person who attacked moderated.