Very good, I laughed.

Most of the charges against Dubya have little to do with Iraq (at least any charges that would stick), and a lot to do with Gitmo and other clandestine holding facilities. It has a lot to do with the Administrations tactics in obtaining information from detainees; actions that mirrored much of what Milosevic did to the Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims.

Unless you belong to the current administration and believe that peace always comes at the point of a gun. I reject the notion of peace that says, "I have a bigger gun than you, so shut up and be quiet". The Bush Doctrine has almost completely destroyed any international good-will... I'd be very interested to see how many war criminal charges can be brought against him once he leaves office; there are already several counties in the United States, that I have heard, who have warrants out for his arrest should he ever go through their county.

There is no critical thinking on your part, Waffler. When you originally posted on this site, you were absolutely sure about what the founding fathers said because at that time, you thought, they were on your side of the argument (I'm still laughing at many threads of yours wherein you tried to convince the world of their philosophies; all without producing anything from what they actually said). Through this last year and a half, as you've continually been shown that your sophistry has no historical background beyond what you've fabricated out of thin air, you've suddenly become the great self-proclaimed "critically thinking free mind". Hogwash. When you found none of your ideologies matched with the founding of this nation, of course you'll turn to the only ledge possibly left for you: to turn on the founders. At least intelligent liberals will merely have a disagreement of opinion; you have continually sought to rewrite history according to your own meandering opinions! CONSTANTLY! I have yet to find a single instance wherein societal problems cannot be solved by adhering to our grand charter (The Constitution). "Founding Gods"? No, they were just men. But they had a life experience, ethic, education, and understanding that we could only hope for in modern-day politics. Men of principle, not men of infallibility. Men who understood what it takes to make a country great AND free! Men who rose above epochcentrism to understand the core ideas, laws, and philosophies that have transcended every nation, generation, society, and civilization. I have yet to see or hear of Obama swearing upon the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny that may exist upon the minds or hearts of men; but then again, he has never had to go through the life experience of fighting for and building a nation that Jefferson went through either -- and he never will. At best, I have only heard Obama spewing the same liberal bias; socialism wrapped in a neat blanket of necessary societal "change".

Just as a side note, it's good to see that the Obama camp is ready to "rule" the country (fun article from an interesting source): http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1.html?q=blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/11/10/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1

Whoa, I bet you cracked a boner just by breathing the same air as "Joe" (if not just a little tickle); I look forward to seeing if everything Barack touches is really gold... Then again, that didn't really work for Midas now, did it? With how you talk about Barack, I'm surprised he doesn't have the power of impregnating women by his mere essence alone (all the talk of "rebirth", I'm guessing his man-ness is pretty fertile; I'm still looking for the lilies, sweet smelling grass, and abundant life to spring out from his every footstep); I guess we'll all wait and see just what the American Messiah can do. If he walks on water, I myself may just crack a boner...

Jim, or you can say "Obamanation" spelled out... This quote is historically correct and in context; surely, we'll have a few naysayers who will be offended at how this quote may identify with our present situation as a country. Interesting article today, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY&refer=worldwide ... so much for the "transparency" of the Fed. $2 trillion? Ah, that's just pocket change! Just tack it onto the debt slavery that our children will have to pay off; Both the Republican and Democrat controlled Congress is severely guilty of overspending; when we start spending government money domestically to pay off these bad loans in the private/corporate world, we must realize that such "loans" come with certain socialistic strings attached (all in the name of "holding" these companies "feet to the fire").

And your blatant rejection of absolute history never ceases to amaze me. I've met ignorant people before, Waffler, but you're the first "evil" (very Socratic, not moral) person I've really ever talked with. Disagree with history, fine; but you ignorantly reject all fundamental and absolute aspects of history and substitute your own asinine sophistry. This is not ignorant, this IS evil. Certainly a traitor to American liberty.

It doesn't appear the book will be in wide circulation; it was apparently from a collection of articles compiled within a single work. The actual article itself does not appear to have hit mainstream media until I was reprinted in a following work "Banker's Manifest" (which was circulated to the corporate heads of the financial world around the middle of the 1930's). Capitalism in the free market deals with individuals and corporations; Government controlled Capitalism is merely Socialism (all capital and property placed in the hands of the state). This transition from the people's capital to government controlled capital has been happening for the last 100 years -- why did it take so long? There are various reasons given, but the most simple (Occam's Razor) is that the American ideology of free-enterprise was so ingrained within the populace that it would take this long to transition the people's focus to desiring a socialist regime without their notice. Even in 1934 Congress was working against the property ownership of the people themselves; remember that the PEOPLE use to have absolute ownership over their land through Allodial freehold. Historically, property defines who is sovereign and who isn't; in feudal Europe, no one but the sovereign of the land owned land (in fact, it was because he "owned" the land that made him sovereign). The Sovereign Lord could then legitimately tax all income, sales distribution, interaction, and movement through his land (this is the essence of feudalism); not until the Sovereign Lord would give up a portion of his property to another in "Allodial Title" could another individual legitimately and legally be called "sovereign". Land was too precious to ever give away, so there were very, very, very few people who were ever deemed "sovereign" (why would the king over all the land ever want to give away that power?). Allodial Freehold was the legal document wherein a person owned their land free and clear; after receiving this document, no other power could ever take their land from them or tax them -- it was theirs free and clear; most historical documents we have showing Allodial Freehold are established on the principle of "inalienability" -- or, in other words, the land was the sovereign's forever, and nothing could EVER "alienate" him from that land. Why? Because that's what sovereign meant. Now, in the US, we use to have Allodial Freehold, but with the expansion of the western frontier during the onset of our country, it was not the cultural thing to do to stay on your land for several generations like it had been in feudal Europe. There was an exception with Allodial title wherein you could legally change to "Real" title (Real = Royal; the offering of land to be operated, controlled, and owned by the State). Properties in Allodial Freehold could never be borrowed against, liened, or sold, because the basic premise of what "inalienable property" meant. During the transition and migration of people to the western frontier, they needed money for their endeavor; their properties that they had held in Allodial Freehold could do nothing for them, so they switch their title from Allodial to Real title so that they could collateralize (selling, borrowing against, renting, etc.) on their land and fund their journeys. Now, while we can establish a very tight fit in correlation, it is hard to find the causation of subsequent government interference; however, we have some interesting ideas. These ideas form from such Congressional Records that say, "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual and so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere 'user' and use must be in acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State" (US Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (1934)). The fact that this statement exists in 1934 shows that this had not been the "law" (the way things existed) before 1934. All government actions since then have been done under these parameters. This effectively closed/transitioned all possible Allodial claims to Real Title; nowadays, all estate is "Real" estate. Since all property title is in the hands of the State, this means that the individual could no longer "own" land in Alloidial Freehold -- this effectively gave up all claims of sovereignty within the United States by the individuals (as historically "sovereignty" has been defined), and established government as the ultimate sovereign -- from this point it can be easily argued that the people lost their independence under the Constitution. As every political theorist, philosopher, or "scientist" has ever stated, the best way to subvert a people is to enslave the people through laws without their knowledge. Rome was the master of doing this; after conquering a people, Rome would still let those conquered carry on in the daily manner as they had done for hundreds of years. People willingly surrendered to Rome (gave up the freedom) because Rome was not perceived as a horrible task-master; after all, the newly conquered area would now be under Roman protection (the strongest army in the world), and all the people had to do for this new protection was pay a few taxes on their increase/income, interactions, and movements (the beginning of European feudalism). Interestingly enough, Caesar was the first real documented "sovereign" type figure wherein this whole scheme began. Once you begin to see history as it was, current political arguments seem rather trite.

People who think "gold ain't shit" are ignorant; read a book, study some history, and get an education. If you like super inflation, support our current financial and currency policies; if you like super inflation, support a fiat currency; if you like super inflation, support the printing of money with nothing to back it "but the people's confidence in that dollar". There are only two things that back our dollar: (1) the people's confidence, and (2) GDP (which any economist will say is unwise to base a currency's longevity and purchasing power on GDP). Ever heard of the "inflation tax"; it's the tax that the middle and lower classes receive through corrupt government policies (due to our corrupt financial system), when the money they have saved loses its purchasing power due to inflation. This is not a hard concept to understand. Fiat currencies inflate; gold (commodity) backed currencies retain their purchasing power. Fiat currencies rely on debt and consumer spending; gold currencies rely on saving and a manufacturing/industrial based economy. A currency doesn't have to be back by gold solely, but it is always wise to back a currency with a commodity that is more difficult than others to obtain. Markets will shift, and when gold no longer becomes profitable to ore, then another material will enter high demand (this is the way commodity currencies work). Backing a nation's currency with a commodity also creates a "natural" barrier against the runaway spending by both the Republic AND Democratic Congress; it limits that amount of money the Fed can spin off the printing press; and it pressures the United States to have the manufacturing/industrial base that made it great. All you have to do is look at where Hitler's idea took him; super inflation made his currency all but worthless within a matter of years (absolutely no purchasing power) -- only an idiot would look at the constant string of evidences against fiat currencies to ever purport such an asinine policy.

I often wonder why people are so enamored with giving government absolute power in overriding capitalistic investments; do people not think that once government has power it will behave exactly like these corporations? Because of the party system, elections largely don't matter anymore when trying to re-evaluate and shift the direction of America (especially when there are only two parties in the system), because only two schools of thought are present; only an ignorant fool would believe that possibly every good idea could only come through two groups. Thus, in a two party system, when government grabs a hold of absolute power (through the ignorant majority giving it to them through usurpation; or merely with government usurping it without even a majority's consent), it is impossible to change without a revolution. You think getting out from underneath the hand of tyranny from these big bad corporations is hard? Try getting out from the tyrannical hand of government tyranny. Obama is not looking on relieving government tyranny; he only purports more of it (the same goes for McCain).

Before the Civil War, that's exactly what people identified themselves with; in fact, society at large didn't even have an idea of being a citizen of the "United States". It was the 14th Amendment that changed all of that. Are you considering over 70 years of people in American history "traitors" Waffler? Really? Evil and ignorance often share a common thread, and to now I've only placed you as ignorant -- please tell me it's just ignorance and not evilness that fuels the supporters of Obama. Also, because of my disdain for Obama, don't be so naive as to believe that I'm in McCain's camp. That's yet another problem with America: People believe that if you're not with one campaign, you're instantly for his rival. Problem is, both candidates are in the shit-house, and the smell is reeking across America.

No doubt, the pendulum of society is swinging towards socialism. Candidates in American history used to talk of philosophy, natural rights, and the establishment and legitimacy of government; however, today, we only talk about how we'll push our policy over the next guy -- regardless of individual rights or government legitimacy. Is abortion okay? Well, let the majority decide. Is rape and murder okay, let the majority decide (the people in Rwanda DID decide, but for some reason this wasn't "Democracy"). I often wonder what the girl thinks who is being gang raped of majority decision-all-of-the-time-without-exception. Is sodomy okay? Let the majority decide? Is theft by due process a legitimate course for government? Let the majority decide. Can the workers of any corporation rise against the owner and take over his company? Let the majority deci.... wait a minute? This level of social Democracy -- isn't this... wait! THIS IS SOCIALISM!! Wow! How wonderfully Marxist! Democracy's ultimate manifestation is SOCIALISM!! There are no "property" rights in a Democracy for the same reason there are Socialism... The first reason is the most obvious -- BECAUSE THEY'RE THE SAME THING! Secondly, if the people ever discover that they have the ability of voting a man out of his house, then public greed soon runs rampant until the entire course of society comes crashing down. Thirdly, if legitimacy of government is solely based on society's majority consent, then that society has no absolute rights; after all, it is stipulated that any "rights" of the people were given by the majority (that being the only stipulation for legitimacy), and what the majority can give, the majority can take away. If you agree with any of this shit, you're insane! Such convoluted nonsense is what wreaks in this country! The majority is just a conglomerate of individuals; what magical happenings occur when a majority is convened that "rights" are born?! AH! The founders called this USURPATION! When the majority simply ASSUMES powers out of thin air, this was their definition of usurpation and tyranny! WAKE UP PEOPLE!! History isn't hard to understand! Forget about what you want to hear and simply read it to understand! Yes, this nation IS becoming more Democratic/Socialist; however, CONSTITUTIONALLY, we are a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. Once an ignorant majority begins to decide the course of nations, our Republic is destroyed and a Democracy is established in its place. Individuality is now turning into communal living... What do we want? A Republic or a Socialist Democracy?

There are no politicians talking about the source of problems; well, there was one, but the Republicans hated him and the media blackballed him. Waffler, once again, proves everything we've been saying for nearly a year now... polls and statistics are the very "party spirit" that our founders warned us against. It's nice to see that Waffler will get out for his candidate to win, but will stay at home while relief efforts are going on for distressed and displaced victims -- after all, as Waffler said, he pays someone else to do it for him. Get enough people on your side, and the truthiness and wikiality of life will come screaming full steam ahead. I agreed with Waffler's statement a few days ago, that "the more things change, the more they stay the same" -- and I'll reiterate what I said then too: This is why Obama is full of shit. He has all the sweet smelling words of a politician promising change and all the foul smelling politics-as-usual of a douche bag (and the same goes for McCain). If people are REALLY arguing between Obama and McCain as to which would make a better president, they have their head so far up their ass they obviously don't know a damn thing about principle, history, or any facts whatsoever. It is sad that a frenzied society as we are seeing in America today over this election is so enamored with what they illogically conceive as "pragmatic" that they completely dismiss "principle". It doesn't matter what history has proven works and doesn't work -- people ignorantly want what they want, regardless of if it will work or not. There's just no convincing people sometimes -- if they want a plate of shit to eat, sometimes they're not satisfied until they've set down to feast on what they've been hankerin' for. The nation IS apathetic, regardless of its frenzy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdHtW_81kwg

There are no "principles" in a "Democracy" -- only the majority's choice of what will be. Majority rule, absolutely, with no exceptions -- this is Democracy. Whatever the majority decided to do at any one time, that is the only stipulation of legitimacy in a Democracy. While the majority can be "guided", this is not freedom; "guided" majorities end in groupthink, irrational individual choice (cultural choice theory), and loss of individual liberty. The supposition and education of good government must rest within the individual; groups cannot "reason", only individuals can (after all, there is really no such thing as a "group" without a culmination of individuals).

Brilliant observation of a man who actually studied history. It is unwise for only the wise to rule. Who defines who is wise? Let the people decide (young and old, male and female, educated and unlearned), but let their passions, prejudices, and, God-forbid, their hatred be checked according to established law -- law wherein the majority cannot infringe, even in the apex of panic and frenzy! Let that law be absolute, static, and eternal! Let that law be the laws of nature wherein the earth, man, and societies must always be checked, regardless of their perceptions, attitudes, and feelings towards it! I can hate gravity, but will forever be subject to it; I can hate it that I cannot spend more than I make and be financially stable, but I am subject to things as they naturally are; I can hate it that I can put crap into my body and then feel like crap, but only I am to blame and the natural course of nature soldiers on! Peter from Detroit makes a valid argument.

Interesting thought that the minority can actually be the represented majority; if you were Waffy-boy, wouldn't you want to have an outside codex of laws wherein the "voting majority" couldn't infringe upon the rights of the individual or actual "majority"? It only makes good sense to reason a body of law wherein the majority cannot tamper, legislate against, infringe, or meddle...

I haven't stopped smiling for nearly 10 minutes; if this doesn't show how language, thought, and philosophy have changed/evolved/digressed in less than a century, I don't know what else can. I'm sure Waffy-boy will have some inane comment concerning the non-validity of the comment; regardless, truth is truth -- and this is yet another notch against the ignorant philosophy of "Democracy". I will say it again, just for my buddy Waffy-boy, "We are a Republic, not a Democracy". READ YOUR HISTORY!

Eric, you must get a kick out of watching us all post; I'm curious to know if you have a second alias upon which you banter along with us... ..smiles.. perhaps we'll never know... It's good to keep your anonymity on such a blog.

Well said, Reston. Waffler, once again, shows his true stripes... If you dislike something, just join the largest group pushing your agenda and get it passed -- don't worry if it violates individual freedom or liberty. Might makes rights -- moral legitimacy is found in the majority's decision, right Waffy boy? Well, as a claimed Christian, you should realize how stupid you are. Sodom and Gommorah were burned because they thought that might makes right; this is the justification for any "wicked" people to make, "Surely, we cannot all be wrong together?!" Well, eh, yeah -- sometimes you can. In fact, that's why Machiavelli analyzed Democracies to find that they don't last longer than 200 years and always end in totalitarian regimes (usually two competing parties/sides/armies -- where finally one side (majority) would finally win over and conquer the dissenting side and subject them into slavery). Once again, Waffler's ignorant ideology loses to historical fact; he's not interested in society's freedom, he's more worried about how he can join himself to the majority's side that's necessary to control people in the way he wants. Traitor to the American cause of liberty!

I couldn't agree with Waffler more on his "change" mantra; this is why Obama is full of shit -- all the sweet talk of a politician, and all the smelly manifestation of a douche bag (which goes the same for McCain). Yes, there will always be wolves, and only the insanely stupid would support a form of government that would allow these wolves to ever have influence on government (yet another notch in the pole against Democracy). Private corruption in enterprise is easily solved, whereas government corruption can only be solved through revolution (by government corruption I don't mean the immoral President who keeps an intern under his desk, but as Machiavelli, Rousseau, and Locke spoke of it). In private enterprise, if someone infringes upon another individual's life, liberty, or property -- then you take them to court to receive equitable portion back... Where do we go to list our grievances if government itself infringes upon the life, liberty, or property of the individual? There is no "pragmatism" in Democracy, you moron! It's the difference between "Rational Choice Theory" and "Cultural Theory" (there are two ACTUAL theories for you Waffy my boy). If you build society upon the rights of the individual against the masses, then you will maintain a pragmatic, disciplined, and educated people that know their limits in relationship to their neighbor; you build a society based upon the whole, and history has proven that even the societal thought of individual rights, liberties, and freedoms will vanish out of that society. To prove this, all you have to do is look at China; the people over there don't WANT real liberty -- they only want sweet security that's provided by the state. Ironically -- while there can be fast short term growth (a few decades or so) under such a regime, it cannot last. Human rights watchdog groups are finding it increasingly difficult to pass human rights legislation in China because the people themselves don't want to live the life that freedom requires (eternal diligence). The people have been brainwashed, educated, misinformed and manipulated into accepting a life absent freedom and liberty. That's the ultimate manifestation of your Democracy, Waffler - look to China to see what your precious philosophy will bring. Democracy disguises itself as the benefactor of the whole -- so does socialism and communism -- but it all comes crashing down the minute the people realize that a mere majority vote can put their fellow man into subjection and slavery of the state. After all, that's Democracies only claim of legitimacy -- a majority's consent. Don't be a damned fool.

Joel, welcome to the debate, you're absolutely right -- just ignore Waffler, the rest of us usually try to, but it has been proven that we just can't leave stupid alone; that's why we keep bantering with Waffy-boy. Waffler, exactly what theory is it that you're talking about concerning the "common man"? Well said Archer -- too bad that it falls on Waffler's ignorant and unprincipled ears; he's too busy supporting communists and mentally burning books that don't support his asinine, unfounded, nonsensical, and illogical claims.

Well, that's a nice code -- can you provide us with a place we can actually look at the audit information. I've heard Congressman on the Financial Committee speak for years saying that while the Fed is required to be audited, it seldom is. Reports used to be released to the public concerning the FED, but those stopped in the early 90's. What good is a damn audit if the people or their representatives aren't privy to checking the information? Good for you, you finally provided a good cited work. ..laughs.. I've still got my bet placed that you were an accountant -- and probably worked for some government agency; most likely the IRS.

What in the hell are you talking about? We have been nothing but honest, sincere, strait forward -- we have given you countless evidence, history, and proof in as many ways as can possibly be given. To be so naive as to reject your whole American foundation, Waffler, makes you a traitor to the cause of liberty and freedom to any honest and truth seeking individual anywhere. It is either an evil man or an ultimately ignorant man who rejects the foundation of philosophy that has brought so much prosperity, goodness, and freedom to so many people -- I can't quite decide yet which one you are yet Waffler. Are you that heinously evil, or are you really that ignorant and stupid? Socrates would call you evil and unjust (which I don't expect you to actually understand), but for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just call you ignorant.

Well, I would leave it up to Bush to make an ignorant illogical fallacy and paradox. How can you have an capitalist economic organization in democracy? Think about it -- if your only stipulation for the legitimacy of government/society is that the majority rules every time without exception (no other checks or balances -- let's say -- like Natural Law), then you have to wonder why the people/workers of every corporation in the United States doesn't instantly take over corporations. If this is the only stipulation for society to follow, you have to wonder why the people aren't taking things over. You have to then admit that the people are either stupid, apathetic, or lazy. How can capitalism exist if the workers are the final authority in calling the shots for the company? We have stock holders, sure -- but this is not the same thing; stock holders buy into the system and don't have any say so simply by virtue of being in the majority of workers for the company. Do we say that the corporate executives are only there because their employees allow them to be? That every executive in the US could be ousted by his employees merely by putting the matter to a vote? Is this America? Is this how we do things RIGHT NOW? HELL NO! There ARE countries and leaders that have sought to do this very thing: Make corporate leadership "electable" by the workers. in essence, you take away all corporate ownership and place the entire function of private ownership into the hands of the employees/people. You know what this idea is called? IT'S SOCIALISM!!!! You cannot have "democratic capitalism", because capitalism DIES in such a scenario! Good Hell!! You can't have "democracy" and "capitalism" existent in the same sphere period! If you truly want Democracy, then you are a proud supporter and lover of socialism, a hater of capitalism, and a despiser of the Constitution (a document I'm sure Waffler still has yet to read).