Gotta love propaganda when it works against you.. (Ron Paul)
- Thread starter Dresden14
- Start date
They are self hating jews. Like americans who who dont support america are anti-american, why is this so complicated to grasp?
Want less welfare? get called racist by the left. Want less aid to Israel? get called racist by the right. It's lose/lose for many libertarians.
You are an idiot. Someone that doesn't support Zionism is not necessarily Anti-Semitic. An Anti-Semite will hate a Jew even if he's just a fucking Barista in a Manhattan Starbucks. Someone that doesn't agree with Zionism just doesn't support the political philosophy of Zionism. Noam Chomsky is a Jew that speaks out against the dangers of Zionism, but he's not a fucking Anti-Semite you dumb shit.
In your example you use "American" as an analogy, but your analogy is flawed. "American" is simple a citizenship, not a race or religion. Calling someone an Anti-Semite is saying that they are "Racist", rather than just against a country or a political philosophy such as Zionism. Pretty sure you're just trolling, but fuck it I'm bored.
This is idiocy. Just because one group of people wants something and you don't agree with the way they're going about it doesn't mean you're "anti-them". Instead of displacing existing people with force, perhaps they'd get more support if they tried to buy into somewhere. Look at Africa. Lots of space.
Chomsky is the biggest self hating jew on the planet you dumb fucktard. And yes, ant-zionism is the belief that jews do not have the right to self determination, and to believe that all people in the world have a right to self determination except the jews is RACIST! You dumb fuckin moran go flush your head in the toilet.
Being Semitic is not exclusive to being Jewish or a Zionist.
LMAO.
I have to introduce you to Hellblazer. You guys would be an amazing duo at parties.
This is the most epic troll ever.
Big difference between saying Americans want to cut military aid to Israel and saying that we no longer support Israels right to exist. I have many libertarian friends who support Israels right to exist but don't want to see their tax money going towards F-15's for Israel. I can respect that, although I disagree completely.
Assume I'm a farm hand in Utah slinging shit for $50 a day, can you justify to me why I should give up part of this to support Isreal [or insert any other country state here]...
I'm goning to guess the only answer is because that's what you want and everyone else can fuck off.
This. Jews are not the only Semites. And ~80% of Jews in Israel are not Jews by blood anyway. The whole thing is pure bullshit. Even in their own literature the Jews describe in detail how they are only 1 of 12 Semitic tribes of Israel and how the Arab people are also Semitic. They're laughing at the dipshit American sheep.
Yup, which is why Congress needs to stop earmarking every single bill they pass to fund totally unrelated shit.
If they had a single monthly budgeted distribution of their funds they approved for in their yearly budget, then people would be shocked at all the wasteful spending that tax money goes towards when the dispersion is out in the open.
Earmarking isn't the problem. Earmarks are part of the appropriation process necessary to keep a check on the system. Yes, they get abused, and everyone knows about the Bridge to Nowhere, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.
Whatever is not appropriated by the Congress through earmarking, is given to the Executive to spend without any congressional oversight.
The solution is to reduce the amount of money to be appropriated (introduce scarcity) and you will see the process reform itself. Right now the budgeting is all based on deficit finance, and so there is no incentive for a politician to not earmark everything, no matter how outrageous, because if they don't earmark they lose votes, and if they do earmark, obvious tax rates do not go up. The tax is paid in inflation which very few people detect and even fewer understand.
The appropriations system is actually very elegant, it has gotten a bad name from conservative activists with their own agenda to pursue.
What I want to know is why is the Earmarking system we have better than simply introducing everything separately, no matter how big or small?
By its' very nature it leads to inflation as you pointed out yourself, and it is also very obviously a way to hide expenditures from the public at large. It's simply dishonest.
By its' very nature it leads to inflation as you pointed out yourself, and it is also very obviously a way to hide expenditures from the public at large. It's simply dishonest.
Because big and small are subjective. The easiest way to hide a big expenditure is to break it into many small ones.
What people are worried about with most political issues is superficial and doesn't address the root problem. The problem is the role of government and how government is funded. Until those are addressed, everything else is just tinkering.
Now, if people want to tinker, I say go for it. But let's not tinker and pretend any problems are really going to be solved.
That's why I said "no matter how big or small." I see the necessity in that, although I know (firsthand, actually) how much paperwork that would add to the dockets of congress.
I still say it's worth it tho. Moving forward at a snail's pace would be far better than moving in random and harmful directions like we do now.
You know I fully agree with the fact that the real, deepest underlying problems have their basis in our corporatism/cronyism/socialism-based state owned by the banks and the military industrial complex... But until you have a decent plan to stop that giant problem, all you can actually do to affect favorable change is to aim for bad laws like these and make them better.
No, it won't feed starving children in africa and cure male pattern baldness, but it does seem to me at least that doing this will force lawmakers in washington to create & pass fewer shitty bills... And these days that seems to be all they do pass.
