LandoRamone30

If Europe and North America are so racist so xenophobic so patriarchal why is everyone around the world moving to these places? I was curious about the world population and found this site http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#region Under the heading World Population by Region Africa Asia Latin American and the Caribbeans are draining and are pouring into white western countries, hhmmm... I wonder why? To be honest I already know why.

How come no one sees this as an act of aggression? If we are using the old definitions and Germany is a political body foreign entities entering Germany and damaging the cells of the body the citizens, should not Germany treat it as aggression? Should not Germany respond in kind? More importantly why is Germany entangled with the US military industrial complex? It's a government program. What does the people of Germany want to do?

So what do you think the average politician takes home after a long hard days work? The president takes home $400,000.00 annually and for good reason he has to manage a whole country; right? Congress earn about $174,000.00. You know writing new laws for you to follow is hard work. Let's also not forget congress is only in session for about 160 days annually. Oh also don't forget they need their pension packages. This is just the elected officials. There are also federal employees you know the bureaucrats belonging to the various agencies. They have to get paid as well. Where does the money come from? Some of it is Tax dollars some of it is created by Federal reserve banking system? We also need this forced arrangement because without government there will be total chaos. https://www.thoughtco.com/salaries-and-benefits-of-congress-members-3322282

Does anyone take him seriously? I turned celebrities off. Even the ones I used to like. Will Smith disappointed me when he weighed in politically. I am pretty much boycotting Hollywood and everything politically leftwing as well as their supporters.

I notice a shift in the language and ideas of today compared to the first century and writings of that era. When I think about the state and the governments around the world, I have to ask what proceeds what. Do states and government proceed men and women or do men and women proceed governments. Here I'm using state and government interchangeably to be synonymous. From just reasoning, I know the United States of America is a fiction and a creation of men. The framers formed the concept of the United States of America of which didn't exist before it's creation. If not for men, this thing would not exist. If not for men acting as agents clothe in the garments of public service, the fiction could not act. If men are the creators can it be said that men are slaves to their creations? Can it be said that men acting as servants can also be in command of men and women not in any such role? Same question worded differently, can a created thing be more than the beings that created it?

This is the first time I have read rights being negatives against government while positives are powers. Where does this information come from?

My understanding of free speech might be different than yours. I'll quote the first amendment to the United States Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances." When I ask for explanations of free speech, what I get is speech is free, but in some instances limited. For example, you can't threaten to harm someone or yell fire in a theater when really there was no fire. You can't slander someone. In reality you can do these things, just that doing them have negative social consequences. I'm not exactly sure what are you trying to say when you say free speech is a government program. I think the constitution is pretty clear, but the application of the constitution is left up to people and the people that work in governments pretty much do as they please. Who really is going to challenge there interpretation of the constitution or challenge the acts of congress? If left up to Marxist, I can see how there central planning can restrict speech or inconsistently apply free speech.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/gallup-lgbt-pop-feb-2013/ The Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender debate has been annoying me because I think there are more important things to talk about. I looked up the numbers. Often, if you watch any sitcom or movies LGBT are in the cast. You would think maybe 1 in 4 people identified as LGBT. Nope. The total population is much smaller than that. Then you have President Obama wanting to reorganize the whole of society for this tiny tiny group of minorities. When I saw the numbers I was floored. Statistically, these people make up 0% percent of the total population in 2012. If we magically add 4.7 million people to bring the LGBT 2012 population to 5 million people they would make up about 1.60% of the total population in 2012. If the 99.9% have to bend over backwards for the 0.066% percent how is that not tyranny of the minorities? What annoys me is that LGBT would not even be an issue if not for the initiation of the use force from the government toward free innocent people.

Being a psychopath or psychopaty is define as anti social. Not sure how this is accomplished since we live in very close proximity to other people. Capital doesn't say anything about social behavior other than trade. To me it would seem capitalism promote social interaction rather than stop it.

That scenario seems sketchy to me. B is the obvious victim of a crime and A is the obvious criminal. C can be a criminal too or a moral agent base on C intentions. If C happened upon A and didn't know A stole the property C was taking C would be a thief just like A is thief. If C is working with B in action against A then it would be a moral act by which B recover stolen property. I do not see how then this would mean when applied to statism that C is moral because it received property from B that was taken by A.

I did not want to progress the debate further than what I stated previously. It is a no brainer theft is immoral. I have the rich to property I owned and can use what ever forced needed to protect it. What one ought to do or ought not do is a personal choice. If you are a person that values morality and want to be a moral person you know what you should do. Take responsibility own your actions and hold yourself accountable and accordingly to your values whatever the consequences of your actions might be. That is all I feel need to be said about this the moral rules are so easy to know it can be taught to children. Do not hit people because it hurts them do not steal peoples property because it hurts and do not lie because that hurts too.

I wanted to post a few articles I was reading concerning american values/traditional values. I wanted to know what values were all about. I do not know the validity of the authors. Anyway the two mentioned article said there was a difference in the people of the 1800s and 1900s compared to people living today. That being the values. The author of this post is asking if what he/she is doing is right or wrong. The fact that he/she is asking show how the values of people who live today differ from people in american in the 1800s to 1900s. Personally, I think this society and its current values is unsustainable and that it will collapse. I am not against what people do when metaphorical guns are pointed at them. Morality is a personal choice. What you do take full responsiblity for it and just do it. What ever consequences come after you brought upon yourself. Link http://trends.gmfus.org/doc/mmf/American%20Cultural%20Values.pdf http://www.ushistory.org/gov/4a.asp

I mentioned it only because we live in a statist paradigm. I perfer the rules to be equal to everyone and we do not make exceptions to the rules. If we are gonna have a rule it has to apply to everyone. We can not have a rule that some people have to follow while other people get a "get out of following the rule" card. Or worst make advantagous rules for some people in a conceptual catorgory: like the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the government, the etc etc etc. Having rules that benefit some at the expense of others seems to be the norm. So I posted it as way 1 and way 2.

I was trying to be brief and summarize Dr. Lustig work so I was focusing on just the points. My wording was off I apologize for that. Dr. Lustig argues fructose is a poison because only liver cells can process fructose. When I said whole foods. I was comparing them to processed food. Dr. Lustig uses the term fiber filled foods compared to fiberless foods.

Yes exercise has little or nothing to do with weight loss, what people want is for there fat tissue to release the energy it's storing and not to store so much. Fructose is a poison (as argued by Dr, Lustig) crystalline fructose is pure fructose if taken in 120Kcal quanities it over loads the liver cells because only liver cells can process/metabolize it. Chronic stressing similar to smoking or chronic ethanol consumtion harms the cells. Real whole foods I was trying to compare processed foods or fiberless food with unprocessed food or food where the fiber was not removed. My point is fiber is important.