Convert me to your politics' Journal|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Convert me to your politics' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Saturday, March 3rd, 2012|
|Thursday, March 1st, 2012|
|Saturday, December 3rd, 2011|
TRUTH IS HERE
Why do you think it is so hard to burst into to the ranks of elite? You may think they guard so hard the purity of their family bloodlines only out of the idea of preserving the status of their ancestors. It already became a tradition over the centuries. Does it mean people outside of their status are not considered worthy anymore? It all has much deeper reasons than you ever thought of.
|Friday, May 9th, 2008|
John McCain as a POW?
Was John McCain really
a POW in Vietnam?
I think someone should start a
POW Veterans for Truth campaign saying he wasn't.
Who's with me?
9:-D Current Mood: mischievous
|Thursday, May 1st, 2008|
|Tuesday, November 21st, 2006|
Faith In The Fury
Calling all Republicans. SUPPORT YOUR TROOPS by checking out the latest book by Frank Selden.
Book's Website- http://home.comcast.net/~frankselden
Calling Jon Stewart- give this guy an interview...seriously..It's a great idea.
He'll speak at your church or organization.
He'll really appreciate your support.
SUPPORT YOUR TROOPS = SUPPORT FRANK SELDEN
FAITH IN THE FURY, by FRANK SELDEN
GET IT TODAY
|Monday, November 6th, 2006|
Did you see any?
So the election mayhem is winding down. Did you see any of the politicians attempting to
I did, but it was a negative take on the idea. In my state, two candidates tried to
paint their opponents as "taxers", by mentioning their goal of a 23% national sales tax.
They left out the proposed tax's goal of replacing the federal income tax. I tried to
suggest a conversion worthy idea to other politicians, but they didn't bite. I told
them they could win votes from my side if they announced convincing plans and intentions
for attacking government waste. As much as I dislike the idea of high taxes, the feeling
would fade if I thought the money was being fed to a lean and mean gov't machine.
Did anyone from the other side of the aisle manage to get your attention through genuine
conversion attempts, or was it more mud slinging and such?
Is discourse permanently doomed?
As things are now, friendly cross-party political discourse is rare, at best. A big Dem. win
tomorrow won't fix that. A late GOP surge won't either. Heaven knows a nice, fair, 50/50
split does no good, so what's the fix? Would ending the war do it? Would the discovery of
a clean oil substitute do it? Can the friendly ever come back into things?
|Sunday, October 8th, 2006|
Canada's demands in Arar case
I have a question to all republicans: do you stand for this?
Arar was deported to Syria from the United States where he was then tortured. Grounds? "We thought he was a terrorist". He was tortured. For a year. AND the US acted without consulting Canada in any way.
|Tuesday, September 19th, 2006|
New here. Fairly stereotypical upper-middle-class-white-college-educate
d liberal dem. Looks like the community as a whole slants to the left anyway, but I look forward to potential conversion anyway. Nice to meet you all. Current Mood: contemplative
|Saturday, September 9th, 2006|
Horses for courses
I was recently involved in a discussion with an Randroid. They were confused why I could support an allegedly pro-capitalist position such as Geolibertarianism
yet oppose their rather ill-informed comments about public ownership of infrastructure, and the politics and society of Cuba. For the latter it was relatively simple - I support facts (which in the political world makes me very open to conversion!).
However, it also provided me the opportunity to outline my politics in a very succinct manner:
When it comes to individual rights, I am an anarchist. When it comes to small business, I am a capitalist. When it comes to infrastructure, I am a socialist. When it comes to natural resoures, I am geoist. When it comes to sovereignity, I am a confederate. When it comes to outlook, I am an internationalist.
|Tuesday, September 5th, 2006|
Intelligent give & take?
One thing I hunger for, as elections near, is political discussions
Where, if anywhere, have you found intelligent and civil sharing
of ideas from both the left and the right? It might be TV programs,
magazines, websites, radio shows or somewhere else.
NOTE: I am not talking about a balanced presentation of viewpoints. I
mean the direct give and take between both sides in the same slice of
To be honest, I haven't seen such a forum of shared ideas. Does it exist?
|Sunday, April 16th, 2006|
In 1971 OPEC had a meeting at which they decide that whereever oil is bought or sold, it may only be bought or sold in US dollars. This means that Mexico selling oil to China has to be sold in US dollars, Holland trading with Morrocco has to be done in US dollars, etc etc. What this means is for anyone to trade oil, they have to buy dollars. This is how the US can owe more money than any country in the history of the world, but doesn't have to pay anything back because since 1971, thanks to this OPEC agreement, the US effectively has a magic chequebook.
Imagine you're maxed out past your overdraft limit in every bank in the world, and have been for decades, but it doesn't matter because everyone still accepts your cheques and they never come back to the bank.
So what could possibly happen to the magic chequebook of the US dollar to bring all of that money back to chase Washington on Wall Street? Well, it almost happened.
On 30/10/2000, when a switch was made to a deposit account in the Wall Street branch of a French bank. This was the account handling the 2.3 million barrells of oil sold per day by Iraq under the "oil for food" scheme. The Iraqis said that they wanted to switch the account from being a dollars denominated account to a euro denominated account. The UN couldn't stop them, but it looked like a stupid thing to do at the time because the euro was only worth eighty cents to the dollar. They'd lose money on every barrell they sold. They'd bankrupt their country within a year. The Iraqis didn't care, they hated America so much that they didn't want to trade in their currency.
In 2001, the euro gained 25% against the dollar. The Iranians then decided to switch their central bank's reserve funds from dollars to euros too. This makes them member number two on the axis of evil list, with number one being the Iraqis who started the trend.
7/12/2002, North Korea declares that it's going to do ALL of it's trading in euros. Not just oil, but everything. They're quickly branded "Axis of evil" member number three.
In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, the elected president, gains chainmanship of OPEC. He calls a meeting in Spain, in April of 2003 and on the table is the proposal that every single OPEC member stops trading in dollars and starts trading in euros. If that happened, that would be the federal reserve's worst nightmare because then every single central bank in every single country in the world has to abandon the dollar and start trading in euros. Such is the need for oil. All the dollars in those banks would be flushed out, the market would be awash with dollars and it would become a worthless currency. Worth less than toilet roll. The US would be back in it's 1920s and 1930s depression and this time they wouldn't have the Nazi party to invest in to save themselves.
|Sunday, April 9th, 2006|
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
President Bush seeking to blame Democrats for his own failures in Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
today released the following statement on comprehensive immigration reform, which was blocked twice last week by Senate Republicans:
"In a week when President Bush was unable to convince House Republicans to pass his budget, was unable to convince Senate Republicans to pass immigration reform, and was caught misleading(read:) the American people about national security matters yet again, it's no surprise that he would take a page from the Karl Rove playbook and blame Democrats to distract from his own troubles. The fact is, President Bush and Senator First are flat out wrong about what happened to the immigration bill. Democrats are committed to comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform. That's why we voted twice last week in favor of it. It was President Bush and Republicans in Congress who lacked the backbone to stand up to the extreme right-wing of their party, filibustered reform twice in two days, and put partisan politics ahead of border security and immigration reform."
|Wednesday, March 1st, 2006|
|Monday, January 9th, 2006|
|Monday, November 7th, 2005|
I shouldn't, but I am...
(before anyone sez anything, NO I am not a fan of current American policy; I just enjoy a bit of irony. I'm warped that way.)Mitterrand Blames U.S. On Social Policies
By Barry James - International Herald Tribune
Saturday, May 2, 1992
President François Mitterrand of France said Friday that the rioting in Los Angeles had been caused by the conservative policies of President George Bush.( Read more...Collapse ) Current Mood: amused
|Friday, November 4th, 2005|
|Wednesday, October 26th, 2005|
Hey, just heard about the community and thought I'd come over. My political beliefs, in short, is libertarian. I believe in most personal freedom issues (drug legalization, abortion), but also lean slightly toward economic freedoms (though I wouldn't fall into the trap of doing away with all regulations). You'll find my beliefs on many issues are not very hardline, so I am quite centrist in any issue of the day. Boring, yes, but ultimately the right choice.
|Monday, October 17th, 2005|
The GOP and Crime
An interesting discussion on the increasing support for potentially treasonous activities within the Republican Party: The Criminalization of Politics
Has the GOP become the party of treason?
Nine GOP senators recently fought against a bill designed to make it even more clear that torture is unacceptable in US military prisons. Has the GOP become the party of torture?
The author notes that conservative pundits have essentially implied that criminal behavior is necessary to move the conservative movement forward (that is, conservative as self-identified by the movement, not that they are any closer to conservative politics than the self-identified liberals in this country are to liberal politics). Is this a necessary aspect of the conservative movement? For conservatives out there, how do you respond to this interpretation?