John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics (6/6)

[jakedill1104]

This was an awesome show by Stossel. I will definitely recommend it to friends.

[dinomand]

@jakedill1104

Every time he made a point it was overly positive to selfgovernance and overly negative to goverment regulation. He ignores the fact, that common rules are the basis of civilisation

Its the job of goverment to ensure that we all get a chance

No regulation lets the strongest win every time, but everybody else loses, and its been tried throughout history, its what keept us in the dark ages for way to long

Facing out unnessesary rules, and subsidies,"" that actually works !"

[Slayer8957]

@dinomand you spoke a bunch of rhetoric that is completely unsubstantiated. the only true regulation is the court of law. when a business pollutes, you sue them. when a business commits fraud, you sue them. the government protects businesses from liability through regulations. they protected BP after the oil spill. they protected all the financial institutions who sold fraudulent mortgage backed securities. all these businesses should have went bankrupt. the government is just an extortionist.

[dinomand]

@Slayer8957

The goverment also ensures you the right to sue buisness dont it ?

Did I say that subsidicing unhealty buisnesses is a good idear ?

And last, collecting taxes to finance public education health, infrastructure and defence, how exactly does this create "all" problems ?

Being from US, you should know that the basic reason for your economys situation is a lack of regulation, brought on by politicians borght by the finacial institutions they should have been regulating.

[Slayer8957]

@dinomand "to ensure that we all get a chance"??? how exactly does it do that? does the government help people when it throws people out of their homes and gives it to real estate developers? eminent domain abuse is a plague in the US. does it help people when it gives subsidies to huge corporations? you are another self-conceited pseudo intellectual who thinks everyone would be better of if you and people like you are in charge, when all evidence proves govt is responsible for all problems.

[dinomand]

@Slayer8957

You had a question for me

The goverment ensures (when it works)

Educasion (ever heard of it ?) THAT creates social mobility, and a broarder base to recrute the enovative and creative people needed.

Infratructure (that is, roads communication power ;sewage manegment; etc. etc etc.) enable the benefits of production and knowledge to come to market, and coordinates and regulates standards that must be in place.

When did industy ever clean up after itself when it didnt have to ?

.

[Slayer8957]

@dinomand public education is a disaster. another perfect example of government failure. and corporations would clean after themselves if the government didnt protect them from lawsuits. instead we have the EPA deciding whats an "acceptable" amount of pollution. and public infrastructure can just as easily be built by individuals. or do you think there are no private roads? you should google charter cities. these are places that have no government intervention, and flourish because of it.

[dinomand]

@Slayer8957

I will have to look up charter citys,

But

No govermental regulation and defefitions of pollution,means there will be no basis for litigation.

And the reason is simply this. Private persons dont have the resourses of cooporations, and the principle that nobody has to prove that they are innosent, means the accusers will have to prove wrongdoning

If industry could get rules like this, they would be laughing all the way to the bank.

[dinomand]

@Slayer8957

Btw im not advocating the gov take over the building of infrastructure but be responsilbe for overall coordination of utilites and finace

Even in a system where corps are making the decisions, they will have to coordinate, and be a defacto goverment. we live in psudo capitalist societies, wich means that they DONT have to take any responsability for anything else but making money

So a gov that dont care about people, and no democratic control will be the result

Tanks but no thanks

[Slayer8957]

@dinomand what coordination? look at the financial sector today. its a complete disaster BECAUSE of the government. financial institutions no longer care about risk, only return. they get to keep all the profit when theyre right, and the taxpayers pick up the bill when theyre wrong. its nothing more than "heads i win, tails you lose" bullsh**. coordination is entirely unnecessary. people buy land, then build whatever they want. if they pollute, sue them. otherwise, you have no right to interfere

[dinomand]

@Slayer8957

You need the goverment, or be stripped of your rights and become the cattle of the rich and corps. What we need is gov beond the reach of powerfull interests, its the only way to ensure a independent judicialry police and military

atm. the gov's serve the interests of industy and finance, thats it.

With your system that will escalate, justice will be for those who can pay for it only. Its been tried before, it was called the dark ages !

Weak gov=strong dictate rules

Its a ballance

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand increase the power of government and lobbyist will have more power over your lives be a dumb ass and screw yourself over, increase taxes on the poor and middle class= sales tax 75% income tax50% bussiness tax50% well now we can have more wars, and more bail outs and a worste infrastructure etcs. Dumb fuck

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

Nothing you have written in this comment makes any sense

The US have less goverment then pretty much any other western country, and was the first to crash, so how is that ?

The US have 1 of the lowest tax rates in the western world, and still was the first to crash, so how is that ?

The taxes in say Europe are quite a bit higer, salestax incometax and buisness tax, and they still did not crash first, or have as many lobbyist as the US.

Hmmmm, Im guessing your the dumb fuck here !

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand Your logic is retarded " higher sales tax, income tax, business tax don't prevent economic collapses. The US isn't small governmentm like you say dumb ass, the us government is bigger than most western countries if not all= Millitary policing everywhere, drugwars, central planning, medicare, bailouts, trillions of dollars to spend each year, if it was small government, it wouldn't be messing around the free market, capitalism works, socailism is unsustianable.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

Im danish and taxpayer here pays alot more then the average US taxpayer. Yet my goverment dont have anywhere near the comparable number of soldiers as do the US. What we do have is a lot more public employees, infact more then a third of all jobs are run by the goverment, local or otherwise, and that include things like the army.

And infact this can be seen all over northern europe, and we have better and more stable economies then the US.

So riddle me this stupid, why is that ?

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand The population of your country is small, the economy in your country is also small, USA is the largest economy, usa has 300 million americans since most of them pay tax their government has trillions to spend, trillions= big brother(government). Your countries stability= smaller economy, smaller population, easier to run things, less coruption, easier to run things. The usa will not follow Den mark thier ego is too big and they shouldn't they should allow capitalism to work.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

So now your argument is that we are small, when does this function size to work

Denmark 5.5 mil.

Sweden 9.2 mil.

England 61 mil.

Germany 82 mil.

India 1.220 mil.

when does a goverment become so big that it has to act like a bully towards the rest of the world ?

And you havent adressed my point, these systems are more effective then the US, acording to your logic your system is better, otherwise whats point in defending your dinosaur of an economy.

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand The USa is only bullying because of corperate interest= crony capitalism. also Millitary industrail complex is blaoted like a balloon so much money is pumped into it. india is growinga lot in economy because they have cheap labour and competitive students. USA can only be saved by capitalism, not socailism, the bigger the economy the more harm big government can do. germany will go threw the same problems don't worry if they bail out greece.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

Im not suggesting socialism, im suggesting a system build on evidence of what works. And free markets dont work, they are a contradiction in terms.

Instead use the good features of capitalism and of socialim and grow a hybrid, the systems that do atm. are generally better places to live work and place a buisness. They also have problems with outsoursing, leaving large chunks of their populations out of the equation, but they are stil more effective then capitlst systems.

strange ehhh

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand "Im not suggesting socialism" Socialism: government run enterprise/program. " System built on evidence" lets look atn the evidence. minimum wage, evidence shows that minimum wage kills low skilled jobs, if minimum wage was 20/h then all skills below that are illegal, causing employees to lose money( getting paid 20 for a 9 job= 11 loss. Capitalism= skilled workers get paid more: Bob with x company= 9/h Bob with A company=11/h who will Bob pick? who can afford it. capitalism FTW.

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand capitalism works, the funnyn thing is that you were taught to be in the middle a moderate. what is a moderate when it comes to truth vs false, their isn't a middle ground. The governments job is to protect property rights, individual rights, laws against fraud and keep out of economy in everyway. minimum wage kills low skilled jobs, subsidies encourage corps to take bigger risk knowing they will get bailed. Big government enforces drug laws, mariage laws, laws that limit freedoms.

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand A free market system has never fully been displayed, when you enforce socailism productivety decreases= USSR is a great example. USA is under crony capitalism, socailism, and Big government. Crony capitalism= marriage BTW Corperations and government AKA lobyist and bail outs, subsidies, laws favoring corps. Capitalism= everyone does their own thing, when one person succeeds everyone benefits( Bill gates/ Windows) Companies fail and succeed. Socailism= productivity down, sacrifice up.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

1.

I dont actually think we disagree much in regard to the results of the kind of system that the US has at the moment. It is indeed a system setup to look like capitalism, while it infact is sucking as hard as possible on the tits of the motherload of easy cash, is no longer capitalism. BUT it is the only logically result of capitalsm. And this is why ! competing when you dont have to is bad buisness, therefore buisness have every incentive to avoid competition.

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand liberals see the same problems but different solutions, crony capitalism is pretty corrupt. It's the result of economic growth= government growth, government spending, corporate lobbying. economic growth is good. Government spending has to go down. Government spending - 4trillion = no bailouts, subsidies, corruption will drastically drop. You have to cut government spending, central government can't have too much benefits to offer other than rule of law and civil liberties.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

2.

Buy out your competion, devide the market, fuce vith your competitor, or outcompeat your advisarys. These are the basic ways of reducing competition, and maximizing profits. This is the nature of buisness they are put in the world to make money, thats it, no more, nada niete nothing. So a free market system is by design build for producing monopolys, its a monopoly making mashine. Therefore, and this is my main point, a system has to be put in place to curtail this nature.

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand 2. everything you stated is corect but your missing one very important piece, the customers, and the service quality or product quality. The end result is customer satisfaction, companies that offer the best products or services will have the best customer satisfaction, they will either get bought or make it to the top, when some companies fail competitors will take over the market and learn from thier mistakes. anything that harms your PR is bad business.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

I think your missing the point when im saying that free markets lead to monopolys. Once a monopoly have been established, then a buisness have no economic interests in producing good products, all it cares about is that having a monopoly people have no choise in what to buy. Free market are simply not possible, they will tend towards choosing the biggist return for the smallest investment. Do you realy believe that buisness has any interst in anything but making profits ?

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand You have to do the math instead of speculating it all adds up, customers can't be counted out, also Rule of law will be in effect, what they teach in school is non civil liberties non property rights. Under the current system more monopolies will continue.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

Bad PR is of no relevance if there is no choise, remember the old soviet system for consumer goods. Free markets is the end of any illutions of consumer power. You have to impose competition in some way, and that means regulate, and weak goverments cannot do that effectively, and if they are small it just makes it cheaper for buisness to avoid or control it. A big goverment will cost them more, but the result will be the same, there is simply to much to be made by rigging the system

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand " rigging the sytem" you can't rig central government when their isn't enough money for anything other than courts, police and military protection. " impose competition" competition happens already= jobs move to china and india to better thier chance of competing, mcdonald's would have a bigger economy if the small restaurants dind't keep it out of certain malls. You should search LibertyPen on youtube, also read the book Atlas Shrugged, the women who wrote it survived communist USSR

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

You bring up the worst book on economics ever written, or as it is kindly referred "The little psycopaths handbook for making the interllectually challenged, do what you want them to do". Ayn Rand, was a sociopath, wich is her personal life is a testamony to. And her economic idears, only ever consisted in the belief of a mysterious force that somehow inspite of all reality works for the best.

When I had to read it in college it make me laugh and cry in equal measure !

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

You talk of less rules and regulations, I agree that this should be kept at the effective minimum, but if a gov have no means of enforcing the rules and regulations, then there will be no rules and regulations but the ones that buislness impose on themself, and that is the story of making the wolf guard the sheep. All you get is a quick meal for the wolf.

We simply cannot have it both ways, a free market will mean less freedom for everybody living within that free market.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

I suggest a balance between public and private enterprize, neither of the 2 extreeems are benefitial but to the few. The most effective systems on the planet today all imploy policies of "give onto ceasar". Meaning let states do overall planning in regard to education, health infratructure, and allow private enterprice to do what they do best, Getting the product to the individual consumer

You think that a weak gov can secure law and civil liberties. Your just plain wrong about that

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand government should provide what the free markets cannot, if you can get your moneys worth go for it, small government isn't weak, also you have to apply these steps slowly to not causes complications than it fits into place- cut spending, no hand outs, laws and courts will be funded if they need funding you can raise business taxs and sales tax or propert taxs.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

The current system has as you point out, gotten into some trouble.

And the trouble is that big buisness and the rich have nearly complete control over the system.

And your cure is to make goverment smaller so that it becomes even easyer to control, brilliant, what a complete brainfart. No, it has to become stronger with more democratic control, its the only thing that will even remotely solve any of the problems we have today. How to get that control back, that is the big quetion !

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

The math has allready been done.

For short term economic gain and development, choose free markets

communism, or facism.

For long term, we have in the west atm. is an array of systems somewhere between socialism and capitalism, and they have proven themselfs very effective.. These systems are not either socialist or capitalst, and these systems, not pure, or even close to pure capitalism is what have created the wealth of the west

The systems closest to socialism works better atm.

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand the point is , you have to have a variety of choices= police security, court system, health care, retirement, pension. I don't like the idea of one all end all= police, healthcare, courts, I want the best gains for lowest cost, socialism is convenient,but you only get one choice talk about boring thats what makes it not work. if people had choices socailism could work great, i truly would be a lot happier picking what fits me best in a socialist system. choice= better stuff.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

I agree with your basic assesment, that we need competition, but I would limit it to within areas where services are destributed uneven, Everyday items such as food clothes, classical consumer goods. When competition is ensured by a rigid policy of forced breakups when companies big enough to dominate markets, I find it acceptable, though not to my liking. Regarding socialism and communism, they are not the same, not by far, and the classical communism in eastern Europe even less

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

But I have yet to see where competition in say health care fx. provided as effective care as in non competetive systems. Classic examble is the US, it has the best top hospitals in the world,but has the worst health care in the west when it comes to the average american. Its a system that favors rich, and peanalizes the poor and middle class. Even nations like Greece a f..... up state if there ever was 1, does it better at a cheaper cost.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

Btw. when did anybody ever actually choose the system they live under. Even systems the west, that are the most free and liberal in the world, was developed by, Wars, Revolutions, or in scandinavia, fairly peacefull power shifts. But in no case I konw of did ordinary people have any real say, most people have little interests in their own interest, wich is part of the reason why they can be persuaded to vote for the same corrupt systems again and again.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

What you have in a socialits systems is fewer choises, but generally better choises. People in these systems are bette able to influence their own life, by virtue of better education, health housing. Why make systems that only gives the illution of choice, like capitalsm, wich result is more dynamic but less equal and more wastefull of its humans potential.

Even the communist countrys was able to educate their population better then the US, a failiure of epic proportions.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

People should be responsible for their own lives, Yes. In a capitalist system I have no choice, I have to work not for my own good, beond keeping myself alive, but for the good of the rich. When I sell my work, im no different then your average prostitute, selling my body and mind to the highest bidder. If I dont own an equal interest in the system, then its not democratic, and it is not motivating at all, for anybody at the bottom.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

You dismiss isms like communism facism socialism and their economic theorys, when none of them have ever been tried in a pure form. But when its about Free markets you have special rules, and dismiss everything bad about them. A double standard does not mean that something is twise as good, it just means your arguments are flawed. You belive in Free markets as a religion, able to see all the obvious flaws in other religions but unable to use critical tools on your own.

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand Your right none of them have fully ever been emplemented, also because governments forced them upon people. I am in favor of volunteerism let the people decide what they want for their lives. I got to tell ya socailism can work but it needs competition, comunism= equal pay, again you need motivation and constant upgrades and improvements. capitalism is the easiest to implement because look at China n India they are the most capitalistic right now soon they will be the richest in world

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

Making capitalism more powerfull.when is plain for all that it only serves its own interests, makes any meaningfull discussion about what needs to be done useless, Doing what we know dont work with even more vigor, is just stupid and and an attempt to avoid responsability by declaring it a natual law that " free markets are just better" when they have been demonstrated time and again only to benefit only the few.

It is social Darwinism in its most pure form. And it is bad buisness.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

And we seem to disagree on this. In the US this tranformation has gotten quite a bit furter the Europe, or they just dont care to cover up in the US. Buisness invest in politicians, like they invest in everything else, and they get good value for their investments. Bailouts is just 1 way of doing this, goverment contracts, favorable laws, and most of it is quite legal. The surpreme court has been full of senile old rightwing nutters for the last 40+ years, and the results are showing

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

4.

A small goverment does not make it harder for such a development, it makes it more easy, fewer to politicians to buy, fewer people to control what feeble legislation there is left.

Heard of a classic republican brainfart yesterday, close down the IRS taskforce against economic crime. Less goverment saves money they say, but infact it is the most profitable part of the IRS to the tune of 40-1 in favor for every dollar invested in this branch.

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand Small government- Less spending, less rules and regulations( minimum wage, laws made to keep the average man out, tax laws etc. Protection- court system, police force, and military, also more power to the states, states provide what you need, less central power, more local tax. 100% of your tax dollars don't leave your state or city. If your not getting your moneys worth in your city you move some where better. Central government spending=has to go down. personal responsibility.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

5. Less goverment sounds good in only the most superficial way, it's the "kiss of death to democracy" and hello to the "biggest bully dictates the rules of the game"

In the same way big goverment can become a problem, so im not advocating that either.

What I think we need is a complete wall between polititians, a stop to ANY lobby activity, ANY favors of any kind, ANY economic interest in the laws that they vote on.

Then we can start talking about reducing goverment !

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand Corruption: the US government spends about 4 trillion dollars, putting laws and regulations, when 4 trillion still is around wont stop anyone just the common man. You have to cut that 4 trillion, corporations will have little interest in a central government under a trillion or a billion. Corporations spend= 100 mills just for 1 trill, if you do the math it will make sense. cost> benefits then they will be losing, also the government can't give money out.

[dinomand]

@Tethloach1

Our systems are less corrupt, Yes

The reason that they are is not that they have less money, its simpley that there is less reason to be corrupt. The systems are more egalitarian, and the american dream of changing your life for the better are a lot more likely to succed in these systems

They simply makes all pay more inorder for more to succed, wich has proven itself the better economic choise

The American dream lives, not in America but in northern Europe

Big gov rocks !

[Tethloach1]

@dinomand "less reason to be corupt" thats not an answer buddy, the reason your less corput is because of the economy and less money don't denny that. "more likely to succeed" No thats not true at all, most companies move thier business or factories over seas because thats where they can maximize profits and succeed. as for bettering your life that soley depends on what you want to do, and i don't think Denmark has all the options. Socailism = everyone takes part in the missery.

[sellsjeeps]

Walter E. Williams is the fucking man!

[endwelfare]

stossel for president!!!

[guineapiggyman]

the economy is part of the government! wake up people

[JohnDavidStutts1]

Small government is still too big. No government is the only answer.

[gabon8tor]

the government that governs least governs best

[Akatam0t0ma]

John Stossel FTW. 

[lordofwrath88]

Amen!

[polishfarmer]

awesome.... i wish it had more views...

[DumblyBrilliant]

90% of the worlds problems are caused by the media and their irresponcible fear mongering. The politicians jump on whatever band wagon the media can dream up. Then the lawyers follow the politicians. The scientists follow the money the politicians control. The people THINK they are voting out of a free will choice but in reality, the media control who makes president along with the bankers and big business who own the media. THAT is what they call democracy but its a con trick.

[Skyler827]

^The problem is, if that were happening then we wouldn't know it.

[DumblyBrilliant]

We do know it because among the many useless journalists are one or two willing to spill the beans and tell the truth. They cannot do it through usual channels and have to find other ways. Can I suggest a superb documentary to watch about such honest journalists trying to do just that? Search Google videos for

THE GANGSTERS AND THE PERVERT MP PART 1 AND PART 2. There is another film on the space program that proves Regan was selcted for office by the CIA years beforehand. I will try find it.

[Skyler827]

sounds crazy. If you can pull up the Regan thing I'd love to watch it. I'm watching the "gangsters..." thing now.

[DumblyBrilliant]

Type "DARK SIDE OF MOON documentary" into Google videos search. If you have problems let me via a message and I will post the link back to you. The documentary is about faked moon landing photos which I have virtually no interest in but the part to watch out for comes at point 15:57 - 17:09 when a director reveals a deal done to ensure Reagan would be president, This startled me when I first heard it because of the implications. Attempts to correcspond with the director failed unfortunatley.

[358Liberty]

The cycle will end and anarchy will rule anarcho-capitalism that is

[crazyralph82]

Yeah, that was a good docuementary. Unfortunately, it will only temporarily abate after much pain, struggle, and suffering, then the cycle will repeat itself. Humanity's somewhat ironic fate.

"Tell me though, does man, that 'marvel' of the universe, that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars, still make war against his brother? Keep his neighbors children starving?" - George Taylor, 'Planet of the Apes' (Charleton Heston)

[BikiniBabe1985]

Vote Libertarian or dont vote at all. They may seem weak but they are well organized. Campaign, run, vote

[burnmetodeath]

I just may next time. That would mean switching from Republican, but you, of course, understand that in some states even those of us with Libertarian leanings have to register as Republicans to get anything accomplished.

[BikiniBabe1985]

I should have said libertarian (emphasis on lower case). There are so few libertarian Republicans that its not worthwhile at this point to participate in primaries. If Ron Paul runs again for 2012 I will register Republican and campaign for the man. Its a tough dilemma right now because there are many of us with libertarian views but no clear outlet to utilize our energy

[burnmetodeath]

I am definitely in the same boat.

[UberSciFiNerd]

we gotta start small, school boards ,local elections where we can work hard to get our views out there.

[burnmetodeath]

And as long as we have the internet, we have a tool for REAL discussion amongst citizens, and not those bullshit "townhall meetings" Barack goes to.

[UberSciFiNerd]

town hall meetings? you mean "planted questions gatherings"!? i agree, those are useless

[burnmetodeath]

Oh, no! They ask the tough questions, just like Barbara Walters when she's interviewing a democrat: "So, Hillary, what makes you such a strong person?". Then, when interviewing Bush: "So, Bush, what makes you such a douchebag/bastard?". No media bias, my ass. And watch out for H.R. 1966, on a side note, because it's (despite the sheeps' clothing) aimed at stopping we the people from discussing openly. The internet killed their media monopoly, and they don't like it. Stossel's alright, though.

[Albukhshi]

well, If history has taught people anything, is that a third party can come out and take advantage of the screwup of the two parties. the republican party itself took advantage of a dissolved Whig party and a fractured democratic party.

but yeah, I'd support Ron Paul, but I doubt he'll even want to run in 2012, or even be alive for it-he is in his seventies afterall.

[Skyler827]

A third party might have the answers, but it would not be easy for them to come out in the American system.

We simply vote for a person. Local, State, Federal, its all the same. So it just encourages people to form political parties, and then to win, they just have to be the biggest: this results in a two party system. Its not the people who want it this way, its set by law. Thats why we need instant runoff voting, which would encourage people to form secondary parties within a hierarchy.

[Albukhshi]

I know. as I said, third paries only get a chance when both major parties fuck up completely, and even then.

a runoff vote would indeed be an incentive, but IMHO a better incentive is free advertising for the candidates. part of the problem, aside from what you say (which is indeed correct), is that funding and the need to pay for advertisements favors large parties as well.

I notice that in europe, multiparty systems are helped by free TV advertising. and I'm not even a Liberal.

[trlckykid]

Libertarian or  Constitutional party... BTW libertarian leaning candidates running for the first time. Peter Schiff - Senate - Connecticut...Rand Paul - Senate - Kentucky...

[Skyler827]

Libertarian-leaning is a pretty much meaningless term. Republicans are just as bad as democrats at expanding state power and messing up the economy. No, there will be a libertarian revolution. It will resemble what Marx thought communism would be and will be just like the democratic revolutions in Europe in the early 19th century.

[Visfen]

When the pacifists take arms :) Rebolution for liberty.

[mattussr]

couldnt agree more.

wade through the bullshit of politics and you find that small government is best.

[coolcreep]

Fuckin love John Stossel

[play5]

Fuckin' A