David I hope its not just libs who care about more wars and our over worked troops . Bush admin attacked Iraq based on lies - for massive war profiteering. Bush waged Longest 2 wars in US history.. Obama did not .he is trying to calm the GOP drum beat to bomb Iran . Cheneys Halliburton & the Carlisle group are largest beneficairies of war profits. War is big big business. Billions are being made while our troops are exhausted - doing 3-4 tours - a hidden draft. Its inhumane .Time for the wealthy & Congress' to send their kids to war. ! .

What Thom refuses to accept is that there IS no difference in the Duopoly. He won't speak against electing Obama - again. I have to admit, I voted for him, and I'm angrier about him than I EVER was with BushBoy. I was fooled, but never again. We have to break this criminal system up and do it quickly, and voting for Obama just puts you in the position of supporting that broken system.It doesn't matter one whit whether a D or an R is in power. There is one corporate party, period. Blinding yourself to truth doesn't help Thom. Just so you know Thom, I'm painfully to the left of you, I am not a rightie, isn't that interesting?

Attitude: The criminals justify their actions as being on our side so let the criminals get away with it for our own sake all be it banksters, gangsters, political corruption or out right killers.. We have lost our way and there is hell to pay.

When Obama speaks of this, he gets polite applause from the press corps. Do you think this soldier saw Obama praised for killing without due process? Do you see this soldier being applauded for murdering innocent people without due process?

This is what happens when the leader of the "free" world throws the rule of law out the window. Thom crowed his approval of the POTUS assassinating his own with no due process. Thom didn't know what was true or false, but he applauded Obama.

Americans are weary?

Liberals are always getting "weary of the wars" they keep corporate party (D) voting for.

Oh yes, the corporate party's impatient Republicans eagerly want the bombing to begin now, before the election.

However, the corporate party's patient Democrats cleverly want their weaponized economic sanctions to first lay siege upon the targeted state of Iran, to collectively punish its people and degrade its defenses, before bombing it after the election.

The production of "non-state terrorists" has been so war industry profitable for America, Inc. that the corporate (R) & (D) party has now MovedOn to even more war profitably produce "terrorist" states... to stimulate the growth of private profits from perpetual wars waged at public expense.

Creating terrorists to have terrorists to kill is America's "economic growth" industry.

Terrorist Production for Bomb Destruction:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id...

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

If I attacked my neighbor to keep him from buying a gun, perhaps that would be a clear enough example of stupidity to get through to people.

Wow! It never ceases to amaze how many people believe themselves to be experts on what libertarianism is when, in truth, they haven't a clue. If the moderators allow it, this should help clear up any confusion created by the above article.

THE NONAGGRESSION AXIOM

“The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as “civil liberties”: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in such “victimless crimes” as pornography, sexual deviation, and prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as “crimes” at all, since he defines a “crime” as violent invasion of someone else’s person or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass murder and therefore totally illegitimate.

All of these positions are now considered “leftist” on the contemporary ideological scale. On the other hand, since the libertarian also opposes invasion of the rights of private property, this also means that he just as emphatically opposes government interference with property rights or with the free-market economy through controls, regulations, subsidies, or prohibitions. For if every individual has the right to his own property without having to suffer aggressive depredation, then he also has the right to give away his property (bequest and inheritance) and to exchange it for the property of others (free contract and the free market economy) without interference. The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of “laissez-faire capitalism.”

In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and economics would be called “extreme right wing.” But the libertarian sees no inconsistency in being “leftist” on some issues and “rightist” on others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. For how can the leftist be opposed to the violence of war and conscription while at the same time supporting the violence of taxation and government control? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war, conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions, and unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military-industrial complex?

While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State. In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls “war,” or sometimes “suppression of subversion”; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls “conscription”; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls “taxation.” The libertarian insists that whether or not such practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable, pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes.”

From "For a New Liberty - The Libertarian Manifesto"

~ Murray N. Rothbard

The US Navy has had dozens, maybe hundreds, of nuclear-powered ships, and not one accident with the power plants. In fact two nuclear submarines were lost due to causes unrelated to the power plants, but the reactors did not rupture. Does the Navy know something that civilian operators of nuclear plants do not?

Bulls**t...

Were gonna kick their ass in November.

Obama has made a good start in that direction with Wall St reform but GOP will repeal it asap Mit Rick Newt all will give billionaires -corps even more tax cuts- more deregulating We tried that for 30 yrs IT failed miserably . 3 yrs is nO time at all to undo a depression / crash / meltdown / TARP scam

She's a keeper and I see her as winning and going to to bigger things. She is so crediable. I love her and believe in what she says.