Government is made of people. People are corruptible. I would prefer not to allow corruptible people to have access to the size and scope of the assets of the citizens, as that tends to reduce the corruption. Sibling poster is accurate, in order to pay for the additional debt for next year we will need to dismantle basically everything -- and then we can't pay for the next year. See this Tony Robbins video regarding our debt.

The LCD advantage that I prefer? Not irradiating remaining eye.

Heh. I had some doubts about including that part, and here we are. :) I suppose I should have instead used different human tribes: climate forces various layer requirements. Tribes near the equator tend to wear less clothing, sometimes none; tribes closer to the poles tend to wear more clothing, and thus perhaps tend to have societal norms about wearing such clothing. (Not, perhaps, starting from prudishness, but for health -- "if you don't cover that up, you'll catch cold!" may have been the origin.)

The very nature of the loans is that they are designed to be unpayable. The Federal Reserve is the source of all money in circulation; the federal government creates bonds which the Federal Reserve buys in exchange for dollars, i.e., the Federal Reserve loans the government some money, to be paid back with interest. If the Federal Reserve is the only source of these dollars, how can the government ever pay back even the original loan? And it makes sense, as one can see from the historical chart of when America started the Federal Reserve, and the national debt growth since then. Two links: Tony Robbins saying basically "if we dismantle and sell every corporation and rich person to pay the tax increase, we are able to do it -- but then where will the production come from next year?" And another "How Money is Created"

I'm with you; not traveling until the apparatus is gone. Unless it's to leave. And then I'll fly out of Canada.

What I find odd is that our society has a hang-up over viewing members of our species' bodies unclothed. It really doesn't make sense; no other species has such an issue, and some do choose clothing (hermit crabs, etc).

I like to think that he was committing two types of protests here, and is even more of a hero.

There's a part of me that thinks that this behavior might be useful to the rulers: make us think we are "more robot, less nature" and we can be more easily led to kill. But, perhaps that's just analysis going overboard with the lizard fear reaction...

I used Walgreens until recently; the insurance that my company provides no longer allows prescriptions to be filled there. I wonder if the issues that you are experiencing are a result of this policy change? (I.e., perhaps other insurance carriers dropped them for similar reasons, and they can no longer adequately staff their pharmacies? Of course it's also possible that their lack of staff led to these cancellations -- I'm not privy to the root cause, just part of the data.)

NAFTA was about a thousand pages. My ex said it best: "It was way too long. It should have been one word: 'go'!"

You just gave me a great idea, which I'm sharing with the world; hopefully some college/university administrators are reading.

The university purchases (or produces, even better) books for their students. These books are kept in the library, one per student signed up for a specific class. At the beginning of the year, students check their books out; at the end of the year, students return the books.

"Even better" is the better choice, because then the school can determine when the curriculum needs to be updated. Not some middle-man with incentive to fix a typo and resell...

And, of course, now that everybody has a computer in their pocket, electronic distribution seems to be the way to go. And if the school doesn't need to purchase from a third party, then free electronic distribution would be the way.

My cousin is (hopefully) recovering from cancer, with the help of international drugs because the domestics were either too expensive or not available. It seems like this whole "free trade" agreement, isn't.

Your comment flows nicely into your signature: we have the right to alter our consciousness (it's not in the Constitution, nor an amendment, so the current ban on mind-altering substances is not constitutional). Having a right to do something (alerting consciousness) is not the same as being right in doing it (your anecdote about abuses; of course, the denigrating name calling seems a little less positive).

It sounds like you aren't clear on the actual history; it was William Randolph Hearst who wanted to eliminate competition for the forests he had just purchased, in order to supply to his newspapers. Pot produces pulp about 4 times as fast, per acre, so like the Military Industrial Complex that enriches the few rich while it kills the many poor, this was corporations using the government against the people. The arguments used can be seen in the historic film, "Reefer Madness", as well as from researching Wikipedia (it wasn't "big media" back then, although they have bought into it). This really happened; it's a shame so few know about it. Also watch "What if Cannabis Cured Cancer?"; the short answer: it does.

Excellent advice. Keep in mind, though, it's not always about fear; there are some anti-social individuals who e.g. put items on the train tracks just to watch the carnage...