Capitalism is the worst economic system…except for all the others.
Risk = Reward
I would have been a lot more concerned if we hadn’t been turning Guantanamo detainees into double agents…
Risk = Reward (it’s a basic economic principal, of course if “liberals” knew anything about economics, they would be conservatives)
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
God doesn’t have anything to do with success or failure. It’s just you. If there’s something you want to accomplish - look at yourself - you’re the only thing standing in your way.
Q:We don't agree on some things, but I like your blog; keep posting :-)
Thanks Tylsa! :)
A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring; There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.
There is a form of cowardice lower than that of the conformist - the fashionable nonconformist
Q:Please post more often if you can, you're my favorite blog! <3 (If you can't that's fine, I just really love your blog.)
Thank you so much for the kind words. I will try to get on more often. Promise :)
Q:Why do people assume that since other countries have everything perfect because its all government controlled. They even try to defend the 50% income tax those countries have. I don't think people understand that even though things might seem free, they're still paying for it with taxes, but what if you don't abuse those things. People might not want to have so much money taken out of their payment for healthcare, because they feel they might need more or less. Smh
There are 2 major problems with taxing people at such a high rate: the first being that it’s demotivating, why should I go to medical school, law school, become a CPA, or bust my ass starting a business when there’s such a low return for all my hard work? I’ll quote Howard Stern here: “All I know is I’m not waking up at 6am for communism.”
The second effect is that when people’s discretionary income decreases - “the people” are no longer funding this country - the government, in its infinite wisdom, will be driving consumer “priorities” - pure competition no longer chooses the winners and losers of the free market; the government influences which businesses/services succeed and are made available to us.I don’t know about you, but the implications of an expanding government is truly terrifying to me.
Can We Be Sure People Like Snowden Are On Our Side?
Monday, June 24, 2013
Imagine a situation, if you will. A man or woman working in some branch of the US’s intelligence services, whether NSA or FBI or CIA or whatever acronym you’d like, decides to grab a bunch of passcodes and download lots of data files relating to that agency’s programs, such as domestic and international surveillance. This person then decides to leak this information to the media or through other forms of dissemination about the domestic programs, thus garnering lots of attention; they then flee to a country like China or Russia or, laughably, Venezuela, ostensibly to avoid prosecution from US authorities, but also packing information on the US international spying programs in order to sell to his new host country, either for money or safety, or blackmails the US with the possible release of the data.
Now, before anyone goes off the rails, I am not suggesting Edward Snowden has done this. I don’t know and don’t necessarily care what his goals are at this point, though I will point out that there is evidence coming to light that he sought to do this from the beginning, aka it was premeditated, which should make one suspicious.
But, again, I’m not saying this is Snowden’s angle. But imagine if it was. Given Snowden’s cause célèbre that everyone seems to be latching onto, would it not be an amazing plan? No one likes an out-and-out traitor, but someone following this plan could muddy the waters by pointing to the released documents on domestic surveillance and say he’s fighting for American’s rights, all the while selling off more information to the US’s opponents in the international community, which I’m sure would come with a nice price tag.
I guess what I’m saying is, should we in the public writ-large be so quick to believe in the altruistic intentions of someone like Snowden? He had an immense amount of access to some of the world’s most sensitive data and has shown he is quite willing to release it. What is there to say that Snowden or someone in a similar position doesn’t have an ulterior motive? Why should we take their word, or anyone’s, on their good intentions (the same goes for the government, of course)?
Maybe its the skeptic in me in overdrive. I just don’t necessarily trust that a person now in his situation would willingly do that without getting something out of it. I don’t think we should all be so quick to jump to his defense either, especially not without knowing the full story.
Basically, I’m just asking people to not be so naive. There is bound to be more to Snowden’s story than we know.