Tab Content
  • osan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:47 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 13 THE EXPENSE OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT Part 1: From The Feeeman's Oracle and New Hampshire Advertiser, January 11, 1788, by "A FARMER" Part 2: An unsigned essay from The Connecticut Journal, October 17, 1787.
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:38 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 12 HOW WILL THE NEW GOVERNMENT RAISE MONEY? "CINCINNATUS" is an Antifederalist writer. In this essay, from an Address to a Meeting of the Citizens of Philadelphia, the writer responds to James Wilson's statements about Congress' powers to tax under the Constitution. It appeared in the November 29 and December 6, 1787, New-York Journal, as reprinted from a Philadelphia newspaper. On the subject of taxation, in which powers are to be given so largely by the new constitution, you lull our fears of abuse by venturing to predict "that the great revenue of the United States must, and always will, be raised by impost"-and you elevate our hopes by holding out, "the reviving and supporting the national credit." If you have any other plan for this, than by raising money upon the people to pay the interest of the national debt, your ingenuity will deserve our thanks. Supposing however, that raising money is necessary to payment of the interest, and such a payment requisite to support the credit of the union-let us see how much will be necessary for that end, and how far the impost will supply what we want. The arrearages of French and Spanish interest amount now to--1,500,000 dollars; Interest and installments of do. for 1788--850,227; Support of government; and its departments, for 1788-- 500,000; Arrears and anticipations of 1787-- 300,000; Interest of domestic debt-- 500,000 {total} 4,650,227 The new Congress then, supposing it to get into operation towards October, 1788, will have to provide for this sum, and for the additional sum of 3,000,000 at least for the ensuing year; which together will make the sum of 7,650,227 .
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:33 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 11 UNRESTRICTED POWER OVER COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT Scholars regard James Winthrop of Cambridge, Mass. to be the "Agrippa" who contributed the series to The Massachusetts Gazette from November 23, 1787 to February 5, 1788. This is a compilation of excerpts from "Agrippa's" letters of December 14, 18, 25, and 28, 1787, taken from Ford, Essays, pp. 70-73, 76-77, 79-81. It has been proved, by indisputable evidence, that power is not the grand principle of union among the parts of a very extensive empire; and that when this principle is pushed beyond the degree necessary for rendering justice between man and man, it debases the character of individuals, and renders them less secure in their persons and property. Civil liberty consists in the consciousness of that security, and is best guarded by political liberty, which is the share that every citizen has in the government. Accordingly all our accounts agree, that in those empires which are commonly called despotic, and which comprehend by far the greatest part of the world, the government is most fluctuating, and property least secure. In those countries insults are borne by the sovereign, which, if offered to one of our governors, would fill us with horror, and we should think the government dissolving.
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:31 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 10 ON THE PRESERVATION OF PARTIES, PUBLIC LIBERTY DEPENDS This essay follows a theme similar to Federalist No. 10, and appeared in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 18, 1788. The opposite qualities of the first confederation were rather caused by than the cause of two parties, which from its first existence began and have continued their operations, I believe, unknown to their country and almost unknown to themselves-as really but few men have the capacity or resolution to develop the secret causes which influence their daily conduct. The old Congress was a national government and an union of States, both brought into one political body, as these opposite powers-I do not mean parties were so exactly blended and very nearly balanced, like every artificial, operative machine where action is equal to reaction. It stood perfectly still. It would not move at all. Those who were merely confederal in their views, were for dividing the public debt. Those who were for national government, were for increasing of it. Those who thought any national government would be destructive to the liberties of America . . . assisted those who thought it our only safety-to put everything as wrong as possible. Requisitions were made, which every body knew it was impossible to comply with. Either in 82 or 83, ten millions of hard dollars, if not thirteen, were called into the continental treasury, when there could not be half that sum in the whole tract of territory between Nova-Scotia and Florida. The States neglected them in despair. The public honor was tarnished, and our governments abused by their servants and best friends. In fine, it became a cant word things are not yet bad enough to mend. However, as great part of the important objects of society were entrusted to this mongrel species of general government, the sentiment of pushing it forward became general throughout America, and the late Convention met at Philadelphia under the uniform impression, that such was the desire of their constituents. But even then the advantages and disadvantages of national government operated so strongly, although silently, on each individual, that the conflict was nearly equal. A third or middle opinion, which always arises in such cases, broke off and took the lead-the national party assisted, pursued steadily their object- the federal party dropped off, one by one, and finally, when the middle party came to view the offspring which they had given birth to, and in a great measure reared, several of them immediately disowned the child. Such has been hitherto the progress of party; or rather of the human mind dispassionately contemplating our separate and relative situation, and aiming at that perfect completion of social happiness and grandeur, which perhaps can be combined only in ideas. Every description of men entertain the same wishes (excepting perhaps a few very bad men of each)-they forever will differ about the mode of accomplishment-and some must be permitted to doubt the practicability. As our citizens are now apprized of the progress of parties or political opinions on the continent, it is fit they should also be informed of the present state, force and designs of each, in order that they may form their decisions with safety to the public and themselves-this shall be given with all the precision and impartiality the author is capable of.
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:27 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 9 A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT IS A TYRANNY "MONTEZUMA," regarded as a Pennsylvanian, wrote this essay which showed up in the Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787. We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble-and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, "that all men are born equal"-beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy. lst. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though totally incapable of thinking or acting in governmental matters) are more readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in something like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the popular name of the House of Representatives. But to guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill they bring forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. Nor have we allowed the populace the right to elect their representatives annually . . . lest this body should be too much under the influence and control of their constituents, and thereby prove the "weatherboard of our grand edifice, to show the shiftings of every fashionable gale,"-for we have not yet to learn that little else is wanting to aristocratize the most democratical representative than to make him somewhat independent of his political creators. We have taken away that rotation of appointment which has so long perplexed us-that grand engine of popular influence. Every man is eligible into our government from time to time for life. This will have a two-fold good effect. First, it prevents the representatives from mixing with the lower class, and imbibing their foolish sentiments, with which they would have come charged on re-election.
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    12-11-2018, 12:29 PM
    White male capitalists, who else?
    4 replies | 254 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    12-10-2018, 03:58 PM
    ...Lessee... OK, so I didn't watch because I need a nap, but if I have the right gist, the US "government" is taking a rather dangerous step here. "We" created China. Had America not handed the Chinese virtually everything they have in terms of their "juggernaut" economy, they would still be living in near-stone age condition, as they were in, say, 1960. We allowed all manner of tech and other capability into the borders of a nation we should have left to its devices. But no. We had to show the world how... <AHEM> ... "progressive" we were. Oy. Now those monkeys are doing precisely what anyone with a brain knew they would do, using our tech against us, and Theye are pitching a fit of "no fair!!!".
    5 replies | 204 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    16 replies | 1110 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    12-05-2018, 12:36 PM
    I believe I've lost at least 20 IQ points reading that drivel. OK, so why are these people allowed to live, exactly? Seriously though, the stupidity of these "researchers" as portrayed here strains credulity in abusive fashion.
    33 replies | 1001 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    12-05-2018, 06:54 AM
    Ah, the good old days I now reminisce... the night I spent on the floor at CBGB at the foot of the stage as I tried for all I was worth to look up Ms. Harry's VERY short skirt. She looked RIGHT at me, clearly knew what I was up to, and didn't change a thing. Oh how I miss they way people used to be before they lost most of their humor in the hail of progressive bitterness that has engulfed this land. I won't even begin to go into what used to happen in the bathroom there, suffice to say it was the most interesting, and sometimes densely populated, section of the venue. Such are the memories of my deeply mis-spent youth.
    4979 replies | 274161 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    12-04-2018, 08:52 PM
    Have at this. Baseline reminiscent of "Gut Feeling" by Devo. Foogin' Germans... FTW.
    4979 replies | 274161 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    12-04-2018, 08:50 PM
    Well THAT wasn't at all predictable, eh? That's what progressives always do - you can set your watch by it. Place no stock in the lies. UCB lost in a big way. It's always been the buttcrack of the UC system. Of course, since my days there, all UC has become one giant buttcrack.
    3 replies | 119 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    12-04-2018, 01:21 PM
    Why... Someone please tell me WHY has this young... erm... "woman" failed to drink gasoline? Seriously - WHY? She seems so devoted to the right things, and drinking gasoline is SO the right thing for her to do. The world no longer makes sense to me.
    21 replies | 371 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    12-04-2018, 01:13 PM
    YAF: 1 UCB: Sand in vagina https://www.yaf.org/news/yaf-wins-landmark-free-speech-lawsuit-uc-berkeley-to-pay-70000-and-rescind-unconstitutional-policies Following more than a year of hard-fought litigation in the hostile Ninth Circuit, Young America’s Foundation secured victory for free speech against the University of California, Berkeley. Through YAF’s lawsuit and subsequent settlement agreementexecuted over the weekend, UC Berkeley agreed to the following terms set by Young America’s Foundation:
    3 replies | 119 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-30-2018, 10:43 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 8 "THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS OF SENDING TROOPS FOR SUPPRESSING INSURRECTIONS WILL ALWAYS ENABLE THEM TO STIFLE THE FIRST STRUGGLES OF FREEDOM" "A FEDERAL REPUBLICAN" (from Virginia) had his `letter to the editor' appear in The Norfolk and Portsmouth Register March 5, 1788. .... By the Articles of Confederation, the congress of the United State was vested with powers for conducting the common concerns of the continent. They had the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war; of sending and receiving ambassadors; of entering into treaties and alliances; and of pointing out the respective quotas of men and men which each state should furnish. But it was expressly provided that the money to be supplied by each state should be raised by the authority and direction of the legislature thereof-- thus reserving to the states the important privilege of levying taxes upon their citizens in such manner as might be most conformable to their peculiar circumstances and form of government. With powers thus constituted was congress enabled to unite the general exertions of the continent in the cause of liberty and to carry us triumphantly through a long and bloody war. It was not until sometime after peace and a glorious independence had been established that defects were discovered in that system of federal government which had procured to us those blessings. It was then perceived that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the purposes of the union; and it was particularly suggested as necessary to vest in congress the further power of exclusively regulating the commerce of the United States, as well to enable us, by a system more uniform, to counteract the policy of foreign nations, as for other important reasons. Upon this principle, a general convention of the United States was proposed to be held, and deputies were accordingly appointed by twelve of the states charged with power to revise, alter, and amend the Articles of Confederation. When these deputies met, instead of confining themselves to the powers with which they were entrusted, they pronounced all amendments to the Articles of Confederation wholly impracticable; and with a spirit of amity and concession truly remarkable proceeded to form a government entirely new, and totally different in its principles and its organization. Instead of a congress whose members could serve but three years out of six-and then to return to a level with their fellow citizens; and who were liable at all times, whenever the states might deem it necessary, to be recalled-- Congress, by this new constitution, will be composed of a body whose members during the time they are appointed to serve, can receive no check from their constituents. Instead of the powers formerly granted to congress of ascertaining each state's quota of men and money-to be raised by the legislatures of the different states in such a mode as they might think proper- -congress, by this new government, will be invested with the formidable powers of raising armies, and lending money, totally independent of the different states. They will moreover, have the power of leading troops among you in order to suppress those struggles which may sometimes happen among a free people, and which tyranny will impiously brand with the name of sedition. On one day the state collector will call on you for your proportion of those taxes which have been laid on you by the general assembly, where you are fully and adequately represented; on the next will come the Continental collector to demand from you those taxes which shall be levied by the continental congress, where the whole state of Virginia will be represented by only ten men! Thus shall we imprudently confer on so small a number the very important power of taking our money out of our pockets, and of levying taxes without control-a right which the wisdom of our state constitution will, in vain, have confided to the most numerous...
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-30-2018, 10:41 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR "PHILANTHROPOS," (an anonymous Virginia Antifederalist) appeared in The Virginia Journal and Alexandria Advertiser, December 6, 1787, writing his version of history under the proposed new Constitution. The time in which the constitution or government of a nation undergoes any particular change, is always interesting and critical. Enemies are vigilant, allies are in suspense, friends hesitating between hope and fear; and all men are in eager expectation to see what such a change may produce. But the state of our affairs at present, is of such moment, as even to arouse the dead ...
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-30-2018, 10:35 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 6 THE HOBGOBLINS OF ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE STATES One of largest series of Antifederalist essays was penned under the pseudonym "CENTINEL." The Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer ran this 24 essay series between October 5, 1787 and November 24, 1788. Some historians feel most of the "Centinel" letters were written by Samuel Bryan, and a few by Eleazer Oswald, owner of the Independent Gazetteer. A more recent study by Charles Page Smith, James Wilson, Founding Father (Chapel Hill, 1956), refrains from making such theory This selection is from the eleventh letter of "Centinel," appearing in the Independent Gazetteer on January 16, 1788.
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-30-2018, 10:32 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 5 SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND - A CASE IN POINT The ongoing Federalist essays appeared from October of 1787 to May of 1788. Rebuttals (Antifederalist in nature) to Federalist writers seldom were published. This selection was an answer to Publius Federalist No. 5. This article by "AN OBSERVER," was printed in The New-York Journal and was reprinted in the American Herald on December 3, 1787. A writer, under the signature Publius or The Federalist, No. V, in the Daily Advertiser, and in the New York Packet, with a view of proving the advantages which, he says, will be derived by the states if the new constitution is adopted, has given extracts of a letter from Queen Anne to the Scotch parliament, on the subject of a union between Scotland and England. I would beg leave to remark, that Publius has been very unfortunate in selecting these extracts as a case in point, to convince the people of America of the benefits they would derive from a union, under such a government as would be effected by the new system. It is a certainty, that when the union was the subject of debate in the Scottish legislature, some of their most sensible and disinterested nobles, as well as commoners! (who were not corrupted by English gold), violently opposed the union, and predicted that the people of Scotland would, in fact, derive no advantages from a consolidation of government with England; but, on the contrary, they would bear a great proportion of her debt, and furnish large bodies of men to assist in her wars with France, with whom, before the union, Scotland was at all times on terms of the most cordial amity. It was also predicted that the representation in the parliament of Great Britain, particularly in the house of commons, was too small; forty-five members being very far from the proportion of Scotland, when its extent and numbers were duly considered; and that even they, being so few, might (or at least a majority of them might) at all times be immediately under the influence of the English ministry; and, of course, very little of their attention would be given to the true interest of their constituents, especially if they came in competition with the prospects of views of the ministry. How far these predictions have been verified I believe it will not require much trouble to prove. It must be obvious to everyone, the least acquainted with English history, that since the union of the two nations the great body of the people in Scotland are in a much worse situation now, than they would be, were they a separate nation. This will be fully illustrated by attending to the great emigrations which are made to America. For if the people could have but a common support at home, it is unreasonable to suppose that such large numbers would quit their country, break from the tender ties of kindred and friendship and trust themselves on a dangerous voyage across a vast ocean, to a country of which they can know but very little except by common report. I will only further remark, that it is not about two or three years since a member of the British parliament (I believe Mr. Dempster) gave a most pathetic description of the sufferings of the commonalty of Scotland, particularly on the sea coast, and endeavored to call the attention of parliament to their distresses, and afford them some relief by encouraging their fisheries. It deserves also to be remembered, that the people of Scotland, in the late war between France and Great Britain, petitioned to have arms and ammunition supplied them by their general government, for their defense, alleging that they were incapable of defending themselves and their property from an invasion unless they were assisted by government. It is a truth that their petitions were disregarded, and reasons were assigned, that it would be dangerous to entrust them with the means of defense, as they would then have it in their power to break the union. From this representation of the situation of...
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-30-2018, 09:51 AM
    osan replied to a thread Daily Anti-Federalist in History
    Antifederalist No. 4 FOREIGN WARS, CIVIL WARS, AND INDIAN WARS - THREE BUGBEARS Patrick Henry was a somewhat the antithesis to James Madison of Federalist note. While every bit as emotional a writer, Henry (who penned the well remembered "Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death" phrase) opposed the new Constitution for many reasons. He delivered long speeches to the Virginia Ratification convention June 5, 7, and 9, 1788. The following is taken from Elliot's Debates, 111, 46, 48, 141-42, 150-56. If we recollect, on last Saturday, I made some observations on some of those dangers which these gentlemen would fain persuade us hang over the citizens of this commonwealth to induce us to change the government, and adopt the new plan. Unless there be great and awful dangers, the change is dangerous, and the experiment ought not to be made. In estimating the magnitude of these dangers, we are obliged to take a most serious view of them--to see them, to handle them, and to be familiar with them. It is not sufficient to feign mere imaginary dangers; there must be a dreadful reality. The great question between us is: Does that reality exist? These dangers are partially attributed to bad laws, execrated by the community at large. It is said the people wish to change the government. I should be happy to meet them on that ground. Should the people wish to change it, we should be innocent of the dangers. It is a fact that the people do not wish to change their government. How am I to prove it? It will rest on my bare assertion, unless supported by an internal conviction in men's breasts. My poor say-so is a mere nonentity. But, sir, I am persuaded that four fifths of the people of Virginia must have amendments to the new plan, to reconcile them to a change of their government. It is a slippery foundation for the people to rest their political salvation on my or their assertions. No government can flourish unless it be founded on the affection of the people. Unless gentlemen can be sure that this new system is founded on that ground, they ought to stop their career.
    13 replies | 557 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-30-2018, 09:44 AM
    And this is precisely why we will either be subsumed by the horde or we will kill them off. Don't fool yourselves, that choice is upon us and you WILL choose, whether positively or through inaction, but choose you will. Let that sink in for a moment. Take as much time as you need.
    33 replies | 735 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-30-2018, 09:06 AM
    While true, so far as the statement goes - which is not quite far enough - the central question that immediately follows like a herpes infection some days after unprotected sex with a transgenderfluid geneto-hooker-freakshow, is "what defines infringement"? The question may seem simple and easy to answer, but as with most things human, I do believe it stands a mite more challenging than "easy". Can it be objectively determined? I suspect yes, but that will not stop whiners and whingers from blowing great volumes of hot air-noise as they shriek on without apparent end about how they are being violated. It's all the rage these days - a fad that stands to transcend generations unless something significant disrupts it. For example, and this may not be the best - oh and it will be somewhat gross for some, so be warned. Imagine little Joeygenette Trannyooze suddenly decides it just has to masturbate where it stands, on a busy public sidewalk in... oh, pick a place... Manhattan... no... San Fran or Portland... that's the ticket. So it whips up its skirt, slides its tiny little weenie out the leg opening of its panties and proceeds to choke it with a fury that momentarily stuns and even amazes the people fortunate enough to be blessed by this little slice of new-world vaudeville. The initial shock worn away, they return to sense, only to arrive at something suggesting nausea is on the way as the brutishly stropping little creature (and I use the term generously here) comes to HappyFunTime, squirting its unwelcome bodily fluids all over God's acre. Is it within its rights to do so? Not so fast with the kneejerk, now. On the one hand, you may have passersby who remain unfazed - just another weirdo engaging in something stupid and perhaps mildly objectionable. Others will just be nonplussed, choosing to walk on in a state of non-comprehension. Others still will be disgusted by it, especially the little puddle left behind as the now-finished actor merrily bounds away, satisfied and perhaps relishing the idea that its recent gift to humanity will end up distributed on the bottoms of the shoes of a goodly number of its fellows.
    33 replies | 735 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-30-2018, 08:22 AM
    I suppose I ought to be running for the hills. Then again, I never was very smart... A semantically vague-at-best statement that can be interpreted in any of a number of ways, depending upon the assumptions with which it is approached. Sounds like a personal problem. :)
    31 replies | 815 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-30-2018, 07:48 AM
    One fundamental question motivated Antonio Gramsci throughout his life: Why had it proven so difficult for Marxists to promote revolution in Western Europe and America? The answer to that question is simple: the majority of European and American workers didn't believe a word of what the Marxists had to say and neither did they want what they had to offer. Quite simply, workers didn't want to be spoon-fed and led by a tiny elite (or a “revolutionary vanguard”) or very privileged Marxists/Leftists into a giant Gulag like the Soviet Union. So what were Marxists like Gramsci going to do about that terrible non-revolutionary situation? Simple: they were to “take over the institutions” and bring about “cultural Marxism” (the Frankfurt School's own term) from the top. In other words, Gramsci offered his own version of what the equally totalitarian -- at least at that time -- Fabians had already done (from the 1900 onwards) in the UK.
    0 replies | 83 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-28-2018, 09:15 AM
    It would seem we need education out of education.
    4 replies | 374 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-28-2018, 09:11 AM
    Stoopid parents --> stoopid children.
    5 replies | 202 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-28-2018, 09:06 AM
    While the "left" are so amusing. However, these general policies of not allowing them to die at the hands of their own stupidities have got to end. After all, their amusement value rarely goes longer than ten to fifteen minutes, after which they soon become wearisome, no longer earning their keep as mild entertainment. At that point, starvation should quickly ensue so as not to waste precious resources on that which provides no return on investment.
    2 replies | 224 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-28-2018, 08:48 AM
    Imagine that... paying to become more retarded.
    9 replies | 256 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-28-2018, 08:36 AM
    IIRC his last year as a NYC teacher was my first. Teaching in public schools is a fate worse than death, IMO. How my friend Jake has remained for 34 years is beyond my comprehension. Last time I visited him at Brooklyn Tech, I thought I was going to break out in hives when I walked in the door. The environments are so toxic, it is no wonder "millennials" are largely helpless toddlers, incapable of adult thought.
    15 replies | 670 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    11-28-2018, 08:26 AM
    https://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/the-tragedy-of-american-education-the-role-of-john-dewey
    1 replies | 203 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
14,739
Posts Per Day
4.50
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
10
Most Recent Message
08-04-2016 07:33 AM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 08:01 AM
Join Date
12-26-2009
Referrals
1
View osan's Blog

Recent Entries

Global War On Terrorism: Are We Winning?

by osan on 03-25-2017 at 07:19 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
Short answer: If you are still fighting it you are losing it.
After 26 years, I'd have to agree.
Categories
Uncategorized

Global War On Terrorism: Are We Winning?

by osan on 03-25-2017 at 07:19 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
Short answer: If you are still fighting it you are losing it.
After 26 years, I'd have to agree.
Categories
Uncategorized

Guns and Marijuana in Missouri

by osan on 01-02-2017 at 08:51 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
"castle doctrine," which permits homeowners to use deadly force against intruders. The revised law will allow invited guests, such as babysitters, to use lethal force.
I find it amazing to consider just how hopelessly corrupt a land we are, and have been for so very long a time when I read things like this. To think not only that some people would dare usurp the authority to remove those which are the most obvious prerogatives of free men, but also that we as a people would

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

RP: Who Brought the World to the Brink of World War III?

by osan on 10-17-2016 at 11:14 PM
Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
We did.
and

Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
Uhm, no. Not all of us. Only most of the countries involved. We few radicals and rebels do what we can to prevent it. Whether that works or not still doesn't change whether it is our fault or not.
To which I responded thusly:


The number of people out there who are putting their asses on the line is vanishingly small. My statistical assessment therefore stands. To wit...

The fact is this: we failed from the earliest days.

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

How to defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct?

by osan on 04-15-2016 at 07:22 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
How would you defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct? The use of private security firms is a stock answer, but let’s consider some more detail. Consider the following situations…
And it has its problems. It is a partial answer at best.


1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?
By killing them to eliminate them from the book of immediate and potential future threats to others, including

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

10-10-2018


05-16-2018


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-14-2018


03-13-2018


03-07-2018


02-25-2018

  • 01:28 AM - Hidden

06-13-2017


05-08-2017


05-03-2017


04-13-2017


03-27-2017


03-04-2017


02-19-2017


01-11-2017


09-29-2016


08-01-2016



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 94 1231151 ... LastLast

12-12-2018


12-04-2018


11-30-2018


11-28-2018


11-27-2018


11-22-2018


11-21-2018


11-20-2018


11-19-2018

  • 02:51 PM - Hidden


Page 1 of 94 1231151 ... LastLast