If you're unemployed, it's not because there isn't any work.

[MattSh]

[Laelth]

1. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[greytdemocrat]

2. Naive but I'm sure it sells...nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Why naive?

I, actually, think it's a cogent and accurate message. So why do you think it's naive.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. I agree......

I don't think it's naïve at all. It looks like a pretty solid start to a program to me.

[Go Vols]

33. +1

[daleanime]

63. Hell ya......

[heaven05]

20. +1000

[freshwest]

71. That last sentence says it all. If you make a profit by not hiring, or by offshoring, that's a goal.

It's pretty obvious where this mentality leads. We've seen it since the Reagan era. And before that, obviously.

Even with employment, there may not be equality. The GOP is finally advocating outright slavery but with euphemisms.

You can be working and still not have freedom. And the owner or boss can still profit. This is part of the brainwashing of America and the failure of education and the victory of propaganda.

People are what's important, not money (profit).

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. Hell ...

that business model of making profits by hiring or even off-shoring is so 2000ish; the new model is making money by placing bets against bets previously made or buying stuff that you have no interest in owning or even using, hoping that the price will go up (or down).

The new business model of corporate profits is completely disconnected from business, as we knew it.

[freshwest]

85. True... That's for the Private Sovereign Wealth Barons... It's a game for them.

It's indicative of truths people do not want to face, like this one:



In the worlds most of us live in, such traits still work. Within a limited sphere not the level these Masters of the Universe types are dwelling in.

I know a few African emigrants who were voting for the first time in November. They voted for Obama because they saw him as the one working for the middle class, which they said was not a possibility to enter in their home country.

They said their home version of the wealthy is unattainable for the majority. That those people get what they want, spend like there's no tomorrow, never give a thought about others beneath them. Then, there is a group that has nothing and no way out. It's a matter of birth.

Here, they see equality for themselves and a chance to do well, through those government programs that the right hates. They are not on food stamps or rental assistance, but they get support from the tax system to start businesses, without anyone stopping them from working. They are seeing their children get educated and move ahead.

They are happy here. For many Americans who are so jaded, they see nothing but loss. Maybe they started higher up in the world and had more at one time, so for them, it's the end!!

If one has ever hit bottom, there is a lot to look up at and the possibilities are there, just not what one expected in life. At first when sees the incredibly wealthy, it doesn't seem real, then it's depressing. Then one realizes it's time to get back to work on one's life and quit navel gazing.

JMHO.

[nxylas]

73. To Sensible Liberals, any alternative to the status quo is naive

Grown Up Politics is all about simply accepting corporate dominance and the permanent warfare state as facts of life. Ask Third Way Manny, I'm sure he'll explain it to you, you foolish child

[NJCher]

39. It's naive because the poster buys into it

My guess, anyway.

Or:

Extend the thought a little more. It's naive because the poster thinks there is no hope for change.

Just guesses. No one can ascribe motivation to another, but one can speculate.


Cher

[MattSh]

49. Not exactly.

I believe that any person or any idea that had any major impact on the world was proclaimed to be naive at one time or another. I'm pretty sure that Gandhi's ideas were called naive. Or Martin Luther King. Of course, not all so-called naive ideas have had a positive impact. But there's no doubt in my mind that many ideas that changed the world, for good or for bad, started in the head of some naive dreamer.

[Blanks]

52. You're right .

...and it doesn't matter that its naive, if its true.

I noticed during the last election that Romney was promising jobs, and reducing the government at the same time. If the government had programs in place to allow people to obtain abandoned property, people could create small businesses. That's the problem: the banks repossessed the property and kept anyone else from making the property profitable.

We need a new program where veterans are granted land for fighting in the last war. The government owns plenty of land in the form of HUD and VA repos. Give it to deserving people and let them either tear it down or restore it, but do something with it. The salvage material alone is a resource that should be salvaged.

[AAO]

43. If truth = naivete, then you are correct.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. I take it you mean "sells" in something other than dollars.

[brush]

70. Cynical, but I'm sure . . .

. . . fill in the blanks.

"Snarky" would be good.

[rucky]

74. Actually very insightful.

the work that needs to be done benefits everyone - including corporations. Everyone wants it to be done, but nobody wants to foot the bill.

[Skidmore]

3. You also need capital to do all of those things.

You can't survive on doing volunteer work and undertake projects which require materials without money. Capital is tied up in corporations and financial institutions now. I can volunteer all of my time but it does not pay my mortgage or put food on the table or even put gas in the tank to get me there.

[truebluegreen]

7. Don't see anything there about volunteer work.

I do see the implication that business/corporations have sucked up and held onto too much money and the government doesn't have enough.

[treestar]

28. Exactly. The Ayn Randian claims that

the people with capital will invest in those needs because they can make money off it or get a good reputation. This proves in a way that it is not so. But then don't expect a Randite to do anything but change the subject if confronted with this fact.

[truebluegreen]

29. I agree--Randians live a virtually fact-free existence. nt

[MindMover]

44. Just like libertarians ... they all have there heads up there proverbial arses

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/41483660@N04/5678267834/][img][/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/41483660@N04/5678267834/]headupass[/url]

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Your concern ...

is address in the last part, where the OP indicates that it is We D. People that should decide what work gets done ... Teach, Repair the infrastructure, repair the environment ... or, create more sophisticated debt instruments that bet against bet previously made.

Actually, I think this OP summarizes this past presidential election ... Keynesian vs Austrian Schools of economics; Demand vs Supply-side economics; the 1% vs the 99%.

[pepperbear]

17. the implication seems to be that we the peoole decide how some of the capital is spent.

the fact that very little of our collective wealth goes toward improving quality of of life, but rather, everything is driven by the profit motive.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. Very true. HOWEVER......

The collective wealth that is held in private hands CAN be redistributed. And if they take their zeros and ones to the Caymans, we could always expropriate any real assets held in this country AND deny them access to American markets.

[pscot]

18. Capital? How about tapping the $30 trillion

believed to be hidden in offshore tax havens. Plenty of money there. We just need to make the Capitalists disgorge some of it.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. Hmmm??? And how can we do that?....

Psst* A guy named Karl Marx had an idea about that.

But you're right on the button about this. It's not a question of wealth. It's a question of the distribution of that wealth.

[bhikkhu]

25. I'm not fond of the argument, but that is essentially true

the things listed in the OP are the work that would be recognized as the responsibility of government, where taxes are collected and then spent funding things that are needed by the people. A government which declines to collect sufficient taxes finds itself unable to fund the works that are its responsibility, and everyone suffers for it.

Except, in our case, the small class of people who have avoided most taxes and hoarded wealth, where it benefits no one really.

[BrotherIvan]

41. Now I'm going to ask a stupid question

But isn't much of the gigantic wealth today pure fantasy? It's not like there are giant Fort Knoxes in the Caymans hoarding piles of cash and gold. It's just computers that say, you have this much in your account. Also, much of a wealthy person's worth is based on stocks which are artificially priced and go up and down. That's why people move up and down the Fortune 500 list. The funny part is, because these large institutions (banks) guarantee the ones and zeros in some person's bank account, stores, etc will provide him with real products. So the question is, how do we get the wealthy hoarders ones and zeros to work for us? Or the alternative...

[A Simple Game]

60. We all know the CCC and the WPA among other programs almost destroyed

this country and caused the great depression! Oh, wait, I got that backwards, they helped reverse the depression.

The way I see it you have three choices, one, let people starve and freeze, or two, feed, house, and keep people warm, or three, give them a job to earn all of the aforementioned in the second choice. The first choice is the cheapest and likely favored by Republicans. The second and third probably cost about the same, but the third will repair our infrastructure and other beneficial things. The third will also need products manufactured by, hopefully, American industries further increasing employment.

What's your choice, mine is number three.

[limpyhobbler]

4. Love it. nt

[Fuddnik]

5. Fuckin' "A", Bubba!

[JEB]

6. 30 some years of privatizing anything and everything

is destroying our country and driving the middle class toward poverty. Out dated roads full of pot holes, bridges failing, etc. Now the corporations have their sights set on what's left of our public education system ans the peoples water systems. So much money for them to make. The people (they think) can bear a lot more. We will find out.

[Ikonoklast]

10. Sorry, but that's not how the bills get paid.

I don't rely on anyone else for employment except myself.
If people are waiting around for others to give them a job, it might be a long wait.

And the last paragraph is totally inaccurate and shows ignorance of history. This country was built on cheap labor and slaves by corporations seeking profit, and the people who sought control over capital investment, many of whom signed the Constitution.

[bettyellen]

19. you pay taxes and don't expect some will go to preserving the safety and general welfare of your

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)

community?

[pscot]

27. That's one of those Randian half truths

so dear to the hearts of Libertarians. Your own reading of our history conveniently ignores the millions of acres of public lands given to canal and railroad builders and the vast public subsidies provided to Capitalists, both directly, in the form of tax breaks and cash payments and indirectly in the form of the trillions invested in public roads, bridges, water works, flood control and sanitation; not to mention the cheap access to publicly owned resources like timber, minerals (oil) and rangeland. And a public school system that used to be the best in the world, providing the skilled, intelligent workers business needed. "I buit this" is libertarian myth. The nation's wealth is community property. The Capitalists don't get to take the ball home with them. The game isn't over.

[Ikonoklast]

62. I ignored nothing. I know exactly how fortunes were made in this nation.

Those that got here first, grabbing all that they could as fast as they could.

Those that got here second, using a willing government to help them steal from the commons what wasn't already nailed down.

[BrotherIvan]

47. Bootstraps!

That's all you got out of this post?



The fact that everyone is shitting on this very simple idea of the commons/community says so much about the triumph of the right and the infection of the Democratic Party. If so many cannot grasp even simple ideas such as these, then we truly are doomed. Reagan won.

[Ikonoklast]

61. You and two others completely mis-read what I posted.

Yours seems to be deliberately misconstruing what I wrote.

I refuse to play their game, yet so many are victims because they cannot see that they are trapped inside the game being played on them by Capital.

I owe those that would seek to control my working life *nothing*.

[BrotherIvan]

64. You're an island!

Good for you! Screw those "victims" right?

[TreasonousBastard]

79. I didn't. We started with slavery and indentured servitude with...

a very tiny government. Then, even greater fortunes were made when the President who hated government more than any others spent federal money to double the size of the country and Westward expansion built even more fortunes. The small fact that there were a lot of people already living there didn't bother us in the least.

Spending gummint money on war with Spain and Mexico to further expand the borders helped build more fortunes while shitting on some more people who were already living there-- who had already shat on the original people, btw. And we discovered China as a new source of cheap imported and disposable labor.

The common people worked in the mills and labored on the roads, but none of them built the mills or designed or paid for the roads. They deserve to be paid and treated well, but it's a myth that they built or created anything. Some rose up, it's true, but it was the Carnegies and Fords who were the forces behind it all.

You would not have wanted to work for Andrew Carnegie-- he believed most wages were wasted by workers on beer and follies instead of on bettering themselves, so paid them as little as possible. But, you get guys like that in any working system-- that's why we have wage and hour laws. Socialists and communists had their share of scumbags I wouldn't want to trade for and probably the greatest feat of recovery back in the 30's was Germany-- but we all know about that and no one of ever wants it repeated.

It's an imperfect, unjust world and we have to deal with it as it is, not as how we would like it to be.

[fasttense]

12. It's because capitalism as an economic system is a complete failure.

Why do we American citizens live in a democracy and spend most our waking hours in a feudal economic system? Yes, our corporations are feudal empires with peasantry doing the work and the rich kings, CEOs and boards of directors, taking the fruits of our labor.

Bringing democracy to the workplace is NOT naive nor does it require volunteers. Look around you, there are thousands of workplaces with democracy as their basis for organizing the work. They are frequently called co-ops and here are ten that are alive, well and making a profit in the US:

http://www.alexunioncab.com/

http://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/

http://green-coop.com/

http://www.appletonideas.com/Appleton/jsps/ourcompany.do?langId=-1

http://www.arizmendibakery.org/

http://www.beyondcare.coop/

http://biofueloasis.com/about-us/

http://bostoncollectivedelivery.com/

http://broadwaybicycleschool.com/about/

http://builderscommonwealth.com/about-us/

And there are more of them, lots more, all over the US.

Instead of an overpriced CEOs and board of directors, the workers run and own the businesses. If these companies can do it, why can't all businesses be run this way?

The workers got together and put in some money to start the business or take a loan. But it's possible. Democracy at work is not some crazy impossible dream. It's everywhere and the major corporations should and could be run exactly the same.

[BrotherIvan]

48. Enthusiastic Rec!

It would be so cool if there was a resource of some kind where workers could get the information and help they need to start these co-ops. Is there? And as customers it is our job to support them over every other business of its kind because this is the ideal model. Especially if it is a local business as those are your friends and neighbors.

[gtar100]

13. Spot on. And the primary institution that can organize this work

is our government. What better use of a government is there than to organize the work for the care of the needs of a community. Of course, that would require a sustainable tax structure and people who actually put value in public services.

Or we could piss away all our treasure on making a few people rich while the majority suffer inevitable poverty. Like we are doing right now.

If someone is working full time, that should provide them and their family enough to live decent lives. Anything less means that someone is stealing from them.

[aristocles]

30. Yes, that worked very well in the Soviet Union and Communist China

[mbperrin]

46. Umm, the Soviet Union was rife with corruption and money to the top from the beginning.

Looked around a bit at China lately? Bit of an Industrial Revolution there at this moment.

It was my pleasure to have a 15 year old Chinese exchange student take my senior economics class this year. Top of her class with a near-perfect mark, eager to learn, bright, daughter of an accountant and a work at home mom.

Know what really caught her eye? She commented on the second day of class how many trash dumpsters there were in the alleys for so few houses.

And if work doesn't pay enough to make a living, why should we do it? Let some of these hedge fund guys cut their own hedges and mow their own lawns in this 100 degree weather, change their own oil, just thinking that after they are treated for heatstroke, they might appreciate the underclass a bit more.

Of course, I have a bias in these things - my grandfather was a member of the IWW organizing the oilfields in the 30s, and my dad helped organized the United Postal Workers, and I, counter to many in Texas, don't belong to a "professional teacher's association." I belong to the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.

So if I seem a little cavalier in my attitude that there are far too many resources wasted on people who simply don't produce and cannot produce anything real to justify that expenditure and far too few resources invested in people who could actually make our lives better in every way.

[Chan790]

81. You seem to be conflating dissimilar concepts.

There is a world of difference between the compulsory re-appropriation of private capital and property (whether compensated or uncompensated) to the state and public holdings as practiced in the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba and Bolivarian (semi-communist) states like Venezuela as advanced in Marxist theory and on the other hand, the state-driven formation of private or semi-public cooperatives (whether cooperatism or syndicalism) as practiced in pre-Civil-War Spain (particularly Catalonia and Aragon) widely and more narrowly in every modern economy since.

[gtar100]

82. Those are extreme cases that did/do *not* work well.

Our better models are the US from the 40's to the 70's or the more socially progressive countries in Europe. Nothing perfect (by any stretch of the imagination) but certainly better than what we have now. As in better than the neoliberal model being foisted on us with the government primarily being run in the best interests of a wealthy, minority subculture.

You're right to be suspicious of excessive government control. But what organizing entity is better suited to manage many of the project types listed in the original op than a government? Can you imagine a government that runs in the best interests of the working class and poor and not exclusively for the rich? Can you imagine a government that prioritizes environmental concerns? If not, then don't get involved in running one.

If your solution is private interests, the same if not more suspicion should be applied. Private interests have no accountability to great numbers of people that they effect (for example, pollution, resource rights, etc.) without a government stepping in to regulate. Too often they act like bullies in a marketplace simply looking out for their own interests regardless of the consequences on others. And private interests are the primary corrupting influences on governments anyway. Everything in its right measure, checks and balances... and all that. They are both necessary in our current paradigm. We need to figure out a way to use them in a sustainable manner or suffer the inevitable consequences of life out of balance possibly to the point of our extinction.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. unrestricted, illegal, immoral and unethical capitalism is a complete fail on all levels, yes.

[DFW]

16. Unrestricted ANYTHING always fails.

Somewhere along the way, decisions always need to be made that affect others, and there must checks and balances on the decision-makers. No one so benevolent as to not need them has ever been in a position of power.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. And private enterprise is a totalitarian system. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. you and I are in violent agreement . unless there is any misunderstanding here.

[DFW]

24. Not that I can tell

But I had no one checking my post, so who knows?

[dkf]

26. Well people can do that for free.

On the flip side why do we need to receive money to do good things? Isn't THAT materialistic and capitalistic? If people are unemployed anyway they could be using that time to be productive.

[leftstreet]

32. Robber barons & Corporations get infrastructure 'for free'

They mine, manufacture, transport and sell their shit off our collective dime

What would happen if they had to pay for it? Oops, there'd be no profit in it!

Maybe instead of counting their ill-gotten wealth they could do something more productive with their time

[dkf]

36. I doubt you would be happy with anything they did with their time.

They would provably try to figure out how to make more money.

[leftstreet]

38. On ayn rand-om day you'd be happy to cheer 1%ers n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

50. omg n/t

[DinahMoeHum]

31. The $$$ is there, but it's not doing useful work.

crying poverty is no excuse.

[leftstreet]

34. DURec

[FairWinds]

37. When People Get Laid Off . .

they are generally told that it's kinda unfortunate, but it's "because of the economy".
Like that explains and justifies everything.
What so many people do not get is that the purpose of an economy is to serve human needs, not the other way around - as it is now.

[BanTheGOP]

40. Eliminate the GOP, and corporatism will end

Eliminate the GOP and we will get this taken care of. All that we have left to do is to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and we will guarantee the transformation of America by ensuring that the GOP is PERMANENTLY shut out from any chance at the presidency. Despite the republican neo-thugs crying a river regarding the IRS, Prism, Benghazi, and other "scandals" they dream up to prevent the Obama administration from ensuring the transformation. I've advocated over and over and over again that this was necessary, and with immigration reform (which MUST be passed before October or November for maximum effectiveness), we will easily retake the house and engage the entire Executive and Legislative branches to destroy the remnants of the GOP and the baggers.

[leftstreet]

42. Voters eliminated the GOP in 2006 & 2008 n/t

[HughBeaumont]

55. Well, theoretically and in name, yes . . . .

. . . problem is, the "GOP" exists everywhere. Their economic laissez-fail policies are now fave-raves among 94% of elected officials from all three of America's well-funded parties. Or at least that's what they tell their more conservative voting blocks to avoid being branded as a "COMMIE!!!".

[treestar]

68. The most oversimplified statement on DU today

and that's saying something.

[gtar100]

83. I want to live in this world you speak of. Where might I find it?

A world without the the GOP has got to have something awesome going for it. And hopefully it is far, far away from the hell that conservatives imagine as their utopia.

[rhett o rick]

67. No way. The Ruling Elite made up of corporate power own a good share of the DEmocratic Party.

Get rid of the GOP and they will use that resources to buy Democrats. Penny Pritzker is a Democrat. Hello.

[marmar]

69. Sorry, but "corporatism" has both major parties in its pocket.

[HughBeaumont]

80. Let's not forget the major-funded third party that presents itself as some "viable alternative"

I respect Republicans far more than I do Libertarians. If you're going to be an asshole greedbag, at least own that trophy like a champ. Instead, they pretend to be this anti-war, liberty-loving pot party to attract progressives while putting their very 1%er-friendly economic agenda and states rights horseshit on the back burner.

[AAO]

45. The 1% has guaranteed the shity employment numbers for their own sinister interests.

I really have no follow-up analysis. It's just something that is self-evident to me.

[rucky]

75. Cheap labor

The labor market runs by the rules of supply and demand. If demand is high and supply is low, people are willing to work for less.

[blkmusclmachine]

51. .

.

[PatrynXX]

53. which is how 50 jobs for the XL Pipeline seems more important than the millions needed to fix our

infrastructure

[FirstLight]

54. great point...but what about survival?

my point http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022977246

As long as people can't get a living wage, "meaningful work" is bullshit. I'd be happy if I could lead a 'normal' life and buy a car, own a home, etc...but that won't happen until my folks DIE and leave me whatever inheritance they were able to put together back when it was possible for one income families to make a go of it...

I am usually on-board with this kind of thinking, but today...I am bitter as fuck ...

[Skittles]

57. CORRECT

[midnight]

58. What a brilliant correlation between the Profits trump peace mind set, and unemployment....

Another reason to reject the ownership society that promotes this idea of privatizing profits, and socializing their debts....

[mwooldri]

59. I *hate* the term "unemployed".

To me, "unemployed" means that one is not engaged in any form of work whatsoever - employer paid, volunteer unpaid, self work (paid or unpaid). IMO *everyone* can be self employed. Now employment does not equal being paid... the "stay at home parent" may not get paid a dime but to say that they're unemployed... oh no... they're employed alright. Try chasing down a 3 year old boy who is into everything and anything.

As to the OP - I wholeheartedly agree with the essence of the message. There is plenty of work to be done. The organizations that can get this work going either have not got the resources to do the work effectively... or the organization is deciding not to use its resources to do that work. For some organizations, it's time to put the "out of order" sign on the cash elevators.

We often hear about "independence", but pure independence IMO is absolutely absurd. Humans are social creatures, and there is a level of interdependence. Whether it is more like independence or more like dependence depends on the individual. Businesses are interdependent - on their customers and their workers. It used to be that if you keep your workers happy, pay them well, train them well, and have enough of them... your customers will like you more and do more business with you. I'm glad Costco is still proving that point. Sadly, Wal-Mart shows there are exceptions to the rule. Not enough workers, not given their due respect and pay... doesn't make them happy. Doesn't mean happy customers either. Sadly in a lot of places there is *only* Wal-Mart. There is no choice, the customer can't just go over to XYZ place because it doesn't exist. In low income areas, the same problem... Wal-Mart has an awful lot of clout in the purchasing area. They *can* get the best prices. The smaller businesses can't compete on price. They definitely can compete on service (frankly, what business can't do better than Wal-Mart for treating its customers and workers?) but if a smaller grocery store can charge its customers $100, and Wal-Mart can charge its customers $80 for pretty much the same thing... and you're tight on money and you have $120 and you need gas money too... you're going to go to Walmart because your pocket book doesn't have the money to support the smaller, friendlier business. Only problem is that when peoples' pocket books become too small then they're not going to spend as much at Wal-Mart. If things get really bad, then oh dear, I actually think we've been there and gone beyond it. Wal-Mart may be the place to get work because the smaller businesses have closed. If you get a wal-mart job you may hate it but you cope up with it to get some food on the table, pay some bills, keep a roof over your head. Probably a McJob is better perhaps?

Again, IMO there is no such thing as "unemployment" - we can all employ ourselves but we may not get any money out of it. But the 1%ers need to understand that there is a degree of interdependence that must be maintained. If that interdependence shifts too far one way or another, the 1%ers will have a problem. The people they depend upon just won't be there.

[awoke_in_2003]

65. The thread seems to have drawn out the libertarians. nt

[a2liberal]

72. yep, an awful lot of capitalism worship here (n/t)

[david13]

66. I don't think ...

capitalism has been a failure or collapsed.
I do think communism has been shown to be a non workable solution.
I think the only solution is some type of hybrid or mixed system.
But I also don't think that is why there is no work.
There is work. There are jobs. It's just a question of finding it/them.
And I have been failing at that.
I think the problem is the trade balance.
The USA used to be a producer nation, until 1971. Then the balance evened out.
And started falling.
Today nothing is produced or made in the USA any more (in terms of dollars).
The trade imbalance runs into billions of dollars.
The USA is a total consumer nation. It will become a 'third world nation' in the future.
This is not the fault of only the Reps or the Dems. They are equally guilty.
But it is a simple fact of nature.
A tree grows, matures, then dies. The USA is in the latter stage.
Did you ever hear of the rise and fall of the ... Roman Empire, Third Reich, etc?
Maybe it's simple physics. What goes up, must come down.
dc

[Jasana]

76. K&R for thruth!

I'm going to facebook this one. Thanks!

[MrMickeysMom]

77. Having K&R'd that, I'll say this...

Most of the jobs where this sign would appear are related to municipal public works, or contracted services "infrastructure" roads, bridges, crime watch materials from the state that are no longer available where I am (you have to copy your own, then hold a crime watch meeting where block captains should, but are far less likely to volunteer).

Bringing new and sustainable industries.... that's helped by the state.

What state do I live in?

The state of nervous realization.

War is Peace.... we're not trying to control you... shut up and don't vote... let the mob mentality take over...

Ignorance is bliss?

[liberal N proud]

78. It all comes back to GREED!