• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DGM

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://dungeon-games.com/blog/
  1. I'm a semi-regular listener of Jason Lewis, a political radio talk show host. He's frequently lamented that the left wins so many political battles because they constantly out-organize the rest of us, and he's been working on a project to counter that. He unveiled it a few days ago - it's a website at www.galt.io (while not an outright Objectivist himself, Mr. Lewis is a fan of Ayn Rand). The idea is to let users select their own specific political causes to start and to help them with finding and organizing like-minded people. The software to do this is being crowd-sourced and they've had far more traffic and support than they anticipated. They had to step up from 2 servers to 100 in a few hours of going public and met their initial funding goal of $250,000 in less than two days. So it sounds like a lot of people are signing up for this, which could make it very useful for the activists here. To get in on the ground floor you have to make a pledge to help build the site. Once it's built and the project goes live the only way in will be by invitation from someone who's already a member. The minimum pledge (which I made) is $25. Again, it's www.galt.io. I think it's got lots of potential and I encourage you guys to take a look.
  2. Like many, I've been thinking about politics and government a lot lately. And something recently occurred to me. The state governments (speaking of America, here) sit between the local and federal governments, but what purpose do they serve that, under proper capitalism, couldn't be absorbed by either one? The local governments can handle local concerns like police work, the federal government lets us better resist attack by pooling our resources for a strong military, and the states do... What, exactly? I understand that they may be essential to standing up to Uncle Sam in the current crisis, but would they be superfluous in a proper system? Or is serving as a buffer between local and federal government in itself a vital function? To put the question another way: if government were voluntarily financed instead of having the power to tax, why would I want to volunteer any of my cash to a state? What would I get out of it?
  3. Heh. She shoots, she scores.
  4. You don't really want Civil War II

    If enough of the country is willing to walk over this, Texas may not have to do it on its own. Over a quarter of the states are already suing Congress and ObeyMeCare - excuse me, ObamaCare - isn't even two weeks old. Imagine how many more states will join the fun if Republicans sweep into power at that level this election. As the mandate would essentially spell the end of Federalism and state's rights, they'd have little reason to stay if the SCOTUS upholds it. Potentially, the states could even amend the Constitution to say that they can secede on their own. If that happened, President ObeyMe wouldn't have a constitutional fig leaf to hide behind if he ordered the military to prevent them from leaving. Our troops aren't the armies of King George, and I doubt they'll attack their fellow Americans under those circumstances.
  5. Actually, the same guy pressing to disqualify Obama claims that McCain isn't technically eligible either. So who knows at this point.
  6. Um, Betsy, did you actually read what I wrote? I said, "it has nothing to do with his birth certificate." This is about Barrack's father being a Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth. And unless this is a fake, Justice Thomas took it seriously enough to bring it to the attention of the rest of the SCOTUS.
  7. Folks, it's not over yet. Obama's status as a natual born U.S. citizen is in dispute, and it has nothing to do with his birth certificate. If the SCOTUS backs this, he can't become POTUS. I've blogged about it here: http://poison-keyboard.com/blog/?p=36
  8. I've been thinking about how to rewrite my letter, and I've decided to replace the part about supporting the President's removal. Instead I want to take ewv's suggestion and talk about how the government can come after a private citizen for his words in ways that don't seem to have anything to do with speech (like IRS audits). The question is, what could a Senator do about it? What kind of action could I call on her to take, other than just publicly protesting?
  9. Canada's Supreme Court made a move towards free speech earlier this year, so the judicial branch is apparently on the right side: http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/a-major-shif...amation-la.html
  10. A FORUM Member in the News

    I've got another one: http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=z...1360823-s8.a.hx If only it had come true. The funny thing is, though, it was so over-the-top that at first I thought it was a pro-McCain piece mocking Obama supporters! It was only when I read the "Vote Obama" bit at the end of the video that I realized they were serious. Don't miss the fake video and article links elsewhere on the page.
  11. I'm not so worried about their control over the physical means. I was thinking more along the lines of what ewv pointed out: the government can come after critics in other ways - like sending in the IRS - that I don't have the means to fight. I think that sort of thing would be extremely unlikely to fly in Canada, given the massive public outrage over HRC censorship and the government's own movement towards more protection for free speech.
  12. I've been following Ezra Levant's story, and something funny occured to me: It looks like Canada is about to become the best country on Earth for free speech, and Canadians might soon be better able to speak to and for Americans than Americans themselves! We may soon need them to pay us back for the help we've given them in their battle for free speech. I admit there's an element of fear influencing my thinking on this, but I'm honesty wondering: if I were to start a political blog and speak out, could I do more good for this country by leaving it first and moving up there? I don't have the money, skills or connections to fight back if the government were to come down on me, but from there I could speak openly to anyone with internet access.
  13. So, should this point be dropped entirely or is there a useful way to phrase this?
  14. If the incoming government is going to be as bad as many of us think, there's likely to be a tremendous public opinion backlash against them even from their own supporters. We may be able to take the government back over the next two elections, provided: 1) We can find some political candidates who aren't afraid of advocating egoism and capitalism. Rush Limbaugh is working on that, I think. 2) We can get information and opinions out past whatever censorship methods the government tries to impose. 3) The elections aren't rigged. I've been inspired by this post to do something about the second and draft an e-mail to my Senator (Mary Landrieu, Louisiana). Since I'm new to the whole political activism thing, I thought I'd run my draft by you all first and get some feedback (ignore the fact that my e-mail address is not provided near the end):
  15. It's Election Day!

    On the other hand, the mainstream media has just about blown what credibility it had left. Assuming a NON-filibuster-proof senate can keep censorship laws out, the mainstream media may not even be the "mainstream" much longer. Which means that the blogosphere, talk radio and other alternatives can can pick up the ball that they dropped. Oh, Gods. Someone talk some sense into me, because I think I'm this close to starting a political blog.