“As the United States officially ended the war in Iraq last month, President Obama spoke eloquently at Fort Bragg, N.C., lauding troops for “your patriotism, your commitment to fulfill your mission, your abiding commitment to one another,” and offering words of grief for the nearly 4,500 members of the U.S. armed forces who died in Iraq. He did not, however, mention the sacrifices of the Iraqi people.

This inattention to civilian deaths in America’s wars isn’t unique to Iraq. There’s little evidence that the American public gives much thought to the people who live in the nations where our military interventions take place. Think about the memorials on the Mall honoring American sacrifices in Korea and Vietnam. These are powerful, sacred spots, but neither mentions the people of those countries who perished in the conflicts….

These attitudes have consequences. Perhaps the most important one — apart from the tensions created with the host governments, which have been quite vocal in protesting civilian casualties — is that indifference provides permission to our military and political leaders to pursue more interventions.”

— John Tirman, “Why do we ignore the civilians killed in America’s wars?” (via hipsterlibertarian)

9:23 pm  •  10 January 2012  •  78 notes

(via uniteordie-deactivated20120818)

8:36 pm  •  10 January 2012  •  39 notes

(Source: texasronpaulgirl, via scatteredaesthetics)

8:05 pm  •  10 January 2012  •  29 notes

“

Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.

An individualist is a man who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.”

”

— Ayn Rand (via the-capitalist)

(via itsalwayssunnyinmybutthole)

4:29 pm  •  7 January 2012  •  58 notes

captainlibertarian:

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage

fuckmeinthebutthole:

joswilson81:

“I’m supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want. “

“That’s right. That’s your Right under the Constitution and it’s your Right in a free society”

“I don’t want the federal government having a marriage police. I want the states to deal with it. Really, why do we have to have a license to get married? Why don’t we just go to the church? What other individuals do, why can’t we permit them to do whatever they call it that is their problem not mine? Just so nobody else forces their definition of marriage on you. That is what we have to prevent.”

“But, I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract and we shouldn’t have this argument - who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my s|andards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Others have standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me. And I just don’t like it. But,  if we want to have something to say about marriage, it should be at the state level and not at the federal government. Just get the government out of it.”

Ron Paul refuses to sign the NOM (National Organization for Marriage) pledge

  “NOM has reached out to the current crop of Republican presidential candidates to sign the groups pledge. The pledge supports a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman as well as preventing same-sex couples from adopting children. Every candidate has signed the pledge except Ron Paul. Whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, there are times when he steps away from the party line and sticks to his ideology. Though Paul does recognize marriage as one man and one woman, he is against a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage because it would take power away from the states to legislate the issue locally.”   “CNN:Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end Don’t ask, don’t tell policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?


”Ron Paul: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem”

On June 8, 2009, the Hon. Ron Paul of Texas voted YES for passage of H.R. 2965 [111th]: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010

Ron Paul is SO ANTI-GAY omg

(Source: joswpagan, via itsalwayssunnyinmybutthole)

1:20 pm  •  7 January 2012  •  39 notes

captainlibertarian:

Socialists will all die off when there’s no more productive citizens left to pay for their food stamps.

(Source: itsalwayssunnyinmybutthole)

10:40 am  •  7 January 2012  •  149 notes

approachingstarlight:

When societal advantages are dictated by the State, those who do not qualify invariably view the achievement conditions as somewhat arbitrary, and seek to lower, or broaden the conditions until such benefits are, for themselves, attainable.

The social conservative argument here is that small, State-enforced advantages, such as those gained through marriage, are necessary to encourage productive behavior on the part of the individual and shape society for the better.

As a Libertarian, I have more “faith” in individual judgement and dynamic interaction between a free people as the ultimate shaper of society, and diametrically opposed to any overarching structure or authority shaping a people to their singular will, more emphatically when they do so through economic means. As such, I would argue that State-level marital benefits should be abolished without prejudice, and those wishing to claim partnership should do so through prenuptial contracts, perhaps aided through council.

Until such an position is reached, the line of arbitration will continue to move, and be fought for, until it encompasses all peoples, indefinitely. Universal advantages are of course redundant, and so we can view both methods as parallel attempts restore equilibrium, by a society which views choice and liberty as the fundamental requirements of a free and prosperous nation, and all attempts to oppose this restorative force are a direct push, or passive shuffle, to reclaim aristocracy.

8:06 am  •  7 January 2012  •  9 notes

(Source: embrace--the--martian)

5:20 am  •  7 January 2012  •  27 notes

“

I laugh at ‘em. I laugh at ‘em. That— you know, if you defend individual liberty, if you defend sound money, balanced budget, the Constitution, and a foreign policy that’s sensible, ‘oh, he’s a dangerous man.’

You know what is a danger is somebody liable to go over and start a war against Iran with no clear intent. That is indeed a real danger.

”

—

Ron Paul when asked: 

What do you think when you hear yourself described as a dangerous man?

(via uniteordie)

(via uniteordie-deactivated20120818)

2:40 am  •  7 January 2012  •  24 notes

(via moralanarchism)

9:21 pm  •  6 January 2012  •  180 notes

“There is no Left or Right - there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you.”

— Philip Brennan (via laliberty)

(via moralanarchism)

7:01 pm  •  6 January 2012  •  218 notes

polyslime:

The difference is, I think, quite obvious. And it comes across so clearly when they speak. Ron Paul oozes sincerity and caring; all the rest ooze sliminess and fullness of self. IMHO.

(Source: that-armenian-dude, via unapologeticallylibertarian)

4:21 pm  •  6 January 2012  •  161 notes

“One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay nearly half of everything they earn to the government.”

— Ron Paul (via ronpaulrevolution)

(Source: darrellfalconburg)

1:21 pm  •  6 January 2012  •  74 notes

“You killed my son and now you are giving me a tree?”

—

An Iraqi farmer to Peter Van Buren of the US State Department after his team tried to give away fruit tree seedlings to replant ruined orchards. (via ambitioussurvival)

reblogged this before but i no curr. love.

(via 7biba)

The death perpetuated by these fucking wars is going to haunt the U.S. for generations - as it should.  Anyone who doesn’t feel the weight of 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens needs to get a heart implant.

(via ernestsewell)

(Source: The New York Times, via voluntaryexchange)

10:40 am  •  6 January 2012  •  4,232 notes

anarchyagogo:

1 million civilians killed

In Iraq and Afghanistan over a million civilians have been killed since 2001.  They were not killed by Iran, Libya or Syria.  They were not killed in a civil war.  They were massacred by the United States government.

The United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis — more than half of them refugees — or about one in every six citizens, 1-2 million widows and 5 million orphans. All a direct result of the U.S.-led invasion.

Source

(via uniteordie-deactivated20120818)

8:07 am  •  6 January 2012  •  798 notes