If you even visited this thread ( of course you did, you started it), you would LOVE both movies!
Most people mistake the 1st Matrix movie for just some silly Keanu Reeves shooting movie but the plot is deep. Not just the plot, the way the directors put together the movie with the symbolism etc. You should easily spend the money and buy both movies... you won't be dissapointed.
Most people mistake the 1st Matrix movie for just some silly Keanu Reeves shooting movie but the plot is deep. Not just the plot, the way the directors put together the movie with the symbolism etc. You should easily spend the money and buy both movies... you won't be dissapointed.
I also heavily disagree with the asumption that if all schools were private, that the crime rate would go up.
This may or may not be true, but I find it very close minded ( typical liberal thing) to just assume crime rates would go up. There are all kinds of dynamics going on and the real world isn't just a series of "if, then" statements.
This may or may not be true, but I find it very close minded ( typical liberal thing) to just assume crime rates would go up. There are all kinds of dynamics going on and the real world isn't just a series of "if, then" statements.
The first thing you should do after watching hte Matrix, is let it sink in and then watch it again.
Talk about it, do a little research online, and then watching it AGAIN and look into the details of the movie. The numbers, the names, the colors, the ideas, the themes...
I have probably seen that movie 10 times, and every single time I watched it, I picked out new things...
Talk about it, do a little research online, and then watching it AGAIN and look into the details of the movie. The numbers, the names, the colors, the ideas, the themes...
I have probably seen that movie 10 times, and every single time I watched it, I picked out new things...
The Libertarians could have had that magical split of the two parties we wanted to see.
I believe there are more fiscally conservative or moderate people than liberal. They could play the income wars all they want but most people are fiscally conservative.
I also see the war as being heavily unpopular right now. So which party had the best of both worlds for MOST people????
Ron Paul did, but the liberal media did everything they possibly could to deny him any coverage at all. They try to paint him out as an "extremeist" when in reality he was a very viable choice for a great number of people.
Instead, you have the american idol watching Obama supporters who don't know 4 things about his policies.
I believe there are more fiscally conservative or moderate people than liberal. They could play the income wars all they want but most people are fiscally conservative.
I also see the war as being heavily unpopular right now. So which party had the best of both worlds for MOST people????
Ron Paul did, but the liberal media did everything they possibly could to deny him any coverage at all. They try to paint him out as an "extremeist" when in reality he was a very viable choice for a great number of people.
Instead, you have the american idol watching Obama supporters who don't know 4 things about his policies.
neocons are liberals in recovery. Joe Lieberman is a "neocon."
I was born a conservative and raised a conservative.
Conservatives are:
Hawks on foreign policy
Radical free marketers with low tolerance for govt handouts of any kind
Very socially conservative
VP Dick Cheney is probably the most high profile consummate conservative in America at the moment.
Dick Cheney is the CONSERVATIVE in Bush's "compassionate conservatism."
Dick Cheney is always pushing a hard line approach dealing with our enemies.
Dick Cheney is CONSTANTLY emphasizing more tax cuts and deep cuts in govt spending -- including the complete abolishment of several govt agencies.
No Child Left Behind
The prescription drug bill
Harriet Myers
Shamnesty
None of the those disasters were Dick Cheney's ideas.
I wish VP Dick Cheney were running for president. :sad3:
"Libertarian philosophy says that taxation is wrong, so it stands to reason that taxpayer-funded public schooling wouldn't exist in a libertarian society.
First of all, do you agree with the above statement? If not, why not?"
No, I do not agree. Consumption taxes, usage taxes, local, state taxes and many others would still exist. It’s the Federal income tax and most federally imposed taxes that would be eliminated so there would still be plenty of money for public schools.
Further thoughts on education; obviously people with the means should always be allowed to send their children to private schools.
For those that are not in that tax bracket there should be 3 choices.
1) Do not send your kids to school at all. I don’t believe the Federal Government has the right or the authority to force you to send your kids to their schools. So, don’t send them to school at all, let them fail. In a Libertarian administration there would be no long term welfare. It simply would not exist and that alone would encourage most to take a more serious approach to educating their children.
2) Send them to public schools as most do currently.
3) Home school your children. I am appalled that California has outlawed home schooling. If you as an American want to teach your children a different doctrine than the Government run public schools it’s now a crime. Does that not seem un-American? California has set a dangerous precedent in my opinion.
A couple more thoughts….I hate to use the term “Plantation” here but it seems appropriate. I don’t believe having the Government in charge of your safety, your education, your retirement planning, your healthcare, and generally every aspect of your life is a path to prosperity for you. For the Government yes!
On the matter of crime rates. I believe people would take educating their children much more seriously if they knew there was no safety net. That being said if we decriminalized marijuana alone we’d have so much extra money and jail space that the possible surge in the crime rate due to lack of education would be virtually nil comparitively.
First of all, do you agree with the above statement? If not, why not?"
No, I do not agree. Consumption taxes, usage taxes, local, state taxes and many others would still exist. It’s the Federal income tax and most federally imposed taxes that would be eliminated so there would still be plenty of money for public schools.
Further thoughts on education; obviously people with the means should always be allowed to send their children to private schools.
For those that are not in that tax bracket there should be 3 choices.
1) Do not send your kids to school at all. I don’t believe the Federal Government has the right or the authority to force you to send your kids to their schools. So, don’t send them to school at all, let them fail. In a Libertarian administration there would be no long term welfare. It simply would not exist and that alone would encourage most to take a more serious approach to educating their children.
2) Send them to public schools as most do currently.
3) Home school your children. I am appalled that California has outlawed home schooling. If you as an American want to teach your children a different doctrine than the Government run public schools it’s now a crime. Does that not seem un-American? California has set a dangerous precedent in my opinion.
A couple more thoughts….I hate to use the term “Plantation” here but it seems appropriate. I don’t believe having the Government in charge of your safety, your education, your retirement planning, your healthcare, and generally every aspect of your life is a path to prosperity for you. For the Government yes!
On the matter of crime rates. I believe people would take educating their children much more seriously if they knew there was no safety net. That being said if we decriminalized marijuana alone we’d have so much extra money and jail space that the possible surge in the crime rate due to lack of education would be virtually nil comparitively.
