SD26

And a battle has started in Norway? Or maybe it involves one of Norway's alliances...

I'm in too.

I agree. Build here. Maybe build up some other motivated individuals too. If that can affect the country, maybe it is attractive to the resources of other capitalists too. Agreed on Gullipartiet then as the political host?

Just reached level 7. Have we talked about an appropriate party to join as a "start up"?

Yeah, I don't see where the FCC had anything to do with the SF thing. Fired? Again, he's syndicated, so the station decided not to air him because of ratings. That is what it is. Air America didn't make it in liberal markets either so... As for the FCC, there has been continued talk about a "fairness doctrine". This would limit the amount of time that specific "kinds" of programing would be allowed on a station. So, let's say that your station caters to listeners that prefer a lot of conservative talk radio. Makes it a place where a person looking for that kind of talk could listen all day, and then certain advertisers could focus on that demographic. Has been a pretty powerful opportunity for stations that decide to do that in many markets. The "fairness doctrine" would regulate that private programing specifically in spite of government funds proping up National Public Radio in the United States that has a very focused programing toward collective, statist types. Really, the FCC was designed to just keep radio stations from overlapping upon each other in their markets. Example: you wouldn't want to allow two stations of FM94.1 so near each other that their transmission area overlapped. Either way, "Michael Savage Removed from Radio" is incorrect. And "Michael Savage fired" is also incorrect. He lost a station. I'm with Jake, no pressure that I can recognize from the FCC, and that station certainly had the right to do as such based upon their business needs and contractural obligations.

Oh, yes. Use ten pages to state something that could be stated in about ten words.

Would the constitutional lawyer Obama be considered an intellectual? How about US President Wilson? For me, being an intellectual or not makes no difference. However, if one lies, spreads falsehoods, or works against individual rights, well, I have no value for that person.

Yeah, I wanted to convert gold to NOK to a weapon.

Thanks! I'm level six now, and thanks for the raise! I received gold from the game. How can that be converted into cash? Couldn't figure out early this AM how to do that.

Agreed. Seldom hear Savage myself, but it looks like some information is stating that he's syndicated on 350 US stations with a listener base of 8 - 10 million. Places him as third radio talk show in the US. I thought that the SF station was the one that syndicated him. They don't, so this is really kind of a simple decision to eliminate non statist talk radio program by a private company in a collective community like San Francisco.

Agreed. Wonder if they are breeching a contract. Probably an out clause, but that could make things interesting.

Don't know exactly what was on the paper, but I understand there were some that brought copies of their alternatives, different amendments, and the like to the speech. I think they may have made little signs in reference to that for when BHO talks about no alternatives...but my understanding is that he has cut off talking with the other side since around April on this. I supposed he doesn't need to talk if he's just deciding to do democracy/socialist rather than constitutional republic.

IN! Thank you! Sent a friend request too. Missed you in the beginning.

So, when that guy yelled, "You lie," what was he referring to specifically in Obama's speech? Obama gives a good speech. Great, but that's not a protection of individual rights. What is he going to do for individuals? Entertainment is not a reason to have one as president.

Nei, men jeg kan bruke et tastatur og en datamaskin.

Yeah, and I think you can't vote until level 6. Guess that's the "age of majority"? LOL!

Good question, one I'm asking myself too. Does it cost to join a party? Does it cost to make one? If there's a rational party available, it might be very valuable to get involved and involve others that we don't know that have some similar rational ideals. Even if it isn't perfect, it might be a good platform to start. Similar to the skill building process of working for a company: work for someone before starting your own business. Thoughts?

Everyone in Norway get this message? I used the Google translator...kind of slick.

Is that correct? http://www.erepublik.com/en/party/teknokratene-711/1 That's the local party that has the most members..."center, libertarian" http://www.erepublik.com/en/party/gullpartiet-138/1 Number two in membership is "center-right, libertarian". The president is from this party. Next presidential election is in 27 days. Does seem to be a good amount of taxation going on though. Not sure if the current government is doing anything about that.

I haven't, as I think one has to be level 7 first. Something like that at least.

Yeah, but I believe you have to buy food from the market place. At least I have been, and it gets consumed.

Me too. 1700 today for me. Looks like you can't join a political party until level seven or so too.

My point is that the church is not government. No, I agree, no one has the right to the services or even the product of another. Value for value. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but Affirmative Action is a government issue or an issue where there are government funds at stake. And even that has came around where state and federally funded universities have been told by courts that quota's are no longer legal for individual rights issues. Yes, there are pressures from outside groups to develop hiring practices by private companies, just like outside groups pressured banks to lend to "sub prime" borrower's that didn't fit traditional practices of lending to one that made enough money, etc. Friviolous lawsuits? Sure, they exist. That's fraud. And acts of force are certainly morally wrong. So, attack those ideas, write your representatives. Regardless, I see it as a jump to go from same sex couples getting married to churches being forced to marry them. Just as private companies still hire from their population pool that they see fit to hire them from to accomplish their tasks. Why should government be involved in marriage anyway? Leave it to individuals to get a contract from a lawyer. I can see it on Legalzoom right now...

So, how has the rights of the church been harmed? Certainly, it cannot have rights over an individual, or do you disagree? In your example, why did Bob & Gary win? What law was on their side? There is nothing in the wikipedia link that had anything to do with churches being required to marry anyone. So, how does your example work?

Looking forward to hearing an update.