# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  REPUBLIC Magazine vs The New American?

## H Roark

I was thinking about subscribing to one of these publications.  I've read the New American, which is the bi-monthly magazine put out by the John Birch Society.  How does  it compare to the monthly REPUBLIC magazine?

----------


## LibertyEagle

The JBS has a good research group that is used to back up what they espouse.  I subscribe to The New American and I think it's very good.

----------


## BuddyRey

Republic is a great magazine that I would recommend to anybody.  The New American is probably good too, but I've never subscribed because I generally find JBS literature a bit too socially conservative for me.

----------


## Josh_LA

1. Don't buy Republic Magazine if you don't mind reading it online

2. Don't buy New American if you have it at your local library

Otherwise they're both good for beginners and preaching to choir.

----------


## Josh_LA

> but I've never subscribed because I generally find JBS literature a bit too socially conservative for me.


yes very!

----------


## FrankRep

I subscribe to The New American. You can read some of the articles online too.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/

----------


## Josh_LA

*WTF?
The New American is 
$34 to subscribe online only?
That's certainly a rip off.*

Otherwise, I think JBS's The New American is much more well researched and serious about political stuff (as it's by 50 year old organization).

The New American does not have a bunch of wacky alternative medicine ads (in fact, it has very little ads). 

The New American is more conservative and religious, so it may not be for everybody. But bang for buck I'd still go with The New American.

Republic Magazine is made by and for profiteers (looking at the advertising should support my claim quickly)
http://www.republicmagazine.com/maga...Magazine14.pdf .
The only "organization" the money will go to is Gary's Restore The Republic 

9/11 truth is welcome on Republic, not on TNA (that should tell you something)

----------


## FrankRep

> 9/11 truth is welcome on Republic, not on TNA (that should tell you something)


What does that tell us?

----------


## Josh_LA

> What does that tell us?


depending on what you believe about 9/11

If you believe in the conspiracy like Alex Jones, you'll say JBS is with the establishment.

If you don't, you'll say JBS is more serious and talks about more important things, while Republic Mag is just about making money.

----------


## Conza88

> The JBS has a good research group that is used to back up what they espouse.  I subscribe to The New American and I think it's very good.


Correct. Just ignore everything they say about the political spectrum, left & right etc and you'll be fine.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Correct. Just ignore everything they say about the political spectrum, left & right etc and you'll be fine.


No, you should also ignore what they say about Christianity, communist paranoia and Creationism.

----------


## Conza88

> No, you should also ignore what they say about Christianity, communist paranoia and Creationism.


And what do they say about those? 

And more specifically what does it have to do with being against Liberty?

----------


## H Roark

From what I gather and read, TNA seems to be more reputable in-depth reporting while REPUBLIC is chalk full of commentary and education.  I do think TNA goes a little overboard with communism paranoia but thats my only gripe.  I like that my dollars go to JBS, but I could do with one issue a month and pay a cheaper subscription - too bad thats not an option.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Correct. Just ignore everything they say about the political spectrum, left & right etc and you'll be fine.

----------


## Conza88

>

----------


## Josh_LA

> And what do they say about those?


They take more or less a pro-Christian view on our founders, and how American needs to be a Christian nation.

They defended Roy Moore, and marriage amendment legislation.

You can read how they defend McCarthy, as well as old copies of American Opinion.

As for Creationism, I've been to meetings and if I remembered right, they're very pro-creation and anti-science.




> And more specifically what does it have to do with being against Liberty?


As I just listed
1. They believe in legislating marriage (correct me if wrong)
2. They believe in Creation over evolution & science (not sure if they believe in using political power to enforce their ideas)
3. At the rate they defend Moore & McCarthy, I'll let you decide whether that's for freedom.

Oh yes, one last one.

JBS is very PC about Israel & Jews. 
But Republic is not much better as they're Alex Jones parrots.

----------


## Josh_LA

> From what I gather and read, TNA seems to be more reputable in-depth reporting while REPUBLIC is chalk full of commentary and education.  I do think TNA goes a little overboard with communism paranoia but thats my only gripe.  I like that my dollars go to JBS, but I could do with one issue a month and pay a cheaper subscription - too bad thats not an option.


pretty much what I said, thanks!

----------


## Conza88

> As I just listed
> 1. They believe in legislating marriage (correct me if wrong)
> 2. They believe in Creation over evolution & science (not sure if they believe in using political power to enforce their ideas)
> 3. At the rate they defend Moore & McCarthy, I'll let you decide whether that's for freedom.
> 
> Oh yes, one last one.
> 
> JBS is very PC about Israel & Jews. 
> But Republic is not much better as they're Alex Jones parrots.


Yeah, as you _just_ stipulated / clarified, as opposed to previously: Christianity, communist paranoia and Creationism.

No. 2, the bit in brackets is kind of important.

Could you get me sources for all this?

----------


## LibertyEagle

A MAJOR difference.

Ron Paul has endorsed the JBS, but not the organization putting out The Republic.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Yeah, as you _just_ stipulated / clarified, as opposed to previously: Christianity, communist paranoia and Creationism.
> 
> No. 2, the bit in brackets is kind of important.
> 
> Could you get me sources for all this?


yes I can.

Digging their magazines will take some time, but I will find them for you.

there is no doubt they believe in creationism over evolution
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/compone...userblogs/4609

I will look closer to see whether they support these "academic freedom" bills which protect teaching misinformation in the name of free speech (certainly not a limiting government bill if you're participating in the school system).

----------


## Josh_LA

> A MAJOR difference.
> 
> Ron Paul has endorsed the JBS, but not the organization putting out The Republic.


Agreed, while RTR continues to ride on Russo's name.

----------


## Conza88

> yes I can.
> 
> Digging their magazines will take some time, but I will find them for you.
> 
> there is no doubt they believe in creationism over evolution
> http://www.jbs.org/index.php/compone...userblogs/4609
> 
> I will look closer to see whether they support these "academic freedom" bills which protect teaching misinformation in the name of free speech (certainly not a limiting government bill if you're participating in the school system).


That's a user blog. I could go on and write I that I saw reptiles...

You're gonna have to try harder.

----------


## Josh_LA

Here's an article of them praising Ben Stein's anti-science film
http://www.thenewamerican.com/review...w-intelligence

Let me back up, I have not yet found a direct article about them supporting using political power to enforce "academic freedom" or "teaching controversy" on evolution issue, but you should probably ignore their opinion on ID, Creationism and evolution anyway as they are  clearly no experts in the field.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Guys, Ron Paul is a Christian too.  Being a Christian does not mean you disregard science, you know.

----------


## Josh_LA

> That's a user blog. I could go on and write I that I saw reptiles...
> 
> You're gonna have to try harder.


I can keep looking as time permits.

How about this:

Go read what you want, reading doesn't mean you'll believe it, and you can decide what's worthy of your time. I don't like left vs right divisions, but there are also other things I personally don't like about what they write, but if it works for them or others, what do I care?

And if people want to hear other alternatives, they can always ask, especially on evolution, I'd be happy to answer.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Guys, Ron Paul is a Christian too.  Being a Christian does not mean you disregard science, you know.


No it doesn't.

But being in favor of Creationism (ignoring scientific facts) , teaching ID & Creation as alternative theories (ignoring peer review, responses and evidence), and adding laws to permit "academic freedom" (double speak btw) goes against all principles of science. 

Dr. Paul is a Doctor, but I don't think he's quite an active scientist if he supports that.

Let me ask you: (and sorry to get off topic)
If you believe in "teaching both sides" "let students decide"
Do you think we should teach both sides of
"Whether slavery was true in this land"
"Whether our founding fathers were gay"
"Whether Columbus lived"
"Whether Holocaust happened"
"Whether it's gravity or intelligent falling"
"Whether murder is wrong"
"Whether 2+2=4"
?
Shouldn't we encourage free speech? Or only when it favors your agenda?
No responsible teacher needs to force anybody to believe anything, and no responsible teacher would introduce ideas that are either unnecessary or have not passed the same standards as convention (such as peer review and scientific testing, scrutiny and observation).

The whole argument in favor of "teach both sides" assumes people DON'T already have a choice to believe what they want to believe. And confuses "freedom to speak and freedom to believe" with "taking everything seriously or giving equal time to every retarded idea".

----------


## LibertyEagle

Josh, you are confusing scientific theories with scientific facts.

But you know, I'm really sick of these Christian-bashing discussions, so carry on without me.

Bottom line, the JBS puts out a well-researched magazine.  They have been blowing the whistle on world government and the plans of the globalists, well before anyone else.  Do I agree with them on every, single, thing?  No.  But then, I don't anyone else either.

These folks know their stuff and no one that has any sense could accuse them of not being true patriots.

P.S.  I highly recommend their bookstore too.
http://www.shopjbs.org/magento/index.php/books.html

----------


## Josh_LA

> Josh, you are confusing scientific theories with scientific facts.
> 
> But you know, I'm really sick of these Christian-bashing discussions, so carry on without me.


No I am not.

You probably don't even know what scientific theory means.
You probably think "Evolution is just a theory" as if it's a hypothesis.

*
WRONG*

Evolution as a theory is an explanation of facts, supported by every test you can think of (and fully falsifiable). 

*I am NOT bashing Christians, I am bashing ignorance to science, and I will not be any nicer to atheists or Muslims if they say this nonsense about science.* 

If you have questions, DO ask, I am happy to tell you what I know.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Josh,

I have a Bachelor of Science in Zoology.

So please get off your high horse.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Josh,
> 
> I have a Bachelor of Science in Zoology.
> 
> So please get off your high horse.


Oh really.

So you must know your Linnaean taxonomy?

How much evolution do you believe in?
(nothing personal, please I want to know if you sound so much like I'm only bashing Christians or you are defending Creationism)

Can you tell me what's unscientific about teaching ID & Creationism?

----------


## LibertyEagle

Please re-read post 27.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Please re-read post 27.


I just did.

Now, are you just defending Christians ? Or creationism too?
(I'm not bashing Christians in this thread, only those ignorant about evolution and science, please correct me if you can)

Do you only defend creationism because they deserve respect? Or because you actually believe it. 

If you're a scientist who knows Zoology, you should know what's scientific about evolution and unscientific about ID & Creationism.

----------


## FrankRep

> depending on what you believe about 9/11
> 
> If you believe in the conspiracy like Alex Jones, you'll say JBS is with the establishment.
> 
> If you don't, you'll say JBS is more serious and talks about more important things, while Republic Mag is just about making money.


Alex Jones admires the John Birch Society. Not too long ago Alex had the president of the JBS on his show. 

Ron Paul doesn't talk about 911 being an inside job, is Ron Paul apart of the establishment?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Alex Jones admires the John Birch Society. Not too long ago Alex had the president of the JBS on his show. 
> 
> Ron Paul doesn't talk about 911 being an inside job, is Ron Paul apart of the establishment?


If you believe 9/11 WAS an inside job, then you would believe that.

I believe 9/11 was foreknown, and it was allowed to happen, not that I need it to criticize our government, so it doesn't matter to me that much.

Ron Paul isn't right about everything anyway, so I don't care if he's part of the establishment (yes, the establishment & mainstream isn't wrong about everything either).

----------


## FindLiberty

I read TNA and arranged to get it into the local library where it is read (I see some usage wear evidence on every issue).  

The solution to the OP is the library.  BTW, some of their material is free on-line.

There is a lot to learn from the JBS and they come up short only in the liberty department (IMO - I'm also a JBS member ~20 years).  Don't get caught up in their 20% divisive religious/moral web (_abortion/drugs/Darwin_) to control and maintain (_write your rep and tell 'em how to vote_) government authority over others who disagree with their "right" way.  (They don't seem to realize, "Ya can't have freedom unless you are willing to give it first"!)

I agree with all the comments (so far) on this thread with the exception of the last few that begin to waste, exhaust and murder any chance of success.

----------


## Josh_LA

LE :

You accused me of Christian bashing, and then refuse to give your opinion on evolution.

I wonder if you actually know the difference between Creationist and Christian, or whether you as a scientist know the scientific validity of evolution & creation, given that you have a zoology degree.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Have fun fighting by yourself, Josh.  

And while you're at it, you might want to read the OP's post again.  This thread is not about evolution or creationism.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Have fun fighting with yourself, Josh.  
> 
> And while you're at it, you might want to read the OP's post again.  This thread is not about evolution or creationism.


you're the one who made the accusation, now you can't even face me to make your case?


I HAVE answered the OP, and pointed out what's bad info in JBS's publications, and how it  (can) may relate  to liberty.

----------


## weslinder

OP,

If you haven't yet subscribed to_ The American Conservative_, you should definitely do that first. After that, _The New American_ isn't bad.

----------


## Josh_LA

> OP,
> 
> If you haven't yet subscribed to_ The American Conservative_, you should definitely do that first. After that, _The New American_ isn't bad.


that is one magazine I am curious about yet never actually read!!

----------


## BuddyRey

> If you haven't yet subscribed to_ The American Conservative_, you should definitely do that first. After that, _The New American_ isn't bad.


That's Pat Buchanan's magazine, right?

----------


## Josh_LA

> That's Pat Buchanan's magazine, right?


yep.

I was going to recommend seeing antiwar.com for affilliate links to them, but I guess it's gone now.

you might just go to their official site.

----------


## H Roark

> JBS is very PC about Israel & Jews. 
> But Republic is not much better as they're Alex Jones parrots.


Thats interesting you mention this.  I know a few gentile and Jewish JBS members.  I forgot what I said, but when I brought something up about the Israeli lobby they dismissed or deflected the comment.  

Where did you come up with your assertion about JBS and Israel?  Was it something you you read, is it that TNA _purposely ignores_ the topic all together or was it something else?  You probably don't have all the answers on this, but I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it all.

----------


## LibertyEagle

hehe.  The JBS is not pro-AIPAC.  Not at all.  They're not fond of the Southern Poverty Law Center either.

They however are not in any way, anti-Jewish.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Thats interesting you mention this.  I know a few gentile and Jewish JBS members.  I forgot what I said, but when I brought something up about the Israeli lobby they dismissed or deflected the comment.  
> 
> Where did you come up with your assertion about JBS and Israel?  Was it something you you read, is it that TNA _purposely ignores_ the topic all together or was it something else?  You probably don't have all the answers on this, but I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it all.


I've had close contact with JBS members for about 6 years. Yes, I know some that are Jewish. Do you notice they say "Judeo-Christian" rather than Christian?

I've read enough in their magazine to know how conveniently they leave out Israel in US foreign policy and focus on UN. How quick they are to say Arafat is a MASS MURDERER. Unlike Alex Jones, they don't deny or disagree with US government on "terrorists", they only disagree with how to deal with them. 

Sorry, I may have shifted from their stance on Israel and Zionism to their notion of terrorists, but it's closely linked in my opinion. I don't believe terrorism is an inherently statist only term, a lot of the colors are added with Jewish hatred against Muslims. 

I can almost promise you the JBS does not recognize any good Muslims, and does not condemn any Jewish terrorists (if they ever do, they probably sweep it under the rug of traitors and provacateurs and deny that there are actually Jewish terrorists).  

Does that help?

----------


## Josh_LA

> hehe.  The JBS is not pro-AIPAC.  Not at all.  They're not fond of the Southern Poverty Law Center either.
> 
> They however are not in any way, anti-Jewish.


I think you're playing very safe words here.

Have they condemned AIPAC? If they have, do they say "Israel & Zionist"? Or just "foreign"? 

I know they're not fond of SPLC, which considers them a hate group. 

Yes, they are not anti-Jewish, you don't need to be to be anti-Zionist, anti-interventionist, anti-foreign aid.

----------


## H Roark

> I've had close contact with JBS members for about 6 years. Yes, I know some that are Jewish. Do you notice they say "Judeo-Christian" rather than Christian?
> 
> I've read enough in their magazine to know how conveniently they leave out Israel in US foreign policy and focus on UN. How quick they are to say Arafat is a MASS MURDERER. Unlike Alex Jones, they don't deny or disagree with US government on "terrorists", they only disagree with how to deal with them. 
> 
> Sorry, I may have shifted from their stance on Israel and Zionism to their notion of terrorists, but it's closely linked in my opinion. I don't believe terrorism is an inherently statist only term, a lot of the colors are added with Jewish hatred against Muslims. 
> 
> I can almost promise you the JBS does not recognize any good Muslims, and does not condemn any Jewish terrorists (if they ever do, they probably sweep it under the rug of traitors and provacateurs and deny that there are actually Jewish terrorists).  
> 
> Does that help?


Yeah, that seems to be right on.  I can attest to their general disdain of Muslims.  I was at a RP MeetUp once in which the guy who lead it was a JBS member and we were discussing ways to reach different people.  One of the other members suggested something about appealing to Muslims, he then replied with something about how Muslims are all liberals anyway.  One of the new MeetUp members who happened to hear this was Muslim and walked over to me and said "is that guy the organizer" and I replied "yes" and then he stormed out.  

There is no doubt that they make a conscientious effort not to mention Israel's influence over US foreign policy.  I still think the JBS is a great ol' organization advancing the cause of liberty and maybe appealing to Jews have made them more effective over the years?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Yeah, that seems to be right on.  I can attest to their general disdain of Muslims.  I was at a RP MeetUp once in which the guy who lead it was a JBS member and we were discussing ways to reach different people.  One of the other members suggested something about appealing to Muslims, he then replied with something about how Muslims are all liberals anyway.  One of the new MeetUp members who happened to hear this was Muslim and walked over to me and said "is that guy the organizer" and I replied "yes" and then he stormed out.  
> 
> There is no doubt that make a conscientious effort not to mention Israel's influence over US foreign policy.  I still think the JBS is a great ol' organization advancing the cause of liberty and maybe appealing to Jews have made them more effective over the years.


JBS is probably sympathetic to Minutemen, Tom Tancredo and enforcement of borders. (and that's not always wrong) Think about Tancredo's anti-terrorist TV ad, you get the idea. 

I'm not sure if winning over Jews (if that) has proven to be effective, I value honesty and responsibility.

----------


## H Roark

> I'm not sure if winning over Jews (if that) has proven to be effective, I value honesty and responsibility.


I concur.  I'm just trying to figure out _their reasoning_ for doing so.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I concur.  I'm just trying to figure out _their reasoning_ for doing so.


trust me, I've tried time over time.

When they can't give you a good short answer, they resort to the old (liberal)
"Because that's what racist N***s would say!"

It is hard to get a person to justify their double standard or hypocrisy, and I am hoping there's really a good reason and I'm just not seeing it, I'm willing to listen and be shown I am wrong.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> JBS is probably sympathetic to Minutemen, Tom Tancredo and enforcement of borders. (and that's not always wrong) Think about Tancredo's anti-terrorist TV ad, you get the idea. 
> 
> I'm not sure if winning over Jews (if that) has proven to be effective, I value honesty and responsibility.


You're really pushing it here, Josh, with all your innuendo.   

One thing you should know about the JBS is that Ron Paul is their poster guy and has been, since the day he went to Congress.

The JBS is not perfect, but neither is any other organization.



> I value honesty and responsibility.


Honesty means sticking to facts, rather than making unsupported innuendo, Josh.

----------


## Josh_LA

> You're really pushing it here, Josh, with all your innuendo.


I can back this up based on reading over 20+ issues of their magazine for over 4 years.




> One thing you should know about the JBS is that Ron Paul is their poster guy and has been, since the day he went to Congress.


Yes, that does not mean they agree with him on everything, or they are not sympathetic to other issues he doesn't care about.




> The JBS is not perfect, but neither is any other organization.


Agreed. JBS is actually one of the few nicely organized groups I've known of, at their age and size, I think they're as good as it gets in terms of being a politically aware group (not an e-mail list or grassroots protest gang)




> Honesty means sticking to facts, rather than making unsupported innuendo, Josh.


Yes, sticking to facts. And not afraid to say what I believe based on what I know.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I can back this up based on reading over 20+ issues of their magazine for over 4 years.


In that case, I'm not sure how you have drawn the conclusions you have drawn.  Because, my Mother was a member of the JBS, and as such, I have been hearing of and reading their stuff for oh, 30 some years.




> Yes, that does not mean they agree with him on everything, or they are not sympathetic to other issues he doesn't care about.


Care to point out specific examples?




> Agreed. JBS is actually one of the few nicely organized groups I've known of, at their age and size, I think they're as good as it gets in terms of being a politically aware group (not an e-mail list or grassroots protest gang)


As I already said, I don't agree with them on everything and I most certainly don't pledge allegiance to them.  I just hate to see mud slung at them that is not warranted.  At least pick things that they actually do or believe, that you take issue with.




> Yes, sticking to facts. And not afraid to say what I believe based on what I know.


What you "know"?  For the most part, all I've seen is mud-slinging, with very little to back it up.  I'm just sayin'....

----------


## forsmant

Not to get off topic but I think _The American Conservative_ is an alright magazine but many of their contributors are bad writers.   I prefer the magazine _Liberty_ or the magazine _Reason_,  but I am a libertarian not a social conservative.

----------


## Josh_LA

> In that case, I'm not sure how you have drawn the conclusions you have drawn.  Because, my Mother was a member of the JBS, and as such, I have been hearing of and reading their stuff for oh, 30 some years.


Ok, so the recent 2 years you didn't notice how sympathetic and supportive they've been for Minutemen and Tancredo's like?

You don't notice how they're with Bush & neocons on virtually equating terrorists with Muslims?




> Care to point out specific examples?


Gay marriage, borders, terrorism, death penalty. 
I don't remember much of their position on drugs.





> As I already said, I don't agree with them on everything and I most certainly don't pledge allegiance to them.  I just hate to see mud slung at them that is not warranted.  At least pick things that they actually do or believe, that you take issue with.


I agree with you. I didn't mean to sling mud either, i was just pointing out things people here might be interested in, as I've heard it brought up (9/11, Jews & Israel)




> What you "know"?  For the most part, all I've seen is mud-slinging, with very little to back it up.  I'm just sayin'....


Not intended. Yes, what i know based on what I read. Have I once said there's anything wrong with liking Tancredo, opposing open borders, believing most of the official 9/11 story or being nice to Jews? What's mud slinging about mentioning these things?

All I said from the start was 'you might want to ignore' some topics they talk about, then i corrected myself and said "read what you like".

----------


## Josh_LA

> Not to get off topic but I think _The American Conservative_ is an alright magazine but many of their contributors are bad writers.   I prefer the magazine _Liberty_ or the magazine _Reason_,  but I am a libertarian not a social conservative.


I've actually never heard of "Liberty"

is this it? 
http://www.libertymagazine.org/

Thanks for mentioning!

----------


## forsmant

Liberty magazine is full of short articles and snip its and three or four main articles and is printed on regular paper.   Plus it reviews books and movies.  Reason has more pictures and is a typical magazine with few pictures and lots of words.

http://www.libertyunbound.com/   Your link is wrong.

----------


## Kludge

Sorry I missed this thread.

I used to be quite fond of Republic Magazine, but they have become increasingly fringe. They often cite Wikipedia for a source, copypasta Internet articles into their magazine, and are covering very questionable topics, with a lot of editorializing. I don't even bother reading it anymore and am a bit embarrassed that my mail deliverer knows I subscribe to it. I did buy their Federal Income Tax Scam issue in bulk, though.

Reason magazine has much more interesting & controversial content and has a research team at their disposal, and I am very pleased to give it to interested people, but they don't offer bulk discounts like Republic.

I've never read The New American.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Sorry I missed this thread.
> 
> I used to be quite fond of Republic Magazine, but they have become increasingly fringe.







> They often cite Wikipedia for a source, copypasta Internet articles into their magazine, and are covering very questionable topics, with a lot of editorializing.


Yep. That's what actually got me to read on my own as to whether there is a law that requires me to file an income tax.




> I don't even bother reading it anymore and am a bit embarrassed that my mail deliverer knows I subscribe to it. I did buy their Federal Income Tax Scam issue in bulk, though.


you're embarassed by your mail deliverer knowing??




> Reason magazine has much more interesting & controversial content and has a research team at their disposal, and I am very pleased to give it to interested people, but they don't offer bulk discounts like Republic.
> 
> I've never read The New American.


read it sometime!

----------


## Josh_LA

> Liberty magazine is full of short articles and snip its and three or four main articles and is printed on regular paper.   Plus it reviews books and movies.  Reason has more pictures and is a typical magazine with few pictures and lots of words.
> 
> *http://www.libertyunbound.com/   Your link is wrong.*


thanks, that's why I asked you.

I actually have read that one! They're not easy to find, but worthy!

----------


## Dripping Rain

i looked at republic mags pdf. wow

----------


## Josh_LA

> i looked at republic mags pdf. wow


what's the wow?

----------


## LibertyEagle

Josh,

Tancredo's like?  You mean people who believe a country without borders is not a country at all?  Like that?  Sounds like Ron Paul to me, because he has said something very close to that.  Personally, I support the Minutemen.  Plus, I believe in having borders and you know what, so does Ron Paul.

Gay marriage?  I don't think that is under the purview of our federal government.  

Terrorists?  Terrorists *do* exist.  That is *not* the same as agreeing with Bush and Co. and their antics.  Far from it.  But, to say that no terrorists exist at all seems to me to be a bit naive.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Josh,
> 
> Tancredo's like?  You mean people who believe a country without borders is not a country at all?  Like that?


No, people who believe that Sharia law is going to be a problem so we should legislate "Jihad Prevention Act" and puts fearmongering of terrorism in his TV ads (playing into neocon hands).




> Sounds like Ron Paul to me, because he has said something very close to that.  Personally, I support the Minutemen.  Plus, I believe in having borders and you know what, so does Ron Paul.


What do you mean "having borders"? That people should mutually and voluntarily respect on both sides? Or we should militarily enforce? Or we should have vigilantes on the watch? Should we build a wall?

Saying "it'd be nice if people just obeyed our law" is easy!




> Gay marriage?  I don't think that is under the purview of our federal government.


I wasn't asking your opinion. The JBS has introduced "solutions" to "prevent" gay marriage , federal or otherwise. 




> Terrorists?  Terrorists *do* exist.  That is *not* the same as agreeing with Bush and Co. and their antics.  Far from it.  But, to say that no terrorists exist at all seems to me to be a bit naive.


I never denied terrorists exist, but using the same way to identify them (associated with bin Laden, Muslim, non-Jewish, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq) rather than specific people based on specific ideology, that's what I disagree with Bush and neocons on. The JBS doesn't seem to see through this. 

So you don't disagree they disagree with Ron Paul on death penalty? Good. I'm with JBS on death penalty.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, people who believe that Sharia law is going to be a problem so we should legislate "Jihad Prevention Act" and puts fearmongering of terrorism in his TV ads (playing into neocon hands).


Sharia law runs quite contrary to our Constitution, so no, we do not want it here.

As far as any "Jihad Prevention Act" and your inference that the JBS advocates such a thing, have any proof of that?




> What do you mean "having borders"?


Exactly what it sounds like.  Borders are division lines between countries and those lines should be enforced, if necessary.




> That people should mutually and voluntarily respect on both sides? Or we should militarily enforce? Or we should have vigilantes on the watch? Should we build a wall?


What exactly is the inference to the JBS with your questions?



> Saying "it'd be nice if people just obeyed our law" is easy!


Laws should be enforced.




> I wasn't asking your opinion.


You sure seem to be.



> The JBS has introduced "solutions" to "prevent" gay marriage , federal or otherwise.


What, specifically?




> I never denied terrorists exist, but using the same way to identify them (associated with bin Laden, Muslim, non-Jewish, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq) rather than specific people based on specific ideology, that's what I disagree with Bush and neocons on. The JBS doesn't seem to see through this.


Example?




> So you don't disagree they disagree with Ron Paul on death penalty? Good. I'm with JBS on death penalty.


I really wish you'd stop speaking for me.  It's quite irritating.  I said nothing about my view on the death penalty.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Sharia law runs quite contrary to our Constitution, so no, we do not want it here.
> 
> As far as any "Jihad Prevention Act" and your inference that the JBS advocates such a thing, have any proof of that?


I said how JBS identifies terrorists by the same logic as Tancredo and neocons do, by grouping them, and there are things about Tancredo that are not as simple as "borders".





> Exactly what it sounds like.  Borders are division lines between countries and those lines should be enforced, if necessary.


Shoot people for crossing?




> What exactly is the inference to the JBS with your questions?
> 
> Laws should be enforced.


It has all to do with how much a person believes the government should be involved in immigration, border enforcement, and citizens' identity. A matter of privacy and security, as well as Constitutional limits on government. 




> You sure seem to be.
> 
> What, specifically?


I'll find the magazine where they talk about introducing federal or state legislations to prevent judicial decisions to allow gay marriage, you can remain in doubt until I find this, but when I find it for you, will that answer your question?





> Example?


You must not be reading JBS propaganda. What kind of an  example would satisfy you? How many examples do you need?

here's just one link where they have not question a bit of how media and establishment label "terrorists" and "extremists" (saying "they don't need to be connected to bin Laden)
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-new...s-open-at-home





> I really wish you'd stop speaking for me.  It's quite irritating.  I said nothing about my view on the death penalty.


Not your view on DP, your knowledge that JBS and Ron Paul disagree about death penalty, glad you don't deny they disagree, that's quite a fact. (or in my original statement, that JBS is concerned on other issues than just of what Ron Paul believes)

----------


## Josh_LA

to add, to H's question, the only time  I remember JBS talking something negative about Israel was criticizing that IDF allows women in their military.

----------

