Mma Training Equipment

Milena Velba Changing Bra

Natural Law ( 2) The natural law

Let!

Natural law can be wielded against all positive rights, ie to meet the laws created and designed by man.

Natural law protects individuals, all individuals without exception.

It is natural because it exists even when the man lives in a stateless society, no constitution, no rules, no law says so positive ... This right exists even when man lived in the state of nature (John Locke).

It is natural because it is tied to the nature of man. The nature of man was not created by man. So the natural law was not created by man, but only discovered.

Natural law must be applicable to all human beings.

All these considerations have absolutely nothing original. They have already been conducted by a bunch of intellectuals and thinkers in the past. The Thomists and school in Salamanca XV and XVI century, John Locke the XVI and XVII century, the thinkers of the American and French revolutions, and Frederic Bastiat Benjamin Constant the XIX Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman the XX century (and I'm forgetting others).

This reflection is the legacy of the Enlightenment.

But today it is sad to see that few people know what the philosophy of law natural. Few are aware of the real contributions of the Enlightenment. Almost nobody understands the true nature of Human Rights and the Citizen.

Many people think that the Enlightenment bequeathed us only the basic intellectual tools that allowed us this wonderful technological good that humanity has experienced these past two centuries. In short we stopped believing in superstition and witchcraft.

it abolished slavery and today, this heritage is full with so-called social progress through the welfare state (with its famous parade of fake right as the right to work, health, education etc. ..). The welfare state would be the ultimate conclusion of this intellectual and social odyssey.

Indeed, the Enlightenment brought us a dazzling progress technologiqueset the abolition of slavery. But this contribution, significantly, is the consequence, and only the consequence of an intellectual revolution on how we look at the man.

This revolution began with a definition of natural law of man, of every man.

So the definition of the nature of man.

Man differs from animals by reason. By right, I mean, for elaborate cognitive abilities. I will not detail this point in this article. With reason, man can survive and live. It is his only tool for living and face the dangers of nature. And as Ayn Rand said if he does not use it, it dies.

So anything that prevents the use of reason is bad for him because he might die.

Man must be free to be able to make full use of his reason. If it is not free, it can not use his reason. He was sentenced to die. Use

his reason is voluntary and requires freedom. And as each

man has a right to exist, it must be free to use his reason.

By freedom is meant by " natural liberty of man consists in being subject to any power on earth [...] , not to be subjected to the domination of any will " (John Locke ).

is a social relationship. This is not freedom to be liberated from the laws of nature. I am forced to eat, drink etc. ...

freedom only applies to relations between individuals.
And the state of nature, reason "teaches all men being equal and independent, no one should harm another for his life, his health, his freedom, his well "(always the friend Locke).

The first natural right of man is freedom. This right is associated with its nature and therefore inalienable. He did more, then it is more human.

When he is free, he can say and think what it wants, and come and go as he pleases.

But to protect this freedom in practice on land, in reality every day, we must preserve their private property.

should not steal a man, because stealing is depriving him of his liberty.

A slave does not enjoy the fruits of his labor, he worked under the threat of his master. It does not even own himself, he is the property of his master.

Preserve owned by the individual, it does not make a slave, it is actually free on this earth. It is subject to any coercion.

The fruit of his work, he keeps to himself. The fly is like enslaving.

Somebody, by violence, which benefits from the work others, is like the master who enslaves his slave.

Natural law preserves the freedom of every man.

He is a slave to anyone, he is the only absolute. He is sovereign.

Natural law protects people against criminals, but also against his worst enemy state.

It has often violated the natural rights of man, and still does today shamelessly.

The Rights of Man and Citizen, which are natural, seeks primarily to protect humans against the harmful actions of the state.

We must understand that the real legacy of enlightenment is to consider the human individual in its own right, as the highest goal.

It can not be sacrificed in the name of religion, state, nation, the general interest of the class struggle, the struggle of races, global warming, social inequality, of Culture, French Language, economic recovery etc. ...

The individual can be sacrificed. It is absolute and sovereign.

His natural right to existence we reminds us at every moment.

Side Effects Of Too Much Anbesol

When we speak of natural law we find ourselves faced with a tricky concept to handle at first.

But it is essential to truly understand the liberal philosophy.

If you do not understand the concept of natural law, liberal ideas appear to float in the air without any real foundation, they can be swept with a wave of the hand, they may be swept away by a breeze or statist Socialist.

Natural law is opposed to positive law (that is really more clear now).

Positive law is what is created intentionally by man. In fact by the legislature or the state.

is the law knows that in fact the huge pile of legislation that appears to us to digest. And regulates many things, sometimes a lot, even down to the smallest details of life.

This law made by man can take a lot of aspects. This can be as simple rules to facilitate relationships between individuals, such as commercial transactions. Or orders, prohibitions, requirements. A positive law may be segregated, as in the days of apartheid in South Africa during Nazi Germany.

In fact a positive law is passed or enacted by a group of legislators or a tyrant and the force applied by the state has (If you do not respect the law you are illegally).

course, with this definition, any law can not be good! They can be mean, nasty, negative ...

But how we define what is right and what is evil (wide debate!)? And I'm not going deeper into this complex subject.

Hitler thought to do well when he exterminated the Jews, was in agreement with his moral code, it has enacted legislation in this sense according to its principles. These laws were (and still are) in contradiction with the principles of Human Rights which are based on natural law.

Natural law is what has not been created by humans. It is an inherent right of man, he is there, before the creation of any society, therefore the law. No one has created, such as water or land, it is "natural".

And when we use water and land to create things, you're forced to meet their minimum properties (the laws of physics for example).

It's the same positive law, created by Man, it must respect the properties of natural law.

laws of physics can not be modified, by cons it is used to create. Natural law can not be modified, cons it is used as a basis for developing our positive law.

You will object, rightly, that this concept of natural law, which is abstract, has been invented by man.

At first glance, it's true.

But this natural right is based on the nature of man, it has not been established.

What is this natural right to wield against a positive law which violates the same natural law. To ensure that the person voting and applies the law could not vote or apply any law, he must discipline himself to certain principles. It must respect the natural rights of men.

"A government of laws not of men" according to James Harrington . The rule of law or rule of law of John Locke .

And why should it be considered natural. Because if he was not facing a positive right, could I opposed another law? A law created by man against another law created by man, who is right in this case? The strongest, as Hobbes would say . The reign of the arbitrary. Instead

natural law is universal, common to all men, ubiquitous.

As in physics, engineering and Chinese American engineer can discuss and oppose the construction of an airplane, but they are obliged to respect the laws of physics, that they are universal (and very useful to fly an airplane).

And as I said, natural law is based on the nature of man, which itself is objective, universal and undeniable.

The Rights of Man.

What we put into these rights?

This is an opportunity for a new ticket.

Can U Check A Bong On A Airplane?

EDF and free pricing

"The CEO of EDF calls for a 20% increase of electricity prices over three years"

Here is a title of an article in Le Monde dated 8 July 2009.

EDF needs money, so capital to grow. Nothing could be more natural for a company, shareholders are required to have development. Indeed, EDF has implemented the UK and U.S. markets and plans to build his famous EPR plants in China.

His projects require money.

EDF launches his loan at a rate of 4.5% over five years.

is logical and normal. A company borrows money to invest and create wealth.

And suddenly the CEO of EDF said it must increase the electricity tariff, because EDF is still in need of money.

I cite an article in Les Echos said that the financial situation of EDF:

" EDF is facing an explosion of leverage: As the very large acquisitions, it rose by 50% nothing in 2008 to $ 24.5 billion at year-end ".

In summary EDF is in debt, the money she borrowed is not enough.

EDF CEO says very clearly that this increase is justified because the rates charged by EDF are 30 to 40% cheaper than those in other European countries (Liberation).

Conclusion: the French citizen pays an electricity rebate.

How is set the price of that electricity? According

Christine Lagarde, for her, her colleague Borlo, and a council of guys I do not know what. Finally, to summarize, the state is the majority shareholder of the company and it sets prices.

This raises the question of pricing.

St. Thomas Aquinas said (the class, we move from EDF at St. Thomas Aquinas) that God alone could just fix the price of things.

long time there has always been the question of how to set a price that is fair to boot.

The formation of a prize is a complex process that involves the law of supply and demand . More property is required and there is less available or offered its price will rise and vice versa.

In fact the process of price formation is so complex that only God could know what the right price. Ie it should be omniscient. And no one is omniscient.

If I am a manufacturer of pencils, and the price of wood increases (because the wood is in short supply this year or new manufacturers have tables on the market needs the same wood as the amount of Wood does not vary, so it's the highest bidder who will buy the wood, etc. ....) I have to raise the price of my pencils, (unless I develop a new manufacturing process for pencils that will lower its price unless it is a competitor to do etc. ..).

Somewhere while prices are linked in an economy and it involves millions and millions of players, which means that no mind to it alone can not cover that amount of information.

The only way to remedy this ignorance, is the free market, which is closer and closer to transmit information that allows the formation of a prize (I will return to the excellent emission Milton Friedman , click here ).

But here, in France the price liberalization is not complete.

There are many prices are set by the men of the state, such as electricity, gas, insurance, pensions, minimum wage and many more ....

Men of the State they are omniscient? The answer is obviously no. But they claim to be, through ignorance of economic facts some , judiciously for other ( it is immediately less cool )

Probably the electricity price should increase, and they would increase if they obeyed the laws of the market. But the consumer would be penalized as well as other sectors. In fact the money allocated to this increase in electricity prices would no longer be allocated to other positions (imagine flat screens). So the seller of flat panel displays could face a crisis.

To avoid this it would liberalize the other awards, some of which would decline and then offset the increase in electricity.

For example: the price of social contributions for sickness and old age a price much higher than those of other European countries.

In summary we should let it evolve prices freely.

Unfortunately sudden liberalization prices would lead to such a change there would be many disgruntled people and the state governments, MPs, senators would risk their seats next election.
So it is unlikely they would do that, unless you are facing a major crisis that requires strong measures, as with Thatcher or during the sudden liberalization of the USSR (or at the famous corner of Liberal Mitterand in 83).

We are in a situation where many landmarks are distorted. A situation where prices were fixed by suddenly and arbitrarily. A situation where we played the sorcerer's apprentice by defying some laws.

The only way to find the right Electricity Prices EDF is to liberalize.

What is sad in this case, it's power to claim any deal with men of the State are in impossible situations.

Income Tax 70.19 Deduction

Ethics The paradox of capitalism

I am dealing with a large piece.

Especially in these times of crisis when capitalism gets a face full mouth.

Yeah, we are in a crisis of ultra-liberalism, money-king has gone mad and we rushed into the wall!

Capitalism which simply raise, raise, A-MA-NESS money without caring about others, we threw in this dramatic situation.

We knew! It is clear, the doctrine of egoism is anti-social how the tribe France could survive!

I will do in the provocative.

" Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only defenders of human rights .
This quote from Ayn Rand what has shocked many in our beloved country.

She explains that capitalism and its defense are the only means of ensuring the rights of man.

Defending capitalism is not defending a system that ensures the prosperity of a country and the creation of wealth. Not defend capitalism is to defend moral values and ethical.

Ensuring the existence of capitalism is ensured respect and dignity of every human being.

It's provocative final!

definition of capitalism in Lexilogos : " economic system characterized by the concentration of big money to promote production and trade .

or

" economic and social system characterized by private ownership of means of production and exchange and the profit motive " .

In Larousse.fr " production system whose foundations are private enterprise and free market .

or

" Legal status of a human society characterized by private ownership of means of production and their implementation by workers who do not own "

There is mention of 'no moral justification the existence of capitalism.

It speaks of a production system, a system based on private ownership and free trade.

Ayn Rand complained that the lack of moral or ethical justification for the existence of capitalism disarm its supporters. The latter did not justify the need of capitalism as its ability to create more wealth for everyone, despite social inequalities. It is the least worst system. Until you have found something better, it is used.

ladies and gentlemen I'll also try (taking Ayn Rand ) provide a justification corporate capitalism.

In fact I will show that applying the strict sense of moral rules automatically involving capitalism.

Be simple. Let

from the beginning.

bases of morality is part of the ten commandments.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not steal. It

respect others.

Killing is wrong, we know (and can explain it objectively).

Theft is stealing the property of others, he can not dispose as he wishes.
A slave is someone who does not enjoy the fruits of his labor. The fruit This work is at the disposal of his master. It's like flying.

When you are flying or when you are the slave of others, you are subject to coercion so you're more free.

This ties the definition of freedom, that of John Locke " natural liberty of man consists in being subject to any power on earth [...] , not to be subject to the domination of any will "

Being free is not to be subjected or enslaved.

is very concrete, and do not steal from others is what we call respect private property rights. It means respecting the individual existing on earth.

In everyday life we do not fit the way you want the neighbor is not using his TV or a washing machine or dishwasher without permission. If we did, the other no longer exist in a sense. If I take his car when he needs it, it wiped out his plans, his desires, his desires. A part of him, that defines him as unique individual, is destroyed.

For another really exists on earth, we respect his private property. Today in our societies, we respect this rule, we do not steal others is imperative that we give ourselves (though we do it through the state) .

Observe that before exterminating the Jews, the Nazis seized their property, alongside the Communists in Poland have expropriated the country's elite before the run Katyn. When we violate the property rights of others we already have a foot on the field running.

Respect the right of private property is not stolen. But then how to get the fruit of the work of others except by force?

It's simple, for free trade. Voluntary cooperation. Free trade. Either I give my property or I exchange against another property (or money).


Note that while not killing or stealing point point, we respect the right of private property and free trade.

In the definitions given above capitalism seeks to respect the right of private property, free trade and free trade.

Follow these principles lead to better de facto capitalist system. Economy of free trade.

But Ayn Rand he added a word, the Laissez-faire. In fact we talk about different types of capitalism, the state, mixed type, etc. ... It speaks of a capitalism which no individual is subjected to stress, where the right to life and its corollary Law on land of private property is inviolable absolute.
Besides capitalism Laissez-faire is a redundant phrase, because if we refer to the definitions (very imperfect incidentally), capitalism is intrinsically linked to the rights of private property so to respect the individual. Other forms of capitalism are as perverted forms of mixing freedom and coercion (like ours).

And Bastiat said, "It is two principles that can not be reconciled: Freedom and Constraint" .

Actually, my title is misleading, there is no particular ethical capitalism that is inconsistent with other ethical issues.

Capitalism is the consequence of the universal ethic, one of Human Rights.

Blaupunkt Gta Special Mk 2

of government bond

Voila! We'll talk about the economy, the Main Ecôôônomie.

And this is important because it concerns the lives of people every day.

And recently the State men's (I prefer the concept of practical men of the state that the term abstract state, because behind this concept there are men, Vui Vui human beings of flesh and blood like you and me) have decided to borrow money from its citizens to save the nation from sinking.


government borrowing, borrowing citizen, civic borrowing, etc ...

is passed to the ad as something unique, as if the state never borrowed, and now suddenly caught in this storm is called the crisis the state to keep Cape, has no alternative but to rely on the generosity of its citizens.

There were borrowings of this type in the past;

the loan in 93 Balladur,

Giscard the loan in 73,

great moments of national communion, where the people is the aid of the State at an interest rate (which anyway will be eaten up by inflation).

But I'll tell you one thing, the government borrows now, regularly, every week on the financial market. These are the famous Treasury bills. And you know what? the French government is in debt and its budget the second item of expenditure is allocated to debt repayment.

And I have another info, us, nice people, we already prepared the State.

example with our lives whose insurance money is placed on government bonds. Ie that lends money to the State with an interest rate.

Today 60% of the French debt is held by foreigners, so 40% is owned by French!

But why this new loan !?!!!

We are told that because the state has more money because of its huge debts (on other loans) and insufficient tax revenues during these tumultuous times of crisis. But if the people of France lends money to the state, the state will still go into debt! We dig a hole to plug another! And to repay the loan the government will still have to go into debt (to dig another hole)?!?

And then there's a concept even stranger than the possibility of a state debt.

If the government borrows, it must repay.

With what money? The

another loan?

There is another way. The State

(Men of the State) receives his money by any means known to us all: Taxes!

tax is his livelihood (especially the men of the state).

Money taken from the taxpayer.

The taxpayer is we, the citizens of the people of France.

men whom the state wants to borrow. To us, the same citizens of France who pay taxes.

I lend money I am paid with money taken from the fruit of my work?!?

Men of the State simply reassumed the role of intermediary, without creating the passage and especially by taking a margin on the money flowing.

As Bastiat said " It (the State) has two hands, one for receive and one to give, in other words, the rough hand and the gentle hand " to continue " State can take and not surrender. It was seen and explained by the porous and absorbing nature of his hands, which always retain a part and sometimes the whole of what they touch .

So I do pay my own money.

And if I have more money ..... for example in times of crisis.

In a loan, a real one! I lend money to someone who needs because it does not.

example to start a business. It will produce goods or services or whatever, so create wealth and part of that wealth will come to me on repayment of the money I lent.

Obviously I get a little more than what I paid. And this is a bit more interest on the debt. It will be even greater if the guy who I lend money seems unreliable to reimburse me. I take more risk (one day I would speak of the debt).

But he who shall repay this debt has produced some things. The money he will make me he did not forcibly taken, no, he as it were created by his work (in fact by the free exchange).

The state, he does nothing, creates nothing or very little.

We will say, "Yea, The State creates wealth, look at roads, bridges, they serve everyone, and allow the economy to function."

I answer then "Yes, you're right, roads and bridges are quite useful! And without them no goods ranging from one point to another of France or Europe. But these roads and bridges have been built by private companies! Who were paid by the state, so for the money the taxpayer, you and me, including money following the work of these companies have built these roads and bridges, etc. ...."

It's like the government bond.

Nothing new under the sun.

"And SOE!" Encore! "They are all in deficit! "That's why we borrow, or we privatize when we have no choice.

This little bit reminiscent of a circus Madoff, he borrowed money to people with interest rates high that it would repay later with money he borrowed from others, by taking a little bonus along the way. And then the little play was stopped when the flow of money has dried up during the crisis.

But the men of the state is a thousand times Madoff. Even in times of crisis, they still dare to ask us for money.

Model 12.02 1086 Driver

Democracy is not freedom

I start strong!

Democracy is not freedom?!

It's crazy, he thinks that the dictatorship is freedom then?

It calms me to explain.

Often they say to use when there is a restriction of freedoms (of movement or expression) that one is more democracy.

"You keep me to speak! It is democracy sir! it is my right! "

There was a semantic shift (some would say a flight from concept ?!?).

In the dictionary definition is:
" Political System , system of government in which power is exercised by the people, by all citizens .
Then after reading "Democracy authoritarian, direct, liberal, parliamentary representative. ago the distinction in the air!
Interesting.

Democracy defines a political system, ie how will society be organized through a government whose power or control is in the hands of the people. Everyone will participate in decisions of government.

The word democracy comes from demos, the people and kratos, power. Power to the people.

Looking more closely at this concept, it quickly becomes vague and ambiguous.

is the people who has the power, but what the people, each of the individuals who shaped this nation or the majority (of opinion, social origin?), A supra- Individual (Just as the sum of all individuals who would form a new individual, as a kind of collective consciousness?).

And this people has the power. On whom? In general the power exerted on others. The people exercise this power on ... then himself?.

The principle of having the power implies that either people will not obey orders or whether some people are waiting for orders. There are people who do what they want or do not know what to do, and therefore must give other people power over them (so they do the right thing). It's a bit simplistic ok. The nation itself is organized?

short, the concept becomes almost contradictory. We do not need to arrange themselves one thing we want to do voluntarily.

And in all this freedom. How to empower people protect freedom?

Give a definition of freedom.
I like that of John Locke " natural liberty of man consists in being subject to any power on earth [...] , not to be subjected to the domination of any will . Will ie other human beings like us.

This is not freedom to do what I want! To be free of conditions of existence, to be free not to submit to me or subject me to Newton's laws (free of flying in the air), not to eat or not to drink. Faced with the laws of nature we are not free, and this is contradictory, because we as humans are the product of these laws of nature. Our bodies are biological properties of these by laws.

Freedom is a social relationship. It exists between individuals.

Freedom is the absence of coercion. When someone oppresses the individual X Y. Y is no longer free.

This implies that there must not submit X in turn. The only rule is to respect the freedom of others.

Is that democracy protects freedom? That is to say that giving the government control the people protect each individual who composes the people not to be submitted by another individual of the same people?
The answer, from what I said about democracy, is obviously not.

Or so we need every member of the people is completely unanimous on all issues of life and taking control of the government, orders of things (on each of the individuals of that population) which is a priori agreed to voluntarily (I know it's complicated) .

It's a bit utopian Rousseau's social contract.

In practice democracy is the majority that took power. And if the majority oppresses the minority? The members of this minority are subject to coercion by other individuals, so they are no longer free.

This is called the tyranny of democracy. This aspect of democracy was strongly criticized during the Athenian democracy.

And yes ladies and gentlemen, democracy can be a tyranny! As a king, an emperor, a caste of nobles, a Fuhrer, a Duce, a father of the little people ... etc.

Democracy does not protect freedom. It's not because I have the legitimacy of power that I can enslave individuals. And although in my platform I plan to enslave the blacks and the Arabs or the Bakers, who came to power democratically (as they say), ie by the consent of a majority, I no right to implement this program.

basically a system that provides real Freedom is a system that would provide protection to the Jews under the Nazi government. Hitler could have done nothing. That's progress!

Benjamin Constant explained that to ensure individual liberties, we must limit the power of government, or state on individuals. Even when I take the reins of power there are things I can not do.

Limiting the powers of government not only ensure the separation of powers (legislative, judiciary and executive). It merely limits the powers in the government. Must also limit the powers of government or state on individuals. Limit the scope of government or state in a variety of areas (as in the production of material goods).

That's why we enlisted the adjective to the term liberal democracy. Liberal democracy.

But one could imagine a liberal monarchy, ie a king can not enslave each member of his people.

Because liberalism seeks to protect all minorities against domination of the majority, and the smallest of minorities, which is irreducible, is the individual.

My Greyhound Has Dry Skin

Hello

Why this blog? Why is the blog of Bobo? Moreover Liberal? Are these two concepts not totally incompatible, irreconcilable? The mixture is impossible!

The Bobo on one side.

The famous BO-BO, bourgeois bohemians.

Early in his career Bohemia Bohemia, then through the stages of the Bohemian and Bourgeois Bourgeois bohemians came to rest in evolutionary Bourgeois Bourgeois. Character ambiguous, ambivalent, elusive, unclassifiable, worse, refuses categorization, who will not be named, furtive, almost invisible, a ninja ideas, before the rise of underground mainstream, and mainstream recognition face of the underground .

An anti-ideology? In any case I evolve in this universe!

And on the other hand, the Liberal!

The wicked Liberal, classical, ultra, neo, the fundamentalist! His name dragged through the media, as a malevolent entity that dares to pronounce sentence, a "who knows who" to Harry Potter.

It lurks in the shadows, ready emerge from his hiding place (often located in the U.S. and the perfidious Albion) to corrupt the innocent minds of France, with concepts such as freedom, and we talk about méchâânte the Economic Freedom (vade retro satanas Arghhhh!), liability (sorry not the responsibility, my soul can not be determined bear!), law of the market (the ultimate cry of agony hard to describe).

Facing the Liberal one wielding the big and famous

French cultural exception!

The cultural exception! (Not bad tea in this case).

one that frees us all! Why? Because-that? Because, as we are French!

And that summed up the French exception! She bends the laws of reality, it transforms the world according to our desires, in fact it describes a different reality, very different, with laws more nice, more gentle and kind, which saves us the effort and trouble in the world-of-out-of-the-bad-reality-ruled-by-the-horrible-law-of-market.

In fact, this blog is out of conviction that I do. A big word belief, a bit pretentious. But what conviction? That of natural philosophy of individual rights, the inalienable sovereignty of the individual, that of human rights, freedom and respect for property rights. The beliefs of a Liberal.

I know, I know, today I fear that these concepts, these ideas are well known.

Natural law?? Few people know this concept?

Property rights? When you think of this law is passed for a materialistic, pragmatic, alienated by material things and driven by a selfish immoral!

Human Rights, there is a lot of rights, property mutually contradictory.

When freedom?!? Pfff it, then, she does not exist! An illusion, no matter! Freedom is has-been! That relative is the past.

Free trade, a capitalist ignominy.

But these great ideas, these ideas which man, the individual is endowed with reason in the middle, are inherited from the Enlightenment. This great century that has characterized Western civilization, where one day we were told that the man is absolute, and not society, the king or the afterlife. Where man is no longer a means but an end in itself.

Unfortunately today I am surprised how no one knows the higher the value of this heritage, so precious, it is even more alarming to see the perverted, transformed and rendered unsafe.

I do, and I know it should appear arrogant in the eyes of many, to restore that legacy. It is by belief that I am doing this. At the height of my ability, with internet. What I understood I want to share with those who want to hear it, because I'm not proselytizing nature.

Thus

tickets through humor and commentary, I will give the perspective of a liberal on the news and I will try to return to the liberal doctrine and the rights of man that place 'they deserve.

Ok, but why BoBo? I grew up in that environment, and today I am, and then I like (and it looks as me: P).