Tea Party

[lord_casek]

Former President Jimmy Carter has come out to say what we knew all along: Racism behind much of the animosity towards Obama.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091503689.html

 

 

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

JIMMY CARTER

 

Racism Blamed for Clamor Over Obama

 

Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that he believes race is at the core of much of the opposition to President Obama.

 

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter told NBC in an interview. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans"

 

Continued Carter: "And that racism inclination still exists. . . . It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

 

The 39th president also predicted that Obama will be able to "triumph over the racist attitude that is the basis for the negative environment that we see so vividly demonstrated in public affairs in recent days."

 

 

 

I don't care if he's black, white, purple, or orange. Not many people I know do.

[TheoHuxtable..]

I don't care if he's black, white, purple, or orange. Not many people I know do.

 

 

You're in your own category Casek. You don't like any politician that isn't Ron Paul.

 

I'm talking about the "tea party" people calling him a Muslim communist that should go back to Kenya. The same people complaining about big government but were silent during Bush's expansion of government.

[angelofdeath]

Anarcho-communist? That's a new one to me. Leftie anarchists are not statists. No leaders no followers. Anarchists and Communists have one big difference and that's the abolition of state in an anarchist society.

 

then why do you claim to be an anarchist, yet i havent seen one big government program, initiative, lefty policy that you have not be in huge support of. even supporting intervention overseas, the very same policy that has led to the US empire.

 

i thought the theoretical communist utopian goal was an anarchist society without property rights? even though marx said that the total state would have to come before the state could die... sort of a stupid premise, because you can never just let the total state wither, it has to be destroyed in some way.

[angelofdeath]

because at the end of the day a hospital is a business. Sure some hospitals would freely admit anyone, but others would surely be more profit driven and chose to turn people away. Besides, you said that under your administration "crackheads would pay in cash" - not "hospitals would have a choice as to who they admit"

 

sure, at the end of the day a hospital is a business... so is a grocery store. we dont need people demanding grocery stores hand out food to the poor do we? are grocery stores evil because they turn away non payers? if all the grocery stores in america today decided to stop allowing people to buy things, the entire world country would die in a matter of weeks, except for a few crazy patriots and libertarians and people in farming communities. this seems like a much more awesome threat than a hospital turning down a non payer.

 

but this begs the question, why grocery stores sell food? is it out of moral reasons? not really, its out of making a profit. this is how people cooperate. if money is the root of all evil why do you work? why dont you just do your work for free? why do you put up with your employer, because you love him? or because you want to profit off of him?

 

but the reason why this grocery store scenario isnt a huge threat is because food is relatively cheap, isnt it. that is why there isnt a 'food' crisis like there is a medical care crisis. government intervention has made medical prices so high that now people need insurance to pay for a check up. if a free market were instituted in healthcare like there is in food, and the third party payer's role reduced, the poor person could pay for check ups, bone sets or sutures, in cash. health insurance would only be needed for catastrophic events. it is the very very small percentage (what like .000002%) of american people who cannot afford some sort of bulk food. it may not be steak and caviar, but it gets you by.

 

not everything needs to be mandated. i mean, you live in TN. im sure you know auto insurance isnt mandated, atleast to my knowledge. the motor vehicles i went do didnt require me to show proof of insurance, but it would be prudent to have auto insurance. by anyone's logic from out of state, they would say that everyone would be dead and no one would be held responsible for their actions.

just sayin'

 

either way, what do you intend for a small community with only one hospital that happens to choose to not admit anyone without either insurance, a line of credit, or a stack of cash? Should a whole community really suffer an unchecked communicable disease because they were unlucky to live near a hospital with a ruthless program director?

 

since im not a medical entrepreneur i dont have an exact plan for this. but an educated guess would be that hospitals would be paired with some sort of private social charity organization. in certain areas there isnt even a HOSPITAL any where near close driving distance to people. on my families farm, you have to drive 2 hours to get to a hospital. even with insurance, or a stack of cash, you are fucked.

 

my guess is it would be like food banks. most of the poor who cant (or wont) afford food and use food banks or shelters are in the cities.

 

 

it's naive to think that people guided by profit will "do the right thing"

they prove time and time throughout the annals of history to be tempted by money and profit. Money is the root of all evil, and in the end a hospital is still a business. Just because Ron Paul worked in a good hospital doesn't mean that given the choice EVERY hospital would operate as such- in fact it's far more logical to see a sliding scale of quality depending on what you can afford... In dense areas this wouldn't be AS much a problem, unless more hospitals decided to become profit driven as opposed to mission hospitals and you were left with so few that in essense you couldn't get care at any of them. In fact wouldn't a free market dictate that the more efficient profit driven hospitals hospitals thrive?

 

i think you totally discount the role of charity, and 'non profit' organizations in all of this. because hospitals wouldnt be the sole vehicle for charity as they are now, being funded by socialized increased costs, subsidies and government support. there is no doubt many more privately funded organizations would be finding ways to see that the poor were cared for. given all the church going people and charity minded lefties out there, there is no doubt organizations would be funded. and this is also not taking into account the vast amount of price decrease due to a free market in medicine. this even further lowers the burden. this is still the main problem.. getting america off the fascist medicine tit and allowing the free choice of individuals in the market place operate.

 

sure a variety of service would exist. its NEEDS to. that is one of the main problems. we only have mercedes benz medical care. we need kia, chevy, honda, acura, cadillac, mercedes, and bently levels of services. and sure the rich would have better care, what other point is there in being rich or striving to be rich? the rich eat like kings, but cheap boxed macaroni and cheese dinners for $.43 cents keep you nourished dont they? you dont NEED to eat caviar every day do you? or a 1000$ dollar bottle of wine, do you?

 

sure mercedes benz service is nice to have, but a chevy gets you from point A to point B doesn't it? and so it would be with medical service. you'd have jiffy lubes, coupon chains, independent repair shops with certain specialties and of course the mercedes dealer its self. when you need an oil change, jiffy lube does a fairly decent job dont they, for the money? you dont always need to go to the mercedes dealer for a complete 200 point check up with your oil change do you? especially if you dont make 8K a month.

[the.crooked]

for all the people saying race doesn't play a factor in the fervor over Obama's agenda;

 

Have y'all ever looked into cognitive studies of implicit prejudice? There is more than enough science out there to support the notion that even if not consciously aware, many people act in prejudice fashions to people of color.

 

Couple this with a strikingly progressive agenda, and that is how you get one million dumbass white rednecks in Washington protesting things they don't even understand the definitions of.

 

It is ignorant to say race doesn't play a factor in these proceedings. We are not post racial, we are not color blind (in fact, "color-blindness" is a form of racism), we are not lovey dovey lets all fuck and have mixed babies. This country is still as bigoted as they come, and even worse in the subversive nature of that bigotry.

 

 

just sayin.

 

 

Video reference for crazy people protesting in Washington found here:

 

[angelofdeath]

no, i didnt mean to imply you were in imperialist because you support intervention world war 2, HOWEVER i do mean to imply that if you support going abroad in search of monsters to destroy, as you did with germany before they posed an actual threat to the US, you are therefore by default promoting US overseas intervention. this very same policy of going abroad in search of 'threats' is what has given the US its empire today, troops in over 130 countries and territories around the world. given the US government the power and authority to intervene overseas not in defense of the country, is nothing more than giving them a license to promote endless foreign intervention. not to mention, each person who becomes president interprets threats differently. bush took your same ideology about stopping the fascists abroad and applied it to iraq and 'stan. if we still had a non interventionist policy in washington and we had to declare war (havent declared war since ww2 and we have failed at every war since) none of this would be going on.

 

im not well versed on the differences between the varieties of leftist anarchists, but a simple definition of communism that just about any dictionary or encyclopedia gives is:

 

"Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless and stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society."

 

the communists generally agree with using an all powering state to force egalitarianism and abolish privately held property, then they believe the state simply disappears, resulting in a state less society or in another words, leftist anarchy.

which you represent.

 

now, you are correct when talking about communism in practice, i have yet to see a commie talk about abolishing the state. because these ideals could never be met but at the point of a gun... a handful of dictators and millions of dead, and it still cant happen.

 

private power is far less of a threat than government power. no corporation, unless it has government backing, can force you to shop at their stores, use their products or engage in any services with them. private powers cannot legitimately tax you, regulate you, conscript you and send you to war, run your life, steal your property or tell you what to do with 'your' property, but a government can. if you resist any of these things enough, you will be fined, jailed and ultimately shot if you resist your imprisonment forcibly enough.

 

as said again.. profit and greed is what makes people interact. you would not be working for your employer if you werent greedy and wanted to make a profit off of him. the same as you wouldnt have a computer unless some entrepreneur invented the computer to market it and sell to make a profit off of you when you buy it.

trade is mutually beneficial, otherwise you wouldnt engage in it. the marxist have a concept that you some how are exploited in trade, however, i maintain that you are not exploited in trade, if you willfully engage in it. if you trade your money for a computer, you benefit and the seller benefits. you both got what you want. and this goes for any transaction in the market place, otherwise people would not be engaging in transactions or working for a living.

 

whats wrong with companies giving things away to save on taxes? if this is the case, we should create more incentives in teh direction of liberty to allow more give a ways.

 

the thing that gets me is that most people who are redistributionists and cry about greed and selfishness very rarely give any of their own proceeds away to anyone or organization. they would much rather complain about it and elect someone to go to washington to vote away the money from someone.

 

albert jay nock a rugged individualist and anarchist of the early 20th century said in his book, our enemy the state, that people are less inclined to give a quarter to the beggar on the street, because the state has already taken the quarter and is supposed to give it to the beggar.

[LEVEL 75 PALADIN]

 

Video reference for crazy people protesting in Washington found here:

 

 

Bask in the glory of your festival of stupidity.

[the.crooked]

for all the people saying race doesn't play a factor in the fervor over Obama's agenda;

 

Have y'all ever looked into cognitive studies of implicit prejudice? There is more than enough science out there to support the notion that even if not consciously aware, many people act in prejudice fashions to people of color.

 

Couple this with a strikingly progressive agenda, and that is how you get one million dumbass white rednecks in Washington protesting things they don't even understand the definitions of.

 

It is ignorant to say race doesn't play a factor in these proceedings. We are not post racial, we are not color blind (in fact, "color-blindness" is a form of racism), we are not lovey dovey lets all fuck and have mixed babies. This country is still as bigoted as they come, and even worse in the subversive nature of that bigotry.

 

 

just sayin.

 

 

Video reference for crazy people protesting in Washington found here:

 

 

Bump for the new page, with an addendum,

 

 

What bothers me most about this video is the general level of intelligence of these people.

 

It is no fucking wonder that they listen to crazy fucks like Glenn Beck.

 

Now, AOD and Casek, videos like this make it hard to even want to listen to what rational positions either of you two may have, because the bulk of people making arguments along the same lines as yall are fucking retarded. It completely draws away from what rational and legitimate critique conservative voices might have.

 

If the conservative voice wants legitimacy within circles of learned people, or to be taken seriously as actually putting forth concerned and important political critique, you need to take a step back and recognize who is the image of your message. It is uneducated, bigots who carry forth your perspective. It is those so unconcerned with fact or actual history (see video segment on Joe "YOU LIE" Wilson's voting for expanded coverage, and lack of knowledge on the introduction of the word "Czar" into the white house) who march around with signs co-opting one of the more tragic events in human history to peddle their inane drivel.

 

Sorry for the rant. That video just makes me insanely frustrated and angry. THESE PEOPLE DON"T EVEN KNOW THE BILLS...

[YouMad.GIF]

I must say I like matching wits with AOD on here because it keeps me on point to destroy people who want to make his argument IRL but don't really understand the complexities of his position

[angelofdeath]

i dont know crooked.

i sort of see your point, but can also make the same point about the group of people who put forth your same message. couldnt the same be said about the left? i could say stupid things about all the idiotic uneducated inner city ghetto thugs that voted for and support obama simply because of his skin color... is this any better than the people who supposedly oppose obama just because of his skin color?

 

i mean, i could after all say things like... 'joe wilson is no more of a racist than jimmy carter is an anti semite.' i could post pictures like this:

 

 

of protesting lefties.

 

or youtube vids of this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I3XMZNt8uI

 

that is who carries the obama message...but...eh.

 

 

i think most americans are simply 'boobus americanus.'

 

it is americans who have voted for and accept this criminal government we live under. i think most people with partisan affiliations simply follow their own party line and repeat it, of course adding twist and flairs for effect.

 

one thing that always gets my goat is why the racism charge is always hauled out. i dont think when a white person was in office, take bush for example, any of the black people who critiqued him were motivated by racism. why does it always have to be that way, when someone critiques a policy that a black person promotes?

 

by simply trying to attack, the person, and not the argument i think we all lose out. not only does it shift the debate to the person having to then defend his character against charges, it takes away from the argument.

[YouMad.GIF]

Now, AOD and Casek, videos like this make it hard to even want to listen to what rational positions either of you two may have, because the bulk of people making arguments along the same lines as yall are fucking retarded. It completely draws away from what rational and legitimate critique conservative voices might have.

 

If the conservative voice wants legitimacy within circles of learned people, or to be taken seriously as actually putting forth concerned and important political critique, you need to take a step back and recognize who is the image of your message. It is uneducated, bigots who carry forth your perspective. It is those so unconcerned with fact or actual history (see video segment on Joe "YOU LIE" Wilson's voting for expanded coverage, and lack of knowledge on the introduction of the word "Czar" into the white house) who march around with signs co-opting one of the more tragic events in human history to peddle their inane drivel.

 

Sorry for the rant. That video just makes me insanely frustrated and angry. THESE PEOPLE DON"T EVEN KNOW THE BILLS...

 

 

 

This is real thruth

at first I was totally against the public option for the sole reason that I felt it was being crammed down our throats before the next midterm election and the dems lose the supermajority.

 

However attending health care protests and covering them for work, as well as taping hundreds of "peoples opinion" spots on the subject has shown me that a large majority is completely ignorant in every facet of the word. It's motivated by racism, fear, media and corporate manipulation, and most of these people couldn't make a logical argument to save their lives. The only thing most of these people CAN do is be REALLY REALLY loud.

 

Case in point - I'm at a health care protest in Nashville and there is a very vocal oppositional minority (most of the people there were PRO healthcare) that had bullhorns and were literally shouting in the faces of the pro-protesters. This one girl said "we need health care now" and a guy with a bullhorn stopped and shouted at her "you have healthcare but you don't want to pay for it!"

 

ok, I don't have healthcare. My work is a small business that doesn't offer health insurance. If I DID get health insurance there's a high likelyhood that I could not afford it since I have child support, bills, rent, child care, and a slew of other expenses. If I DID perchance find health insurance that I could afford, there's a good chance it wouldn't cover my scholiosis which is a constant source of nerve pain, and other than preventative care and a vision plan is pretty much all I would need. So even if I could afford it (I can't) and I found it, there's a huge chance it wouldn't cover me for what I need it to anyways. So it's pretty offensive for some rich republican to shout that "I just don't want to pay for it"

 

trust me, I WOULD LOVE to make enough money to pay for health care! Luckily my state has a decent social health care program (TennCare) that covers my son and his checkups, but others are not so lucky. But oh yeah, we all know how much of a blue state socialist empire Tennessee is!!!

[angelofdeath]

See I don't even look at it like an intervention, its more like an alliance with humanity for me. Like you said, WW2 was the last time we even declared war. The excuses for war have degenerated into a plethora of "police actions", some of which I don't mind so often, like the Balkan intervention (Clinton's biggest misake among a multitude of them was probably not going into Rwanda, but I still think he was the best president in recent history, Obama is making history), but "war is a racket" as the most decorated marine in US history Smedley Butler put it, the old Anglo-Roman empire of modern day robber barons. Any comparison of our Golden Age with our modern predicament is a pipe dream. I don't see WW2 as a license to endless intervention but that is what it has become.

 

got ya. we are pretty much in agreement on intervention, although you are more inclined to support intervention not in self defense if 2 criteria are met. 1. a liberal is doing the boming (clinton). 2. some sort of humanitarian cause needs attention/a right wing government is getting wild (nazi's)

 

Yes, governments have the most political power but the real power resides in the hands of the private sector. When your politics and ideology can be reduced to economics, as in political economics, your master is the bottom line and wealth and greed is the domain of the private sector. Public power is token, formal, ritual, it is the man behind the curtain pulling the strings.

 

i do not see this as holding power. i see power as holding coercive force over you. if there is no coercive force over you, a company holding a gun to your head forcing you to shop at their store or work at their company, then there is no wrong doing in my view.

 

Its sad to live in a world where profit and greed are the reason why people interact. Its because of capitalism. If we lived in a more primitive society, like man lived for thousands of years in balance with the earth and each other, we wouldn't be motivated by profit and greed but by play and good-naturedness. It was the (re?)discovery of agriculture that divided our world into private and public power in the first place. It is the fall of man and the curse of Adam and Eve. Sure they don't force us to buy their products, but it is coercive, invasive and pervasive, and as proletariats (landless peasants) we have little choice but to comply since we cannot be "rugged individualists" and live off the land. More and more people are awakening to the fact that they are in fact proletariats since farming has been in decline. The nature of society is changing and there is a shift to the left as people realize we no longer live on a "unlimited frontier" but on Spaceship Earth. If we can maintain a balance in this fragile ecosystem long enough we will discover a means to unlimited power and wealth for everyone on the planet, for life is truly abundant. We must become more simple in some ways and more complex in others.

 

if we didnt have 'profit' or 'greed' or 'trade' we would still be living like cave men. its that simple. those 3 words were in quotes to show that those words are demonized when they shouldnt be. man has always acted mostly out of self interest. sure basic 'christian' generosity always has existed and always will. the 'land less peasants' have all the right in the world to all pool together, purchase or rent land, and live in their own commune. if all the people who have these ideas, shut up and put their money where their mouths are, everyone could be happy living in goodness and utopia on the huge commune, hell your own US STATE, all protected by capitalist private property rights and your right to keep capitalists off your property! it seems like a damn good deal to me. hell, i might even join you for while.

 

i think however left has a weird perception of 'coercion.' while i see it as a direct violence initiated upon someone, such as someone being beaten and robbed... the left sees coercion as paying 'high' (who determines if they are high?) prices for prescription drugs. then when walmart gives out prescriptions for 4$ a pop, they left cries out about how workers are being exploited. its the proverbial cake and being able to eat it too.

 

I never said there was anything wrong with companies giving away money to save on taxes. What I meant was that its sad that it is the primary motivation for these companies to give that money away in the first place. Why do you call for more freedom when the only reason they are giving away this token, this tribute amount, is because of the tax system in the first place? In an economy based on profit, what motivation is there for you to give to charity? None. Without the tax system charity would nearly cease to exist!

 

i think its silly to think that charity wouldnt exist without tax credits. absolutely ridiculous. tell that to the millions of people who donate to charities, engage in mission work, work at churches who engage in charity, operate soup kitchens and shelters, and who run private charity organizations.

 

The reason why redistributionists are hypocritical is because most of them are proletariats! They cannot live beyond their own means! When you are a wage slave you cannot give but mere pence and penance to charity.

 

i'd argue that the average joe doesnt give more to charity because he 'gives' (they steal) 30-50% of their earnings to the government.

 

 

Proles don't accumulate wealth because they don't have assets (i.e. land). But at least talk about it if you can't be about it! It's better than nothing! Proles are much more kind hearted. Like it says in the Bible, better the poor woman that gives her last pence than the rich woman who gives 100 or whatever.

 

the biggest wind bags i hear preaching class warfare are millionaires. michael moore could easily kick up some of his stock dividends (wait, he is against hte stock market!!!) to pay for your commune.

 

 

I don't know why you're complaining about taxes on the rich. It's the only form of wealth redistribution we have for the world and it is a mere token amount compared to the amount of wealth that gets hoarded by individuals and does society no good whatsoever. At least Bill Gates is charitable giving freely of his own wealth, leave it to the "nerd" to have a bigger heart.

 

because theft is theft. that is why i complain about taxes, IN GENERAL.

why dont you try this. instead of using the government, (which you want to hate) to steal money from people, why dont you try it. go to some ones house, put a gun to their head and demand their portion of charity that they owe. see how this works out and see how you feel about this robbery. this will hopefully give you some perspective, taht theft is theft, even with a majority vote in congress. its no different than me and casek getting together, thinking you are a pinko and us voting to kill you. that is democracy.

 

it erks me to think that bill gates is only 'giving back to the community' by giving away charitable contributions. he has given more to the community by his profiting in the market place selling software. not even welfare cases probably consider a windows machine and an internet connection a right. if this capitalism didnt exist and we sat around and waited for people to be good natured and donate a computer or operating system idea to the world, we'd still be cavemen.

 

charity is good, but its not the end all be all. if we didnt have capitalism, we would have no division of labor, no trade, no good standard of living, we'd be in the 18th century probably. while i often find myself yearning for a different time, this lifestyle isnt for everyone. most people want tv, internet, text messaging and new cars.

[the.crooked]

i dont know crooked.

i sort of see your point, but can also make the same point about the group of people who put forth your same message. couldnt the same be said about the left? i could say stupid things about all the idiotic uneducated inner city ghetto thugs that voted for and support obama simply because of his skin color... is this any better than the people who supposedly oppose obama just because of his skin color?

 

i mean, i could after all say things like... 'joe wilson is no more of a racist than jimmy carter is an anti semite.' i could post pictures like this:

 

of protesting lefties.

 

or youtube vids of this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I3XMZNt8uI

 

that is who carries the obama message...but...eh.

 

 

i think most americans are simply 'boobus americanus.'

 

it is americans who have voted for and accept this criminal government we live under. i think most people with partisan affiliations simply follow their own party line and repeat it, of course adding twist and flairs for effect.

 

one thing that always gets my goat is why the racism charge is always hauled out. i dont think when a white person was in office, take bush for example, any of the black people who critiqued him were motivated by racism. why does it always have to be that way, when someone critiques a policy that a black person promotes?

 

by simply trying to attack, the person, and not the argument i think we all lose out. not only does it shift the debate to the person having to then defend his character against charges, it takes away from the argument.

 

 

 

Couple points:

 

1." i could say stupid things about all the idiotic uneducated inner city ghetto thugs "

 

Comments like this are exactly what I am talking about. Who are you to make this comment? Your implicit argument here is that inner city ghetto thugs are black, and thus voted for a black president. It assumes that people of urban living, particularly those of color are more likely to be ignorant, uneducated and leaning towards violence. Oh noez THE BLACKZ IZ GONNA RAPE OUR WOMENZ!!! Somewhat of an interpolation of your position, but it reflects the subversive nature of racism in our country. Particularly of that among whites who don't consider themselves to be racist.

 

2. Yes, the left has equally unfortunate voices, but the biggest thing is you don't see them en mass too the degree you do of those out in force for the right at the moment.

 

An estimated one million people at that protest, and I bet over sixty percent of those there are reflected in those interviews I posted. Nothing that is coming from "real americans" has reflected any since of introspection, reflection or rational discourse on the subject.

 

For christ sake, the right has adopted Lyndon LaRouche's views as a platform of protest against health care reform.

 

Here is a quick piece from Gawker about Jimmy Carter's comments on the current situation. The critique is pretty right on as far as I am concerned.

 

Gawker's reflection on Carter's critique of HealthCare discourse

 

I am not going to dispute the idea that there are many people against health care reform. But I will say they have no idea why they don't want it, particularly in the instances where they don't even understand the words they are using (fascism, communism, socialism, czar, etc). And the reason the grasp at straws is because they can't face the fact they don't like a black man as president, encroaching as what they see as their god given rights as a white american. Simply put. They can't put it in those terms because they can't step outside their own cognitive frame to see the complete inconcistency in their arguments, or the striking lack of depth to their analysis or anything else for that matter.

 

It is heart breaking to see that this is where the majority of white america is. It is equally frustrating to know that there is no real way to even engage in rational discourse with these people. The video shows the look of stupification on their faced when faced with simple facts of American political history that would have been yielded on even the simplest of Google searches.

 

The fact of the matter is that for the last half century we have been fucking over the american middle class through fiscal, educational, and corporate policy for financial gain. When it finally comes time to make some changes that could effect that very population, we reap the seeds of stupidity sown throughout the land.

 

America=FuckinDumb.

[angelofdeath]

"Comments like this are exactly what I am talking about. Who are you to make this comment? Your implicit argument here is that inner city ghetto thugs are black, and thus voted for a black president. It assumes that people of urban living, particularly those of color are more likely to be ignorant, uneducated and leaning towards violence. Oh noez THE BLACKZ IZ GONNA RAPE OUR WOMENZ!!! Somewhat of an interpolation of your position, but it reflects the subversive nature of racism in our country. Particularly of that among whites who don't consider themselves to be racist."

 

i made the comment in direct response to your comment of 'bigoted redneck ignorant fucks'

(excuse me if i didnt have exact wording)

 

why cant i call racism if someone other other than a white person talks about 'ignorant uneducated redneck bigots?' its the same thing and its stupid.

 

like i said, joe wilson is just as racist as jimmy carter is an anti semite.

 

i dont care what other people do. its nothing about race to me. i dont care if hillary clinton is talking about socialist healthcare, george bush or obama. its about liberty and nothing else. its sort of silly to think that race is the end all be all of all issues. immediately start talking about race and nothing else counts. its all a distraction.

 

i still think it is hilarious that someone like myself, gets the racism charge when my economic views were practically invented by jewish intellectuals in the 20th century who were either deported or fled the nazi's in europe

[the.crooked]

Fair enough on the first point, however, I think it is a little different in me as a white person commenting on other white folk, than either of us as white people commenting on people of color. My comment about rednecks was out of sheer frustration, and yes I was typecasting. I made the very argument I am advocating all the more relevant, by contrast of my own prejudices. Nor do I seek to show myself here as a self hating white apologist, because I am not that either. I just seek to try and remain introspective and less defensive about the short comings of human history and the place that race has played in such.

 

My whole thing was merely because I see casek saying it isn't about race, but the unfortunate truth (maybe not for you, or for casek) is that for many it can be reduced to that.

[angelofdeath]

 

 

I don't think there should be any taxes on the lower class. We don't make enough to be taxed so heavily.

I hate taxes as much as anyone, but what are you going to do about public services? I like having a toilet that flushes, a fire department, trash pick up. Supposedly if you pay a tax, the money will benefit you anyways. Supposedly.

Its not robbery, its an exchange of goods and services.

 

 

i can agree with you on the poor shouldnt be taxed. most people that make under 30K a year dont really pay any taxes at all. if they do file, they get most of the money back.

 

public services without taxes would be provided by the market just like anything else. bastiat wrote a great commentary on 'how paris gets fed.' its pretty good and sums up the market.

trash pickup would be paid for to a private company. instead of having the government take your money and collect your trash, you pay a private company to do the same thing or you pay a fee to drop off your trash at a land fill.

 

i agree to an extent you get a service out of the taxes you pay. this is true to an extent. however, most taxes that are taken from us are used for services we never use. most property taxes are used for schools. if you dont have kids in school, you dont get a service in return for instance, but i know the next argument is for the common good, etc etc.

 

but this transaction isnt just an 'exchange of goods and services.' its coercion. try not paying taxes. if you dont pay you get thrown in jail. if you forcibly resist with a weapon for instance in resistance to paying for this service, you will be killed. so its quite apparent this isnt some voluntary market exchange of goods and services. you have no choice in whether you want the service, or whether you want to engage with the single party you must, as in the case of dealing with municipalities, etc.

 

 

 

 

Actually division of labor started earlier, with the british empire. What no trade, no good standard of living? Actually the standard of living has been in decline since the advent of agricultural societies (longer work hours, paying tribute to the state), and as the empire marched on, it got worse for the average person, and capitalism has been no differet until the labor movement came along. You should read some of those tragic stories of people living in early capitalism and industrialism. "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair is a classic in this field.

 

what i meant to say is that technology would be stuck in the 18th century if we didnt have capitalism. capitalism is the sole reason why we have the standard of living we do today. the division of labor came about in history through trade and free exchange. we wouldnt have the advanced division of labor, if we didnt have capitalism. you can look at the soviet union and see the degradation of the standard of living.

 

people who had the misfortunes of being involved in the early industrial revolution had a shitty existence, no doubt. but what was the alternative? why did people flock to cities to work? because they had an even worse existence else where. they chose to work the hours, and deal with the conditions instead of dealing with their even worse lives else where. but it is the standard of living that has been increased with capitalism that has improved every thing that was shitty to our modern minds about the industrial revolution. as people get richer they get more leisure time. look at the great advances that capitalism has brought the US. even the poor live better than any king, or caesar in history. the poor drive cars, have cell phones, and have A/C. this is all due to advances made through commerce, the profit and loss system that is capitalism.

 

hayek has a great work on the industrial revolution...

[angelofdeath]

Fair enough on the first point, however, I think it is a little different in me as a white person commenting on other white folk, than either of us as white people commenting on people of color. My comment about rednecks was out of sheer frustration, and yes I was typecasting. I made the very argument I am advocating all the more relevant, by contrast of my own prejudices. Nor do I seek to show myself here as a self hating white apologist, because I am not that either. I just seek to try and remain introspective and less defensive about the short comings of human history and the place that race has played in such.

 

My whole thing was merely because I see casek saying it isn't about race, but the unfortunate truth (maybe not for you, or for casek) is that for many it can be reduced to that.

 

i'll agree with you that for a lot people it may just be about race.

 

on both sides.

[YouMad.GIF]

Here's another example of redonkulous pheer mongering that one of my boys posted on facebook

 

http://acuf.org/issues/issue139/090911gov.asp

 

Health Care ID

by Michael Connelly

Issue 139 - September 16, 2009

 

How many times have we watched a movie about World War II and looked at the scene where a menacing Nazi soldier has stopped a citizen of an occupied country or even a German citizen and demanded to see the person’s “identity papers.” Failure to produce such papers would cause the person to be immediately arrested. I always felt good when I watched this because I knew that in my free country that couldn’t happen.

 

Yes, we have our driver’s license that you have to produce if you are stopped for a driving infraction and you may have to produce to write a check. However, if you choose not to drive you are not required to have one and you can get another form of identification to do something like cash a check. Yet, the fact is that you are not legally required to have either of these documents and if you do have them they can only contain a limited amount of information.

 

When I was practicing law I dealt with a situation where in the State of Louisiana you were required to provide your Social Security number to get a Driver’s License and it was also put on the license for everyone to see. I represented a client who had both privacy objections to this and religious objections. We won the case on the grounds that this requirement violated his constitutional rights. What made this particularly interesting was the fact that in support of our position I cited an opinion by a Court of Appeal Justice named Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is now one of the more liberal members of the Supreme Court.

 

Now the House version of Obama health care, HB 3200, will mandate that everyone in the United States have a National Healthcare card that they will be required to produce to get medical treatment. This will be required whether they have private health insurance or are involved in the so-called public option. There are no real options, you must have this card and it can contain any information that the Obama administration requires. It will be the “identity papers” that so many totalitarian regimes are infamous for.

 

Of course, you may be thinking that this will no longer be a problem if the “public option” is removed from the bill. This has been a trial balloon floated by the Obama administration yet it really means nothing if the rest of the bill is adopted. The Congress will still be transferring unlimited power to the Executive Branch of Government and the Commissioner appointed by President Obama can still require a National Health Care identification card, still have access to your financial and medical records, and still fine you for having a plan unacceptable to the government. This will result in the ultimate destruction of private health insurance and the adoption of a public system of rationed health care totally controlled by the government.

 

I found it interesting that a week after I wrote my first blog questioning the constitutionality of House Bill 3200 Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News interviewed two Constitutional experts who also saw this as an unconstitutional action by the Congress. They pointed out that normally when this type of legislation is introduced in Congress the members of the House of Representatives or the Senate cite the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that authorize such legislation.

 

***This has not been the case in any of the Health Care Bills proposed. This is not a simple oversight on the part of the Congress. They know they don’t have Constitutional authority to do this, but they simply don’t care. They intend to do it anyway. I find this to be both supremely arrogant, and absolutely terrifying. If they succeed in this, then no provisions of the Constitution are safe from attack.

 

my only comment on this was "obviously the guy who wrote this has never been yoked up by the cops without their ID and threatened with criminal impersonation untill they were identified"

 

but really, comparing a health care ID to Nazi era identification papers? We already have a national identification system - and I've never been jacked up by pigs asking for my voter registration card or even selective service papers...

[angelofdeath]

Here's another example of redonkulous pheer mongering that one of my boys posted on facebook

 

http://acuf.org/issues/issue139/090911gov.asp

 

 

my only comment on this was "obviously the guy who wrote this has never been yoked up by the cops without their ID and threatened with criminal impersonation untill they were identified"

 

but really, comparing a health care ID to Nazi era identification papers? We already have a national identification system - and I've never been jacked up by pigs asking for my voter registration card or even selective service papers...

 

it varies with location.

some states require one to carry ID. some dont. most will heckle you either way. but overall, you still do not need to carry a govt cattle card in america. YET.

 

the national healthcare initiatives will create a national ID system. i dont think the nazi era travel papers are here YET, but they will be coming. i wouldnt be surprised if in the future you need an ID to travel between states. when we got Social Security, everyone claimed that it would never be used as an ID, and yet, try to do things in the modern without without a social security number for ID purposes.

 

im not so sure the national healthcare initiatives (which by default have a national ID in them) would result in cops asking for our healthcare card, but i bet, as with the real ID, if it ever gets implemented, we will need it to enter federal property, fly on an airplane, get a drivers license, maybe even to buy over the counter drugs, etc etc.

 

i think the days of being able to get by 'without papers' are coming to an end in the next few years.

[YouMad.GIF]

Dude

we HAVE HAD a national identification system

SSN

we HAVE a national database

it's just that not every squad car has acess to it yet, which is more an issue of mobile tecomunications advancement over any policy. I've been held and detained in metro Nashville several times even though there is no specific law stating I have to carry an ID

it IS however a law pretty much anywhere that if a cop demands you identify yourself you must comply, and the first method they use to verify is your state ID

if you don't have a state ID they move on to the national method - your SSN - you can and will be detained untill they verify your given birth date matches your SSN and name

 

I have never once been asked for selective service papers or voter registration, which is more akin to this public option health ID

 

so how is this any more of a Nazi-esque ID requirement than when Regan required any person claimed on a tax deduction have a SSN

remember when I said my family was rednecks? Well I didn't get a SSN untill Regan passed that law in like 84

 

I was born in 81 in TN

I got my SSN in CT when I was 3 or 4

I am the last of a generation of people who were not issued a SSN at birth as required by the federal government, the prefixes don't match up to TN and when I have got accosted by police and give my SSN they usually don't believe my explanation and think I'm lying (untill they check their database and discover my priors)

 

 

So AOD

how is this more or less of a nationalized ID card than the Social Security card you have? You may not have to carry it at all times, but best believe if you get stopped WITHOUT your state ID you better fucking know your Full Govt Name, correct DOB, and accurate SSN, because if you DONT the police can and will detain you, print you, run you through the federal system, all under suspicion of criminal impersonation

 

I know you don't have to deal with the same bullshit a lot of us people from slightly different walks of life, but this is all very real stuff people like me have been having to deal with. National manditory federal identification was already instituted by Regan in the mid 80s

my TN birth certificate and CT SSN are direct proof of this

(as well as the federal law he passed)

[angelofdeath]

All these national ID scheUSA just lead us further down the road to serfdom. The present ones are bad enough. I'll cooment about the rest later on.

[Spitfire15]

Yeah man. So do drivers licenses, school ID's, social security cards, and police records.

 

Shut the fuck up, retard.

[YouMad.GIF]

Your social security card is a federal ID card

as are your required selective service papers

 

 

There's nothing new about this

where is the vitriol and outrage (except from people like casek who has bitched about the social security system as long as I known the guy)

 

also I'm pretty sure if you don't file taxes and have an employers documenting payment of wages above 18 grand (or around there) you will be eventually flagged, audited, charged back taxes, and thrown in jail for evasion

 

however, I keep my yearly income pretty off record and deal in cash as much as possible, so my recorded earnings have been significantly under that number. I havnt filed a return since probably 04, and it clearly says that if you are not required to pay IN taxes you do not have to file. Now this means I didn't get a refund, but for a few of those years it would have been like 40$ so I didn't bother. I'm not worried because if I DO get an audit there's absolutely zero employer paper trail above 18,000$ to worry about.

[angelofdeath]

tel...

you touch on a point that can make everyone (well, just about) happy in society. voluntarism.

 

if the government would make its programs, voluntary, it wouldnt be all that bad. hell, it wouldnt really be a government, it would just be another competing market player. if the programs were voiuntary everyone would have a chance to be happy. which is what happens in a free society. millions of people engage in free exchange.

 

think of the 'free market' as nothing more than individual choices free from coercion. what is wrong with this? do you really believe that freedom doesnt work? in a free market the role of the big corporation would be insignificant because it would not be attached at the teat of the state, which is what gives any thing its real power.

 

i like to think of it this way... if americans were free to choose this instant... the country might break up into 10,000 different units. the 'city states' that had the most freedom oriented policies, would be the most prosperous. the states that had the most oppressive policies would not thrive. each state would basically compete for citizens. different societies would develop. religious types might congregate in upland south carolina. libertarians might inhabitant the rocky mountain states. liberals might all be in the north east. each area would govern its people how they see fit and wouldn't concern themselves with other peoples business. anarchist or commune type societies would no doubt exist. this is actually more or less the basic model of how the US was supposed to be set up, but with the constitution being no real restraint on government, we have a single central power essentially running the rest of the country and telling 300 million diverse people how the live. this is not freedom. if we had a more free country, these issues wouldnt be so devisive and would be settled more locally and would only affect the people that want to be affected by it.

we would all still be americans, as the greeks were all still greeks. we would not be able to exist without a basic compact for defense, and we would have to all get along because we would have to rely on each other for trade.

 

sorry for the tangent...

 

but thanks everyone, i really enjoyed this discussion. havent had a good debate in a while.

[angelofdeath]

in regards to crooked's comment about the czars... i just heard about this.

 

a news flash on fox while i was at the gym showed that obama has 38 czars, bush had 16

 

ironically to put out more republican hypocrisy... the first czar was in the 70;s, was a republican and was the 'energy czar'

[the.crooked]

The first czar was put in place by Reagan.

[YouMad.GIF]

Czars were created by republicans

 

I thought they were instituted by Regan, but it could have been Nixon - I do know Regan appointed the Drug Czar

[keso cheese]

I also think that doctors should volunteer to help the people who cant afford it. And to help the doctors, the government should give them a tax break for everyone they help voluntarily so it would give them incentive to help others. idk though just an idea

[TheoHuxtable..]

Reagan was overrated. I don't know why Republicans act like he was the second coming of Jesus.

[angelofdeath]

william e simon was the first 'czar' as far as i know, of energy in the early 70's.

 

reagan was a pretty bad president. i think he was a great rhetoritician, (is that a word?) but he was a big government guy in practice.