christo-f Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I thought you were done here? Or was that just another temper tantrum? Go back in the corner, and think about your behavior young man. To answer your italics point thought, without the right to bear arms, criminals and "nut jobs" will be able to obtain weapons ANYWAY. Not with the ease they can now thanks to the second amendment drastically increasing weapons in US society since the BoR was written! Also, coming from some one who has played rugby and carried/fired guns for years, having a gun in your pocket making you more confident to tackle some one sounds just as fucking crazy as the bloody shooter was!! On topic, has the Hannity's, O'Reilly's and liberal big mouths been talking about this much? Have the agreed, disagreed with the idea that their rhetoric and Us-V-Them can be dangerous for society? *Goes back to time out corner..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Not with the ease they can now thanks to the second amendment drastically increasing weapons in US society since the BoR was written! Also, coming from some one who has played rugby and carried/fired guns for years, having a gun in your pocket making you more confident to tackle some one sounds just as fucking crazy as the bloody shooter was!! On topic, has the Hannity's, O'Reilly's and liberal big mouths been talking about this much? Have the agreed, disagreed with the idea that their rhetoric and Us-V-Them can be dangerous for society? *Goes back to time out corner..... the idea that rhetoric was responsible for any of this has basically been debunked and thrown out the window by mainstream media already, who are just admitting that loughner was mentally unstable and sick in the head. reports are already surfacing that he was neither left nor right, had no interest in the news or any political radio either... what i did find interesting was one of his close friends mentioning that the internet documentary Zeitgeist has a huge impact on the mind-state of this individual, but i reject any notion that Zeitgeist or any other internet documentary can drive someone to commit murder because I along with plenty of people here have all watched those same movies and we haven't done anything outrageous. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040 ^^ interview with his last close friend who mentions Zeitgeist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearekilluminati Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Just want to reiterate that point: Arizona has lax gun laws. The result was that the only person who carried and used a weapon was a nutjob who obtained the weapon legally. yea a nut job huh? hey christo so what happened to mr john wheeler? im asking a honest question. what happened? any one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 the idea that rhetoric was responsible for any of this has basically been debunked and thrown out the window by mainstream media already, who are just admitting that loughner was mentally unstable and sick in the head. reports are already surfacing that he was neither left nor right, had no interest in the news or any political radio either... what i did find interesting was one of his close friends mentioning that the internet documentary Zeitgeist has a huge impact on the mind-state of this individual, but i reject any notion that Zeitgeist or any other internet documentary can drive someone to commit murder because I along with plenty of people here have all watched those same movies and we haven't done anything outrageous. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040 ^^ interview with his last close friend who mentions Zeitgeist Yeah, it's the same as saying Judas Priest or Ozzy Osbourne's music makes people commit suicide. There has to be an underlying psychosis already existing for people to be influenced by what should otherwise be background noise. I used to have an ideological view however not only can I no longer afford to be subjective but it's kind of silly being one way inclined anyway. I once heard a saying something along the lines of "Anyone that has a pre-disposed position on an issue before hearing all the details is a fucking dickhead". I may have put a few of my own words in there but you get the drift. I don't see the whole Us-V-Them dichotomy a good approach to solving anything. I know there are many guilty parties either side of the divide but FoxNews comes to mind for most and epitomises the problem. The whole idea of attacking the man/ideology, which is also a defining characteristic of a two party, adversarial system like the US and the Westminster system, is just antithetical to efficient problem solving in my book. The liberals that want to carry on like conservatism is heartless and evil shit me with their "We know what's best for everyone, everything is so simple, just have a heart" naive BS. Just the same as the "the free market will solve everything, I'm not doing anything to help anyone but myself - the world is a level playing field, don't tell me what to do" conservative stubborness is as annoying as fuck as well. I usually find that if everyone just shuts the fuck up and does what I say everything would be just fine! I tend to think most of the liberal v conservative shit on TV is marketing anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearekilluminati Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^you are a joke............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Maybe so, but I know what happened to John Wheeler and you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qawee Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 nah zeitgeist is responsible for this tragedy guys, lets get serious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Funny enough, he was a liberal http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0148c76d84e5970c-pi The same guy that hated government, read Ayn Rand books and called a girl in class a "terrorist" while reading a poem about abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearekilluminati Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Maybe so, but I know what happened to John Wheeler and you don't. no not maybe.....you are. and i do know what happened, i just wanted to know what type of "logical bullshit" you would throw out there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Yeah, it's the same as saying Judas Priest or Ozzy Osbourne's music makes people commit suicide. There has to be an underlying psychosis already existing for people to be influenced by what should otherwise be background noise. I used to have an ideological view however not only can I no longer afford to be subjective but it's kind of silly being one way inclined anyway. I once heard a saying something along the lines of "Anyone that has a pre-disposed position on an issue before hearing all the details is a fucking dickhead". I may have put a few of my own words in there but you get the drift. I don't see the whole Us-V-Them dichotomy a good approach to solving anything. I know there are many guilty parties either side of the divide but FoxNews comes to mind for most and epitomises the problem. The whole idea of attacking the man/ideology, which is also a defining characteristic of a two party, adversarial system like the US and the Westminster system, is just antithetical to efficient problem solving in my book. The liberals that want to carry on like conservatism is heartless and evil shit me with their "We know what's best for everyone, everything is so simple, just have a heart" naive BS. Just the same as the "the free market will solve everything, I'm not doing anything to help anyone but myself - the world is a level playing field, don't tell me what to do" conservative stubborness is as annoying as fuck as well. I usually find that if everyone just shuts the fuck up and does what I say everything would be just fine! I tend to think most of the liberal v conservative shit on TV is marketing anyway. thats one of the best posts ive ever read from you and i agree with pretty much everything u just said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Yeah, it's the same as saying Judas Priest or Ozzy Osbourne's music makes people commit suicide. There has to be an underlying psychosis already existing for people to be influenced by what should otherwise be background noise. I used to have an ideological view however not only can I no longer afford to be subjective but it's kind of silly being one way inclined anyway. I once heard a saying something along the lines of "Anyone that has a pre-disposed position on an issue before hearing all the details is a fucking dickhead". I may have put a few of my own words in there but you get the drift. I don't see the whole Us-V-Them dichotomy a good approach to solving anything. I know there are many guilty parties either side of the divide but FoxNews comes to mind for most and epitomises the problem. The whole idea of attacking the man/ideology, which is also a defining characteristic of a two party, adversarial system like the US and the Westminster system, is just antithetical to efficient problem solving in my book. The liberals that want to carry on like conservatism is heartless and evil shit me with their "We know what's best for everyone, everything is so simple, just have a heart" naive BS. Just the same as the "the free market will solve everything, I'm not doing anything to help anyone but myself - the world is a level playing field, don't tell me what to do" conservative stubborness is as annoying as fuck as well. I usually find that if everyone just shuts the fuck up and does what I say everything would be just fine! I tend to think most of the liberal v conservative shit on TV is marketing anyway. thats one of the best posts ive ever read from you and i agree with pretty much everything u just said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The same guy that hated government, read Ayn Rand books and called a girl in class a "terrorist" while reading a poem about abortion? your partisan hack nature never ceases to give me a laugh. if you really think, for one second, that this guy had a coherent political ideology, you really need your head examined. an atlas shrugged (preaches non violence!) reading right winger shot and killed one of the most conservative constitutionalist judges in the US. yeah, definitely a plausible story and he definitely is 'teh tea partier-bagger' are you sure you are not mark potak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Rich boys. Seriously, I am the furthest thing from being rich, and I agree almost 100% with what AOD believes. I don't know his financial situation, but that is a stretch if I've ever seen one. This kid wasn't even a radical right wing nut job, among his favorite books as listed on Myspace is the Communist Manifesto. Among other left wing literature. Go figure. Yeah, other left wing literature such as Mein Kampf. My joshing around has nothing to do with the recent shootings, it had more to do with gun control and gun users in general. One suggestion I have for you is to develop your own ideas and get AOD's nuts out of your mouth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 rich boy! this did indeed make my day. i guess compared to something like a gutter punk kid that eats out of dumpsters, i am 'rich.' but not in the normal sense of the word. but if you mean work 10 hours a day, save money and just get by like most working class people...im not so sure this qualifies as 'rich.' but to each their own. but being part of the gun culture, i would urge you to reconsider. in fact, i'd argue the exact opposite. most radical right wing working class nut jobs would never DREAM of spending 5K on an 'assault weapon.' in fact i cant even think of a single 'assault weapon' in the standard sense of the word that costs 5K. i know you are probably just going for effect, but still. i'll break it down a little more... most 'radical right wing nut jobs' think they are 'teh awesomez' if they manage to scrape together a couple 2-300$ sks's and 1K rounds. we are talking well under 1000$ invested. this is half of a decent apple computer or only the price of a new ipad that most americans that are 'rational working class' citizens frothing at the mouth at. this is a fraction of the price most working class americans spend on a TV set. in fact it is much much much more accurate to say that the 'non paranoid average middle class nra supporting mainline republican moderate voting' types would spend 5K on a single piece of weaponry. the precision marksmanship world comes to mind. it is nothing for a working class rational human being to spend 5K on a bolt gun and glass and go try to ping steel @ 1000 yards in a variety of conditions just to say they can do it. most of these people are the first to distance themselves from a 'hutaree' type militia group. in fact most of this crowd hates the idea of a militia all together, laughs at the idea in support of the federal military instead. in fact there is a huge and diverse group of people interested in not only essentially privatizing self defense on a more local level but trying to come together in a community situation in the event of a natural disaster, etc. they come from all income levels, backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and genders. but i will give it to you though, most of the people you hear about talking about 'militia's' are the nut jobs as with all govt propaganda, they seek to demonize and focus on the aspects of a movement that are most out of step with it and the american people as a whole. say what you will about the mostly silly unmeaningful tea party movement, but you must admit, that these are probably the last people we should be worried about. ever been to a tea party rally? its 70-80% old retired people. who are these people going to harm? they want their social security checks, for petes sake. and its no different on the far left and its movements. you never hear about any of the run of the mill lefties partaking in peaceful activities, you only hear of anarchists throwing bombs at the G-20, earth first'ers monkey wrenching machinery, and anti war marches that result in violence almost exclusively due to police provocateurs. but i digress, one more thing about the 'rich boys' thing. its a fairly common treatment of someone who defends the rights of all groups of people to be some how lumped in with that group. if you argue against rent control with a lefty they quite often respond with ...'are you a land lord?' instead of anything meaningful. if you defend the right of the 'rich' not to be stolen from, all the left gets out of it is...'that guy must be a greedy rich A-hole!' ideology is meaningless when talking about this shooter though... he was obviously a little wacked out. LOL. I be trollin. All up in the gun talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearekilluminati Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 ya people literally make me laugh................................mk ultra...............any one ever heard of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesbian Fisting Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Shut the fuck up. Go listen to more Immortal Technique. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028139-503544.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Shut the fuck up. Go listen to more Immortal Technique. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028139-503544.html Isn't this what Capital Police are for? I've got a friend who works for CSPAN, about to ask him what security is like getting in and out of Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Man, you guys have got so many different levels and jurisdictions of police over there. Sounds needlessly complicated.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 your partisan hack nature never ceases to give me a laugh. if you really think, for one second, that this guy had a coherent political ideology, you really need your head examined. Actually, I was responding to someone claiming he was a Liberal. Yet, I didn't see you equally object to the person calling him a Liberal - seems like you may be the partisan hack. I was providing a balance to show that he also read right-wing literature and also held right-wing positions. Yes, his "favorite books" were contradictory being on opposite ends of the political spectrum... he read Communist Manifesto on the far left, and also Mein Kampf on the far right. He feared government yet he supposedly like big government Marxism? He listed Ayn Rand books on his "favorites" list, who often spoke of eliminating all government & regulation, and letting the free market dictate itself completely. I think he was a nut-case and there was no solid political ideology he followed. an atlas shrugged (preaches non violence!) reading right winger shot and killed one of the most conservative constitutionalist judges in the US. He didn't list Atlas Shrugged. He listed We The Living - Ayn Rand's anti-Communist manifesto so to speak. Again, dude was a nut - he liked that book and he liked Marx & Engel's book. Also, I doubt he knew he was shooting a Conservative judge. His only known target was a Liberal Democrat - he didn't know who else would be attending. He shot her, then just started popping shots off at everyone at random. yeah, definitely a plausible story and he definitely is 'teh tea partier-bagger' are you sure you are not mark potak? I don't know who that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Actually, I was responding to someone claiming he was a Liberal. Yet, I didn't see you equally object to the person calling him a Liberal - seems like you may be the partisan hack. Yep, that's pretty much what went through my mind as well. Ignore what doesn't support your position, Agenda Over-Drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Ah yes... You both are up to your ears in credibility attempting to call a borderline anarchist libertarian a partisan hack. Great job guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Libertarians paranoid about government tend to side with Conservatives. Just ask Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Glenn Beck. Ayn Rand is another Libertarian anarchist that Conservatives and Teabaggers love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Libertarians paranoid about government tend to side with Conservatives. Just ask Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Glenn Beck. Ayn Rand is another Libertarian anarchist that Conservatives and Teabaggers love. ron paul doesnt 'side' with anyone. he is the most non partisan person in congress. how many conservatives do you see having alliances with bernie sanders, dennis kucinich and barney frank for instance? if people come to his cause great, but he doesnt 'side' with anyone. rand paul is another story, he is hardly as ideologically driven as his father and seems to be concerned with satisfying the tea party people instead of sticking to a stick liberty oriented ideology. glenn beck isnt a libertarian. period. ayn rand : 1. not a libertarian and rejected the term and she hated conservatives. 2. not an anarchist and rejected anarchy. conservatives do not love ayn rand.... how could they? she was an atheist that believed in limiting the government to much. part of the basis of her ideology is being anti religion. how many conservative atheists do you see out there? yup, statement still stands, your credibility is severely lacking. turn off the msnbc when you get a chance and start to learn about these topics instead of being blinded by the silliness of the left right paradigm and believing that there is some huge difference between the republicans and democrats. they are different wings on the same bird of prey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 ron paul doesnt 'side' with anyone. he is the most non partisan person in congress. how many conservatives do you see having alliances with bernie sanders, dennis kucinich and barney frank for instance? if people come to his cause great, but he doesnt 'side' with anyone. rand paul is another story, he is hardly as ideologically driven as his father and seems to be concerned with satisfying the tea party people instead of sticking to a stick liberty oriented ideology. glenn beck isnt a libertarian. period. ayn rand : 1. not a libertarian and rejected the term and she hated conservatives. 2. not an anarchist and rejected anarchy. conservatives do not love ayn rand.... how could they? she was an atheist that believed in limiting the government to much. part of the basis of her ideology is being anti religion. how many conservative atheists do you see out there? yup, statement still stands, your credibility is severely lacking. turn off the msnbc when you get a chance and start to learn about these topics instead of being blinded by the silliness of the left right paradigm and believing that there is some huge difference between the republicans and democrats. they are different wings on the same bird of prey. Ron Paul is a Libertarian and he describes himself as a Conservative. I agree though that he tends to stick to his guns rather than siding with Republicans or Democrats for that matter. He's gotten bills pushed through with the help of Liberal Democrats like Alan Grayson. Glenn Beck considers himself a Libertarian. He may be a nutcase and a liar, but if he calls himself a Libertarian so I'll call him that too. On Ayn Rand, there are different forms of "Conservatism". Economically, she was as Conservative, right-wing, and Libertarian as one could get. Wanted complete free market dictated by itself, with no government regulation at all. Her being an atheist is more of a social ideology rather than an economic one. There are non-religious Conservatives just as there are religious Liberals. Your statement never stood. You must be an Alex Jones fan with your "party conspiracy" of both parties really working together with the same exact agendas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Glenn Beck considers himself a Libertarian. He may be a nutcase and a liar, but if he calls himself a Libertarian so I'll call him that too. talking head idiots like bill maher and dennis miller call themselves 'libertarians' (either currently or in the past) i've even heard sean hannity refer to himself as 'sort of a libertarian.' just because they say so, does not make it true. you are only a libertarian if you believe in the non aggression axiom. On Ayn Rand, there are different forms of "Conservatism". Economically, she was as Conservative, right-wing, and Libertarian as one could get. Wanted complete free market dictated by itself, with no government regulation at all. Her being an atheist is more of a social ideology rather than an economic one. There are non-religious Conservatives just as there are religious Liberals. the conservative movement at the time of ayn rand was not the conservative movement of today. have you ever read russell kirk's bullets on the basic ideology of 'conservatism?' obviously not. not only have traditional conservatives of the 1950's and before been pro protectionist, many still are today, such as the pat buchanan wing of the conservative movement. rand rejected conservatism, as did hayek, mises and even friedman. ayn rand was an OBJECTIVIST. conservatism, especially the traditional conservatism of the period of ayn rand was based almost solely on tradition. rand could care less about tradition. rand believed reason was an absolute and believed only in objective reality. conservatives believed in faith, duty, tradition, etc. there are many other reasons why rand was not a conservative, including her constant urging for progress through free exchange, she never harkened back to 'the good old days.' but suffice it to say, ayn rand totally rejected the idea of conservatism. if you really want to understand her philosophy you can even listen to her say point blank on you tube that she rejected conservatism and why she did. hayek also wrote an entire lengthy essay on why he was NOT a conservative. (i only mention this because you are sure to say...'but hayek was a right wing conservative.') conservatives do not believe in free markets. if they did they would argue for total government non intervention, instead of spending all of their time arguing for interventions in the market, but just different interventions than liberals argue for. but its pretty much impossible to have a conversation about political philosophy with someone who listens to the young turks and keith olbermann every night. who really has more wisdom to bring to the table on this subject? a guy who has studied these topics for the last 10 years or a couple idiotic pro state puppets on msnbc? would i rather ask a genuine marxist what marxism is about or should i ask bill oreilly? You must be an Alex Jones fan with your "party conspiracy" of both parties really working together with the same exact agendas. why does it have to be an 'alex jones' fan? why cant i be a 'george carlin' fan or any other person who has said the exact same thing? on the issues that matter, war, police state, the economy, government vs the people, etc, they all basically support the same positions. STATE UBER ALLES. which significant policies of bush's has obama scrapped? he is continuing bail outs, wars, civil liberties invasions, debt, borrowing and spending, hell, he even extended 'bush's tax cuts.' and you are seriously trying to tell me there is some gigantic difference between these parties? the newly elected 'tea party' republicans are voting for increasing the debt ceiling. sure there is a lot of debate about the top income tax rate being 39.5% or 39.4% among the two parties. OH MY WHAT, A DIFFERENCE IN THE PARTIES! or should we spend 1 trillion bailing out this bankrupt bank or should we just spend 999 billion? it doesnt matter which calling card the state uses... democrat or republican, the government ALWAYS grows at the expense of the people's liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Yeah, other left wing literature such as Mein Kampf. My joshing around has nothing to do with the recent shootings, it had more to do with gun control and gun users in general. One suggestion I have for you is to develop your own ideas and get AOD's nuts out of your mouth. While we're talking about male genitelia, why don't you hop off of my dick. The fact that I typically agree with AOD has nothing to do with where and how I get my information, jackass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 talking head idiots like bill maher and dennis miller call themselves 'libertarians' (either currently or in the past) i've even heard sean hannity refer to himself as 'sort of a libertarian.' just because they say so, does not make it true. you are only a libertarian if you believe in the non aggression axiom. Really? So you must not be one since you said you want to shoot government officials just because they asked you to pay taxes. the conservative movement at the time of ayn rand was not the conservative movement of today. have you ever read russell kirk's bullets on the basic ideology of 'conservatism?' obviously not. not only have traditional conservatives of the 1950's and before been pro protectionist, many still are today, such as the pat buchanan wing of the conservative movement. Ayn Rand is certainly more aligned with conservatism than it is with liberalism, let's put it that way. rand rejected conservatism, as did hayek, mises and even friedman. ayn rand was an OBJECTIVIST. conservatism, especially the traditional conservatism of the period of ayn rand was based almost solely on tradition. rand could care less about tradition. rand believed reason was an absolute and believed only in objective reality. conservatives believed in faith, duty, tradition, etc. there are many other reasons why rand was not a conservative, including her constant urging for progress through free exchange, she never harkened back to 'the good old days.' but suffice it to say, ayn rand totally rejected the idea of conservatism. if you really want to understand her philosophy you can even listen to her say point blank on you tube that she rejected conservatism and why she did. hayek also wrote an entire lengthy essay on why he was NOT a conservative. (i only mention this because you are sure to say...'but hayek was a right wing conservative.') conservatives do not believe in free markets. if they did they would argue for total government non intervention, instead of spending all of their time arguing for interventions in the market, but just different interventions than liberals argue for. Conservatives routinely DO argue for complete removal of government from the market. Where have you been? All they do is demonize any form of government involvement, regulation, or subsidy as being "socialism". Also, the doing away of the Articles of Confederation and the creation of our current Constitution was a PROGRESSIVE move to the Left - it grew the strength of a central government, and created a stronger national currency, national treasury, national military, etc. You Libertarians/Conservatives seem to want to go back to the Articles which was an absolute failure. but its pretty much impossible to have a conversation about political philosophy with someone who listens to the young turks and keith olbermann every night. who really has more wisdom to bring to the table on this subject? a guy who has studied these topics for the last 10 years or a couple idiotic pro state puppets on msnbc? would i rather ask a genuine marxist what marxism is about or should i ask bill oreilly? I think I'll go with TYT - rational educated people that back up what they say with facts & evidence, as opposed to you - a a self-described anarchist with a paranoia complex that wants to shoot government officials. Are you going to be the next Jared Loughner? why does it have to be an 'alex jones' fan? why cant i be a 'george carlin' fan or any other person who has said the exact same thing? A comedian is what you consider one of your main sources of info on this subject? on the issues that matter, war, police state, the economy, government vs the people, etc, they all basically support the same positions. STATE UBER ALLES. which significant policies of bush's has obama scrapped? he is continuing bail outs, wars, civil liberties invasions, debt, borrowing and spending, hell, he even extended 'bush's tax cuts.' and you are seriously trying to tell me there is some gigantic difference between these parties? the newly elected 'tea party' republicans are voting for increasing the debt ceiling. sure there is a lot of debate about the top income tax rate being 39.5% or 39.4% among the two parties. OH MY WHAT, A DIFFERENCE IN THE PARTIES! or should we spend 1 trillion bailing out this bankrupt bank or should we just spend 999 billion? it doesnt matter which calling card the state uses... democrat or republican, the government ALWAYS grows at the expense of the people's liberty. Obama made waterboarding illegal for one. Also, all major combat troops are out of Iraq. The only ones are in the background on standby. And all US troops will be gone by the end of the year. The bailouts were necessary to save jobs & the economy. Imagine how many jobs would be lost if the entire American auto industry were allowed to go under. That said, I don't like how the bailouts were carried out. An end to executive bonuses would've been nice and various other restrictions added. Also, I didnt' like it when Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts,.. but the Republicans were holding America hostage, because they wouldn't vote for the Democrats bill - then everyone's taxes would've gone up in all brackets. But I wonder if the Democrats could've used reconciliation to jam measures through just as the Bush Administration did. Furthermore as a guy who hates taxes, you should be for the Bush Tax Cuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Really? So you must not be one since you said you want to shoot government officials just because they asked you to pay taxes. you have no comprehension of the non aggression axiom. violence is only justified in self defense. if someone invades your life liberty or property, you have a right to defend it with appropriate force. this is not to say i am in favor of shooting tax collectors, however there is no difference whether you try to kill me or take my liberty or if a government tries to kill me or take my liberty. self defense is equally justified. for some reason people of your ilk try to establish a difference between the two groups. but it is interesting to note, that this country was founded by a group of people who tarred and feathered tax collectors and used the combat triad when the actual enforcement arm of said taxing apparatus came to quell any rebellion. its also interesting to note that the tax rebellions that came after the end of the revolution and after the constitution establishing the US governments taxing powers and its jurisdictions were decidedly american and decidedly based on the principles of the revolution. yet, you demonize anyone who protests unjust taxation. how do you square this philosophy with living in a country whose entire existence is based on the will of the people to resist unjust government intervention and succeed in doing so? Ayn Rand is certainly more aligned with conservatism than it is with liberalism, let's put it that way. at least you attempt to admit when you are wrong. you are correct in the sense that conservatives, of the more radical variety, not the bush/neocon/mainstream republicans have drawn from some of her ideology. conservatives, of the traditional variety, not the mainstream/neoconservatives have also drawn ideas from HL mencken and albert jay nock. these guys as well as ayn rand rejected conservatism completely. Conservatives routinely DO argue for complete removal of government from the market. Where have you been? All they do is demonize any form of government involvement, regulation, or subsidy as being "socialism". damn, if theo states a lie enough, then it must be true!! so the congressional republicans are market anarchists? they want to eliminate all subsidies, stop government from borrowing, abolish the federal reserve, stop corporate welfare, eliminate anti trust, eliminate all occupational licensing, throw all labor law in the trash and remove 200 year old sugar tariffs? WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON? i cannot believe someone can be so blinded by partisan politics and regurgitate idiotic rachel maddow and keith olbermann lines and actually believe it Also, the doing away of the Articles of Confederation and the creation of our current Constitution was a PROGRESSIVE move to the Left - it grew the strength of a central government, and created a stronger national currency, national treasury, national military, etc. You Libertarians/Conservatives seem to want to go back to the Articles which was an absolute failure. please show me one conservative wanting to return to the AOC. i'll even wait a little longer for you to show me when dick cheney or mitch mcconnell said this.... as stated previously, the articles only failed if you dont want freedom. so from your position they were a failure because, well, america was much more free. I think I'll go with TYT - rational educated people that back up what they say with facts & evidence, as opposed to you - a a self-described anarchist with a paranoia complex that wants to shoot government officials. Are you going to be the next Jared Loughner? thanks for the laugh, but you proved my point. your intelligence and credibility on issues of deep political philosophy has been permanently discredited. i'll let you go since you have to tivo chris matthews to respond the rest of this debate. its interesting to actually hear you defend the intellectually discredited political hacks on msnbc as the most stand up source on political philosophy in your life. instead of actually reading what the philosophies you oppose stand for, understanding them and then critiquing them, you instead seek out your information from cable news broadcasters with a vested interest in lying, distorting, and spinning someone else's philosophy they disagree with in order to make a 'good story.' good job guy. your silly arguments and sources never cease to give me a good laugh. A comedian is what you consider one of your main sources of info on this subject? wow the point flew right over your head eh? the point was anyone with half a brain, including people ranging from ron paul to george carlin to a myriad of other people know that there is only one party in DC, the pro state party. if 'conservatives' are such the alternative, where are the conservatives calling for abolition of the federal government and a return to the AOC? your standing on nonexistent solid ground on this issue and i even think that you believe it, but are arguing just for the sake of argument. Obama made waterboarding illegal for one. Also, all major combat troops are out of Iraq. The only ones are in the background on standby. And all US troops will be gone by the end of the year. oh wow, yes, what a drastic change. they just stopped talking about torture instead of trying to redefine what torture is. got ya. do you know how many combat troops are still in iraq? do you know how many contractors have been installed to REPLACE the few troops that were taken out? do you know how many more troops were sent to 'stan? do you know how many people obama has killed with predator drones, including 6 the day before the tucson shooting in pakistan, A COUNTRY THAT WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH' ah, how very peacenik of him. obama is the anti war candidate and all. if US presence is going to be out of iraq 'by the end of the year' just like how he was closing gitmo, does this also include dismantling all US troop presence? we are still fighting the korean war, and troops are still stationed there. US troops arent going anywhere. The bailouts were necessary to save jobs & the economy. Imagine how many jobs would be lost if the entire American auto industry were allowed to go under. That said, I don't like how the bailouts were carried out. An end to executive bonuses would've been nice and various other restrictions added. Also, I didnt' like it when Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts,.. but the Republicans were holding America hostage, because they wouldn't vote for the Democrats bill - then everyone's taxes would've gone up in all brackets. But I wonder if the Democrats could've used reconciliation to jam measures through just as the Bush Administration did. ok so, in all this fancy talk, it was established that obama's policies reflect nothing but the third term of the reign of bush. there has been no significant change in anything, except instead of bush nationalizing seniors prescription drugs, obama nationalized the healthcare industry. further proof that obama is just bush in over drive. spending has doubled under obama, they have the same economic policies, the same foreign policy, and the same belief that government can cure all evils. obama said he would repeal the patriot act, now he loves it. he criticized bush's signing statements, now he loves them. its the same old song and dance. in the 1990's the republicans hated clintons policies which included the precursor to the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, IRS auditing of political opponents, undeclared wars and police actions, etc. the republican's guy got in office in 2000 and they put all these policies into over drive. now the democrats turned into anti statists and rejected these civil liberties invasions. along comes obama, the messiah of civilization, and now the roles have reversed yet again. obama is putting bush's policies into over drive and trashing liberty, and the democrats support it, and the republicans supposedly got religion. yeah sure. that dog dont hunt. cant you see that these groups have the same basic philosophy, but they just want to be the group spending the money and the group in power taking liberty from citizens? yup, big difference between these people. HUGE. oh, did i mention, obama's boys have recently argued in court that they have and will use the right to assassinate american citizens 'anywhere the war on terror' is going on. so he retains the right to assassinate american citizens in the US. what a great guy to support. this is obviously bush in overdrive and it is hilarious for you to act as though he is 'anti torture' yeah, anti torture, he'll just shoot them without a trial! im sure during the bush years you protested his relatively less tyrannical (compared to assassination) warrantless eavesdropping and his horrible precedent of detention of citizens without due process, yet you are still defending obama when he claims the right to assassinate people without due process? Furthermore as a guy who hates taxes, you should be for the Bush Tax Cuts. i am indeed in favor of the 'bush tax cuts' as i am in favor of anything that gives the people more liberty. im not just in favor of reducing taxes by a small amount, im in favor of a gold and silver coin standard and abolition of the IRS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 you have no comprehension of the non aggression axiom. violence is only justified in self defense. if someone invades your life liberty or property, you have a right to defend it with appropriate force. this is not to say i am in favor of shooting tax collectors, however there is no difference whether you try to kill me or take my liberty or if a government tries to kill me or take my liberty. self defense is equally justified. for some reason people of your ilk try to establish a difference between the two groups. Wrong - you have no comprehension of what I said, you condescending prick. Yes, the non-aggression axiom does allow "violence" in the act of self-defense. The argument is what you determine as "self-defense". You think shooting someone because they asked you to pay taxes is self-defense. This is not how a rational or logical person thinks. And this government official is not harming your physical well-being or threatening your life. This is no different than you wanting to shoot your landlord or banker because they asked for their rent or mortgage payments respectively. but it is interesting to note, that this country was founded by a group of people who tarred and feathered tax collectors and used the combat triad when the actual enforcement arm of said taxing apparatus came to quell any rebellion. its also interesting to note that the tax rebellions that came after the end of the revolution and after the constitution establishing the US governments taxing powers and its jurisdictions were decidedly american and decidedly based on the principles of the revolution. yet, you demonize anyone who protests unjust taxation. how do you square this philosophy with living in a country whose entire existence is based on the will of the people to resist unjust government intervention and succeed in doing so? Find where in the Constitution that taxation is illegal or wrong in anyway. Find any writings that show that the founding fathers were anti-taxes completely. at least you attempt to admit when you are wrong. you are correct in the sense that conservatives, of the more radical variety, not the bush/neocon/mainstream republicans have drawn from some of her ideology. conservatives, of the traditional variety, not the mainstream/neoconservatives have also drawn ideas from HL mencken and albert jay nock. these guys as well as ayn rand rejected conservatism completely. You are incorrect - Ayn Rand was a Conservative. Find any source that shows Ayn Rand "rejected" Conservatism. Here's a video of your boyfriend Ron Paul discussing how Ayn Rand had a profound nfluence on him: He does say that he disagreed with Ayn Rand on her militancy - other than that he appears to be an advocate. Here's also Rand Paul talking about how much he loved Ayn Rand: damn, if theo states a lie enough, then it must be true!! so the congressional republicans are market anarchists? they want to eliminate all subsidies, stop government from borrowing, abolish the federal reserve, stop corporate welfare, eliminate anti trust, eliminate all occupational licensing, throw all labor law in the trash and remove 200 year old sugar tariffs? WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON? Not on your deranged paranoid delusional anarchist planet, that's for sure. Read the right-wing rhetoric and you'll see that Cons are for all of that. i cannot believe someone can be so blinded by partisan politics and regurgitate idiotic rachel maddow and keith olbermann lines and actually believe it How come you never called out the other person for calling Jared Loughner a Liberal, but you were quick to call me a "partisan" just because I spoke of his Ayn Rand fetish, his wanting to bring back the gold standard, and other right-wing Conservative/Libertarian reasons. Oh, I know - because you're the partisan hack. please show me one conservative wanting to return to the AOC. i'll even wait a little longer for you to show me when dick cheney or mitch mcconnell said this.... No one's going to say that because that'd be political suicide. And it would be a disregard of our current Constitution. as stated previously, the articles only failed if you dont want freedom. so from your position they were a failure because, well, america was much more free. The articles failed because our weak central government allowed a lack of cohesion of the Union; a worthless national currency, a weak military, and states behaved like sovereign nations in competition with other states. It was a disaster. thanks for the laugh, but you proved my point. your intelligence and credibility on issues of deep political philosophy has been permanently discredited. i'll let you go since you have to tivo chris matthews to respond the rest of this debate. My pleasure. My "intelligence and credibility" on issues is "permanently discredited" in the eyes of whom? You? An anarchist, disturbed, condescending, lying nutcase? LOL! I will wear that as a badge. You suffer from an intense state of Delusions of Grandeur - you believe that your own perception of who's credible, who's intelligent, & who isn't is an end-all-be-all. When in reality you are nothing more than a babbling, condescending pseudo-intellectual bigot with merely his own opinions (albeit, deranged opinions), just like everyone else. its interesting to actually hear you defend the intellectually discredited political hacks on msnbc as the most stand up source on political philosophy in your life. instead of actually reading what the philosophies you oppose stand for, understanding them and then critiquing them, you instead seek out your information from cable news broadcasters with a vested interest in lying, distorting, and spinning someone else's philosophy they disagree with in order to make a 'good story.' good job guy. your silly arguments and sources never cease to give me a good laugh. Who are they "discredited" amongst again? Oh, that's right - you, a deranged paranoid individual with a deranged paronoid world-view. wow the point flew right over your head eh? No, you cited George Carlin as your influence while acting like he was somehow better than everyone else, whether they be TYT or Maddow, or Maher, etc. There was no underlying "point", and if there was, it's your fault for not conveying the message properly because that lone sentence about liking Carlin did not explain this: the point was anyone with half a brain, including people ranging from ron paul to george carlin to a myriad of other people know that there is only one party in DC, the pro state party. if 'conservatives' are such the alternative, where are the conservatives calling for abolition of the federal government and a return to the AOC? your standing on nonexistent solid ground on this issue and i even think that you believe it, but are arguing just for the sake of argument. I never once stated that Conservatives openly state that they want to return to the Articles of Confederation. I stated that the creation of the Constitution was a Progressive move to the Left away from the AOC. That said, you seem to imply that you like the idea of the AOC - so we can start by listing you as someone that would like to return there. oh wow, yes, what a drastic change. they just stopped talking about torture instead of trying to redefine what torture is. got ya. do you know how many combat troops are still in iraq? do you know how many contractors have been installed to REPLACE the few troops that were taken out? do you know how many more troops were sent to 'stan? do you know how many people obama has killed with predator drones, including 6 the day before the tucson shooting in pakistan, A COUNTRY THAT WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH' ah, how very peacenik of him. obama is the anti war candidate and all. if US presence is going to be out of iraq 'by the end of the year' just like how he was closing gitmo, does this also include dismantling all US troop presence? we are still fighting the korean war, and troops are still stationed there. US troops arent going anywhere. There's roughly 50,000 troops in Iraq. I'm not sure about contractors. What I do know is that those 50,000 will be gone by 2012. There will be marines left guarding the embassy in Baghdad indefinitely however. US troops aren't "fighting' the Korean War, they are simply there on standby, based there just as US troops are based in Germany and Japan. ok so, in all this fancy talk, it was established that obama's policies reflect nothing but the third term of the reign of bush. there has been no significant change in anything, except instead of bush nationalizing seniors prescription drugs, obama nationalized the healthcare industry. further proof that obama is just bush in over drive. spending has doubled under obama, they have the same economic policies, the same foreign policy, and the same belief that government can cure all evils. No, Obama didn't "nationalize" the Healthcare industry. You've fallen to right-wing disinformation again. Nationalizing would have been implementing a single-payer health care system. Obama only created regulations to keep Health Insurance companies from shady business moves, like denying people coverage for having a pre-existing condition, along with certain clauses that allow subsidizing those that can't afford health insurance. Our industry is still largely privatized with the bill in place. There is no national health care system and not even a public option/alternative in the bill. People still must use private doctors at private hospitals, with private insurers. obama said he would repeal the patriot act, now he loves it. he criticized bush's signing statements, now he loves them. its the same old song and dance. in the 1990's the republicans hated clintons policies which included the precursor to the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, IRS auditing of political opponents, undeclared wars and police actions, etc. the republican's guy got in office in 2000 and they put all these policies into over drive. now the democrats turned into anti statists and rejected these civil liberties invasions. along comes obama, the messiah of civilization, and now the roles have reversed yet again. obama is putting bush's policies into over drive and trashing liberty, and the democrats support it, and the republicans supposedly got religion. yeah sure. that dog dont hunt. cant you see that these groups have the same basic philosophy, but they just want to be the group spending the money and the group in power taking liberty from citizens? yup, big difference between these people. HUGE. oh, did i mention, obama's boys have recently argued in court that they have and will use the right to assassinate american citizens 'anywhere the war on terror' is going on. so he retains the right to assassinate american citizens in the US. what a great guy to support. this is obviously bush in overdrive and it is hilarious for you to act as though he is 'anti torture' yeah, anti torture, he'll just shoot them without a trial! im sure during the bush years you protested his relatively less tyrannical (compared to assassination) warrantless eavesdropping and his horrible precedent of detention of citizens without due process, yet you are still defending obama when he claims the right to assassinate people without due process? i am indeed in favor of the 'bush tax cuts' as i am in favor of anything that gives the people more liberty. im not just in favor of reducing taxes by a small amount, im in favor of a gold and silver coin standard and abolition of the IRS. I'd argue against your claims that Obama "loves" the Patriot Act. He dislikes it, and has expressed his dislike for it suspending Habeas Corpus but the nature of government, the bureaucracies and the "powers that be" don't make it easy for him to implement changes that his opposition deems "radical". I do think he tries to please the "other side" too much and us Liberals have expressed some disdain for his "patty-cake" politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Wrong - you have no comprehension of what I said, you condescending prick. Yes, the non-aggression axiom does allow "violence" in the act of self-defense. The argument is what you determine as "self-defense". You think shooting someone because they asked you to pay taxes is self-defense. This is not how a rational or logical person thinks. And this government official is not harming your physical well-being or threatening your life. This is no different than you wanting to shoot your landlord or banker because they asked for their rent or mortgage payments respectively. a mortgage or rent is a voluntary contract. being born into a society, committing no crime, and being FORCED to pay money to someone who has decided they have authority over you is an act of coercion. government is not voluntary. by your logic, if a slave is born into the hands of a master, and is forced to produce or labor for the master, its just the way it is. this is what happens to every person born under the authority of a government. there was no asking, there was only...'you pay taxes or else.' if you dont pay taxes, you get audited. if you refuse to still pay the taxes, you go to court. the court rules you have to pay taxes. if you still refuse, well they come and arrest you. if you resist arrest, the government ultimately claims the right to kill you for resisting arrest in relation to your refusing to pay taxes. if engaging in a voluntary mortgage contract is the same as being born under a government, why arent mortgage companies that i never signed a contract with coming to arrest me, kill me or otherwise attempt to extract money from me? if taxes are simple voluntary transactions, then obviously i can choose not to engage in a contract with these people and i can seek services else where. oh wait.... i DONT have that choice. Find where in the Constitution that taxation is illegal or wrong in anyway. Find any writings that show that the founding fathers were anti-taxes completely. im not against taxes that pay for the common defense and a police and court system. which is why im not an anarchist. i also do not believe 100% in the constitution. while the constitution in its original meaning is a much better system than the system we have today where governments can write any law, giving the national government the ability to tax is one of its many faults. that being said, the constitution is the law of the land and should be defended to the extent that it protects liberty. but your are overlooking the forest for the trees. the revolutionary war and the founding generation as a whole did not look to their government for permission to say something was 'illegal or wrong in anyway.' they looked to natural rights. the english constitution, a non written concept of common law, did not allow the colonists to secede, shoot british soldiers, refuse consent of the english government and establish a new one. natural law did. You are incorrect - Ayn Rand was a Conservative. Find any source that shows Ayn Rand "rejected" Conservatism. Here's a video of your boyfriend Ron Paul discussing how Ayn Rand had a profound nfluence on him: He does say that he disagreed with Ayn Rand on her militancy - other than that he appears to be an advocate. Here's also Rand Paul talking about how much he loved Ayn Rand: so you just went back on your previous statement that you agreed rand was not really a conservative but was sort of a conservative that influenced conservative thought. this is getting hilarious. ron paul is a libertarian who calls himself a conservative for political expediency. rand paul is the same thing with a more conservative leaning. the videos you posted prove my point 100% that ayn rand was not a conservative, but influenced some strains of conservative thought. what is so hard to understand about this. do me a favor, read capitalism, the unknown ideal. get a full understanding of objectivism then come back to me. what will you come up with next, albert jay nock was a 'conservative?' or josef stalin was really a 'liberal?' since you have such a hard on for rand, all you have to do, since you obviously wont read any of her work and his writings on her philosophy, is go on youtube and listen to her talk to mike wallace and donahue and some of these other guys. you'll hear her say she isnt a conservative and you'll hear that her ideology is 100% opposite of the conservative movement which is now almost 100% pro state. in fact if you would remove the shit from your ears you would see that the basis of conservatism and the basis of objectivism are diametrically opposed philosophies. you were much more on the right track with your previous statement before you decided to back track and go back to your original false claim. rand influenced some strains of conservative thought. period. nothing more nothing less. she was not a conservative. just like hayek, mises and friedman influenced various strains of conservative thought, predominately in economics but all rejected the term conservative. it doesnt matter to me one way or the other if rand WAS a conservative... i have no agenda behind me saying that she wasnt. im just stating the truth on the matter. im not a huge rand fan. sure atlas shrugged was good. i like a lot of her philosophy particularly how it relates to politics, but i reject her objective reality stuff. yeah, i can really see george bush and dick cheney in the white house asking 'wait, who is john galt? why, we are the chief oppressors in rands wonderful novel atlas shrugged! we need to resign!' yeah, i can see all of the republicans in congress doing this as well. good call guy, maybe you are right, ayn rand was a neo con! rand was not a libertarian nor a conservative, she was an objectivist! what is so hard to understand? http://stason.org/TULARC/philosophy/objectivism-Ayn-Rand/06-Was-Ayn-Rand-a-Conservative-or-a-Libertarian.html No one's going to say that because that'd be political suicide. And it would be a disregard of our current Constitution. this is getting just down right funny. so let me get this right, all republicans and 'conservatives' are not really big government types at all, they all seek to throw out the constitution in favor of the more laissez faire AOC but the ONLY reason they dont mention this is because its political suicide? consider for one second... ron paul. this guy has said the most politically suicidal things in the 20th and 21st century political arena. abolish social security and end the fed and bring all the troops home from around the world. yet, RP has never ever even philosophically said we need to scrap the constitution. do you really think if he believed that he wouldnt say it, considering the other things he has said? if RP doesnt believe in this, how in hell is john boehner going to believe in it? these clowns want to 'cut spending' to 2008 levels. what the hell planet are you on? you equate what basically means non existent cutting of government (equivalent of using a 3$ coupon on a trip to the moon) as wanting to over throw the US government and its constitution in favor of replacing it with either the AOC or NOTHING? or atleast abolishing 75% of the current federal government? these are the same conservatives that when asked what they want to cut, they cant even ANSWER or when they do, they talk about cutting some 1 million dollar bridge to no where that has absolutely no effect on government spending and size. you really are an ass hat. There's roughly 50,000 troops in Iraq. I'm not sure about contractors. What I do know is that those 50,000 will be gone by 2012. There will be marines left guarding the embassy in Baghdad indefinitely however. estimates of contractors over 100K. what a change in foreign policy. US troops aren't "fighting' the Korean War, they are simply there on standby, based there just as US troops are based in Germany and Japan. the point was that obama has the same foreign policy as bush. keeping troops stationed indefinitely in places they never should of been in the first place big change. No, Obama didn't "nationalize" the Healthcare industry. You've fallen to right-wing disinformation again. Nationalizing would have been implementing a single-payer health care system. Obama only created regulations to keep Health Insurance companies from shady business moves, like denying people coverage for having a pre-existing condition, along with certain clauses that allow subsidizing those that can't afford health insurance. Our industry is still largely privatized with the bill in place. There is no national health care system and not even a public option/alternative in the bill. People still must use private doctors at private hospitals, with private insurers. ok fine, you win. he didnt nationalize it, yet. however he supported a bill that fines people for not owning health insurance. good one! you are correct to point out that the bill didnt nationalize the means of production, but it did further the fascist healthcare system in america, much to its own destruction and much to the destruction of healthcare for people in the america. but i cant say the current and pre obama care system is much better, but under obama care the system is much worse. I'd argue against your claims that Obama "loves" the Patriot Act. He dislikes it, and has expressed his dislike for it suspending Habeas Corpus but the nature of government, the bureaucracies and the "powers that be" don't make it easy for him to implement changes that his opposition deems "radical". I do think he tries to please the "other side" too much and us Liberals have expressed some disdain for his "patty-cake" politics. the areas of the patriot act and civil liberties and foreign policy are the one area the president has it within his power to constitutionally END these policies. he doesnt dislike it. if he disliked it, he would bring charges against the people in gitmo or let them free and shut it down, he would cease using the patriot act in all its forms, he would essentially nullify the MCA06 and he could restore the rule of law to america in a few days. obama is the chief law enforcement officer of the US, he could essentially end all this oppression with the clintonian notion of 'stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty neat.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.