I'm Pre-Approved for an ObamaCard!
- 05-18-2009, 12:16 PM
I will always vote in the direction I believe, and that being third party. I only hope more and more of America will wake up to the idea that these two parties do not have our best interest in mind, and only further and further killing the sovereignty that made America great.
- 05-18-2009, 12:29 PM
- 05-18-2009, 01:15 PM
It's politics... Even if you had a Libertarian movement that worked and gained political power on the Hill it would only be a matter of time before we ended up right where we are now. People more worried about keeping their seat of power over what their constituants want.
05-18-2009, 01:25 PM
05-18-2009, 01:26 PM
05-18-2009, 01:34 PM
I didn't say it would be easy but its the only way we can have our representatives actually represent us, rather than being career politicians. I mean seriously, after the obama presidency, what state do you think Hillary will try to become a senator in this time around? Arlen Specter anyone? He's changed parties then back again, solely to get past the PRIMARIES for his party. not so much even for the general election purposes, but just the primaries. Who does he represent? seems like mostly he represents Arlen Specter
05-18-2009, 01:47 PM
05-18-2009, 01:51 PM
05-18-2009, 02:04 PM
05-21-2009, 08:13 PM
05-22-2009, 03:08 AM
The Historic PES Legend
05-22-2009, 06:43 AM
05-22-2009, 09:17 AM
The Historic PES Legend
05-22-2009, 09:39 AM
As a practical matter? Nothing. As a far reach, monarchy of some kind so the head of state in effect owns the state and is interested in preserving and increasing its long term capital value as opposed to just squeezing it for all it's worth in the present, which is what elected stewards tend to do. Chances of that happening in the US though are practically zilch.Originally Posted by Rightintheface
As a practical avenue, try and re educate people as to what many of the founders knew. That being, that the state is not a solution to life's imperfections and that its scope should be severely limited. That freedom is preferable than a possibly more cushy life but one in effect spent in bondage of some kind. A big part of this is recapturing the vocabulary. Rights used to mean restrictions on the state's power, these days it means government enablement. Freedom of speech meant the state couldn't stop you from speaking your mind, not that everyone was enabled to publish their own newspaper. These days the latter intepretation is more likely. Of old the free market meant just that, a market free from intervention. These days institutions like The Fed are considered 'free market', even though The Fed's job stated outright is to push interest lower than the market would have set it and to make money more freely available than the market would have. We live in a newspeak world where the operations of a government institution whose goal is to directly interfere with and change market prices for the direct benefit of a few politically connected bankers is considered 'free market' even though it's a page right out of the Marx/Engles play book, both of whom stated outright that a centralization and control of credit and capital would be instrumental in bringing about socialism/communism.
So the first step I think is to take back the language, and then try and show people that by and large they are better off without the government sucking up half their income. To show them that a country where the government does just that on a regular basis is not properly considered free.
05-23-2009, 09:55 AM
I too have concerns about the governmental form of democracy as I see it in so many countries.
I have not problem with the concept of democracy itself, but with how in practice it has many problems.
It too has corruption, often inefficient decision making that leads to compromises that often have little to do with the original idea. One of the biggest problems is that most democracies are democracies in process but not in content.
Even the process is not really strictly democratic, but through representatives that act for the people rather than the people directly who participate. Of course there is justification. If we would have every nitwit in the country decide what is best for the country than that could be scary.
However the problem is still process vs. contents. If for example through a new law it would be decided by the House and the Senate that half the government has to consist of the KKK then that clearly is a democratically taken decision, despite the content of the decision being very undemocratic.
Governmental forms that differ from democracies in the end usually have far more abuses of human rights.
One would have to search history to find a couple of absolutists whose ruling does not escalate.
I can think of Frederick II of Prussia for example, a so-called "enlightened absolutist". There aren't too many others. Charles v, perhaps ? Charlemagne ?
A pure monarchic form of government in reality only is fairer and better than the concept of democracy is that monarch approaches the perfection of God in terms of having the ability to do only good, be perfectly fair and having absolute wisdom and knowledge.
The fallibility of man, the conditions of man being subject to beliefs, passions, culture make that almost per definition impossible. Thus in hindsight, I never say that democracy is the best way of the government but the least worse one.
05-23-2009, 01:06 PM
what we have to be careful of here, is we have to make sure illegal immigrants are prosecuted, and not build up a fear of the legal immigrants. an old coworker of mine is an illegal immigrant and on his 5th DUI. they told him if he got another one, he MIGHT be deported. IMO it is the immigrants that create problems that have to be dealt with more harshly, and leave the rest alone.
05-23-2009, 01:46 PM
05-23-2009, 02:07 PM
There can be no justification for using Hitler's antisemitism, and the accompanying grave consequences, as an analogy or hint for a social paradigm. Besides, Hitler's Germany was a completely different historical setting, especially in the light of the World War I reparation payments Germany was burdened with, coupled with the high level of unemployment of the time. So, Hitler's lopsided, ethically and morally problematic approach to the social challenges of the Germany of his era, including his infamous Solution of the so-called Jewish Question, should not and cannot morally be cited, even in a very remote sense, as a prescriptive model for modern-day policy action.
Product Educator | USPowders
Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders opinion as a whole.
05-23-2009, 04:17 PM
Hitler was a nutcase, I in no way support his policies of slaughtering the jews or anyone for that matter, the fact I was stating was that one of hitlers main policies was germany would support german people first- he believed that the jews and immigrants did nothing but make it harder for german people as a whole. Using this idea he convinced the german people that the answer to their problems was to be rid of the jews. In modern society a large proportion of the population is of the opinion that our countries would be better were it not for the illegal immigrants- there you have the hate of immigrants already set up, it is a very small step to move to believing that removing the illegal immigrants (and a large amount of the lazy legal ones) would solve our countries problems and again a large percentage of the population also believes this. The step to take measures to remove these immigrants will be a small one, it is a matter of time before such a situation occurs. Jayhawk I agree it is to soon at this time to be sounding the trumpet of tribulation, it is only a matter of time before a situation where the immigrants are removed occurs, every day that passes more move in and more strain is put on our countries already struggling systems.
edit: @irish cannons last quoted comment, well said irish
05-23-2009, 04:30 PM
i feel that illegal immigrants also tarnish the image of legal immigrants that work very hard to live in this country. you also are comparing hitler's "we have to remove all immigrants from our country" to the current "we have to remove all illegal immigrants from our country". i think we note a difference between those who followed the right steps to come here, and those that did not.
i could be wrong though.
05-23-2009, 04:56 PM
Suncloud I agree with you entirely, the point I was making was that if we as a country do not soon limit the illegal immigrants and begin giving harsher punishments to those who are here illegally already we risk creating a general feeling where society turns against immigrants as a whole, In my opinion this would be a huge loss, hell a lot of our doctors are immigrants, we rely on foreign foreign language teachers the list goes on...I apologize if my point came across badly in my earlier post ive been studying this whole day and im extremely tired..
05-23-2009, 05:11 PM
I'll just sum it up...
Legal Immigrants ARE the United States!
...illegal immigrants effing suck and need to leave.
05-23-2009, 05:16 PM
Only to a certain degree my friend- I guess it depends on your views, if you dont mind me asking is there a "dole" in america? basically do the government give you money if you arent working?
05-23-2009, 08:22 PM
05-23-2009, 09:16 PM
05-24-2009, 02:52 AM
05-26-2009, 03:37 PM
05-26-2009, 07:38 PM
Obama has not, and will not, do all that he said or even all that he wants. He certainly is not going to do all that you want. He's going to mess up and he's going to do things everyone disagrees with. To pretend he hasn't done anything he said is simply dishonest.
On some of these things you can argue that he hasn't come through, but I can do the same for many of your points. The reason is simply: most of these are not simple issues and there are not going to be simple answers.
By the way, there are many things I disagree with Obama on (guns) and things he should take a stand on (homosexual marriage). There are also things that McCain said I agree with.
05-26-2009, 08:12 PM
Here is a great introduction to fascism (thx wiki):
Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in combat against the weak. Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be acheived by a form of government control over business and labor (called "the corporate state" by Mussolini)No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition.
This description is EERILY reflective of the Obama administration. The administration responds rabidly to criticism by critical media personalities (intimidation), his spending is all aimed at statist goals (that's why they had to urgently "rush" these "bailouts" which don't actually take effect until after the projected economic turnaround). The only one which doesn't fit the bill for Obama is opposition to class conflict--he encourages class conflict.
The Bush admin sucked, but so did the previous 3 of 4 administrations [Clinton admin --> real estate bubble / stated income loans / high risk mortgages / etc = Clinton + Carter. If you deny that you're absolutely uneducated on the issue. While private corporations had disgusting people taking advantage of the situation, it ultimately came down to the Clinton + Carter + Fanny Mae (staffed by Clinton)]. And, just because his admin sucked doesn't mean we could have done better considering we only had two options in 2000 and 2004- Gore and Kerry are prime examples of self-serving idiots (although I'd take Kerry over Obama).
Similar Forum Threads
- By CONTROLLED LABS in forum Controlled LabsReplies: 2Last Post: 10-27-2009, 11:09 AM
- By IceT in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 2Last Post: 08-11-2008, 08:44 PM
- By DeerDeer in forum SupplementsReplies: 3Last Post: 10-20-2006, 06:33 PM