Yes ;but as has been pointed out before ,here and by the President's flunkies like Janet Napolitano , the ones they believe are the dangerous people in the country are right wingers .
|
Yes ;but as has been pointed out before ,here and by the President's flunkies like Janet Napolitano , the ones they believe are the dangerous people in the country are right wingers .
It's that your thinking then there really is no discussing anything, is there?
It was her threat assessment ,not mine .
We aren't the ones calling our neighbors domestic terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You constantly disparage your neighbours on this board daily, why seem oh-so-holy now?Quote:
We aren't the ones calling our neighbors domestic terrorists.
Hello again, Steve:
Let's talk about this for a minute.. I KNOW you THINK your guns are going to PROTECT you from a tyrannical government. But have you THOUGHT about WHO you'll actually be firing on?? Will it be your local cops? Will it be the National Guard? Will it be the US Navy Seals? What's patriotic about shooting them?Quote:
We aren't the ones calling our neighbors domestic terrorists.
Or, do you think it's going to be Obama's soldiers? How you going to tell the difference??
Let's put this to bed. If you take up arms against the United States of America, you're a domestic terrorist. That's just so. Oh, I know, you THINK you're a patriot.. Tim McVey thought he was a patriot. But, he was a scum bag terrorist.
Excon
Seems my republican friends here are embracing their extremist true believers. Nothing new.
No tal ;it's you and your side who try to link us to extremism. Like I said ;it wasn't me who wrote the DHS report on domestic terrorist threats.
Well how are we supposed to tell the loony right from reasonable republicans when they say and do the same thing? Tell me how??
Hello tom:
He's gotcha there... I haven't heard ANYTHING from you or Steve that the Tea Party doesn't LOVE.
excon
See there's your mistake... in equating TP with extremism.
Hello again, tom:
I'm the ONLY extremist I know who ADMITS he's extreme.. I'm sure you think the TP is center right - like you.Quote:
see there's your mistake.. in equating TP with extremism.
Bwaa, ha haaa..
Excon
AGAIN... Whats the difference? I don't want to call you loony if you aren't!
I honestly can't tell!!
What's looney about TP ? That they occasionally dress in tri cornered hats ? Nahh You think it's loony to want to control government spending and to make sure that the government governs within the constraints of the constitution.
NoI don't, I think its loony to make poor people and women and children take less and give it to rich guys who lie, and call themselves job creators. I think its loony to call 47% of the population who are poor or damned close to it lazy, unwashed cheap skates who feel entitled to free stuff you capitalists have extracted by tricks and traps and put your name on, and swear you earned it, and are entitled to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Loony is thinking you can talk crap about everybody else, and think they will agree and follow you to LALA land. Its not how you dress, not my style, but how you talk, so for the last time, what's the difference between right wing extremist, and the TParty?
If you don't know just say so, that's honest at least, and I will endeavor to enlighten you, hopeless as that may be. Oh wait I didn't answer your question "What loony about the TP??".
YES I DID!
You are a 1 trick pony. The sum of all your argument is capitalism ----evil .
Unregulated it can easily veer into the evil category. When wealth accumulation is the driving force behind every decision then all else falls by the wayside.Quote:
capitalism ----evil .
And the straw men keep coming .
What straw man? You brought up capitalism, the thread includes discussions on regulation. Why are you so intent on dismissing the discussion? It's not going your way?
I accept the idea that one mans opinion is another mans straw argument.
But extracting all the money because you can, from the economy and making the government unable to address the poverty that's created by that extractionism is not the answer.
Okay I will acknowledge the war on republicans and their tyranny and subjugation. I just don't need a gun to do it. But I did vote against it as most of us did. We exercised our rights and the Romney/right wing dreams of corporate governess got put down. Don''t expect it to stop there though, because its only the beginning.
That's reality and not a straw argument.
PS- Not that I expect you guys to just give up though. I ain't crazy!
No I didn't ,maybe you should stalk tal to at least see what I was replying to.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The strawman was... Unregulated it can easily veer into the evil category.Quote:
I accept the idea that one mans opinion is another mans straw argument.
It's a strawman because I have never on these boards suggested I wanted an unregulated economy. It is willful ignorance to have read what I written on the subject for many years here ,and conclude that.
I know Tom, but you have said there are too many regulations but not been specific.
You are kidding me right ? You want me to break down the thousands of regulations the bureaucracy divines from the thousands of pages of new laws spit out by Congress and the local governments daily ? I do have a life you know
Suffice it to say that I agree with Hayek that the Road to Serfdom is paved with the good intentions of those who want to tinker to create in their minds the most "fair " level of distribution of other people's money . Like Hayek I think a social safety net is necessary for those who truly need it .But also like Hayek ,I think the more you pile regulation on ;the more you breed a dependence effect ,and the rise of special interests who ply the government for favors . The special interests I speak of can be the folks locked into the dependency; and it can also be the business that has an interest in getting the best deal possible from the regulators to gain a competitive edge The system feeds on itself and it is inevitable that it will fail as the state grows into the leviathan that ours has become.
"the power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionnaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work."
"The Road to Serfdom," Friedrich Hayek
That quote used to be true when politics and big business were separate, now they are one and the same.
How you will effect a change there is the biggest challenge you face.
" the road to sefdom" Tom, finally you encapsalated the capitalist agenda.
Hayek rewrote economics and helped Thatcher tread down the British people it is no wonder you find a haven in his thinking now you have moved on from Keynes. As a Republican you would embrace Thatcherism with open arms
It is interesting you should quote Hayek Tom perhaps you were being opportunist. He doesn't share your views on unbridled capitalism
Did you notice Tom that Hayek attributes the free market to liberals, now where does that leave the Republicans, somewhere east of national socialism?Quote:
"probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire
I've never been a KeynesianQuote:
now you have moved on from Keynes.
Again with the strawmen... read my response to NKQuote:
It is interesting you should quote Hayek Tom perhaps you were being opportunist. He doesn't share your views on unbridled capitalism
I have moved on and so should this debate
By the way Thatcher ;for one brief shiny moment ,saved the Brits from their disastrous fabianism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Exactly the point I have been making all along. They all espouse the same ideology.
They all embrace the same rational approach to problem solving and solutions.
Essentially there is no difference.
The government has certain important roles that it has evolved. For example, picking winners and losers in the market place is one example that is touted. But this is one function that is perfectly consistent and necessary within the edifice.
No, Tom, for one shiny moment Thatcher reconfirmed British imperialism, and now in Africa The French are reconfirming French colonialism, what will the Americans reconfirm? I wonder, after their imperialist adventurism in the Philippines, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Will they invade Africa? Will they invade North Korea? Will they invade Iran? What targets of opportunity present themselves? Mali is taken, if they are not careful all the easy targets will be swallowed up and they might be left with Syria
In modern times today's conservative don't work well with others and take rejection as an affirmation they are right, while their numbers shrink even more. Not a winning strategy in a changing world and yet they still scheme and plot instead of work to gain power and influence, and relevancy.
RNC's Priebus Proposes to Rig Electoral College so Losing Republicans Can 'Win' | The Nation
Gerrymandering on steroids.Quote:
Specifically, Priebus is urging Republican governors and legislators to take up what was once a fringe scheme to change the rule for distribution of Electoral College votes. Under the Priebus plan, electoral votes from battleground states such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and other states that now regularly back Democrats for president would be allocated not to the statewide winner but to the winners of individual congressional districts.
Tal you want real change, directly elect the President, take the local politics right out of the equation. The Office of President purposely has nothing to do with local politics, that is the preserve of the House. This would mean the presidential candidates have to campaign to the whole country not just a few counties
I totally agree Clete and think the Electoral College was designed to keep popular candidates out of the highest seat in the land.
Every vote should count the same.
Hello clete:
What you miss is, if this scheme had it been in place for our LAST election, Romney would have won. If that's not rigging elections, I don't know what it.
What blows me away, is that these states apparently have the absolute authority to DO this thing. We just have to sit and watch them STEAL our elections from NOW on.
Talk about TYRANNY. I AIN'T putting up with that.
excon
Ex gerrymander has always been on the agenda, every time someone wants to change the rules it is to gerrymander the electorate.''
Yes it is a strange system where the tail wags the dog, but those states just weren't giving up any rights way back when, except it seems the right to secede. I suppose you can't blame them federal democratic systems were rare in those days, they just had no good examples to draw from
So you see the states as the tyrants, but your opponents see the President as the tyrant, it's Runnymede all over again
Seems we have another thing to fix before the next election.
Yes Tal I think it is called the Constitution
Nothing wrong with the Constitution, you have to read it, and understand what you read. A great nation has been built on it, and it will continue to grow.
We have weathered hard times and overcome challenges before, and will again. Want to bet against US? Go ahead its your loot.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 PM. |